The PRIUM qualitative framework for assessment of proof comprehension: a result of collaboration among mathematicians and mathematics educators

ZDM Pub Date : 2024-08-28 DOI:10.1007/s11858-024-01628-1
L. Cooley, J. Dorfmeister, V. Miller, B. Duncan, F. Littmann, W. Martin, D. Vidakovic, Y. Yao
{"title":"The PRIUM qualitative framework for assessment of proof comprehension: a result of collaboration among mathematicians and mathematics educators","authors":"L. Cooley, J. Dorfmeister, V. Miller, B. Duncan, F. Littmann, W. Martin, D. Vidakovic, Y. Yao","doi":"10.1007/s11858-024-01628-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>While proof has been studied from different perspectives in the mathematics education literature for decades, students continue to struggle to build proof comprehension. Complicating this, the manner in which proof comprehension is assessed largely remains to be the definition-theorem-proof format in which students are asked to reproduce proofs or similar proofs that are presented in class. This approach can encourage students to memorize proofs rather than develop tools for syllogistic reasoning. This paper reports on a seven-year collaboration among research mathematicians and mathematics educators. Following a model for proof comprehension, they implemented a cycle of planning assessments, implementing them and evaluating student responses in several courses each semester for three years at two universities. The model-based assessments were designed with probing questions about proofs or subproofs to point student attention to the relationships among definitions, statements and their relationships, as well as the logic used to help students to both develop proof knowledge and demonstrate their mathematical thinking. Discrepancies between the intention of assessments and student responses led to refinements as the team reviewed the results to inform its practice. Collaboration, experience and empirical data informed the development of the new <i>Promoting Reasoning in Undergraduate Mathematics </i><i>(PRIUM) Qualitative Framework for Proof Comprehension</i>. The paper discusses three main results: the Framework and how to use it, the Framework’s utility at the individual, course and program levels of departmental evaluation, and a collaborative research process that may be utilized between research mathematics educators and mathematicians.</p>","PeriodicalId":501335,"journal":{"name":"ZDM","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ZDM","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-024-01628-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While proof has been studied from different perspectives in the mathematics education literature for decades, students continue to struggle to build proof comprehension. Complicating this, the manner in which proof comprehension is assessed largely remains to be the definition-theorem-proof format in which students are asked to reproduce proofs or similar proofs that are presented in class. This approach can encourage students to memorize proofs rather than develop tools for syllogistic reasoning. This paper reports on a seven-year collaboration among research mathematicians and mathematics educators. Following a model for proof comprehension, they implemented a cycle of planning assessments, implementing them and evaluating student responses in several courses each semester for three years at two universities. The model-based assessments were designed with probing questions about proofs or subproofs to point student attention to the relationships among definitions, statements and their relationships, as well as the logic used to help students to both develop proof knowledge and demonstrate their mathematical thinking. Discrepancies between the intention of assessments and student responses led to refinements as the team reviewed the results to inform its practice. Collaboration, experience and empirical data informed the development of the new Promoting Reasoning in Undergraduate Mathematics (PRIUM) Qualitative Framework for Proof Comprehension. The paper discusses three main results: the Framework and how to use it, the Framework’s utility at the individual, course and program levels of departmental evaluation, and a collaborative research process that may be utilized between research mathematics educators and mathematicians.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用于评估证明理解的 PRIUM 定性框架:数学家和数学教育工作者的合作成果
几十年来,数学教育文献从不同角度对证明进行了研究,但学生在建立证明理解能力方面仍然步履维艰。更复杂的是,评估证明理解能力的方式在很大程度上仍然是定义-定理-证明的形式,即要求学生重现证明或课堂上展示的类似证明。这种方法可能会鼓励学生死记硬背证明,而不是开发进行合情推理的工具。本文报告了研究数学家和数学教育工作者之间长达七年的合作。按照证明理解的模式,他们在两所大学实施了一个周期的评估计划、实施评估和评估学生的反应,每学期在几门课程中进行,为期三年。基于模型的评估设计了有关证明或子证明的探究性问题,将学生的注意力引向定义、语句之间的关系及其使用的逻辑,以帮助学生发展证明知识并展示他们的数学思维。评估的意图与学生的回答之间存在差异,因此,评估小组在审查评估结果时对其进行了改进,以便为其实践提供参考。合作、经验和实证数据为开发新的 "促进本科数学推理(PRIUM)证明理解定性框架 "提供了依据。本文讨论了三个主要成果:该框架及其使用方法,该框架在个人、课程和项目层面的部门评估中的实用性,以及研究数学教育工作者和数学家之间可以利用的合作研究过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
ZDM
ZDM
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Comparative analysis between three theoretical approaches through empirical experiences at university level Measurement invariance between subjects: what can we learn about subject-related differences in teaching quality? Mathematics teachers’ multiple perspectives on adaptive tasks: task evaluation and selection as core practices for teaching quality What do university mathematics students value in advanced mathematics courses? The PRIUM qualitative framework for assessment of proof comprehension: a result of collaboration among mathematicians and mathematics educators
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1