FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

PROSPECTIVE MATHEMATICS TEACHERS’ USE OF MATHEMATICAL

DEFINITIONS IN DOING PROOF

BY

NERMIN BAYAZIT

A Dissertation submitted to the

School of Teacher Education
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded:
Summer Semester, 2009

Copyright© 2009
Nermin Bayazit
All Rights Reserved
The members of the committee approved the dissertation of Nermin Bayazit defended on
June 18, 2009.

________________________
Elizabeth Jakubowski
Professor Directing Dissertation

________________________
Alec Kercheval
Outside Committee Member

_______________________
Leslie Aspinwall
Committee Member

________________________
Kathleen Clark
Committee Member

Approved:

_________________________________________________________________
Walt Wager, Chair, School of Teacher Education

The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members.

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First, I would like to thank Dr. Elizabeth Jakubowski, my major professor, for her guidance
and support throughout my doctoral studies. You have been a great mentor during my
experiences at FSU.

I would like to express my appreciation to Dr. Kathleen Clark for agreeing to be on my

committee as well as her continuous support and constructive feedback at all stages of my
dissertation. Your input to this dissertation is invaluable. Most of all, thank you for your
friendship!

I am very grateful for having an exceptional doctoral committee and wish to thank Dr. Leslie
Aspinwall and Dr. Alec Kercheval for their continual support and guidance.

I would like to acknowledge Dr. Behiye Ubuz, my master’s thesis advisor, for challenging
me to be a good researcher and mathematics educator.

I would like to thank my families, Tosmur and Bayazit, for their continuous support and
unconditional love. I knew that you were there for me any time I needed you. I love you so
much! I would like to express my special thanks to my mother, Mediha Tosmur, and my
sister, Sevilay Tras, for their encouragement to do my best. I would not be the same person
without you. “Ablacim…” I feel you with me all the time and miss you so much…To my
other sister, Berrin: You are my other side. Your support through this process meant a lot to
me! Thank you for being my sister and fighting for me any time I needed you.

Last but not least, I would like to thank my husband Dervis for his continuous support,
encouragement, help, and endless love. Whenever I was ready to quit, you were there to hold
me up. Without you, it is a mystery where I would have been… I love you and am looking
forward to our life after graduate school ☺

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………….vi
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………..vii

I. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………...1
Research Questions………………………………………………………..………..................3
Importance of Study……………………………………………….….………….....................3
Pilot Study……………………………………………………………..………………………4
Definition of Terms………………………………………………………..……….................7
II. LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………………………………9
What is Proof?…………………………………………………………………..…..................9
Functions of Proof………………………………………………………………....................12
Mathematical Beliefs………………………………………………………………………...16
Prospective Teachers’ Mathematical Beliefs ………………………………………………..17
Students’ Conceptions on the Nature of Proof………………………………………………18
Students’ Difficulties in Producing Mathematical Proof…………………………………….20
Use of Mathematical Definitions………………………………………………………….....22
Summary……………………………………………………………………………………..24
III. METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………………………26
Overview and Purpose of Study……………………………………………………………..26
Qualitative Research…………………………………………………...……………………26
Multiple Case Study………………………………………………………………………….27
Participant Selection…………………………………………………………………………29
Instruments…………………………………………………………………………………..30
Clinical Interviews…………..……………………………………………………………….32
Data Analysis………………………………………………………………………...............34
IV. RESULTS………………………………………………………………………………..36
Case of Emily………………………………………………………………………………...37
Conception of Mathematics………………………………………………………………….38
Conception of Proof………………………………………………………………………….39
Conception of Mathematical Definitions…………………………………………………….40

iv
Task-Based Interviews……………………………………………………………………….41
Type I……………………………………………………………………………………41
Type II…………………………………………………………………………………...44
Type III…………………………………………………………………………………..49
Summary……………………………………………………………………………………..51
Case of Brad…………………………………………………………………………………54
Conception of Mathematics………………………………………………...……………….55
Conception of Proof………………………………………………………………...……….56
Conception of Mathematical Definitions…………………………………………………….57
Task-Based Interviews……………………………………………………………………….59
Type I…………………………………………………………………………………….59
Type II……………………………………………………………………………………63
Type III…………………………………………………………………………………..67
Summary……………………………………………………………………………………..72
V. CONCLUSION AND INPLICATIONS…………………………………………………75
Conception and Practice……………………………………………………………………..75
Content Impact……………………………………………………………………………….78
Implications and Recommendations……..…………………………………………………..80
Recommendations for Further Research………..……………………………………………82
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. Students’ Proof Perception Survey……………...………………………….84
APPENDIX B. Linear Algebra...…………………………………………………………….87
APPENDIX C. Geometry……..……………………………………………………………..90
APPENDIX D. Set Theory…………..………………………………………………………96
APPENDIX E. Human Subject Approval…………………………………………………...98
APPENDIX F. Consent Form………………………………………………………………100
REFERENCES……..………………………………………………………………………101
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH……………………………………………………………….111

v
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Interview Timeline…………………………………………………….34
Figure 2. Emily’s Work for Geometry Type II Task 2…………………………..40
Figure 3. Emily’s Work for Geometry Type I Task 1…………………………...41
Figure 4. Emily’s Work for Linear Algebra Type I Task 2……………………...41
Figure 5. Set Theory Type I Task 1……………………………………………...42
Figure 6. Emily’s Work for Set Theory Type I Task 1…………………………..43
Figure 7. Emily’s Work for Set Theory Type I Task 2…………………………..44
Figure 8. Emily’s Work for Set Theory Type II Task 1…………………...….…44
Figure 9. Emily’s Work for Linear Algebra Type II Task 1……………………..45
Figure 10. Emily’s Work for Geometry Type II Task 1…………………………46
Figure 11. Part of Emily’s Work for Geometry Type II Task 2…………………47
Figure 12. Emily’s Work for Linear Algebra Type II Task3…………………….47
Figure 13. Emily’s Work for Geometry Type III Task 1………………………...49
Figure 14. Interview#1 Proposition2 Student Argument 2………………………49
Figure 15. Interview#1 Proposition1 Student#1 and #4 Argument……………...50
Figure 16. Brad’s Work for Geometry Type II Task 1…………………………..57
Figure 17. Interview#1 Type III Proposition 2 Student Argument#3……………59
Figure 18. Linear Algebra Type I Task 1………………………………………..60
Figure 19. Geometry Type I Task 3/3……………………………………………60
Figure 20. Brad’s Work for Set Theory Type II Task 1…………………………62
Figure 21. Brad’s Work for Set Theory Type II Task 2…………………………63
Figure 22. Brad’s Work for Linear Algebra Type II Task 3……………………..65
Figure 23. Set Theory Type III Task 2…………………………………………..67
Figure 24. Interview#1 Proposition 1 Student#1 and #4 Argument……………..67
Figure 25. Interview#1 Proposition 1 Student #2 and #3 Argument…………….68
Figure 26. Set Theory Type III Task 2…………………………………………..69
Figure 27. Brad’s Work for Geometry Type III Task 2………………………….71

vi
 ABSTRACT

This qualitative case study examined the prospective mathematics teachers’ conception of
mathematics, proof, and mathematical definitions. Moreover, it also investigated their proof
writing approaches, using mathematical definitions and validation assessment practice.
Participants of the study were four prospective mathematics teachers in a large southern
research university who had taken a proof transition course as well as Linear Algebra. Four
semi-structured interviews were conducted to collect data. The first interview protocol was
designed to determine participants’ conception of mathematics, proof, and mathematical
definitions. The other three were task-based interviews that were designed to investigate
participants’ use of mathematical definitions in simple exercises, proof production, and proof
validation in three different content areas: Geometry, Set Theory, and Linear Algebra.
Ernest’s (1989) framework was used to identify the mathematical beliefs of participants,
while Raman’s (2002) framework guided the analysis of students’ proof production and
validity assessment practices. Results of the two cases were presented in this study. They
were chosen based on their conception of mathematics: one held an instrumentalist view of
mathematics and the other held a Platonist perspective of mathematics. The study intended to
create a clear picture of the practices of students with different perspectives of mathematics.
The results of the study suggested that students’ mathematical beliefs might inform their
proof production approaches. It was found that the student with an instrumentalist view
tended to use heuristic approaches; on the other hand, the student with a Platonist perspective
was inclined to use a procedural approach in proof production. Moreover, the study
addressed that students’ conception of proof was framed within the justification, verification,
and occasionally the explanation role of proof. This limited conception of proof constructed
their criteria to assess the validity of a given proof. Another finding of the study was that
students tend to bypass the concept definitions as long as they can reach a conclusion with
their concept images. Lastly, students’ experiences within a mathematical context were
distinctive in their comfort to make comments and develop connections between
mathematical concepts to make logical deductions.

vii
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

In most sciences, one generation tears down what another has built and what one has
established another undoes. In mathematics alone each generation adds a new story to the old
structure.
Hermann Hankel

Mathematics is a subject unlike any other. It has different definitions according to the
context where it is used. Mathematics is seen as a culture of formal thinking (Prediger,
2001); as a kind of mental activity, a social construction involving conjectures, proofs and
refutation (Thompson, 1992); and as concrete and mental representations of numbers,
images, and objects related to differences, similarities, patterns, or regularities (Wolf-Watz,
2001). Although it seems to be a quantitative science due to its relationship with numbers,
mathematics differs from quantitative sciences by deductive reasoning. Each mathematical
object should be consistent with the rest of the system. It is at this point that proof comes into
play. Any new addition to the system should go through the proving process to maintain
consistency. Any proposed piece of mathematical information should be checked through
deductive reasoning. That is one of the features of proof that situates it at the center of
mathematics.
The centrality of proof in school mathematics is emphasized by the latest document of
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000) by stating that:
To recognize reasoning and proof as fundamental aspects of mathematics, make and
investigate mathematical conjectures, develop and evaluate mathematical arguments and
proofs, and select and use various types of reasoning and methods of proof should be an
integral part of instruction from prekindergarten to grade 12 (p. 56).

However, in reality this is not always the case. First of all, proof often is limited to
geometry in 9th or 10th grades (Harel & Sowder, 2007). Emphasis on and use of proof is very
rare in other areas of mathematics. Moreover, even in geometry, proof is primarily used to
check the validity of known facts, which is stated as one of the reasons why students often

1
view proof as a redundant activity (Coe & Ruthven, 1994). As Moore (1994) stated, students’
perceptions influence their practice. Consequently, determining students’ perceptions and
developing strategies to change or enhance those perceptions becomes critical for classroom
teachers (Chazan, 1990; Jones, 1997). Nevertheless, Knuth (2000) revealed that mathematics
teachers’ perceptions of proof do not look more sophisticated than students’. In general, they
seem to acknowledge the verification role of proof, yet for many the empirical proof schemas
seem to be the most prevailing. Moreover, they do not seem to recognize other important
roles of proof - most strikingly, its explanatory role. In this cycle, prospective mathematics
teachers’ perceptions play a critical role considering that they are the students of the present
and teachers of the future (Jones, 2000).
There is a large body of research showing that students find the study of proof difficult
(Balacheff, 1991; Bell, 1976; Chazan, 1993; Coe & Ruthven, 1994; Healy & Hoyles, 2000;
Porteous, 1990; Senk, 1985). One of the obstacles that students face during the process of
doing proof is their perception of it as redundant, as mentioned above (Weber, 2002).
Another obstacle is believed to be students’ inadequate understanding of the concepts
involved in the proofs (Moore, 1994). In this theory, Moore also stated that the way students
deal with the pertinent mathematical definitions of related concepts is another weakness in
constructing proof.
Definitions are at the heart of mathematics, since much of the subject is constructed upon
mathematical definitions (Edwards, 1997). This makes acceptance and understanding of the
role of mathematical definitions an important part of the enculturation of students into the
field of mathematics (Edwards, 1997). Vinner (1991) suggested that “students should be
trained to use mathematical definitions as an ultimate criterion in mathematical tasks” (p.
80). He also revealed that “the role of definition in mathematical thinking is somehow
neglected in official contexts,” then added that “there are some contexts in which referring to
the formal definition are critical for a correct performance on given task” (p. 80).
Therefore, if we all agree with NCTM (2000) on the integral role of proof in
mathematics, an investigation of future teachers’ perceptions about proof and their use of
definitions in doing proof would provide important information to enable us to put these
recommendations into practice.

2
 Research Questions
This study attempted to answer the following questions:
1. How do prospective mathematics teachers understand the role of mathematical
definitions? In what ways, if any, does this influence their work with definitions in producing
formal mathematical proofs?
2. What are prospective mathematics teachers’ understandings of the related concepts of
basic set theory, linear algebra, and geometry? In what ways, if any, do these understandings
influence their work with formal definitions in producing mathematical proofs?
3. What is the nature of prospective mathematics teachers’ approaches in assessing the
validation of a given mathematical proof derived from mathematical definitions? What is the
primary focus of their attention in this process?

Importance of the Study

The National Council of Mathematics has endorsed proof and reasoning as an integral
part of school mathematics from pre-kindergarten through 12th grade (NCTM, 2000). It
emphasized that:
To recognize reasoning and proof as fundamental aspects of mathematics, make and
investigate mathematical conjectures, develop and evaluate mathematical arguments and
proofs, and select and use various types of reasoning and methods of proof should be an
integral part of instruction from prekindergarten to grade 12. (NCTM, 2000, p. 56)

However, in the latest handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning, Harel
and Sowder (2007) reported that “little or no instructional time is allocated to the
development of the deductive proof schemas, not even geometry. In the U.S., explicit
mathematical reasoning in mathematics classes is rare, and in algebra and pre-algebra
courses it is virtually absent” (p. 836). Some researchers believe that one of the reasons
teaching proof is so rare is due to many mathematics teachers’ limited understanding of the
concept (Knuth, 2002; Manaster, 1998). In addition to this, Knuth (2000) revealed that most
mathematics teachers do not share the idea of “proof for all.” He stated that “for these
teachers, proof seem to be an important idea only for those students enrolled in advanced
mathematics classes and for those students who will most likely be studying mathematics in

3
college” (p. 4). Consequently, it is important to determine the extent to which prospective
teachers are equipped to deliver a curriculum in which proof is central.
An important element in deductive proof process is of course the use of logical reasoning.
Most of the time, mathematical definitions are the starting point or an essential piece of this
process (Edwards, 1997). As such, prospective teachers’ use of these definitions in doing
proof would offer insight into their status in the proof world and either determine gaps that
need to be filled or suggest solutions to the teachers’ difficulties in proof writing before
putting them into the classroom.
It is crucial that researchers and instructors understand students’ perceptions of the nature
of mathematical definitions and their role in doing proof before they reshape curricula to
teach to the construction of proofs. Because perceptions influence practice (Ernest, 1990),
students’ perceptions expected to influence their proof activity; in this case, their perceptions
might particularly influence their use of mathematical definitions in doing proof (Moore,
1994).
Proof has been the focus of attention for the last several decades. Much research has been
done to shed light on students’ understanding and use of proof (Coe & Ruthven, 1994; Lin,
Lee & Yu, 2003; Senk, 1985). However, most of the studies focused on high school students,
the majority of whom were high achievers (Healy & Hoyles, 1998, 2000; Knuth, Slaughter,
Choppin, & Sutherland, 2002; Thompson, 1991). On the other hand, research that was done
at the undergraduate level predominantly targeted mathematics or engineering majors
(Moore, 1994; Weber, 2002; Senk & Senk, 2003). Limited research focused on prospective
mathematics teachers (Jones, 1997). It is clear there is a need to study prospective
mathematics teachers specifically in terms of their perceptions and understanding of proof, in
order to determine how best to resolve the lack of proof in mathematic education.

Pilot Study
In spring 2008, a pilot study was conducted with a student in the mathematics education
program at a large research university. The student was a junior who took a linear algebra
course as well as a proof-based mathematics course. The pilot study investigated the
student’s conceptions about mathematics, proof and mathematical definitions as well as his
use of mathematical definitions while doing exercises and proofs. Moreover, the study

4
examined the data to see if there was any evidence that his perceptions affected his approach
to applying definitions to exercises or doing or assessing the validity of proofs. Two semi-
structured interviews were conducted, each of which lasted about 75 minutes. Both
interviews were recorded, and notes were also taken by hand during each interview. The first
interview focused on the student’s conceptions about mathematics, proof and mathematical
definitions. The guiding interview questions are given in Appendix A. The second interview
focused on the student’s use of mathematical definitions in exercises and doing and assessing
proofs. He was given the set theory interview protocol (Appendix D) to work on.
When the student was asked to describe his opinion about what mathematics is, his
answer was straightforward: “putting numbers to ideas,” His approach was very algebraic:
I worked a whole week is a daily expression. When the paycheck comes it will exactly
say how many hours you worked and how much each [hour was] worth. Mathematics
determines the expression, makes them exact (Student Interview, April 28, 2008).

Similarly, when asked what doing mathematics is, the student referred back to what he
said about mathematics and continued with a real-life example: “numerical equivalency of all
you did.”
Doing mathematics is so much in everyday life. When you would like to do a sandwich it
is two slices of tomatoes, two slices of cheese, two slices of bread and so on. When it is
time to pay you have to give its equivalency. You cannot pay with a book (Student
Interview, April 28, 2008).

When asked about proof, the student discussed the connected structure of mathematics
and mentioned that the nature of his mathematics education was inductive. He described
proof as the connection tool between different concepts of mathematics; it is the glue of the
mathematics world. He used another metaphor for mathematical definitions: “main dish of
the plate” (Student Interview, April 28, 2008). The student said that
When you have small magnets to play with, each piece can be thought of as a definition
and the magnetism between them to build figures is proof. Both of them are
indispensable pieces of mathematics.Imagine mathematics as a scatterplot; the dots are

5
 mathematical definitions and the line connecting them is proof (Student Interview, April
28, 2008).
As he worked on the problems given in the set theory protocol, it was observed that his
approach was also inductive. He attempted to understand every detail of given definitions
and use them to solve exercises, do proofs, or assess proofs even if he was already familiar
with them. His process was to understand what the definitions offer in terms of the
characteristics of mathematical objects and then use them to see the “whole picture,” as he
mentioned in his first interview. The student constantly referred back to the definitions that
were provided and tried to give meaning to the definitions by using his concept images. He
utilized his previous experiences to make sense of the definition, and changed his concept
images to accommodate new definitions. For example, he said he was familiar with the idea
of subset but not power set. As he read the definition of power set (which is the collection of
all subsets except the set itself), he went back and repeated the definition of subset. The first
thing that he recognized by revisiting the definition of subset was that the set itself is also a
subset. He did not recognize it at the first place when he wrote the subsets in Type 1
questions. He put neither empty set nor the set itself as subsets. Similarly, while he was
working on the proof that “the empty set is a subset of every set,” he started analyzing the
nature of empty set and then decided that it should be a subset of every set. He then went
back to the Type 1 question and first added the set itself and then the empty set. He was
negotiating his ideas constantly as he went further. Although his “distorted imaginary” (Pinto
& Tall, 1996) was an obstacle for him in recognizing all possibilities, as demonstrated in his
struggle mastering the definition of subset, he did not have any difficulty transferring his
concept image to “formal imaginary” (Pinto & Tall, 1996) once he had more information
about the concept. Lastly, when he was working on Type 3 questions which were about
assessment of given proofs, the student did not have any difficulty following the logical
sequence. He checked every level of proof’s validity according to related definitions and
appeared to be looking for the reason in every statement throughout the proof. Thus, he
easily detected the discontinuity of arguments given in the last proof of Type 3 questions.
The major conclusion of this pilot study was that students’ perceptions would inform
their approach to doing mathematical proofs. Moreover, “giving meaning” is not a simple
process. Although the student’s approaches were in line with “giving meaning,” “distorted

6
imaginary” would be an obstacle in that path. Lastly, it was observed that concepts of empty
set, union of sets, and set itself as a subset deserves extra attention as having potential to
provide rich information in terms of the process of students’ use of definitions.

Definition of Terms
Statement (Proposition): A declarative sentence which is either true or false but not both.
Mathematical Proof: A logical sequence of statements from a hypothesis to a conclusion
using axioms, definitions, previously proved statements, and rule of inference.
Definition: An agreement on the meaning of a phrase or a particular term.
Mathematical Definition: Borasi (1992) stated the commonly accepted requirements for
mathematical definitions as follows:
• Precision in terminology: All the terms employed in the definition should have been
previously defined, unless they are one of the few undefined terms assumed as a starting
point in the axiomatic system one is working with.
• Isolation of the concept: All instances of a concept must meet all the requirements
stated in its definition, while a noninstance will not satisfy at least one of them.
• Essentiality: Only terms and properties that are strictly necessary to distinguish the
concept in question from others should be explicitly mentioned in the definition.
• Noncontradiction: All the properties stated in a definition should be able to coexist.
• Noncircularity: The definition should not use the term it is trying to define
(p. 17).
Axiom: A mathematical statement which is assumed to be true.
Theorem: A mathematical statement that is not an axiom and for which a proof can be
provided.
School mathematics: Mathematics that students experience at K-12 school settings in a
systematic way.
Concept definition: “It is then the form of words that the student uses for his own
explanation of his (evoked) concept image” (Tall & Vinner, 1981 p. 152).
Concept image: “The total cognitive structure that is associated with the concept, which
includes all the mental pictures and associated properties and processes” (Tall & Vinner,
1981 p. 152).

7
 Conceptual understanding: “It refers to integrated and functional grasp of mathematical
ideas” (Kilpatrick, Swafford, & Findell, 2001, p. 118).
Operable definition: Defined by Bills and Tall (1998) as a mathematical definition which
can be used in creating or reproducing a formal argument.

