The effect of authority on the persuasiveness of mathematical arguments

Cognition and Instruction

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 25-50

  Inglis, Matthew ^a   Mejia Ramos, Juan Pablo ^b  

^a LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 58149267898     PISSN: 07370008     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/07370000802584513     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Aigner, M., & Ziegler, G. (2000). Proofs from the book (Second ed.). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
2. Arcavi, A. (2003). The role of visual representations in the learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52, 215-241.
3. Azzouni, J. (2005). Is there still a sense in which mathematics can have foundations? In G. Sica (Ed.), Essays on the foundations of mathematics and logic (pp. 9-47). Monza: Polimetrica.
4. Balacheff, N. (1987). Processus de preuves et situations de validation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 18, 147-176.
5. Begg, C., Cho, M., Eastwood S., Horton, R., Moher, D., Olkin, I., et al. (1996). Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: The CONSORT statement. Journal of the American Medical Association, 276, 637-639.
6. Bell, A. W. (1976). A study of pupils' proof conceptions in mathematical situations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 7, 23-40.
7. Blank, R. M.(1991). The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing: Experimental evidence from The American Economic Review. The American Economic Review, 81, 1041-1067.
8. Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
9. Brown, J. R. (1997). Proofs and pictures. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 48, 161-180.
10. Bundy, A. (Ed.) (2005). The nature of mathematical proof [Special Issue], Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 363, 2331-2461.
11. Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1996). Constructivist, emergent, and sociocultural perspectives in the context of developmental research. Educational Psychologist, 31, 175-190.
12. Coe, R., & Ruthven, K. (1994). Proof practices and constructs of advanced mathematical students. British Educational Research Journal, 20, 41-53.
13. De Villiers, M. (1990). The role and function of proof in mathematics. Pythagoras, 24, 17-24.
14. De Villiers, M. (2004). The role and function of quasi-empirical methods in mathematics. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 4, 397-418.
15. Dreyfus, T. (1994). Imagery and reasoning in mathematics and mathematics education. In D. F. Robitalle, D. H. Wheeler, & C. Kieran (Eds.), Selected Lectures from the 7th International Congress on Mathematical Education (pp. 107-122). Quebec, Canada: Les Presses de 1'Universit'e Laval.
16. Giaquinto, M. (2005). Mathematical activity. In P. Mancosu, K. F. Jorgensen, & S. A. Pedersen (Eds.), Visualization, explanation and reasoning styles in mathematics (pp. 75-87). Dordrect, The Netherlands: Springer.
17. Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2004). Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59, 93-104.
18. Gowers, W. T. (2006). Does mathematics need a philosophy? In R. Hersh (Ed.), 18 unconventional essays on the nature of mathematics (pp. 182-200). New York: Springer.
19. Fallis, D. (2003). Intentional gaps in mathematical proofs. Synthèse, 134, 45-69.
20. Folina, J. (1999). Pictures, proofs, and 'mathematical practice': Reply to James Robert Brown. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 50, 425-429.
21. Hanna, G. (1983). Rigorous proof in mathematics education. Toronto, Canada: OISE Press.
22. Hanna, G. (2007). The ongoing value of proof. In P. Boero (Ed.), Theorems in school: From history, epistemology and cognition to classroom practice (pp. 3-18). Rotterdam: Sense.
23. 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 (pp. 185-212). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing Corp.
24. Harel, G., Selden, A., & Selden, J. (2006). Advanced mathematical thinking: Some PME perspectives. In A. Gutierrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: Past, present and future (pp. 147-172). Rotterdam: Sense.
25. 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 III (pp. 234-282). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.
26. Harel, G., & Sowder, L. (2005). Advanced mathematical-thinking at any age: Its nature and development. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 7, 27-50.
27. Harel, G., & Sowder, L. (2007). Toward comprehensive perspectives on the learning and teaching of proof. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics education (pp. 805-842). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Pub Inc.
28. Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (2000). A study of proof conceptions in algebra. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31, 396-428.
29. Jackson, A. (2006). Conjectures no more? consensus forming on the proof of the Poincare and geometrization conjectures. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 53, 897-901.
30. Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Savary, F. (1999). Illusory inferences: A novel class of erroneous deductions. Cognition, 71, 191-229.
31. Jones, G. A., & Jones, J. M. (1998). Elementary number theory. London: Springer.
32. Knuth, E. (2002). Secondary school mathematics teachers conceptions of proof. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33, 379-405.
33. Krantz, J. H., & Dalal, R. (2000). Validity of web-based psychological research. In M. H. Birnbaum (Ed.), Psychological experiments on the internet (pp. 35-60). San Diego: Academic Press.
34. Littlewood, J. E. (1953). A mathematician's miscellany. London: Methuen.
35. Martin, W. G., & Harel, G. (1989). Proof frames of preservice elementary teachers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 41-51.
36. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
37. Peters, D., & Ceci, S. (1982). Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of submitted articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5, 187-255.
38. Pontecorvo, C., & Girardet, H. (1993). Arguing and reasoning in understanding historical topics. Cognition and Instruction, 11, 365-395.
39. Quality Assurance Agency. (2002). Mathematics, statistics and operational research subject benchmark standards. Gloucester: Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.
40. Rav, Y. (1999). Why do we prove theorems? Philosophia Mathematica, 7, 5-41.
41. Recio, A., & Godino, J. (2001). Institutional and personal meanings of mathematical proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 48, 83-99.
42. Reid, D. (2002). Conjectures and refutations in Grade 5 mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33, 5-29.
43. Reid, D., & Roberts, R. (2004). Adult learner's criteria for explanations. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 36, 140-149.
44. Reinard, J. C. (1988). The empirical study of the persuasive effects of evidence: The status after fifty years of research. Human Communication Research, 15, 3-59.
45. Reips, U.-D. (2000). The web experiment method: Advantages, disadvantages, and solutions. In M. H. Birnbaum (Ed.), Psychological experiments on the internet (pp. 89-117). San Diego: Academic Press.
46. Schoenfeld, A. (1994). What do we know about mathematics curricula? Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 13, 55-80.
47. Segal, J. (1999). Learning about mathematical proof: Conviction and validity. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18, 191-210.
48. Selden, A., & Selden, J. (2003). Validations of proofs considered as texts: Can undergraduates tell whether an argument proves a theorem? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34, 4-36.
49. Sternthal, B., Phillips, L. W., & Dholakia, R. (1978). The persuasive effect of source credibility: A situational analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 42, 285-314.
50. Stylianides, A. J. (2007). Proof and proving in school mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38, 289-321.
51. Stylianou, D. A. (2002). Interaction of visualization and analysis - The negotiation of a visual representation in problem solving. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21, 303-317.
52. Thurston, W. P. (1994). On proof and progress in mathematics. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 30, 161-177.
53. Vinner, S. (1989). The avoidance of visual considerations in calculus students. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 11, 149-155.
54. van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Evans, S., Smith, R., & Black, N. (1998). Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: A randomized trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 234-237.
55. Walton, D. N. (1997). Appeal to expert opinion: Arguments from authority. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
56. Walton, D. N. (2006). Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
57. Weber, K. (2008). How mathematicians determine if an argument is a valid proof. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39, 431-459.
58. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 458-477.
59. Yackel, E., Rasmussen, C. & King, K. (2000). Social and sociomathematical norms in advanced undergraduate mathematics course. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19, 275-287.