International Journal of Mechanical and Production

Engineering Research and Development (IJMPERD)

ISSN(P): 2249-6890; ISSN(E): 2249-8001
Vol. 10, Issue 3, Jun 2020, 14773-14784
© TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.

LAKATOS’ HEURISTICS IN A GRAPH THEORY CLASS

JADER W. CORTES A1, RENNÉ A. PEÑA M2 & ORLANDO GARCÍA H3

1,2
Department of Mathematics Universidad Antonio Nariño
3
Engineering Faculty, Universidad Distrital Francisco José de Caldas, Bogotá. Colombia
ABSTRACT

The work of Imre Lakatos Proofs and Refutations was written under the epistemological approach of mathematics,
however, it has had an impact within mathematical education. In this article, a graph theory class sequence delivered
under the Lakatos’ heuristics perspective is examined. The main objective of this research project is to show the impact
when this heuristic is applied on mathematical research in the classroom and on the development of the students’
mathematical thinking. The analysis carried out in classes concluded that this heuristic furthers creativity, autonomy of
thought, more robust concept meaning construction, and entails analogous situations to those of mathematical findings.

KEYWORDS: Proofs and Refutations method, Discrete mathematics, graphs & Mathematical thinking

Received: Jun 08, 2020; Accepted: Jun 29, 2020; Published: Sep 24, 2020; Paper Id.: IJMPERDJUN20201407

Original Article
1. INTRODUCTION

The epistemological position of the mathematics teacher, built through his learning experience and his readings,
influences greatly the teaching of this science (Steiner, 1987). The philosophy of the logicist and formalist schools
of the XIX and XX Centuries was reflected in the teaching approached called “modern mathematics” in many
countries of the world in the sixties and later, to a lesser degree, in Colombia. The argument of the followers of the
modern mathematics plan is that if the subject matter were taught logically, if the reasoning that supports every step
were shown, the students would not have to study anything by heart (Kline, 1980).

This perspective of mathematical education called “modern mathematics” was traumatic and never
actually transcended. However, 50 years later, classes are presented as a finished product, an algorithm, concepts,
irrefutable truths (theorems and axioms) and demonstrations recipe book (Larsen, 2007). The processes involved in
the construction of mathematical knowledge are forgotten in the classroom. Nonetheless, the epistemological ideas
developed by Lakatos (1976) in his book Proofs and Refutations have given a new perspective that can be well
exploited in mathematical education.

In fact, many authors have retaken the steps of Lakatos’s heuristics (1976) to use them in the classroom.
Larsen and Zandieh (2007) describe the heuristics steps that are used in the reinvention of an abstract algebra
theorem and conclude that mathematics can be reinvented by students in the classroom through processes similar to
the ones posited by Lakatos (1976) in Proofs and Refutations. Craig Swinyard (2011) describes in detail the
evolution of two students in the formal construction of the concept of limit through conjecturing and refuting, and
concludes that students can reinvent the definition of limit. Zandieh and Rasmussen (2007) say that definitions are
reinvented in the classroom simulating the processes described in Proofs and Refutations. De Villiers (2000) show
Lakatos’ heuristics (1976) development through the learning of Fibonacci series.

www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal editor@tjprc.org

14774 Jader W. Cortes A, Renné A. Peña M & Orlando García H

Proofs and Refutations shows two examples of knowledge construction. The first is a dialog between students and
professor in an imaginary classroom on the theme of polyhedra and Euler’s formula, in which a relation is established
between the number of sides, edges and vortices in a polyhedron. The second is a story of the historical process that
surrounded the conjecture: the limit of a convergent succession of continuous functions is also continuous. Both situations
are developed starting from a conjecture.

In this research project, Lakatos’ heuristics (1976) is used in a wider manner as a strategy for the solution of
problems. Students explore, conjecture, proof, refute, make the problem their own and are responsible for the generation of
knowledge. We explore how Lakatos’ heuristics (1976) can work in a discrete mathematics class, specifically in the
development of graphs theory. The analyzed class sequence was part of a research project applied to a complete discrete
mathematics course that lasted the whole academic term. One of the objectives of this article is to analyze the impact
working with challenging [10] discrete mathematics problems has under a methodology similar to the one used in Proofs
and Refutations.

