1

SECONDARY SCHOOL MATHEMATICS TEACHERS' CONCEPTIONS OF PROOF

BY
BRIAN FRASIER
B.S. TUFTS UNIVERSITY (2003)
M.Ed. UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS LOWELL (2005)

DISSERTATION ADVISOR: DR. REGINA PANASUK

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DOCTORAL DISSERTATION
IN MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS LOWELL

2010

Signature of Author:

Date:• 4-JJO-IO
Brian J. Frasier /

Approved By:

Dissertation Committee Chairperson

& & (HULxU*^—

Date: ^-Jh0~<O

Dissertation Committee Members

Date: H-ll'/o

Date:
y-ft-so

Date: J/2//0
 UMI Number: 3417066

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI
Dissertation Publishing

UMI 3417066
Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

uest
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
 SECONDARY SCHOOL MATHEMATICS
TEACHERS' CONCEPTIONS OF PROOF

BY
BRIAN J. FRASIER

ABSTRACT OF A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION IN
MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS LOWELL
2010

Chairperson of the Dissertation Committee

Regina Panasuk, Ph.D.

Professor of Mathematics Education

ii
 ABSTRACT

Reasoning and proof is one of the five major process standards proposed by the

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM, 2000). NCTM claims that the

notion of proof is a fundamental element of mathematics and therefore should be a

fundamental element of mathematics education for all students. Given the centrality of

proof to mathematics and its potential to play a significant role in students' development

of reasoning abilities, the following study has been conducted.

The purpose of the study was to investigate in-service high school mathematics

teachers' conceptions of and practices with mathematical proof. Three-hundred and

seventy-four high school mathematics teachers participated in an original online survey,

which was based on a substantial theoretical framework drawn from both mathematics

and mathematics education.

The findings of this study suggest that teachers' conceptions of proof are

composed of four principle components: (i) teachers' ability to understand, produce, and

appreciate the value of mathematical proofs, (ii) teachers' conceptions of the importance

of proof in mathematics, (iii) teachers' perceptions of students' capacity to understand

proof, (iv) teachers' intellectual awareness of the philosophy, history, and teaching and

learning standards of mathematics. Teachers' reported classroom practices with proof

appear to vary according to the academic ability level of the students as well as the

particular mathematical sub-discipline being taught. These findings bear implications to

teachers, teacher educators, textbook authors, and those that create teaching and learning

standards as well as government sponsored testing.

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would first like to acknowledge the dedicated members of my dissertation

committee who donated so much of their time and effort to help improve my dissertation.

Their comments and suggestions were truly invaluable to my learning experience. I

would also like to thank my student teachers who participated in the pilot study, the

survey participants, and all of my friends and colleagues that provided me with support

and encouragement throughout the dissertation process.

I am extremely grateful to Dr. Greenwood for her inspirational leadership of the

Graduate School of Education, and to all of my professors and teachers throughout the

years that have transformed how I understand the world of teaching and learning. There

are no words that could possibly describe my eternal gratitude to Regina, who has been

my professor, my mentor, and my dear friend for many years. For what I know of

mathematics education, she has taught me. Newton once said, "If I have seen further it is

only by standing on the shoulders of giants." She is my giant, and if my work is ever

viewed as a contribution to our field it will be because of what she has taught me.

Lastly, I dedicate this dissertation to my mother who has sacrificed so much so

that I may reach this point in my education. Her strength, courage, and belief in me has

enabled me to reach further and higher than I ever thought possible. This dissertation

would not have been written without her support and it is as much her accomplishment as

it is mine.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES viii

LIST OF FIGURE ix

CHAPTER ONE: STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 1

Primary research questions 6

Operational definitions 7

CHAPTER TWO: THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 9

The nature of proof from the perspective of mathematics 9

The beginnings of mathematical proof. 9
Deductive reasoning within an axiomatic system 11
Inductive reasoning and its limitations 14
The roles of deductive and inductive reasoning
in modern mathematics 15
Philosophical aspects of proof. 17
Axioms 17
Truth 18
Rigor 19
Social aspects of proof. 20
Proof as a form of communication 20
The affect of computers on the role proof in mathematics 22
Summary 22
Proof in mathematics education 23
Introduction 23
Teachers may not consider proof central to
mathematics education 24
Teachers struggle with what constitutes a valid proof. 26
Proof, truth, and the nature of mathematical knowledge 29
Proof as a vehicle to help students develop deductive
reasoning skills 30
Revisiting the primary research questions 32
CHAPTER 3: METHOD 34

The Survey 34
Survey items 34
The survey design 35
The Pilot Study 37
Participants 37
Email correspondences 38

v
 Institutional review 40
Overview of analysis 40

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS 42

Participants 42
Representativeness of the data 44
Reliability analysis 45
Validity analysis 46
Identification of the principle components of
teachers' conception of proof. 53
Multivariate analysis 58
Teachers' conceptions of proof in mathematics 61
The importance of proof in mathematics 61
General attitude towards proof. 62
The functions of proof in mathematics 63
Teachers' conceptions of their own abilities with proof. 64
Teachers' conceptions of inductive and deductive reasoning 65
Meaning of proof in mathematics 65
Philosophy/History of mathematics 68
Teachers' experience with proof in their own education 68
Teachers' conceptions of proof in mathematics education 71
The importance of proof in mathematics education and its
viability as a vehicle to promote students logical
thinking abilities 71
The appropriateness of proof for students of
different academic levels 73
Teachers' perceptions of students' capacity to understand proof. 76
An achievement gap 77
Teachers' perceptions of students' attitudes towards proof. 78
The importance of proof in Geometry versus Algebra 78
Proof deterred 82
Proof in textbooks 84
Proof Activities 86
Proof Formats 87
Computers 89
Teachers' desire to learn 89
NCTM recommendations 90
The Relationship between Teachers' Conceptions
and Teachers' Practices 95

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 98

Answering the research questions 98

What are secondary school mathematics teachers'
conceptions of proof? 98

vi
 Teachers ability to understand, produce and
appreciate the value of mathematical proof 98
Teachers' conceptions of the importance of proof. 104
Teachers' perceptions of students' capacity to
understand proof. 108
Teachers' intellectual awareness of philosophy,
history and teaching and learning standards of
mathematics 113
How do secondary school mathematics teachers
use proof in their teaching? 116
How teachers use proof in their teaching 117
How often teachers use proof in their teaching 119
What teachers consider to deter them from using
proof in their teaching 120
How do secondary school mathematics teachers conceptions
of proof relate to how teachers use proof in their teaching? 122
Classtime and Students Capacity 122
Classtime and Teachers' Interest 122
Classtime and Importance 123
Implications and Suggestions 123
Teaching of lower-level students 123
Textbooks 125
Standards and Testing 126
Teacher Education and Professional Development 126

REFERENCES 128

Appendix A: Examples of Proof Forms and Proof Formats 135

Appendix B: The Survey 141

Appendix C: Correspondence Emails with Principals and Person Contacts 157

Appendix D: Institutional Review Approval Letter 162

vii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Demographic Comparison 43

Table 2: Chi Square Table for Demographics 44
Table 3: Item Groups Based on Factor Analysis 47
Table 4: Four Principle Components 55
Table 5: MANOVA Table 60
Table 6: Teachers' Conceptions of the Importance of Proof in Mathematics 62
Table 7: Teachers' Attitudes toward Proof in Mathematics 62
Table 8: Teachers' Conceptions of the Functions that Proof. 63
Table 9: Teachers' Conceptions of their Own Abilities with Proof. 64
Table 10: Teachers' Conceptions of Inductive and Deductive Reasoning 65
Table 11: The Meaning of Proof in Mathematics 66
Table 12: Teachers' Experience with the Philosophy and History of Mathematics... 67
Table 13: Teachers' Prior Experiences with Proof as a Student 68
Table 14: Teachers' High School Experience 69
Table 15: Teachers' Conceptions of the Importance of Proof in Mathematics
Educations and its Viability as a Vehicle to Promote Logical Thinking Ability 72
Table 16: The Importance of Proof with respect to Academic Level 75
Table 17: Teachers' Perceptions of Students' Attitude 78
Table 18: Teacher Conceptions of the Fundamentalness of Proof to High School
Mathematics Classes 79
Table 19: Classtime Spent on Proof. 81
Table 20: Time as a Deterrent to Teachers using Proof in their Teaching 84
Table 21: Teachers' Conceptions of Proof in their Textbooks 87
Table 22: Teachers' Conceptions of Proofs and the use of Computers 89
Table 23: Teachers' Desire to Learn about Proof. 90
Table 24: Teachers' Conceptions of NCTM's Recommendations 90
Table 25: Descriptive Statistics for Teachers' Conceptions NCTM's
Recommendations 91
Table 26: ANOVA Table for Teachers' Conceptions of NCTM's
Recommendations 92
Table 27: Descriptive Statistics for Teachers' Familiarity with NCTM's
Recommendations 93
Table 28: ANOVA Table for Teachers' Familiarity with NCTM's
Recommendations 93

vni
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Scree Plot 54

Figure 2: The Importance of Proof According to Students' Academic Level 74
Figure 3: Teacher's Perceptions of Students' Capacity to Understand Proof. 76
Figure 4: Teachers' Perceptions of an Achievement Gap 77
Figure 5: Class Time Spent on Proof 80
Figure 6: Teachers' Deterrents from using Proof in their Teaching 83
Figure 7: How Teachers Use Proof in Their Classroom 86
Figure 8: Percentage of Proofs in Different Recording Formats 88

ix
 CHAPTER ONE
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
NCTM (2000) has placed significant emphasis on the role of proof in

mathematics education by setting reasoning and proof as one of its five major process

standards. It claims, "By the end of secondary school, students should be able to

understand and produce mathematical proofs - arguments consisting of logically rigorous

deductions of conclusions - and should be able to appreciate the value of such an

argument" (p. 55). The systematic reasoning manifested in mathematical proof is

explained to be "a defining feature of mathematics", and is said to be "found in all

content areas and in all grade levels" (p. 56).

There is no single definition of 'proof. Scholars and researchers offered different

statements that describe the nature of mathematical proof. Reid (1995) defined proof as

an "investigation using deductive reasoning" (p. 7). Mingis and Grassl (1999) wrote that

proof is, "a collection of true statements linked together in a logical manner that serve as

a convincing argument for the truth of a mathematical statement (f 24). Willerding

(1966) described proof as a "chain of syllogisms that are arranged from the given

statements to the desired conclusion" (p. 43). The National Council of Teachers of

Mathematics (NCTM, 2000) states that proofs are, "arguments consisting of logically

rigorous deductions of conclusions from hypotheses" (p. 55). This statement serves as

the working definition of mathematical proof throughout this dissertation.

The notion that proof is a fundamental element of mathematics and therefore

should be a fundamental element of mathematics education has been repeatedly stated by

prominent scholars (e.g., Balacheff, 2002; Ernest, 1998; Harel & Sowder, 2007; Hanna,

1
1995; Ross, 1998; Schoenfeld, 1994; Wu, 1996). Hanna (2000) went so far as to claim

that, "students cannot be said to have learned mathematics, or even about mathematics,

unless they have learned what proof is" (p. 24). NCTM and the aforementioned scholars

have emphasized the importance of proof in mathematics education because they share a

deep appreciation of the role that proof plays in the discipline of mathematics.

Proof in mathematics is a means of validating, justifying, communicating, and

systematizing mathematical knowledge in all branches of mathematics. Proof has

facilitated the creation of new knowledge and extended individuals' abilities to

understand and explain the universe well beyond what their senses would allow them to

do on their own. Without proof, it is unlikely that the aspects of mathematics concerned

with understanding, explaining, and building connections between ideas would be able to

exist, and therefore it could be argued that proof is a fundamental element of the

discipline.

In addition to the notion that proof is a fundamental element of mathematics and

therefore should be a fundamental element of mathematics education, scholars and

researchers suggested a pedagogical motivation for including proof in mathematics

classes. Perrin (2009) proposed the idea of using proof as a vehicle to promote students'

development of reasoning abilities. He wrote, "A primary way in which mathematics

students develop reasoning skills is by constructing mathematical proofs" (p. 341). Wu

(1996) advocated using proof to develop reasoning skills for all students and believes that

citizens in a functional democracy need to be able to reason effectively in order to "listen

to [a] national debate and make up their minds about knotty issues such as the national

deficit and the environment" (p. 224). Though NCTM, scholars, and researchers

2
emphasized the importance of proof in mathematics education for both content specific

and pedagogical reasons, educational research suggested that in reality some mathematics

teachers may not consider proof fundamentally important to the mathematics classes that

they teach.

Scholars and researchers who want the discipline of mathematics to be accurately

portrayed to mathematics students expressed serious concerns over the use (or lack

thereof) of proof in K - 12 mathematics classrooms. Schoenfeld (1994) asserted that

"proof is not a thing separable from mathematics as it appears in our curricula" (p. 76).

Similarly, Knuth (2002b) contends that, "although many consider proof to be central to

the discipline of mathematics...proof traditionally has been expected to play a role only

in the mathematics education of college-intending students and... limited to the domain of

Euclidean geometry" (p. 379). The practice of exposing proof to only a certain group of

students presents troublesome matters of equity and also contradicts the notion that

mathematics educators should teach all students something about the discipline of

mathematics.

Wu (1996) argued that mathematics students will not be able to appreciate the

aspects of the discipline that are concerned with understanding, explaining, and building

connections between ideas without teachers placing a particular emphasis on proof in all

mathematics classes. He commented:

A glaring defect in the present-day mathematics education in high

school, namely the fact that outside geometry there are essentially

no proofs1. Even as anomalies in education go, this is certainly

1
Refer to Appendix A for examples of proofs from several branches of mathematics.

3
 more anomalous than others inasmuch as it presents a totally

falsified picture of mathematics itself, (p. 228)

In addition to presenting a 'falsified picture of mathematics', teachers who do not

use proofs in their teaching of mathematics are also missing an opportunity to

promote the development of their students' reasoning abilities.

