International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 2013

Vol. 44, No. 8, 11071116, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2012.756546

Students proofs of one-to-one and onto properties

in introductory abstract algebra
Ann Wheelera and Joe Championb
a
b

Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Texas Womans University, Denton, TX;
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Texas A & M University - Corpus Christi, Corpus
Christi, TX
(Received 15 December 2011)
Learning to write formal mathematical proofs presents a major challenge to undergraduates. Students who have succeeded in algorithm-intensive courses such as calculus
often find the abstract logic and nonprocedural nature of proof writing to be technically
difficult, ambiguous and filled with potential errors and misconceptions. This mixedmethods study examines 23 undergraduate students attempts to write one-to-one and
onto proofs in an introductory abstract algebra course. Data collected consisted of six
rounds of assessments on one-to-one and onto proofs, including homework, quizzes and
exams. Using an existing framework of undergraduate proof writing, the researchers
found that students misconceptions and errors varied substantially by student and task,
with one-to-one proofs presenting unique challenges. Implications for teaching and research include emphasis on the logic of proof approaches and providing structured proof
frameworks to assist undergraduates with the procedural and conceptual challenges in
learning to write proofs.
Keywords: abstract algebra; proof; one-to-one; onto; undergraduate mathematics;
teacher education

1. Introduction
Proof provides a means for explaining why mathematics works and for conveying knowledge from one person (or generation) to the next [1,p.440]. Promoting the instruction
of mathematical proof and its historical functions of explaining and justifying claims is
a core value of the international mathematics community [2]. For example, the National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics [3] considers mathematical reasoning and proof to be
one of the five essential mathematical processes in school mathematics, and recommends
that teachers should stress proof concepts in all mathematics classes. Consequently, the
foundations of informal and formal mathematical proof permeate the whole mathematics curriculum, from kindergarten on as well throughout the historical development of
mathematics [4,p.3]. Nonetheless, many students at the elementary, secondary and undergraduate levels consistently struggle with reading, interpreting and constructing formal and
informal proofs [57], and even many mathematics teachers have limited experience with
mathematical proof [1].
In principle, effective proof instruction could help move students beyond traditional
tabular proofs in geometry towards an expanded view of proof as a generative and creative

Corresponding author. Email: awheeler2@twu.edu


C 2013 Taylor & Francis

1108

A. Wheeler and J. Champion

process. This learning trajectory is marked by many challenges, however, and researchers
have investigated the understanding of mathematical proof in a variety of courses and
contexts, including students (a) perceptions of what constitutes proof in mathematics
[8,9], (b) performance in writing proofs [7] and (c) textual validation of mathematical
proof [10,11]. Within the area of abstract algebra, Weber [12] contrasted the proof-writing
skills of undergraduate and doctoral students, finding doctoral students held a deeper
understanding and specialized knowledge of the domains proof techniques, knowledge of
which theorems are important and when they will be useful, and knowledge of when and
when not to use syntactic strategies [12,p.111].
Importantly, Selden and Seldens [13] study of introductory abstract algebra students
led them to develop a list of misconceptions and errors demonstrated by undergraduates
in abstract algebra. The list catalogued students proof errors and misconceptions into
several types, including beginning with the conclusion, overextending symbols, holes, and
substitution with abandon [13]. However, the Seldens study lacked data regarding the
frequency or distribution of these errors and misconceptions across abstract algebra topics,
limiting the rationale for instructors to take specific interventions to address common
errors and misconceptions. We addressed this limitation by implementing a modified
version of Selden and Seldens rubric in the specific context of students proofs involving
one-to-one (injective) and onto (surjective) mappings in a first-semester abstract algebra
course.
Why focus on one-to-one and onto proofs in an abstract algebra class? Besides being
one of the first topics in the course, one-to-one and onto are important for undergraduates
because developing comprehensive knowledge of functions is essential to the study of
advanced mathematics [14]. Understanding functions as mappings between sets and as
objects with properties rather than as equations or actions has consistently been identified
as foundational to success in subjects ranging from analysis, linear algebra and group
theory, to high school algebra and calculus [15]. Once students learn to view functions as
objects with properties, they can begin to understand abstract structures, including sets of
functions, groups of functions, functions which operate on functions and so on. In abstract
algebra, the standard definitions of one-to-one (f : A B is one-to-one provided for all
x = y in A, f (x) = f (y)) and onto (f : A B is onto provided for all b in B, there is
some a in A with f (a) = b) both establish general properties that can be tested for all
types of functions, including homomorphisms.
In a first-semester abstract algebra class, proof writing about one-to-one and onto
properties provides opportunities to gain insight into students schemas for functions,
direct and indirect proof techniques, sets, logical implications and equations. In this
study, as in many introductory abstract algebra and introductory proof courses, proofs
of one-to-one and onto properties are among the first and most procedural proof-writing
exercises, and errors and misconceptions found in students novice attempts at constructing
these proofs can provide early indications of instructional interventions. Moreover,
for undergraduate mathematics majors who may also become secondary mathematics
teachers, learning to recognize and justify the properties of one-to-one functions and
onto functions through multiple representations (i.e. equations, tables, graphs and
diagrams) is a practical skill for the classroom [3]. With this in mind, we approached
the study with a research question focused on description of both one-to-one and onto
proofs:
What characterizes students attempts to write formal proofs of (a) one-to-one functions and
(b) onto functions in a first-semester undergraduate abstract algebra course?

