See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326713961

STUDENTS’ COMPETENCIES IN MATHEMATICAL PROOFS

Conference Paper · July 2018

DOI: 10.21125/edulearn.2018.1367

CITATIONS READS

0 294

3 authors:

Kristína Bulková Janka Medova

University of Constantinus the Philosopher in Nitra - Univerzita Konstant’na Filoz… University of Constantinus the Philosopher in Nitra - Univerzita Konstant’na Filoz…
4 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS    12 PUBLICATIONS   12 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sona Ceretkova
University of Constantinus the Philosopher in Nitra - Univerzita Konstant’na Filoz…
17 PUBLICATIONS   7 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Conceptual Modeling and Simulation of Internet of Things Ecosystems (KоMEIN) View project

Combinatorial thinking View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Janka Medova on 20 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 STUDENTS’ COMPETENCIES IN MATHEMATICAL PROOFS
Kristina Bulkova, Janka Medova, Sona Ceretkova
Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Constantine the Philosopher
University in Nitra (SLOVAKIA)

Abstract
The ability to reason and to defend one’s own attitudes and opinions is an inherent part of everyday
life. Correct and proper reasoning, argumentation and information processing is increasingly required.
Mathematics and science are based on valid relations and laws and are characterised by deductive
construction of knowledge. The mathematical thinking, the reasoning and the usage of arguments are
skills necessary for the construction of mathematical proofs as one of the higher-level skills showing
the level of mathematical literacy. Problems consisting of mathematical proof are so in school
mathematics, but they are necessary for the deeper understanding of mathematical principles,
especially in connection with the solving open-ended problems.
This paper is aimed to the analysis of authentic students’ solutions of open-ended problems containing
the mathematical proof. Problems were selected from Mathematical B-day contest assignment.
Students’ performance in solutions was assessed by the rubrics created for observing chosen
attributes: manifested mathematical competencies, progress of mathematical modelling, level of
mathematical argumentation, mathematical writing skills and creativity. Mentioned attributes also
defined the didactical variables for analysing solution of open-ended problems as mathematical
proofs. The relations that influenced the mathematical level of solution by statistical implicative
analysis based on comparison of 31 authentic students’ solutions are described.
Found relations were useful in identifying competencies for finding and formulating the mathematical
proofs. Argumentation and reasoning skills seem to be advanced argumentation skills the most
influencing factor for the correctness of proof. Rubric for assessing the mathematical proving
processes can be created by identified competencies.
Keywords: Mathematical proof, competency, open-ended problem.

1 INTRODUCTION
School mathematics is often perceived as unmemorable set of theorems, formulas and relations [10].
These students’ beliefs influence negatively their knowledge of fundamentals of mathematics
necessary for deeper understanding [20, 6].
Mathematical proving offers the way how to lead students to understand the importance of deductive
reasoning and logical inference. Proof as central feature of mathematics has an important role in
generating the understanding of a mathematical proposition and the mathematical context. In the
classroom, students have to be led for using the justification, proving strategies and technics and
various forms of proofs. Moreover, students have to understand the sense of proving itself [19]. The
ability to create the mathematical proof involves also learning strategic knowledge in specific areas
related to the problem at hand and knowledge and norms specific for proving and reasoning [17].
Harel and Sowder [9] distinguish between two kinds of activity associated with proving: ascertaining
which is meant to remove prover’s own doubts about the truth of an observation and persuading that
is aimed to remove others’ doubts. Robinson [19] distinguished two potential components of
mathematical proofs. Proof as guaranty judged by its syntactical correctness is demonstrating the truth
and theorem. Contrariwise, proof as explanation is judged by its explanatory value requested in
mathematical practice. “Some proofs merely establish their conclusions as true, while others also
explain their conclusions.” [5], Students have an experience mostly only with formal proofs in
mathematics education. Formal proof represents a sequence of formulas in formal language [1]. The
essence of mathematical open ended problems lies in inquiring and exploring connections between
mathematical objects, relations and principles, also in free choice of the best solution strategy. Open-
ended problems aimed on proving in mathematics, defined as ordinary mathematical proof [4],
represent the sequence of basic inferences. In the otherwise, the visual appearance of a proof is