Discrete mathematics is a strong tool to involve students in mathematical activities (DeBellis & Rosenstein,
2004). Students are motivated, challenged and committed when facing problems in this mathematical branch that does not
depend on a broad and intricate theoretical base. Many authors consider that it is an interesting, stimulating and important
area of knowledge that must be taught (Wu Xiuguo, 2009; DeBellis & Rosenstein, 2004; Burghes, 1985; Rosenstein, 1997;
Wilson and Rivera-Marrero, 2004). Besides, many authors agree on the characteristics some problems have in this branch
of mathematics: they are easy to understand, but their solution requires a high level of analysis and creativity.

2. THE HEURISTICS OF PROOF AND REFUTATIONS

The objective of Lakatos’ book is to show how mathematical knowledge is created and constructed. In a few strokes, the
process of heuristics is: formulation of a conjecture, exploration trying to proof or refute the conjecture, emergence of
counterexamples and modification of the conjecture or the demonstration.

Counterexamples are crucial within Lakatos’ theory, he divides them in global and local counterexamples. From
the local, the guilty lemma is found in the demonstration to modify it appropriately; on the other hand, global
counterexamples constitute a contradiction of the primitive conjecture. Lakatos describes three methods to apply in the
finding of global counterexamples. The first one is called monster-barring, in which the counterexample is rejected
because it is considered illegitimate; often this method is used to give a more precise meaning to terms (Polya, 1954). The
second method is exception-barring, in which the primitive conjecture is modified, thus offering a more restricted validity
domain. In the last method, called Proofs and Refutations, the demonstration is analyzed and the global counterexample
becomes local, the demonstration is modified and there emerges a new concept that modifies the primitive conjecture.

Davis and Hersh (1980) summarize Lakatos’ heurists through this graphic:

Impact Factor (JCC): 8.8746 SCOPUS Indexed Journal NAAS Rating: 3.11
Lakatos’ Heuristics in a Graph Theory Class 14775

Figure 1: Lakatos’ Heuristics by Davies and Hersh (1980, p. 292)

3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS

As has been stated, Lakatos’ epistemological perspective has been considered by diverse mathematical educators to use it
in the classroom. Heuristics has proved to be a valid tool to specify calculus concepts (Swinyard, 2011), propose
conjectures and demonstrations in abstract algebra (Larsen & Zandieh, 2007), explore themes in numbers theory (De
Villiers, 1997) and analyze and demonstrate theorems in geometry (Komatsu, 2012).

In this paper we show and analyze how Lakatos’ heuristics works in a discrete mathematics class, particularly in a
class of graphs theory, besides the contribution that offers to develop the class under this perspective and through a
challenging discrete mathematics problem.

4. METHODOLOGICAL ASPECTS

4.1 Sample

The class was developed with six students (four men and two women) in the discrete mathematics course of Antonio
Nariño University, Bogotá. Colombia. Five of them are sixth semester students of the Mathematics Teaching program and
one is a sixth semester Systems Engineering student. The professor is the author of this article.

4.2 Course

The class sequence that is reported lasted three sessions, each of two hours, and was part of a discrete mathematics
complete course taught during the first semester, 2016. The course is linked to a Ph. D. research project carried out by this
article’s author. Lakatos’ heuristics, interesting problems solving, mathematical demonstration, and the development of
mathematical thinking are the most important aspects in the development of the research project.

Class starts with the proposal of a problem on graph theory. Contrary to diverse authors that have taken this heuristic to the
classroom, the development of a concept, the formalization of a definition, or a theorem proof were not intended. The
objective was to observe how heuristics works in the solving of problems in general, see the different ways, strategies,
opinions and ideas students have when the class is developed under this epistemological and methodological perspective.

www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal editor@tjprc.org

14776 Jader W. Cortes A, Renné A. Peña M & Orlando García H

The problem proposed to students was the following: A graph has 30 vortices and each vortex has six edges. Find the
number of vortices triplets so that each pair of point are either joined by edges or no pair of points are joined by edges. The
participation of students sharing their ideas and opinions generated a chain of conjectures, some of which were solved
while others stayed as open problems, furthering research in the undergraduate classroom. Finally, a partial solution of the
posited problem was achieved through processes similar to the ones presented in Proofs and Refutations.