International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 1109

2. Methods
2.1. Sample
Following informed consent procedures, 23 undergraduates (16 female, 7 male) enrolled in
a three-semester credit-hour introductory undergraduate abstract algebra class volunteered
to participate in the study. Of the 23 participants, 16 were prospective mathematics teachers
(12 secondary, 4 middle school), six were non-teaching mathematics majors and one was
a kinesiology major. The class under investigation was the first proof-writing mathematics
course for 13 of the participants, while six of the remaining 10 students had previously
failed or withdrawn from abstract algebra. Twelve of the students were 1922 years old,
8 were 2330 years old and 3 were over 30 years old. Table 1 lists the participants by
pseudonym, age, undergraduate major and previous proof-writing course attempts.

2.2. Instruction in one-to-one and onto proofs

As noted in the description of the sample, abstract algebra is typically the first undergraduate
proof-writing course for mathematics students at the research site. The instructor was
aware that many of the students had limited experience in formal proof writing and chose
an abstract algebra text [16] that included an introductory chapter with topics that help
students ease into proof writing through ideas which are foundational to groups and rings.
Table 1.

Background summary of study participants.

Pseudonym

Age

Major

Adrian
Akira
Ariana
Brooke

19
22
25
35

Math (8-12)
Math (8-12)
Math (8-12)
Chemistry/Math

Brenda
Caleb
Cole
Emma
Haley
Hayden
Jasmine
Juan
Lainey
Makayla

23
20
23
20
46
19
22
29
24
28

Math (8-12)
Math (8-12)
Math (8-12)
Math (8-12)
Math (4-8)
Math (8-12)
Math (4-8)
Math
Math
Math/Account.

Mallory

36

Math (8-12)

Mia
Michelle
Naomi
Paul
Roberto
Tensia
Tina
Vanessa

20
20
21
28
24
20
19
20

Math (8-12)
Math (8-12)
Math
Math (8-12)
Kinesiology
Math (4-8)
Math
Math (8-12)

Prior proof courses

a

Abstract Algebra

Level
of prior courses
Junior

Symbolic Logic I and II, Linear

Algebra

Junior

Abstract Algebra
Discrete Math

Junior
Junior

Abstract Algebra
Calculus I, Discrete Math
Abstract Algebra
Symbolic Logic, Discrete
Math, Abstract Algebra
Geometry, Matrix Math,
Statistics, Abstract Algebra

Junior
Sophomore, Junior
Junior
Junior

Discrete Math

Junior

Note: a Abstract Algebra refers to students who are retaking the class under study.

Junior, Senior

1110

A. Wheeler and J. Champion

,

Figure 1.

( )

One-to-one and onto problem on quiz.