NCTM (2000) exerted considerable effort to explain to teachers that, "reasoning

and proof should be a consistent part of students' mathematical experience in pre-

kindergarten through grade 12" (p. 55). The Council encouraged teachers to place a

particular focus on the students' process of reasoning in the mathematics classroom.

Despite this encouragement, researchers (e.g., Weiss, Herbst, & Chen, 2009; Knuth,

2002) documented that many teachers did not emphasize students' process of reasoning

but instead focused on matters of format (i.e., the style in which the proof was recorded).

The Council asserted that, "The particular format of a mathematical justification or proof,

be it narrative argument, 'two column proof or a visual argument, is less important than

a clear and correct communication of mathematical ideas appropriate to the students'

grade level" (p. 57).

Given the centrality of proof to mathematics and its potential to play a substantial

role in students' development of reasoning abilities, there has been an abundance of

educational research concerning proof in mathematics classrooms. Balacheff (1988),

Bell (1976), Chazan (1993), and Sowder and Harel (1998) examined students'

conceptions of proof. Jones (1997), Martin and Harel (1989), Simon and Blume, (1996),

Vargese (2007), and Stylianides and Stylianides (2009) studied prospective teachers'

conceptions of proof. Goetting (1995), Harel and Sowder (1998), and Seldon and Seldon

4
(2003) focused their studies on undergraduate mathematics majors' knowledge of and

abilities with proof. Though there have been numerous studies in mathematics education

that examined mathematical proof, these studies tended to have very limited sample sizes

and were not aimed to address in-service secondary mathematics teachers' conceptions of

and abilities with mathematical proof.

Knuth (1999) brought attention to the lack of research focused on in-service

secondary school mathematics teachers who are likely to be exerting significant influence

on how proof is being presented to students. He wrote, "even though educational

scholars have recognized the significant impact that teachers' subject matter conceptions

have on their classroom practices, to date, little research has focused on experienced

secondary mathematic teachers' conceptions of proof' (p. 13). To address this gap in the

research, Knuth conducted interviews with in-service secondary school mathematics

teachers. He observed that many of the teachers in his study i) did not consider proof to

be central to mathematics education, ii) struggled to determine the characteristics of a

valid mathematical proof, iii) tended to use proof in their teaching in such a way that

implied mathematical knowledge was infallible and granted by authority, and iv) believed

that while proof could be used to help students develop reasoning abilities, it should be

reserved only for advanced mathematics students at the end of their K-12 experience.

His findings suggested that in-service secondary mathematics teachers' may have

conceptions of proof that are inconsistent with NCTM's recommendations. Knuth was

primarily focused on identifying and describing in-service secondary mathematics

teachers' conceptions of proof. His study collected qualitative descriptions of teachers'

5
conceptions of proof and while these descriptions are extremely valuable they are not

necessarily representative of all in-service secondary mathematics teachers.

Therefore, there is a need within the mathematics education community to

develop a quantitative measure of the extent to which the issues identified and described

by Knuth are representative of all in-service secondary mathematics teachers.

Additionally, little is known about how teachers use proof in their teaching, how often

teachers use proof in their teaching, and what factors (including their conceptions) are

related to how teachers use proof in their teaching. This information is critically

important for curriculum developers, teacher educators, administrators, and text book

writers to make informed decisions about how they can support teachers' use of proof in

mathematics classrooms in such a way that is consistent with NCTM's recommendations.

These decisions could potentially affect many mathematics teachers and consequently

their students and therefore should be based on quantitative data which at present is not

available.

Primary research questions

To collect this quantitative data concerning in-service high school teachers

conceptions of and practices with mathematical proof this study was conducted. Three-

hundred and seventy-four high school mathematics teachers from one New England state

(representing 11% of the total number of mathematics teachers in the state) were

surveyed in an attempt to shed light on the following three primary research questions:

1.) What are secondary school mathematics teachers' conceptions of

proof?

6
 2.) How do secondary school mathematics teachers use proof in their

teaching?

3.) How do secondary school mathematics teachers' conceptions of proof

relate to how teachers use proof in their teaching?

Operational definitions

The following is a list of the operational definitions that is used throughout the

dissertation. It has been developed to assist the reader who may need to refer back to

clarify meanings of important terms.

proof — arguments consisting of logically rigorous deductions of conclusions from

hypotheses

deductive reasoning ~ the method reasoning where a conclusion is reached by the logical

arguments based on a collection of assumptions

axioms — a mathematical statement that is taken to be self-evidently true without proof

conjecture — a mathematical assertion

theorem — a mathematical assertion that has been proven

axiomatic system ~ the organizational structure of mathematical knowledge consisting

of undefined terms, defined terms, axioms, and theorems

inductive reasoning — the method of reasoning from examples

universal truths — truths that are independent of context

conception — a mental construct composed of a combination of one's beliefs, perceptions

and understanding about a particular notion

secondary school — grades nine through twelve

7
lower-level, mid-level, upper-level students - referring to the academic ability grouping

of students in the high school. Lower-level may be considered interchangeable

with remedial or basic academic ability grouping; mid-level is interchangeable

with standard college preparatory; and upper-level is interchangeable with the

honors, accelerated and/or AP class groupings

This dissertation includes four additional chapters. In chapter two, a theoretical

framework is drawn from both the discipline of mathematics as well as the field of

mathematics education. The third chapter explains the design and methodology for the

research study that has been conducted and the results of that study are presented in

chapter four. Finally chapter five provides a discussion of the results aimed at answering

the research questions, the limitations of the study, and suggestions for future research.

8
 CHAPTER TWO

THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Teachers' conceptions of mathematical proof may be considered from two distinct

perspectives. Firstly, teachers' conceptions of proof as it exists in the discipline of

mathematics are likely to contribute to how teachers may (or may not) use proof in their

teaching. Secondly, a teacher may have certain conceptions of proof related specifically

to mathematics education which are also likely to contribute to how teachers may (or

may not) use proof in their teaching.

This chapter isolates issues that pertain to proof in mathematics from those that

pertain to proof in mathematics education. In the first half of this chapter, a scholarly

analysis of the nature of proof in mathematics is presented. It includes an historical

account of the origins of proof, a description of the type of reasoning used in proof, and

an example that will illuminate why mathematicians were first motivated to use proof.

Additionally, the role of proof in mathematics is thoroughly examined, as well as

philosophical aspects of proof that have spurred controversies in mathematics for

millennia. The second half of this chapter is an in-depth analysis of the literature

concerning matters of proof in mathematics education. Research and scholarly

commentary are clustered in such a way as to illustrate four major trends of teachers'

conceptions of proof that seem to be incompatible withNCTM's recommendations.

The Nature of Proof from the Perspective of Mathematics

The beginnings of mathematical proof. To understand the nature of proof in

mathematics it is helpful to investigate the origins of proof, and to build an appreciation

for what this notion has represented to the discipline of mathematics. The ancient

9
Babylonian and Egyptian civilizations made significant accomplishments in mathematics

which are indeed impressive for the time period in which they lived. These civilizations

were mainly focused on solving practical problems in trade, agriculture, etc. As Kline

(1972) explains, the mathematics of Babylon and Egypt was no more than "a tool in the

form of disconnected, simple rules which answered questions arising in the daily life of

the people" (p. 22). Eves (1969) claimed that the, "emphasis of mathematics [in Egypt

and Babylonia] was on practical arithmetic and mensuration" (p. 30). Based on what is

known from historical documents, there is not enough evidence to believe that either of

these cultures partook in any activity which resembles mathematical proof.

In contrast, the ancient Greek civilization viewed mathematics in a totally

different way. While the Babylonian and Egyptian cultures valued mathematics for its

usefulness in solving problems, the Greeks were interested in also using mathematics to

understand their environment. Kline (1972) asserts that to the Greeks, mathematics was

"identified with the reality of the physical world and [the Greeks] saw in mathematics the

ultimate truth about the structure and design of the universe" (p. 172). The ancient Greek

mathematicians such a Pythagoras and Zeno looked beyond the practical concrete

applications and embraced mathematics as an abstract discipline. According to Kline,

"This major contribution is of immeasurable significance and value, for the fact that the

same abstract triangle or algebraic equation may apply to hundreds of different physical

situations has proved to be the secret power of mathematics" (p. 171). The desire to find

these universal truths as they called them (e.g., truths that applied to all triangles or all

equations) is what separated the Greek civilization above all others in the field of

10
mathematics. It was in response to this search for universal truth that one finds the

origins of proof.

The earliest documentation of mathematical proof can be found in Euclid's

Elements, which was a compilation of the mathematical achievements in the area of

Geometry that were made by the many great thinkers of that era. Though the recognition

of the abstract patterns and properties of Geometry was itself a tremendous achievement,

the way in which those patterns and properties were presented by Euclid forever changed

the discipline of mathematics. According to Kline (1972), Euclid and his contemporaries

"realized that to secure truths they had to start from truths, and be sure not to assume any

unwarranted facts. Hence, they stated all of their axioms explicitly and in addition ...

insisted on deductive proof (pp. 171-172). These deductive proofs were an essential part

of Euclid's axiomatic system.

Deductive reasoning within an axiomatic system.

It is necessary to clarify and state precisely what is meant by deductive reasoning

within an axiomatic system. Willerding (1966) summarized the fundamental components

of the axiomatic system. She wrote:

Certain terms are taken as undefined; certain statements, called axioms

about these undefined terms are accepted as true without proof; other

words are defined in terms of these undefined terms, and statements called

theorems are proved by a process of logical deduction, (p. 108)

In the Elements, the axioms reflected very simple ideas so that anyone would be

convinced of their truth without question. For example, Heath (2003) translating one of

11
Euclid's axioms wrote: "Things which are equal to the same thing are also equal to one

another" (p. 2).

Deduction or deductive reasoning is defined by Rossi to be "the method of

reasoning where a conclusion is reached by the logical arguments based on a collection of

assumptions [i.e., axioms]" (p. 2). Dewey (1938) described deductive reasoning as, "the

conception of going from the general to the particular" (p. 421). Statements that use and

require deductive reasoning often take the form: If statement A is true, then statement B

is true. The if-then form emphasizes how the truth of the conclusion, namely statement

B, is dependent on the truth of the premise, namely statement A.

Deductive proofs, such as those found in the Elements, refer to proofs that make

use of deductive reasoning. The structure of mathematical knowledge achieved by using

deductive proofs built up from self-evident axioms is commonly referred to as the

axiomatic system. An example of a deductive proof is:

Given three line segments, namely AB, BC, and CD, if the measure of AB

is equal to the measure of BC, and the measure of BC is equal to the

measure of CD, then we could deductively conclude that the measure of

AB is also equal to the measure of CD based on the aforementioned

axiom.

The mathematical statement (that the measure of AB is equal to the measure of

CD) drew upon the self evident truth of the axiom to create a new truth, namely

that the measure of AB is equal to the measure of CD. Eves (1969) explains that a

more complicated statement can be established by "show[ing] that the statement

is a logical consequence of previously established statements" (p. 120). In such a

12
way, Euclid built up an amazingly elegant sequence of deductive proofs in his

Elements.

Rossi (2006) explains that, "there are many different approaches that may be

attempted when trying to prove a theorem" (p. 51). He points out that the particular way

that a mathematical statement is posed usually determines the method of proof. He

states, "some theorems are easily proved with a direct proof, some with an indirect proof,

some with a proof by contradiction, and some theorems require [mathematical] induction

or another specialized method of proof (p. 87). According to Rossi (2006), there are

several different methods3 of proof that could be used to prove a particular mathematical

statement. Rossi emphasized that, "the particular method used to prove a theorem is not

nearly as important as is the fact that a valid proof has been found" (p. 51). It should be

noted that all of the different approaches rely strictly on deductive reasoning within an

axiomatic system.

The development of the axiomatic system was indeed a completely new way of

organizing knowledge that cannot be found prior to Euclid in mathematics or in any other

field. Moreover, the reliability of that knowledge structure continues to this day to be

unmatched by any other knowledge structure in any other field. Kline (1972) suggests

that of the many civilizations that have developed mathematics systems "no civilization

but the Greeks conceived of the idea of establishing conclusions exclusively by deductive

reasoning" (p. 171). The decision to rely upon deductive reasoning was truly

revolutionary in mathematics because it "is entirely at odds with the methods mankind

has utilized in all other fields; it is, in fact, almost irrational since so much highly reliable

2
Note: Despite its name, the type of reasoning used in mathematical induction is deductive reasoning.
3
Refer to Appendix A for examples of different proof methods.

13
knowledge is acquired by experience, induction, reasoning by analogy, and

experimentation" (p. 171). This change in methodology can be attributed to the fact that

the Greeks were interested in far more than practical application, "the Greeks wanted

truths, and saw that they could obtain them only by the unquestionable methods of

deductive reasoning" (p. 171).

Inductive reasoning and its limitations. As opposed to deductive reasoning that

draws its conclusions from axioms and previously proven theorems, inductive reasoning

draws conclusions based on specific examples. Ash (2003) wrote, "Induction is often

defined simply as taking the past as evidence of the future, but it is in fact broader than

that. It takes place whenever we use specific, observed instances as evidence of the

generalizations or laws they would fit into." Black (1967) describes inductive reasoning

more simply as "reasoning from examples" (p. 154). The Greeks were well aware that

mathematical patterns and properties could be recognized through observations - in fact

Aristotle emphasized the importance of such observations - however they were also very

aware that inductive reasoning could lead to false conclusions.