4.3 Analysis and Data Collection

The three class sessions were video recorded. Students proposals were written and handed in. The objective of this study is
to analyze the functioning of the Lakatos’ heuristics method in the solving of discrete mathematics problems, and the
implications of such methodology. It is analyzed what Lakatos’ method stages prompted and the decisions students made.
It is also analyzed what particular aspects of mathematical thinking and students attitudes were observed in the
development of the class.

4.4 Class Sequence

Now, the complete class sequence, in which Lakatos’ heuristics was taken into account, is presented. Students are named
A1, A2, etc. and the professor is identified with the letter P.

4.5 First session: Starting Problem

A graph has 30 points and each point has 6 edges. Find the total number of triplets so that each pair of points are joined or
each pair of points are not joineda.

Students work with the problem for some time using their strategies without the intervention of the professor. This
exploratory phase allows students to think, analyze, conjecture, propose or demonstrate, so that their mathematical thinking
is developed. Then, socialization starts. Student A6 presents on the board what has been done so far.

A4: You should give us the graph drawing.

P: One of the steps in the problem is to draw the graph.

A6: I can draw a graph different from those of my classmates.

With what A6 said, the first conjecture is made: All 6 degrees 30 vortices graphs are the same? (This will be
known as the first graph). The conjecture arises in a natural way due to the students’ commentaries; however, to solve the
problem it is important to clarify this issue, otherwise we would end up with a problem with multiple solutions.

P: Let’s see, How about if we consider one with 3 vortices.

A4: Yes, because one with 30… (Sarcastic tone).

A1: Yes, it’s too long.

A4: Let’s do one with 10 vortices to see.

A6: too difficult (He’s still at the board).

a
Taken from: All Soviet Union Math competitions. 2 4th ASU 1990.
http://webee.technion.ac.il/people/aditya/www.kalva.demon.co.uk/soviet/sov90.html

Impact Factor (JCC): 8.8746 SCOPUS Indexed Journal NAAS Rating: 3.11
Lakatos’ Heuristics in a Graph Theory Class 14777

A4: if the one with 10 is difficult, imagine one with 30…

P: if you try to draw it, I think you won’t be able to.

The previous interaction is interesting, the drawing of the graph, for most students and even for the professor is
not an option to solve the problem.

A6: I have already drawn it (Still at the board).

The professor do not listen to him when he says he has already drawn it. It is interesting since they had already
said it was impossible.

P: Let’s draw a graph of 5 vortices and two degrees in each edge.

A6: (draws these graphs on the board)

Figure 2: Graphs drawn by A6

P: Can you build another that is not isomorphic?

A6: That means these (figure 2) are isomorphic.

P: It seems all graphs with the characteristics of the initial graph are isomorphic. It would have to be justified.

A4: It is very similar to that (figure 2), we are only changing the position of the vortices.

Up to that moment students posited that all 30 vortices 6 degrees graphs are isomorphic, however, there is not a
convincing argument.

P: I think there should be a convincing argument.

As mentioned before, the idea to construct the initial graph was a very difficult idea to put into practice.

A4: Professor, he already has it.

A6 presents the graph:

www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal editor@tjprc.org

14778 Jader W. Cortes A, Renné A. Peña M & Orlando García H

Figure 3: Graph Drawn by A6

P: It’s very good.

A3: How many edges does the graph have?

A6: 90.

For the first day of the class sequence, it must be highlighted that students did not want to draw the graph,
however, one student did it. A first conjecture is made without advancing in its development. The initial problem takes a
path the professor had not planned; students propose, conjecture and research the same way a mathematical researcher
does, this thanks to Lakatos’ heuristics.

Second session

P: Then, the first thing is to discuss if any graph with the characteristics of the initial graph is isomorphic to the
one A6 drew. What do you think? Let’s reduce the amount of vortices and edges.

Conjecture 2: All graphs with 6 vortices and 2 degrees are isomorphic among them (this graph is referenced as
graph 2)?

P: Who wants to draw graph 2?

A3: it would be the hexagon.

The professor draws it on the board.

Figure 4: A Global Counter Example for Conjecture 2 arises

Impact Factor (JCC): 8.8746 SCOPUS Indexed Journal NAAS Rating: 3.11
Lakatos’ Heuristics in a Graph Theory Class 14779

A3: Prof, but if there is no restriction, we are thinking in doing two triangles.

Figure 5: A3 drawings

A3: Then they are not isomorphic, only the fact that they comply with the condition does not make them
isomorphic.

A2: There must be another condition to be able to generalize it.

P: What other condition?

The Monster-barring process

A3: They must be connected.

Conjecture 2, modified and generalized

P: We can generalize:

If G = (V, E) and G₁ = (V₁, E₁) are two connected graphs so that:

o |𝑉| = |𝑉₁| = n

o degree (v) = degree (v₁) = k for all vortices.

Then G and G1 are isomorphic. (Open problem)

P: Let`s work with particular examples.

A1: I am trying to build a 6 degrees, 8 vortices graph but I can’t. (This new graph will be called graph 3). Well,
when there are 7 vortices the graph is completed. But what happens when there are 8?

A5: I don’t think so.

P: Well, if it is possible to draw it, if not, then you must justify.

A1: A3 has already done it

Conjecture 3: the class sequence, up to this moment has taken different paths. Here, a new conjecture arises.
Students question themselves, and that allows for new theories. On the other side, no clear way to solve the initial problem
is seen, but it is interesting to see how, from Lakatos’ heuristics, students not only look for the solution, but see how other
questions arise.

P: What are the conditions that must exist so that the graph ca be drawn? (Conjecture 3).

A3: (Goes to the board and draws graph 3)

www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal editor@tjprc.org

14780 Jader W. Cortes A, Renné A. Peña M & Orlando García H

Figure 6: Graph Drawn by A3

A1: There must be a formula that can be generalized.

A3: That’s what I have tried.

Conjecture 3, modified and demonstrated

A3: I was thinking when I draw graph 3 that when k and n are even one must divide them by 2. In this case I
counted the first 3 from the right and the first 3 from the left and from there I moved on to all of them.

P: That means that your method works for all graphs.

A3: I would think so.

A3 says he has an algorithm to draw a connected graph where the quantity of vortices is even and the degree of
each vortex is the same and even. This is a very ingenuous idea and it was crucial for the solution of the initial problem.

Conjecture 3, modified: Be G = (V, E) a connected graph with |𝑉| = 𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒(𝑣) = 𝑘, where 𝑛 and 𝑘 are
even. Then, it is always possible to draw the graph.

Algorithm

P: So, let’s look at the strategy in a 4 degrees, 6 vortices graph. (This graph will be called Graph 4). The professor at the
board follows the instructions of A3 to draw graph 4.

A3: Step at any point. Join two to the right and two to the left. With the following, do the same.

Figure 7: Building of Graph 4 through student A3 Algorithm

A1: If we take a closer look, all of them are triangles within a “circle”. How many triangles are in the “circle”?
and from there we will take the triplets.

P: The algorithm seems to work. How many triangles are there? It is interesting. We would count the triplets

Impact Factor (JCC): 8.8746 SCOPUS Indexed Journal NAAS Rating: 3.11
Lakatos’ Heuristics in a Graph Theory Class 14781

where the vortices are connected. The triplets where the vortices are not connected would be missing in the count.

A1: The triangles are 6 and to know the triplets we multiply by 3! 6 because there are 6 vortices.

A4: There are more triangles, there are 8 in total.

A3: the theory of the 6 triangles fell.

P: I think that the way you build that graph is going to be crucial to look for the result of the initial problem.

A3: We would be at the same place. Are they isomorphic or not?

A3’s algorithm is a demonstration of how to draw a graph with an even number of vortices and each vortex of the
same degree and even, that is the case of the initial graph. However, the demonstration of conjecture 1 stays as an open
question. To continue with the solution of the initial problem and due to the difficulty to demonstrate conjecture 1, it was
considered as true.

P: Let’s consider the graphs as isomorphic. (Conjecture 1 taken as true).

A3: If they are isomorphic, with the construction the counting is made easy.

Students start the counting again taking into account many ideas they themselves have given, in particular A3’s
algorithm. During 40 minutes students work as a group trying to solve the initial problem.

