Case studies of mathematics majors’ proof understanding, production, and appreciation

Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education

Volumn 3, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 251-267

  Sowder, Larry ^a   Harel, Guershon ^b  

^a SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85011464976     PISSN: 14926156     EISSN: 19424051     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14926150309556563     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Alibert, D., & Thomas, M. (1991). Research on mathematical proof. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 215-230). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
2. Bell, A. (1976). A study of pupils’ proof-explanations in mathematical situations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 7, 23-40.
3. Boero, P. (2001). Transformation and anticipation as key processes in algebraic problem solving. In R. Sutherland, T. Rojano, A. Bell, & R. Lins (Eds.), Perspectives on school algebra. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
4. Hanna, G. (1983). Rigorous proof in mathematics education. Toronto: OISE Press.
5. Hanna, G. (1990). Some pedagogical aspects of proof. Interchange, 21, 6-13.
6. Harel, G. (1994, April). Learning to prove mathematically. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
7. Harel, G. (1998). Two dual assertions: The first on learning and the second on teaching (or vice versa). The American Mathematical Monthly, 105, 497-507.
8. Harel, G. (2001). The development of mathematical induction as a proof scheme: A model for DMJ-based instruction. In S. Campbell & R. Zazkis (Eds.), Learning and teaching number theory. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
9. Harel, G. (in press). Proof schemes revisited: Historical and epistemological considerations. In P. Boero (Ed.), Theorems in school. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
10. 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 III (pp. 234-283). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.
11. Healy, L. & Hoyles, C. (2000). A study of proof conceptions in algebra. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(4), 396-428.
12. Manaster, A.B. (1998). Some characteristics of eighth grade mathematics classes in the TIMSS videotape study. American Mathematical Monthly, 105, 793-805.
13. Mancosu, P. (1996). Philosophy of mathematics and mathematical practice in the seventeenth century. New York: Oxford University Press.
14. Movshovitz-Hadar, N. (1988). School mathematics theorems: An endless source of surprise. For the Learning of Mathematics, 5(3), 34-40.
15. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
16. Schoenfeld, A.H. (1988). When good teaching leads to bad results: The disasters of well-taught mathematics courses. Educational Psychologist, 23, 145-166.
17. Solow, D. (1990). How to read and do proofs (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.