Consider the following example provided by Stylianides and Stylianides (2009):

If one examines the expression (1 + 1141n2), by replacing n with natural numbers, one

can observe that the expression does not produce square numbers. If one continues

replacing n with very large natural numbers one will continue to observe that the

expression still does generate square numbers. Based on the very large yet still limited

number of elements one can infer that for any natural number n, the given expression

does not generate a square number. Interestingly enough, for the first

30,693,385,322,765,567,197,397,207 natural numbers this expression will not produce

14
square numbers. But amazingly the pattern ends there - the next natural number produces

a square number!

As one can see from the example, making inferences based on a limited set of

elements can lead to false conclusions. This example is particularly poignant given that

one could make observations for a very long time, perhaps for an entire lifetime, and

never find an instance that would show the statement to be false. One may be tempted to

ask how many trials are enough to make a conclusion or generalization based on

inductive reasoning. There are times when a few trials are sufficient to generalize and

there are also times when a million trials are not enough. To the Greeks, making

conclusions, and particularly generalizations, based on inductive reasoning was

unacceptable. They believed that inductive reasoning would not produce the universal

truths that they wanted to find, and as such deductive proof within an axiomatic system

became the accepted method of building the structure of mathematical knowledge.

The roles of deductive and inductive reasoning in modern mathematics.

Proof within an axiomatic system continues to the present day to be a defining feature of

mathematics, and the type of reasoning accepted in a mathematical proof continues to be

deductive.

Ernest (1998) points out that, "the foundation of mathematical knowledge ...

consists of deductive proof (p. 3). Similarly Gamier and Taylor (1996) explain that:

In mathematics ... conclusions based solely on observation are not

sanctioned. Thus inductive reasoning is not acceptable in mathematical

proof... the reasoning acceptable in a mathematical proof is of a different

15
 kind altogether. It is a deductive reasoning whereby a conclusion is

reached by logical inference from a collection of assumptions, (p. 4)

Some in the mathematics community (e.g., Rossi, 2006) believe that it is helpful to make

a distinction between pre-Greek mathematics (which did not include proof) and modern

mathematics (which does include proof). Such distinction emphasizes how the inception

of proof into mathematics considerably developed and enriched the nature of the

discipline. Though pre-Greek mathematic was primary concerned with practical

applications modern mathematics expanded its focus to also include the notions of

understanding and explaining the universe.

The emphasis on deductive proof in no way implies that inductive reasoning is

not used or recognized in mathematics. Burgess states (1992):

No one discovers a theorem by first discovering the first step of the proof

and then the second and so on...The role of inductive, analogical,

heuristic, intuitive and even unconscious thought in the context of

discovery has been emphasized by all mathematicians discussing

mathematics (e.g., Hadamond, Polya n.d.) ... [however], proof is clearly

distinguishable from systematic observation or controlled experiment,

(p. 10)

While mathematicians may use repeated observations and inductive reasoning to

make conjectures about potential patterns or properties, they necessarily rely on

proof and deductive reasoning to confirm those conjectures.

Inductive reasoning also plays a very important role within the axiomatic

system, namely it is the type of reasoning used when the axioms of a given system

16
are agreed upon by the mathematical community. At a very basic level, axioms

derive their self-evidence from the similarity of experiences that are shared by

humankind.

Philosophical aspects of proof.

Axioms. Euclid's axioms have caused a great deal of controversy within in the

field of mathematics over their 2300 years of existence. Ernest (1998) describes "the idea

underpinning the notion of proof is that of truth transmission. If the axioms adopted are

true and if the rules of inference infallibly transmit truth.. .then the theorem proved must

also be true" (p. 6). However there have been times when the self-evidence of Euclid's

axioms have been brought into question. Though originally Euclid's Elements were held

to a standard of universal truth, according to Ernest this:

Claim is no longer accepted because Euclid's axioms and postulates are

not considered basic truths which cannot be denied without contradiction.

As is well known, the denial of some axioms, most notably the parallel

postulate merely leads to other bodies of geometric knowledge, namely

non-Euclidean geometry, (p. 8)

Euclid built up his axiomatic system on a plane which served to represent the

physical world which he and his contemporaries believed to be flat. However, now that it

appears in modern times the world (and even our universe) is not flat, there are benefits

to having different geometries that can be used to represent different environments.

Geometries that use a sphere and a hyperbolic saddle as models to describe these

different environments have been developed and are known as Non-Euclidean

geometries. Each of these geometries is considered equally valid, however, properties

17
that hold in one of the geometries do not necessarily hold in the others. For example, the

sum of the interior angles of a triangle constructed on the plane is 180°. However, the

interior angles of a triangle drawn on a sphere add up to more than 180°. The illustration

below shows a spherical triangle on the left and a planar triangle on the right.

Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean geometry

Truth. It now appears that Euclid was mistaken when he used deductive

reasoning to prove that the sum of the interior angles of any triangle is 180°. His claim is

still considered to be true for any triangle on a plane but not for any triangle in general.

From a mathematical perspective, it is very important to acknowledge the tremendous

difference between a statement that is true for some elements and a statement that is true

for all. Though the ancient Greeks had hoped otherwise, history has shown that

deductive proof within an axiomatic system has not provided a guaranteed path to

universal truths. Deductive reasoning may be argued as it has by many (e.g., Burgess,

1992; Kitcher, 1993; Gamier & Taylor, 1996) to provide an extremely reliable way of

establishing truth in mathematics; however the nature of that truth, as illustrated, seems to

be contextual; or in other words, dependent upon the particular environment that is being

represented and subject to future revisions. Lakatos (1976) popularized this notion

claiming that mathematical truths are dependent upon the particular environments they

18
represent and evolve as mathematicians prove new results and refute existing ones. In

agreement with Lakatos, Confrey (1981) believes that "mathematics like other disciplines

has no clear and objective standards for truth which are irrefutable and eternal" (p. 248).

However, not all mathematicians acknowledge the possibility of such refutations.

Wu stated, (1996) "mathematics is concerned with statements that are true, forever and

without exceptions, and there is no other way at arriving at such statements except

through the constructions of proofs" (p. 223). Schoenfeld (1994) asserted that "one of the

glorious things about proof is that it yields certainty. When you have a proof of

something you know it has to be true" (p. 74). In somewhat of a compromise between

the two extreme visions of truth in mathematics (purely contextual versus purely

universal), Gamier and Taylor (1996) wrote that "using correct deductive reasoning we

can be confident that a conclusion does indeed follow from the assumptions ... [however]

... any conclusions obtained deductively can only be as sound as the premises on which it

is based" (p. 4).

Rigor. Aside from the matter of what type of truth (universal or contextual) proof

transmits, another controversy surrounding proof concerns the issue of rigor. In

mathematics, rigor refers to the level of detail and degree of completeness found in a

proof. Members of the mathematics community have argued how much rigor is required

to establish the truth of a statement. Ernest (1998) claimed that standards of rigor have

increased over the centuries to the point that many of Euclid's proofs are not considered

acceptable by today's standards. He writes:

The proofs of Euclid's Elements are now also regarded as flawed and

falling short of modern standards of rigor. For example they smuggle in

19
 notions such as continuity, which is assumed for the accompanying

diagrams, even though these have no formal justificatory role in the

proofs, (p. 8)

Bertrand Russell (1951) also criticized Euclid for depending on figures in his proofs and

claims that this is not acceptable under modern standards of rigor. He asserted that, "a

valid proof retains its demonstrative force when no figure is drawn, but very many of

Euclid's earlier proofs fail before this test" (p. 165). As Wilder pointed out, "what

constitutes proof varies from culture to culture as well as from age to age" (p. 71).

Social aspects of proof. Discussions concerning the level of rigor found in

mathematical proofs reveal the inherent social aspect of proof. Burgess (1992) wrote

"First it must be acknowledged that the requirements of rigor pertain to the context of

justification, publication for collective evaluation by a community of colleagues, not to

the context of discovery, private mental processes of individual researchers" (p. 10). It is

likely that an Algebraist would write a much different proof for other algebraists than for

the members of the general mathematics community who would not necessarily have

expertise in Algebra. Certain manipulations and conventions may be well known to

members of a particular field of specialization but require significant explanation to those

who are not in that field. In short, proof can neither be meaningfully separated from the

person who wrote the proof, nor the persons for whom the proof was intended to

convince.

Proof as a form of communication. The notion that proof serves as a mode of

communication between mathematician and the mathematics community is a most

important one to include when considering the nature of mathematical proof. De Villiers

20
(1999) explained that, "proof is a unique way of communicating mathematical results

between professional mathematicians, between teachers and students, and among

students themselves" (p. 10). He also claims that because proof is a form of

communication between human beings it necessarily, "involves subjectively negotiating

not only the meanings of concepts concerned, but implicitly also of the criteria for an

acceptable argument" (p. 11). Mathematicians engage in the process of negotiating

meanings and the criteria for acceptable arguments when they share the results of their

research with the mathematics community.

When mathematicians initiate their research, they begin with what has been

proven before them. They are then left with the option to continue to advance a

particular field by supplying new proofs or challenging the proofs that been previously

submitted to the community. Hersh (1993) writes:

The method of mathematics is 'conjecture and proof.' You come to an

inherited network of concepts and facts, properties and connections, called

a 'theory'. This presently existing theory is a result of a historical

evolution. It is cooperative and competitive work of generations of

mathematicians ... no matter how isolated and self sufficient a

mathematician may be, the source and verification of his work goes back

to the community of mathematicians, (p. 5)

While the mathematics community in general may accept deductive proof as the official

method of establishing the truth of mathematical statements, not all members of this

community agree on what role proof should play in present-day mathematics.

21
 The effect of computers on the role of proof in mathematics. Horgan (1993)

asserted that computers can be used to establish truth of mathematical statements by

conducting extremely large amounts of experiments in relatively little time. He made this

assertion in an article entitled, "The death of proof, in which he predicted that

technologically bolstered experimentation would slowly come to replace deductive proof

in mathematics. Hanna (1995), however, suggested that the majority of mathematicians

are strongly united in their insistence of the importance of proof, but pointed out that

"there has never been a single universally accepted criteria for the validity of a

mathematical proof (p. 44).

Despite the lack of a universally accepted set of criteria for what constitutes a

valid proof in mathematics, Kitcher (1983) eloquently summarized why deductive proof

continues to be a fundamental element of mathematics. He wrote:

Given the first principles, the proof provides optimal support for the conclusion in

that other ways of obtaining the conclusion from those premises would be more

vulnerable to challenge. This is not to say that ... proofs are invulnerable to

challenge but merely that proofs fare better in this regard than rival forms of

argument, (p. 180)

Summary. This section demonstrated that deductive proof within an axiomatic

system is a fundamental element of the discipline of mathematics. Its functions in the

discipline are extensive ~ deductive proof within an axiomatic system is the method used

to verify, justify, communicate and systematize mathematical knowledge. Proof has also

been a source of great controversy in mathematics. Since the notion of proof is

inextricably bound to the people involved in its construction and evaluation, the

22
controversies concerning Euclid's axioms and the evolution of standards of rigor are to

be expected. When one acknowledges that proof is first and foremost a man-made

construction one should expect the imperfections and subjectivities that seem to

accompany all such constructions. The nature of proof in mathematics has historically

been a dynamic one, and there is little if any reason to believe that in the future it will be

any different. Furthermore as Hanna (1995) has poignantly asserted "mathematics has

lived with contradictions [concerning proof] and flourished. Why would one expect or

want this to change" (p. 44)?

Proof in Mathematics Education

Introduction. The remainder of this chapter provides a review of the literature

that pertains to proof in mathematics education, and in particular those works that relate

specifically to mathematics teachers' (both pre-service and in-service) conceptions of

proof. It is been organized into four sections that represent the major trends found in

research studies and the foci of scholarly commentary. The first trend addresses the

suggestion by researchers (e.g., Knuth, 1999; Jones, 1997; Weiss, Herbst, & Chen, 2009)

that mathematics teachers seem not to consider proof a central idea to mathematics

education. The second trend comments on teachers' apparent inability to identify the

characteristics of a valid proof, as suggested by Stylianides and Stylianides (2009),

Martin and Harel (1989), Seldon and Seldon (2003), and Goetting (1995). The third

section will include what Simon and Blume (1996) described as 'problematic'

conceptions of proof as it relates to teachers understanding of truth in mathematics. And

finally in the fourth section, teachers' conceptions of proof as a means to promote the

development of students' deductive reasoning ability will be addressed.

23
 Teachers may not consider proof central to mathematics education. While

NCTM (2000) considers reasoning and proof to be one of its five major process

standards, teachers may not believe that proof is central to mathematics education. Knuth

(1999) interviewed 17 in-service secondary school mathematics teachers in order to

investigate teachers' conceptions about proof in school mathematics. The teachers were

selected from the participants of two ongoing professional development programs, and

were likely to be aware of current NCTM recommendations. Despite this possible

awareness, Knuth found that, "the majority of teachers did not consider proof to be a

central idea throughout secondary school mathematics, questioning its appropriateness

for all students" (p. 73). Furthermore, he noted that several teachers in the study

"suggested that proof in secondary school mathematics is primarily relegated to the

domain of Euclidean geometry" (p. 76).

Weiss, Herbst, and Chen (2009) expressed serious concern that mathematics

teachers may consider proof as merely a ritual of mathematics classrooms as opposed to a

fundamental element of mathematics. Using 26 experienced geometry teachers,

organized into five focus groups, these researchers asked teachers to discuss their views

of the two-column format (a pedagogical construction meant to assist students

organization of a logical argument where mathematical statements are presented in one

column with corresponding justifications of those statements presented in an adjacent

column). The researchers observed that teachers in the study were placing extraordinary

emphasis on the two-column proof format and neglecting matters of content (e.g., valid

reasoning, sufficient explanation). It should be noted that other formats such a

paragraph-format and flowchart-format could also be used to record students' arguments,

24
however according to Weiss, Herbst, and Chen (2009) the two-column format has

become the dominant format for recording the steps of proofs in the school setting.

