Personal meanings in the formulation and argumentation of conjectures by high school students
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15359/ru.38-1.1Keywords:
Mathematics education, conjectures, argumentative practices, ontosemiotic approach, personal meanings, semiotic conflicts, epistemic valueAbstract
[Objective] This paper discusses an investigation of the meaning of “conjecture” for secondary school students, and disparities between personal meanings and those acquired in a mathematical institution. [Methodology] The methodology used is qualitative. A case study was carried out to improve understanding of the personal meanings of conjecture to students in the initial years of secondary education in the city of Río Cuarto, Argentina (15-16 years old). The responses of a group of students to assignments including three problems that involve the creation, contrasting, reformulation and/or validation of conjectures were analyzed, including interviews with the students. These analyses were carried out using tools from the ontosemiotic approach, determining configurations of primary objects and cognitive processes in the students’ personal practices. [Results] It was possible to identify semiotic conflicts in these practices, particularly disparities between personal meanings of the concept of conjecture and the meaning intended to be imparted by the mathematical institution, providing empirical indicators of the epistemic value given by students to emerging propositions in their argumentation. This made it less likely that students would learn to doubt the scope of their initial statements and recognize the need to propose another type of argument, as was intended by the mathematical institution. [Conclusions] The results of this investigation showed the importance of revealing the ontosemiotic complexity of personal practices related to the formulation and validation of conjectures, and revealing the cognitive semiotic conflicts linked to personal meanings.
References
Alfaro-Carvajal, C.; Flores-Martínez, P. y Valverde Soto, G. (2022) Conocimiento de profesores de matemáticas en formación inicial sobre la demostración: Aspectos lógico-matemáticos en la evaluación de argumentos. Uniciencia, 36(1) 140-165. https://doi.org/10.15359/ru.36/1.9
Balacheff, N. (2000). Procesos de prueba en los alumnos de matemática. Bogotá: Una empresa docente.
Boero, P.; Garuti, R. y Lemut, E. (2007). Approaching theorems in grade VIII: Some mental processes underlying producing and proving conjectures, and conditions suitable to enhance them. En P. Boero (ed.), Theorems in school: From history, epistemology and cognition to classroom practice (pp. 249-264). Sense. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789087901691_015
Buchbinder, O. y Zaslavsky, O. (2013). Inconsistencies in students’ understanding of proof and refutation of school mathematics. Proceedings of PME, 37, 2, 129-137.
Cañadas, M. C.; Deulofeu, J.; Figueiras, L.; Reid, D. y Yevdokimov, O. (2008). Perspectivas teóricas en el proceso de elaboración de conjeturas e implicaciones para la práctica: tipos y pasos. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 26(3), 431-444. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/ensciencias.3753
Carrillo, J.; Climent, N.; Montes, M.; Contreras, L. C.; Flores-Medrano, E.; Escudero-Ávila, D. y Muñoz-Catalán, C. (2018). The mathematics teacher’s specialised knowledge (MTSK) model. Research in Mathematics Education, 20(3), 236-253. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2018.1479981
Drouhard, J. P.; Leonard, F.; Maurel, M.; Pecal, M. y Sackur, C. (1995). Calculateurs aveugles, dénotation des éscritures algébriques et entretiens “faire faux”. Le Journal de la commision inter-IREM didactique, IREM de Clermont-Ferrand.
Durand-Guerrier, V.; Boero, P.; Douek, N.; Epp, S. S. y Tanguay, D. (2012a). Argumentation and proof in the mathematics classroom. En G. Hanna y M. De Villiers (eds.), Proof and proving in mathematics education (pp. 349-367). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2129-6_15
Duval, R. (2016). El funcionamiento cognitivo y la comprensión de los procesos matemáticos de la prueba. En R. Duval y A . Saénz-Ludlow (eds.), Comprensión y aprendizaje en matemáticas: perspectivas semióticas seleccionadas (pp. 95-126). Bogotá: Editorial Universidad Distrital Francisco José de Caldas.
Godino, J. D. (2002). Un enfoque ontológico y semiótico de la cognición matemática. Recherches en Didactiques des Mathematiques, 22(2/3), 237-284. https://www.ugr.es/~jgodino/funciones-semioticas/04_enfoque_ontosemiotico.pdf
Godino, J. D. (2017). Construyendo un sistema modular e inclusivo de herramientas teóricas para la educación matemática. En J. M. Contreras, P. Arteaga, G. R. Cañadas, M. M. Gea, B. Giacomone y M. M. López Martín (eds.), Actas del Segundo Congreso Internacional Virtual sobre el Enfoque Ontosemiótico del Conocimiento y la Instrucción Matemáticos. http://enfoqueontosemiotico.ugr.es/civeos/godino.pdf
Godino, J. D. y Batanero, C. (1994), Significado institucional y personal de los objetos matemáticos. Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques, 14(3), 325-355. (Versión original RDM). (Revised English version: Clarifying the meaning of mathematical objects as a priority area for research in mathematics education).