8
 CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

One of the most remarkable gifts human civilization has inherited from ancient Greece is
the notion of mathematical proof.
L. Babai (1992, p. 1)

The purpose of this chapter is to situate the study in the context of relevant research and
theory. The chapter first discusses what mathematical proof is and what its various types and
functions are. Next, the pedagogical aspects of proof are presented in terms of students’
understanding of proof, their difficulties in doing and writing proofs, and their views on the
nature and role of proof. The discussion on pedagogical aspects of proof is followed by a
discussion of the available literature on mathematical definitions, which are at the heart of
mathematics as well as the focus of this study.
What is a Proof?
In mathematics education literature, the definition of mathematical proof has been
presented from many different perspectives. From a cultural viewpoint, Wilder (1981) stated
that “we must not forget that what constitutes ‘proof’ varies from culture to culture, as well
as from age to age” (p. 346). Recio and Godino (2001) analyzed some institutional meanings
of mathematical proof. Lastly, Reid (2006) focused on different meanings for the words
”proof” and ”proving” as used in mathematics education.
Wilder (1981) focused on the cultural aspect of mathematical proof. He, unlike many
mathematicians and researchers, believed that mathematics is not the realm of “absolute
truths.” Rather, he felt that “truth” can change according to the context and applications in
mathematics. For example, “according to the ordinary meaning of ‘truth’ as used in market-
place, such formulas as ’2+2=4’ are true i.e. in the well known sense that when 2 apples in a
box are added 2 more apples, then there will be 4 apples in the box” (p. 40). But when such
formulas are confined to mathematical theory, this may not be the case. A striking example
of this kind was worked out by Lakotas (1976). He analyzed the Eulerian formula v-e+f=2,
where v stands for the number of vertices of a polyhedron, e the number of edges, and f the
number of faces. Lakotas (1976) gave proofs for such formulas, but for each case he also

9
showed some exceptions. With the references of such cases, Wilder (1981) stated that
mathematical proof is culturally determined. At a given time, mathematical society
determines the standards for an acceptable mathematical proof and this makes the proofs
relative to the time they were stated. This statement also supports the idea that mathematical
proof resting on logic is not correct. Wilder (1981) asserted that when the general run of
mathematical proof is analyzed, it could be found to contain hidden assumptions accepted in
the contemporary mathematical culture. The best known example for this is that of Euclid,
whose geometry was accepted as the ideal example of rigorous proof. Now, though, it is
known that his proofs contained unstated assumptions which may invalidate or even in some
cases render the theorems false.
Recio and Godino (2001) studied the different meanings of proofs in the following
institutional contexts: “daily life, empirical sciences, professional mathematics, logic and
foundations of mathematics” (p. 92). Proof in daily life can be situated as informal
argumentations that depend on the context or even one’s emotional situation (Miller-Jones,
1991). They could take different forms, such as presenting a witness in order to convince
your friend that you were trying to meet with him/her but could not make it due to the traffic,
or a lawyer offering available evidence to persuade the jury that his/her client is innocent. As
Recio and Godino (2001) noted, this type of informal argumentation does not necessarily
produce the absolute truth due to its relative nature. Fernandez and Carretero (1995, pp. 41-
43) summarized the main features of this type of argumentation as follows:
1. It is applied to issues relevant to the person who makes the argumentation.
2. This argumentation is very dynamic and dependent on the situational context.
3. It is applied to open, fuzzy, and not deductive tasks.
4. It uses the daily life language, instead of formal and symbolic language.
5. It is used in all knowledge domains, even in mathematics and scientific problems.
One of the most common difficulties that students face in doing and writing mathematical
proofs is the transition from intuitive argumentation, which they use in daily life, to formal
reasoning (e.g. Balacheff, 1988; Hoyles, 1997; Olivero, 2002). The main reason for this, as
identified by Pimm (1987), is that words in the language of mathematics and in common
English often have very different meanings and the mismatch between the words can create
confusion in the classroom. Epp (2003) further explained that “certain forms of statements

10
are open to different interpretations in informal and formal settings” (p. 888). According to
Smith & Henderson (1959), the word “proof” itself is one of those words. In everyday
language, the word proof is basically used synonymously with “what convinces me.”
Conversely, in mathematics, it means a deductive argument where the conclusion must
follow from the hypotheses. In everyday language, potential ambiguity occurs frequently,
with context and world knowledge normally determining which interpretation to accept from
among an array of possibilities. By contrast, mathematical language is required to be
unambiguous, with each grammatical construct having exactly one meaning. This meaning,
however, is often selected arbitrarily, by common convention, or from among its potential
natural language interpretations.
Recio and Godino (2001) argued that in transition from argumentations in daily life to
scientific proof, there are many changes. First of all, unlike argumentations in daily life,
scientific argumentations have validating intentions by using experiments. Moreover, they
aim to generate scientific knowledge which should be rational and objective. Mathematical
language appears in the formulation of scientific theories as a tool for expressing scientific
facts; moreover, “mathematics argumentation takes some connotation of experimental proof
in scientific contexts” (p. 93).
Recio and Godino (2001) also mentioned that in professional mathematics “the
argumentative process that mathematicians develop to justify the truth of mathematical
propositions, which is essentially a logical process… is called mathematical proof” (p. 94).
Mathematical proof is usually determined through deductive reasoning. In a deductive
process to validate a mathematical proposition, one should deduce the truth of a result on the
basis of internally agreed and consistent axioms (Almeida, 2003). This has been identified as
one of the main reasons why mathematical proof can be such a complex process (Recio &
Godino, 2001). Recio and Godino (2001) referenced the work of Livingston (1987) in
showing the complexity inherent to proving the uniqueness of the identity element in an
algebraic group (e=e*e’=e’) as compared to its triviality when using informal argumentation.
This complexity provoked new strategies for mathematical validation which challenged the
classical conception of deductive “line by line” proof, such as zero-knowledge proof,
holographic proof, visual proof, and in general, proofs based on experimental confirmations
(Hanna, 1995, p. 43). These new approaches are mostly based on computer programs and

11
incorporated random validation processes. As Hanna (1989) pointed out mathematicians and
mathematics educators have challenged the idea that the most significant part of mathematics
is reasoning by deduction. Instead, it is claimed that “there is much more to mathematics than
formal systems” (p. 20). Moreover, Recio and Godino (2001) mentioned that different
degrees of formal validation are accepted by mathematicians. They also highlighted that
“mathematicians agree that when a proof is valid by virtue of its form only, without regard to
its content, it is likely to add very little to the understanding of its subject and, ironically may
not even be very convincing” (p. 94).
Lastly, Recio and Godino (2001) discussed the logic and foundation of mathematics in
detail. They advocated the idea that the foundation of mathematics is logical argumentation,
which is essentially a deductive argumentation. Deductive argumentation is placed in
axiomatic and formal systems. Garnier and Taylor (1996) defined axiomatic systems as:
a. A collection of infinite terms and symbols.
b. Synthetic rules to build sentences and formulas starting from symbols and indefinite
terms.
c. A collection of correctly built sentences, called axioms.
The proof of a theorem is deduced from a collection of axioms or previously proved
theorems or propositions by inference rules. When this deduction is approved by the
mathematical community, the proof is accepted as complete.
Reid (2006) focused on a different perspective of the question “what is proof” as trying to
clarify the use of different terminology related to proof in the mathematics education
community. He emphasized five usages of proof, four specific to mathematics and one to
everyday use. He distinguished between “the concept of proof,” which is associated with the
idea of absolute proof; “proofs” that appear in journals and textbooks; “proving” as a means
of deductive reasoning; “probing” that refers to testing the truth of a statement mostly by
focusing on the exceptions; and the everyday usage of “prove” as a means of verifying
information.

Functions of Proof
Although it has been clearly stated that proof is an indispensable part of mathematics
(Hanna, 2000; Jones, 1997; NCTM, 2000; Schoenfeld, 1994), its functions in mathematics

12
and the classroom have been a discussion topic in the mathematics education community for
years. Many roles - such as verification, explanation, communication, discovery,
systematization, cognitive development, and intellectual challenge - have been attributed to
proof in school mathematics. Each of those roles should be emphasized in school
mathematics. There is, however, a big gap between those roles and their manifestation in
school mathematics practices (Balacheff, 1991). Knuth (2002) noted that in school
mathematics in the United States “proof traditionally has been expected to play a role only in
the mathematics education of college-intending students and, even in this capacity, its role
has been even further constrained-the only substantial treatment of proof has been limited to
the domain of Euclidean geometry” (p. 61).
Researchers have suggested various roles proof plays in mathematics (Bell, 1976; de
Villiers, 1990, 1999; Hanna 2000; Hanna & Jahnke, 1996; Schoenfeld, 1994):
• To verify that a statement is true;
• To explain why a statement is true;
• To communicate mathematical knowledge;
• To discover or create new mathematics;
• To systematize statements into an axiomatic system;
• To develop intuition; and
• Intellectual challenge.

The role of proof in verifying that a statement is true is the one on which most
researchers have reached a consensus. De Villiers (2002), for instance, stated that
“traditionally the function of proof has been seen almost exclusively in terms of the
verification (conviction or justification) of the correctness of mathematical statements” (p. 3).
He further stated that proof should clarify doubts and enlighten skeptics. Although proofs
verify, they are not “necessarily a prerequisite for conviction- to the contrary, conviction is
probably far more frequently a prerequisite for the finding of a proof” (de Villiers, 1990, p.
18). One usually tries to verify the truth of a statement if he/she himself is convinced that it is
true. That is why the place of proof is at the end, not the beginning (Kline, 1973).
Verification “is an argument that establishes the truth of an assertion by listing all
possible cases” (Rota, 1997). Since it includes all cases, it appears to be irrefutable. Although

13
it might seem to be the most desirable kind of proof for most of people, it is not the first
choice of mathematicians (Rota, 1997). As Steiner (1978) stated, “mathematicians routinely
distinguish proofs that merely demonstrate from proofs which explain” (p. 135). Similarly,
Hersh (1993) argued that mathematicians are interested in “more than whether a conjecture is
correct, they want to know why it is correct” (p. 390). Others also pronounced parallel
statements: “the status of a proof will be enhanced if it gives insight as to why the
proposition is true as opposed to just confirming that it is true” (Bell, 1976, p. 6) and “the
best proof is one which also helps mathematicians understand the meaning of the theorem
being proved: to see not only that is true, but also why it is true” (Hanna, 1995, p. 47).
Many within the mathematics community also view proof as communication of
mathematical knowledge (e.g. deVilliers, 1990; Hanna & Jahnke, 1993; Harel & Sowder,
2007). Harel and Sowder (2007) explained this role as the “social interaction about the
meaning, validity, and importance of the mathematical knowledge offered by the proof
produced” (p. 819).
The acceptance of the validity of a proof by mathematicians is believed to be a social
process of verification (Balacheff, 1991; Hanna, 1983; Hanna & Jahnke, 1993). The
mathematics education community views proof as a social construct and product of social
discourse (e.g. Davis, 1972; Hanna, 1983; Hersh, 1993; Richards, 1991). For example, Manin
(1977) stated that “a proof becomes a proof after the social act of ‘accepting as a proof’” (p.
48). The acceptance criteria of the mathematical community, on the other hand, are changing
with time and the mathematical knowledge they gain. Almeida (1996) pointed out that the
mathematics community decides on what is necessary for an argument to be accepted as a
proof, which methods are allowed, and what axioms can be assumed without proof. All such
processes provide a means of discourse and conviction of mathematical knowledge (Alibert
& Thomas, 1991; Schoenfeld, 1994).
Proof also plays an important role in the discovery and creation of new mathematics. As
stated by de Villiers (1999), “there are numerous examples in the history of mathematics
where new results were discovered or invented in a purely deductive manner” (p. 5). One of
the remarkable examples is the history of the solution of Fermat’s Last Theorem. Many new
conjectures were made and proven in attempts to prove his theorem. Leddy (2001) pointed
that “Fermat’s legacy is not the theorem itself; rather, it is the quest for its proof that has

14
generated so much mathematical knowledge and insight” (p. 27). An important point here
was argued by Lakotas (1976) that not all proofs lead us to new knowledge. He proposed that
proofs aiming to verify do not often produce new insight. On the other hand, proofs that
explain can guide us to new directions which we may not be presented with originally.
Making a similar distinction regarding this role of proof - that is, its discovery role - Davis
and Hersh (1981) proposed that “proof suggests new mathematics. The novice, who studies
proofs, gets closer to the creation of new mathematics” (p. 151).
Another noteworthy role of proof as “most characteristically mathematical” (Bell, 1976,
p. 24) is its role in systematization, which refers to the “presentation of verifications in
organized forms, where each result is derived sequentially from previously established
results, definitions, axioms, and primary terms” (Harel & Sowder, 2007). De Villiers (1990)
noted some of the most important functions of systematization as:
• It helps with the identification of inconsistencies, circular arguments, and hidden or
not explicitly stated assumptions;
• It unifies and simplifies mathematical theories by integrating unrelated statements,
theorems, and concepts with one another, thus leading to an economical presentation of
results;
• It provides a useful global perspective or bird’s eye view of a topic by exposing the
underlying axiomatic structure of that topic from which all the other properties may be
derived;
• It is helpful for applications within and outside mathematics, since it aids checking
the applicability of a whole complex structure or theory simply by evaluating the suitability
of its axioms and definitions; and
• It often leads to alternative deductive systems which provide new perspectives and/or
more economical, elegant, and powerful than existing ones. (de Villiers, 1990, p. 20)

Hanna and Jahnke (1993) pointed out similar ideas by stating that proof discloses
relationships and new dimensions for the justification of mathematical arguments through
proven theorems, “which in the absence of proof would have remained separate” (p. 428).
Another role of proof, developing intuition, was investigated by Pinto and Tall (1999). In
their research describing students’ construction of formal theory in university mathematics,

15
they came up with two modes of operation - “giving meaning to the definitions and resulting
theory by building from earlier concept images, and extracting meaning from the formal
definition through formal deduction” (p. 281). The process of the latter one is stated to
require the examination of the properties of a concept’s formal definition through logical
deduction, which sometimes results in developing a conceptual and intuitive understanding
of the concept. De Villiers (2002) also mentioned that explaining why a result is true
(proving) generally leads to better understanding of the concept, and even new discoveries.
Lastly, proof as an intellectual challenge is also included in the literature (de Villiers,
2002; Harel & Sowder, 2007; Thurston, 1994). For example, de Villiers (2002) stated that “to
mathematicians proof is an intellectual challenge that they find appealing as other people find
puzzles or other creative hobbies or endeavors.” Mathematics is a subject in which
mathematicians place first the axioms and definitions that they think would be related to the
statement that they are trying to prove. Then, with an elegant and logical formulation of
statements, they give a logical reasoning, or proof, for the statement. In this sense “doing
proofs could also be compared to the physical challenge of completing an arduous marathon
or triathlon, and the satisfaction that come afterwards” (de Villiers, 2002, p. 10). In addition
to this, since doing mathematics orbits around proof, understanding proofs is an essential part
of understanding mathematics; it serves the function of self realization and fulfillment.

Mathematical Beliefs
In mathematics education literature, domain-specific epistemological beliefs are
classified under the heading of mathematical beliefs. Schoenfeld (1985) discusses
mathematical beliefs as an individual’s “mathematical world view.” He, along with other
researchers (Moore, 1994; Weber, 2001), argues that an individual’s mathematical beliefs
affect how they approach mathematics. These beliefs have been categorized differently in the
literature. McLeod (1992), for example, stated four groups: beliefs about mathematics,
beliefs about self, beliefs about mathematics teaching, and belief about the social context. On
the other hand, De Corte and colleagues (2002) identified three groups: beliefs about
mathematics education, beliefs about the self in relation to mathematics, and beliefs about the
social context. This study focuses on students’ beliefs about mathematics as a discipline.

16
 Telese (1997) described a “belief system” as combination of beliefs; Thompson (1992)
organized the belief system into a conception of mathematics and preferences concerning the
discipline of mathematics. Ernest (1988), to emphasize the importance of conceptions, stated
that although knowledge is important, it is not sufficient by itself to differentiate teachers. He
argued that “teachers’ beliefs have a powerful impact on the practice of teaching” (p. 4) and
proposed three philosophies concerning teachers’ conception because of their observed
occurrence in the teaching of mathematics as well as in the philosophy of mathematics and
science. These philosophies of mathematics, as psychological systems of belief, are identified
as: instrumentalist, Platonist, and problem solving. First, the instrumentalist belief system
was characterized as the view “that mathematics is an accumulation of facts, rules and skills
to be used in the pursuance of some external end. Thus, mathematics is a set of unrelated but
utilitarian rules and facts” (p. 1). The Platonist view was described as the view of
“mathematics as a static but unified body of certain knowledge. Mathematics is discovered,
not created” (p. 1). Lastly, there is the problem solving view of mathematics, in which
mathematics was seen as a “dynamic, continually expanding field of human creation and
invention, a cultural product. Mathematics is a process of enquiry and coming to know, not a
finished product, for its results remain open to revision” (p. 2). Ernest (1988) conjectured that
these philosophies of mathematics form a hierarchy from instrumentalist to problem solving,
with instrumentalist being at the lowest level and problem solving as the highest. In this
categorization, he explained instrumentalism as the philosophy “involving knowledge of
mathematical facts, rules and methods as separate entities” (p. 2). The next level, Platonist
view, was identified as characterizing mathematics as a “consistent, connected and objective
structure” (p.2). Lastly, problem solving stated mathematics as a “dynamically organized
structure located in a social and cultural context” (p.2).

Prospective Teachers’ Mathematical Beliefs

There is a large body of literature regarding the beliefs of students about mathematics
(Benbow, 1993; Civil, 1990; Grouws et. Al, 1996; Muis, 2004 etc.). Most of the studies
suggested that student teachers hold sets of beliefs that are more traditional than progressive.
Individuals with traditional beliefs see mathematical knowledge as a collection of facts and
procedures (Schoenfeld, 1992). On the other hand, individuals with progressive view see

17
mathematics more as a coherent system of related concepts (Grouws et. al., 1996). Benhow
(1993), for example, found that prospective elementary teachers consider mathematics to be a
discipline based on rules and procedures in which there is usually one way to solve a
problem. Likewise, Foss and Kleinsasser (1996) reported that prospective elementary
teachers put great emphasis on practice and memorization. Further, Lampert (1990)
discussed that for most of the students, doing mathematics is limited to obeying rules and
knowing mathematics is just the ability to recall the appropriate rules when needed.
Schoenfeld (1992) suggested that mathematical beliefs influence the students’
engagement to mathematical activities and therefore may affect student achievement.
Grouws et al. (1996), for instance, reported that typical algebra students mostly hold a
traditional view compared to mathematically talented students who hold more of a
progressive view. Similarly, Hofer (1999)’s study on the relationships among
epistemological beliefs about mathematics, motivation, strategy use, and academic
achievement of undergraduates revealed that beliefs are significantly correlated with course
grades. She reported that the more sophisticated the mathematical beliefs were, the higher the
course grade. The results of her study were consistent with Schoenfeld (1989)’s study on the
relationship between secondary students’ beliefs and academic achievement. He also
reported that students who tend to believe that mathematics is more than memorization
showed higher academic performance.

Students’ Conceptions on the Nature of Proof

Schoenfeld (1985), in his detailed study of students solving mathematical problems,
stated that”belief systems” of students are the most significant for the way proof is or is not
used:
…Students’ problem solving performance is not simply the product of what the students
know; it is also a function of their perceptions of that knowledge, derived from their
experiences with mathematics. That is, their beliefs about mathematics consciously held
or not, establish the psychological context within which they do mathematics. (p.13)
Moore (1994) made a similar assertion that the students’ conceptions of mathematics and
proof influence their proof writing performance and are sometimes a hindrance to their

18
success. He also suggested that it is not the type of proof produced but rather the level of
rigor the students considered adequate is affected by their perceptions.
Some researchers have been committed to understanding the students’ conceptions of the
nature of mathematical proof. Coe and Ruthven (1994) investigated advanced level
mathematics students’ understanding and use of proof in a college level SMP 16-19 course.
The most striking result that they found was that students find it extremely difficult to talk
about proof, even though they were prompted to say something about the nature of proof on
several occasions. They also concluded that “proof appears to be an activity which is largely
seen as something that is done in a particular context, rather than as an abstract object in its
own right” (p. 49). Supporting this finding, Moore (1994) also found that it is not clear to
what extent the students view proof as a piece of mathematical knowledge or more pointedly
as an object.
Another important finding of Coe and Ruthven’s (1994) study was that “students’
primary concern was to validate conjectured rules and patterns which, for most, took the
form of testing them against a few examples” (p. 52). That is one of the reasons that the
preferred proof strategy for most of the students is empirical, with a very low incidence of
strategies that could be described as deductive. In this empirical process, students tend to
routinely apply a standard repertoire of investigative techniques from their textbooks, which
are primarily designed for analysis of numerical data. They also reported that there were few
students who were “concerned to explain why rules or patterns, or to locate them within
some wider mathematical system” (p.52).
Raman (2002) studied university level mathematics students and their teachers’
approaches of proof production and developed a framework for characterizing their proof
approaches based on public and private aspects of proof as well as the key ideas which link
these two domains. She reported that although for mathematicians proof is essentially about
key ides which she described as “an heuristic idea which one can map to formal proof with
appropriate sense of rigor” (p.323), it is not the case for students. She argued that it is partly
because students do not possess key ideas, but more interestingly, they do not perceive that
proof is about key ideas.
Martin and Harel (1989) investigated 101 pre-service elementary school teachers’ views
of proof. These students’ experiences with proof were through their high school geometry

19
course and there was explicit attention to proof in the course that all of them were enrolled.
The focus of the study was to investigate the pre-service elementary teachers’ inferences
about the role of inductive and deductive arguments for familiar and unfamiliar mathematical
statements. The results showed that most of the students accepted inductive arguments as
proofs of given statements, regardless of familiarity. Moreover, they did not have a
preference of any type of inductive argument. Similarly, many students also accepted
deductive arguments as proofs of mathematical statements, again regardless of their
familiarity. Nonetheless, most of those students did not reject the false verifications either.
The researchers concluded that these students were influenced by the ritualistic aspect of the
proof.
Healy and Hoyles (2000) did a large scale research study to investigate 9th grade
students’ perceptions about proof in algebra. They administered a 70-minute survey to 2,459
students from 94 classes in 90 schools across England and Wales. They also did follow-up
interviews with students from 10 different schools to get further information. They found that
majority of the students were “aware that no further work was necessary to check a proof
held for a subset of cases if its generality had already been proved” (p. 417). On the other
hand, they also identified students who had the idea that proof is not general. Such students
mentioned the need for testing with particular examples. In this large-scale research, the
researchers gave open-ended items asking students to describe proof and its purpose. The
analysis of the students’ responses revealed that half of the students believed that proof is
used to establish the truth of a mathematical statement. In addition to this, more than one
third of the students recognized its explanatory function. On the other hand, only 1% of the
students mentioned the proofs’ use in discovering or systematizing new ideas or theories.
Moreover, one significant result that they found was that “more than a quarter of students had
little or no idea of the meaning of proof and what it was for” (p. 418).