Schoenfeld (1994) also expressed great concern over "a tremendous emphasis on

form that tends to override issues of substance...students believe that proof writing is a

ritual to be engaged in, rather than a productive endeavor" (p. 76). Similarly, Knuth

(2002a) reported that to some teachers formal proof necessarily means two-column proof

(p. 71). Wu (1996) argued that there is good reason to start with two-column format in

schools. He writes:

The reason for having two-column proofs is that it is the format that

makes most clear to a beginner what a mathematical proof really is: a

connected sequence of assertions each backed up by a reason. The

existence of a second column forces the beginner to recognize the need to

put down a reason for each step...it is an admirable educational tool. (p.

227)

However, despite its initial usefulness, Wu believes that teachers would portray an

inaccurate picture of mathematical proof if all proofs were shown in the two-column

format. Wu advised that the two column format be replaced within four weeks of its

introduction by the narrative format that is more usually found in higher level

mathematical texts (p. 227).

Jones (1997) has astutely pointed out that, "the teaching of mathematical proof

places significant demands on both the subject knowledge and pedagogical knowledge of

secondary mathematics teachers" (p. 18). Teachers may consider mathematical proof to

be a classroom ritual and not central to mathematics education because they do not

25
possess a sophisticated understanding of proof in the discipline of mathematics. In a

limited investigation of teachers' conceptions of proof, Jones asked three pre-service

mathematics teachers to draw concept maps that illustrated their understanding of the role

of proof in mathematics. He found evidence that teachers may have a wide range of

levels of sophistication in their understanding of proof in mathematics.

Teachers struggle with what constitutes a valid proof. Part of a sophisticated

understanding of proof in mathematics includes the ability to determine the

characteristics of a valid proof. In particular a sophisticated understanding requires one

to realize that valid proof in mathematics necessarily relies on deductive reasoning.

There has been evidence collected by researchers that suggested that some pre-service

mathematics teachers did not have sophisticated understanding of mathematical proof.

Both Stylianides and Stylianides (2009) and Martin and Harel (1989), observed pre-

service teachers who did not appear to understand that mathematical proof necessarily

requires deductive reasoning.

Stylianides and Stylianides (2009) conducted a study over a four-year time frame

in which they taught an undergraduate mathematics course that was a prerequisite for

entrance into an elementary teacher certification program. Their data reflected audio and

video recordings of 18 pre-service teachers. They noted that prospective mathematics

teachers in their study were fully willing to "formulate or accept empirical arguments as

proofs of mathematical generalizations" (p. 315).

Martin and Harel (1989) collected similar results. They asked 101 prospective

elementary teachers who were enrolled in an undergraduate mathematics course to

evaluate inductive and deductive arguments for purposes of verifying mathematical

26
statements. They "found that many [prospective elementary teachers] accepted inductive

arguments as proofs of mathematical statements" (p. 48). Furthermore, Martin and Harel

observed that prospective elementary teachers frequently did not distinguish between

inductive and deductive reasoning for the purposes of proof. Similarly, Knuth (2002a)

found that in his study, "all of the teachers reported that they would accept informal

proofs (i.e., empirically-based arguments) as proof from their students" (p. 76).

It has also been suggested that mathematics teachers may find inductive

arguments more convincing than deductive ones. Knuth (2002b) designed another study

that examined 16 in-service high school mathematics teachers' conceptions of proof. He

collected data through teacher interviews and teachers' written responses. The focus of

Knuth's (2002a) questions in this study was to examine teachers' knowledge of proof as

'content knowers'. He reports that "teachers were most convinced by arguments that

relied on specific examples or provided a visual reference" (p. 398). This preference for

inductive argumentation may be further encouraged by the powers of modern technology.

Hanna (2000) explained that the use of computer software to quickly generate large

amounts of examples "has lent support to a view among educators that deductive proof in

geometry should be abandoned in favor of an entirely experimental approach to

mathematical justification" (p. 29).

Stylianides and Stylianides (2009) hypothesized that the prospective mathematics

teachers in their study were willing to accept inductive arguments as proof because they

did not see the intellectual need for using deduction for verification purposes. To address

the matter, Stylianides and Stylianides (2009) presented the prospective teachers in their

study with poignant examples where empirical (inductive) reasoning leads to false

27
conclusions in the attempt to convince them to value and insist upon deductive arguments

as proofs of mathematical generalizations. As a result of their study Stylianides and

Stylianides found that "instruction can address this stubborn problem [of accepting

inductive proofs] in students' mathematical education" (p. 348).

Research also suggested that mathematics teachers may not be able to effectively

evaluate the validity of mathematical proofs. Knuth (2002b) asked teachers to evaluate

the validity of proofs and non-proofs on a four point scale. He reported that, "overall a

third of the ratings that teachers gave to the non-proofs were ratings as proof (p. 391),

and noted that "in determining the argument's validity, teachers seemed to focus solely

on the correctness of the algebraic manipulations rather than on the mathematical validity

of the argument" (p. 392). Seldon and Seldon (2003) asked eight mathematics and

mathematics education majors to evaluate potential proofs of a single theorem. They

found that that undergraduate mathematics majors, from which one would expect to find

the most qualified future mathematics teachers, did no better than one could expect to

find by chance (46% correct) of identifying correct or incorrect proofs (p. 23).

It should be noted, however, that the evaluation of the validity of mathematical

proofs can be a rather ambiguous task. Weber (2008) interviewed eight mathematicians

from a university faculty where he asked them to evaluate students' proofs. He found

significant differences between the mathematicians in the length of time it took to reach

an evaluation, as well as finding that the final judgments were not consistent. In other

words, some mathematicians considered a proof valid while other mathematicians

considered the same proof invalid. Weber explains that the mathematicians struggled to

determine if the proof was valid because they "did not know which theorems could be

28
regarded as established ... at the time the student wrote the proof (p. 445). What was

consistent among the mathematicians in Weber's study was the insistence of deductive

reasoning as the acceptable type of reasoning for a mathematical proof.

Proof, Truth, and the Nature of Mathematical Knowledge. Though

mathematicians appear to have reached a broad consensus insisting on deductive

reasoning in proofs, as previously discussed, there does not seem to be such agreement on

what type of truths are produced by mathematical proofs. It seems likely, however, that

teachers' conceptions of proof would be related to how they understand truth in

mathematics and more generally how they understand the nature of mathematical

knowledge. It also seems likely that teachers' conceptions of proof, their understanding

of truth in mathematics, and their understanding of the nature of mathematical knowledge

in general affect how teachers would use proof in their teaching.

Knuth (2002b) reported from his study, "all the teachers suggested that a primary

role of proof in mathematics was to establish the truth of a statement" (p. 386). However,

Simon and Blume (1996) noted from their study, which focused on mathematical

justification in the context of a mathematics course for prospective elementary teachers

that, "the notion that mathematical proofs establish the truth of a mathematical idea is

problematic" (p. 7). Simon and Blume preferred to focus on the social aspects of proof

emphasizing its communicative function between members of a mathematical

community. This community could be made up of professional mathematicians in

academia, or students and the teacher in a mathematics classroom.

The manner in which mathematics teachers use proof in their teaching is likely to

relate how they portray the discipline of mathematics in their classrooms. Confrey

29
(1981) asserted that teachers may use proof in their teaching in a way that implies that

mathematics is determined by an external authority (e.g., mathematicians, teachers, God)

and is infallible. She stated, "Most people conceive of mathematics as absolutist.

Historically mathematics was heralded as the epitome of certainty, immutable truths and

irrefutable methods. Its claims were secure through the infallibility of its supreme

method, deduction" (p. 246). Hanna (1995), however, argued that the use of proof in

mathematics classrooms ought not to convince students that mathematics is either

infallible or authoritarian. While she acknowledged that "it may be true that

mathematics has sometimes been presented as infallible and taught in an authoritarian

way" (p. 46), she insisted that the use proof in mathematics education does not

necessarily give that impression. She claimed, "It is clear that any mathematical truth

arrived at through a proof or a series of proofs is contingent truth, rather than absolute or

infallible truth...thus it is hard to see how proof strengthens infallibility [of mathematical

knowledge] in any way (p. 46). To her:

A proof is a transparent argument, in which all the information used and

all the rules of reasoning are clearly displayed and open to criticism. It is

the very nature of proof that the validity of the conclusion flows from the

proof itself, not from any external authority. Proof conveys to students the

message that they can reason for themselves, (p. 46)

The notion that teachers can use mathematical proof in their teaching to promote

reasoning ability in students can be found throughout the literature.

Proof as a vehicle to help students develop deductive reasoning skills.

Teachers seem to believe that the use of proof in teaching may help students develop

30
deductive reasoning skills. Knuth (2002a) reported that in his study, "the majority of

teachers identified the development of logical thinking or reasoning skills as a primary

role proof plays in secondary school mathematics" (p. 78). Similarly Perrin (2009) wrote,

"a primary way in which mathematics students develop reasoning skills is by

constructing mathematical proofs" (p. 341). Wu (1996) advocated using proof to develop

reasoning skills for all students. He believes that citizens in a functional democracy need

to be able to reason effectively in order to "listen to [a] national debate and make up their

minds about knotty issues such as the national deficit and the environment" (p. 224).

But not all mathematics teachers believe in exposing all students to mathematical proof.

Knuth (2002a) contended that to the high school teachers in his study, "proof

seemed to be an appropriate idea for only those students enrolled in advanced

mathematics classes and those students who will most likely be pursuing mathematics-

related majors in college" (p. 73). Considering that teachers in the same study believed

that proof can promote deductive reasoning skills in their students, there is an apparent

contradiction in their conceptions in that they also believed that proof should be reserved

for only upper level students at the end of their K-12 school experience. Wu (1996) has

criticized the practice of exposing only certain groups of students to mathematical proofs

and contended that "it does not seem proper that correct mathematical reasoning should

suddenly be declared too profound and too difficult for all high school students and must

be reserved for a few mathematics majors in college" (p. 224). Furthermore, as

Schoenfeld (1994) pointed out that, "the unique character of [mathematical proof] ...

differs from that in any other discipline and is part of what makes mathematics what it is"

(p. 74). Healey and Hoyles (1998) agreed and wrote, "Proof is the heart of mathematical

31
thinking, and deductive reasoning which underpins the process of proving exemplifies the

distinction between mathematics and the empirical sciences" (n.p.). Balacheff (2002)

referred to mathematics as, "the place for education of deductive reasoning" (p. 3).

These scholars believe that if students are not exposed to deductive proof in mathematics

then it is unlikely that students will have sufficient opportunities in their other subjects to

adequately develop their deductive reasoning skills.

The notion that teachers should wait until advanced mathematics classes to begin

exposing students to mathematical proof has also raised some concern. Sowder and Harel

(1998) believe that "to delay exposure to reason giving until the secondary-school

geometry course and to expect at that point an instant appreciation for the more

sophisticated mathematical justifications is an unreasonable expectation" (p. 674). While

young children may not be able to produce rigorous proofs, a gradual' increase in using

reasoning and justification throughout elementary and middle school mathematics classes

would increase the likelihood that high school students would be able to develop

sophisticated conceptions of mathematical proof.

Revisiting the Primary Research Questions

Taking into account the previously articulated theoretical framework, the primary

research questions can be expanded to include the following sub-questions.

1.) What are secondary school mathematics teachers' conceptions of proof?

a.) What are secondary school mathematics teachers' conceptions of proof

in the discipline of mathematics?

b.) What are secondary mathematics teachers' conceptions of the role of

proof in mathematics education?

32
2.) How do secondary school mathematics teachers use proof in their teaching?

a.) How do secondary school teachers use proof in their teaching of

Algebra?

b.) How do secondary school teachers use proof in their teaching of

Geometry?

c.) How do secondary school teachers use proof in their teaching of

upper-level students?

d.) How do secondary school teachers use proof in their teaching of

lower-level students?

e.) What do secondary school mathematics teachers ask their students to

do with proof?

f.) How much time do teachers' spend on proof in their teaching?

3.) How do secondary school mathematics teachers' conceptions of proof relate

to how teachers use proof in their teaching?

a.) What are the other factors, besides teachers' conceptions, that relate to

how secondary school mathematics teachers use proof in their teaching

(e.g., state standards, standardized testing, curricula, the

administration, etc.)?

33
 CHAPTER 3

METHOD

Based on four criteria suggested by Buckingham and Saunders (2004) conducting

a survey of in-service high school mathematics teachers was selected as the most

appropriate research methodology to answer the given research questions (p. 44). These

criteria were i) the researcher had a clear understanding of what needed to be

investigated, ii) the need for quantitative data that did not previously exist, iii) the

expectation that teachers would willingly provide information about their conceptions

and practices, and iv) the intention to generalize findings to a larger population.

For such a generalization to be meaningful, a large sample of participating in-

service secondary mathematics teachers dispersed across a wide region was necessary.

All consequent characteristics of this proposed study were affected by this necessity. This

chapter will describe the characteristics of the study that was conducted by explaining

how the survey instrument was developed and implemented, as well as how the

participants of this study were gathered. A timeline will be provided that describes each

of the steps that were taken during the execution of this study.

The Survey

Survey items. The survey4 items were designed largely in accordance with the

recommendations of DeVellis' (2003) approach to scale development. A large pool of

potential items was generated by the researcher in correspondence with the research

questions (p. 63). Similar items were then grouped into categories. Positively and

negatively oriented items were included to "avoid acquiescence, affirmation, or

4
The survey in its entirety can be found in the appendix.

34
agreement bias" (p. 69). Some items were expressed using several different wordings so

that certain intricacies related to teachers' conceptions and teachers' use of proof in their

teaching could be measured. Such redundancy has been advocated by DeVellis to also

increase the internal consistency of the survey instrument (p. 65). The content validity of

the survey items was increased by extensive consultation with experts in mathematics

education and survey research design; a practice that has been recommended by Huck

(2004, p. 89).