P: How did it go?

A3: I think I get 90

Third Session

P: The initial problem has been tackled but is not finished yet. Your ideas have been good.

A3: 540 that share and 17 100 that do not share (A3’s solution to the initial problem. The student goes to the board to show
his solution). I built it as I said before. In the distribution I had three to one side and three to the other. (he counts the
vortices from 1 to 30). I will start the counting for the triplets that are joined. I started to look at the triangles that go from
vortex 1, so to say. These are: 1-2-3, 1-2-4, 1-3-4, 1-30-29, 1-30-28, 1-29-28. The same happened for each of the vortices.
In 2 they would be: 2-3-4, 2-3-5, 2-4-5, 2-1-30, 2-1-29, 2-30-29. Then in each one to 30 I would be adding 6, thus I
multiply by 6.

Table 1: A3 writes this on the Board

1-2-3 2-3-4 …. …. …. 30
1-2-4 2-3-5
1-3-4 2-4-5
1-30-29 2-1-4
1-30-28 2-1-29
1-29-28 2-30-29

A3: As each triplet is repeated 2 times, then what I did was to divide by half. And since they are ordered triplets, I
multiply by 3, then:

30 ∗ 6
( ) ∗ 3! = 540
2

www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal editor@tjprc.org

14782 Jader W. Cortes A, Renné A. Peña M & Orlando García H

A3: The triplets where each pair of vortices are joined are 540. For the triplets that are not joined, I saw that 1 is not joined
with 5, and 5 is not joined from 9 on, then: 1-5-9, 1-5-10, 1-5-11…1-5-27 are triplets that belong to this set. Up to 27,
because 28 is joined again with 1. In there we would have 19 triplets. Now, if we start with 1-6, we would have: 1-6-10, 1-
6-11, 1-6-27. We have 18 triplets in total. Then, we add: 1+2+3+…18. The same is going to happen with each of the
vortices, so I generalize it: (1+2+3…19)*30= 190*30 it is going to happen the same as in the first case. I divide it by 2 and
multiply it by the 3! And it results in:

190 ∗ 30
( ) ∗ 3! = 17 100
2

P: I am not 100 % sure, but I don’t see any mistake in the solution of the classmate. Anything on the this solution?
Well I have another answer, we have to see where the error is.

To test the student’s solution, the professor, along with the group solve the problem through an analogous
strategy.

P: We will make it similar but with a different algorithm.

Development of the problem with all the group

P: Let’s number the vortices from 1 to 30 and add all edges of the form {k, k+1}, {k, k+2} y {k, k+3} with k =
1,2…30.

A1: But it would be the same construction A3 did.

P: Yes, actually the graphs are isomorphic. Let’s start counting the triplets where the vortices are joined.

Triplets counting that are joined two to two

The counting is done by the whole group

P: The triplets of the form (k, k+4, k+8), (k, k+4, k+9), (k, k+4, k+10)… (k, k+4, k+26) work.

A3: it is the same counting.

A6: k can take the values from 1 to 30 and there are 19 triplets, so we have 19*30=570.

A3: We are not counting:

(k, k+5, k+9),…(k, k+5, k+26); (k, k+6, k+10),…(k, k+6, k+26);…(k, k+22, k+26).

P: So we have: 30*(1+2+3+…+19)*3!= 34 200.

A3: You have to divide it by two, when we say it occurs twice… oh no, there wouldn’t be repeated items since I
am not counting backwards.

A2: There, we wouldn’t have to divide by two.

P: Where is the mistake?

A3: The problem is that in my strategy I moved backwards and here we move only forward. My mistake, I didn’t
have to divide by 2.

Impact Factor (JCC): 8.8746 SCOPUS Indexed Journal NAAS Rating: 3.11
Lakatos’ Heuristics in a Graph Theory Class 14783

4.1 Final responses agreed with the group

Number of triplets of vortices where each pair is joined by an edge: 540

Number of triplets of vortices where each pair does not have edges in common: 34 200

Observation: The response that was obtained in consensus with students are partially right. The ordered triplets of
vortices in which there are not two of them that are adjacent (joined by an edge) are 11 400. It is clear that each triplet was
counted three times.

