Error Analysis of Preservice Secondary Mathematics Teachers’ Proof Writing
Location
Session 3 (Room 1300)
Session Format
Oral Presentation
Your Campus
Statesboro Campus- Henderson Library, April 20th
Academic Unit
Department of Mathematical Sciences
Research Area Topic:
Education & Learning - STEM Education
Co-Presenters and Faculty Mentors or Advisors
Dr. Tuyin An, Assistant Professor, Department of Mathematical Sciences
Abstract
Reasoning and proof play an important role in secondary (grades 6-12) mathematics curriculum and teacher education. Previous studies have shown challenges in teachers’ learning and teaching of proof. Some of the challenges that preservice teachers encountered in their learning include lack of consistent exposure in the learning of proof, inadequacies in the understanding and use of proof techniques, and failure to identify the importance of proof in mathematics. Some inservice teachers also encountered challenges in teaching reasoning and proof, such as providing insufficient feedback to sustain discussions about students’ conjectures and justifications and using empirically justified reasoning instead of deductive reasoning techniques. However, there is little research examining errors in preservice secondary mathematics teachers’ (PSMTs’) proof writing. The purpose of this study is to examine the errors in PSMTs’ proof writing in the context of college geometry courses for teachers and analyze their underlying misconceptions. A total of 54 proof solutions from secondary preservice teachers and STEM major undergraduate students are analyzed. Some STEM major students are included in the study because they were registered in the same geometry course and required to meet the same learning goals as preservice teachers. Findings are expected to advance our knowledge of PSMTs’ learning of reasoning and proof and provide suggestions on possible improvements in PSMT preparation programs. Preliminary findings have identified several types of errors in PSMTs’ proof writing (e.g., incorrect assumptions, incorrect reasoning, and incorrect notations). Data analysis is currently in progress and more findings will be shared in this presentation.
Program Description
The purpose of this study is to examine the errors in preservice secondary mathematics teachers’ (PSMTs’) proof writing and analyze the underlying misconceptions. Findings are expected to advance our knowledge of PSMTs’ conceptions of reasoning and proof and provide suggestions on possible improvements in PSMT preparation programs.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Presentation Type and Release Option
Presentation (Restricted to Georgia Southern)
Start Date
4-20-2022 2:15 PM
End Date
4-20-2022 3:15 PM
Recommended Citation
Zimerle, Ian and An, Tuyin, "Error Analysis of Preservice Secondary Mathematics Teachers’ Proof Writing" (2022). GS4 Georgia Southern Student Scholars Symposium. 45.
https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/research_symposium/2022/2022/45
Error Analysis of Preservice Secondary Mathematics Teachers’ Proof Writing
Session 3 (Room 1300)
Reasoning and proof play an important role in secondary (grades 6-12) mathematics curriculum and teacher education. Previous studies have shown challenges in teachers’ learning and teaching of proof. Some of the challenges that preservice teachers encountered in their learning include lack of consistent exposure in the learning of proof, inadequacies in the understanding and use of proof techniques, and failure to identify the importance of proof in mathematics. Some inservice teachers also encountered challenges in teaching reasoning and proof, such as providing insufficient feedback to sustain discussions about students’ conjectures and justifications and using empirically justified reasoning instead of deductive reasoning techniques. However, there is little research examining errors in preservice secondary mathematics teachers’ (PSMTs’) proof writing. The purpose of this study is to examine the errors in PSMTs’ proof writing in the context of college geometry courses for teachers and analyze their underlying misconceptions. A total of 54 proof solutions from secondary preservice teachers and STEM major undergraduate students are analyzed. Some STEM major students are included in the study because they were registered in the same geometry course and required to meet the same learning goals as preservice teachers. Findings are expected to advance our knowledge of PSMTs’ learning of reasoning and proof and provide suggestions on possible improvements in PSMT preparation programs. Preliminary findings have identified several types of errors in PSMTs’ proof writing (e.g., incorrect assumptions, incorrect reasoning, and incorrect notations). Data analysis is currently in progress and more findings will be shared in this presentation.