A five point Likert Scale that included the possible responses: strongly agree,

agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree and strongly disagree, was chosen as the most

appropriate scale to measure the vast majority of the survey items. A few items were

found to be more easily presented as: open-ended, checklist, and multiple-choice formats.

The survey was designed was to take participating teachers between fifteen and

twenty minutes. The number of items included on the survey could measure teachers'

conceptions and practices in-depth without over burdening the participants with a survey

that required an unreasonable time commitment. The researcher believed that a survey in

excess of twenty minutes would be a significant deterrent and would thus lower the

probability of achieving the substantial sample that was required.

The survey design. A computer based5 software program (as opposed to paper-

based) was used to create and administer the survey. The electronic survey method was

chosen for several reasons. Firstly, the computer based survey could be easily be

distributed (through email) to a large number of mathematics teachers across a wide

geographic region in a cost effective manner. Secondly, the computer based software had

aesthetic benefits that are likely to increase the number of participating teachers. Third,
5
The computer based software was internet based company found at www.surveymonkev.com

35
by using the computer based software the data collection process was expedited because

data collection and coding were done automatically. Overall, the computer based survey

was the most effective way to collect a substantial amount of data from many teachers in

a relatively short amount of time.

Dillman's (2007) tailored design method of survey development served as a

guiding framework for the physical construction of the survey. To motivate the teachers

to take the survey, special attention was given to the first question. It was chosen so that

it "clearly applies to everyone" taking the survey and is "interesting" and "easy" to

respond to (p. 92). All items (except for demographic information) were left justified and

vertically arranged, as Dillman suggests, so that participants did not inadvertently skip

items as their eye naturally followed the left margin (p. 121). Instructions were kept

short and consistent throughout the survey and placed exactly with the items to which it

applied (p. 98). Items were kept as short as possible using relatively simple vocabulary

and arranged in arrays so that instructions would not need to be unnecessarily repeated.

The response scales were also kept consistent throughout the survey so that the

participants could move through the survey unobstructed (p. 127). The response scale

includes equal numbers of positive and negative responses (i.e., two positives: strongly

agree and agree; and two negatives: strongly disagree and disagree) to avoid bias, as

Dillman recommends (p. 57). The few survey items that required the use of quantifiers

(percentages of class time spent) were evenly spaced and mutually exclusive (p. 64).

Where appropriate, the answer choice 'none of the above' was provided so that the

researcher could distinguish between those participants to whom the question did not

apply from those that inadvertently skipped the question.

36
 The use of the computer software entailed certain decisions that are likely to have

affected how the survey was perceived by the participants. Font and size of the displayed

type was chosen so that it would be easy for participants to read. Item arrays were

constructed in such a way so that scrolling would not be necessary on most computers

screens. Consecutive items were written on backgrounds of alternating color so that

participants could clearly line up the item with its corresponding responses. A progress

bar was provided at the top of every page so that participants would be kept apprised of

their progress.

The Pilot Study

To assure that the computer-based survey operated according to expectations and

that survey items were clearly articulated, a small pilot study was conducted.

Approximately 12 personal contacts of the researcher that are currently or formally

secondary mathematics teachers participated in the pilot study. Pilot participants were

sent the invitation letter and link to the survey and were asked to comment on the

following aspects of the survey upon its completion: i.) functionality, ii.) aesthetic design,

iii.) length of time required to complete the survey, iv.) item content, and v.)

miscellaneous comments. These comments were collected by email. Pilot study

participant data was not included in the results or discussion of this study.

Participants

Three-hundred and seventy-four teachers from one of the New England states

were invited to participate in this study in two different ways. Firstly, contacts of the

researcher (acquired through professional experience, the graduate school of education at

UMASS Lowell, and personal relationships) were emailed to establish a point of contact

37
within secondary school mathematics departments across the state. These contacts were

asked to distribute an invitation letter and survey web link to the entire mathematics

faculty at their secondary school. Secondly, administrators of every high school in the

state that were registered on the state's official government website were contacted and

asked to distribute the invitation and survey to the mathematics faculty members at their

schools. The completed surveys were collected online and the data was coded and

organized automatically by the computer program.

Two professional organizations (NCTM and ATMNE, The association of

mathematics teachers of New England) were contacted and requested to distribute the

survey to their members through email. The researcher also requested that a link be

displayed on the official website of these organizations; however, neither of these

organizations acquiesced to the request.

Email Correspondences

Five email correspondences were drafted using Dillman's (2007)

recommendations and were sent to the contacts at the high schools. The high school

administrators were sent an initial contact email that informed them of the impending

research and requested that they consider inviting the high school mathematics teachers at

their school to participate. Email addresses were obtained through state's Department of

Education online registry. Two weeks elapsed and the high school administrators were

then sent the invitation to participate in the research (that included the web link) and

asked to forward the message throughout their high schools' mathematics department. At

the same time, personal contacts were also sent the invitation letter and link and asked to

forward the message to their high school's mathematics department. The invitation letter

38
had several components designed to encourage participation in the study. Firstly, the

letter explained the nature of the study and its potential implications to the field of

mathematics education. It also clearly described how teachers could participate in the

study and how long it will take to do so. The letter concluded with well wishes for the

participants and an internet link to the survey that could be used when and if the teacher

decided to participate in the study. The letter also indicated that teachers could

participate any time within the following two weeks. After an addition two weeks both

the high school administrators and personal contacts were sent reminder letters to

encourage those whom had not yet participated to take the survey indicating that data

collection was to be extended for an addition two weeks. Each of the email

correspondences can be found in Appendix C.

Institutional Review

Both the computer-based survey and email correspondences were submitted for

institutional review. Because no personal identifiers were collected in this study the

researcher applied for 'exempt' status. After small adjustments to the survey were made

exempt status of the study was approved and permission to proceed with a pilot and the

full study was obtained. A copy of the IRB approval letter can be found in the appendix.

Overview of Analyses

In order to analyze the data the following statistical tests were conducted. To

demonstrate the representativeness of the data collected in this study, a chi-square test

was performed on the demographic information collected from participants. The results

of a chi-square test can indicate whether a sample is significantly different than the

population. If chi-square test indicates that a sample is not significantly different than the

39
population it can be reasonably inferred that the sample is somewhat representative of the

general population.

If one intends to generalize from a sample to a larger population it is also

important that the survey instrument used to collect data from the sample be reliable. The

notion of reliability has been described by DeVellis (2003) as internal consistency among

the survey items. The internal consistency among the survey items in this study was

measured using a Cronbach's Alpha test. DeVellis considers Cronbach's Alpha values

greater than 0.65 to demonstrate acceptably reliable instruments. Surveys that are

considered reliable are expected to produce similar data upon repetition of the study

(assuming the same population is being sampled).

A survey that is reliable is still of little value if it does not measure what it intends

to measure - even when given to a representative sample. The notion that a survey

actually measures what it is intended to measure is referred to as construct validity by

DeVellis and can be assessed using a factor analysis. DeVellis suggests that an

exploratory factor analysis be performed in order to group survey items. If the survey

items are grouped by a factor analysis in accordance to how the researcher intended, then

DeVellis believes that this indicates construct validity of the survey instrument.

Loehlin (2004) advocates that factor analyses be used in order to identify

underlying latent variables or sub-variables that constitute more complex psychological

constructs. A factor analysis was used in this study in such a way to identify the principle

components of high school mathematics teachers' conceptions of mathematical proof.

These principle components were then subjugated to a multivariate analysis of variances

40
(MANOVA) where differences among the components based on demographic groups

were analyzed.

In addition to the aforementioned statistical tests, the responses to individual

survey items were also reported in summarized form and in conjunction with other

complementary items. It was common for the researcher to combine teachers positive and

negative responses respectively (e.g. adding the percentage of strongly agree and agree

and reporting the sum) as this allowed for a more comprehensible reporting of the data.

As suggested by Huck (2004), a full range of descriptive statistics was calculated to

describe the results of individual survey items. Correlations between items were

extensively examined with the purpose of finding relationships between teachers'

conceptions of and practices with mathematical proof. Paired sample t-tests were

conducted to determine whether there were significant differences about the means of

several of the survey item responses. Several compound variables were constructed to

describe teachers' conceptions that had been measured in multiple ways. Correlations

between compound variables were examined in the effort to answer the research

questions.

41
 CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

This chapter presents the results of the statistical analyses as well as a description

of the individual survey items that were collected from the online survey instrument. It

will begin by reporting the participant demographics and addressing the

representativeness of the sample of high school mathematics teachers that participated in

this study. Secondly, the psychometric properties, namely, the validity and reliability of

the instrument will then be presented. Thirdly, the results of the principal components

analysis will then be presented including a subsequent multivariate analysis of variances

that examined differences among the principle components based on the demographic

information. Finally, a detailed analysis of the data collected from the individual survey

responses including statistical results (summarized percentages, correlations, paired

sample t-tests, one way ANOVAs) will then be presented for the purpose of answering

the research questions.

Participants.

Three-hundred and seventy-four high school mathematics teachers, from one New

England state, participated in this study by taking an online survey. Two-hundred and

nine of the participants responded to every item on the survey. The remaining 165

teachers provided differing levels of partial data. As the results are presented in this

chapter, the total number of responses will be given for each item. Data were collected

for one month. The participants' demographic information is presented and compared to

official statewide data in Table 1.

42
Table 1.
Demographic Comparison

Sample Statewide
Category

Gender a

Male 38% 43%

Female 62% 57%

Race 0

White 93% 91%

Black 1% 4%

Hispanic 2% 2%

Asian 3% 3%

Other 1% 1%

Age (in years) c

Less than 30 25% 21%

30 -- 40 23% 26%

41 -- 50 22% 23%

51 -- 60 24% 23%

More than 60 6% 7%

Note. The demographic information was based on items that had the following number of responses.
a
Gender: n = 311. Race: n = 309. c Age: n = 311. d Statewide data includes all 3,334 high school
mathematics teachers in the state that are employed by the public schools.

43
 Representativeness of the data. A chi-square test was performed to determine

whether the sample was significantly different from the state population in terms of

demographic characteristics (i.e., gender, race, age). The chi-square values can be seen

below in table 2.

Table 2.

Chi Square Table for Demographics

Chi-Square Value df p-value Significant (p <.Q5)

Gender 3.4 1 .06 No

Race 6.9 a 4 .14 No

Age 2.0 4 .73 No

Note.a A Yates correction was performed because one cell had a frequency less than 5. An online Chi-
square calculator was used from http://www/quantpsy.org.

The chi-square tests indicate that the sample of participants was not significantly

different than the population of teachers in the state with regards to gender, race, or age.

Given that 11% of the 3,334 public high school mathematics teachers in the state

participated in this study, in demographic proportions similar to the overall state

population, the following findings are likely to be somewhat generalizable to the overall

state population of high school mathematics teachers. To the extent that any one

particular state's population is representative of the national population of mathematics

teachers it may also be reasonable to draw inferences from these data nationwide.

Reliability Analysis

All 83 Likert items on the survey as well as 8 scale items (a total of 91 items)

were included in a reliability analysis. Since Cronbach's alpha requires complete data

44
sets, only the 209 surveys where participants responded to every item could be used in

the reliability analysis. Each of these items was intended to measure some aspect of the

single latent variable, high school mathematics teachers' conceptions of mathematical

proof. The remaining items were either aimed at measuring teachers practice with proof

and/or designed to produce nominal level data which is not suitable for this statistical

test. Seventeen items that were stated in the negative direction were reversed coded so

that all items were recorded in the positive direction. For example, the item 'my students

dislike proofs' was reversed coded so that it would be properly aligned with the item 'my

students are interested in proof which is clearly worded in the reverse direction.

SPSS was used to calculate Cronbach's alpha based on standardized items and is

equal to .91. The standardized version of this test was appropriate because of the

different scales that were used (Likert items were coded 1 through 5, while the remaining

eight items were coded 0 though 100 in multiples of 5). According to DeVellis (2003)

this value for Cronbach's alpha suggests very high reliability. Since Cronbach's alpha

increases with the number of items, it should be noted that a high value would be

statistically expected given that 91 items that were included. DeVellis also believes that

Cronbach's alpha values in excess of .9 may include unnecessary item redundancy. This

would suggest that it may be possible to remove some the items without loss of

information if this instrument were to be improved upon to be used again in future

studies.

Validity Analysis

SPSS was also used to run a factor analysis on all non-nominal data in the survey

(83 Likert items and 8 scale items) that were intended to measure teachers' conceptions

45
of mathematical proof. In order to determine the appropriateness of the data collected

for factor analysis a KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling accuracy) test and a

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity were performed. Both tests returned values that suggested

the data in this study was appropriate for factor analysis. (The KMO returned a value of

.78; and the Bartlett's' test returned an x2 = 13,541; df = 4095; p < .001).

To run the factor analysis SPSS was set up to extract factors based on eigenvalues

greater than 1 and was rotated using a Varimax rotation with Kaiser normalization (in

order to amplify the loading values). Of the 91 items all but 6 loaded onto 25 factors

with loading values greater than .40. Fourteen of the factors consisted of three or more

items and were named appropriately. These named factor groups along with their

constituent items can be found below in Table 3. Eighteen items loaded onto factors (with

loading values greater than 0.4) that had fewer than 3 items and were thus not named

lacking a sufficient number of items to constitute a meaningful group. These items can be

found under the category 'loaded onto deficient factor groups'. Six items failed to load

onto any of the 25 factors and can also be found on Table 3 in the 'failed to load'

category.

