American Journal of Educational Research
ISSN (Print): 2327-6126 ISSN (Online): 2327-6150 Website: http://www.sciepub.com/journal/education Editor-in-chief: Ratko Pavlović
Open Access
Journal Browser
Go
American Journal of Educational Research. 2016, 4(14), 1025-1029
DOI: 10.12691/education-4-14-7
Open AccessArticle

Students’ Use of Intuitive Reasoning to Decide on the Validity of Mathematical Statements

Chih-Hsien Huang1,

1Ming Chi University of Technology

Pub. Date: September 01, 2016

Cite this paper:
Chih-Hsien Huang. Students’ Use of Intuitive Reasoning to Decide on the Validity of Mathematical Statements. American Journal of Educational Research. 2016; 4(14):1025-1029. doi: 10.12691/education-4-14-7

Abstract

This study explored students’ approaches to mathematical statements with unknown truth values. Task-based interviews utilizing the think-aloud method revealed students’ reasoning processes in depth. The students in this study used three distinct types of intuitive reasoning to decide the truth value of mathematical statements. The results of this study indicate that in each intuitive response there seems to be an underlying logical schema, or a mental model intuitively accepted by the students, which interacts with the specific restrictions of the presented mathematical statement.

Keywords:
intuitive reasoning intuitive representation mathematical statement

Creative CommonsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]  Buchbinder, O. and Zaslavsky, O. “A framework for understanding the status of examples in establishing the validity of mathematical statements.” In Proceedings of the 33rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, PME, Vol. 2, 225-232, July, 2009.
 
[2]  Burton, L. Mathematicians as enquirers: Learning about learning mathematics, Kluwer, Boston, 2004.
 
[3]  Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. Research methods in education (5th Ed). London, Routledge, 2000.
 
[4]  de Villiers, M. Experimentation and proof in mathematics. In G. Hanna, H.N. Jahnke, & H. Pulte (Eds.). Explanation and proof in mathematics: Philosophical and educational perspectives. Springer, New York, 2010, 205-221.
 
[5]  Durand-Guerrier, V., Boero, P., Douek, N., Epp, S., and Tanguay, D. Argumentation and proof in the mathematics classroom. In G. Hanna & M. de Villiers (Eds.), Proof and proving in mathematics education: The 19th ICMI study (pp. 349-367). Dordrecht, Netherlands, Springer. 2012.
 
[6]  Evans, J. “Intuition and reasoning: A dual-process perspective.” Psychological Inquiry, 21. 313-326.2010.
 
[7]  Fischbein, E. “Intuition and proof.” For the Learning of Mathematics, 3. 9-18. November. 1982.
 
[8]  Fischbein, E. Intuition in Science and Mathematics, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1987.
 
[9]  Fischbein, E. The interaction between the formal, the algorithmic, and the intuitive components in a mathematical activity. In R. Biehler, R.W.,Scholz, R. Straser, & B. Winkelmann (Eds.). Didactics of mathematics as a scientific discipline. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1994, 231-245.
 
[10]  Fischbein, E. “Intuitions and schemata in mathematical reasoning.” Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38. 11-50. March. 1999.
 
[11]  Glockner, A., and Witteman, C. “Beyond dual-process models: A categorization of processes underlying intuitive judgment and decision making.” Thinking and Reasoning, 16(1). 1-25. March. 2010.
 
[12]  Miles, B, M., and Huberman, A, M. “Drawing valid meaning from qualitative data: toward a shared craft.” Educational Researcher, 13(5). 20-30. May. 1984.
 
[13]  Tall, D. “The transition to formal thinking in mathematics.” Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20(2). 5-24. September. 2008.
 
[14]  Weber, K. “How syntactic reasoners can develop understanding, evaluate conjectures and generate counterexamples in advanced mathematics.” Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 28. 200-208. September. 2009.
 
[15]  Weber, K., and Alock, L. “Semantic and syntactic proof productions.” Educational Studies in Mathematics, 56. 209-234. July. 2004.