Proceedings of EDULEARN18 Conference ISBN: 978-84-09-02709-5

2nd-4th July 2018, Palma, Mallorca, Spain 5650
usually irrelevant to qualities of the proof itself [5]. Every mathematical proof as student’s solution has
to be based on the standards of mathematics community.
Our research is focused on assessment the students’ solution written in complex report of
mathematical open-ended problems. Through the analysis of written reports, several competencies
were chosen as appropriate attributes for assessment the level of mathematical open-ended solving:
mathematical competencies, mathematical writing and creativity. Based on the Bloom Taxonomy of
Educational Objectives the six-level rubrics with performance description were created for mentioned
attributes.
The goal of this paper is to identify the aspects needed for ability to prove mathematically and find
relations detecting the competencies, which are observable in mathematical proving. Two research
questions were formulated: (1) What are the aspects influencing the higher level of students’
performance in finding and formulating the mathematical proofs? (2) Is the ability to prove
mathematically related to the ability to investigate mathematically?
We assume that attribute of mathematical writing, particularly argumentation and reasoning, are the
main influential aspects.

2 METHODOLOGY

2.1 Participants: Mathematical B-day contest

The contest Mathematical B-day in Slovak Republic is organised by Department of Mathematics in
Faculty of Natural Sciences at Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra. Contest is aimed for
upper secondary students interested in mathematics and it gives the opportunity to solve assignment
created with intention to motivate mathematical inquiring in three or four-member teams. Assignment
consists of 15-20 pages of mathematical text and tasks have gradually increasing level of difficulty.
Introductory tasks are helpful for deeper understanding of main theme of assignment. Following tasks
have character of open-ended problems aimed on proving and generalizing in mathematics and they
guide the solvers to create the mathematical model of situation in final assignment. The assessed
outcome is detailed written final report containing all steps and information of solvers approach. The
two best reports from each school are submitted for contest assessment. Origin of contest is from
Netherlands where Mathematics B-day contest is based on the educational program of mathematics
for university level of technical studies and studies in science and mathematics.
For this research, the students’ solutions of from Mathematical B-day 2016: A nice set of dice and
Mathematical B-day 2017: Arrow clock were used.
Assignment from year 2016 was focused on probability of winning in game with dice. Introducing tasks
in assignment explain the formula of calculating probability. Afterwards the dice game with cheating
set is introduced: “every die is an attractive option, since it is stronger than another die or several other
dice. But each die is also weaker than at least one other die in the set.” [11]. Following problems
encourage students to find the features valid in dice games and to generalise them. Final assignment
was focused on creating the mathematical model of cheating set of dice.
In 2017, the assignment was aimed on modular arithmetic, but also knowledge from basic calculus
knowledge, projection in geometry, mapping the points based on rule x→ ax+b, etc. was required. The
initial problem introduced the rules and principles in arrow clocks. Students in the following problems
of basic assignment were exploring the properties of clocks with different rules and were guided to
connect all findings to find general features. In final assignment, students were challenged for:
“Describe what geometrical phenomenon you are seeing: “Think of the mutual placement of the lines
or arrows, rotational or axial symmetry… Find patterns. … Explain the patterns.” [12].
Two particular open-ended problems, in form of mathematical proof were chosen from each
assignment.
• Problem 1: “Consider two dice with to following property: if a specific number of dots is on one
of the faces of A, it cannot also occur on dice B. Explain that ω(A,B)+ ω(B,A)=1.” [11].
• Problem 2: “We will now look at the general case: the rule is x→ ax and the clock has n hours.
Explain how it follows from the above theorem in the frame that every number is a target point if
a and n are relatively prime.” [12].

5651
Ability to solve non-routine mathematical problems is one of the basic components of the general
problem-solving ability [15]. For this reason, participants of Mathematical B-day contest represent the
appropriate sample for this research because of their relatively high achievement in solving process.
Together 31 authentic students’ solutions (21 solutions from Mathematical B-day 2016 and 10
solutions from Mathematical B-day 2017) were assessed according to mentioned above rubrics and
data were processed by statistical analysis.

2.2 Statistical analysis

Statistical implicative analysis [7] performed in R environment [18] using package rchic [2] was applied
to explore the mutual relations between defined attributes of assessing in open-ended problems aimed
on mathematical proving (Tab. 1).

Table 1. Names of didactical variables defined for criteria of assessed attributes.