46
Table 3.
Item Groups based on Factor Analysis
Item Groups
Items Rotated Loading
Values

Teachers' Confidence and Attitudes Toward Proof

I am good at proving mathematical statements. .75

I generally understand proofs by mathematical .69

induction.

I am comfortable presenting mathematical proofs .68

to my students.

I understand the difference between deductive and .66

inductive reasoning.

I am comfortable evaluating mathematical proofs .63

that my students have produced.

I generally understand proofs by contrapositive. .63

I dislike proofs. .62

I find proofs very challenging to understand. .60

I generally understand proofs by contradiction. .59

In my college mathematics courses, I understood .55

most of the proofs.
I am interested in mathematical proofs. .49

Teachers' Desire to Learn

I would like to learn more about the history of .86

mathematics.

I would like to learn more about the philosophy of .84

mathematics.

I would like to learn more about proof in the discipline .76

of mathematics.

47
 I would like to learn more about what mathematics .68
teachers can do with proof in their classrooms.

Teachers' Perceptions of Student Capacity

Approximately what percent of your students are .86

intellectually capable of understanding mathematical proof?

Approximately what percent of all students are .80

intellectually capable of understanding mathematical proof?

Approximately what percent of your students actually .77

achieve understanding of mathematical proof?

Approximately what percent of all students actually .77

achieve understanding of mathematical proof?

Teachers' Past Education Related to Proof

At some point in my own education I have discussed .70

the nature of truth in mathematics.

I have studied the history of mathematics. .65

I have studied the philosophy of mathematics. .63

I have taken a mathematics course where I was evaluated .62

on my ability to produce mathematical proofs.
In college my mathematics courses were for the most part .59
lectures that consisted of one proof after another.

I am knowledgeable about the history of mathematical .57

proof.

Teachers Understanding of the Functions of Proof in Mathematics

Proof is a means of systematizing mathematical .76

knowledge.

48
 Proof is a means of explaining why mathematical .70
statements are true.

Proof is a means of establishing the truth of a .66

mathematical statement.

Proof is a means of communicating mathematical .66

knowledge.

Proof is a means of creating mathematical .61

knowledge.

Class Time Spent on Proof

Approximately what percent of class time would .86

you spend on proof in an upper level algebra class?

Approximately what percent of class time would .80

you spend on proof in a lower level algebra class?

Approximately what percent of class time would .74

you spend on proof in a lower level geometry class?

Approximately what percent of class time would .73

you spend on proof in an upper level geometry class?

Teachers' Conceptions of the Importance of Proof in Mathematics Education

Proofs can be used to help students develop .63

logical thinking abilities.

Helping students develop logical thinking ability .58

is a primary goal of mathematics education.

Proof is important for upper-level high school .57

mathematics students

Proof is one of the most important elements of .53

mathematics education.

Proof is important for mid-level high school .48

mathematics students.

Students should start learning about proof in .47

49
 high school.

Learning about proof has helped me develop .46

logical thinking abilities.

Teachers' Conceptions of the Importance of Proof in Mathematics

Proof is one of the most important elements .60

in mathematics.

Proof is important for lower-level high school .59

mathematics students.

Proof is a fundamental element of all mathematics .57

courses.

It is possible to understand the nature of mathematical .49

knowledge without proof.

If proof were removed from mathematics, the subject .49

would be entirely different.

Teachers' Conceptions of the Eternalness of Mathematical Knowledge

A proof that is considered rigorous today will be .83

considered rigorous 1000 years from now.

A proof which was considered rigorous 1000 years .76

ago is still considered rigorous today.

Once a statement is proven in mathematics it is true forever. .69

A proof once accepted by the mathematics community .62

can at a later date be deemed unacceptable.

Teachers' Conceptions of NCTM Standards

By the end of secondary school students should .75

be able to understand proofs.

By the end of secondary school students should .71

be able to produce proofs.

50
 By the end of secondary school students should .58
be able to appreciate the value of proofs.

Teachers Perception of Students Attitudes

My students struggle with proofs. .76

My students dislike proofs. .76

Teaching students about proof can be very challenging. .70

My students are interested in proofs. .58

Conditions Under Which Teachers would Spend More Time on Proof

If I had more time to plan, I would spend more .76

time on proof.

If I had more time in class, I would spend more .74

time on proof.

If my textbooks included more proofs, I would spend .63

more class time on proofs.

Teachers Conceptions of Computers with Respect to Proof

Using dynamic geometry software is more convincing .78
to my students than seeing a mathematical proof.

Using dynamic geometry software is more convincing .69

to me than seeing a mathematical proof.

I use dynamic geometry software such as Geometer's .64

Sketchpad.

Teachers' Conception of the Meaning of Proof in Mathematics

The term "proof has the same meaning in mathematics .73

and in every-day language.

Proof is anything that helps convince someone. .70

The type of reasoning in a mathematical proof is inductive. .54

51
 Students are likely to learn about proof without .41
specific instruction.

Loaded onto Deficient Factor Groups

Students should know something about the practice of mathematicians.

Students should know something about the history of mathematics.

I am familiar with the state standards regarding mathematical proof.

I am familiar with NCTM's recommendations regarding the role of proof in

mathematics classrooms.

Proofs take too much time to plan to be worthwhile.

Proofs take too much class time to be worthwhile.

The textbook that I use is effective at helping students learn about proof.

My textbooks devote a lot of attention to proofs.

Proof was important in my high school geometry course.

Proof was an important part of my all high school mathematics courses.

If there were proofs on standardized testing in my state I would spend more class
time on proofs.

Learning to prove in mathematics requires specific instruction.

When determining if a mathematical statement is true, proofs are more convincing

than examples.

I discussed proof in my teacher training program.

Teachers can do little to help students develop logical thinking abilities.

The state standards regarding mathematical proof are not realistic.

One way to prove a mathematical statement is to show that there are no counter-
examples that make the statement false.

Deductive reasoning is used in a mathematical induction proof.

52
Failed to Load

I would like my textbooks to include more proofs.

Mathematicians no longer need proofs like they once did because of computers.

The validity of a proof does not depend on who wrote the proof.

Proof is the most reliable means of establishing the truth of a mathematical

statement.

I use proofs in my class that are not in my textbooks.

Proof is a fundamental element of a high school geometry course.

Since the survey items were grouped in the factor analysis similarly to how the

survey items were grouped by the researcher it was concluded that the survey instrument

possessed reasonable construct validity.

Identification of the Principal Components of Teachers' Conceptions of Proof

Though the fourteen factor groups defined in the previous sections are appropriate

to indicate the construct validity of the survey instrument, such a large number of groups

is undesirable when attempting to identify the principle components of teachers'

conceptions of mathematical proof. The fourteen factor groups can be thought of as

subcomponents or parts of more complex components that henceforth shall be referred to

as the 'principle components' of teachers' conceptions of mathematical proof.

In order to determine how many principle components were present within the

data, SPSS was used to create a scree plot of the corresponding eigenvalues for each

survey item. This plot can be found in Figure 1 below.

53
 14H Q

12-

10-

I 8-I
c
d)

Ll 6~

4-

2-
o-

1 12 23 34 45 56 67 78 89
Component Number

Figure 1. Scree Plot

The eigenvalues reflect the percentage of the total variance accounted for by each

component. As can be seen in the scree plot above there is a sharp decline in the amount

of variance accounted for between the fourth and fifth component. Therefore the

researcher concluded that four principle components were present. These four

components accounted for nearly a third (31%) of the total variance of all survey

responses.

SPSS was setup to run a factor analysis where exactly four components were

extracted using a Varimax rotation with Kaiser normalization. Items that failed to load

(with loading values greater than .40) onto one of these four components were removed

54
and the factor analysis was run again. This process was repeated 11 times until all of the

remaining items loaded onto one of the four principle components with a loading value

greater than.40. There were 44 items remaining after the eleventh iteration of this

procedure. The four principle components were named accordingly and can be found

along with their constituent items in Table 4 below.

Table 4.

Four Principle Components

Principal Components

Items Rotated Loading

Values

Principle Component I:
Teachers Ability to Understand, Produce, and Appreciate
the Value of Mathematical Proofs

I am good at proving mathematical statements. .70

I generally understand proofs by mathematical .70

induction.

I am comfortable presenting mathematical proofs .69

to my students.

I generally understand proofs by contradiction. .67

I generally understand proofs by contrapositive. .67

I dislike proofs. .65

I find proofs very challenging to understand. .64

I am comfortable evaluating mathematical proofs .64

that my students have produced.
I understand the difference between deductive and .62
inductive reasoning.

In my college mathematics courses, I understood .56

55
 most of the proofs.

Learning about proof has helped me develop logical .48

thinking abilities.

Proof is the most reliable means of establishing the .45

truth of a mathematical statement.

Mathematicians no longer need proofs like they once .42

did because of computers.

Principle Component II:

Teachers' Conception of the Importance of Proof

I would like to learn more about proof in the .79

discipline of mathematics.

I would like to learn more about the philosophy of .77

mathematics.

I would like to learn more about what mathematics .75

teachers can do with proof in their classrooms.

I would like to learn more about the history of .75

mathematics.

Proof is one of the most important elements in .58

mathematics.

If proof were removed from mathematics, the subject .55

would be entirely different.

Proof is one of the most important elements of .54

mathematics education.

Proof is a fundamental element of a high school .53

geometry course.

I am interested in mathematical proofs. -53

Proof is a fundamental element of all mathematics .49

courses.
By the end of secondary school students should be able to .44
appreciate the value of proofs.

56
 If I had more time in class, I would spend more time .41
on proof.

Principle Component III:

Teachers Perceptions of Students Capacity to
Understand Proof

All students actually achieve understanding of .75

mathematical proof?

Your students actually achieve understanding of .75

mathematical proof?

Your students are intellectually capable of .73

understanding mathematical proof?

All students are intellectually capable of understanding .71

mathematical proof?

Approximately what percentage of class time would you .63

spend on proof in a lower level geometry class?

Proof is important for lower-level high school .56

mathematics students.

By the end of secondary school students should be .55

able to produce proofs.

Proof is important for mid-level high school .55

mathematics students.

By the end of secondary school students should be able to .54

understand proofs.
Approximately what percentage of class time would you .52
spend on proof in a lower level algebra class?

Approximately what percentage of class time would you .47

spend on proof in an upper level geometry class?

My students dislike proofs. .44

57
Principle Component IV:
Teachers' Intellectual Awareness of the Philosophy,
History, and Teaching and Learning Standards of Mathematics.

I am knowledgeable about the history of mathematical proof. .68

I have studied the philosophy of mathematics. .63

I have studied the history of mathematics. .62

I am familiar with NCTM's recommendations regarding .57

the role of proof in mathematics classrooms.

At some point in my own education I have discussed the .56

nature of truth in mathematics.

I am familiar with the state standards regarding .50

mathematical proof

Approximately what percentage of class time would you .49

spend on proof in an upper level algebra class?

Note. There were six items that loaded onto more than one of the principle components. Only the largest
loading value was used to group the items and thus was shown in the table above.

To summarize, the preceding analysis generated the following four principle

components: (i) Teachers ability to understand, produce, and appreciate the value of

mathematical proofs, (ii) teachers' conception of the importance of proof, (iii) teachers'

perceptions of students' capacity to understand proof, and (iv) teachers' intellectual

awareness of the philosophy, history, and teaching and learning standards of

mathematics.

Multivariate Analysis

SPSS was used to create a combined principle component score for each of the

four principle components for each participant. It should be noted that only those

participants that provided responses for every one of the items that ultimately loaded onto

58
one of the four principal components could be included in the multivariate analysis.

There were 213 such participants in the study. These combined principle component

scores were then standardized using a regression procedure available on SPSS.

Once the participants were assigned four combined principle component scores,

SPSS was set up to perform a multivariate analysis of variances based on demographic

groups (gender, race, and age). Multivariate analyses are more statistically stable when

groups with only a few participants are combined into larger groups. The gender

category had sufficiently large numbers in both (male and female) groups. However,

race though collected as five distinct groups, was further organized into two groups,

namely 'white' and 'non-white' in order to produce a more substantial number of

participants in the minority category. Age categories were also reorganized. The

youngest category was renamed as 'young'; the oldest two categories were designated

'senior' and the middle two categories were called 'middle - aged.'

The results of the multivariate analysis of variances can be seen in Table 5.

59
Table 5.

MANOVA Table

Demographic Pillai's Trace Value F df p-value

Gender .03 1.54 4 .19

Race .02 1.20 4 .31

Age .06 1.62 8 .12

Gender * Race .04 2.01 4 .09

Gender * Age .06 1.64 8 .11

Race * Age .04 1.23 8 .28

Gender * Race * Age .04 1.18 8 .31

Note. These data were based on 83 males/150 females; 219 white teachers/14 non-white teachers; and 62
young/104 middle-aged/67 senior teachers.

As can be seen on the table above there were no significant (p < .05) differences

observed between the demographic groups. These results do not suggest any relationship

between high school mathematics teachers' gender, age, or race in regards to the

principle components of their conceptions of mathematical proof.

Thus far this chapter has presented the demographic information of the

participants and a subsequent chi-square test that indicated those participants are

somewhat representative of the state and national population of high school mathematics

teachers. This chapter has also illustrated an analysis of the psychometric properties of

the survey instrument which suggested that the instrument is both reliable and valid. The

principle components analysis of data and corresponding multivariate test that was

60
presented in this chapter identified four principle components of high school mathematics

teachers' conceptions of proof. No evidence was found to support the notion that these

principle components vary according to teachers' gender, race or age. The remainder of

this chapter now transitions to a detailed description of individual survey item responses.

