• School Mathematics
• /
• v.4 no.1
• /
• pp.1-13
• /
• 2002

The purpose of this study is to investigate the reasons and backgrounds of drawing auxiliary lines in the proof of geometry. In most of proofs in geometry, drawing auxiliary lines provide important clues, thus they play a key role in deductive proof. However, many student tend to have difficulties of drawing auxiliary lines because there seems to be no general rule to produce auxiliary lines. To alleviate such difficulties, informal activities need to be encouraged prior to draw auxiliary lines in rigorous deductive proof. Informal activities are considered to be contrasting to deductive proof, but at the same time they are connected to deductive proof because each in formal activity can be mathematically represented. For example, the informal activities such as fliping and superimposing can be mathematically translated into bisecting line and congruence. To elaborate this idea, some examples from the middle school mathematics were chosen to corroborate the relation between informal activities and deductive proof. This attempt could be a stepping stone to the discussion of how to teach auxiliary lines and deductive reasoning.

• The Mathematical Education
• /
• v.37 no.1
• /
• pp.73-85
• /
• 1998

The purpose of this study is to investigate the understanding of middle school students on the meaning of proof and to suggest a teaching method to improve their understanding based on three levels identified by Kunimune as follows: Level I to think that experimental method is enough for justifying proof, Level II to think that deductive method is necessary for justifying proof, Level III to understand the meaning of deductive system. The conclusions of this study are as follows: First, only 13% of 8th graders and 22% of 9th graders are on level II. Second, although about 50% students understand the meaning of hypothesis, conclusion, and proof, they can't understand the necessity of deductive proof. This conclusion implies that the necessity of deductive proof needs to be taught to the middle school students. One of the teaching methods on the necessity of proof is to compare the nature of experimental method and deductive proof method by providing their weak and strong points respectively.

• Communications of Mathematical Education
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.325-344
• /
• 2010

The purpose of this study is to investigate what influences students' preferences on empirical and deductive proofs and find their relations. Although empirical and deductive proofs have been seen as a significant aspect of school mathematics, literatures have indicated that students tend to have a preference for empirical proof when they are convinced a mathematical statement. Several studies highlighted students'views about empirical and deductive proof. However, there are few attempts to find the relations of their views about these two proofs. The study was conducted to 47 students in 7~9 grades in the transition from empirical proof to deductive proof according to their mathematics curriculum. The data was collected on the written questionnaire asking students to choose one between empirical and deductive proofs in verifying that the sum of angles in any triangles is $180^{\circ}$. Further, they were asked to provide explanations for their preferences. Students' responses were coded and these codes were categorized to find the relations. As a result, students' responses could be categorized by 3 factors; accuracy of measurement, representative of triangles, and mathematics principles. First, the preferences on empirical proof were derived from considering the measurement as an accurate method, while conceiving the possibility of errors in measurement derived the preferences on deductive proof. Second, a number of students thought that verifying the statement for three different types of triangles -acute, right, obtuse triangles - in empirical proof was enough to convince the statement, while other students regarded these different types of triangles merely as partial examples of triangles and so they preferred deductive proof. Finally, students preferring empirical proof thought that using mathematical principles such as the properties of alternate or corresponding angles made proof more difficult to understand. Students preferring deductive proof, on the other hand, explained roles of these mathematical principles as verification, explanation, and application to other problems. The results indicated that students' preferences were due to their different perceptions of these common factors.

• Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics
• /
• v.9 no.2
• /
• pp.419-438
• /
• 1999

This paper explored the impact of dynamic geometry software such as CabriII, GSP on student's understanding deductive justification, on the assumption that proof in school mathematics should be used in the broader, psychological sense of justification rather than in the narrow sense of deductive, formal proof. The following results have been drawn: Dynamic geometry provided positive impact on interacting between empirical justification and deductive justification, especially on understanding the necessity of deductive justification. And teacher in the computer environment played crucial role in reducing on difficulties in connecting empirical justification to deductive justification. At the beginning of the research, however, it was not the case. However, once students got intocul-de-sac in empirical justification and understood the need of deductive justification, they tried to justify deductively. Compared with current paper-and-pencil environment that many students fail to learn the basic knowledge on proof, dynamic geometry software will give more positive ffect for learning. Dynamic geometry software may promote interaction between empirical justification and edeductive justification and give a feedback to students about results of their own actions. At present, there is some very helpful computer software. However the presence of good dynamic geometry software can not be the solution in itself. Since learning on proof is a function of various factors such as curriculum organization, evaluation method, the role of teacher and student. Most of all, the meaning of proof need to be reconceptualized in the future research.

• Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.245-261
• /
• 1999

Proof is an essential characteristic of mathematics and as such should be a key component in mathematics education. But, teaching proof in school mathematics have been unsuccessful for many students. The traditional approach to proofs stresses formal logic and rigorous proof. Thus, most students have difficulties of the concept of proof and students' experiences with proof do not seem meaningful to them. However, different views of proof were asserted in the reassessment of the foundations of mathematics and the nature of mathematical truth. These different views of justification need to be reflected in demonstrative geometry classes. The purpose of this study is to characterize the types of students' justification in demonstrative geometry classes taught using dynamic software. The types of justification can be organized into three categories : empirical justification, deductive justification, and authoritarian justification. Empirical justification are based on evidence from examples, whereas deductive justification are based logical reasoning. If we assume that a strong understanding of demonstrative geometry is shown when empirical justification and deductive justification coexist and benefit from each other, then students' justification should not only some empirical basis but also use chains of deductive reasoning. Thus, interaction between empirical and deductive justification is important. Dynamic geometry software can be used to design the approach to justification that can be successful in moving students toward meaningful justification of ideas. Interactive geometry software can connect visual and empirical justification to higher levels of geometric justification with logical arguments in formal proof.

• Research in Mathematical Education
• /
• v.13 no.3
• /
• pp.217-233
• /
• 2009

The purpose of this study is to describe how dynamic geometry systems can be useful in proof activity; teaching sequences based on the use of dynamic geometry systems and to analyze the possible roles of dynamic geometry systems in both teaching and learning of proof. And also dynamic geometry environments can generate powerful interplay between empirical explorations and formal proofs. The point of this study was to show that how using dynamic geometry software can provide an opportunity to link between empirical and deductive reasoning, and how such software can be utilized to gain insight into a deductive argument.

• Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.111-127
• /
• 2004

In this note we examined some terms, parallel lines and angles in elementary school mathematics and middle school mathematics respectively. Since some terms are represented early in elementary school mathematics and not repeated after, some students are not easy to apply the terms to their lesson. Also, since the relation between parallel lines and angles are treated intuitively in 7-th grade, applying the relation for a proof in 8-th grade would be meaningless. For the variety of mathematics education, it is desirable that the relation between parallel lines and angles are treated as postulate. Also, for out standing students, it is desirable that we use deductive reasoning to prove the relation between parallel lines and angles as a theorem. In particular, the treatments of vertical angles and the relation between parallel lines and angles in 7-th grade text books must be reconsidered. Proof is very important in mathematics, and the deductive reasoning is necessary for proof. It would be efficient if some properties such as congruence of vertical angles and the relation between parallel lines and angles are dealt in 8-th grade for proof.

• Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics
• /
• v.11 no.2
• /
• pp.385-402
• /
• 2001

The purpose of this study is to conceptualize 'proof' school mathematics. We based on the assumption the following. (a) There are several different roles of 'proof' : verification, explanation, systematization, discovery, communication (b) Accepted criteria for the validity and rigor of a mathematical 'proof' is decided by negotiation of school mathematics community. (c) There are dynamic relations between mathematical proof and empirical theory. We need to rethink the nature of mathematical proof and give appropriate consideration to the different types of proof related to the cognitive development of the notion of proof. 'proof' in school mathematics should be conceptualized in the broader, psychological sense of justification rather than in the narrow sense of deductive, formal proof 'proof' has not been taught in elementary mathematics, traditionally, Most students have had little exposure to the ideas of proof before the geometry. However, 'proof' cannot simply be taught in a single unit. Rather, proof must be a consistent part of students' mathematical experience in all grades, in all mathematics.

• Education of Primary School Mathematics
• /
• v.4 no.1
• /
• pp.63-73
• /
• 2000

The purpose of this paper is to address He possibility of the teaching of 'proof' in elementary mathematics, on the assumption that proof in school mathematics should be used in the broader, psychological sense of justification rather than in the narrow sense of deductive, formal proof. 'Proof' has not been taught in elementary mathematics, traditionally. Most students have had little exposure to the ideas of proof before the geometry. However, 'Proof' cannot simply be taught in a single unit. Rather, proof must be a consistent part of students' mathematical experience in all grades. Or educators and mathematicians need to rethink the nature of mathematical proof and give appropriate consideration to the different types of proof related to the cognitive development of a notion of proof.

• East Asian mathematical journal
• /
• v.24 no.5
• /
• pp.527-545
• /
• 2008

One of the education purpose of the section "Figures" in the eighth grade is to develop students' deductive reasoning ability, which is basic and essential for living in a democratic society. However, most or middle school students feel much more difficulty or even frustration in the study of formal arguments for geometric situations than any other mathematical fields. It is owing to the big gap between inductive reasoning in elementary school education and deductive reasoning, which is not intuitive, in middle school education. Also, it is very burden for students to describe geometric statements exactly by using various appropriate symbols. Moreover, Usage of the same symbols for angle and angle measurement or segments and segments measurement makes students more confused. Since geometric relations is mainly determined by the measurements of geometric objects, students should be able to interpret the geometric properties to the algebraic properties, and vice verse. In this paper, we first compare and contrast inductive and deductive reasoning approaches to justify geometric facts and relations in school curricula. Convincing arguments are based on experiment and experience, then are developed from inductive reasoning to deductive proofs. We introduce teaching methods to help students's understanding for deductive reasoning in the textbook by using stepwise visualization materials. It is desirable that an effective proof instruction should be able to provide teaching methods and visual materials suitable for students' intellectual level and their own intuition.