ASSESSED
CRITERION OF ASSESSED ATTRIBUTE LEVELS NAME OF VARIABLE
ATTRIBUTE
Mathematical competencies 1-6 Competencies
Mathematical
Integrity of mathematical text 1-6 Integrity (MW)
writing
Mathematical Reasoning 1-6 Reasoning (MW)
Clarity and Readability 1-6 Clarity (MW)
Creativity Originality 1-6 Originality (CRE)
Correctness of conclusions 1-6 Conclusions (CRE)
Applicability of conclusions and solving process
1-6 Applicability (CRE)
value for following studies

Median was calculated for each didactical variable. The median value for each variable was 2,
therefore we assign value 0 to variables assessed as 0 to 2 and 1 was assigned to variables with the
level three or higher. Further we refer to variables with zero value as low-level and variables with value
1 as high-level of observed criteria.
Didactical variable Correctness of solution was defined for chosen problem aimed to mathematical
proving as well as for final assignment (Tab. 2).

Table 2. Didactical variables for correctness of solution.

Correct Incorrect
Proof 1 0
Final assignment 1 0

We take into account that the correctness of solution is observable fact, in contrast with variables
based on rubrics which are theoretical constructs. In agreement with Nesher et al. [14] we assume
that analysis of both types of variables can facilitate better understanding of aspects needed for
correct solution of complex problem, particularly mathematical proof.
Cluster analysis was performed using Euclidean distances and UPGMA clustering method. Heatmap
was generated in R environment using package gplots [22].

3 RESULTS AND FINDINGS

Statistical implicative analysis produced seven levels of rules (Fig. 1). The highest cohesion (c>0.999)
was estimated for pseudo-implication Conclusion (Cre) ↔ Applicability (Cre) we can conclude that
correctly formulated conclusions lead to universal tools for solving the problem with the same or
similar context and vice-verse conclusions applicable in further investigations are usually correct. The
high level of clarity of mathematical writing is conditional upon the original ideas reasonably connected

5652
to mathematical concept (c>0.999). This means that students who create ideas contributing to solution
are able to describe the solution clearly with only minor errors. This pseudo-implication is determined
by high level of mathematical reasoning (c=0.999). It means that advanced reasoning skills lead to
original approaches and well-described report of mathematical proof. Applicability of conclusions and
processes involved in solution for further mathematical inquiry is influenced by their correctness
(c>0.999). From the relation ((Argumentation_MW → (Originality_Cre → Clarity_MW)) →
((Conclusion_Cre → Applicability_Cre) → (Correctness → Integrity_MW))) (c=0.996) we presume that
high level of reasoning skill, use of original ideas and ability to formulate one’s own ideas clearly
indicates the corrects and applicable conclusions and processes leading to correct and coherent
mathematical proof. The last obtained rule (c=0.987) indicates that high level of mathematical
competencies can be assumed based on previous relations. Based on our analysis, the high level of
mathematical competencies is manifested by high level of creativity and mathematical writing.

Figure 1. Implicative tree.

Seven didactical variables are divided into 2 clusters (Fig. 2). In the first one, only clarity and integrity
of mathematical text are grouped. The second cluster is divided into two subclusters. One consists of
two creativity criteria (correctness of conclusions and applicability to other problems), the second
subcluster groups together originality of solution (criterion for creativity), argumentation (mathematical
writing) and mathematical competencies. Base on this we conclude that higher-level mathematical
competencies for proving are closely related to the ability to reason mathematically and to create
original ideas.

Figure 2. Heatmap.

5653
Teams of students are clustered (Fig. 2) into four clusters (P, Q, R, S). In each cluster there are
students from both analysed years of the contest. We can assume that the particular task did not have
significant effect on students manifested competencies. All the students with incorrect proof were
grouped into one cluster. Variable cluster P is conditioning high level of integrity, clarity and
argumentation criteria of mathematical writing is typical (cohesion > 0.95). High level of applicability
(c > 0.95), correctness of conclusions (c > 0.95) and originality (c > 0.9) is typical, too. High level of
manifested competencies is also conditioned upon the cluster P. In this cluster, there are grouped the
high-performing teams. Cluster Q is conditioning argumentation and mathematical competencies
(c > 0.95) and originality (c > 0.9). There is no R-rule connecting high level of any investigated
attribute and cluster R or S with cohesion higher than 0.85. We can conclude that for investigated
proof the excessive level of the observable criteria is not needed.
The contest assignments finish with independent mathematical investigation based on experience
obtained during solving the basic assignment. We can see that performance in the final assignment is
not influenced by proving subtask.
Further we present typical students’ solution for each cluster with description of formal assessment
based on rubric, which were also used in statistical analysis.