These responses are grouped into two major sections: Teachers' conceptions of proof in

mathematics, and teachers' conceptions of proof in mathematics education.

Teachers Conceptions of Proof in Mathematics

This section describes the results that relate to teachers' conceptions of proof

specific to mathematics as a discipline (distinct from their conceptions of proof as a

mathematics teacher). Teachers' conceptions of proof in mathematics have been

organized into eight subsections addressing: (i) teachers' conceptions of the importance

of proof in mathematics, (ii) teachers' general attitude towards proof, (iii) what teachers

considered to be the functions of proof in mathematics, (iv) teachers' conceptions of their

own abilities with proof, (v) teachers' conceptions of inductive and deductive reasoning,

(vi) what meaning teachers assign to the term 'proof in mathematics, (vii) teachers'

awareness of the philosophy and history of mathematics, and (viii) teachers' experience

with proof as mathematics students.

The importance of proof in mathematics. A substantial disagreement was

observed among the high school mathematics teachers in this study with regards to their

conceptions of the importance of proof in the discipline of mathematics. In Table 6, the

survey responses that pertain to these conceptions are displayed.

61
Table 6.

Teachers' Conceptions of the Importance of Proof in Mathematics

Strongly Strongly
Agree Agree Neither Disagree Disagree N
Item

Proof is one of the most important

elements in mathematics. 13.8% 40.1% 26.9% 17.1% 2.1% 334

It is possible to understand the

nature of mathematical knowledge
without proof. 8.7% 38.6% 24.1% 23.8% 4.8% 332

If proof were removed from

mathematics, the subject would be
entirely different. 13.1% 35.8% 32.8% 16.3% 2.0% 344

General attitude towards proof. While there seems to be some disagreement

over the importance of proof in mathematics, the majority of high school mathematics

teachers in this study appear to have an overall positive attitude toward proof. Table 7

shows the survey responses related to teachers' attitudes toward proof.

Table 7.

Teachers' Attitudes Toward Proof in Mathematics

Strongly Strongly
Agree Agree Neither Disagree Disagree N
Item

I dislike proofs. 2.3% 7.9% 14.7% 35.8% 39.3% 341

I am interested in mathematical proofs. 25.2% 47.5% 19.4% 6.7% 1.2% 341

62
 Teachers' general attitudes towards proof were somewhat related to teachers

conceptions of the importance of proof in mathematics. A moderate correlation was

found (Spearman's rho = .4; p < .01; N = 345) between teachers' responses to whether

they liked proof and whether proof was considered one of the most important elements in

mathematics. In other words, teachers who liked proof were more likely to also believe

that proof was one of the most important elements in mathematics and vice-versa.

Similarly, a moderate correlation was also found (Spearman's rho = .5; p < .01; N = 345)

between teachers' responses to whether they were interested in proof and whether proof

was considered one of the most important elements in mathematics.

The functions of proof in mathematics. A widespread consensus was observed

among the teachers in this study when asked to respond to survey items that addressed

the functions that proof can be used for in mathematics. Teachers' survey responses

related to what functions proof can be used for in mathematics are shown in Table 8.

Table 8.

Teachers' Conceptions of the Functions of Proof

Strongly Strongly
Agree Agree Neither Disagree Disagree N
Item

Proof is a means of establishing

the truth of mathematical statements. 25.1% 66.2% 5.5% 2.6% 0.6% 311

Proof is a means of explaining why

a statement is true. 22.3% 67.0% 8.1% 1.3% 1.3% 309

Proof is a means of
communication. 22.3% 62.3% 11.1% 3.9% 0.3% 305

Proof is a means of systematizing

mathematical knowledge. 19.4% 66.8% 11.9% 1.6% 0.3% 310

Proof is a means of creating new

mathematical knowledge. 18.8% 61.8% 14.2% 4.5% 0.6% 309

63
 When asked what proof was used for in mathematics as an open-ended question,

teachers focused mostly on the notion that proof is used for verification and justification

of mathematical statements. To a lesser extent, some teachers wrote that proof was a

means of communication, systematization, and/or creation of new mathematical

knowledge. It was quite rare, however, for teachers to refer to more than one of these

functions and no teacher referred to more than three.

Teachers' conceptions of their own abilities with proof. In general, the high

school mathematics teachers that participated in this study reported a high degree of

confidence when working with proof. The results of the survey items that were pertinent

to teachers' confidence working with proof can be found in Table 9.

Table 9.

Teachers' Conceptions of their own Abilities with Proof

Strongly Strongly
Agree Agree Neither Disagree Disagree N
Item

I find proofs very challenging

to understand. 2.3% 13.5% 17.0% 42.2% 24.9% 341

I am good at proving mathematical

statements. 27.1% 55.7% 14.2% 2.7% 0.3% 332

I am comfortable presenting
mathematical proofs to my students. 31.7% 56.0% 8.5% 3.8% 0.0% 341

I am comfortable evaluating mathematical

proofs that my students have produced. 33.1% 53.0% 10.9% 2.7% 0.3% 338

64
 Teachers' conceptions of inductive and deductive reasoning. In addition to

being confident in their abilities to work with proof, many teachers also reported that they

were confident in their understanding of the difference between inductive and deductive

reasoning. Data was also collected that asked participants what type of reasoning was

used in mathematical proof. These survey responses are listed in Table 10.

Table 10.

Teachers' Conceptions of Inductive and Deductive Reasoning

Strongly Strongly
Agree Agree Neither Disagree Disagree N
Item

I understand the difference between

deductive and inductive reasoning. 43.0% 50.3% 5.3% 1.5% 0.0% 342

The type of reasoning in a

mathematical proof is inductive. 2.9% 32.0% 36.9% 19.9% 8.2% 306

Deductive reasoning is used in a

mathematical induction proof. 8.4% 43.6% 29.5% 15.1% 3.4% 298

As shown in the table 10, there were a substantial number of teachers who neither

agreed nor disagreed with the items that asked about the type of reasoning found in a

mathematical proof.

Meaning of proof in mathematics. Many teachers that participated in this study

did not draw distinction between proof in mathematics and proof outside of mathematics.

Two items on the survey were designed to assess whether high school mathematics

teachers assigned a discipline specific meaning to the term 'proof and the results are

shown in Table 11.

65
Table 11.

The Meaning of Proof in Mathematics

Strongly Strongly
Agree Agree Neither Disagree Disagree N
Item

Proof is anything that helps

convince someone. 3.3% 37.1% 21.5% 30.6% 7.5% 307

The term "proof has the same

meaning in mathematics and in
every-day language. 4.6% 32.4% 21.2% 32.7% 9.2% 306

Teachers' belief that proof did not have a discipline specific meaning was slightly

related to the belief that the reasoning in a mathematical proof is inductive (Spearman's

rho = .2, p < .01, N = 318). In other words, teachers who did not believe that proof had a

specific meaning in mathematics were slightly more likely to also believe that the type of

reasoning in a mathematical proof was inductive.

Philosophy/History of mathematics. Teachers who participated in this study

were also asked about other matters that could be considered part of the philosophy

and/or history of mathematics. These included the notions of the validity of proofs,

standards of rigor in mathematics, and the nature of truth and mathematical knowledge.

Teachers were asked whether they had previously studied or discussed these notions over

the course of their own education. The responses for these survey items can be found in

Table 12.

66
Table 12.

Teachers' Experience with the Philosophy and History of Mathematics

Strongly Strongly
Agree Agree Neither Disagree Disagree N
Item

Proof is the most reliable means of

establishing the truth of a mathematical
statement. 28.5% 41.1% 23.1% 6.3% 0.9% 333

I have studied the philosophy of

mathematics. 10.8% 34.3% 15.7% 33.0% 6.2% 306

At some point in my own education

I have discussed the nature of truth
in mathematics. 14.0% 59.7% 9.7% 13.3% 3.2% 308

The validity of a proof does not depend

on who wrote the proof. 22.2% 56.9% 12.4% 6.5% 2.0% 306

Once a statement is proven in

mathematics it is true forever. 10.2% 22.0% 27.0% 36.2% 4.6% 304

A proof once accepted by the

mathematics community can at a
later date be deemed unacceptable. 9.5% 60.5% 15.5% 10.9% 3.6% 304

I have studied the history

of mathematics. 15.0% 47.1% 14.1% 20.6% 3.3% 306

I am knowledgeable about the

history of mathematical proof. 6.9% 23.2% 28.1% 37.6% 4.2% 306

A proof which was considered

rigorous 1000 years ago is still
considered rigorous today. 7.5% 23.3% 48.9% 19.0% 1.3% 305

A proof that is considered rigorous

today will be considered rigorous
1000 years from now. 7.2% 20.3% 51.6% 18.3% 2.6% 306

Having studied the philosophy of mathematics was slightly correlated

(Spearman's rho = .2; p < .01; N = 318) to the belief that proof was one of the most

important elements in mathematics. There were not any significant relationships found

67
between having studied the philosophy of mathematics and conceptions concerning the

type of reasoning used in mathematical proof. A weak positive correlation (Spearman's

rho = .2; p < .01; N = 318) was observed between having studied the history of

mathematics and the belief that proof was one of the most important elements in

mathematics.

Teachers' experience with proof in their own education. Teachers were also

asked specifically about their experience with proof when they were students in high

school and in college mathematics. The results of these five items can be found in Table

13.

Table 13.

Teachers' Prior Experiences with Proof as a Student

Strongly Strongly
Agree Agree Neither Disagree Disagree N
Item

Proof was important in my high school

geometry course. 37.9% 49.5% 6.6% 4.0% 2.0% 301

Proof was an important part of my

all high school mathematics courses. 7.3% 24.9% 17.3% 43.5% 7.0% 301

In my college mathematics courses, I

understood most of the proofs. 18.3% 54.5% 18.6% 8.0% 0.7% 301

I have taken a mathematics course where

I was evaluated on my ability to produce
mathematical proofs. 23.3% 46.5% 7.0% 17.6% 5.6% 301

In college my mathematics courses were

for the most part lectures that consisted
of one proof after another. 8.0% 26.0% 21.3% 36.3% 8.3% 300

68
 Teachers' responses to whether proof was important in their high school geometry

course were significantly different from their responses to whether proof was important

in all of their high school mathematics courses. Descriptive statistics for these two items

along with the results of a paired sample t-test are shown below in Table 14.

Table 14.

Comparison of Teachers' High School Experience in Geometry to Other Course

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Items

Proof was important in my high 4.17a 300 .871 .050

school geometry course.

Proof was an important part of 2.82a 300 1.108 .064

my all high school mathematics
courses.

Paired Samples Test (Paired Differences)

95% Confidence Interval of
Std. Std. Error the Difference Significance
Mean Deviation Mean Lower Upper t df (2-tailed)

1.357 1.137 .066 1.227 1.486 20.659 299 .000

a
Note. The items scores ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

69
 Having taken a course where the participants were expected to produce their own

proofs when they were students, was positively correlated (Spearman's rho = .2; p < .01;

N= 297) to being comfortable evaluating proofs when they became teachers that their

students had produced. Having taken such a course was also positively correlated

(Spearman's rho = .2; p < .01; N= 299) to reporting comfort when presenting proofs to

students.

The following points are made in summation of the individual survey items

pertaining to high school mathematics teachers' conceptions of proof in mathematics: (i)

There was no general consensus observed over whether teachers believed the proof was

fundamental to mathematics, (ii) teachers reported generally positive attitudes toward

proof, (iii) teachers in general agreed (when prompted) that proof can be used for a

variety of functions in mathematics but tended to focus only on verification and/or

justification in their open ended responses; (iv) teachers reported confidence in working

with proof; (v) most teachers were also confident in their understanding of the difference

between inductive and deduction reasoning though more than a third of teachers believed

that inductive reason was the type of reasoning found in a mathematical proof and a third

more not willing to agree nor disagree with this item; (vi) there were more teachers who

did not assign a discipline specific meaning to the term 'proof than did assign a specific

meaning; (vii) about half of the sample reported having studied the philosophy and/or

history of mathematics; and (viii) teachers reported a wide variety of high school/college

experiences with proof - and an interesting relationship was observed between the

importance of proof in teachers' high school geometry class and the rest of their high

school mathematics classes.

70
Teachers' Conceptions of Proof in Mathematics Education

This section reports the results of the individual survey responses that pertain to

high school mathematics teachers' conceptions of and practices with proof in

mathematics education. It has been organized into fourteen subsections that address: (a)

teachers' conceptions of the importance of proof in mathematics education; (b) teachers'

beliefs of the appropriateness of proof for students of different academic levels; (c)

teachers' perceptions of students' capacity to understand proof (d) teachers' assessment

of an achievement gap related to proof; (d) teachers' perceptions of students' attitudes

towards proof; (e) teachers' conceptions of the importance of proof in geometry versus

algebra; (f) what deters teachers from using proof in their teaching; (g) what teachers

think about the proofs in their textbooks; (h) what kinds of proof activities teachers use in

their classrooms; (j) what formats teachers use to record proof arguments; (k) how

teachers use dynamic geometry software (1) what teachers are interested in learning about

mathematical proof; and finally (m) what teachers think about NCTM's

recommendations regarding proof.

The importance of proof in mathematics education and its viability as a

vehicle to promote students' logical thinking ability. Table 15 provides the survey

responses that pertain to the importance of proof in mathematics and the viability of proof

as a vehicle to help students develop logical thinking abilities. As can be seen in table

fifteen, 53% of teachers in the study believed that proof was one of the most important

elements in mathematics education.

