In this article, we focus on a group of 39 prospective elementary (grades K-6) teachers who had rich experiences with proof, and we examine their ability to construct proofs and evaluate their own constructions. We claim that the combined “construction–evaluation” activity helps illuminate certain aspects of prospective teachers’ and presumably other individuals’ understanding of proof that tend to defy scrutiny when individuals are asked to evaluate given arguments. For example, some prospective teachers in our study provided empirical arguments to mathematical statements, while being aware that their constructions were invalid. Thus, although these constructions considered alone could have been taken as evidence of an empirical conception of proof, the additional consideration of prospective teachers’ evaluations of their own constructions overruled this interpretation and suggested a good understanding of the distinction between proofs and empirical arguments. We offer a possible account of our findings, and we discuss implications for research and instruction.
- RT @ottensam: New episode of the #MathEd podcast -- Dr. Jaime Diamond from @UGAMathSciEd discusses her research on teachers' strategies for… 2 months ago
- RT @pgliljedahl: Our podcast from the Making Math Moments Summit can now be accessed from my website ( peterliljedahl.com/btc). https://t.c… 7 months ago
- RT @CERME11_2019: In preparation for the conference, we kindly ask you to send questions about ERME research, questions about ERME itself,… 1 year ago
- Developing mathematical knowledge for teaching teachers: potentials of history of mathematics in teacher educator t… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 1 year ago
- Looking forward to last day (for me) of the EML 2018 with @deborah_ball. What a wonderful opportunity to study, dis… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 1 year ago