3.1 Excerpts from solutions clustered in cluster P

Excerpt from 2016: Let’s have two dice: A: 1, 1, 3, 3, 5, 5 and B: 2, 2, 4, 4, 6, 6. We can get
a score of following combinations in this game: 1:2; 3:2; 5:2; 1:4; 3:4; 5:4; 1:6; 3:6; 5:6.
Based on these combinations, it is obvious that dice do not share any numbers on their
faces and one of the dice will have higher number after each play. Only two cases can
happen: A > B or B > A. It means, that draw cannot happen with these kind of dice. ... It is
possible to say for sure, that certain part of possible combination from 36 of them will be in
account with win of die A, rest of them in account with win of die B. It means, if the

probability , so the probability of . After addition of mentioned

probabilities we become to termination, that in this way:

Excerpt from 2017: Lets imagine sequential adding of number b with initial number x until
we reach on the same point. We are able to express the number as result of addition as
lcm(n,b)+x. If b and n are relatively prime and the start point is x=0, the resulting value will be
lcm (n,b)=nb. … we will use the proof by contradiction:
V: gcd(n,b) = 1 <=> {kn mod b; k ϵ Z ∩ ˂1;b˃} = ˂0;b-1˃ ∩ Z

If this proposition is valid, so it is possible to get on all positions after few

moves from point 0 by b, thus also all position f points following the 0… (f represents all
possible reminders after dividing with number b). If we add number b with every f several
times, we can reach every point of dial of clock (if the proposition V is valid). If n and b are
relatively prime, then kb mod n = l * gcd(n,b) > 1, so there is no option to go from point 0 to
point 1.
We are going to prove by proof by contracition if proposition V holds for b and n which are
relatively prime: Lets have numbers c, d, for which is valid d*n ≥ c*n and d ≤ b and cn (mod
b). It follows that dn – cn = kb, so (d – c)n = kb. Based on conditions is following d – c ˂ b,
so (d – c)n ˂ bn. We found out in negation of propisition V, that in the relation exists (d – c)n
˂ bn, so (d- c) n ˂ lcm(b,n) therefore (d – c)n = kb, so (d – c)n is common multiple n, b less
than lcm(b,n), what is contradiction.
Higher level of manifested mathematical competencies is observable in excerpts of students’ solutions
from cluster P. Students’ solutions have the form of the coherent mathematical text, in which lacking
details partly interfere with the coherence of text. The mathematical reasoning supported by
mathematical argumentation is included in both excerpts of solutions. Text is mostly clear. The
language style and word choice are mostly effective. Final ideas in solution are connected and
combined in complex contribution for solving the problem. Mathematical proof is applicable for the
same or similar context of the close discipline.

5654
3.2 Excerpts from solutions clustered in cluster Q
Excerpt from 2016: Three results can happen in game with two dice. The winning of die A,
the winning of die B or draw. It means, that probability of happening the one of these three
results equals 1. It follows, that sum of probabilities the mentioned situations also equals 1. If
we have two dice, which fulfil described condition then the draw can never happen in this
game. It follows that the probability of draw equals 0. The sum of probabilities that one of
these dice is going to win has to be equal to 1.”
Excerpt from 2017: Let the mapping x → ax. If gcd(a,n) = 1 then each number is a target
point. We use the proof by contradiction. Let there is a number, which is target point. Based
on Dirichlet principle there exists a target point, which has different starting points. Without
loss of generality it holds that n ≥ x ≥ y ≥ 0. Also the equation x = y + j, 0 ˂ j ˂ n holds.
It follows: ax mod n = ay mod n and ax = kn + ay, where k is integer. We get after dividing
the equation x = y + kn/a. Afterwards, the following equations hold:
ax = ay + aj
aj = kn
j = kn/a
kn/a < n
After dividing n: k/a ˂ 1 it follows that k is not divisible by a. Hence, kn is not divisible by a,
and it follows y + kn/a is not integer, what is a contradiction, because numbers x, y are
integers.
Students in excerpt are showing the mathematical competencies on level of description of
mathematical objects and situation. Stated mathematical proof is a part of more elaborated reports,
but lacking details interfere with the coherence of text. The formulation of proof contains the
mathematical argumentation, but used reasoning just is missing the mathematical evidence. Text is
mostly clear, the language style and vocabulary are simple. Ideas in excerpt from 2016 are
connected with the description of basics concepts and the generalization of solution could be
difficult. Ideas also are connected with description of basic concepts with solvers’ assumption, but
with modification it is possible to make the universal tool from conclusion in excerpt from 2017.

