Expert and novice approaches to reading mathematical proofs

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education

Volumn 43, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 358-390

  Inglis, Matthew ^a   Alcock, Lara ^a  

^a LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Advanced mathematical thinking; College mathematics; Logic and proof; Proof; Reasoning

Indexed keywords

EID: 84863008039     PISSN: 00218251     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5951/jresematheduc.43.4.0358     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. Ainsworth, S., & Burcham, S. (2007). The impact of text coherence on learning by self-explanation. Learning and Instruction, 17, 286-303. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.02.004
2. Alcock, L., & Weber, K. (2005). Proof validation in real analysis: Inferring and checking warrants. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 24, 125-134. doi:10.1016/j.jmathb.2005.03.003 (Pubitemid 40801110)
3. Azzouni, J. (2004). The derivation-indicator view of mathematical practice. Philosophia Mathematica, 12, 81-105. doi:10.1093/philmat/12.2.81 (Pubitemid 38945350)
4. Ball, L. J., Lucas, E. X., Miles, J. N. V., & Gale, A. G. (2003). Inspection times and the selection task: What do eye-movements reveal about relevance effects? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56A, 1053-1077. doi:10.1080/02724980244000729 (Pubitemid 37513307)
5. Bell, A. W. (1976). A study of pupils' proof-explanations in mathematical situations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 7, 23-40. doi:10.1007/ BF00144356
6. Bielaczyc, K., Pirolli, P. L., & Brown, A. L. (1995). Training in self-explanation and self-regulation strategies: Investigating the effects of knowledge acquisition activities on problem solving. Cognition and Instruction. 13, 221-252. doi:10.1207/sl532690xcil302-3
7. 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. doi: 10.1016/0364-0213 (89) 90002-5
8. Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & La Vancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477. doi: 10.1016/0364-0213 (94) 90016-7
9. Coe, R., & Ruthven, K. (1994). Proof practices and constructs of advanced mathematical students. British Educational Research Journal, 20, 41-53. doi: 10.1080/0141192940200105
10. Cowen, C. C. (1991). Teaching and testing mathematics reading. The American Mathematical Monthly, 98, 50-53.
11. Deubel, H., & Schneider, W. X. (1996). Saccade target selection and object recognition: Evidence for a common attentional mechanism. Vision Research, 36, 1827-1837. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989 (95) 00294-4 (Pubitemid 26166009)
12. Ericsson, K. A. (2006). Protocol analysis and expert thought: Concurrent verbalizations of thinking during experts' performance on representative tasks. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, R. R. Hoffman, & P. Feltovich (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 223-242). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
13. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1984). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14. Fallis, D. (2003). Intentional gaps in mathematical proofs. Synthèse, 134, 45-69. doi: 10.1023/A: 1022131513275
15. Gould, J. D. (1973). Eye movements during visual search and memory search. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 98, 184-195. doi:10.1037/h0034280
16. Hanna, G. (1991). Mathematical proof. In A. J. Bishop (Managing Ed.) & D. Tall (Vol. Ed.), Mathematics education library: Vol. 11. Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 54-61). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
17. Hanna, G. (2007). The ongoing value of proof. In W M. Roth, L. Verschaffel (Series Eds.), & P. Boero (Vol. Ed.), New directions in mathematics and science education: Vol. 1. Theorems in school: From history, epistemology and cognition to classroom practice (pp. 3-18). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense.
18. Harel, G., & Sowder, L. (1998). Students' proof schemes: Results from exploratory studies. In T. Dick (Managing Ed.), A. H. Schoenfeld, J. Kaput, & E. Dubinsky (Vol. Eds.), CBMS issues in mathematics education: Vol. 7. Research in collegiate mathematics education III (pp. 234-282). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.
19. Harel, G., & Sowder, L. (2007). Toward comprehensive perspectives on the learning and teaching of proof. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 805-842). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
20. Hazzan, O., & Zazkis, R. (2003). Mimicry of proofs with computers: The case of linear algebra. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 34, 385-402. (Pubitemid 36853375)
21. Healy, L. & Hoyles, C. (2000). A study of proof conceptions in algebra. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31, 396-428.
22. Hoffman, R. R. (Ed.). (1992). The psychology of expertise: Cognitive research and empirical AI. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
23. Horsey, R. (2002). The art of chicken sexing. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 14, 107-117. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/psychlangsci/research/ linguistics/publications