5. CONCLUSIONS

One important aspect to bear in mind is that an optimal environment for mathematical research was actively sought for,
one similar to the imaginary one proposed by Lakatos in Proofs and Refutations. Students sometimes would ask the
professor the answer of the problem or the path they should take, however, the professor allowed independence in students
to create their own strategies through the building of trust. Students explored the problem and commited themselves in the
mathematical activity. On the other hand, the positing of other conjectures along the way was another implication of this
methodology, the professor was receptive to the students’ ideas.

Lakatos’ heuristics gives a chance to engage in research; students are autonomous, creative, they propose,
conjecture; they are not conditioned to use an algorithm or to observe the examples the professor solves on the board. In
short, this is an analogical process to the one made by mathematical researchers.

The counterexample appears in this class sequence. The response of the students to this situation was to modify
the conjecture, Monster-barring is the name Lakatos gives to this process. The counterexamples are used to help students
develop their mathematical reasoning (Boats, et al., 2003).

A crucial relation that can be seen is that of heuristics and problem solving. Some authors have shown how
heuristics works to demonstrate a theorem or to build a formal definition of a mathematical concept. In this occasion,
heuristics payed a greater role in the solution of an interesting and challenging discrete mathematics problem. A first
important point that could be observed was that many complex conjectures arose and heuristics was applied then. A second
point is that through the students’ ideas a partial solution was found to a problem that, at first, students did not have idea of
how to tackle.

REFERENCES

1. Boats, J. (2003). et al. Geometric conjectures: The importance of counterexamples. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle
School, Reston, v. 9, n. 4, p. 210-215, Dec. 2003.

2. Burghes, D. (1985). The use of discrete mathematics in the teaching of mathematics. International Journal of Mathematical
Education in Science and Technology, 16(5), 651-664.

3. Davis, P; Hersh, R. (1980). The Mathematical Experience. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1980.

4. Debellis, V.A. & Rosenstein, J.G. (2004). Discrete Mathematics in Primary and Secondary Schools in the United States. ZDM.
36 (2), 46-55.

5. De Villiers, M. (2000). A Fibonacci generalization: A Lakatosian example. Mathematics in College, 10–29, March.

6. Kline, M. (1980). El fracaso de la matemática moderna; por qué Juanito no sabe sumar (No. 510 K55Y).

www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal editor@tjprc.org

14784 Jader W. Cortes A, Renné A. Peña M & Orlando García H

7. Komatsu, K. (2012). Lakatos’ heuristic rules as a framework for proofs and refutations in mathematical learning: Local-
counterexample and modification of proof. In Pre-proceedings of the 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education
(pp. 2838-2847).

8. Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

9. Larsen, S., & Zandieh, M. (2007). Proofs and refutations in the undergraduate mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 67(3), 205–216.

10. Polya, G. (1945). How to solve it. Princeton: Princeton University Press

11. Rivera-Marrero, O. (2007). The Place of Discrete Mathematics in the School Curriculum: An Analysis of Preservice Teachers'
Perceptions of the Integration of Discrete Mathematics into Secondary Level Courses, tesis de doctorado, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University. Blacksburg, Virginia.

12. Rosenstein, J.G., Franzblau, D., & Roberts, F. (Eds.). (1997). DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical
Computer Science: Discrete mathematics in the schools. (Vol. 36). American Mathematical Society and National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics.

13. Steiner, H. (1987). Philosophical and Epistemological Aspects of Mathematics and their Interaction with Theory and Practice
in Mathematics Education. For the Learning of Mathematics, Kingston, v. 7, n. 1, p. 7-13, Feb. 1987.

14. Swinyard, C. (2011). Reinventing the formal definition of limit: The case of Amy and Mike. The Journal of Mathematical
Behavior, 30(2), 93-114.

15. Xiuguo, W. (2009). Discrete mathematics teaching reformation: Adding experiments. In Education Technology and Computer
Science, 2009. ETCS'09. First International Workshop on (Vol. 2, pp. 566-569). IEEE

16. Zandieh, M., & Rasmussen, C. (2007). A case study of defining: Creating a new mathematical reality. Mathematical Thinking
and Learning.

Impact Factor (JCC): 8.8746 SCOPUS Indexed Journal NAAS Rating: 3.11