Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Students’ encounter with proof: the condition of transparency

  • Original article
  • Published:
ZDM Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The condition of transparency refers to the intricate dilemma in the teaching of mathematics about how and how much to focus on various aspects of proof and how and how much to work with proof without a focus on it. This dilemma is illuminated from a theoretical point of view as well as from teacher and student perspectives. The data consist of university students’ survey responses, transcripts of interviews with mathematicians and students as well as protocols of the observations of lectures, textbooks and other instructional material. The article shows that the combination of a socio-cultural perspective, Lave and Wenger’s and Wenger’s social practice theories and theories about proof offers a fresh framework for studies concerning the teaching and learning of proof.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adler, J. (1999). The dilemma of transparency: seeing and seeing through talk in the mathematics classroom. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(1), 47–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alibert, D., & Thomas, M. (1991). Research on mathematical proof. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced Mathematical Thinking (Vol. 11, pp. 215–230). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  • Bassey, M. (1999). Case Study Research in Educational Settings. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryman, A. (2001). Social Research Methods. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bylund, P., & Boo, P.-A. (2003). Studenternas förkunskaper (Students’ prior knowledge). Nämnaren, 30(3).

  • Chazan, D. (1993). High school geometry students’ justification for their views of empirical evidence and mathematical proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24, 358–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Villiers, M. (1991). Pupils’ needs for conviction and explanation within the context of geometry. Paper presented at the PME 15, Assisi (Italy).

  • Durand-Guerrier, V. (2003). Which notion of implication is the right one? From logical considerations to a didactic perspective. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 53, 5–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ernest, P. (1998). Mathematical knowledge and context. In: A. Watson (Ed.), Situated Cognition and the Learning of Mathematics. Oxford: Center for Mathematics Education Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furinghetti, F., & Paola, D. (2002). Defining within a dynamic geometry environment: Notes from the classroom. Paper presented at the PME 26, Norwich.

  • Grenier, D. (2000). Learning proof and modelling. Inventory of teaching practice and new problems. Paper presented at the ICME 9, Tokyo, Japan.

  • Hanna, G. (2000). Proof, explanation and exploration: an overview. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44, 5–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harel, G. (1998). Two dual assertions: The first on learning and the second on teaching (or vice versa). American Mathematical Monthly, 105(6), 497–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (1998). Justifying and proving in school mathematics. Summary of the results from a survey of the proof conceptions of students in the UK. Research Report. Mathematical Sciences, Institute of Education, University of London.

  • Hemmi, K. (2006). Approaching proof in a community of mathematical practice. Doctoral Thesis (Monograph). Department of Mathematics, Stockholm University, Stockholm. http://www.diva-portal.org/diva/getDocument?urn_nbn_se_su_diva-1217-2__fulltext.pdf Accessed 2 April 2008.

  • Hillel, J. (2001). Trends in curriculum. In: D. Holton (Ed.), The Teaching and Learning of Mathematics at University Level: An ICMI Study. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Högskoleverket (The National Agency for Higher Education). (1999). Räcker kunskaperna i matematik? (Do students have knowledge enough in mathematics?). Stockholm: Högskoleverket.

  • Juter, K. (2006). Limits of functions–University Students’ Concept Development. Doctoral Thesis, Luleå University of Technology, Department of Mathematics, Luleå.

  • Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews an Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. London: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leron, U. (1983). Structuring mathematical proofs. The American Mathematical Monthly, 90(3), 174–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, W. G., & Harel, G. (1989). Proof frames of preservice elementary teachers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(1), 41–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nardi, E., Jaworski, B., & Hegedus, S. (2005). A spectrum of pedagogical awareness for undergraduate mathematics: From “tricks” to “techniques”. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36(4).

  • Nordström (Hemmi), K. (2004a). Swedish university entrants’ experiences about and attitudes towards proof and proving. In M. Mariotti (Ed.), European Research in Mathematics Education III. Proceedings of CERME3, Bellaria, Italy 2003 (Theme group 4). Università di Pisa. (CD-ROM, ISBN 88–8491-184-8).

  • Nordström (Hemmi), K. (2004b). A pilot study on five mathematicians pedagogical views on proof. A contribution to TSG 19, Reasoning, proof and proving in mathematics education, ICME 10, Copenhagen.

  • Nordström (Hemmi), K. & Löfwall, C. (2006). Proof in Swedish upper secondary school mathematics textbooks—The issue of transparency. In M. Bosch (Ed.), European Research in Mathematics Education IV. Proceedings of CERME4, San Feliu de Guíxols, Spain 2005 (pp. 448–457). Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona. (CD-ROM, ISBN 84-611-3282-3).

  • Pettersson, K. (2004). Samspel mellan intuitiva idéer och formella bevis. En fallstudie av universitetsstudenters arbete med en analysuppgift (The interaction between intuitive ideas and formal proofs. A case study about university students working with a task in calculus). Licentiate thesis, Göteborgs Universitet, Göteborg.

  • Selden, A., & Selden, J. (2003). Validations of proofs written as texts: can undergraduates tell whether an argument proves a theorem? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(1), 4–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sfard, A. (1991). On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: reflections and processes and objects as different sides of the same coin. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22(1), 1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Säljö, R. (2005). Cultural tools and human knowing: A sociocultural perspective on learning and the study of learning. Summer school presentation. Jyväskylä.

  • Thunberg, H., & Filipsson, L. (2005). Gymnasieskolans mål och högskolans förväntningar. En jämförande studie om matematikundervisningen (Upper secondary school goals and university expectations. A Comparative study in the teaching of mathematics). http://www.math.kth.se/gmhf/GMHFrapport.pdf Accessed 2 April 2008.

  • Weber, K. (2002a). Students’ difficulty in constructing proofs: The need for strategic knowledge. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 48(1), 101–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, K. (2002b). Beyond proving and explaining: Proofs that justify the use of definitions and axiomatic structures and proofs that illustrate technique. For the Learning of Mathematics, 22(3), 14–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellington, J. (2000). Educational Research. Contemporary Issues and Practical Approaches. Continuum: London.

  • Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wistedt, I., & Brattström, G. (2005). Understanding mathematical induction in a co-operative setting: Merits and limitations of classroom communication among peers. In A. Chronaki & I. M. Christiansen (Eds.), Challenging perspectives on mathematics classroom communication (pp. 173–204). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The doctoral thesis on which the article is based on was carried out with the financial support of The Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation through the Swedish National Graduate School in Mathematics Education. I thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

    Kirsti Hemmi

Authors
  1. Kirsti Hemmi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kirsti Hemmi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hemmi, K. Students’ encounter with proof: the condition of transparency. ZDM Mathematics Education 40, 413–426 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-008-0089-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-008-0089-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation