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 @shankerinst: We are devastated to report the death of David K. Cohen, a founding member of the Albert Shanker Institute’s board of dire… 1 hour ago
- Check this out! twitter.com/SLSingh/status… 1 week ago
- I really appreciated the keynote by @deborah_ball #TWSummerInstitute To quote some of her closing words: "It's coll… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 2 months ago
- RT @TeachingWorks: Today is the day! If you signed up to join us, the link to view our #TWSummerInstitute keynote address today is waiting… 2 months ago
- Looking forward to the lecture by @deborah_ball at #TWSummerInstitute 2 months ago