Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A Comparison of Proof Comprehension Proo PDF
A Comparison of Proof Comprehension Proo PDF
xx, yyyy
Introduction
In the mathematics education research literature on proof and proving, there are four related
concepts: proof comprehension, proof construction, proof validation, and proof evaluation.
There has been little research on how these four concepts are related. We first briefly describe
these four concepts, then we consider how they are related. That is, how are they the same?
How are they different? Finally, we discuss some related teaching implications and research.
1
khdm-Report, Nr. xx, yyyy
Proof evaluation has been described by Pfeiffer (2011) as determining whether a proof is
correct and “also how good it is regarding a wider range of features such as clarity, context,
sufficiency without excess, insight, convincingness or enhancement of understanding.” (p. 5).
However, in order to distinguish proof evaluation from proof validation, we will put aside the
portion referring to validation and concentrate on features of proofs including clarity, context,
convincingness, beauty, elegance, and depth (e.g., Inglis & Aberdein, 2015). We would also
like to separate proof evaluation from the use of adjectives that we have found with student
validations, where terms like “wacky” and “confusing” were used when evaluating other
students’ proof attempts (Selden & Selden, 2015).
2
khdm-Report, Nr. xx, yyyy
Can students be taught these strategies? Samkoff and Weber (2015) attempted to teach these
five strategies, using reciprocal teaching, and found a qualified “yes”. Instantiating a theorem
statement with an example helped students understand its proof. Students were also able to
identify proof methods, especially if they looked at the proof’s assumptions and conclusions.
However, students did not instantiate a line of a proof with a specific example. In addition,
Samkoff and Weber found that simply asking students to “know the definitions of the terms in
the theorem” was not enough. Moreover, simply asking students how to prove a theorm
before reading its proof lead to superficial responses (e.g., “use epsilons”).
Furthermore, it seems that how one reads a proof depends on what one wants to “get out of it”
(Rav, 1999). Indeed, Mejia-Ramos and Weber (2014) found that mathematicians commonly
read published proofs to gain insight, not to check their correctness, and additionally, that
mathematicians consider refereeing a proof to be a substantially different activity.
Proof construction
We limit our consideration to situations in which undergraduates are asked to prove theorems,
not to conjecture them, as this is the more common situation in U.S. undergraduate
mathematics education. What is needed for successful proof construction? It is not clear that
this has been discussed much in the mathematics education research literature. However, the
kinds of difficulties that can stop students from proving a theorem have been researched.
These include: Difficulties interpreting and using mathematical definitions and theorems.
Difficulties interpreting the logical structure of a theorem statement one wishes to prove.
Difficulties using existential and universal quantifiers. Difficulties handling symbolic
notation. Knowing, but not bringing, appropriate information to mind. Knowing which
(previous) theorems are important (e.g., Selden & Selden, 2008: Weber, 2001).
One overlap of proof construction with both proof comprehension and proof validation seems
to be in knowing and using definitions and theorems appropriately. For proof construction,
one needs to bring definitions and theorems to mind at an appropriate time so one can use
them. However, in proof comprehension and proof validation, definitions and theorems have
already been invoked, so one does not have to think of them, rather one only has to decide if
they have been used appropriately. In general, it would seem that creating a new proof
oneself, would be harder than merely comprehending what has already been done by someone
else or checking its correctness, provided it is not a “garbled” student proof attempt.
Proof validation
While proof validation has been described briefly as the reading of, and reflection on, a proof
attempt to determine its correctness, much is involved. Selden and Selden (2003) elaborated
on what it might take to validate a proof attempt, suggesting that doing so is more complex
than simply reading from the top-down:
Validation can include asking and answering questions, assenting to claims,
constructing subproofs, remembering or finding and interpreting other theorems
and definitions, complying with instructions (e.g., to consider or name something),
and conscious (but probably nonverbal) feelings of rightness or wrongness.
Proof validation can also include the production of a new text—a validator-
constructed modification of the written argument—that might include additional
3
khdm-Report, Nr. xx, yyyy
If one compares this statement on proof validation with the Mejia-Ramos, et al. (2012)
assessment model for proof comprehension, there seem to be several possible common
features: Knowing the definitions of key terms. Checking the logical status of statements.
Knowing which proof framework was used. Constructing subproofs. Perhaps summarizing
the proof. But, the relation to considering examples is not so clear. However, in this regard,
Weber (2008) found that his eight mathematicians used example-based reasoning in proof
validation, that is, they often checked the truth of an implied warrant through use of a
carefully chosen example. It may be that many mathematicians, through experience, have
developed implicit knowledge of which examples are likely to be useful.
One big difference between proof comprehension and proof validation might be that in most
proof comprehension situations one can reasonably assume a proof is correct, especially if it
appears in a lecture or textbook. Indeed, one’s skepticism about the validity of a proof may
depend greatly upon its source--whether from a textbook, a journal, a colleague, or a student.
On this issue, Samkoff and Weber (2015) concluded, “It would not be surprising if strategies
for [proof] validation differed from those of [proof] comprehension. ”
Proof evaluation
As described above, proof evaluation seems more like making value judgments about a
finished proof or a published proof text. When a student’s proof attempt is being examined by
another student, such judgments can be about not understanding what is written, rather than
about its beauty, clarity, elegance, or depth. In the recent Selden and Selden (2015) validation
study, students said they found parts of the proof attempts “confusing”, “convoluted”, or “a
mess”. One student found the notation “wacky”. Other student validators said too much or too
little information was given in a proof. Thus, for students, it seems that “making sense” of
(i.e., understanding/comprehending) a proof attempt (as written) is a prerequisite for proof
validation to begin.