3.3 Excerpt from solutions clustered in cluster R

Excerpt from 2016: If ω(A,B) + ω(B,A) = 1, then we can say, that the draw can never
happen because die A does not have any number in common with die B. The probability of
winning of the die A is complementary to probability to winning the die B and their sum
equals 1 every time.
Any from students’ solution of assigned problem in 2017 do not belong to the cluster R. Most solutions
in this cluster showed the same level of students’ performance: knowledge of concepts, facts,
assertions and approaches. The details are moreover relevant, but information may be lacking and
inaccurate with used basic mathematical terminology and argumentation. Ideas are chosen just from
the field of main topic and conclusion is created by rewording the assignment or on the basic definition
of expected result in order to fit it. The excerpt contains the elements for solving some particular
problems, but not the problem as a whole.

3.4 Excerpts from solutions clustered in cluster S

Excerpt from 2016: „The answer is no. If a specific number of dots is on one of the faces of
A and it cannot also occur on dice B, then the sum of probabilities has to be equal 1.”
Excerpt from 2017: “There is a reminder after dividing of not relatively prime, which is
illustrating some figure except 0. It says that also odd numbers can be target points as we
showed in task 4a. If the relatively primes are without reminder, it says, that odd numbers
never can be target points, just starting point as we showed in task 4b.
Students’ solutions do not meet the specific criteria for coherent mathematical text and used
information is mostly irrelevant. Created proof is composed only from assumptions and reflexion. All
ideas are copied from assignment and are created by rewording of assignment. In excerpt from 2017,

5655
students are appealed on examples in previous solutions with specific numeral result. Both
conclusions do not represent tool for solving the problem, even for other purposes.

4 DISCUSSION
In this paper we analysed proof as a kind of open-ended problem in sense of Schoenfeld [20]. We
assessed three attributes of mathematical proof created by students: (1) mathematical competencies;
(2) mathematical writing; and (3) creativity. More detailed criteria were defined for mathematical writing
and creativity. We investigated mutual relations between levels of defined criteria manifested in
students’ solutions. We found that advanced argumentation skills are the most influencing factor for
the correctness of proof. High level of reasoning skills caused the correct proof. However, the
solutions belonging to cluster R show only low level of argumentation but the produced proof is
correct. Lot of authors [16] have distinguished argumentation from proof where justification is carried
out mainly for the authors’ ascertaining and the mathematically correct proof. It is worth pointing out
that the correct proof does not ensure the brilliantly written reasoning. That is to say that the reasoning
can be very strict and using mathematical symbolic. Therefore, it is reasonable to develop a rubric for
assessing argumentation within problems aimed to mathematical proving.
Despite the findings of Mejia-Ramos et al. [13] that high-level ideas may be necessary in order to
successfully transfer ideas and methods into another context, based on our data it appears that
correctness of proof and high-level competencies manifested in proving problem are not related to
advanced level of mathematical inquiry within the same assignment.
Even high performing students failed in proving in spite of investigating several examples. Similarly, to
[21] in some cases the exemplification replaced the formal proof. On the other hand, Ellis et al. [3]
pose that already middle school are able to formulate the proof after satisfactory in-depth example
exploration. The low success rate can be caused also by the fact that the proving problem was a part
of more complex assignment and students did not put enough emphasis to the partial problem.

5 CONCLUSIONS
Our results confirmed that proving skills are built upon argumentation and reasoning. Low level of the
argumentation has only limited effect on correctness of the proof. On the other hand, with increasing
level of argumentation also level of other investigated criteria increased. More mathematically
competent students were able to provide notably high level argumentation. Ability to formulate correct
conclusions and the applicability of those conclusions has shown to be strongly interrelated. The
mathematical writing skills, especially clarity and integrity were detached from argumentation by
cluster analysis.
Surprisingly, the ability to prove mathematically seems to have only marginal influence to performance
in mathematical investigations manifested in final assignment of contest Mathematical B-day.
More work remains to be done, however, in translating findings such as these into concrete ways to
help students learn to prove mathematically.
For complex assessment of teamwork on mathematical open-ended problems to observe social
competencies of students (mutual interaction and communication) is also needed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The paper was supported by project UGA VII/4/2018; The analysis of mathematical open-ended
problem solving in teams.

