How can the relationship between argumentation and proof be analysed?

Educational Studies in Mathematics

Volumn 66, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 23-41

  Pedemonte, Bettina ^a  

^a CNR   (Italy)

Author keywords

Argumentation; Cognitive unity; Proof; Structural continuity; Toulmin

Indexed keywords

EID: 34547676442     PISSN: 00131954     EISSN: 15730816     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10649-006-9057-x     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Anscombre, J. C., & Ducrot, O. (1983). L'argumentation dans la langue. Bruxelles: Mardaga.
2. Aristotle (1974). Les topiques: Livres I-VIII (French translation Tricot J. Paris: Libraire philosophique J. Vrin.)
3. Aristotle (1991). Rhetorique (French translation Dufour M., Wartelle A. Les belles lettres).
4. Arsac, G., Germain, G., & Mante, M. (1991). Problème ouvert et situation-problème. Lyon: IREM.
5. Balacheff, N. (1988). Une étude des processus de preuve en mathématiques chez les élèves de Collège, Thèse d'état. Grenoble: Université Joseph Fourier.
6. Balacheff, N. (2000). A modelling challenge: Untangling learners' knowing. Journées Internationales d'Orsay sur les Sciences Cognitives: L'apprentissage, JIOSC2000, Paris.
7. Balacheff, N., & Margolinas, C. (2005). cK¢ modèle de connaissances pour le calcul des situations didactiques. In A. Mercier, & C. Margolinas (Eds.), Balises pour la didactique des mathématiques (pp. 75-106). Grenoble: La pensée sauvage.
8. Boero, P., Garuti, R., & Mariotti, M. A. (1996). Some dynamic mental processes underlying producing and proving conjectures. Proceedings of the 20th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education PME-XX, vol. 2, (pp. 121-128). Valencia.
9. Chazan, D. (1993). High school geometry students' justification for their views of empirical evidence and mathematical proof. Educational studies in mathematics, 24, 359-387.
10. De Villiers, M. (1990). The role and function of proof in mathematics, adapted version of paper proof in the mathematics curriculum. Presented at the National Subject Didactics Symposium, University of Stellenbosh.
11. Douek, N. (1998). Some remarks about argumentation and mathematical proof and their education implications. In I. Schwank (Ed.), First European Conference of the Research in Mathematics Education CERME 1, vol. 1, (pp. 125-139). Osnabrück, Germany.
12. Ducrot, O., et al. (1980). Les mots du discours. Paris: Ed. de Minuit.
13. Duval, R. (1992-1993). Argumenter démontrer expliquer : Continuité ou rupture cognitive? Petit X, 31, 37-61. Grenoble: IREM (Ed.).
14. Duval, R. (1995). Sémiosis et pensée humaine. Edition: Peter Lang, Suisse.
15. Fann, K. T. (1970). Peirce's theory of abduction. The Hague, Holland: Martinus Nijhoff.
16. Garuti, R., Boero, P., & Lemut, E. (1998). Cognitive Unity of Theorems and Difficulty of Proof. Proceedings of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education PME-XXII, vol. 2, (pp. 345-352). Stellenbosch.
17. Garuti, R., Boero, P., Lemut, E., & Mariotti, M. A. (1996). Challenging the traditional school approach to theorems. Proceedings of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education PME-XX, vol. 2, (pp. 113-120). Valencia.
18. Hanna, G. (1989). Proofs that prove and proofs that explain. In G. Vergnaud, J. Rogalski, & M. Artigue (Eds.), Proceedings of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education, PMEXIII, vol. 2, (pp. 45-51). Paris.
19. Hanna, G. (1991). Mathematical proof. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking, 54-61. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
20. Hanna, G. (1995). Challenges to the Importance of Proof. For the Learning of Mathematics, 15(3), 42-49.
21. Harel, G. (2001). The development of mathematical induction as a proof scheme: A model for DNR-based instruction. In S. Campbell, & R. Zazkis (Eds.), Learning and teaching Number Theory. Journal of Mathematical Behavior (pp. 185-212). New Jersey, Ablex Publishing Corporation.
22. Harel, G., & Sowder, L. (1998). Students' proof schemes: Results from exploratory studies. In A. H. Schoenfeld, J. Kaput, & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), Research in collegiate mathematics education, vol. 3, (pp. 234-283). American Mathematical Society.
23. Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (2000). A study of proof conceptions in algebra. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(4), 396-428.
24. Krummheuer, G. (1995). The ethnography of argumentation. In P. Cobb, & H. Bauersfeld (Eds.), The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures (pp. 229-269). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
25. Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations. The logic of mathematical discovery. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
26. (Italian translation Benelli D. (1979). Dimostrazioni e confutazioni la logica della scoperta matematica. Milano: Feltrinelli).
27. Magnani, L. (2001). Abduction, reason and science. Processes of discovery and explanation. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
28. Mariotti, M.A. (2001). Introduction to proof : The mediation of a dynamic software environment. Educational studies in mathematics, 44, Issues 1 & 2, 25-53.
29. Mariotti, M. A., Bartolini Bussi, M. G., Boero, P., Ferri, F., & Garuti, M. R. (1997). Approaching Geometry theorems in contexts: from history and epistemology to cognition. Proceeding of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education PME-21, vol. 1, (pp. 180-195). Lahti, Finland.
30. Pedemonte, B. (2001). Some cognitive aspects of the relationship between argumentation and proof in mathematics. In M. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education PME-25, vol. 4, (pp. 33-40). Utrecht (Olanda).
31. Pedemonte, B. (2002). Etude didactique et cognitive des rapports de l'argumentation et de la démonstration dans l'apprentissage des mathématiques. Thèse de doctorat. Grenoble I: Université Joseph Fourier.
32. Pedemonte, B. (2005). Quelques outils pour l'analyse cognitive du rapport entre argumentation et démonstration. Recherche en Didactique des Mathématiques, 25(3), 313-348.
33. Peirce, C. S. (1960). Collected papers. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
34. Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca L. (1958). Traité de l'argumentation-La nouvelle rhétorique. Editions de l'Université de Bruxelles, Bruxelles 1992 (5éme édition).
35. Plantin, C. (1990). Essais sur l'argumentation, Kimé (Ed.), Paris.
36. Polya, G. (1954). Mathematics and plausible reasoning. Princeton University Press, London.
37. (French translation Vallée R. (1958), Les mathématiques et le raisonnement « plausible ». Gauthier - Villars (Ed.), Paris).
38. Polya, G. (1962). How to solve it? Princeton University Press, New York
39. (French translation Mesnage C. Comment poser et résoudre un problème. Dunod (Ed.), Paris).
40. Thurston, W. P. (1994). On proof and progress in mathematics. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 30(2), 161-177.
41. Toulmin, S. E. (1993). The use of arguments. Cambridge: University Press
42. French translation De Brabanter P. (1958). Les usages de l'argumentation, Presse Universitaire de France).
43. Yackel, E. (2001). Explanation, Justification and argumentation in mathematics classrooms. In M. Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education PME-25, vol. 1, (pp. 1-9). Utrecht (Olanda).
44. Yackel, E., & Rasmussen, C. (2002). Beliefs and norms in the mathematics classroom. In G. Toerner, E. Pehkonen, & G. Leder (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education? (pp. 313-320). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
45. Wood, T. (1999). Creating a Context for Argument in Mathematics Class Young Children's Concepts of Shape. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(2), 171-191.