BOOK REVIEW

Barbin, E., Duval, R., Giorgiutti, I., Houdebine, J. and Laborde, C. (Eds.),
Produire et lire des textes de démonstration, Paris: Ellipses, 2001, ISBN:
2-7298-0675-X, 266 pp.

This edited collection focuses on the processes of producing and inter-

preting the ‘texts’ – in a broad sense – through which the unfolding of
mathematical proofs is made explicit. The guiding idea of the book is that
such texts can be viewed from many perspectives; not only mathematical,
but historical, epistemological, didactic and cognitive.
The essentials are well captured in the opening collective chapter by
Barbin, Duval, Houdebine and Laborde which analyses – from each of
these perspectives – three proof texts relating to a particular geometric
property. The property in question is the trisection of the diagonal between
two vertices of a parallelogram by a line segment drawn from one of the
other vertices to the midpoint of an opposite side. One of the consider-
ations guiding the authors’ choice of this property as an example is its
amenability to treatment in terms of different geometrical frameworks:
classical, vectorial and barycentrical1 . The particular proof texts chosen
for analysis come from a contemporary schoolbook and a well-known
early-twentieth-century collection of exercises and problems.
The opening epistemological analysis “with a historical base” considers
the texts in terms of their dependence on method of reasoning: one of
the texts relies on vectorial and algebraic calculation; the others on a co-
ordinated reading of written text and accompanying figure; in particular,
on identifying elements referred to in the written text within a complex
figure. A simpler proof is suggested – based on operations with triangle
pieces and calculations concerning these – on the principle of reducing
or eliminating the “logico-discursive”. The following cognitive analysis

1 ‘Barycentrical’ is a term not familiar in English. As used here, it refers to geomet-

rical arguments that rest on the taken-as-given properties of the centroid of a triangle;
and generalises to include similar use of the properties of other geometrical – and
physical – centres. (For the english term ‘barycentre’, ‘the centre of mass of a sys-
tem’, see <http://www.xrefer.com/entry/485771>. For the French term ‘barycentre’, see
<http://www.bib.ulb.ac.be/coursmath/bary. htm>.

Educational Studies in Mathematics 51: 145–147, 2002.

© 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
146

examines the place of individual propositions of the written text within the
overall flow of argument, and the shifts of attention between written text
and accompanying figure. The main conclusion is that the complexity of
the texts depends not on the passage from one propositional step to the
next but on the limitations of designating in words those objects within
the figure that a proposition refers to. The third analysis focuses on the
differential framing of the task to which the texts constitute responses; as
problem-to-solve or as result-to-prove; as a matter of computation or of
reasoning. The closing didactical analysis shifts the focus towards matters
of teaching choices. The three texts are seen as having the potential to
give insight into the multiplicity of mathematical styles. But perhaps most
important, much remains implicit in the texts as presented; in particular,
the heuristic reasoning informing the development of arguments is not
signalled. From these four contributions, the “paradoxical” conclusion is
drawn: “If a proof is never identifiable in the text which presents it, it
cannot be made without a text which makes explicit and accomplishes the
different operations of the course of the proof” (p. 8).
The remainder of the book is organised into five sections. The first
of these is entitled “epistemological and historical aspects”. Here, Barbin
compares approaches to writing proofs, with the aim of capturing the way
in which mathematicians use words and images. Guichard examines ten
proof texts of the same geometrical theorem authored by what he terms
‘pedagogue mathematicians’, and then five further proof texts chosen for
their very different styles.
The second section is entitled “proof as an object of teaching”. Beck
reports a linguistic analysis comparing proofs in school mathematics text-
books with other argumentative texts (ranging from Conan Doyle to Voltaire)
encountered by pupils at a similar age. Houdebine compares a broader
range of mathematical proof texts – from algebra, analysis, and probability
as well as geometry – showing that despite their apparent diversity the
underlying rules of organisation are essentially the same, with differences
relating more to variations in the frequency of particular elements.
The third section is entitled “teaching sequences”. Bellard and Lewil-
lion discuss the use of visual schemas intended to help pupils distinguish
premises from conclusion in theorem statements, and then analyse related
examples of pupils’ work. Combes and Bonafé analyse pupils’ written “re-
search narratives” recording their strategic moves in investigating a simple
combinatorial problem by generating a data pattern with a view to forming
an algebraic generalisation. Thomas-Van Dieren reports a teaching ap-
proach in which practical drawing and colouring activities provide a basis
 147

for subsequent mathematical analysis of these activities and the structure

of the materials they involve.
The fourth section is entitled “pupils and proof”. Duval presents an ex-
tended theorisation of the distinctive cognitive features of writing which he
summarises as follows: two types of rationality have developed in western
thought; one is linked to speech, based on dialogue, and oriented towards
the regulation of social interactions; the other, developed much later, is
linked to writing, meeting the needs of control and proof, and oriented
towards the creation of theoretical models. On this basis he argues that
learning mathematical proof makes a contribution to the general education
of pupils by giving them access to these types of rationality, and developing
their awareness of the differences between them. Houdebine describes –
and exemplifies the application of – a framework for analysing pupils’
productions with the aim of identifying those elements relating to proof,
and then diagnosing the strengths and weaknesses of individual pupils with
a view to helping progress.
The fifth and final section is entitled “the computer tool”. Its focus
is on the treatment of proof texts in intelligent tutoring systems for geo-
metry. Py provides a general introduction, followed by specific discus-
sion of Mentoniezh and ARRIA. Luengo discusses the design rationale of
Cabri-Euclide, linked to some of the ideas considered in earlier sections.
Rather briefly, Simon describes Premiers Pas, and Py gives a summary
of some work with Mentoniezh. El Gass and Giorgiutti report on pupils’
interactions with DEFI, and compare pupils’ productions in computer and
pencil-and-paper environments.
Disappointingly, there is no concluding chapter to synthesise the varied
individual contributions to the book, to suggest their collective implica-
tions for policy and practice, and to relate them back to the wider research
field. As far as these latter matters are concerned, few of the contributions
are strongly oriented towards policy or practice. Equally, little account is
taken of wider bodies of work in mathematics education on the teaching
and learning of mathematical proof, or on issues of language and represent-
ation, reading and writing. However, for those seeking new contributions
to the evolving scholarship of proof in mathematics education, this book
offers some interesting lines of theorisation and distinctive approaches to
analysis.
K ENNETH RUTHVEN
University of Cambridge, Faculty of Education,
Cambridge, United Kingdom