Through exercises and examples in the initial chapter, class participants read examples and
attempted to write formal proofs of basic statements relating to topics such as one-to-one,
onto, closure and equivalence relations. Our study tracks the participants proof attempts
regarding the first two mathematical concepts through three separate assessments in the
course.
In the United States, students are often introduced to one-to-one and onto as properties
of functions during secondary and undergraduate algebra classes, such as Algebra II and
College Algebra. Instructors in these settings may draw diagrams or graphs to illustrate the
properties, and may state formal definitions, but rarely prove functions are one-to-one or
onto using general arguments. Besides College Algebra, students at the research site were
unlikely to have had formal instruction on one-to-one and onto functions prior to enrolling
in the introductory abstract algebra course.
During class in the initial weeks of the abstract algebra course, the instructor drew
mapping diagrams with action gestures [15] as visual representations of one-to-one and
onto. For one-to-one functions, the instructor also drew graphs of functions and discussed
the horizontal-line test (a real-value function on the reals is one-to-one if and only if every
horizontal line intersects the graph of the function in at most one point) as a way to help
students develop insight into whether a function might possess the one-to-one property. The
instructor modelled several example proofs of one-to-one and onto properties, and suggested
that students use the contrapositive of the one-to-one criterion (f (x) = f (y) x = y)
when proving functions are one-to-one. During the initial class discussion, the instructor
noted that some students confused the processes of trying to understand the behaviour of
a function and the process of trying to prove the function possessed the one-to-one and/or
onto properties.

2.3. Data collection

The data sources included copies of students individual work on each of 24 one-to-one and
onto proof tasks spread across three assessments: a homework assignment, a quiz and an
exam. The homework assignment included 10 one-to-one proofs and 10 onto proofs from
the course text. The subsequent in-class quiz and exam each included 1 one-to-one and 1
onto proof, which were similar in nature to the homework tasks (see Figures 1 and 2).

( )

Figure 2.

One-to-one and onto problem on exam.

International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 1111

Table 2.

Defined codes for misconceptions and errors in one-to-one and onto proofs.

Error/misconception
E1: Misuse of symbols
E4: Misuse of given information
E6: Unintelligible proof
E7: Unjustifiable substitution
E8: Misuse of quantifiers
E9: Logical holes
E11: Computational error
E12: Undefined variables
E13: Set membership
M1: Begin with the conclusion
M5: Confused real number laws
M8: Interfering knowledge
M9: Proof by example
No response

Example
Use = in place of .
Prove f is not one-to-one, then give a counterexample.e
No part of the proof is understandable.
Declare a & b even, and use undeclared x & y in the proof.
Conclude for all integers when only true for a subset.
Omit multiple consecutive steps in a logical argument.
Incorrectly simplify an expression.
Use one or more variables without definition.
Fail to verify an inverse element is in the domain.
Assume a1 = a2 at the beginning of a one-to-one proof.
Conclude b/2 is not in the integers for b in the integers.
Model an onto proof after a proof of one-to-one.
Conclude a function is one-to-one by graphing.
No visible proof attempt.

Note: Only codes identified in the data are listed; see [13] for additional examples of most codes.

All assessments occurred during the first 6 weeks of the class. We initially also included
students work on 8 total one-to-one and onto proofs in the context of verifying the properties
of homomorphisms, but subsequently restricted the sample to the initial 24 proof tasks to
allow for better comparisons across students.

2.4. Data analysis

After making copies of student work, a research assistant and the first author coded the data
using an adapted version of Selden and Seldens [13] rubric of undergraduate students proof
misconceptions and errors. Prior to the initial structured coding of students proofs using
the rubric, the researchers discussed the meanings of the codes and made modifications to
align with the topics of the proofs, such as renaming some codes and including new ones
such as M9 (proof by example), E11 (computational error), E12 (undefined variables) and
E13 (set membership). Table 2 gives the altered rubric with just those codes that were found
in the student work for one-to-one and onto proofs.
We defined misconceptions to be beliefs evidenced in a students proof writing that conflict with formal mathematics, including context-dependent operational definitions of the
Seldens errors and misconceptions. These included assuming the conclusion to be logically
true at the beginning of the proof (M1), misunderstanding the properties of real numbers
(M5), using prior knowledge of similar but interfering content as proof (M8) and presenting
one or more examples (verified instances of the general statement) as a proof (M9). Besides
misconceptions, students one-to-one and onto proofs included some mathematical errors,
coded as: incorrect mathematical symbols (E1), misunderstanding what must be shown in
the proof (E4), writing a grammatically nonsensical argument (E6), substituting quantities
for one another without justification (E7), misuse of quantifiers (E8), skipping one or more
logical steps in a sequence of statements (E9), using mathematical ideas that are not relevant
to the argument (E10), making computational errors with symbols or numbers (E11), not
defining variables used in a proof (E12) and failing to verify membership in a set (E13).
Analysis consisted of three rounds of coding for each proof exercise. The research
assistant first coded each students proof attempt for the problem. Then, the first author
checked the codes and suggested any changes to the coded misconceptions or errors.

