Preservice teachers' knowledge of proof by mathematical induction

Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education

Volumn 10, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 145-166

  Stylianides, Gabriel J ^a   Stylianides, Andreas J ^b   Philippou, George N ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CYPRUS   (Cyprus)

Author keywords

Collegiate mathematics; Content knowledge; Knowledge fragility; Mathematical induction; Mathematical reasoning; Proof; Tasks; Teacher education

Indexed keywords

EID: 34548190556     PISSN: 13864416     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10857-007-9034-z     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Brousseau, G., & Otte, M. (1991). The fragility of knowledge. In A. J. Bishop, S. Mellin-Olsen, & J. van Dormolen (Eds.), Mathematical knowledge: Its growth through teaching (pp. 13-36). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
2. Cambridge Conference on Teacher Training. (1967). Goals for mathematical education of elementary school teachers. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
3. Cooney, T. J. (1994). Teacher education as an exercise in adaptation. In D. B. Aichele, & A. F. Coxford (Eds.), Professional Development for Teachers of Mathematics (1994 Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
4. Dubinsky, E. (1986). Teaching mathematical induction I. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 5, 305-317.
5. Dubinsky, E. (1990). Teaching mathematical induction II. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 8, 285-304.
6. Dubinsky, E., & Lewin, P. (1986). Reflective abstraction and mathematics education: The generic decomposition of induction and compactness. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 5, 55-92.
7. Fawcett, H. P. (1938). The nature of proof (1938 Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics). New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.
8. Fischbein, E. (1982). Intuition and proof. For the Learning of Mathematics, 3(2), 9-18, 24.
9. Hanna, G. (2000). Proof, explanation and exploration: An overview. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44, 5-23.
10. Harel, G. (2002). The development of mathematical induction as a proof scheme: A model for DNR-based instruction. In S. Campbell, & R. Zaskis (Eds.), Learning and teaching number theory: Research in cognition and instruction (pp. 185-212). New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
11. Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (2000). Proof conceptions in algebra. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31, 396-428.
12. Knuth, E. J. (2002). Secondary school mathematics teachers' conceptions of proof. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33, 379-405.
13. Magnusson, S. (1996). Building a pedagogical content knowledge base for elementary science teacher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.
14. Maher, C. A., & Martino, A. M. (1996). The development of the idea of mathematical proof: A 5-year case study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 194-214.
15. Marrades, R., & Gutiérrez, A. (2000). Proofs produced by secondary school students learning geometry in a dynamic computer environment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44, 87-125.
16. Martin, W. G., & Harel, G. (1989). Proof frames of preservice elementary teachers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 41-51.
17. Movshovitz-Hadar, N. (1993). The false coin problem, mathematical induction and knowledge fragility. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 12, 253-268.
18. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
19. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
20. Reid, D. A. (2002). Elements in accepting an explanation. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 20, 527-547.
21. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1994). What do we know about mathematics curricula?. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 13, 55-80.
22. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
23. Simon, M. A., & Blume, G. W. (1996). Justification in the mathematics classroom: A study of prospective elementary teachers. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15, 3-31.
24. Smith, D. C. (2000). Content and pedagogical content knowledge for elementary science teacher educators: Knowing our students. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11(1), 27-46.
25. Sowder, L., & Harel, G. (1998). Types of students' justifications. The Mathematics Teacher, 91, 670-675.
26. Steiner, H. (1989). The nature of theoretical concepts in physics and mathematics-implications for the fragility of knowledge in the educational context. In S. Vinner (Ed.), Proceedings of the Second International Jerusalem Convention on Education: Science and Mathematics Education - Interaction between Research and Practice (pp. 387-396). Israel: University of Jerusalem.
27. Stylianides, A. J., Stylianides, G. J., & Philippou, G. N. (2004). Undergraduate students' understanding of the contraposition equivalence rule in symbolic and verbal contexts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 55, 133-162.
28. Sullivan, P. (2003). Editorial: Incorporating knowledge of, and beliefs about, mathematics into teacher education. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6, 293-296.