• Title/Summary/Keyword: proofs for geometric problems

Search Result 5, Processing Time 0.019 seconds

An Analysis of Types of Errors Found in the Proofs for Geometric Problems - Based on Middle School Course (중학교 기하 증명의 서술에서 나타나는 오류의 유형 분석)

  • Hwang, Jae-Woo;Boo, Deok Hoon
    • The Mathematical Education
    • /
    • v.54 no.1
    • /
    • pp.83-98
    • /
    • 2015
  • By analysing the examination papers for geometry, we classified the errors occured in the proofs for geometric problems into 5 main types - logical invalidity, lack of inferential ability or knowledge, ambiguity on communication, incorrect description, and misunderstanding the question - and each types were classified into 2 or 5 subtypes. Based on the types of errors, answers of each problem was analysed in detail. The errors were classified, causes were described, and teaching plans to prevent the error were suggested case by case. To improve the students' ability to express the proof of geometric problems, followings are needed on school education. First, proof learning should be customized for each types of errors in school mathematics. Second, logical thinking process must be emphasized in the class of mathematics. Third, to prevent and correct the errors found in the proofs for geometric problems, further research on the types of such errors are needed.

The Relationship between Pre-service Teachers' Geometric Reasoning and their van Hiele Levels in a Geometer's Sketchpad Environment

  • LEE, Mi Yeon
    • Research in Mathematical Education
    • /
    • v.19 no.4
    • /
    • pp.229-245
    • /
    • 2015
  • In this study, I investigated how pre-service teachers (PSTs) proved three geometric problems by using Geometer's SketchPad (GSP) software. Based on observations in class and results from a test of geometric reasoning, eight PSTs were sorted into four of the five van Hiele levels of geometric reasoning, which were then used to predict the PSTs' levels of reasoning on three tasks involving proofs using GSP. Findings suggested that the ways the PSTs justified their geometric reasoning across the three questions demonstrated their different uses of GSP depending on their van Hiele levels. These findings also led to the insight that the notion of "proof" had somewhat different meanings for students at different van Hiele levels of thought. Implications for the effective integration of technology into pre-service teacher education programs are discussed.

SOME APPLICATIONS OF RESISTANT LENGTH TO ANALYTIC FUNCTIONS

  • Chung, Bo-Hyun
    • Journal of applied mathematics & informatics
    • /
    • v.27 no.5_6
    • /
    • pp.1473-1479
    • /
    • 2009
  • We introduce the resistant length and examine its properties. We also consider the geometric applications of resistant length to the boundary behavior of analytic functions, conformal mappings and derive the theorem in connection with the fundamental sequences, purely geometric problems. The method of resistant length leads a simple proofs of theorems. So it shows us the usefulness of the method of resistant length.

  • PDF

Mathematically Gifted 6th Grade Students' Proof Ability for a Geometric Problem (초등학교 6학년 수학영재들의 기하 과제 증명 능력에 관한 사례 분석)

  • Song, Sang-Hun;Chang, Hye-Won;Chong, Yeong-Ok
    • Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics
    • /
    • v.16 no.4
    • /
    • pp.327-344
    • /
    • 2006
  • This study examined the proof levels and understanding of constituents of proving by three mathematically gifted 6th grade korean students, who belonged to the highest 1% in elementary school, through observation and interviews on the problem-solving process in relation to constructing a rectangle of which area equals the sum of two other rectangles. We assigned the students with Clairaut's geometric problems and analyzed their proof levels and their difficulties in thinking related to the understanding of constituents of proving. Analysis of data was made based on the proof level suggested by Waring (2000) and the constituents of proving presented by Galbraith(1981), Dreyfus & Hadas(1987), Seo(1999). As a result, we found out that the students recognized the meaning and necessity of proof, and they peformed some geometric proofs if only they had teacher's proper intervention.

  • PDF

Analysis on Students' Abilities of Proof in Middle School (중학교 학생의 증명 능력 분석)

  • 서동엽
    • Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics
    • /
    • v.9 no.1
    • /
    • pp.183-203
    • /
    • 1999
  • In this study, we analysed the constituents of proof and examined into the reasons why the students have trouble in learning the proof, and proposed directions for improving the teaming and teaching of proof. Through the reviews of the related literatures and the analyses of textbooks, the constituents of proof in the level of middle grades in our country are divided into two major categories 'Constituents related to the construction of reasoning' and 'Constituents related to the meaning of proof. 'The former includes the inference rules(simplification, conjunction, modus ponens, and hypothetical syllogism), symbolization, distinguishing between definition and property, use of the appropriate diagrams, application of the basic principles, variety and completeness in checking, reading and using the basic components of geometric figures to prove, translating symbols into literary compositions, disproof using counter example, and proof of equations. The latter includes the inferences, implication, separation of assumption and conclusion, distinguishing implication from equivalence, a theorem has no exceptions, necessity for proof of obvious propositions, and generality of proof. The results from three types of examinations; analysis of the textbooks, interview, writing test, are summarized as following. The hypothetical syllogism that builds the main structure of proofs is not taught in middle grades explicitly, so students have more difficulty in understanding other types of syllogisms than the AAA type of categorical syllogisms. Most of students do not distinguish definition from property well, so they find difficulty in symbolizing, separating assumption from conclusion, or use of the appropriate diagrams. The basic symbols and principles are taught in the first year of the middle school and students use them in proving theorems after about one year. That could be a cause that the students do not allow the exact names of the principles and can not apply correct principles. Textbooks do not describe clearly about counter example, but they contain some problems to solve only by using counter examples. Students have thought that one counter example is sufficient to disprove a false proposition, but in fact, they do not prefer to use it. Textbooks contain some problems to prove equations, A=B. Proving those equations, however, students do not perceive that writing equation A=B, the conclusion of the proof, in the first line and deforming the both sides of it are incorrect. Furthermore, students prefer it to developing A to B. Most of constituents related to the meaning of proof are mentioned very simply or never in textbooks, so many students do not know them. Especially, they accept the result of experiments or measurements as proof and prefer them to logical proof stated in textbooks.

  • PDF