Students’ Difficulties in Producing Mathematical Proofs

There is no shortage of literature indicating that most students are not successful with
proof. The difficulties that students struggle with when they construct mathematical proofs
and the sources of those difficulties have been the focus of many studies. Moore (1994), for
instance, investigated university mathematics and mathematics education students’

20
experience to do formal proofs in a new transition course entitled “An Introduction to Higher
Mathematics.” He did daily non-participant class observations, conducted tutorial sessions
with students, and interviewed with the professor of the class and students to understand the
students’ transition to higher-level mathematical thinking and doing proofs. He found that
there are three major sources of students’ difficulties in producing proof: a) concept
understanding; b) mathematical language and notation; and c) getting started on a proof. He
claimed that students had little intuitive understanding of concepts, did not know the
mathematical definitions, and had inadequate concept images to do proof. Moore observed
that in the course he studied, most of the proofs depended on the mathematical definitions,
which the students were not familiar with. Their explanation was that the definitions were too
abstract for them. They could not build a connection between the concept definitions and
their concept images. In the interviews, he observed that although the students claimed that
they knew the definitions, most of the time they could not state even the definitions covered
in class correctly. Mathematical language and notations are stated as additional sources of
difficulty in producing proof. Moore mentioned two possible causes of this difficulty. One
potential cause is that although some students can explain mathematical definitions or
concepts in their own words, they have difficulty in representing them by using mathematical
notations. Another possible reason some students do not comprehend mathematical concepts,
definitions, or theorems may be due to a lack of knowledge about mathematical notations.
Additionally, the students in the interviews indicated that they often did not know how to
start a proof and did not know how to connect the hypothesis with the conclusion.
Selden and Selden (2003) reported junior-level college students’ errors and
misconceptions in theorem proving in abstract algebra. They analyzed several homework
tasks and tests submitted by students from the United States, Turkey, and Nigeria to
determine common traits. The errors identified included:
• Using the same symbol for more than one variable without recognizing the
distinction;
• Weakening the theorem by adding a new hypothesis;
• Inability to adapt notation from one context to another;
• Misuse of theorems;
• Reasoning from a statement to itself;

21
 • Ignoring and extending quantifiers;
• Using information out of content improperly; and
• Claiming that a statement follows immediately from previously established results
when in reality a considerable argument is required.
The types of misconceptions were reported as:
• Confusing the converse with the proposition to be proved;
• Assigning a variable name to a quantity and assuming that it therefore existed;
• Failing the recognize different representations for the same concept;
• Using the converse of a theorem;
• Tendency to apply law of real number to all concepts;
• Inappropriate generalization of arithmetic rules; and
• Assuming that the information about a set is interchangeable with information about a
typical element of that set.

Weber (2001) asserted that students’ conception of mathematical proof is an obstacle in

producing formal proofs. He referred to Harel and Sowder’s (1998) research to explain
students’ perceptions as ritual, authoritative, inductive, and perceptual. Weber (2003) stated
that students’ tendency to accept an incorrect proof just because of its representation, their
dependency on authority to be convinced, or their dependency on an empirical approach that
is providing specific cases or several examples to form a pattern are some of the most
common hindrances that students deal with when they attempt to provide mathematical
proofs. Similar to Moore (1994), Weber stated that “a lack of cognitive development may
also prevent college students from understanding the concept of proof” (p. 5). Moreover, he
asserted that poor conceptual understanding and ineffective proof strategies are some other
obstacles that need attention. Lastly, Weber, like Moore, mentioned that notational
difficulties, especially the use of multiple quantifiers, is one of the major difficulties that
students face when studying proof.

Use of Mathematical Definitions

Definitions are at the heart of mathematics, since much of mathematics is constructed
upon mathematical definitions (Edwards, 1997). Yet the formal definitions of mathematics

22
are one of the most common difficulties that students have (Moore, 1994; Tall, 1994; Vinner
& Dreyfus, 1989; Wilson, 1990).
Landau (1989) discussed two types of definitions: logical and lexical definitions. A
logical definition “attempts to analyze things in the real world” (p.120), such as beauty or
honesty. As it could be understood from its definition, logical definitions are more subjective
and depend on one’s own interpretations of the phenomena. A person with a “logical view”
of definition would consider his/her concept image rather than the words of the definition
(Edwards, 1997).
A lexical definition “defines a word in terms of the class to which it belongs and the
properties that distinguish it from other members of that class” (Edwards, 1997, p. 28).
Mathematical definitions, due to their nature, are lexical definitions.

Borasi (1992) listed the commonly accepted requirements for mathematical definitions
as:
• Precision in terminology: All the terms employed in the definition should have been
previously defined, unless they are one of the few undefined terms assumed as a starting
point in the axiomatic system one is working with.
• Isolation of the concept: All instances of the concept must meet all the requirements
stated in its definition, while a non-instance will not satisfy at least one of them.
• Essentiality: Only terms and properties that are strictly necessary to distinguish the
concept in question from others should be explicitly mentioned in the definition.
• Non-contradiction: All the properties stated in the definition should be able to coexist.
• Non-circularity: The definition should not use the term it is trying to define (p. 17-18).

In addition to these requirements, she stated two criteria for justifying them. As Borasi
argued, a definition of a given mathematical concept should:
1. Allow us to discriminate between instances and non-instances of the concept with
certainty, consistency, and efficiency (by simply checking whether a potential candidate
satisfies all the properties stated in the definition); and

23
 2. Capture and synthesize the mathematical essence of the concept (all the properties
belonging to the concept should be logically derivable from those included in its
definition) (p. 18).

Bills and Tall (1998) discussed “formally operable mathematical definition” which was
defined as “the one that an individual is able to use in creating or meaningfully reproducing a
formal argument” (p. 104). In their research, Bills and Tall tried to investigate the instances
of successful use of definitions in theorems to build a systematic formal theory. In other
words, they focused on the transition from definition to “operable definition.” They
interviewed five students on five occasions during a twenty week analysis course. Bills and
Tall found that some students do not have a full understanding of the definitions; even if they
had some understanding, the “operability” of definitions is an ongoing struggle for them.
Other studies have shown that one of the persistent difficulties that student have in proof
producing procedure is not having operable definitions (Moore, 1994; Pinto & Tall, 1999;
Tall, 1994). Moore, for example, stated that “the proof writing difficulties for students in
introductory real-analysis were closely related to their understanding of the concepts
involved as well as their ability to state and use formal mathematical definitions” (p. 252). It
is also important to emphasize that constructing, learning, and using mathematical definitions
are accepted as a learning process (Vinner, 1991). That is one of the reasons to pay special
attention to mathematical definitions.

Summary
In summary, this literature review points to the importance of proof in mathematics,
students’ perceptions and difficulties related to proof, and the role of mathematical
definitions in doing proof. Research has demonstrated that there is a consensus on the
integral role of proof in mathematics among the mathematics education researchers (Hanna,
2000; Jones, 1997; NCTM, 2000; Schoenfeld, 1994). However, there is a considerable
amount of research showing that students do not see proof as an essential part of mathematics
(Alibert, 1988; Coe & Ruthven, 1994; Knuth, 2002; Schoenfeld, 1995). Actually, most of the
students see proof as a redundant activity which is done to check already known facts (Coe &

24
Ruthven, 1994). This perception is considered to be critical in terms of their difficulties in
doing proof (Furingetti, Olivero & Paola, 2001).
Students’ difficulties in constructing proof are well documented (Coe & Ruthven, 1994;
Moore, 1994; Selden & Selden, 2003). However, most of them focused on high school
students, the majority of which were high achieving (Healy & Hoyles, 1998, 2000; Knuth,
Slaughter, Choppin, & Sutherland, 2002; Thompson, 1991). Research done at the
undergraduate level predominantly targeted mathematics or engineering majors (Moore,
1994; Weber, 2002; Senk & Senk, 2003). There has been a gap in literature on pre-service
mathematics teachers’ position on doing proof. This study focused on this gap.

25
 CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

This chapter outlines the methodology for the research project, which was designed to
investigate prospective mathematics teachers’ use of mathematical definitions in doing proof.
It includes the description of the research method, participant selection procedures, the
interview tools and the implementation process of the tools, and the procedure that was used
for data analysis.

Overview and Purpose of the Study

The focus of this research was to investigate prospective mathematics teachers’ use of
mathematical definitions to produce mathematical proofs. Case study was used to probe
students’ understanding of mathematical definitions, their use of mathematical definitions in
exercises as well as in direct proofs, and their approaches to assess the validity of a given
proof directly deduced from mathematical definitions. In particular, researcher-designed,
task-based, semi-structured interviews were used to explore students’ approaches to
mathematical definitions and their use of mathematical definitions to produce and assess the
validity of formal mathematical proofs.

Qualitative Research
Qualitative research is defined as “a process of inquiry with the goal of understanding a
social or human problem from multiple perspectives; conducted in a natural setting with a
goal of building a complex and holistic picture of the phenomenon of interest” (Richardson
& Ginsburg, 1999, p. 46). The nature of human learning is a complex process that requires
special attention. Von Glasersfeld (1990) stated that students’ understanding of tasks is based
on their personal backgrounds and experiences. Since “qualitative methods facilitate study of
issues in depth and detail and enable researchers to approach fieldwork without being
constrained by predetermined categories of analysis” (Patton, 2002, p. 14), the choice of a
qualitative study led to a deeper understanding of prospective mathematics teachers’ use of
mathematical definitions in producing proofs. This idea is also supported by Bogdan and
Biklen (1998), who stated that “the qualitative researchers’ goal is to better understand

26
human behavior and experience. They seek to grasp the processes by which people construct
meaning and to describe what those meanings are” (p. 38).

Multiple Case Study

In this study, two cases were investigated to understand how prospective mathematics
teachers holding different views of mathematics use mathematical definitions to do and
assess the validity of proofs. As stated by Merriam (1998), case studies provide “intensive,
holistic description and analysis of a single, bounded unit” (p. 193). She also stated that “the
more cases included in a study, and the greater the variation across the cases, the more
compelling an interpretation is likely to be done” (p. 40). This study was designed as
“exploratory” and “descriptive” in nature to cover the depth and scope of the cases.
As in any qualitative research, credibility, transferability, and dependability were major
concerns of this study. Patton (2002) stated that the credibility of qualitative research
depends on three elements: “rigorous methods for doing fieldwork, the credibility of the
researcher, and philosophical belief in the value of qualitative inquiry” (p. 552). Merriam
(1998) proposed six strategies to enhance credibility of a qualitative study based on her
research experience and literature. This study used four of those: triangulation, member
checking, long-term observation, and peer-examination.
Denzin (1978) identified four types of triangulation: data, investigator, theory, and
methodology. This study utilized data triangulation, which is defined as using multiple data
sources to draw inferences and build a coherent justification for themes (Creswell, 2003).
The data used for analysis included field notes, transcripts of videos, and students’ written
work as they performed the tasks.
Merriam (1998) described member checking as “taking data and tentative interpretations
back to the people from whom they were derived and asking them if the results are plausible”
(p. 204). It was also suggested to do the member checking continuously. This study ensured
at least one week between the interviews, which allowed time to do the initial analysis and
discuss the interpretations with the participants at the beginning of the following interview.
Additionally, observations and interpretations were summarized at the end of each interview
to clarify any discrepancies between the researcher’s interpretations and participants’
thoughts.

27
 Long-term observation was stated as another way to increase the credibility of findings.
Merriam (1998) defined this method as gathering data over a period of time. This study spent
approximately 1.5 months interviewing students. Each interview lasted around 1.5 hours,
depending on the participants’ ability to solve the problems and verbalize their thinking. This
allowed time to collect and analyze data over a period of time.
The fourth way that was used to ensure credibility was peer-examination (Merriam,
1998). This method is used to enhance the accuracy of the interpretation. It includes asking
colleagues to comment on the interpretations. During the analysis, I discussed my findings
with two colleagues: one graduate student studying mathematics and one graduate student in
mathematics education who has experience with qualitative research and mathematics
expertise. I first asked them how they would interpret the data and then shared my
interpretations. Those discussions allowed me to articulate my interpretations and sometimes
look for further evidence to clarify the inferences that I made.
Transferability, which is defined as “generalizability of the findings and results of the
study to other settings, situations, populations, circumstances and such” (Lincoln & Guba,
1985, p.124), was another main concern of this study. Lincoln and Guba stated that the actual
burden of transferability is not on the original researcher. It is on the researcher who
considers applying the work to his/her circumstances. In other words, it is the subsequent
researcher’s responsibility to ensure that his/her circumstances are sufficiently similar to
those of the original study to warrant safe generalization. Detailed information was provided
for each of the cases, including the tools that were used, and participants’ responses to the
tasks were recorded so that the ‘subsequent researcher’ would have sufficient information to
make the transfer. This type of detailed information is called “thick description” (Lincoln &
Guba, p. 125). Patton (2002) pointed out that “thick description takes the reader to the setting
described” (p. 437).
According to Goldin (2000), the reliability of any study includes measuring the
consistency between the task-based interviews conducted, observations done, and inferences
made using defined criteria. Participants for this study were chosen using the same criteria.
Additionally, the interview tasks as well as the follow-up questions during the interviews
provided uniformity across the study. The methodology and data collection tools as well as

28
the procedure used in this study are described in detail so another researcher can replicate
and reproduce it if necessary.

Participant Selection
Purposeful sampling was used to select participants for this study. Patton (2002)
described purposeful sampling as “selecting information-rich cases whose study will
illuminate the question under study” (p.230). For Lincoln and Guba (1985), “naturalistic
sampling is based on informational, not statistical, considerations. Its’ purpose is to
maximize information, not to facilitate generalization” (p. 202). The subjects were selected
according to the following criteria: being a junior- or senior-level secondary mathematics
education major at a large southeastern research extensive university who took Linear
Algebra I and an additional proof-based mathematics course. In this study, “proof-based
mathematics course” refers to a course that is designed to introduce students to proof
techniques, analyzing given proofs, and writing formal mathematical proofs. The
mathematics education program coordinator was contacted first in order to obtain a list of the
students who would satisfy the above criteria. Then, I discussed the potential students with
the faculty who had had them in their classes to see if they have any concerns about the
students being willing to verbalize their thinking. Once the list had been verified, I sent an
invitation e-mail to potential candidates to solicit their participation the study. The students
were offered a $50 gift card for about six hours of participation time. Six students initially
agreed to join the study, but two of them decided to withdraw from the study after the first
interview.
After conducting the clinical interviews with four students, I decided to develop case
studies of two: one of whom held instrumentalist and the other Platonist views. The study
aimed to include students with differing views of mathematics so as to describe the nature of
different perspectives’ use of definitions in doing proof. The remaining two students could
not be clearly categorized as instrumentalist, Platonist, or problem solvers and did not
provide rich data for the purposes of this study.

29
 Instruments
To probe the participants’ understanding and use of mathematical definitions in
producing proof, a proof conception survey and three sets of protocols were developed and
utilized to collect data through the interviews.
The first instrument, Students’ Proof Conceptions Survey (Appendix A), consisted of a
series of open-ended questions followed by the discussion of high school student generated
arguments, which attempt to ascertain prospective mathematics teachers’ conceptions about
mathematics, proof, and mathematical definitions. Student generated arguments were adapted
from Gray (2006). Primarily, this instrument was intended to provide the data which would
help to answer the first research question:
How do prospective mathematics teachers understand the role of mathematical
definitions? In what ways, if any, does this influence their work with definitions
in producing formal mathematical proofs?

The rationale for the use of this instrument can be found in Schoenfeld (1985) and Moore
(1994). In their research, they reported that the conceptions and”belief systems” of students
affect their proof writing performance.
The second instrument was three sets of interview protocols which had been designed to
investigate students’ use of mathematical definitions in producing proof in three context
areas: linear algebra, geometry, and set theory (Appendix B, C, and D, respectively).
Questions for the linear algebra set were adapted from Lay (2003). Questions of set theory
were adapted from Ross and Wright (1999). Questions of geometry were adapted from Serra
(2008). Each set of protocols had three types of questions. The first type included exercises
that utilized the direct application of given definitions. The intent of Type I questions was to
shed light on what a student can infer from the given definition and how they would apply it
to simple, mostly one-step exercises. Type II questions were designed to investigate students’
use of definitions in producing mathematical proofs which are mostly direct inference of
given definitions. Type III questions were designed to examine students’ competency in
understanding and evaluating proofs that are directly inferred from definitions. Type I and
Type II questions helped to gather insight to answer research question 2:

30
 What are prospective mathematics teachers’ understandings of the related
concepts of basic set theory, linear algebra, and geometry? In what way, if
any, do these understandings influence their work with formal definitions in
producing formal mathematical proofs?

The data accumulated from Type III questions were used to answer the last research
question: How do prospective mathematics teachers judge the validity of a given proof that is
derived from mathematical definitions?
All three sets of problems were examined by five content experts to verify that each type
of questions served their goals. Content experts are as follows: 1) Dr. Giray Okten from
Florida State University Mathematics Department, 2) Dr. Kathleen Clark from Florida State
University, School of Teacher Education, 3) Dr. Barbara Edwards from Oregon State
University Mathematics Department, 4) Dr. Behiye Ubuz from Middle East Technical
University Department of Secondary Science and Mathematics Education, and 5) Todd
Clark, Bureau Chief of Curriculum and Instruction at the Florida Department of Education.
Based on their suggestions and comments, some changes were made that resulted in adding
the definition of empty set, systems of equations, as well as the solution set of systems of
equations. In addition, definitions of parallelogram, rectangle, and square were changed to
make the definitions independent of each other. Lastly, it was suggested that related
definitions be repeated on each page.
Each interview focused on one content area and had three Type I, three Type II, and two
Type III questions. The problems were kept simple in order to minimize bias due to students’
content knowledge of the focus topic. Three different content areas - linear algebra,
geometry, and set theory - were selected to investigate if there were any differences in
students’ responses attributed to the content area. Particular attention was paid to possible
trends that emerged specific to content areas. More specifically, careful attention was given
to students’ approaches to the most recent topic, linear algebra; a proof-based topic,
geometry, which is also the first course in which they encounter proof; and lastly, a less
familiar topic, set theory.

31
 Clinical Interviews
Clinical interviews were the primary method for data collection. Ernest (1997) explained
the role of clinical interviews in mathematics education research as follows:
One of the central components of the qualitative research paradigm is the constructivist
perspective on learning […] It is primarily the influence of Jean Piaget that has
established constructivism as a central theoretical perspective on learning in mathematics
education […] Piaget’s methodology centers on the use of clinical interview. In this
procedure, an individual subject is required to perform certain carefully designed tasks in
front of, and with prompting and probing from, an interview. A series of sessions are
likely to be needed for the researcher to develop and test his or her model of the subject’s
understanding concerning even the narrowest of mathematical topics. Piaget’s clinical
interview method is a seminal contribution to qualitative research methodology in
mathematics education because it supplies in-depth information on which to construe an
individual’s thinking and cognitive processing (p. 28).

Clement (2000) also supported the use of clinical interviews by arguing that research
methods including open-ended interviews and think-loud problem-solving protocols play key
roles in science and mathematics education. He further argued that open-ended interviews
and think-loud protocols allow researchers to collect and analyze data on the mental
processes of subjects’ thinking that cannot be detected by non-clinical data gathering
techniques.
In this study, weekly clinical interviews were conducted with four students in Summer
2008 and Fall 2008 semesters to understand how those students view mathematics, proof,
mathematical definitions, and their approaches to proof writing and evaluation (See Figure 1
For Interview Timeline). The focus of the first interview was the conceptions survey. Before
the interview, students were explained the goal of the research and it was emphasized that the
questions were not meant in any way to test their performance in mathematics. It was also
made clear that the goal of the interviews was to understand their thought processes as they
answered the questions and worked on the tasks. Then, they were given the opportunity to
ask any questions to address their concerns. Once they agreed to be interviewed, they were
asked for permission to audio- and video-tape the interviews and to sign the consent form.

32
According to Roschelle (2000), “video offers repeated viewing of the same event and can
support interpretations from many points of view” (p. 727).