1112

A. Wheeler and J. Champion

Finally, the two coders reached consensus and the overall codes were aggregated with an
emphasis on both describing and exemplifying the apparent challenges that students faced
when writing proofs of one-to-one and onto properties.

3. Findings
Students left about one in nine (11.1%) of the 552 total one-to-one and onto proof tasks
blank (no response). In addition, the most common error or misconception identified in the
proof attempts was using one or more undefined variables in a proof (E12), which occurred
in 9.4% of the proof attempts. Other less common errors included E4: misuse of given
information (4.2%), E13: failing to verify set membership (3.1%) and E9: logical holes
(2.4%). The percentages of errors and misconceptions identified in the students proof
attempts for one-to-one (Table 3) and onto (Table 4) tasks suggests somewhat increased
prevalence of the error and misconception patterns on exams and quizzes as compared with
homework.

3.1. Qualitative nature of errors and misconceptions in one-to-one proofs

Through the homework, quiz and exam, students had 12 opportunities to write a formal
proof of whether or not a given function was one-to-one. Based on the analysis of these
proofs using the modified misconception and errors rubric, students struggled the most with
(a) using one or more variables without definition, (b) understanding how to utilize given
information to write a correct mathematical proof and (c) distinguishing among different
proof formats.
An interesting example of a proof misconception included Jasmines work. Jasmine
tried plotting points both as a way to determine if a function was one-to-one and as a way of
proving her choice. One proof submitted on Jasmines first homework assignment, which
included one-to-one proofs, involved proving whether the function f : Z Z, given by
f(x) = 3x, was one-to-one. Jasmines proof attempt included only a table of values for f
Table 3.

Percentages of errors and misconceptions in students proofs of one-to-one.

Error/
misconception
E1: Misuse of symbols
E4: Misuse of given information
E6: Unintelligible proof
E7: Unjustifiable substitution
E8: Misuse of quantifiers
E9: Logical holes
E11: Computational error
E12: Undefined variables
E13: Set membership
M1: Begin with the conclusion
M8: Interfering knowledge
M9: Proof by example
No response

Homework
(10 tasks)

Quiz
(1 task)

Exam
(1 task)

Combined
(12 tasks)

0.9
0.4
1.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
7.0
0.0
0.0
1.7
2.2
9.6

0.0
8.7
4.3
4.3
0.0
4.3
0.0
21.7
0.0
0.0
8.7
4.3
0.0

8.7
39.1
0.0
0.0
21.7
4.3
0.0
43.5
0.0
8.7
4.3
0.0
13.0

1.4
4.3
1.8
0.4
1.8
0.7
0.4
11.2
0.0
0.7
2.5
2.2
9.1

Note: Percentages of errors and misconceptions = 100 (number of errors)/[(sample size) (number of tasks)].
Example: the number of E1 errors on the homework was 2, so the E1 error rate on the homework was
100 (2)/(23 10) = 0.9, meaning error E1 was present in less than 1% of the homework proofs.

International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 1113

Table 4.

Percentages of errors and misconceptions in students proofs of onto.

Error/
misconception
E1: Misuse of symbols
E4: Misuse of given information
E6: Unintelligible proof
E7: Unjustifiable substitution
E8: Misuse of quantifiers
E9: Logical holes
E12: Undefined variables
E13: Set membership
M1: Begin with the conclusion
M5: Confused real number laws
M8: Interfering knowledge
M9: Proof by example
No response

Homework
(10 tasks)

Quiz
(1 task)

Exam
(1 task)

Combined
(12 tasks)

0.9
1.3
0.9
0.0
1.7
2.2
6.5
2.6
0.0
0.4
0.9
0.4
13.5

4.3
0.0
4.3
8.7
0.0
4.3
13.0
4.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

13.0
34.8
8.7
0.0
4.3
21.7
13.0
43.5
4.3
0.0
8.7
0.0
21.7

2.2
4.0
1.8
0.7
1.8
4.0
7.6
6.2
0.4
0.4
1.4
0.4
13.0

Note: Percentages of errors and misconceptions = 100 (number of errors)/[(sample size) (number of tasks)].
Example: the number of E1 errors on the homework was 2, so the E1 error rate on the homework was
100 (2)/(23 10) = 0.9, meaning error E1 was present in less than 1% of the homework proofs.