24. Hyona, J. (2010). The use of eye movements in the study of multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 172-176. doi:10.1016/j.leaminstruc.2009. 02.013
25. Inglis, M., & Mejia-Ramos, J. P. (2009). The effect of aumority on the persuasiveness of mathematical arguments. Cognition and Instruction, 27, 25-50. doi:10.1080/07370000802584513
26. Inglis, M., Mejia-Ramos, J. P., & Simpson, A. (2007). Modelling mathematical argumentation: The importance of qualification. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66, 3-21. doi:10.1007/sl0649-006-9059-8
27. Inglis, M., Mejia-Ramos, J. P., Weber, K., & Alcock, L. (in press). On mathematicians' different standards when evaluating elementary proofs. Topics in Cognitive Science.
28. Jepma, M., & Nieuwenhuis, S. (2011). Pupil diameter predicts changes in the exploration-exploitation tradeoff: Evidence for the adaptive gain theory of locus coeruleus function. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 1587-1596. doi:10.1162/jocn. 2010.21548
29. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1976). Eye fixations and cognitive processes. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 441-480. doi:10.1016/0010-0285 (76) 90015-3
30. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixation to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 329-354. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.87.4.329
31. Kaakinen, J. K., Hyona, J., & Keenan, J. M. (2002). Perspective effects on online text processing. Discourse Processes, 33, 159-173.
32. Kalyuga, S. (2007). Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 509-539. doi:10.1007/sl0648-007-9054-3
33. Konior, J. (1993). Research into the construction of mathematical texts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24, 251-256. doi:10.1007/BF01275425
34. Knuth, E. J. (2002). Secondary school mathematics teachers' conceptions of proof. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33, 379-405. http://www.jrme.org/publications/jrme.aspx
35. Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 29-63. doi: 10.3102/00028312027001029
36. Lamport, L. (1994). LaTeX: A document preparation system. User's guide and reference manual (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
37. Liversedge, S. P., Paterson, K. B., & Pickering, M. J. (1998). Eye movements and measures of reading time. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Eye guidance in reading and scene perception (pp. 55-76). Oxford, England: Elsevier Science.
38. Mamona-Downs, J., & Downs, M. (2005). The identity of problem solving. Journal of Mathematical Behavior. 24, 385-401. doi:10.1016/j.jmathb. 2005.09.011 (Pubitemid 43008592)
39. Manin, Y. I. (1977). Graduate texts in mathematics: Vol. 53. A course in mathematical logic (N. Koblitz, Trans.; P. R. Halmos, F. W Gehring, & C. C. Moore, Series Eds.). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
40. Martin, W. G., & Harel, G. (1989). Proof frames of preservice elementary teachers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 41-51. http://www.jrme.org/publications/jrme.aspx
41. Matin, E. (1974). Saccadic suppression: A review and an analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 899-917. doi:10.1037/h0037368
42. Mejia-Ramos, J. P., & Inglis, M. (2009). Argumentative and proving activities in mathematics education research. In F.-L. Lin, F.-J. Hsieh, G. Hanna, & M. de Villiers (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1CMI Study 19 conference: Proof and proving in mathematics education (Vol. 2, pp. 88-93). Taipei, Taiwan: National Taiwan Normal University.
43. Merkley, R. & Ansari, D. (2010). Using eye tracking to study numerical cognition: The case of the ratio effect. Experimental Brain Research, 206, 455-460. doi: 10.1007/s00221-010-2419-8
44. Moeller, K., Fischer, M. H., Nuerk, H. C., & Willmes, K. (2009). Eye fixation behaviour in the number bisection task: Evidence for temporal specificity. Acta Psychologica, 131, 209-220. doi:10.1016/j. actpsy.2009.05.005
45. Moore, R. C. (1994). Making the transition to formal proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27, 249-266. doi:10.1007/BF01273731
46. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
47. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231-259. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231
48. Osterholm, M. (2005). Characterizing reading comprehension of mathematical texts. Educational Studies in Mathematics. 63, 325-346. doi:10.1007/sl 0649-005-9016-y
49. Pollatsek, A., Lesch, M., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1992). Phonological codes are used in integrating information across saccades in word identification and reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 148-162. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.18.1.148
50. RAND Mathematics Study Panel. (2003). Mathematical proficiency for all students: Toward a strategic research and development program in mathematics education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
51. Rav, Y. (1999). Why do we prove theorems? Philosophia Mathematica, 7, 5-11. doi: 10.1093/philmat/7.1.5
52. Rav, Y. (2007). A critique of a formalist-mechanist version of the justification of arguments in mathematicians' proof practices. Philosophia Mathematica, 15, 291-320. doi:10.1093/philmat/nkm023
53. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372-422. doi:10.1037/0033- 2909.124.3.372 (Pubitemid 128461792)
54. Rayner, K. (2009). The 35th Sir Frederick Bartlett Lecture: Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1457-1506. doi:10.1080/17470210902816461
55. Rayner, K., Foorman, B. R., Perfetti, C. A., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2001). How psychological science informs the teaching of reading. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2, 31-74. doi:10.1111/1529-1006.00004 (Pubitemid 33653575)
56. Renkl, A. (1997). Learning from worked-out examples: A study on individual differences. Cognitive Science, 21, 1-29. doi: 10.1016/S0364-0213 (99) 80017-2 (Pubitemid 127165906)
57. Rowland, T. (2002). Generic proofs in number theory. In C. A. Maher, R. Speiser (Series Eds.), S. R. Campbell, & R. Zazkis (Vol. Eds.), Learning and teaching number theory: Research in cognition and instruction (pp. 157-184). Westport, CT: Ablex.
58. Roy, M., & Chi, M. T. H. (2005). The self-explanation principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 271-286). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
59. Russo, J. E., Johnson, E. J., & Stephens, D. L. (1989). The validity of verbal protocols. Memory and Cognition, 17, 759-769. doi:10.3758/BF03202637
60. Sangwin, C. (2010). Intriguing integrals: Part II. Plus Magazine, 54. Retrieved from http://plus.maths.org/issue54/features/sangwin2/
61. Schooler, J. W., Ohlsson, S., & Brooks, K. (1993). Thoughts beyond words: When language overshadows insight. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 166-183. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.122.2.166
62. 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. http://www.nctm.org/publications/ jrme.aspx (Pubitemid 36161198)
63. Singh, S. (1997). Fermat's last theorem: The story of a riddle that confounded the world's greatest minds for 358 years. London, England: Fourth Estate.
64. Stylianides, A. J. (2007). Proof and proving in school mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38, 289-321. http://www.nctm.org/ publications/jrme.aspx
65. Stylianides, A. J., & Stylianides, G. J. (2009). Proof constructions and evaluations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72, 237-253. doi: 10.1007/s 10649-009-9191-3
66. Stylianides, G. J., & Stylianides, A. J. (2009). Facilitating the transition from empirical arguments to proof. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40, 314-352. http://www.nctm.org/publications/jrme.aspx
67. Stylianou, D. A. (2002). On the interaction of visualization and analysis: The negotiation of a visual representation in problem solving. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21, 303-317. doi:10.1016/S0732-3123 (02) 00131-1
68. Thurston, W. P. (1994). On proof and progress in mathematics. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 30, 161-177.
69. Tobias, S. (1989). Another look at research on the adaptation of instruction to student characteristics. Educational Psychologist, 24, 213-221. doi:10.1207/sl5326985ep2403-1
70. Tobii Technology. (2010). Tobii eye tracking: An introduction to eye tracking and Tobii Eye Trackers. Stockholm, Sweden: Tobii Technology AP.
71. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
72. Vinner, S. (1997). The pseudo-conceptual and pseudo-analytic thought processes in mathematics learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 34, 97-129. doi:10.1023/A:1002998529016 (Pubitemid 127129403)
73. Watson, D. G., & Inglis, M. (2007). Eye movements and time-based selection: Where do the eyes go in preview search? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 852-857. doi: 10.3758/BF03194111
74. Weber, K. (2001). Student difficulty in constructing proofs: The need for strategic knowledge. Educational Studies in Mathematics. 48. 101-119. doi:10.1023/A:1015535614355
75. Weber, K. (2004). Traditional instruction in advanced mathematics courses: A case study of one professor's lectures and proofs in an introductory real analysis course. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 23, 115-133. doi:10.1016/j.jmathb.2004.03.001 (Pubitemid 38750330)
76. Weber, K. (2008). How mathematicians determine if an argument is a valid proof. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39, 431-459. http://www.nctm.org/publications/jrme.aspx
77. Weber, K. (2010). Mathematics majors' perceptions of conviction, validity, and proof. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 12, 306-336. doi: 10.1080/10986065.2010.495468
78. Weber, K., & Alcock, L. (2004). Semantic and syntactic proof productions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 56, 209-234. doi:10.1023/B:EDUC.0000040410.57253.al (Pubitemid 39216587)
79. Weber, K., & Alcock, L. (2005). Using warranted implications to understand and validate proofs. For the Learning of Mathematics, 25(1), 34-38, 51.
80. Weber, K., & Mejia-Ramos, J.-P. (2011). Why and how mathematicians read proofs: An exploratory study. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 76, 329-344. doi:10.1007/sl0649-010-9292-z
81. Wolfe, M. B. W., & Goldman, S. R. (2005). Relations between adolescents' text processing and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 467-502. doi:10.1207/sl532690xci2304-2 (Pubitemid 43082512)