Interview#1 Interview#2 Interview#3 Interview#4

Brad 3rd Week of 4th Week of 1st Week of 2nd Week of

July July August August

Emily 1st Week of 2nd Week of 3rd Week of 4th Week of

September September September September

Clark 1st Week of 2nd Week of 3rd Week of 4th Week of

September September September September

Adam 1st Week of 2nd Week of 3rd Week of 4th Week of

September September September September

Katherine 2nd Week of N/A N/A N/A

September

Lisa 2nd Week of N/A N/A N/A

September

Figure1: Interview Timeline

The next three interviews were the task-based protocols. The interviews were initiated by
asking subjects about their previous experiences with the focus topic, particularly proof
writing and reading in that content. Then, they were handed the protocols and asked to “think
aloud” (Simon & Erickson, 1993) while they solved the tasks. The reason for this was to
gather evidence of their thinking processes in addition to their written work. Moreover, it
allowed for observation of their thoughts as they discussed the possible solutions in their

33
mind. There was no time limit for any task. As they worked on the problems, they were
asked indirect follow up questions in order to encourage them to talk and to probe them to
think more deeply. Lastly, they were often asked clarification questions in order to clear up
their answers.

Data Analysis
There were three sources of data for analysis: field notes, transcripts of video recordings,
and participants’ written work. In order to determine participants’ views about mathematics,
the study used Ernest’s (1988) framework. Ernest identified three conceptions of
mathematics: instrumentalist, Platonist, and problem solver. According to Ernest, the
instrumentalist view characterizes mathematics as a set of unrelated but utilitarian rules and
facts. A Platonist, on the other hand, defines mathematics as a static but unified body of
knowledge. In this view, mathematics is discovered, not created. Lastly, a problem solver
identifies mathematics as a “dynamic, continually expanding field of human creation and
invention, a cultural product” (p. 2). Students’ responses to the conception survey were
examined repeatedly to determine their view of mathematics. Researcher discussed her
interpretations with her major professor, a mathematics graduate student, and a mathematics
education graduate student to enhance her categorization. One student was categorized as
instrumentalist, one as Platonist, but the other two could not be clearly identified. That is why
the study only included the students who were clearly categorized in terms of their
mathematical beliefs. The study aimed to investigate the nature of students’ with different
view of mathematics use of mathematical definitions in doing and assessing the validity of a
proof.
The study used used Pinto & Tall’s (1998) framework to analyze Type I tasks. They
suggested two approaches of using definitions in mathematical deductions: giving meaning
and extracting meaning. The former “involved using various personal clues to enrich the
definition with examples often using visual images” (p. 3). On the other hand, the latter
“involved routinising the definition, perhaps by repetition, before using it as a basis for
formal deduction” (p. 3).
The study used Raman’s (2003) framework to analyze Type II tasks that were designed to
investigate students’ proof approaches. She suggested three kinds of ideas involved in

34
production and evaluation of a proof: heuristics, procedural, and key. According to Raman, a
heuristic idea gives a sense of some understanding but not conviction. An individual with this
idea provides some related ideas but not a formal proof. The second idea, procedural, gives a
sense of conviction but not understanding. Raman stated that “this is an idea based on logic
and formal manipulations which leads to a formal proof without connection to informal
understanding” (p. 322). Lastly, key idea, is identified as the idea that can lead to proof
production with appropriate sense of rigor. Individuals with this idea can provide a formal
proof with an understanding of why the claim is true.
Lastly, students’ responses to Type III tasks were examined to identify repeating themes
in their discussions to assess the validity of a given proof. Grouws (1991) called the process
“grounded theory”.
In order to generate descriptions of each case, each participant’s clinical interviews were
analyzed weekly. Students’ ideas for each proof task were identified using Raman’s (2003)
framework and related literature. As stated in the multiple case study section, data
triangulation, member checking, long-term observation, and peer-examination were
conducted in order to enhance observations and interpretations.

35
 CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

In this chapter, the results of the data analysis for each case are discussed: Emily and
Brad. For each case, background information is provided, the results of the conception
interview are presented, and the results of the task-based interviews are discussed in terms of
Type I, Type II, and Type III problems.
Type I exercises were designed to investigate participants’ use of mathematical
definitions in solving basic exercises, such as given the definition of subset, finding the
subsets of a set. The study used Pinto & Tall’s (1998) framework to analyze Type I tasks.
They suggested two approaches of using definitions in mathematical deductions: giving
meaning and extracting meaning. The former “involved using various personal clues to
enrich the definition with examples often using visual images” (p. 3). On the other hand, the
latter “involved routinising the definition, perhaps by repetition, before using it as a basis for
formal deduction” (p. 3).
Type II questions were designed to investigate participants’ use of definitions in proof
production in three different contexts: set theory, linear algebra, and geometry. The study
used Raman (2003)’s framework in the analysis of students’ work. Raman suggested three
approaches that are used in proof production: heuristics, procedural, and key idea. She
described the heuristic approach as the argumentation that involves personal conviction and
some informal understanding but not a formal proof. Procedural approach, on the other hand,
was described as an idea based on logic and formal manipulations, which leads to a formal
proof without connection to informal understanding. Lastly, the key idea approach was
identified as the idea that leads to formal proof production with an appropriate sense of rigor.
Finally, Type III questions were designed to investigate how participants evaluated the
validity of given proofs that are derived from definitions. The nature of their proof validation
practice is presented.

36
 CASE OF EMILY
Emily was born on February 6, 1982, in a small town in Alabama. Her school life took
place in a rural area of Florida Panhandle due to her dad’s job as a Certified Public
Accountant (CPA). Her memories from elementary school were mainly how successful she
was in arithmetic. She said that when her teacher gave them full sheets of simple addition
problems, she was the first to finish most of the time. Moreover, she expressed her interest in
problems about money. She said that “I always enjoyed the problems about money. My
favorites were the ones with pictures of money and we had to write out how much money
was being shown in the picture” (Math Autobiography, Fall 2008). This could be due to her
dad being a CPA. In eighth grade, she attended a math competition. She stressed that she had
been the only student selected from her school. She had ranked 9th place. She described
herself as a successful student in mathematics. When she started high school, in her freshman
year, she got suspended from school for ten days, and this absence resulted in Emily getting
an “F” in Algebra I for the first six-week marking period. Although she passed the class, she
could not take the Geometry Honors class in tenth grade due to the “F” in Algebra I. When
she started 10th grade, she said she was worried that she would not be successful in
Geometry. She was concerned because she had grown up hearing that people were either
good at Algebra or good at Geometry. In her case, it was not true. She made all “A’s” in
Geometry and was placed in Algebra II Honors for eleventh grade.
Emily graduated from high school in 2000 and went to a junior college right after high
school. In college, she took Calculus I, Calculus II, Calculus III, and Differential Equations
back to back and graduated in Spring 2002. Following her Associates in Arts (AA) degree,
she enrolled in a large research university as Meteorology major. She said it was a very hard
major because of the heavy physics emphasis. Then, she decided to go back to a local junior
college to take basic engineering courses. As she was taking the courses (Spring 2002-Spring
2006), she was also working full time for a government agency. Then, in spring 2006, while
“sitting at work,” she decided to go back to school to be a mathematics teacher. She said that
her 8th grade mathematics teacher told her that she should have been a mathematics teacher
but she had not agree with the teacher at that time. But in spring 2006, the “idea really hit”
her and she decided to go back to school to get her degree. When she was accepted to the
Mathematics Education major, the mathematics courses that she took in junior college were

37
counted. So, she did not take any of the Calculus sequence. She expressed that not taking any
Calculus made her nervous because she hardly remembered the content. Moreover, she was
worried about passing the certification exam. On the other hand, she made A’s in all her
mathematics courses. She said she just needed to refresh her memory. Emily did her student
teaching in Spring 2009 and successfully graduated with a degree in Mathematics Education.

Conception of Mathematics
Emily’s view of mathematics was limited to the utilitarian aspect of mathematics. In her
explanations, she primarily emphasized real life use of mathematics at a basic level. Her first
reaction to the question “what is mathematics” was: “I have never thought about it. I will
look it up from the dictionary when I get back home for its exact meaning. I do not know”
(Conception Interview, September 5, 2008). Following that response, she was asked, “What
comes to your mind when you think of mathematics? What evokes in your mind?” Her
answer to this question was: “in my level; numbers, symbols, equations, problems, sitting
down and solving problems, doing calculations, figures and things like that” (Conception
Interview, September 5, 2008). Then, she continued explaining the importance of
mathematics as providing a decent life. She argued that without mathematics, it would be
really hard to function in life. Her examples were situated around basic arithmetic in life such
as budgeting accounts or time. She repeatedly gave the example of budgeting as she was
talking about mathematics. She also stressed that “if you do the calculations right, you would
be more successful in life” (Conception Interview, September 5, 2008). Further, she stated
that in order to explain the importance of algebra to 10th grade students, she gives the
example of using fractions to modify recipe measures. Another major argument that she
made regarding mathematics was that there were two levels of mathematics: mathematics
and advance mathematics. She associated “regular” mathematics that she sees herself in with
a computation system as explained above. On the other hand, she described advanced
mathematics as the one that includes letters more than numbers. According to her, advanced
mathematics starts from Calculus III and goes up. It includes “problems or proofs that
sometimes just include letters” (Conception Interview, September 5, 2008). She put herself in
“regular mathematics”: “I was telling Dr. Martin (pseudo) that I am not an advanced

38
mathematics person. I have been away for a long time. Maybe later I can go back to school
for that” (Conception Interview, September 5, 2008).
Emily was categorized as instrumentalist based on her statements. The major emphasis
on a utilitarian aspect of mathematics, explanations limited to basic computations, and strong
focus on following rules were the rationale for this categorization. Moreover, her university
supervisor during her internship also observed the strong emphasis on following procedures
in her teaching.

Conception of Proof
Emily’s conception of proof was limited to the “explanation” role of proof. During the
discussions, she constantly argued that “we do proof to answer why it is the way it is”
(Conception Interview, September 5, 2008). Her explanations were situated around the idea
of “explaining [to] someone the reason why something works. To back up what you say.”
(Conception Interview, September 5, 2008). This was consistent with the findings of Coe and
Ruthven (1994) who stated that “students’ primary concern was to validate conjectured rules
and patterns” (p.52) as they are doing proof.
Emily’s first reaction to discussions regarding proof was: “it means “run” for me!!”
Being experienced in doing proof seemed to be a major criterion for her to feel comfortable
in proof. Geometry was the content that she had the most experience with and expressed as
feeling the most comfortable with in terms of doing proof.
There was evidence showing her emphasis on the “ritualistic” aspect of proof. She stated
that:
Before Dr. Art’s class, I really liked geometry proofs. It is like a puzzle. I would write the
given and the reason. My idea of proof was like a T table. But when I took Dr. Art’s class
proof got a lot more complicated […] He gave all those hints, those strange words like
therefore, thus, such that, etc. You write out a paragraph proof. It was so different for me
(Conception Interview, September 5, 2008).

Her ritualistic (Vinner, 1983) emphasis was also observed in her approaches to write a
proof. She stated that her method to do proof is starting with the given so that she “would
have at least one statement in the proof.” Then, “there is the middle part followed by the

39
conclusion. Everything should follow from the previous one.” Her statement also revealed
that she holds a traditional, formalist perspective on proof. Griffiths (2000) explained
formalist perspective of proof as the view that “a mathematical proof is a formal and logical
line of reasoning that begins with a set of axioms and moves through logical steps to a
conclusion” (p. 2).

Conception of Mathematical Definitions

One of the most striking assertions that Emily made regarding mathematical definitions
was “proving a definition.” Although she referred to the descriptive nature of mathematical
definitions, she did not seem to distinguish a definition from a proposition and/or theorem.
She stated that “definitions show what something is. I assume when somebody writes the
definition of a circle they proved that the equal distance from the radius and things like that.”
It could be due to the confusion between showing the necessary and sufficient conditions to
name a concept and the fact that a definition “establishes the necessary and sufficient
conditions for a concept” (Zaskin & Leikin, 2008, p. 133).
When she was asked about the role of definitions in proof her answer was
straightforward: “anywhere it makes proof easier.” It has been observed in her work that
anywhere she is not sure about the reasoning of the steps that she took, she put “by
definitions of…” as it is exemplified in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Emily’s Work for Geometry Type II Task 2

40
 Task Based Interviews
Type I
Emily used the giving meaning approach most of the time. She tried to use her concept
images to make deductions from mathematical definitions. If she had a complete concept
image that comfortably led her to an argument, she tended to bypass the given definitions.

Figure 3: Emily’s Work for Geometry Type I Task 1

For instance, when she was working on the task in Figure 3 she immediately responded
by matching her concept image of a polygon (two figures drawn by hand on the side) to the
given figure and said “it is like I imagine, so it is a polygon.” Vinner (1991) argued that
although it is desirable for the individuals working on a mathematical task to consult the
definitions before making deductions, it is not always the case. He further stated that the
reason for that is referencing concept image is quite successful most of the time with typical
examples.
On the other hand, if Emily’s concept image was incomplete to make confident
deductions or the given definition conflicted with her concept image, she revisited the
definitions to enrich her concept image, which led her to a satisfactory or unsatisfactory
output. Figure 4 contains an example of her work in which she consulted the given definition
to reconstruct her concept image that led her to the correct argumentation.

41
 Figure 4: Emily’s Work for Linear Algebra Type I Task 2

When she first read the exercise, Emily immediately multiplied the entries but did not
add them. She said “it was something like that but this does not sound quite right” (Linear
Algebra Interview, September 29, 2008). Her concept image was incomplete, so she
consulted the definition and continued her solution by adding the multiplied entries. When
asked to explain her thinking process for this exercise, Emily responded:
I remember that we multiply the entries like this but I also know that I should end up
with a 2x1 matrix. So, I went back and checked the definition and recognized that I
should add them. Definition helped me to remember the missing parts. […] If I did not
know anything, I do not think it would help me. It is not very clear for me.

As mentioned above, not all of Emily’s consultation to definitions to enrich her concept
image resulted in correct argumentation. Actually, most of the time, her concept image was
not strong enough to accommodate new knowledge for concept formation. Her work to the
problem in Figure 5 is an example to this process.

Definition: If A and B are sets, B is said to be a subset of A , written B ⊆ A ,

provided every member of B is a member of A .
Exercise 1: Let S = {a, b} . List all the subsets of S .

Figure 5: Set Theory Type I Task 1

42
 Emily was not very familiar with the concept of subset. She said that she learned it a year
before when she was in the proof transition course. She recalled subset as “pieces of a set”
but was not satisfied with her concept image. She read the definition of subset repeatedly.
She first identified the elements of the set as a and b. Then, she stated the elements as the
subsets with significant hesitation. When I asked her about the reason why she was not
confident about her answer she responded as follows: “there are two sets here (in the
definition) but in this exercise there is only S. It is written so differently up here (in the
definition) […] there is only one set to compare” (Set Theory Interview, September 10,
2008). Emily could not accommodate the new information the definition offers. She was
unable to reconstruct her concept definition for correct concept formation of subset. She
finally decided to put a and b as the subsets and explained her reasoning as: “My first
thought was that there was no subset. But since you are asking, there should be. I thought a is
part of it, b is part of it. Since they were the pieces they are the only possible subsets” (Set
Theory Interview, September 10, 2008).

Figure 6: Emily’s Work for Seth Theory Type I Task 1

Emily, like many other students, was taught the definitions with examples of definitions.
She was always provided examples to “interpret” a definition. She did not have much
experience to “interpret” by herself what the definition of a mathematical object establishes
about the characteristics of it. This could be the one of the reasons for her to work from her
concept images, which are mostly “interpreter” examples, to form a concept. For instance,
when she was trying to understand the definitions of set union and intersection, she got very

43
frustrated. Whenasked the reason for her frustration and whether the definitions were helpful,
she responded:
Not really. They are very wordy. More examples would have helped. If the definitions
had examples, you would know how they would look like. They are really abstract now. I
am a visual person. If I see how it looks like, it makes more sense to me. It would be
more comprehensible. Making them connect to examples or pictures would definitely
help (Set Theory Interview, September 10, 2008).

The way Emily constructed her concept images seemed to be aligned with her
instrumentalist view of mathematics. Her concept images were mostly unrelated, utilitarian
mathematical facts (e.g. subsets are the pieces of a set). As was seen in Figure 6, Emily’s
strong emphasis on the disconnected mathematical knowledge seemed to hinder
accommodating new knowledge to reconstruct her concept image to use the given definitions
effectively. More specifically, although the definition of proper subset (If B is a subset of A
and B≠A then B is called as proper subset) implies the fact that a set is a subset of itself, her
limited concept definition of subset seemed to prevent her making connections to
accommodate new knowledge.

Figure 7: Emily’s Work for Set Theory Type I Task 2

Type II
Emily’s approach often exhibited the characteristics of the heuristic approach. For each
statement given to prove, she negotiated with herself to see if it “made sense” and ended up
providing supporting arguments from her personal knowledge. For example, in order to
prove the transitive property of subsets (Let A , B and C be arbitrary sets. If A ⊆ B

44
and B ⊆ C , then A ⊆ C ) she said that “it is like a=b, b=c then a=c, only we do not have =
sign here” (Set Theory Interview, September 10, 2008). On the other hand, she could not
provide a formal proof for the statement.

Figure 8: Emily’s Work for Set Theory Type II Task 1

When Emily read the proposition to prove, she immediately started writing the given and
what to prove. Then she looked back to the definition of subset. It seemed that the definition
of subset did not help her. Although she defined subsets as “the pieces of a set,” she could
not make the argument that if the pieces of set A are also the “pieces” of set B when the
pieces of set B are also the pieces of set C then pieces of set A should be also pieces of set C.
Her lack of understanding of the subset concept seemed to prevent her making arguments
using the concept. Instead she stated that: “I just want to use substitution” (Set Theory
Interview). But following this statement, she said “there has got to be more to prove” (Set
Theory Interview). When asked for clarification, she responded with “I think you just cross
them (set B in the proposition) out and use substitution but there is got to be something
more.” I continued asking the question “why?” for further clarification and she responded as
“because it is too simple. All is right there. It is like a=b and b=c so a=b. That is true but
there is no = sign here so I am just trying to think. Here it says subset.” She reread the
proposition, seemed to debate with herself if it made sense, and convinced herself to “go
with” the substitution property. Instead of using her informal understanding of subsets, she
chose to apply a procedure that she recalled from another topic (transitive property of
equality) that she thought “fit”.
Emily’s attempt to prove the statement did not go further than stating informal
knowledge. Although her work showed some “insight,” it was not an acceptable proof. Her
lack of understanding the subset concept (as discussed in the previous paragraph) and
discomfort with related mathematical language and symbols seemed to be two major

45
constraints in her failure to produce the proof. She expressed her struggle with the wording of
the definition of subset as “It is written so differently up here (in the definition)[…] It does
not make much sense.”
Experience, as she mentioned in the conception interview, seemed to be distinctive in her
comfort to do proof. She had the least experience with set theory in which her
argumentations were highly heuristic, based on informal understandings and isolated from
the definitions. On the other hand, even though she could not provide formal proofs in linear
algebra, her argumentations seemed to be more confident and related to definitions (See
Figure 9).

Figure 9: Emily’s Work for Linear Algebra Type II Task 1

She started with checking if the theorem made sense or not. Emily picked a set of vectors
with three elements just to “see” how the theorem worked. She convinced herself, stating that
if the matrix has one zero vector, which means a column of zero, then she can always get a
zero matrix by row-reducing. Then, she negotiated with herself and concluded that her
reasoning showed that the set had to be independent. She finished her argumentation stating
that “since I showed one case that does not work, this will not be true.” She then wanted to
recall the “proof method” that she used and asked for the terminology. Unlike the set theory,
she consulted the given definitions more and could identify some characteristics of the
objects, such as not having all the coefficients zero for linear dependency.

46
 When Emily worked on geometry tasks she was very confident. She seemed confident in
writing a proof. Although she made incorrect assumptions or deductions in her geometry
proofs, they were the “closest” to being formal complete proofs.

Figure 10: Emily’s Work for Geometry Type II Task 1

Unlike the set theory and linear algebra definitions, she could easily identify the
characteristics of the defined geometric object and use them effectively. For example, she
could state that due to the definition of square all the sides are congruent. Further, she used
that deduction in her reasoning (See Figure 10).
Another important observation was about Emily’s attempts to use a definition in different
contexts. In set theory, she read the definitions but she could not understand the concepts.
Her own knowledge did not seem to be compatible with the given definitions. Although she
was aware of the incompleteness of her own understanding, she could not cope with the
given definitions and analyze what they offered. On the other hand, when Emily was working
on linear algebra, she seemed to be more confident in reading the given definitions and to
benefit from what the definition offered about the characteristics of the concept. For
example, she could recall how to write the systems of linear equations in matrix form and to
row-reduce to solve it. However, she could not remember exactly why they had done it in
linear algebra, so she consulted the given definitions. Emily inferred that when she got the
identity matrix it would tell her the solution. Although the concept formation was not solely
from the definition, she could use the definitions to enhance her concept image. Lastly,
Emily could effectively use the geometry definitions. Whenever she needed to back up her

47
statements she could pick the necessary characteristics of the geometric object. She could
break the geometric definitions into necessary conditions.

Figure 11: Part of Emily’s Work on Geometry Type II Task 2

Lastly, in set theory and linear algebra, Emily treated the definitions as one complete
object that she could use “whenever it makes the proof easy,” as she mentioned during the
conception interview about mathematical definitions. Figure 12 is an example of when she
used a definition as a reason without logical deduction.