REFERENCES
[1] L.E. Andersen, “Acceptable gaps in mathematical proofs” in Synthese, pp. 1-15, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-1778-8
[2] R. Couturier. „rchic: Statistical Implicative Analysis“. R package version 0.25.
https://github.com/rchic/Rchic/ 2018

5656
 [3] A.E. Ellis, E. Lockwood, C.C.W Williams, M.F Dogan, E. Knuth, “Middle school students’
example use in conjecture exploration and justification”, in Proceedings of the 34th Annual
Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 2012.
[4] D. Fallis, “Intentional gaps in mathematical proofs” Synthese, 134, pp. 45-69, 2003.
[5] M. Giawuinto, “Mathematical Proofs: The Beautiful and The Explanatory” Journal of Humanistic
Mathematics, vol. 6, Issue 1, pp. 50-72, 2016.
[6] G.A. Goldin, Y.M. Epstein, R.Y. Schorr, L.B. Warner, “Beliefs and engagement structures:
behind the affective dimension of mathematical learning” ZDM, vol. 43, pp. 547-560, 2011, DOI
10.1007/s11858-011-0348-z
[7] R.Gras, S.A. Almouloud, M.Bailleul, A.Lahrer, M.Polo, H.Rastimba-Rajohn, et al. L'implication
statistique: nouvelle méthode exploratoire de données, applications à la didactique: La Pensée
sauvag, 1996.
[8] G. Hanna, “Reflections on Proof as Explanation” in A. J. Stylianides & G. Harel (Eds.),
Advances in Mathematics Education Research on Proof and Proving: An International
Perspective (pp. 3-18). Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018.
[9] G. Harel, L. Sowder, "Students’ proof schemes: Results from exploratory studies." Research in
collegiate mathematics education III (1998): 234-283.
[10] M. Lampert, “When the Problem Is Not the Question and the Solution Is Not the Answer:
Mathematical Knowing and Teaching”, in American Educational Research Journal, vol. 27, no.
1, pp. 29-63, 1990. DOI: 10.3102/00028312027001029
[11] Mathematics B-day 2016: A nice set of dice. https://www.uu.nl/en/files/mathematics-b-day-
2016.pdf
[12] Mathematics B-day 2017: Arrow clocks.
http://www.fisme.science.uu.nl/wisbdag/opdrachten/assignment2017.pdf
[13] J.P Mejia-Ramos, E. Fuller, K. Weber, K. Rhoads, A. Samkoff, “An assessment model for proof
comprehension in undergraduate mathematics”, Educational Studies in Mathematics, vol. 79,
no. 1, pp. 3-18, 2012. DOI: 10.1007/s10649-011-9349-7
[14] P. Nesher, S. Hershkovitz, J. Novotna “Situation model, Text Base and what else? Factors
affecting Problem Solving.” Educational Studies in Mathematics, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 151-176,
2003. DOI: 10.1023/a:1024028430965
[15] M. Pantziara, A. Gagatsis, I. Elia, “Using diagrams as tools for the solution of non-routine
mathematical problems“, ESM, vol 72, pp. 39-60, 2009. 10.1007/s10649-009-9181-5
[16] B. Pedemotne, “How can the relationship between argumentation and proof be analysed?”
Educ Stud Math. Vol. 66, No. 1. Pp 23-41, 2007. DOI 10.1007/s10649-006-9057-x
[17] A. Pinto, R. Karsenty, “From course design to presentations of proof: How mathematics
professors atted to student independent proof reading” Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 49,
pp. 129-144, 2018.
[18] R Core Team. “R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for
Statistical Computing”, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/, 2018.
[19] J.A. Robinson, “Proof = guarantee + explanation” in S. Hölldobler (Ed.), Intellectics and
computational logic (pp. 277–294). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer., 2000.
[20] A.H. Schoenfeld, “Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense
making in mathematics” in D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching
and learning (Vol. 334370). New York: Macmillan, 1992.
[21] D. Thompson “Reasoning and proof in precalculus and discrete mathematics”, Paper presented
at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, 1991.
[22] G. Warnes, B. Bolker, L. Bonebakker et al. “gplots: Various R Programming Tools for Plotting
Data.” R package version 3.0.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=gplots, 2016.

5657

View publication stats