• 대한수학교육학회지:수학교육학연구
• /
• 제8권1호
• /
• pp.313-326
• /
• 1998

The purpose of this study is to verify the meaning of preformal proof and its didactical significance in mathematics education. A preformal proof plays a more important role in mathematics education, because nowadays in mathematics a proof is considered as an important fact from a sociological point of view. A preformal proof was classified into four categories: a) action proof, b) geometric-intuitive proof, c) reality oriented proof, d) proof by generalization from paradiam. An educational significance of a preformal proof are followings: a) A proof is not identified with a formal proof. b) A proof is not only considered from a symbolic level, but also from enactive and iconic level. c) A preformal proof generates a formal proof and convinces pupils of a formal proof d) A preformal proof is psychologically natural. e) A preformal proof changes a conception of what is a proof. Therefore a preformal proof is expected to teach in school mathematics from the elementary school to the secondary school.

• 한국수학교육학회지시리즈A:수학교육
• /
• 제43권4호
• /
• pp.381-390
• /
• 2004

In this study, we conceptualized the ‘preformal proof’, which is a transitive level of proof from the experimental and inductive justification to the formalized mathematical proof. We investigated concrete features of the preformal proof in the historico-genetic and the didactical situations. The preformal proof can get the generality of the contents of proof, which makes a distinction from the experimental proof. And we can draw a distinction between the preformal and formal proof, in point that the preformal proof heads for the reality-oriented objects and does not use the formal language.

• 대한수학교육학회지:학교수학
• /
• 제14권4호
• /
• pp.469-493
• /
• 2012

본 연구는 증명을 성공적으로 구성하는 학생들은 수학적 개념을 어떻게 이해하고 있으며, 증명을 어떻게 구성하는 지를 살펴보고 이를 통해 증명을 구성하는 다양한 방식과 개념 이해의 관련성을 분석하는 데 목적이 있다. 증명 구성에 도움이 되는 수학 학습에 제언을 얻기 위해서는 증명을 구성하는 과정과 그 과정에서 개념이 어떻게 반영되고 이용되는 지를 살펴볼 필요가 있다. 이를 위하여 4명의 수학교육과 학생들을 대상으로 사례연구를 실시하였다. 그 결과 구문론적 증명을 하는 학생들은 형식적 개념의 내용을 정확하게 알고 있을 뿐만 아니라 그 개념이 담겨있는 명제는 어떠한 방식으로 증명하는 지 그 방법까지 알고 있었다. 실제 증명에서도 평소 증명 경험을 통하여 학습한 증명 전개 방법을 이용하여 증명하는 것을 볼 수 있었으며, 이로부터 증명 방법에 대한 절차적 지식이 구문론적 증명에는 중요한 요소라는 결론을 얻을 수 있었다. 의미론적 증명을 하는 학생들은 형식적 개념의 내용을 정확하게 알고 있고 그 내용과 의미를 본인만의 언어나 그림으로 표현한 개념 이미지를 가지고 있었다. 구문론적 증명을 하는 학생들의 개념 이미지와 비교해보았을 때, 의미론적 증명을 하는 학생들의 개념 이미지는 구문론적 증명을 하는 학생들의 개념 이미지보다 형식적 개념의 내용을 잘 반영하고 있었다. 이러한 개념 이미지는 개념 이미지를 활용하여 증명의 아이디어를 생각하고, 생각한 아이디어를 증명의 형식에 맞게 표현하는 데 사용된다는 점에서 의미론적 증명에 필요한 요소라는 것을 발견할 수 있었다.

• 한국수학교육학회지시리즈C:초등수학교육
• /
• 제7권2호
• /
• pp.85-99
• /
• 2003

In this paper, firstly examined various proofs types that cover informal empirical justifications by Balacheff, Miyazaki, and Harel ＆ Sowder and Tall. Using these theoretical frameworks, justification activities by 5th graders were analyzed and several conclusions were drawn as follow: 1) Children in 5th grade could justify using various proofs types and method ranged from external proofs schemes by Harel & Sowder to thought experiment by Balacheff This implies that children in elementary school can justify various mathematical statements of ideas for themselves. To improve children's proving abilities, rich experience for justifying should be provided. 2) Activities that make conjectures from cases then justify should be given to students in order to develop a sense of necessity of formal proof. 3) Children have to understand the meaning and usage of mathematical symbol to advance to formal deductive proofs. 4) New theoretical framework is needed to be established to provide a framework for research on elementary school children's justification activities. Research on proof mainly focused on the type of proof in terms of reasoning and activities involved. But proof types are also influenced by the tasks given. In elementary school, tasks that require physical activities or examples are provided. To develop students'various proof types, tasks that require various justification methods should be provided. 5) Children's justification type were influenced not only by development level but also by the concept they had. 6) Justification activities provide useful situation that assess students'mathematical understanding. 7) Teachers understanding toward role of proof(verification, explanation, communication, discovery, systematization) should be the starting point of proof activities.

• 대한수학교육학회지:수학교육학연구
• /
• 제9권1호
• /
• 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.

• 대한수학교육학회지:수학교육학연구
• /
• 제20권4호
• /
• pp.511-528
• /
• 2010

기하적 성질을 이해하고 받아들이는 데 있어서 중요한 직관은 학습을 통해서도 형성될 수 있다. 본 연구는 2명의 학생을 대상으로 기호화, 문장화, 증명 과제를 수행하게 하여 기하 증명에서 기호의 중재에 의한 직관의 형성 과정을 살펴본다. 학생들에게 자명하고 당연하게 여겨지는 단정적 직관의 유무에 따라 기호가 어떤 역할을 하는지 살펴보고, 예상적 직관이 형성되지 않은 증명 문제에서 학생들이 기존 지식을 활용하여 증명을 완성하는 과정을 기호의 의미작용에 의해 설명한다. 마지막으로 피타고라스의 정리에 대해 기호의 중재에 의해서 결론적 직관이 형성되는 과정을 살펴본다.

• 대한수학교육학회지:수학교육학연구
• /
• 제11권2호
• /
• 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.

• 한국수학교육학회지시리즈C:초등수학교육
• /
• 제4권1호
• /
• 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.

• 한국학교수학회논문집
• /
• 제8권1호
• /
• pp.101-116
• /
• 2005

본 연구는 설문지를 통한 조사 연구와 수업 관찰을 통하여 증명에 대한 수학 교사들의 전반적인 인식과 증명 표현 양식 및 증명 능력을 조사하고, 교사가 가지고 있는 증명 스키마에 따른 증명 지도 방법의 특징을 살펴보았다. 연구 결과 교사들은 증명을 주로 연역으로만 인식하고 형식적 증명을 선호하는 경향을 가지고 있었다. 또한 학교수학에서 증명의 중요성은 인정하나 지도 방법에 대한 이해는 부족했으며 증명에 대한 지식 역시 교과서 의존도가 높았다. 한편 수학 교사들의 증명 스키마는 증명 지도 방법을 결정하는 중요한 요인으로 드러났다.

• 대한수학교육학회지:학교수학
• /
• 제4권1호
• /
• 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.