Figure 12: Emily’s Work for Linear Algebra Type II Task 3

When Emily first saw the theorem, she said that “we just did this in transformations. This
is nothing but transformation. I do not see anything to prove here. Is there anything that you
want me prove?” (Linear Algebra Interview, September 29, 2008). When asked if she would

48
prove a definition, she responded as “sometimes. It is possible. I do not remember doing a lot
of it but instructors would do it.” Following that answer, she was asked why she did not
provide a proof after stating it is the definition of transformation. Her response was “because
I just saw it. It is transformation.” Although Emily further argued that proving definitions is
“good” to explain why the things are the way they are, she did not try to prove the theorem. It
seemed that because her definition of transformation looked structurally familiar, she could
“get away” from proving it by constructing her proof on a definition.

Type III
Weber (2008) argued that “individuals’ epistemological beliefs about proof necessarily
influence their conceptions of how one should determine whether a given argument
constitutes a proof.” This was exemplified in Emily’s case. As discussed in the Type I
results, Emily expressed a formalist perspective on proof that is established on the idea that
“a mathematical proof is a formal and logical line of reasoning that begins with a set of
axioms and moves through logical steps to a conclusion” (Griffiths, 2000, p. 2). Not
surprisingly, in her discussions about the validity of a given proof, Emily’s main concern was
the flow of the arguments. She focused on whether the proof started with the given, followed
through logical arguments without skipping any steps and explaining every statement in the
proof, and ended with the conclusion. For instance, when she was assessing the validity of
the proof shown in Figure 13, Emily checked each step for whether it made sense (when she
confirmed she put a tick mark) and would follow from the previous statement.

Figure 13: Emily’s Work for Geometry Type III Task 1

49
 Emily stated this proof was valid with one hesitation on the first statement. Although she
agreed that the statement was correct, she looked for a more explicit statement.
Her criterion for the validity of a proof was also aligned with her conception of the role
of proof: explanation. She constantly searched for the explanation of each step. For example,
as she discussed the validity of the proof given in Figure 14, Emily argued that “first step to
second step I see what they did but they are not telling me how/why they have it that is why
it is invalid.”

Proposition 2: Given that l is a line, ∠A ≅ ∠B and ∠C ≅ ∠D , prove that

m∠A + m∠C = 90° .

Figure 14: Interview#1 Proposition 2 Student Argument 2

Contrary to many research findings about prospective teachers’ and students’ acceptance
of example-based arguments as proofs (Healy & Hoyles, 2000; Selden & Selden, 2003;
Sowder & Harel, 2003), Emily did not accept empirical arguments as proofs of mathematical
generalizations. She was clear that any argument solely based on examples did not construct
a valid proof for a general statement. For instance, she stated that the two student arguments
shown in Figure 15 were invalid because “they just provide examples, they do not prove
anything” (Conception Interview, September 5, 2008). She further argued that “Student 1

50
gives two examples, Student 3 provides more but she still needs to know it will work for any
set of consecutive numbers not the ones they picked” (Conception Interview).

Proposition 1: Prove that the sum of 3 consecutive integers is divisible by 3

Figure 15 : Interview#1 Proposition1 Student#1 and #4 Arguments

This result is consistent with the findings of Morris (2007), who stated that “when
preservice teachers apply their conceptions about “explaining why,” they tended to evaluate
example-based inductive arguments as invalid” (p. 499).

Summary
Emily was a nontraditional secondary mathematics education major who had a fairly
successful school life. If her grades are accepted as a criterion for her mathematics
knowledge, she would be qualified as strong in mathematics since she had at least Bs,
(though mostly As) in her mathematics courses. She was listed in the university’s President’s
List in her last semester before student teaching. Although Emily was considered a strong
mathematics student, her conception of mathematics showed the characteristics of an
instrumentalist philosophy. She framed her beliefs about mathematics around the utilitarian

51
aspect of mathematics, mostly focusing on the practical use of mathematics in everyday life,
such as budgeting. Moreover, she expressed her view of mathematics as a composition of
symbols, rules, equations, and problems. Her conception of mathematics was also aligned
with her beliefs about proof and mathematical definitions. She held a formalist view of proof,
in which proof is seen as a formal and logical line of reasoning that begins with a given and
moves through logical steps to the desired conclusion. Emily stressed the explanation role of
proof as the main reason to do proofs. Expectedly, her conception of proof guided her
strategy to assess the validity of a given proof. In order to evaluate the validity of a proof, she
looked for the line-by-line explanations of each statement and the flow of the arguments.
Emily’s conception of mathematical definitions was different than a mathematician’s
view of a definition. The most striking statement that she made regarding mathematical
definitions was “proving a definition.” She treated definitions like a proposition for which
one needs to prove it once and then use it afterwards without repeating its proof. Another
interesting finding observed in her case was her confusion about what a mathematical
definition establishes about the defined mathematical object. She seemed to struggle to
identify the characteristics of a mathematical object from its definition. Moreover, Emily
held the view that it is necessary to prove those characteristics.
In the Type I tasks, which were designed to investigate participants’ use of definitions in
simple exercises, Emily tended to use the giving meaning approach. Although she read the
given definitions before taking any action, her reference, if any, was mostly her concept
images about the related definition. When she was confident that her concept image was
satisfactory to make arguments, she preferred to bypass the definition. Vinner (1991)
characterized this process as “intuitive reasoning,” which is the most common approach in
the use of definitions for deductions. Emily referred to given definitions to reconstruct her
concept image when she could not reach a satisfactory logical deduction. Her attempts to
enrich her concept images so that she could make the satisfactory deductions were either
successful or unsuccessful depending on her familiarity with the concepts. Not surprisingly,
she mostly used intuitive reasoning in geometry due to her confidence in her concept images
for this content. Alternatively, Emily needed to revisit the provided definitions in linear
algebra and set theory. Although she could somehow manage to identify and use the
definitions that linear algebra offered, that was not the case for set theory tasks.

52
 Lastly, Emily’s approaches in producing proof were mainly categorized as “heuristic
idea.” She first negotiated with herself to determine whether the statement “made sense” or
not. Once she was convinced, she tried to provide logical arguments based on her informal
understandings. Emily was more successful in producing a formal proof in geometry then in
linear algebra and least in set theory. There were two major reasons for this ranking:
conceptual understanding and proof writing experience in the specified context.

53
 CASE OF BRAD
Brad was born on October 30, 1967 in NJ. He lived in New Jersey until he graduated
from high school in 1985. He described himself as a “very successful student” in elementary
school. However, he could not maintain that success level in middle school. Brad blamed his
middle school for the decay in his academic life. He explained that when he entered sixth
grade, his middle school was selected as the pilot school for an “open classroom” concept.
However, it did not end up a successful implementation and the school district decided to go
back to traditional system after one year. Brad said that his “unfortunate” experience in sixth
grade badly affected his middle school achievement. He stated that he was barely passing his
classes and mathematics became his worst subject. Because of his poor performance during
middle school, the school counselor recommended that he be left back. Despite this
recommendation, his parents decided to let him continue on to high school, for which he felt
“lucky.”
High school was totally different than middle school for him. In freshman year, he was
enrolled in more introductory level classes in all of his classes. In mathematics, he was
placed into Introduction to Algebra, Part I. It was a “very basic” algebra class that had been
split up over the freshman and sophomore years. He achieved a 4.0 GPA at the end of the
first quarter and became very interested in mathematics. He claimed that being enrolled in
the Air Force JROTC program also helped him to get back on track. Air Force JROTC
program is a 3-year course of military instruction that is designed to educate and train high
school cadets in citizenship; promote community service; instill responsibility, character and
self-discipline; and provide instruction in air and space fundamentals. At the end of first year,
he had a 100% class average. After a series of discussions with school counselor, they let him
take Geometry along with Introduction to Algebra, Part II in his sophomore year. He again
managed to get a 100% average in both these classes. He emphasized that he “loved”
geometry and although the concepts were new to him, he could “see the shapes and concepts
in his head,” which made the learning process like a “review” for him. Similar to the end of
freshman year, he and his family had to go through a series of meetings with the school
counselor in order for him to take Algebra 2 Honors along with Trigonometry in his junior
year. They convinced the counselor to allow him to take those courses and he again ended up

54
earning a 100% average for both classes. When he reached senior year, he was allowed to
take Pre-Calculus with Analytic Geometry along with a class on Statistics and Probability.
Brad was very happy with his success and felt well-prepared for college. He was
accepted with full scholarships to each of the following schools: the Air Force Academy,
West Point, Embry Riddle, Merchant Marine Academy, Boston University, Princeton
University, and Rutgers University. Brad decided to attend the Air Force Academy.
Unfortunately, one week prior to his graduation he received a letter stating that he was
disqualified due to some health problems. He was extremely upset by the letter and decided
to go to Boston University to major in Mathematics and Aeronautical Engineering. Due to
financial difficulties, Brad was forced to drop college and start working. He moved to Florida
to work full-time during days and attend community college at night. Brad was awarded his
associate’s degree in 1999 with a cumulative 3.6 GPA. He emphasized that he received an A
in all his mathematics courses: Business Mathematics I, Introduction to Statistics, College
Algebra with Trigonometry, and Finite Mathematics I. He even took Calculus I and Calculus
II “just for fun of doing mathematics.”
In January 2007, Brad decided to go back to college to get his degree in secondary
mathematics education. He has subsequently been on the Dean’s List every semester. He has
earned at least an A- in each of his mathematics courses and is planning to go to graduate
school to get his master’s degree with an ultimate goal of teaching at the community college
level. Brad stated that his original goal was to be a mathematics professor at a university
when he graduated from high school. Although he is not exactly on that path, he considers
himself to be close enough to his goals.

Conception of Mathematics
Brad’s responses to conception protocol were examined repeatedly to determine his view
of mathematics. Besides the conception interview, his mathematics autobiography was also
read in an attempt to pinpoint his beliefs about what constituted mathematics. First of all,
Brad expressed himself as a “mathematics lover.” For him, mathematics was “like a puzzle.”
I picture myself as a mathematics lover. […] I am being told that I have a very logical
mind and I think that is why I like mathematics. It kind of fits me. It is almost like a
puzzle (Conception Interview, July 20, 2008).

55
 Portraying mathematics as a puzzle was a major indication that he might be categorized
as a Platonist. The reason was hidden in the structure of a puzzle as being a unified, existing,
and logically connected within an organizational structure. Brad was questioned further in
order to clarify what he meant and where his philosophy of mathematics stands. When
pressed to explain further, he commented that “I like trying to make things into other things.
It sounds really weird but I like to try and make connections between things that I have never
been taught” (Conception Interview, July 20, 2008). He further described doing mathematics
as “kind of trying to relate one thing to another thing even though they may not seem to be
related” (Conception Interview). He treated mathematics as a collection of related knowledge
that already exists. Unlike the instrumentalist view, he emphasized the connected nature of
mathematics. According to him, individuals just make the connections between the “pieces
of mathematics,” they do not create it.
Another sign that Brad’s view tended to be Platonist was observed in his mathematics
autobiography. When he was talking about his mathematics classes in high school, he
appreciated having the opportunity to experience mathematics’ power to explain real life
phenomena. He later repeated the same idea during the conception interview stating that “you
can find the relationship between anything in life using mathematics” (Autoboigraphy, Fall
2007). On the other hand, when he was talking about the important aspect of mathematics he
commented that “I guess following the rules. You always have to follow the rules in
mathematics.” This comment was more in line with instrumentalist view. He was further
questioned to see which perspective was his dominant view of mathematics. I asked him how
he would describe the role of rules in mathematics. His response supported the Platonist
perspective: he stated, “I am not saying mathematics is made of rules. You have the rules to
connect the mathematical ideas for new meanings or truths or facts.”
It should be noted that an individual might hold different views of mathematics at the
same time. This interview aimed to determine the dominant perspective that Brad holds in
terms of the nature of mathematics.

Conception of Proof
After reading Brad’s statements about proof, it appeared that Brad’s conception of proof
might be inclined towards the “validation” role of proof. During the first interview, he

56
responded to the question “what is proof” as: “proof is validation. Proof shows that things
that you know really do what you think they do” (Conception Interview, July 20, 2008). His
assertive tone and pausing for just a couple seconds before answering the question made the
impression that validation role of proof could be the dominant conception about proof that he
held. When further questioned on the role of proof, he stated:
Well, I guess providing that validation. Because otherwise you could make up anything
and as long as you did it the same way each time, you could say well it is kind of because
I said so. […] You do not have the reasoning behind that. So, if you cannot find that
reasoning how can you determine whether or not what you are thinking is true?
(Conception Interview, July 20, 2008).

His further arguments uncovered that his own experience with proof might have
significantly affected how he views proof. During the conception interview he declared that:
At this point I am not proving something for other people. I am not trying to publish
something or come up with a new way of mathematics so my proofs are just for me. It is
to validate the information that I know and make sure that is really what I think
(Conception Interview, Huly 20, 2008).

His conception of “proof is about known stuff” has been one of the most common views
among students (Coe & Ruthven, 1994). This conception was also considered the major
reason that students see proof as redundant activity to show already known facts.
Brad made a distinction between formal and informal proof. He stated that “you cannot
do formal proof without an informal proof. I guess the formal proof is kind of the polish
version.” When he was further questioned about what he means by formal and informal
proof, it turned out to be that he refers to reasoning for personal conviction as informal proof
and “line by line justification of every step in your reasoning” as the formal proof.

Conception of Mathematical Definitions

When Brad was asked during the conception interview what he considers mathematical
definitions to be, he responded:

57
 I guess mathematical definitions probably the best definitions that they are the things that
you are given that you have not really proved yet. So, like before you prove the two
integers added together is an integer, it would be a definition. […] Once you prove it I
think it goes beyond the definition and it could become one of your assumptions. But
until that point I think it is just kind of, it is something you know, something you use but
maybe something that you do not know why you use. It is something that you have been
told this works and you can use it (Conception Interview, July 20, 2008).

His answer was very surprising; he was further pressed to provide an example of a
definition. His answer was in line with his previous statement:
I do not remember any of the proof from trigonometry. I guess right now those would be
all still be definitions for me even though I have proved them in the past. […] As far as
definitions considered they are the things that you can take granted. The kind of rules you
use but not necessarily proven already. They are just the ones that you use.

It seemed that Brad considered mathematical definitions as statements and was not aware
of the special nature of definitions. He could not make a distinction between a conjecture and
a definition (See Figure 16). He accepted Quadrilateral Sum Conjecture as a definition.

Figure 16: Brad’s Work for Geometry Type II Task 1

There have been studies showing that university students majoring in different areas do
not have a sharp distinction among axioms, definitions, and theorems (Linchevsky, Vinner &

58
Karsenty, 1992; Vinner 1997). Brad’s arguments and work showed that he is not an
exception in this category.

Task-Based Interviews
Type I
Through his work during the three task based interviews, Brad tended to give meaning to
mathematical definitions using his personal concept definitions. His primary station was
always his concept images. His concept formation occurred mostly through procedures/rules
that he identified as definitions. For instance, when he was working on the first exercise
during Set Theory interview (Let S = {a, b} . List all the subsets of S ), he started by stating
“the first subset of any set is the empty set.” Then, he continued with explaining the
procedure to write the subsets of a given set:
You start with basic so you start with nothing, empty set is your first set and then you do
elements of one, or sets of one elements and then sets of two elements and then sets of
three elements so forth until you get up to n elements and that is how you get the subsets
(Set Theory Interview, July 25, 2008).

He seemed to develop his concept images through procedures. As he was dealing with
the definitions to answer exercises, he tended to recall the rules that he associated with the
concept. Although he could write all the subsets correctly without any doubts, when he was
asked why he started with empty set and stated it as a subset of any set he could not provide a
convincing argument. He responded that:
Because it is one of those definitions that you just go by that you know it is true. I know
if you have nothing that is considered a subset of any set. I am sure I did know why but I
do not know now. I just know that I have learned it that way.
It was interesting to notice how he contradicted with himself. While he was assessing the
following student argument (See Figure 17), he disapproved of the reasoning of the student
by commenting that “it is like [saying] my mom said so!!”However, he advocated his
argument by calling it a definition for which he could not recall the “proof.”

59
 Figure17: Interview#1 Type III Proposition2 Student Argument #3

Brad’s concept images were usually enough to make him provide arguments on the
concepts. He tended to reconstruct old knowledge to accommodate the new one provided by
the definition. For instance, while he was working on the following exercise (See Figure 18)
during the linear algebra interview, he immediately commented that the two vectors are
dependent “because v2 is 2 times v1 .” However, when asked how he would show that they are

dependent, he responded:
Brad: The only way that I worked with linearly dependent/independent vectors were
through matrices so far. So, I would write the matrix so that the first row would be v1 and
the second row would be v2 and then try to row-reduce. If I can get all zeros on one row
that means they are dependent. […]
Interviewer: What does that zero row represent?
Brad: It is not the row; it is how you get that row. If you combine these two vectors as I
said before. This ( v2 ) would be two times this vector ( v1 ). So in order to get this equal to
zero like in the definition, you would have 2v1 − v2 so you do not have them
(coefficients) zero (Linear Algebra Interview, August 2, 2008).

As it illustrated by the above dialogue, Brad’s first attempt was based on his previous
knowledge, but he could reconstruct his existing knowledge by accommodating the new
information provided by the given definition. Brad could adopt the symbolic representation
of linear dependency provided in the definition of linear dependency and successfully use it
for the specific exercise.

60
 1   2
Exercise 1: Let v1 =   , v2 =  
 2  4
a) Determine if the set {v1 , v2 } is linearly independent.

b) If possible, find a linear dependence relation among v1 , v2 .

Figure18: Linear Algebra Type I Task 1

While he was working on the tasks, not all his arguments based on his concept images led
him to a satisfactory conclusion; there were some cases where he needed to enrich his
concept image to make logical statements. Still, his first stop was his concept images. For
example, Brad could not decide if the following figure was a polygon or not with his existing
concept image:

Figure 19: Geometry Type I Task 3/3

He first responded as:

I would have to say no, because I do not think curved line, you cannot have a curved line
as a line segment. […] I do not think circles are considered as polygons. But I am not
100% sure (Geometry Interview, August 7, 2008).

In his concept image a line segment was a straight line; however, he did not know why a
“curved line” could not be a line segment. Brad revisited the definition of a polygon to “get
help” but the only thing that he filtered from the definition of a polygon was that it should be

61
constructed using line segments. The definition did not help him to answer his question but
supported his approach in the sense that it is critical to identify the pieces of the figure as line
segments.
As discussed earlier in the section, Brad chose to refer to his existing concept image to
make arguments. Since most of the time he could reach conclusions without visiting the
formal definitions, he typically bypassed the formal definition and used his personal
definition. Brad was familiar with all the concepts in three content areas and had worked with
similar activities. However, he was most comfortable with working geometry tasks and could
make different arguments from different perspectives. For example, when he worked on
vertical angle exercises, he was asked how he would define vertical angles and he identified
different definitions for different cases:
My definition of vertical angles depends on what I covered before. If it is a geometry
class and I already taught complementary and supplementary angles I would use them as
a part of the definition, but if not I can just say the angles that are next to each other that
form a straight line are not vertical lines. They have to be the angles that do not share the
line in question (Geometry Interview, August 7, 2008).

On the other hand, his work with the tasks in set theory and linear algebra was very
limited to the “procedures” he recalled. For example, to find the subsets of a given set he
immediately stated that “you start with empty set and continue with individual elements and
then pairs and so on” (Set Theory Interview, July 25, 2008). He did not mention anything
related to the conceptual structure of subsets nor tried to explain the concept from a different
point. Similarly, as he worked on the exercises related to linear dependency and
independency, he imprisoned his concept image to the procedure that “you put the vectors in
matrix form and row-reduce it. If you get a zero row that means they are linearly dependent
otherwise independent” (Linear Algebra Interview, August 2, 2008). Although, he could use
the given definition to enhance his symbolic representation of showing two vectors as
dependent, his concept formation was one-sided.
Brad expressed mathematics as a closed connected system in which all the concepts can
be explained through procedures/rules. For Brad, the most important aspect of mathematics
was “following the rules,” which might support the idea that his view of mathematics was

62
centralized around the relational rules. Brad constructed his personal definitions with specific
examples or procedures and bypassed the provided definitions if he could make satisfactory
arguments on the concepts.

Type II
Brad’s proofs mostly showed the characteristics of procedural approach. Although
Brad’s attempts to prove a statement were often successful, they did not necessarily include
the informal understanding. For example, Brad seemed to be very confident proving the
following statement:

Figure 20: Brad’s Work for Set Theory Type II Task 1

He started with creating a truth table. He argued that truth tables could show the truth of a
statement but “it is not going to give a worded proof, so if somebody does not know how to
do truth tables it will tell nothing to them” (Set Theory Interview, July 25, 2008). He further
presented that “truth tables are more used to verify the truth of something for him” (Se
Theory Interview). So, he wrote “worded proof,” which seemed logical. He hesitated on the
idea of providing the truth table to someone else as a proof. First, it looked like he was using
the truth tables for personal conviction which could lead to key idea approach, but his further
statements revealed that he was trying to follow the procedures that he was taught in class.
First of all, he concluded from the truth table that the only possibility for the whole statement

63
to be true is when the “conclusion” is true. He explained that “because the assumptions (p
and q) are always true and due to the logical rules the third statement (r) should be also true”
(Se Theory Interview). He further stressed that “we usually try to prove true statements not
wrong ones” (Set Theory Interview). He was not interested in why the proposition is true or
what was the reasoning behind the statement; rather he was trying to implement a procedure
that he did in one of his courses to show “the truth of a statement.” On the other hand, when
he decided to provide a “worded proof for others to understand,” he constructed the proof
with logical deduction. The proof could be accepted as a formal deductive proof if not for the
misuse of existential quantifier. It was not clear if the misuse was due to the lack of informal
understanding or a careless mistake. Brad was questioned to clarify his understanding of the
existential quantifier and he explained his reasoning for this proof as follows:
A, B, and C are arbitrary sets, you can pick an element and put it in A, and since we
know A is a subset of B x would have to be an element of B by the definition of subset
and then x would have to be an element of C by the definition of subset for B to C so
since x is an element of A and x is an element of C, A is a subset of C by definition (Set
Theory Interview, July 25, 2008).

