{"title":"论反例的说服力","authors":"Orly Buchbinder, Rina Zazkis","doi":"10.54870/1551-3440.1636","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":": Despite plethora of research that attends to the convincing power of different types of proofs, research related to the convincing power of counterexamples is rather slim. In this paper we examine how prospective and practicing secondary school mathematics teachers respond to different types of counterexamples. The counterexamples were presented as products of students’ arguments, and the participants were asked to evaluate their correctness and comment on them. The counterexamples varied according to mathematical topic: algebra or geometry, and their explicitness. However, as we analyzed the data, we discovered that these distinctions were insufficient to explain why teachers accepted some counterexamples, but rejected others, with seemingly similar features. As we analyze the participants’ perceived transparency of different counterexamples, we employ various theoretical approaches that can advance our understanding of teachers’ conceptions of conviction with respect to counterexamples.","PeriodicalId":44703,"journal":{"name":"Mathematics Enthusiast","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On Convincing Power of Counterexamples\",\"authors\":\"Orly Buchbinder, Rina Zazkis\",\"doi\":\"10.54870/1551-3440.1636\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\": Despite plethora of research that attends to the convincing power of different types of proofs, research related to the convincing power of counterexamples is rather slim. In this paper we examine how prospective and practicing secondary school mathematics teachers respond to different types of counterexamples. The counterexamples were presented as products of students’ arguments, and the participants were asked to evaluate their correctness and comment on them. The counterexamples varied according to mathematical topic: algebra or geometry, and their explicitness. However, as we analyzed the data, we discovered that these distinctions were insufficient to explain why teachers accepted some counterexamples, but rejected others, with seemingly similar features. As we analyze the participants’ perceived transparency of different counterexamples, we employ various theoretical approaches that can advance our understanding of teachers’ conceptions of conviction with respect to counterexamples.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44703,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Mathematics Enthusiast\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Mathematics Enthusiast\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54870/1551-3440.1636\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MATHEMATICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mathematics Enthusiast","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54870/1551-3440.1636","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MATHEMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
: Despite plethora of research that attends to the convincing power of different types of proofs, research related to the convincing power of counterexamples is rather slim. In this paper we examine how prospective and practicing secondary school mathematics teachers respond to different types of counterexamples. The counterexamples were presented as products of students’ arguments, and the participants were asked to evaluate their correctness and comment on them. The counterexamples varied according to mathematical topic: algebra or geometry, and their explicitness. However, as we analyzed the data, we discovered that these distinctions were insufficient to explain why teachers accepted some counterexamples, but rejected others, with seemingly similar features. As we analyze the participants’ perceived transparency of different counterexamples, we employ various theoretical approaches that can advance our understanding of teachers’ conceptions of conviction with respect to counterexamples.
期刊介绍:
The Mathematics Enthusiast (TME) is an eclectic internationally circulated peer reviewed journal which focuses on mathematics content, mathematics education research, innovation, interdisciplinary issues and pedagogy. The journal exists as an independent entity. The electronic version is hosted by the Department of Mathematical Sciences- University of Montana. The journal is NOT affiliated to nor subsidized by any professional organizations but supports PMENA [Psychology of Mathematics Education- North America] through special issues on various research topics. TME strives to promote equity internationally by adopting an open access policy, as well as allowing authors to retain full copyright of their scholarship contingent on the journals’ publication ethics guidelines. Authors do not need to be affiliated with the University of Montana in order to publish in this journal. Journal articles cover a wide spectrum of topics such as mathematics content (including advanced mathematics), educational studies related to mathematics, and reports of innovative pedagogical practices with the hope of stimulating dialogue between pre-service and practicing teachers, university educators and mathematicians. The journal is interested in research based articles as well as historical, philosophical, political, cross-cultural and systems perspectives on mathematics content, its teaching and learning. The journal also includes a monograph series on special topics of interest to the community of readers.