From visual reasoning to logical necessity through argumentative design

Educational Studies in Mathematics

Volumn 79, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 19-40

  Prusak, Naomi ^a   Hershkowitz, Rina ^b   Schwarz, Baruch B ^a  

^a HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM   (Israel)

^b WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE   (Israel)

Author keywords

Argumentation and learning; Argumentation and proof; Socio cognitive conflict

Indexed keywords

EID: 82555189806     PISSN: 00131954     EISSN: 15730816     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10649-011-9335-0     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Andriessen, J. E. B., & Schwarz, B. B. (2009). Argumentative design. In N. Muller-Mirza & A. N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 145-174). New York: Springer.
2. Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2009). Argumentation and explanation in conceptual change: Indications from protocol analyses of peer-to-peer dialogue. Cognitive Science, 33, 374-400.
3. Arzarello, F. (2008). The proof in the 20th century. In P. Boero (Ed.), Theorems in schools: From history epistemology and cognition to classroom practices (pp. 43-64). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
4. Arzarello, F., Olivero, F., Paola, D., & Robutti, O. (2008). The transition to formal proof in geometry. In P. Boero (Ed.), Theorems in schools: From history, epistemology and cognition to classroom practices (pp. 307-424). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
5. Baker, M. (2003). Computer-mediated argumentative interactions for the co-elaboration of scientific notions. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 47-70). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
6. Balacheff, N. (1991). The benefits and limits of social interaction: The case of mathematical proof in mathematics knowledge: Its growth through teaching. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
7. Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307-359.
8. Bartolini Bussi, M., Boero, P., Ferri, F., Garuti, R., & Mariotti, M. A. (1997). Approaching geometry theorems in context. In E. Pehkonen (Ed.), Proceedings of 21st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (App, Vol. 1, pp. 180-195). Lahti: University of Helsinki.
9. Birdsell, D., & Groarke, L. (1996). Toward a theory of visual argument. Argumentation and Advocacy, 33, 1-10.
10. Boero, P. (2007). Theorems in school: An introduction. In P. Boero (Ed.), Theorems in schools: From history, epistemology and cognition to classroom practices (pp. 3-8). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
11. Boero, P., Garuti, R., & Lemut, E. (2007). Approaching theorems in grade VIII. Some mental processes underlying producing and proving conjectures, and conditions suitable to enhance them. In P. Boero (Ed.), Theorems in schools: From history, epistemology and cognition to classroom practices (pp. 251-266). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
12. Brown, A., & Palincsar, A. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 393-451). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13. Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
14. Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145-182.
15. Clements, D. H., & Batista, M. T. (1992). Geometry and spatial reasoning. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 420-464). New York: Macmillan.
16. Cobb, P., & Bauersfeld, H. (Eds.). (1995). The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom culture. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
17. Davis, P. J., & Anderson, J. A. (1979). Nonanalytic aspects of mathematics and their implication for research and education. SIAM Review, 21(1), 112-127.
18. Dawes, L., Mercer, N., & Wegerif, R. (2000). Thinking together: A program of activities for developing speaking, listening and thinking skills for children aged 8-11. Birmingham: Imaginative Minds Ltd.
19. Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1-19). Oxford: Elsevier.
20. Douek, N. (1999). Argumentation and conceptualisation in context: A case study on sun shadows in primary school. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 39, 89-110.
21. Dreyfus, T. (2004). What counts as proof in the mathematics classroom? In M. Kourkoulos, G. Troulis, & C. Tzanakis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Colloquium on the Didactics of Mathematics (pp. 114-132). Rethymnon, Crete: University of Crete.
22. Duval, R. (1998). Geometry from a cognitive point of view. In C. Mammana & V. Villani (Eds.), Perspectives on the teaching of geometry for the 21st century. An ICMI Study (pp. 37-62). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
23. Garuti, R., Boero, P., & Lemut, E. (1998). Cognitive unity of theorems and difficulties of proof. In_A. Olivier, & K. Newstead (Eds.), Proceedings of 22nd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Vol. 2, (pp. 345-352). Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University.
24. Garuti, R., Boero, P., Lemut, E., & Mariotti, M. A. (1996). Challenging the traditional school approach to theorems: A hypothesis about the cognitive unity of theorems. In L. Puig, & A. Gutierrez (Eds.), Proceedings of 20th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. (Vol. 2, pp. 113-120). Valencia: University of Valencia.
25. Gutierrez, A., Jaime, A., & Fortuny, J. M. (1991). An alternative paradigm to evaluate the acquisition of the van Hiele levels. Journal For Research In Mathematics Education, 22(3), 237-251.
26. Hadas, N., Hershkowitz, R., & Schwarz, B. B. (2001). The role of surprise and uncertainty in promoting the need to prove in computerized environment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44(1&2), 127-150.
27. Hadas, N., Hershkowitz, R., & Schwarz, B. B. (2002). Between task design and students' explanations in geometrical activities. Canadian Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 2, 529-551.
28. Hanna, G. (1990). Some pedagogical aspects of proof. Interchange, 21, 6-13.
29. Hanna, G. (2007). The ongoing value of proof. In P. Boero (Ed.), Theorems in schools: From history, epistemology and cognition to classroom practices (pp. 11-24). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
30. Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31. Hershkowitz, R. (1990). Psychological aspects of learning geometry. In P. Nesher & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), Mathematics and cognition (pp. 70-95). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32. Hershkowitz, R., Parzysz, B., & van Dormolen, J. (1996). Space and shape. In A. J. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & C. Laborde (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics education (pp. 161-204). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.
33. Hershkowitz, R., & Schwarz, B. B. (1999). Reflective processes in a technology-based mathematics classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 17, 66-91.
34. Howe, C., Toulmie, A., Duchak-Tanner, V., & Rattay, C. (2000). Hypothesis-testing in science: Group consensus and acquisition of conceptual and procedural knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 10, 361-391.
35. Inglis, M., Mejia-Ramos, J. P., & Simpson, A. (2007). Modeling mathematical argumentation: The importance of qualification. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66(1), 3-21.
36. Johnsson, D. W., & Johnsson, R. T. (2009). Energizing learning: The instructional power of conflict. Educational Research, 38(1), 37-51.
37. King, A., & Rosenshine, B. (1993). Effects of guided cooperative questioning on children's knowledge construction. Journal of Experimental Education, 61(2), 127-148.
38. 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, NJ: Erlbaum.
39. Laborde, C. (1995). Designing tasks for learning geometry in computer-based environment, the case of Cabri-géomètre. In L. Burton & B. Jaworski (Eds.), Technology in mathematics teaching-A bridge between teaching and learning (pp. 35-68). London: Chartwell-Bratt.
40. Lavy, I. (2006). A case study of different types of arguments emerging from exploration in an interactive computerized environment. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 25, 153-169.
41. Limón, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: A critical appraisal. Learning & Instruction, 11, 357-380.
42. Mariotti, M. A. (2001). Introduction to proof: The mediation of a dynamic software environment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44(1&2), 25-53.
43. Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge level. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 139-179.
44. Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
45. Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. New York: Routledge.
46. Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children's thinking: A sociocultural approach. London: Routledge.
47. Mugny, G., & Doise, W. (1978). Socio-cognitive conflict and structure of individual and collective performances. European Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 181-192.
48. Pedemonte, B. (2007). How can the relationship between argumentation and proof be analyzed? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66, 23-41.
49. Prusak, N. (2007). The Analysis of dialogues of dyads of pre-service teachers operating in an activity designed to foster argumentation-The case of dynamic geometry. Unpublished Master's thesis. The Hebrew University: Jerusalem. (In Hebrew).
50. Rav, Y. (1999). Why do we prove theorems? Philosophia Mathematica, 7, 5-41.
51. Rasmussen, C., Zandieh, M., King, K., & Teppo, A. (2005). Advancing mathematical activity: A practice-oriented view of mathematical thinking. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 7(1), 51-73.
52. Rasmussen, C., & Stephan, M. (2008). A methodology for documenting collective activity. In A. E. Kelly, R. A. Lesh, & J. Y. Baek (Eds.), Handbook of design research methods in education (pp. 195-215). New York: Routledge.
53. Reid, D. (2003). Forms and uses of abduction. In M. Mariotti (Ed.), Proceedings of the third ESRME conference Bellaria Italy. (www. dm. unipi. it/~didattica/CERME3/proceedings/Groups/TG4/TG4_list. html).
54. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.
55. Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appropriation, guided participation and apprenticeship. In J. W. Wertsch, P. del Rio, & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 139-164). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
56. Schwarz, B. B. (2009). Argumentation and learning. In N. Muller-Mirza & A.-N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 91-126). New York: Springer.
57. Schwarz, B. B., & Linchevski, L. (2007). The role of task design and of argumentation in cognitive development during peer interaction. The case of proportional reasoning. Learning and Instruction, 17, 310-331.
58. Schwarz, B. B., & Asterhan, C. S. C. (2010). Argumentation and reasoning. In K. Littleton, C. Wood, & J. Kleine Staarman (Eds.), International handbook of psychology in education (pp. 137-176). Bradford: Emerald Group.
59. Schwarz, B. B., Hershkowitz, R., & Prusak, N. (2010). Argumentation and mathematics. In C. Howe & K. Littleton (Eds.), Educational dialogues: understanding and promoting productive interaction (pp. 115-141). London: Routledge.
60. Stephan, M., & Rasmussen, C. (2002). Classroom mathematical practices in differential equations. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21, 459-490.
61. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
62. Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 144-188). New York: Sharpe.
63. Webb, N. M. (2009). The teacher's role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 1-28.
64. Wells, G. (1992). The meaning makers: Children learning language and using language to learn. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
65. Yackel, E. (2002). What we can learn from analyzing the teacher's role in collective argumentation. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21, 423-440.
66. Yerushalmy, M., & Houde, R. A. (1986). The Geometric Supposer: Promoting thinking and learning. Mathematics Teacher, 79, 418-422.
67. Zeilberger, D. (1993). Theorems for a price: Tomorrow's semi-rigorous mathematical culture. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 40(8), 978-981.