Godino, J. D.; Batanero, C.; Burgos, M. y Gea, M. M. (2021). Una perspectiva ontosemiótica de problemas y métodos de investigación en educación matemática. Revemop, 3, e202107. https://doi.org/10.33532/revemop.e202107
Godino, J. D.; Batanero, C. y Font, V. (2009). Un enfoque ontosemiótico del conocimiento y la instrucción matemática. Versión ampliada y revisada del artículo Godino, J. D.; Batanero, C. y Font V. (2007). The onto-semiotic approach to research in mathematics education. ZDM. The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 39(1-2), 127-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-006-0004-1
Godino, J. D. y Recio, A. (2001). Significados institucionales de la demostración. Implicaciones para la educación matemática. Enseñanza de las ciencias: revista de investigación y experiencias didácticas, 19(3), 405-14. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/ensciencias.3991
Hanna, G. y De Villiers, M. (2012). (Eds.) Proof and proving in mathematics education. The 19th. ICMI Study. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2129-6
Harel, G. y Sowder, L. (2007). Toward Comprehensive Perspectives on the Learning and Teaching of Proof. En F. Lester (ed.), Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and learning (pp. 805-842). Information Age Pub Inc., Greenwich.
Lakatos, I. (1978). Pruebas y refutaciones: la lógica del descubrimiento matemático. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.
Larios-Osorio, V. (2000). Las conjeturas en los procesos de validación matemática. Un estudio sobre su papel en los procesos relacionados con la Educación matemática. (Disertación de Maestría no publicada). Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro. Querétaro. México.
Lin, F. L.; Yang, K. L.; Lee, K. H.; Tabach, M. y Stylianides, G. (2012). Principles of Task Design for Conjecturing and Proving. En G. Hanna y M. De Villiers (eds.), Proof and proving in mathematics education (pp. 305-323). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2129-6_13
Lockwood, E.; Ellis, A. B.; Dogan, M. F.; Williams, C. y Knuth, E. (2012). A framework for mathematicians’ example-related activity when exploring and proving mathematical conjectures. Proceedings of PME-NA, 34, 151-158.
Mariotti, M. A. (2006). Proof and proving in mathematics education. En A. Gutiérrez y P. Boero (eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 173-204). Sense Publisher. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789087901127_008
Martinez, M. V. y Li, W. (2010). The conjecturing process and the emergence of the conjecture to prove. Proceedings of PME, 34(3), 265-272.
Ministerio de Educación de la Nación. (2012). Núcleos de Aprendizajes Prioritarios. Ciclo Orientado Educación Secundaria. Matemática. Buenos Aires: Argentina. https://www.educ.ar/recursos/132578/nap-matematica-educacion-secundaria-ciclo-orientado
Ministerio de Educación de la Nación. (2011). Explora las ciencias en el mundo contemporáneo. Buenos Aires: Argentina: Programa de Capacitación Multimedial. https://docplayer.es/77894430-Matematica-de-inferencias-y-conclusiones-como-decidir-si-es-valido.html
Ministerio de Educación y Deportes. (2015). Módulo: Enseñanza de la Aritmética. Buenos Aires: Argentina: Programa Nacional de Educación Permanente. Nuestra Escuela.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2003). Principios y Estándares para la Educación Matemática. Granada: S. A. E. M. Thales.
Panizza, M. (2005). Razonar y conocer: aportes a la comprensión de la racionalidad matemática de los alumnos. Buenos Aires: Libros del Zorzal.
Polya, G. (1945). How to solve it; a new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400828678
Polya, G. (1954). Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691218304
Stylianides, A. J.; Bieda, K. N. y Morselli, F. (2016). Proof and argumentation in mathematics education research. En A. Gutiérrez, G. C. Leder y P. Boero (eds.), The second handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: The journey continues (pp. 315-351). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-561-6_9
Sylianides, G. y Sylianides, J. (2009). Facilitating the transition from empirical arguments to proof. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40(3), 314-352. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.40.3.0314
Zaslavsky, O.; Nickerson, S. D.; Stylianides, A. J.; Kidron, I. y Winicki-Landman, G. (2012). The need for proof and proving: Mathematical and pedagogical perspectives. En G. Hanna y M. De Villiers (eds.), Proof and proving in mathematics education (pp. 215-229). Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2129-6_9
Zaslavsky, O. (2014). Thinking with and through examples. Proceedings of PME, 38 and PME-NA, 36(1), 21-34.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Shared by Journal and Authors (CC-BY-NC-ND)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1. Authors guarantee the journal the right to be the first publication of the work as licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2. Authors can set separate additional agreements for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in the journal (eg, place it in an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
3. The authors have declared to hold all permissions to use the resources they provided in the paper (images, tables, among others) and assume full responsibility for damages to third parties.
4. The opinions expressed in the paper are the exclusive responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the editors or the Universidad Nacional.
Uniciencia Journal and all its productions are under Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0 Unported.
There is neither fee for access nor Article Processing Charge (APC)