Although it sounded logically correct, it was not clear if he intentionally used x as an

arbitrary element from set A. However, he was not pushed further after this explanation and
instead observed to see what he was going to do for the next proposition, because the second
proposition was in the same structure, just “one step” further (Prove that if A ⊆ B , B ⊆ C
and C ⊆ A then A = C ). Brad’s proof for the second proposition (See Figure 21) revealed
that he did not hold the correct understanding of the key idea behind the proof he provided
for the first and second propositions.

64
 Figure 21: Brad’s Work for Set Theory Type II Task 2

First of all, it showed that Brad used the existential quantifier intentionally because for
the second proposition he chose to use a universal quantifier and explained his reasoning as:
There exist means there is at least one so, in this one here (referring proof of proposition
1) we are saying there is at least one element of A that is also an element of B and since
that is an element of B it is also an element of C. Here (referring Proposition 2) we are
saying that all elements of A are elements of B and then we are going to state that all
elements of x in B (writing) are in C. And then by saying all elements in C (writing) are
in A we are showing this implies this which implies this, which implies this so since the
three of them implying each other that can only be true if A=C (Set Theory Interview,
July 25, 2008).

Moreover, Brad explained the reason why he chose an element from set A to prove the
first statement as “because that is the starting point here.” He had the conceptual structure of
the proof but obviously did not hold the reasoning behind the process.
Brad held the view that mathematics involves previously determined contents to invent
which are connected through rules and procedures. As it was discussed in the previous
section, he seemed to be dedicated to developing procedures that he can follow in doing
exercises. In his proof works, he followed the same route. He tried to recall a procedure to
write proofs in different contexts and follow those in proof production. For instance, when he
worked on the proof of Theorem 1 and Theorem 3 during the linear algebra interview, he

65
suggested that “since the condition of the theorems is for R n the proof should be along the
inductive proof” (Linear Algebra Interview, August 2, 2008). Although he could not provide
a proof for Theorem 1, he presented the following proof for Theorem 3/a.

Figure 22: Brad’s Work for Linear Algebra Type II Task 3

66
 Brad argued that “if the theorem stands for n, general cases then we do induction. I just
do not know here (Theorem 1) how to construct it.” Although he could not apply the
procedure of induction method to Theorem 1, he did so successfully for Theorem 3. He was
proficient in the procedure but when questioned as to why he started with R 2 , he responded
that “we always started with R 2 in linear algebra class. That is why I am doing it this way, it
is from practice.” Brad’s practice for those tasks was consistent with his view that
mathematical formalism is simply a tool to connect the given to the conclusion following
certain procedures.
Raman (2002) reported that university professors whose proof practice is categorized as a
key idea think that mathematical definitions embody the mathematical idea that might lead to
the proof. On the other hand, graduate students whose proof practice showed the
characteristics of procedural approach viewed proof as the “mathematical formalism to
connect the given to the conclusion.” Brad’s case presented a typical example of procedural
approach in terms of strong focus on the structure of proof and neglecting the use of the
characteristics of the mathematical objects encapsulated within the definitions.

Type III
Brad held the traditional perspective that “a proof can be viewed as a formal structure
whose validity can be assessed by determining if it obeys well-defined and explicitly stated
mathematical conventions and logical rules” (Weber, 2008, p.433). Along the perspective,
his practice to assess the validity of given proof was a line-by-line examination to judge
whether an assertion follows logically from earlier statements in the proof or hypothesis of
the proposition in question. For example, when he was discussing the following proof, he
first negotiated with himself to determine whether the proof method was contrapositive or
contradiction.

67
Figure 23: Set Theory Type III Task 2

Once he decided that “the first part is a direct proof and the second part is a
contradiction,” he checked each statement within the proof to see if they made sense or not.
For each argument of the proof he searched for an explanation. For instance, when he read
the 5th line of the proof, he stated that: T (u − v) = T (u ) − T (v) = b − b = 0 “because of the
linear transformation definition we just proved.”
Unlike many research results (Healy & Hoyles, 2000; Morris, 2007; Selden & Selden,
2003; Sowder & Harel, 2003), Brad refused to accept example-based arguments as valid
proofs.

68
 Proposition 1: Prove that the sum of 3 consecutive integers is divisible by 3

Figure 24: Interview#1 Proposition1 Student#1 and #4 Arguments

Regarding student argument#1 and #4, he stated that “all those are proving for the
particular examples. They do not make general statements about consecutive integers”
(Conception Interview, July 20, 2008). He searched for the use of a variable in the proof to
make it general. Brad asserted that student argument #5 “looked more valid than the others. It
had a variable in it. […] it would give a value for x, which was -1 so it does not prove
anything” (Conception Interview). However, he acknowledged “single-case key idea
inductive argument” (Morris, 2007, p.499). Although he did not accept student argument #3
(See Figure 25) as valid, he pointed it out as “an interesting observation” which held the
same idea of the student argument #2 (See Figure 25) that he recognized as the closest to
being a valid proof that needs “some work.”

Figure 25: Interview#1 Proposition 1 Student Argument #2 & #3

69
 Moreover, he emphasized the importance of “informal proof,” stating that “you cannot do
a formal proof without an informal proof.” He argued that “formal proof is a polished
version” of an informal proof. Brad identified student argument #2 as an “informal proof”
and suggested adding two more lines to show the addition of the three numbers n-1, n and
n+1, and dividing 3n by 3 to highlight the sum is divisible by 3 and the result is the integer n.
He advocated that with those two additional lines, the argument can be a valid proof. Until
then, he called the argument incomplete. His conception of a valid proof was on the same
line with Lakatos (1978), who argued that informal reasoning processes, such as drawing
diagrams or inspecting particular examples, are not, by themselves, sufficient to determine
whether any aspect of a proof is correct. However, this conception has been challenged by
many philosophers, mathematicians and mathematics educators (e.g. Ernest, 1991; Hanna,
1995; Thurston, 1994) as not being consistent with the practice of mathematicians.
Contrary to the results of Morris’ (2007) study, Brad did not support “fill in the holes”
practice during the validation activity. He was reluctant to accept proofs that “need more
explanation for the given statements.” He filled the holes for personal conviction but still did
not announce the proof as valid to public. He categorized them as “incomplete.”
Brad’s tendency to look for mathematical rules to construct meaning was also observed
in his approach to assess the validity of a given proof. Whenever he had doubts about the
correctness of the statement for which a proof was provided, he searched for a breakpoint in
the logical flow of the proof and corrected it with an already known mathematical rule or one
that he developed. For example, when he worked on the following proof (See Figure 26), he
approved all the arguments until the one highlighted. Brad rejected the statement arguing that
the hypothesis does not imply the conclusion. He further expressed that:
I kind of knew that there would have been a problem in the proof because the statement
was using the associative property. […]However, the only way one can use the
associative property was if they were all intersections or unions (Set Theory Interview,
July 25, 2008).

Proposition: For arbitrary sets A , B and C , A ∩ ( B ∪ C ) = ( A ∩ B ) ∪ C

Proof: To show the equality of the two sets we should show

70
 a) A ∩ ( B ∪ C ) ⊆ ( A ∩ B ) ∪ C and,
b) ( A ∩ B ) ∪ C ⊆ A ∩ ( B ∪ C )
For a) Let x ∈ A ∩ ( B ∪ C ) then x ∈ A and x ∈ ( B ∪ C ) . If x ∈ B ∪ C then x ∈ B or
x ∈ C . So we have x ∈ A AND { x ∈ B or x ∈ C }. For the first case x ∈ A and
x ∈ B we have x ∈ A ∩ B therefore x ∈ ( A ∩ B ) ∪ C . For the second case, x ∈ A and
x ∈ C implies that x ∈ ( A ∩ B ) ∪ C . Hence A ∩ ( B ∪ C ) ⊆ ( A ∩ B ) ∪ C .
For b) Let x ∈ ( A ∩ B ) ∪ C then x ∈ A ∩ B OR x ∈ C . First case: If x ∈ A ∩ B then
x ∈ A and x ∈ B . If x ∈ B then x ∈ ( B ∪ C ) . Therefore x ∈ A ∩ ( B ∪ C ) .
Second case: If x ∈ C then x ∈ ( B ∪ C ) . Therefore, x ∈ A ∩ ( B ∪ C ) .
Hence, ( A ∩ B ) ∪ C ⊆ A ∩ ( B ∪ C )
∴ A ∩ ( B ∪ C ) = ( A ∩ B) ∪ C
Figure 26: Set Theory Type III Task 2

Similarly, as he discussed the validity of the following proof (see Figure 27), he started
with refusing the claim. He said that “we all know it is not true.” Then he searched for the
step that the proof failed and his primary focus was the algebraic calculations. Although he
checked each step repeatedly, he could not recognize any algebraic mistake. Failing to
diagnose the mistake led him to argue that the statement of the claim should be “some
trapezoids are parallelograms because the definition of trapezoid is only one set of parallel
lines” (Geometry Interview, August 7, 2008) and develop conditions to determine when
trapezoids are also parallelograms. After about 10 minutes of negotiations with himself, Brad
assigned the problematic part of the proof as the division by (z-x) and decided to develop
conditions at that point. He suggested that the condition z=x will determine whether the
trapezoid in question will be a parallelogram or not but he could not decide which one. When
pushed to make a decision, he ended up stating “if (z-x)≠0 then ABCD is a parallelogram and
if (z-x)=0 then it cannot be determined” (Geometry Interview, August 7, 2008). When
questioned further to understand the reasoning behind his decision, he responded as “it is one
or the other. There are two cases: one they would be parallelogram, one they would not be.
So, it would have to be when (z-x) ≠0 because when z=x then you are dividing by 0.” Brad’s

71
response revealed that his decision was not based on an understanding, but rather a desire to
formulate the assumption.

Figure 27: Brad’s Work for Geometry Type III Task 2

Summary
Brad was a nontraditional student in terms of his age and long history of postsecondary
education. With the exception of middle school, he has been a very successful student,
particularly in mathematics. He described himself as a mathematics lover since then and has
a special interest in mathematics. Brad held a Platonist perspective of mathematics. His

72
conception of mathematics was associated with a puzzle, implying a closed structure in
which pieces are connected to each other with a predetermined relation. His main focus was
the relational structure of mathematics. However, Brad emphasized following rules as the
most important aspect of mathematics. For him, mathematics was a unified body of
knowledge and following rules was crucial to discover the relations within the system. It
seemed that his focus on rules in mathematics influenced his conception of proof. Brad
viewed proof as a logical line of reasoning that starts with assumptions which are the givens
of the statement or assumptions. He called mathematical statements for which he can provide
proof as assumptions. His conception of proof inclined with its validation role. He expressed
the importance of proof as validating and explaining the rules/procedures and the
mathematical facts that has been used with the reference of an authority who is often the
teacher.
Brad held a very different view of mathematical definitions. He described definitions as
the reported facts that one can use without a proof. He further stated that once a definition is
proved it becomes an assumption. Students’ confusion among theorems, axioms, and
mathematical definitions was reported in the literature (Linchevsky, Vinner & Karsenty,
1992; Vinner 1997). It appeared that Brad was not an exception within the community.
Brad’s responses to Type I questions revealed that he had a tendency to give meaning to
mathematical definitions using his personal concept definitions. He mostly consulted his
concept images first. It also suggested that his concept formation occurred mostly through
procedures/rules that he called same as definitions. He seemed to develop his concept images
through procedures. As he was dealing with the definitions to answer exercises, he tended to
recall the rules that he associated with the concept. Brad’s concept images were most of the
time enough to make him provide arguments about the concepts. Whenever he could not
reach a conclusion solely with his concept images, he revisited the given definition and
enhanced his personal concept definition. He seemed to reconstruct his old knowledge to
accommodate the new one provided by the definition. Lastly, Brad constructed his personal
definitions with specific examples or procedures and bypassed the provided definitions if he
could make satisfactory arguments on the concepts.
Brad’s work for Type II questions suggested that he primarily used the procedural
approach in doing proofs. Although he could provide formal proofs for most of the tasks, his

73
explanations for the proofs indicated that he did not hold the informal understanding behind
the logical steps that he presented. It appeared that Brad viewed mathematical formalism as a
tool to connect the given to the conclusion. He consulted to the given definitions if his
personal concept definition could not lead him to the conclusion. It appeared that his
proficiency in geometry proofs was due to having the most experience with proof practice
within that context. On the other hand, Brad’s lack of experience with proof in set theory and
linear algebra uncovered the true nature of his proof practice.
Brad’s arguments for proof validation tasks suggested that he held a traditional
perspective that proposes proof as a formal structure for which validity can be assured by
checking if it obeys well-defined mathematical conventions and follows logical rules. Along
the perspective, his practice to assess the validity of given proof was a line-by-line
examination to judge whether an assertion follows logically from earlier statements in the
proof or hypothesis of the proposition in question. Unlike many research results about
prospective mathematics teachers, Brad did not accept example-based arguments as valid
proofs. However, he acknowledged the key examples as an informal proof that is essential for
formal proof. Lastly, contrary to the results of Morris’ (2007) study, Brad was not in favor of
“fill in the holes” practice during the validation activity. He categorized the proof in which
some statements lack explanation as “incomplete.”

74
 CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATION

This study investigated prospective mathematics teachers’ conception of mathematics,

proof, and mathematical definitions and how these conceptions affected their understanding
of the role of mathematical definitions, use of mathematical definitions in proof production,
and the assessment of proof validity. Moreover, the study intended to identify possible
differences in the participants’ understanding of three content areas: set theory, linear
algebra, and geometry, and their influence on proof production and validation activities. This
section will first discuss the conceptions and their impact on the use of mathematical
definition for proof production and validation. Second, participants’ use of definitions for
proof production in three content areas: set theory, linear algebra, and set theory. Finally, the
implications of the study and recommendations for further research will be presented.
Conceptions and Practice
Researchers (Diaz-Obando, Placencia-Cruz & Solano-Alvarado, 2003; Schoenfeld, 1989)
have noted that students’ beliefs about mathematics powerfully impact the ways they use
mathematics in a given context. Parallel to this idea, the results of the study revealed that
students’ conception of mathematics might inform their proof production approaches. Emily,
who held an instrumentalist perspective of mathematics, presented the characteristics of
heuristics approach in her proofs. On the other hand, Brad, with a Platonist perspective,
presented the characteristics of procedural approach.
Due to the qualitative nature of this study, it is not possible to make a generalization.
However, it is worthwhile to discuss the observed relationship between the participants’
beliefs about mathematics and their proof approaches. Emily’s conception of mathematics
was limited to its’ utilitarian aspects. She associated mathematics with unrelated rules,
symbols, equations, and problems. For her, doing mathematics was mostly doing
computations. She held the least sophisticated conception of mathematics: instrumentalist.
Her work in proof production, on the other hand, exhibited the characteristics of the
heuristics approach, for which the personal conviction is the primary focus. Raman (2002)
stated that individuals with the heuristics approach “try to produce a formal proof without an
informal idea behind the formal” (p. 32). Along with her conception of mathematics, Emily

75
treated mathematical concepts as isolated facts. However, doing proof requires developing
connections between definitions, assumptions, and theorems to deduce the statement to be
proved. As a result, it is critical to appreciate the connected nature of mathematics for proof
production. Emily’s conception of mathematics seemed to be an obstacle for establishing a
proof.
Brad, who held a Platonist perspective of mathematics, exhibited the characteristics of the
procedural approach in his proof production. Ernest (1989) distinguished the Platonist view
through “its stress on structure, the laws of number, and central and unifying concepts of
mathematics” (p. 21). He declared the main difference between the Platonist and
instrumentalist perspective as the emphasis on the connected nature of mathematics. Unlike
the Platonist view, an instrumentalist perspective focuses on the “knowledge of facts, rules,
and skills without regard for meaningful connections within the knowledge” (p. 21). As a
Platonist, Brad showed proficiency in proof production. However, he did not hold the
informal understanding behind the proof procedure. Most of the time, he was using an
external source such as a similar proof that he saw in class to infer a procedure. For example,
to show a set is a subset of another set he stated that “we pick an element in the first set and
show that it is also in the other.” Although he could carry out the procedure successfully, his
comments during the interviews revealed that he did not know the conceptual structure of the
proof. First of all, his understanding of picking an element, x, did not refer to arbitrariness.
He treated x as a specific element and established the perception that having one element in
common between two sets was sufficient to be a subset. As exemplified here, Brad could
write an acceptable proof by following a template without understanding the relevant
mathematical concepts. It could be concluded that his strong emphasis on mathematical
structures, procedures, and manipulations was helpful for him to become proficient in
applying standard proof techniques. Weber (2005) argued that “effective problem solvers
possess systematic techniques, or problem-solving schemas, for solving common classes of
problems” (p. 354). In this sense, procedural proof productions allow students to gain
proficiency at different types of mathematical tasks. In doing so, though, they “bypass some
of the learning opportunities that the act of proving is often designed to illicit” (Weber, 2005,
p.354). He explained the major pitfall of procedural proof productions as follows:

76
 One purpose of proving a proposition is to gain conviction that the proposition is true.
However, conviction will only be developed if one understands how the proof establishes
the claim that is proven. In a procedural proof production, the prover does not directly
attend to the underlying logic in the proof, or how new assertions follow from previous
ones (p. 354).

De Villiers (1999) suggested that mathematical proof has six not mutually exclusive roles
within mathematics: verification, explanation, discovery, systematization, intellectual
challenge, and communication. The results of the study suggested that students’ main focus
on proof activities are on explanation and verification role of proof. They view proof as a
way to explain why the procedures or rules that they are already using work. There was no
evidence showing that students’ see proof as a discovery, communication, or systematization
tool. The only communication that they mentioned as a mathematical proof develops was the
one between the student and a higher authority, mostly the instructor.
Students’ conception of mathematical proof embodies the criteria that they state for the
validity of a proof. Both participants expressed a formalist perspective on proof that is
established on the idea that “a mathematical proof is a formal and logical line of reasoning
that begins with a set of axioms and moves through logical steps to a conclusion” (Griffiths,
2000, p. 2). Along with their perspective, their major focus in the assessment of the validity
of a proof was the flow of the arguments. They analyzed whether the proof started with the
given, followed through logical arguments without skipping any steps, explained every
statement in the proof, and ended with the conclusion. However, the results of the study are
inconclusive about the validity practice of the participants for proofs done with proof
methods different than direct proof such as contradiction or contrapositive.
Lastly, it was striking to find out that students’ understanding of mathematical definitions
were very different than that of mathematicians. The participants could not distinguish a
mathematical definition from a mathematical theorem or a proposition. Both students made
the argument that a definition can be proved. They treated definitions as small theorems that
they can use without a proof and whenever they need to make the proof easier. They were not
aware of the descriptive nature of the definitions. Consequently, they did not recognize the

77
fact that a definition “establishes the necessary and sufficient conditions for a concept”
(Zaskin & Leikin, 2008, p. 133).
Pinto and Tall (1999) suggested two approaches to use mathematical definition to
construct formal theory: giving meaning and extracting meaning. In this study, both
participants chose to give meaning to definitions using their concept images or personal
concept definitions. They both tended to bypass the formal definition whenever they could
reach a conclusion with their existing knowledge. Vinner (1991) categorized this approach as
“intuitive reasoning,” which is the most common thought habit for routine problems. He
argued that students do not need to consult the formal definitions due to the everyday life
thought habits. Furthermore, most of the time, referencing solely to concept images produces
successful results and it prevents them from changing their habits. Results of this study
indicated that another motivation for students to bypass formal definitions is the lack of
experience with formal definitions. Most of the time, students are introduced concepts not by
their definitions but with typical examples. So, concept formation occurs through the
examples. However, not all examples hold all the characteristics of the defined object. For
example, one of the most common ways to introduce vertical angles is through the following
figure:

Students are told that the opposite angles are vertical angles. So, students often remember
the image of X for vertical angles. On the other hand, it might not be helpful for them to
decide whether the following angles 1 and 2 are vertical.