at integer values of x between 2 and 2, along with the phrase one-to-one mapping (see
Figure 3). Jasmines work consistently suggested a belief that a table of values for a function
over a finite subset of the domain was sufficient to prove that the function is one-to-one
over its entire domain.
While Jasmine consistently struggled in early work on writing one-to-one proofs using
examples, other students seemed to be able to mostly write correct one-to-one arguments
but lacked true understanding of their work. For example, the first part of Mallorys proof
on a quiz that f (x) = 10x 7 is one-to-one on the integers (see Figure 4) demonstrates a
correct symbolic proof that a function was one-to-one. The remaining portion of her work,
however, shows that Mallory had not developed a strong conceptual understanding of the
procedural steps in her proof. Having written a correct direct argument that f (a1 ) = f (a2 )
implies a1 = a2 , Mallory chose values a1 = 3 and a1 = 7 and rewrote the general argument
with these specific values. This led to an apparent contradiction (23 = 63), leading Mallory
to erroneously conclude that f was in fact not one-to-one.
3.2. Qualitative nature of errors and misconceptions in onto proofs
Students made more mistakes with proofs involving the onto property of functions than
with one-to-one proof writing. The most common error was students failures to define

Figure 3.

One-to-one proof for f : Z Z, f (x) = 3x, by Jasmine on homework. Error: M9.

1114

Figure 4.

A. Wheeler and J. Champion

One-to-one proof for f : Z Z, f (x) = 10x 7, by Mallory on quiz. Errors: E4, E12.

variables. For example, Akira often forgot to include parts of proofs, such as defining new
variables and checking to see whether or not an element found by reversing a mapping
belonged to the domain of the function. In a proof from an early quiz (Figure 5), Akira
introduced a variable b B to presumably be in the co-domain of the function f : Z Z,
given by f (x) = 10x 7. She assumed that the value was of the form b = 10a 7 and
. Akira then noted that this element was not an integer and concluded that
found a = b+7
10
the function was not onto. However, this statement is sometimes false (e.g. for b = 3,
a = 1 Z), and Akira neglected to make the necessary qualification. However, Akiras
statement need only be true for one element of the co-domain to prove the function is
not onto, so Akiras proof can be considered a partially correct proof, with a gap that
underscores the difficulty she was having in learning the logic of proving the negative of a
universally quantified statement.
Jasmines logic was typical of a student who struggled with proofs of both one-to-one
and onto properties throughout the course. For example, in her attempted proof that the
, is onto (left panel of Figure 6), Jasmine actually
function f : Q Q, given by f (x) = x+5
7
submitted a mostly correct and complete proof that f is one-to-one. She left the onto exercise
of an isomorphism proof on the final exam completely blank.
4. Discussion
In the light of the many complex settings in which students learn abstract algebra at postsecondary institutions, it is important to interpret the study findings in the context of the
relatively small sample size, limited duration, and specific instructional and curricular
approach. The study findings, though adding substantially to the work of Selden and Selden
[13], by providing quantitative and qualitative descriptions of errors and misconceptions
evidenced in one-to-one and onto proofs, should be considered preliminary. Nonetheless,
the findings suggest that through extensive practice, most undergraduate abstract algebra
students can write one-to-one and onto proofs during the first 6 weeks of the course with few

Figure 5.

Onto proof for f : Z Z, f (x) = 10x 7, by Akira on quiz. Error: E12, E13.

International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 1115

Figure 6.

Onto proof by Jasmine for f : Q Q, f (x) =

x+5
7

on exam. Misconceptions: M8.