In an internet study, Inglis and Aberdein (2014) asked 255 mathematicians to consider
whether a proof of their own choosing was “elegant”, “insightful”, “explanatory”, “polished”,
and so forth. The mathematicians were provided 80 such adjectives. The authors concluded
that mathematicians’ adjective choices could be classified along four dimensions: aesthetics,
intricacy, utility, and precision. Additionally, we conjecture that evaluations such as those
made by these mathematicians would require a certain familiarity with, and competence with,
proof comprehension and proof construction. We feel one would need to have seen (i.e.,
comprehended) and constructed many proofs in order to make value judgments on
characteristics such as elegance, insightfulness, and depth.
While naïve student judgments about whether a is proof “confusing” are often personal and
idiosyncratic, these might sometimes also be a characteristic of how a proof was written.
Proofs are written in a certain genre (Selden & Selden, 2013) and advice is often given to both
student and mathematician authors on how to write them (e.g., Tomforde, n.d.). In our
4
khdm-Report, Nr. xx, yyyy
“proofs” course (Selden, McKee, & Selden, 2010), we first validate students’ proof attempts,
then go over them again to comment on their style (i.e., their adherence to the genre of proof).
In sum
There are more questions here than answers. One can not only ask, how are proof
comprehension, proof construction, proof validation, and proof evaluation realted, but also
how does one teach them? Which should be taught first or should they be taught in some
combination? What is the effect of doing so?
It would seem that students’ proof comprehension would benefit from their attempts at proof
construction and vice versa--suggesting these two concepts/skills should be taught together.
Indeed, reading comprehension researchers (e.g., McGee & Richgels, 1990) state that reading
and writing taught together result in better learning. In addition, before submitting a proof,
whether for homework or a journal, one needs to validate it for oneself to ensure its
correctness. Finally, it would seem that one should have a good grasp of the first three--proof
comprehension, proof construction, and proof validation--before attempting to evaluate proofs
as beautiful, elegant, insightful, obscure, and so forth.
5
khdm-Report, Nr. xx, yyyy
explanation training tended to generate higher quality explanations and performed better on a
comprehension test constructed according to the assessment principles of Mejia-Ramos, et al.
(2012). The students also increased their cognitive engagement. Experiment 3, with 107
students in a lecture situation, showed that 15 minues of reading a self-study intevention
booklet, describing self-explanation, also improved students’ proof comprehension, and this
improvement persisted over time, suggesting proof comprhension can be taught effectively.
References
Fukawa-Connelly, T., Lew, K., Mejia-Ramos, J. P. & Weber, K. (2014). Why lectures in advanced
mathematics often fail. In Proc. 38th Conference of PME (Vol. 3), 129-136. Vancouver.
Hodds, M., Alcock, L., & Inglis, M. (2014). Self-explanation training improves proof comprehension.
Jour. For Research in Mathematics Education, 45(1), 62-101.
Inglis, M., & Aberdein, A. (2015). Beauty is not simplicity: An analysis of mathematicians’ proof
appraisals, Philosophia Mathematica, 23(1), 87-109.
Inglis, M., & Alcock, L.(2012). Expert and novice approaches to reading mathematical proofs, Journal
for Research in Mathematics Education, 43(4), 358-390.
McGee, L. M., & Richgels, D. J. (1990). Learning from text using reading and writing. In T. Shanahan
(Ed.), Reading and writing together: New perspectives for the classroom (pp. 145-168). Norwood,
MA: Christopher Gordon.
Mejia-Ramos, J. P., Fuller, E., Weber, K., Rhoads, K., & Samkoff, A. (2012). An assessment model
for proof comprehension in undergraduate mathematics. Educ. Studies in Mathematics, 79(1), 3-18.
Mejia-Ramos, J. P., & Weber, K. (2014). Why and how mathematicians read proofs: Further evidence
from a survey study. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 85(2), 161-173
Pfeiffer, K. (2011). Features and purposes of mathematical proofs in the view of novice students:
Observations from proof validation and evaluation performances. (Doctoral dissertation) National
University of Ireland, Galway.
Rav, Y. (1999). Why do we prove theorems? Philosophia Mathematica, 7(3), 5-41.
Samkoff, A., & Weber, K. (2015). Lessons learned from an instructional intervention on proof
comprehension. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 39, 28-50l
Selden, A., McKee, K., & Selden, J. (2010) Affect, behavioural schemas, and the proving process.
International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 41(2), 199-215.
Selden, A., & Selden, J. (2015). Validations of proofs as a type of reading and sense-making. In K.
Beswick, T. Muir, & J. Wells (Eds.), Proc. of the 39th Conf. of PME, Vol. 4 (pp. 145-152). Hobart.
Selden, A., & Selden, J. (2013). The genre of proof. In M. N. Fried & T. Dreyfus (Eds.), Mathematics
and mathematics education: Searching for common ground (pp. 248-251). Springer: New York.
Selden, A., & Selden, J. (2008). Overcoming students’ difficulties in learning to understand and
construct proofs. In M. P. Carlson & C. Rasmussen (Eds.), Making the connection: Research and
teaching in undergraduate mathematics education (pp. 95-110). MAA: Washington, DC.
Selden, A., & Selden, J. (2003). Validations of proofs considered as texts: Can undergraduates tell
whether an argument proves a theorem? Jour. for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(1), 4-36.
Tomforde, M. (n.d.). Mathematical writing: A brief guide. Downloaded Sept. 26, 2015 from
Tomforde_MathWriting.pdf.
Weber, K. (2015). Effective proof reading strategies for comprehending mathematical proofs.
International Journal for Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 1(3), 289-314.
Weber, K. (2008). How mathematicians determine whether an argument is a valid proof?, Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4), 431-459.
Weber, K. (2001). Student difficulty in constructing proofs: The need for strategic knowledge.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 48, 101-119.