Content Impact
In this study, students were exposed to same type of tasks (Type I, Type II, and Type III)
in three different content areas: geometry, set theory and linear algebra. The intent was to

78
identify the effects of content, if any, on proof practice. Geometry was chosen as being the
content where the students have their first and the most condensed experience with proof.
Knuth (2002) referred to geometry as the home of proof. Set theory was chosen as the content
where the students had the least experience. Lastly, linear algebra was chosen as being the
most recent proof experience content.
The results of the study revealed that the participants were most comfortable with
geometry tasks, in that they seemed less nervous, more eager to work, and could make more
comments from different perspectives as they worked through the tasks. Moreover, both
participants’ proofs for Type II exercises were the closest to a formal mathematical proof.
There appeared to be two reasons for that: the nature of the definitions provided for geometry
tasks and the level of experience with the concepts and proof in the content. The nature of the
definitions in Geometry tasks was descriptive and explicit in terms of the characteristics of
the mathematical objects. It allowed participants to check for the characteristics to determine
or use the given geometric object. For example, to determine if two given angles are vertical,
it was clearly stated in the definition that a. they should be formed by two line segments; b.
they should share a vertex; and c. they should not share a side. The characteristics were
explicitly stated for them to just check for. Both participants chose to use their concept
images first and if they could not conclude with the concept image, only then visit the given
definition. The definitions provided in the set theory and linear algebra interviews, on the
other hand, required them to make a conceptual shift in order to analyze the characteristics of
the defined mathematical object. They were required to deduce the necessary and sufficient
conditions for the defined mathematical object/concept. Moreover, quantifiers were
embodied within the definitions. For example, the definition of subset was given as: If A and
B are sets, B is said to be a subset of A , written B ⊆ A , provided every member of B is a
member of A . In the case of Emily, having two sets in the definition was a source of
confusion. To write the subsets of a given set S = {a, b} , she searched for two sets that she
could compare to set A and set B in the definition. She could not cope with the complexity
of the definition. Weber, Brophy & Lin (2007) stated that successful mathematics majors are
more likely to reformulate a definition, make connections between other mathematical
concepts, and draw or imagine a diagram illustrating the defined concept. Emily, however,
looked for an authority to do those conceptual practices for her and provide the examples of

79
the concepts for her to comprehend the definition. Contrary to Emily, Brad had more
experience with the concepts proposed in the set theory content. He held his personal concept
definitions that he used when he worked on the tasks. It appeared that Brad had difficulty
comprehending the meaning and the role of quantifiers embodied within the definitions. He
could not make the distinction between the existential and universal quantifiers and used
them incorrectly. It should be addressed that misuse of quantifiers is one of the most common
difficulties that students encounter in proof production (Moore, 1994; Selden & Selden,
2003).
Linear algebra was the content where both participants’ experiences were mostly at
computational level rather than proof production. Both students mentioned that they were
familiar with the concepts that were proposed but they have seen or done very few proofs in
linear algebra. Familiarity with the concepts helped them to make comments on the tasks.
However, they were very limited and rigid. Unlike geometry concepts, participants’ attempts
to make inferences from the definitions remained as isolated facts, so did not lead them to
formal proofs. As Brad stated, their “tool box” for linear algebra was limited to help them to
make connections, reconstruct their knowledge and advance their understanding.
To sum up, the results of the study suggested that students’ proof experiences within the
content are important from two perspectives. First, students’ previous experiences provided
them different routes that they could take that resulted in less frustration. For example, when
they worked on geometry tasks they were able to suggest different approaches that they could
take. It seemed that having options that they tried before made them feel more confident. On
the other hand, limited experiences in linear algebra and set theory left them stuck in one way
or another, depending on how much they could recall. Second, as it was discussed before,
participants consult their concept images first when they encounter a mathematical task. The
longer the time spent on practice with the concepts being more complete and satisfactory
concept images that participants hold, the better they are able to at least initiate proof
construction activity.

Implications and Recommendations

It has been reoccurred that mathematical beliefs effect practice. In the literature, this
effect were mostly investigated in the content of teaching practice (Ernest, 1989; Handal,

80
2003; McGalliard, 1983; Phillip, Flores, Sowder, & Marks, 1985) however this study here
provided evidence about its effect on the practice of proof production. This promoted the
importance of students’ belief about mathematics. Nevertheless, there is evidence that little
consideration is given to modifying prospective teachers’ beliefs in teacher education
programs (Tillema, 1995). It is worthwhile to engage students into the discussions about the
nature of mathematics. Recognition of the nature of mathematics would be the starting point
in this change. Transition to advance mathematics courses would provide the setting for such
discussions. Hovewer, it is strongly suggested that philosophy of mathematics be a part of
mathematics education at every step.
This study, along with others (Furinghetti & Morselli, 2009; Morris, 2007), showed that
students’ conception of proof influences their practice with proof. However, it is also
reported here that their conception of proof is limited to the validation, justification, and
occasionally explanation role of proof. Therefore, it is critical to engage students in activities
that provide them with the ability to experience the other roles of proof such as discovery,
mathematical communication, or intellectual challenge. Almeida’s (2002) suggestion
deserves attention in this sense. He proposed that instead of statement, proof sequence,
students should be presented classroom activities to promote intuition, trial, error,
speculation, conjecture, and proof sequence “that pioneering mathematicians do and so
discover the need for proof. It would also allow students to experience the emotional
satisfaction of discovery and foster mathematical communication”.
Students’ conception of mathematical proof is also aligned with the criteria that they state
for the validity of a proof. It is reasonable to suggest assessment of validity activities to
promote student engagement with proof in a more “secure” environment. It has been
observed that students’ discomfort with proof activities is highly content-related. Before
engaging students to proof production activities, it may be a good idea to introduce them to
validity assessment activities. It has the potential to prevent the emotional discomfort with
proof and at the same time get students familiar with proofs done by using different methods
in different contents.
The special nature of mathematical definitions should be treated as a concept in its own
right, preferably in a student’s first proof-intensive course. Designing activities which would
promote extracting meaning might be a promising task for students to deduce what a

81
definition offers about an object. Instead of providing concrete examples of definitions which
hold the risk of neglecting some properties of the object in question, students would be
engaged in activities that foster their recognition of the characteristics of the mathematical
objects defined. Such activities also challenge students’ use and understanding of
mathematical language and notations. As such, they might be helpful to enhance students’
mathematical communication skills.
Lastly, the results of this study should be considered for teacher education programs. It
has been elicited that long term experience with constructing proofs within content is
significant in students’ proficiency with the practice. However, it has also been observed that
the only mathematical content area that students have a relatively intense experience with
proof is geometry, which is called as the “home of proof” (Knuth, 2000). The participants of
this study had only a transition course in which they experienced proof in different content
areas. However, this study revealed that besides the awareness of different proof techniques
in different content areas, these experiences remained isolated. Moreover, they were not
enough to prepare prospective teachers for classrooms since the reform effort emphasizes the
integration of proof in all content areas through PreK-12. This implies that it is curicial to
modify teacher education programs to provide the opportunity for engagement of prospective
mathematics teachers’ into long term proof practices. It is only possible to increase the
number of mathematics courses in which proof and reasoning is a natural part of the
curriculum. This change could be the breaking point of the lack of proof integration within
the mathematics curriculum in the U.S due to prospective mathematics teachers being the
students of today and the teachers of future.

Recommendations for Future Research

This study revealed that students’ conceptions of mathematical definitions might be
significantly different than those of mathematicians. It is worthwhile to investigate
prospective mathematics teachers’ definitions of mathematical definitions through a large
scale study.
There has been research on the differences among the approaches of mathematicians,
mathematics graduate students, and undergraduate mathematics majors to proof production
and validation (Raman, 2002). It would be valuable to investigate the differences of

82
approaches, if any, among undergraduate students, graduate students, and mathematicians in
the understanding and use of definitions. Results of such study might provide helpful insight
to improve undergraduate mathematics education.
More research is needed to investigate the effects of activities that are designed to engage
students in the deduction of characteristics of the mathematical objects from their definitions
on their understanding of the defined mathematical concepts/objects. What would be the
effect of those instructional tools on students’ comprehension of systematic proof?
Lastly, it has been well documented that mathematical beliefs effect teaching practices
(e.g., Ernest, 1989; Thompson, 1992). Furinghetti and Morselli (2009) initiated a study to
research the relationship between teachers’ beliefs about mathematics and proof and their
teaching practice of proof. More research should focus on this relationship.

83
 APPENDIX A
STUDENTS’ PROOF CONCEPTION SURVEY
PART I-Perceptions
1. What does mathematics mean to you?
a. What does doing mathematics mean to you?
b. What do you think are the important aspects of mathematics?
2. What does mathematical proof mean to you?
3. What is (are) the purpose(s) of proof in mathematics?
4. How important is proof in mathematics? Please explain.
5. How could a mathematical proof be invalid? Please explain.
6. Who decides whether a mathematical proof is valid or not?
7. Describe a recent proving experience in which you felt successful?
a. What part of this contributed to your feeling of success?
b. (If one cannot describe a successful experience) what would it take for you to feel
successful when you are proving something?
8. Tell me about a proving experience in which you did not feel as successful.
a. How was this experience different from your successful experience?
b. What aspects of a situation contribute to your being successful or unsuccessful?
9. What is involved in proving a mathematical statement?
a. How would you approach a proof in general? (Probe steps, how to begin, how to
progress)
b. How do you know that you are finished a proof?
10. What does mathematical definition mean to you?
11. What would be the role of mathematical definition in mathematical proof? Can you
give me an example?
PART II-Proving
Reveal the student generated arguments for the following two propositions and ask the
following questions:
1. Would you accept this argument as a valid mathematical proof? Why or why not?
2. What (if anything) do you think is wrong with this argument? Why?
3. Were any of the arguments more convincing than others? Explain.

84
4. What factors do you consider in preferring one argument over another?

Proposition 1: Prove that the sum of 3 consecutive integers is divisible by 3

85
 Proposition 2: Given that l is a line, ∠A ≅ ∠B and ∠C ≅ ∠D , prove that
m∠A + m∠C = 90° .

86
 APPENDIX B
LINEAR ALGEBRA
TYPE I:

Definition: An indexed set of vectors {v1 ,......... , v p } in R n is said to be linearly

independent if the vector equation x1v1 + x 2 v 2 + .......... . + x p v p = 0 has only the trivial

solution. The set {v1 ,......... , v p } is said to be linearly dependent if there exists weights

c1 ,......., c p not all zero, such that c1v1 + c 2 v 2 + .......... . + c p v p = 0

1   2
Exercise: Let v1 =   , v2 =  
 2  4
c) Determine if the set {v1 , v2 is linearly independent.
d) If possible, find a linear dependence relation among v1 , v2 .

Definition: If A is an mxn matrix with columns a1 ,..........., a n and if x is in R n , then

the product of A and x , denoted by Ax is the linear combination of the columns of A

using the corresponding entries in x as weights; that is
 x1 
. 
 
Ax = [a1 a 2 ..............a n ]..  = x1 a1 + x 2 a 2 + ............. + x n a n
 
. 
 x n 

4
1 2 − 1
Exercise: Given A =   and x = 3  . Find Ax ?
0 − 5 3  7 

Definition: A transformation T from R n to R m is a rule that assigns to each vector x in

R n a vector T (x) in R m .
Definition: A transformation (or mapping) T is linear if:

87
 a) T (u + v) = T (u ) + T (v ) for all u , v in the domain of T
b) T (cu ) = cT (u ) for all u and all scalars c

0 − 1  x1  − x 2 
Exercise: Define a linear transformation T : R 2 → R 2 by T ( x ) =  .  =  .
1 0   x 2   x1 
4 2 6
Find the images under T of u =   , v =   and u + v =  
1  3  4
TYPE II:
Definition: A system of linear equations (or a linear system) is a collection of one or
more linear equations involving the same variables- say x1 ,................., x n .

Definition: A solution of the system is a list {s1 ,........, s n } of numbers that makes each

equation a true statement when the values s1 ,........, sn are substituted for x1 ,................., x n
respectively.
Definition: The vector whose entries are all zero is called the zero vector and is denoted
by 0.
Definition: A system of linear equations is said to be homogeneous if it can be written in
the form Ax = 0 . Such a system Ax = 0 always has at least one solution, namely, x = 0 (the
zero vector in R n ). This zero solution is usually called the trivial solution.

Prove the following theorems:

Theorem 1: If a set S = {v1 ,......., v p } in R n contains the zero vector, then the set is

linearly dependent.

Theorem 2: Suppose p is a solution of Ax = b , so that Ap = b . Let vh be any solution of

the equation Ax = 0 , and let w = p + v h . Show that w is a solution of Ax = b .

Theorem 3: If A is a mxn matrix, u and v are vectors in R n and c is a scalar, then

a) A(u + v) = A(u ) + A(v) ;
b) A(cu ) = c ( Au)

88
 TYPE III
Definition: A transformation T : R n → R m is called one to one if whenever
T (u ) = T (v ) for u , v ∈ R n we have u = v .
Asses the validity of the following proofs:

Theorem: If a set contains more vectors than there are entries in each vector, then the set
is linearly dependent. That is, any set {v1 ,......., v p } in R n is linearly dependent if p f n

Proof: Let a = [v1 ......... v p ] . Then, A is nxp and the equation Ax = 0 corresponds to a

system of n equations in p unknowns. If p f n , there are more variables than equations, so

there must be a free variable. Hence Ax = 0 have a nontrivial solution, and the columns of A
are linearly dependent.

Theorem: Let T : R n → R m be a linear transformation. Then T is one-to-one if and only

if the equation T ( x ) = 0 has only the trivial solution.

Proof: Since T is linear, T (0) = 0 . If T is one-to-one, then the equation T ( x ) = 0 is true

for all x in R n .
If T is not one-to-one, then there is a b that is the image of at least two different vectors
in R n , say u and v ; that is T (u ) = b and T (v ) = b . But then since T is
linear T (u − v) = T (u ) − T (v) = b − b = 0 . The vector u − v is not zero since u ≠ v . Hence the
equation T ( x ) = 0 has more than one solution. So, either the two conditions in the theorem
are both true or they are both false.

89
 APPENDIX C
GEOMETRY
TYPE I
Definition: A line is a straight one-dimensional figure having no thickness and extending
infinitely in both directions.
Definition: A line segment is a part of a line that is bounded by two distinct end points,
and contains every point on the line between its end points
Definition: A midpoint is the point on a line segment that is the same distance from both
endpoints.
Exercise: Name each midpoint for the following diagrams:
1.
A

2,49 cm

D B E

2,49 cm

2.

4,30 cm 4,30 cm

3,49 cm 3,49 cm K
J M

3.

A B C

90
 Definition: Vertical angles are formed by two intersecting lines; they share a common
vertex but not a common side.

Exercise: Which of the labeled angle pair(s) is/are vertical angles?

1.

2.

3 4

3.

5 6

4.

8
7

91
 Definition: A polygon is a closed figure in a plane, formed by connecting line segments
endpoint to endpoint with each segment intersecting exactly two others.

Exercise: Determine whether each of the following figures as a polygon or not

1.

2.

3.

4.

92
 TYPE II
Related Definitions:
Diagonal: A segment that connects two vertices of the polygon but is not a side of a
polygon.
Parallelogram: A quadrilateral with both pairs of opposite sides parallel.
Square: An equilateral and equiangular quadrilateral
Isosceles triangle: An isosceles triangle is a triangle which has at least two congruent
sides.
Right triangle: A triangle with a right angle.
Prove the following conjectures:
1. The diagonal divides a square into two isosceles right triangles.
2. Prove that the quadrilateral SOAP is a parallelogram given that SP is parallel
and equal to OA

P A

S O

3. If the opposite sides of a quadrilateral are congruent, then the quadrilateral is a

parallelogram.

TYPE III
Rectangle: A quadrilateral whose angles are all right angles
Parallelogram: A quadrilateral with both pairs of opposite sides parallel
Trapezoid: A quadrilateral that has exactly one pair of parallel sides.

Asses the validity of the following proofs:

Theorem: The diagonals of a rectangle are congruent

Proof: For the following figure we will try to show that BD ≅ AC

93
 A B

D C

Consider the triangles ∇ABC and ∇BCD

Statement Reason
1. AB ≅ DC Definition of a rectangle
2. ∠ABC ≅ ∠BCD Both angles are 90° due to the definition of rectangle
3. BC ≅ BC Reflexive Property
4. ∇ABC ≅ ∇BCD SAS congruency

5. BD ≅ AC Corresponding parts of congruent triangles are congruent

Claim: All trapezoids are parallelograms.

Proof:
Let ABCD be a trapezoid with segment AD parallel to segment BC , AD = a , and
BC = b . Extend segment DA to point F so that AF = b , and extend segment BC to point
E so that CE = a . Join segments FE , AC , and BD , as shown below:
b A a
F D

x G

H
z

B a E
b C

Let the diagonals of the trapezoid, AC and BD , meet at point G and let segments
AC and FE meet at point H . Let AG = x , GH = y , and HC = z .
Then, because triangles AGD and CGB are similar,
a x a
= ⇒ x = .( y + z ) . (1)
b y+z b
Because triangles AHF and CHE are similar,

94
a z a
= ⇒ z = .( x + y ) . (2)
b x+y b
Subtracting equation 2 from equation 1 gives
a
x−z= ( z − x)
b
a
= −1 ⇒ a = b .
b
Thus, AD = BC and ABCD is a parallelogram.

95
 APPENDIX D
SET THEORY

TYPE I:
Definition: A set is a well defined collection of objects.
Definition: Objects in a set are called elements of a set.
Definition: A set having no elements at all is called the empty set and represented by {} .
Definition: If A and B are sets, B is said to be a subset of A , written B ⊆ A , provided
every member of B is a member of A .
Definition: Sets A and B are said to be equal, written A = B , provided A ⊆ B
and B ⊆ A . If B is a subset of A and A ≠ B , then B is said to be a proper subset of A.
Definition: If A is a set, then the set whose members are the subsets of A is called the
power set of A and is denoted by P (A).

Exercise 1: Let S = {a, b} . List all the subsets of S .

Exercise 2: Let S = {a, b} . List all the proper subsets of S .

Exercise 3: Let A = {2,3, 4} . List all the members of the power set of A .

TYPE II:
Prove the following propositions:
Proposition: Let A , B and C be arbitrary sets. If A ⊆ B and B ⊆ C , then A ⊆ C .

Proposition: Prove that if A ⊆ B , B ⊆ C and C ⊆ A then A = C .

Proposition: The empty set is a subset of every set.

TYPEIII:
Asses the validity of the following proofs:

Related Definitions:
1. If A and B are sets, then the union of A and B is the set of all objects that
belong to A or to B . The union of A and B is denoted by A ∪ B , which is read “ A union
B”.
2. If A and B are sets, then the intersection of A and B is the set of all objects that
belong to both A and B . The intersection of A and B is denoted by A ∩ B , which is read
“A intersect B”.

Proposition: If A , B are arbitrary sets, then A ∩ B ⊆ A ∪ B

Proof: Let x ∈ A ∩ B then x ∈ A and x ∈ B so x ∈ A ∪ B

96
 Proposition: For arbitrary sets A , B and C , A ∩ ( B ∪ C ) = ( A ∩ B ) ∪ C
Proof: To show the equality of the two sets we should show
a) A ∩ ( B ∪ C ) ⊆ ( A ∩ B ) ∪ C and,
b) ( A ∩ B ) ∪ C ⊆ A ∩ ( B ∪ C )
For a) Let x ∈ A ∩ ( B ∪ C ) then x ∈ A and x ∈ ( B ∪ C ) . If x ∈ B ∪ C then x ∈ B or
x ∈ C . So we have x ∈ A AND { x ∈ B or x ∈ C }. For the first case x ∈ A and x ∈ B we
have x ∈ A ∩ B therefore x ∈ ( A ∩ B ) ∪ C . For the second case, x ∈ A and x ∈ C implies
that x ∈ ( A ∩ B ) ∪ C . Hence A ∩ ( B ∪ C ) ⊆ ( A ∩ B ) ∪ C .
For b) Let x ∈ ( A ∩ B ) ∪ C then x ∈ A ∩ B OR x ∈ C . First case: If x ∈ A ∩ B then
x ∈ A and x ∈ B . If x ∈ B then x ∈ ( B ∪ C ) . Therefore x ∈ A ∩ ( B ∪ C ) .
Second case: If x ∈ C then x ∈ ( B ∪ C ) . Therefore, x ∈ A ∩ ( B ∪ C ) .
Hence, ( A ∩ B ) ∪ C ⊆ A ∩ ( B ∪ C )
∴ A ∩ ( B ∪ C ) = ( A ∩ B) ∪ C

97
 APPENDIX E
HUMAN SUBJECT APPROVAL

Office of the Vice President For Research

Human Subjects Committee
Tallahassee, Florida 32306-2742
(850) 644-8673 · FAX (850) 644-4392

APPROVAL MEMORANDUM
Date: 7/7/2008
To: Nermin Bayazit
Address: 2305 Killearn Center Blvd. Apt#137, Tallahassee, FL, 32309
Dept.: MIDDLE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
From: Thomas L. Jacobson, Chair
Re: Use of Human Subjects in Research
Preservice Mathematics Teachers' Use of Mathematics Definitions in Doing Proof
The application that you submitted to this office in regard to the use of human subjects in the
proposal referenced above have been reviewed by the Secretary, the Chair, and two members
of the Human Subjects Committee. Your project is determined to be Expedited per 45 CFR §
46.110(7) and has been approved by an expedited review process.

The Human Subjects Committee has not evaluated your proposal for scientific merit, except
to weigh the risk to the human participants and the aspects of the proposal related to potential
risk and benefit. This approval does not replace any departmental or other approvals, which
may be required.

If you submitted a proposed consent form with your application, the approved stamped
consent form is attached to this approval notice. Only the stamped version of the consent
form may be used in recruiting research subjects.

If the project has not been completed by 7/2/2009 you must request a renewal of approval for

98
continuation of the project. As a courtesy, a renewal notice will be sent to you prior to your
expiration date; however, it is your responsibility as the Principal Investigator to timely
request renewal of your approval from the Committee.

You are advised that any change in protocol for this project must be reviewed and approved
by the Committee prior to implementation of the proposed change in the protocol. A
protocol change/amendment form is required to be submitted for approval by the Committee.
In addition, federal regulations require that the Principal Investigator promptly report, in
writing any unanticipated problems or adverse events involving risks to research subjects or
others.

By copy of this memorandum, the Chair of your department and/or your major professor is
reminded that he/she is responsible for being informed concerning research projects
involving human subjects in the department, and should review protocols as often as needed
to insure that the project is being conducted in compliance with our institution and with
DHHS regulations.

This institution has an Assurance on file with the Office for Human Research Protection. The
Assurance Number is IRB00000446.

Cc: Elizabeth Jakubowski, Advisor

HSC No. 2008.1449

99
 APPENDIX F

CONSENT FORM

Dear Student:

I am a graduate student under the direction of Dr. Elizabeth Jakubowski in the program of
Mathematics Education in School of Teacher Education at Florida State University. I am
conducting a research study to understand how students use mathematical definitions in proof
writing.