errors. Moreover, the qualitative nature of the students errors and misconceptions in the
proof attempts provided several insights into their understanding of functions, computation
and deductive reasoning.
As proof-based course instructors know, some proof errors are more harmful for students later progress in the course than others. Several students, including Jasmine and
Mallory, struggled especially with writing logically consistent one-to-one proofs. Since
one-to-one proofs at this level often include proving a contrapositive statement, we noted
that these students seemed to have difficulty understanding that the contrapositive is logically equivalent to the original conditional statement, a difficulty that is supported by the
findings of Stylianides et al. [17]. Moreover, based on our qualitative analysis of students
submitted proofs, proofs involving the onto property of functions appeared to be less challenging for students, who sometimes omitted certain elements of their proofs but typically
understood what they were being asked to prove, started the proof correctly and included
other key features of a mathematically consistent argument.
Finally, despite the relatively low numbers of proof errors during the initial instructional
period on one-to-one and onto, the students in the study had substantial difficulty in
implementing the basic one-to-one and onto proof frameworks when later asked to verify
the one-to-one and onto properties of a homomorphism. This suggests that many of the
students took the approach of memorizing a set of procedures for writing one-to-one and
onto proofs, which may have led to the difficulty in adapting the procedures to new and
more abstract contexts later in the course.
4.1. Implications for teaching
Based on our findings, we believe abstract algebra instructors can implement teaching
techniques to head off potentially detrimental student errors in proof writing by highlighting
proofs involving one-to-one and onto properties of functions in the early stages of the course.
For example, some students initially believed that proof by example and proof by graph
constituted convincing mathematical arguments that a function was one-to-one or onto.
Instructors can choose examples to help students see the need for formal symbolic proofs,
and choose homework and quiz items that specifically ask students to prove one-to-one
and onto properties of functions in a variety of contexts and representations. In addition,
we recommend paying special attention to outlining a framework for one-to-one and onto
proofs (e.g. Suppose x, y in A with f (x) = f (y), then show that x must equal y using
the definition of f and properties of the set A), while highlighting that the particulars of
individual proofs may vary greatly. Last, several of the error patterns suggest that abstract
algebra students could benefit from carefully editing their proofs. Providing students with

1116

A. Wheeler and J. Champion

opportunities to practice reading and editing their own proofs could help students develop
important metacognition and proof validation skills [7]. One strategy that might serve this
purpose would be to assign students the task of reading and editing some of their own
recently submitted proofs using a list of errors provided by the instructor.
4.2. Implications for future research
In follow-up studies, we plan to investigate the role that a students career plans (e.g.
secondary teaching, graduate school, etc.) plays in the students development of proofwriting skills. We also plan to test for an effect on proof writing as a result of requiring
students to understand and use a list of common misconceptions and errors as a self-analysis
tool for their own proofs.
References
[1] Mingus T, Grassl R. Preservice teachers beliefs about proofs. School Sci. Math. 1999;99:438
444.
[2] Hanna G. Challenges to the importance of proof. Learn. Math. 1995;15:4249.
[3] National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM; 2000. Available from: http://www.nctm.org/standards/content.aspx?
id=16909. (Accessed 7 January 2013).
[4] Harel G, Sowder L. Toward comprehensive perspectives on the learning and teaching of proof.
In: Lester F, editor. Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. Reston,
VA; NCTM; 2002. p. 805842.
[5] Maher C, Martino A. The development of the idea of mathematical proof: a 5-year case study.
J. Res. Math. Educ. 1996;27:194214.
[6] Almeida D. Pupils proof potential. Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol. 2001;32:5360.
[7] Powers R, Craviotto C, Grassl R. Impact of proof validation on proof writing in abstract algebra.
Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol. 2010;41:501514.
[8] Harel G, Sowder L. Students proof schemes: results from exploratory studies. Am. Math. Soc.
1998;7:234283.
[9] Knuth E. Secondary school mathematics teachers conceptions of proof. J. Res. Math. Educ.
2002;22:379405.
[10] Selden A, Selden J. Validations of proofs considered as texts: can undergraduates tell whether
an argument proves a theorem?. J. Res. Math. Educ. 2003; 34:436.
[11] Brown S. An investigation of students proof preferences: the case of indirect proofs. Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education; 2011. Available from: http://sigmaa.maa.org/rume/crume2011/Preliminary_Reports.html.
(Accessed 7 January 2013).
[12] Weber K. Student difficulty in constructing proofs: the need for strategic knowledge. Educ.
Stud. Math. 2002;48:101119.
[13] Selden A, Selden J. Errors and misconceptions in college level theorem proving. Proceedings
of the Second International Seminar on Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science
and Mathematics; 1987 Jul 2629; Ithaca. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University; 1987.
[14] Nardi E. The encounter with the concept of function, in amongst mathematicians: teaching and
learning mathematics at the undergraduate level. New York: Springer; 2008.
[15] Yoon C, Thomas M, Dreyfus T. Gestures in advanced mathematical thinking. Int. J. Math. Educ.
Sci. Technol. 2011;42:891901.
[16] Gilbert J, Gilbert L. Elements of modern algebra. 7th ed. Pacific Grove (CA): Brooks/Cole;
2008.
[17] Stylianides S, Stylianides G, Philippou G. Undergraduate students understanding of the contraposition equivalence rule in symbolic and verbal contexts. Educ. Stud. Math., 2004;55:133162.

Copyright of International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science & Technology is the

property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple
sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.