You must be at least 18 years old to participate in this study. Your participation will involve
four interviews that are expected to last no more than one and half hour each and will include
questions about your ideas about mathematics and working on three sets of mathematical
proofs. If you would agree on participating to the study, you will be given $50 Amazon gift
card at the end of the fourth interview.

Your participation in this study is voluntary. If you choose not to participate or to withdraw
from the study at any time, there will be no penalty. It will not affect your status within the
undergraduate program in Mathematics Education. Your privacy will be protected to the
extent allowed by law. The results of the research study may be published, but your name
will not be used to protect your privacy.

There are no foreseeable risks or discomforts if you agree to participate in this study. If any
discomfort should arise the interview will be stopped at that moment and if needed,
professional help will be offered through a referral to the counseling center. I request your
permission to videotape the interview. The tape will be kept in a locked cabinet in 219 MCH
until August 2008 and in G137 at School of Teacher Education between August 2008-August
2010 for which only I or my professor has the key, and all tapes will be destroyed by
December 1, 2010.

If you have any questions concerning this research study, please call me at 459-0876 or e-
mail me at nt04@fsu.edu. You can also call my professor, Dr. Jakubowski at 644 8428 or e-
mail her at ejakubow@coe.fsu.edu If you have any questions about your rights as a
subject/participant in this research, or if you feel you have been placed at risk, you can
contact the chair of the Human Subjects Committee through the Vice Presidents for the
Office of Research at (850) 644-8633.

Sincerely,
Nermin Tosmur-Bayazit

I give my consent to participate in the above study.

Name: Date:
Signature:

100
 REFERENCES

Alibert, D. (1988). Towards New Customs in the Classroom. For the Learning of
Mathematics, 8(2), 31-35.

Alibert, D., & Thomas, M. (1991). Research in Mathematical Proof. In D. Tall (Ed.),
Advanced mathematical thinking, (pp. 215-230). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.

Almeida, D. (1996). Variation in Proof Standards: Implications for Mathematics Education.

International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 27, 659-
665.

Almeida, D. (2003). Engendering Proof Attitudes: Can the Genesis of Mathematical

Knowledge Teach Us Anything? International Journal of Mathematical Education in
Science and Education, 34(4), 479-488.

Balacheff, N. (1988). Aspects of Proof in Pupils’ Practice of School Mathematics. In

D.Pimm (Ed.), Mathematics, Teachers and Children (pp.216-238). London: Hodder and
Soughton.

Balacheff, N. (1991). The Benefits and Limits of Social Interaction: The Case of
Mathematical Proof. In A. Bishop, S. Mellin-Olsen & J. Van Dormolen (Eds.),
Mathematical knowledge: Its growth through teaching (pp. 175-192). The Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic Publisher.

Babai, L. (1992). Transparent Proofs. Focus, 12(3), 1-2.

Balacheff N. (1988) Aspects of Proof In Pupils' Practice of School Mathematics. In: Pimm D.
(Ed.) Mathematics, Teachers and Children (pp.316-230). London: Hodder and
Stoughton.

Balacheff, N. (1991). The Benefits and Limits of Social Interaction: The Case of
Mathematical Proof. In A. Bishop, S. Mellin-Olsen & J. Von Dormolen (eds),
Mathematical knowledge: Its growth through teaching (175-192). The Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Barnard, A.D. & Tall, D. (1997). Cognitive Units, Connections and Mathematical Proof.
Proceedings of the Twenty first International Conference for the Psychology of
Mathematics Education, Lahti, Finland, 2, 41–48.

Bell, A. (1976). A Study of Pupils’ Proof-Explanations in Mathematical Situations.

Educational Studies in Mathematics, 7, 23-40.

Benbow, R. M. (1993). Tracing Mathematical Beliefs of Pre-Service Teachers through

Integrated Content-Methods Courses. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the

101
 American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 391662).

Bills, L., & Tall, D. (1998). Operable Definitions in Advanced Mathematics: The Case Of
The Least Upper Bound. Proceedings of Psychology of Mathematics Education, South
Africa, 22(2), 104-111.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S.K. (1998). Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction
to Theory and Methods. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Borasi, R. (1992). Learning Mathematics through Inquiry. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Chazan, D. (1990). Quasi-Empirical Views of Mathematics and Mathematics Teaching.

Interchange, 21(1), 14-23.

Chazan, D. (1993). High School Geometry Students’ Justification for Their Views of
Empirical Evidence and Mathematical Proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24,
359-387.

Civil, M. (1990). A Look at Four Prospective Teachers’ Views about Mathematics. For the
Learning of Mathematics, 10(1), 7-9.

Clement, J. (2000). Analysis of Clinical Interviews: Foundations and Model Viability. In A.

E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of Research Design in Mathematics and science
Education (pp. 547-589). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.

Coe, R., & Ruthven, K. (1994). Proof Practices and Constructs of Advanced Mathematics
Students. British Educational Research Journal, 20(1), 41-53.

Davis, P. (1972). Fidelity In Mathematical Discourse: Is One And One Really Two?
American Mathematical Monthly, 79(3), 252-263.

Davis, P.J., & Hersh, R. (1981). The Mathematical Experience. Boston, MA: Houghton
Mifflin.

De Corte, E., Op’t Eynde, P., & Verschaffel, L. (2002). “Knowing What to Believe”: The
Relevance of Students’ Mathematical Beliefs for Mathematics Education. In B.K. Hofer
& P.R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about
knowledge and knowing (pp. 297-320). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

De Villiers M. (1990). The Role and Function of Proof In Mathematics. Pythagoras, 24, 17-
24.

De Villiers, M. (1999). Rethinking Proof with the Geometer’s Sketchpad, Key Curriculum
Press, Emeryville, CA.

102
De Villiers, M. (2002). Developing Understanding for Different Roles of Proof in Dynamic
Geometry. Presented at ProfMat,Visue, Portugal, 2-4 October. Retrieved November 19,
2007, from http://mzone.mweb.co.za/residents/profmd/profmat.pdf

Diaz-Obando, E., Placencia-Cruz, I. & Solano-Alvarado, A. (2003). The Impact of Beliefs on

Students’ Learning: An Investigation with Students of Two Different Contexts.
International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 34(2), 161-
173.

Edwards, B. S. (1997). Undergraduate Mathematics Majors’ Understanding and Use of

Formal Definitions in Real Analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania
State University, Pennsylvania.

Epp, S.S. (2003). The Role of Logic in Teaching Proof. The Mathematical Association of
America, 110, 886-899.

Ernest, P. (1988). The Impact of Beliefs on the Teaching of Mathematics. Retrieved February
3, 2009, from http://www.ex.ac.uk/~PErnest/impact.htm.

Ernest, P. (1997). The Epistemological Basis for Qualitative Research in Mathematics

Education: A Postmodern Perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics education.
Monograph, 9, 22-39.

Fernández, P., & Carretero, M. (1995). Perspectivas Actuales En El Studio Del

Razonamiento. In M. Carretero, J. Almaraz & P. Fernández (Eds.). Razonamiento y
compression, Trotta, Madrid.

Foss, D. H., & Kleinsasser, R. C. (1996). Pre-Service Elementary Teachers’ Views of

Pedagogical and Mathematical Content Knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education,
12(4), 429-442.

Furinghetti, F., Olivero, F., & Paola, D. (2001). Students Approaching Proof through
Conjectures: Snapshots in a Classroom. International Journal of Mathematical Education
in Science and Technology, 32(3), 319-335.

Furinghetti, F. & Morselli, F. (2009). Teachers’ Beliefs and the Teaching of Proof.
Proceedings of ICME Study 19: Proof and Proving in Mathematics Education, Taipei,
Taiwan.

Garnier, R., & Taylor, J. (1996). 100% Mathematical Proof. New York: John Wiley and
Sons.

Goldin, G. A. (2000). A Scientific Perspective on Structured, Task-Based Interviews in

Mathematics Education Research. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of
research design in Mathematics and Science Education (Pp. 517-545). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

103
Gray, D. (2006). An Investigation of Pre-Service Teachers’ and Professional
Mathematicians’ Perceptions of Mathematical Proof at the Secondary School Level.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University Of New Hampshire, New Hampshire.

Griffiths, P.A. (2000). Mathematics at the Turn of the Millennium. American Mathematical
Monthly, 107, 1-14.

Grouws, D. A. , Howald, C. L. & Colangelo, N. (1996). Student Conceptions of

Mathematics: A Comparison of Mathematically Talented Students and Typical High
School Algebra Students. Proceeding Of The American Educational Research
Association, New York, NY. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 395783).

Hanna, G. (1983). Rigorous Proof in Mathematics Education. Toronto: OISE Press.

Hanna, G. (1989). More Than Formal Proof. For The Learning of Mathematics, 9(1), 20-23.

Hanna, G. (1995). Challenges to the Importance of Proof. For The Learning of Mathematics,
15(3), 42-49.

Hanna, G. (2000). Proof, Explanation, and Exploration: An Overview. Educational Studies

in Mathematics, 44, 5-23.

Hanna, G., & Jahnke, H.N. (1993). Proof and Application. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 24(4), 421-438.

Hanna, G., & Jahnke, H. N. (1996). Proof and Proving. In A. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel,
J. Kilpatrick, & C. Laborde (Eds), International Handbook Of Mathematics Education
(Pp. 877-908). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Harel, G., & Sowder, L. (1998). Students’ Proof Schemes: Results from an Exploratory
Study. In A. H. Schoenfeld, J. Kaput, & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), Research In College
Mathematics Education III (Pp. 234-283). Providence, RI: AMS.

Harel, G., & Sowder, L. (2007). Toward Comprehensive Perspectives on the Learning and
Teaching of Proof. In F. Lester (Ed.). Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics
Teaching and Learning (Pp. 805-842). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics.

Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (1998). Justifying and Proving In School Mathematics, Executive
Summary. London: Institute Of Education, University Of London.

Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (2000). A Study of Proof Conceptions in Algebra. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 31(4), 396-428.

104
Hersh, R. (1993). Proving Is Convincing and Explaining. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 24, 389-399.

Hofer, B. K. (1999). Instructional Context in the College Mathematics Classroom:

Epistemological Beliefs and Student Motivation. Journal of Staff, Program, and
Organization Development, 16, 73-82.

Hoyles, C. (1997). The Curricular Shaping Of Students’ Approaches to Proof. For The
Learning of Mathematics, 17(1), 7-16.

Jones, K. (1997). Student Teachers’ Conceptions of Mathematical Proof. Mathematics

Education Review, 9, 21-32.

Jones, K. (2000). Providing A Foundation For Deductive Reasoning: Students'

Interpretations When Using Dynamic Geometry Software And Their Evolving
Mathematical Explanations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44(1-2), 55-85.

Kilpatrick, J., Swaffod, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.) (2001). Adding It Up: Helping Children
Learn Mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Kline, M. (1973). Why Johnny Can’t Add: The Failure Of The New Math. New York: St.
Martin’s Press.

Knuth, E. J. (2000). The Rebirth of Proof in School Mathematics in the United States?
Preuve, May. Retrieved June 6, 2006, from
http://www.lettredelapreuve.it/newsletter/000506theme/00506themeuk.html

Knuth, E. J. (2002). Teachers’ Conceptions of Proof in the Context of Secondary School

Mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 5, 61-88.

Knuth, E., Choppin, J., Slaughter, M., & Sutherland, J. (2002). Mapping the Conceptual
Terrain of Middle School Students’ Competencies in Justifying and Proving. In S.
Mewborn, P. Sztajn, D. Y. White, H. G. Wiegel, R. L. Bryant, & K. Nooney (Eds.),
Proceedings Of The 24th Annual Meeting For The Psychology Of Mathematics Education
- North America, (V.4, Pp. 1693-1700). Athens, GA.

Lakotas, I. (1976). Proofs and Refutations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lampert, M. (1990). When the Problem Is Not the Question and the Solution Is Not the
Answer: Mathematical Knowing and Teaching. American Educational Research Journal,
27, 29-63.

Landau, S. I. (1989). Dictionaries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lay, D. C. (2003). Linear Algebra and Its Applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

105
Lin, F.L., Lee, Y.S., & Wuyu, J.Y. (2003). Students’ Understanding of Proof by
Contradiction. In N. Pateman , B. J. Dougherty, & J. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings Of The
27th Annual Meeting Of The International Group For Psychology In Mathematics
Education (Pp. 443-449). Honolulu: University Of Hawaii.

Linchevsky, L., Vinner, S., & Karsenty, R. (1992). To Be Or Not To Be Minimal? Student
Teachers’ Views about Definitions in Geometry. In W. Geeslin & K. Graham (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Sixteenth Psychology in Mathematics Education Conference, Vol. II,
(Pp. 48-55). Durham, NH: University Of New Hampshire.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newburry Park, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.

Livingston, E. (1987). The Ethnomethodological Foundations of Mathematics. Routhledge,

London.

Manaster, A. B. (1998). Some Characteristics of Eight Grade Mathematics Classes in the

TIMMS Videotape Study. American Mathematical Monthly, 108(9), 793-805.

Manin, Y. (1977). A Course in Mathematical Logic. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Martin, W.G., & Harel, G. (1989). Proof Frames of Pre-Service Elementary Teachers.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 41-51.

McGalliard, W. A. Jr. (1983). Selected factors in the conceptual systems of geometry

teachers: Four case studies. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 44, 1364A.

Mcleod, D. B. (1992). Research on Affect in Mathematics Education: A

Reconceptualization. In D.A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Mathematics
Teaching and Learning (Pp. 575-596). New York: Macmillan.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Mertens, D.M. (2005). Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology: Integrating
Diversity with Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Miller-Jones, D. (1991). Informal Reasoning in Inner-City Children. In J.F. Voss, D.N.

Perkins, & J.W.Segal (Eds.). Informal Reasoning and Education (Pp.107-131). Lawrence
Erlbaum, A.P., Hillsdale, N.Y.

Moore, R. C. (1994). Making the Transition to Formal Proof. Educational Studies in

Mathematics, 27, 249-266.

106
Muis, K. R. (2004). Personal Epistemology and Mathematics: A Critical Review and
Synthesis of Research. Review of Educational Research, 74, 317-377.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and Standards for School
Mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

Olivero, F. (2002). The Proving Process within a Dynamic Geometry Environment.

Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University Of Bristol, UK.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.

Phillip, R. A., Flores, A., Sowder, J. T., & Schappelle, B. P. (1994). Conceptions of
extraordinary mathematics teachers. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 13(2), 155–180.

Pimm, D. (1987). Speaking Mathematically. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul

Pinto, M. F., & Tall, D. (1996). Student Teachers’ Conceptions Of The Rational Numbers, In
L. Puig, & A. Gutierrez (Eds.), Proceedings Of The 20th Conference Of PME, Valencia,
Spain, 4, 139– 146.

Pinto, M. F., & Tall, D. (1999). Student Constructions of Formal Theory: Giving and
Extracting Meaning. In O. Zaslavsky (Ed.), Proceedings of the 23rd Conference of PME,
Haifa, Israel, 4, 65-73.

Porteous, K. (1990). What Do Children Really Believe? Educational Studies in Mathematics,

21, 589-598.

Prediger, S. (2001). Mathematics Learning Is Also Intercultural Learning. Intercultural

Education, 12(2), 163-171

Raman, M. J. (2002). Proof and Justification in Collegiate Calculus. Unpublished Doctoral

Dissertation, University Of California, Berkeley.

Raman, M. J. (2003). Key Ideas: What Are They And How Can They Help Us Understand
How People View Proof? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52(3), 319-325.

Recio, A.M., & Godino, J.D. (2001). Intuitional and Personal Meanings of Mathematical
Proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 48, 83-99.

Reid, D.A. (2006). Proof, Proofs, Proving, and Probing: Research Related to Proof. Retrieved
September 11, 2006, from http://ace.acadiau.ca/~dreid/publications/proof/proof.html.

Richards, J. (1991). Mathematical Discussions. In E. Von Glasersfeld (Ed.), Radical

Constructivism in Mathematics Education (Pp. 13-51). The Netherlands: Kluwer.

107
Richardson, J.T., & Ginsburg, G. P. (1999). A Judge’s Deskbook on the Basic Philosophies
and Methods Of Science. Reno, Nevada: University of Nevada, State Justice Institute.

Roschelle, J. (2000). Choosing and Using Video Equipment for Data Collection. In A. E.
Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook Of Research Design In Mathematics And Science
Education (Pp. 709-731). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ross, A. K., & Wright, C. R. B. (1999). Discrete Mathematics. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.

Rota, G. C. (1997). The Phenomenology of Mathematical Beauty. Synthese, 111, 171-182.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical Problem Solving. London: Academic Press.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1989). Explorations of Students’ Mathematical Beliefs and Behavior.

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 338-355.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to Think Mathematically: Problem Solving,

Metacognition, and Sense Making in Mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of
Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (Pp. 334-370). New York: Macmillan.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1994). What Do We Know About Mathematics Curricula? Journal of

Mathematical Behavior, 13(1), 55-80.

Schoenfeld, A. (1995). Mathematical Thinking and Problem Solving. Lawrenceville, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Selden, A., & Selden, J. (2003). Errors and Misconceptions in College Level Theorem
Proving (Tech. Rep. No. 3). Cookeville, TN: Tennessee Technological University,
Mathematics Department.

Senk, S. (1985). How Well Do Students Write Geometry Proofs? Mathematics Teacher,
78(6), 448-456.

Serra, M. (2008). Discovering Geometry: An Investigative Approach. Emeryville, CA: Key

Curriculum Press.

Simon, H. A. & Erickon, K. A. (1993). Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data (Revised
Ed.). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press

Smith, E.P., & Henderson, K.B. (1959). Proof. In P.S. Jones (Ed.). The Growth of
Mathematical Ideas, Grades K-12 (Pp. 11-181). Washington, DC: NCTM.

Solow, D. (2004). How To Read And Do Proofs: An Introduction To Mathematical Thought

Processes. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

108
Steiner, M. (1978). Mathematical Explanation. Philosophical Studies, 34, 135-151.

Tall, D. (1994). Cognitive Difficulties in Learning Analysis. Paper for the Mathematical
Association Committee on University Mathematics Teaching.

Tall, D., & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept Image and Concept Definition in Mathematics with
Reference to Limits. Educational Studies In Mathematics, 12, 151-169.

Telese, J. A. (1997). Hispanic Teachers’ View of Mathematics and Its Effect on Instructional
Practice. Paper Presented At The Meeting Of The American Educational Research
Association, Chicago.

Thompson, A. G. (1984). The Relationship of Teachers’ Conceptions of Mathematics and

Mathematics Teaching to Instructional Practice. Educational Studies In Mathematics,
5(2), 105-127.

Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teacher’s Beliefs and Conceptions: A Synthesis of the Research in

Douglas A. Grouwes (Eds.) Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and
Learning, New York: Macmillan.

Thompson, D. (1991). Reasoning and Proof In Precalculus And Discrete Mathematics. Paper
Presented at the Meeting of The American Educational Research Association, Chicago,
IL.

Thurston, W. P. (1994). On Proof and Progress in Mathematics. Bulletin of the American

Mathematical Society, 30(2), 161-177.

Tillema, H. H. (1995). Changing the professional knowledge and beliefs of teachers: A

training study. Learning and Instruction, 5(4), 291–318.

Vinner, S. (1983). The Notion of Proof. Some Aspects of Students’ View at the Senior High
Level. In R. Hershkowitz (Ed.). Proceedings Of The Seventh International Conference
For The Psychology Of Mathematics Education (Pp. 289-294). Rehovor, Israel:
Weizmann Institute of Science.

Vinner, S. (1991). The Role of Definitions in the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics. In
D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced Mathematical Thinking, (Pp. 65-81). Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Press.

Vinner, S., & Dreyfus, T. (1989). Images and Definitions for the Concept of Functions.
Journal for Research In Mathematics Education, 20, 356-366.

Von Glasersfeld, E. (1990). An Exposition Of Constructivism: Why Some Like It Radical.

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. Monograph, 4, 19-29.

109
Weber, K. (2001). Student Difficulty in Constructing Proofs: The Need for Strategic
Knowledge. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 48, 101-119.

Weber, K. (2005). Problem-Solving, Proving and Learning: The Relationship between

Problem Solving Processes and Learning Opportunities in the Activity of Proof
Construction. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 24, 354-360.

Weber, K., Brophy, A. & Lin, K. (2007). Learning Advanced Mathematical Concepts by
Reading Text. Proceedings of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, San
Diego, CA.

Wilder, R.W. (1981). Mathematics as a Cultural System. Pergamon, New York.

Wilson, P. (1990). Inconsistent Ideas Related to Definitions and Examples. Focus on

Learning Problems in Mathematics, 12(3), 31-47.

Wolf-Watz, M. (2001). Developing Pupil’s Mathematical Thinking: Student Teachers’

Beliefs and Conceptions of Mathematics Education at the End of Their Initial Teacher
Education, NERA Congress in Stockholm.

Zaskin, R. & Leikin, R. (2008). Examplifying Definitions: A Case of a Square. Educational

Studies in Mathematics, 69, 131-148.

110
 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Nermin Tosmur-Bayazit received her B.S. degree in both Mathematics and Mathematics
Education, and her M.S. in Mathematics Education from Middle East Technical University in
Ankara, Turkey. During the completion of her master’s degree, she taught mathematics
courses at Atilim University in Ankara as a graduate teaching assistant. In 2004, she was
accepted to Florida State University to pursue her PhD in Mathematics Education. During her
doctoral studies, she taught a variety of courses as a teaching assistant at Florida State
University. Additionally, she taught mathematics courses at Tallahassee Community College
as an adjunct instructor. She received her PhD in Mathematics Education in 2009. Her
research interest is the prospective mathematics teachers’ understanding of mathematical
definitions and use of definitions in doing proofs.

111