71
Table 15.

Teachers' Conceptions of the Importance of Proof in Mathematics Education and its

Viability as a Vehicle to Promote Students' Logical Thinking Ability

Strongly Strongly
Agree Agree Neither Disagree Disagree N
Item

Proof is one of the most important

elements of mathematics education. 11.9% 39.6% 30.7% 14.3% 3.5% 371

Helping students develop logical

thinking ability is a primary goal of
mathematics education. 48.9% 46.0% 4.6% 0.5% 0.0% 372

Proofs can be used to help students

develop logical thinking abilities. 34.7% 58.3% 4.8% 1.9% 0.3% 372

Teachers can do little to help students

develop logical thinking abilities. 1.6% 2.2% 5.6% 55.4% 35.2% 372

Learning about proof has helped me

develop logical thinking abilities. 35.2% 48.1% 11.7% 2.6% 2.3% 341

Teachers' conceptions about the importance of proof in mathematics education

were observed to be strongly related to teachers' conceptions of the importance of proof

in mathematics itself, and the viability of proof as vehicle to teach logical thinking. A

significant positive correlation (Spearman's rho = .6, p < .01; N = 345 ) was found

between the item that referred to proof as one of the most important elements in

mathematics and the item that referred to proof as one of the most important elements in

mathematics education. In other words, a teacher that considered proof one of the most

important elements in mathematics was likely to consider proof to be one of the most

important elements in mathematics education. A positive correlation was also found

(Spearman's rho = .5, p < .01; N = 345 ) between the item that suggested proof could be

72
used to help students develop logical thinking abilities and the item that referred to proof

as one of the most important elements in mathematics education.

The appropriateness of proof for students of different academic levels.

Teachers were asked whether proof was important for students of varying academic

levels. The responses for these items have been displayed in the Figure 2 in bar charts so

that the trend is more easily perceived. As shown in the figure, when asked if proof were

important for upper level students 91% of teachers agreed; for mid-level students 74% of

teachers agreed; and for lower-level students 39% of teachers agreed.

73
 Proof is important for upper-level high school Proof is important for mid-level high school
mathematics students. mathematics students.
60-

50-

^ 40-

0 30-

20"

10"
I i
1 i 1 r T '—I ' ' I ' ' I T
o-^ Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Stongly
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Stongly
Disagree Agree nor Agree Disagree Agree nor Agree
Disagree Disagree

Proof is important for lower-level high school

mathematics students.

i i i r
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Stongly
Disagree Agree nor Agree
Disagree

Figure 2. The Importance of Proof According to Students' Academic Level.

Descriptive statistics and a paired sample t-test were calculated to describe the

results and determine if these responses were significantly different from each other. The

results of this statistical analysis can be found in Table 16.

74
Table 16.

The Importance of Proof with respect to Academic Level

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Items

Proof is important for upper-level 4.39a 357 .755 .040

high school mathematics students

Proof is important for mid-level 3.78* 357 .775 .041

high school mathematics students.

Proof is important for lower-level

2.99a 356 1.099 .058
high school mathematics students

Paired Samples Test (Paired Differences)

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Groups Std. Std. Error
Compared Mean Deviation Mean Lower Upper df

Upper/Mid .62 .684 .036 .545 .687 17.0 356 .000

Mid/Lower .79 .931 .049 .689 .884 15.9 355 .000

Upper/Lower 1.4 1.22 .065 1.28 1.53 21.7 355 .000

a
Note. The items scores ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

These results indicate that a significant number of teachers believe that proof is

important for upper level students and not important for mid and/or lower level students.

In order to better understand how many of the teachers believed that proof was more

important for upper level students than it was for lower lever students a new compound

75
variable was created. Teachers' responses to the item for low level were subtracted from

their responses for the item for high level. This new variable was called High—Low and

it reflected whether a teacher lowered their response from high level students to low level

student. A positive value suggested that a teacher believed that proof is more important

for upper level students than it is for lower level students. Seventy-two percent of

teachers had a positive value for this difference. Two out of the 374 teachers believed

that proof was more important for lower level students than for upper level students (as

indicated by a negative value for the computed variable High—Low).

Teachers' perceptions of students' capacity to understand proof. Teachers

were also asked what they thought was the approximate percentage of students that were

intellectually capable of understanding mathematical proof. The mean of the 348

responses was 70% with a standard deviation of 22. The box and whisker plot shown in

Figure 3 illustrates the quartiles of the responses, with the middle 50% represented inside

the box.

What percent of all students are intellectually capable of understanding

mathematical proof?

0 20
Figure 3. Teachers Perception of Students Capacity to Understand Proof

76
 As shown on Figure 3, half of the teachers in the study believed that one out of

every four students is incapable of understanding proof in mathematics.

An achievement gap. Teachers were also asked what percentage of students they

believed achieved understanding of mathematical proof. The mean of the 349 responses

was 49% with a standard deviation of 22. The box and whisker plot shown in Figure 4

illustrates the quartiles of the responses.

What percent of all students actually achieve understanding of mathematical proof?

Figure 4. Teachers' Perception of an Achievement Gap

A new variable referred to as achievement gap was created by finding the

differences between what a participant thought was the percentage of all students

intellectually capable of understanding proof and what the participant thought was the

percentage of all students that actually achieved understanding. The mean value of the

achievement gap was 22%. In other words, on average teachers believe that 22% of

students are intellectually capable of understanding proof but do not actually achieve

understanding.

77
 Teachers' perceptions of students' attitudes towards proof. According to the

perceptions of the teachers that participated in this study, students have generally

negative attitudes towards proof and teachers find teaching proof challenging. The

results of the four items related to these attitudes can be found in Table 17.

Table 17.

Teachers' Perceptions of Students' Attitudes

Strongly Strongly
Agree Agree Neither Disagree Disagree N
Item

Teaching students about proof can

be very challenging. 43.0% 49.7% 4.8% 2.1% 0.3% 374

My students are interested in proofs. 0.8% 9.7% 23.9% 47.5% 18.2% 373

My students struggle with proofs. 33.8% 53.9% 9.9% 1.6% 0.8% 373

My students dislike proofs. 26.1% 48.0% 20.2% 4.9% 0.8% 371

The importance of proof in Geometry versus Algebra. The teachers in this

study reported that the importance of proof to high school mathematics classes varied

according the particular mathematical subject being taught (i.e., algebra, geometry, etc.).

Teachers were asked whether proof was fundamental to all high school mathematics

classes and also specifically to high school geometry classes. Descriptive statistics for

each item along with the results of a paired sample t-test are displayed in Table 18.

78
Table 18.

Teachers' Conceptions of the Fundamentalness of Proof to High School Mathematics

Classes
Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Items

Proof is a fundamental element of 3.87 a 356 .911 .048

a high school geometry course.

Proof is a fundamental element of all 3.28a 356 1.013 .054

high school mathematics courses.

Paired Samples Test (Paired Differences)

95% Confidence Interval of

the Difference
„ Std. Std. Error
Groups Mean Deviation t df
Compared Mean Lower Upper P

Geo/All .621 .897 .048 .527 .714 13.05 356 .000

Note. The items scores ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

According to the results of the t-test there is a significant difference between

teachers' conceptions of proof as fundamental to high school geometry classes as

compared to their conceptions of proof as fundamental to all high school mathematics

classes.

With regards to teachers' classroom practices with proof, teachers reported that

the amount of class time that they would spend on proof varied with respect to both the

particular mathematical subject being taught as well as students' academic level.

Teachers in the study were asked to approximate the percentage of class-time that they

79
 would spend on proof in four different course types: i) upper level geometry, ii) lower

level geometry, iii) upper level algebra, and iv) lower level algebra. Figure 5 illustrates

the responses displayed in box and whisker plots for each of the four course types.

What percent of classtime would you spend on proof in a

lower level algebra class?

lower level geometry class?H '—I ' I,

upper level geometry class?

Figure 5. Class Time Spent on Proof.

Four paired sample t-tests were used to make two comparisons - one on the basis

of academic level (with the subjects held constant) and the other on the basis of subjects

(with the academic level held constant). The results of the t-tests along with relevant

item statistics are presented in Table 19.

80
Table 19.

Classtime Spent on Proof

Std. Error
Items Mean N Std. Deviation Mean

Class time
spent in ...
Upper level Geometry 38.70% 326 22.946 1.271

Upper level Algebra 24.62% 326 21.713 1.203

Lower level Geometry 19.64% 330 18.094 .996

Lower level Algebra

12.11% 330 16.416 .904

Paired Samples Test (Paired Differences)

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Std. Error
Groups
Compared Mean Std. Deviation Mean Lower Upper df

Upper Geometry 14 0 8 19.117 1.059 11.997 16.163 13.3 325 .000

Upper Algebra

Lower Geometry 7.53 14.640 .806 5.945 9.116 9.3 329 .000
Lower Algebra

Upper Geometry
18.81 17.186 .949 16.944 20.678 9.8 327 .000
Lower Geometry

Upper Algebra
12.24 13.794 .751 10.762 13.718 16.3 336 .000
Lower Algebra

81
 The results of the t-test indicate that there is a significant difference in the amount

of class time spent with respect to both students' academic level and the particular

mathematical subject being taught. On average, teachers reported that they would spend

twice as much time on proof in upper levels as they would spend in lower levels. In

regards to the particular subject comparison, teachers reported they would spend 60%

more time on proof in geometry than they would spend in algebra (independent of

students' academic level).

A difference was also observed between the percentages of teachers that reported

spending zero percent of class time in each of the course types (i.e., teachers that claimed

they would do nothing with proof in such a course.) Three percent of teachers claimed

that they would not spend any time on proof in an upper level geometry course, whereas

15% claimed the same for lower level geometry, 13% for upper level algebra, and 33%

for lower level algebra.

Proof Deterred. Teachers in the study were asked what deterred them from

using proof in their teaching. This item directed participants to check any and all of

twelve possible deterrents that applied to their teaching. Ninety-four percent of 325

teachers who responded to this item reported being deterred from using proof in their

teaching in at least one way. The most common deterrent from using proof in their

teaching was the ability level of the students being taught. Three quarters (74%) of the

teachers in this study reported that they were deterred from using proof because of their

students' ability level. Other common deterrents included standardized testing (reported

by 59%o of the participants) and the particular subjects being taught (reported by 53% of

82
the teachers). A complete display of the results of teachers' deterrents from using proof

in their teaching can be found in Figure 6.

My textbooks K?; :•?«-.. ..-•::- v --—• •} 24.6%

Standardized testing (««,:„:,.. ..,.*««.. , R „ ™ , •;.:-!-«»,^ -.:• . •:>[«™.™,;t.. 5 9 , 0 %

The ability level of students that

1 73,4%
I teach

The grade level of students that 1

„,,*, ..™„- ,^-J 23.1%
teach
k„.~..,™; v - T : — - • - ^ — • - ••• .';.r.3-^, •.:: •:• -v '*<«**•. 1 5 3 . 3 %

The courses thai I leach

Lack of parental cooperation

0 5.4%

8.9%
School resources
| 31.4%
State Standards

My fellow teachers' attitudes toward l_t!?™,_ 12.0%

proof
2.4%
a
My administrators
4.8%

My own mathematical knowledge

10.2%

My own pedagogical knowledge.

Figure 6. Teachers' Deterrents from Using Proof in their Teaching.

Teachers in the study were asked specifically whether time was a deterrent from

using proof in their teaching - both in terms of time in class, as well as, time to plan.

Participants were also asked whether they were willing to spend more time on proof if

83
they had more time in class and/or more time to plan. The results of these four items can

be found in Table 20 below.

Table 20.

Time as a Deterrent to Teachers using Proof in their Teaching

Strongly Strongly
Agree Agree Neither Disagree Disagree N
Item

Proofs take too much class time to

be worthwhile. 2.3% 15.3% 26.9% 49.5% 6.0% 301

Proofs take too much time to plan

to be worthwhile. 2.0% 6.3% 22.8% 58.3% 10.6% 302

If I had more time in class, I would

spend more time on proof. 7.3% 50.5% 19.1% 21.8% 1.3% 303

If I had more time to plan, I would

spend more time on proof. 5.3% 31.2% 28.2% 32.9% 2.3% 301

Proof in textbooks. Teachers reported being somewhat dissatisfied with how the

textbooks they use are helping students learn about mathematical proof. As can be seen in

the Figure 7, a quarter of the teachers in the study listed their textbooks as a deterrent

from using proof in their teaching. Five other survey items addressed teachers'

conceptions of their textbooks with regards to mathematical proof and the results are

displayed in Table 21.

84
Table 21.

Teachers Conceptions of Proofs in Their Textbooks

Strongly
Strongly Agree Neither Disagree Disagree N
Agree

Item

My textbooks devote a lot of

attention to proofs. 2.3% 21.8% 20.5% 44.0% 11.4% 298

If my textbooks included more

proofs, I would spend more class
time on proofs. 3.3% 24.7% 31.3% 36.7% 4.0% 300

I use proofs in my class that are

not in my textbooks. 11.0% 49.8% 12.3% 21.9% 5.0% 301

I would like my textbooks to include

more proofs. 5.7% 29.7% 35.3% 23.0% 6.3% 300

The textbook that I use is effective at

helping students learn about proof. 3.7% 27.0% 28.0% 34.0% 7.3% 300

85
 Proof Activities. The teachers in this study were asked whether they used proof

in nine potential ways in their teaching. Figure 7 displays the percentage of teachers that

reported using proof in their teaching in each of the ways.

1 present students with proofs in

••i'&&'-ii .V^-.'*™'^^:"'1' |
95.2%
class.

1 include proofs on tests and/or

1 67.2%
quizzes.

1 ask students to memorize proofs. H 5.7%

I ask students to generate proofs

• 59.9%
on their own.

1 ask students to evaluate proofs. i 45.8%

1 asic students to read proofs in the

textbook. zu 51.8%

i asK students to use trie internet to

study proofs.
u 7.2%

I give homework that includes wort i 75.3%

with proofs. 1

1 have students work on proofs in

68.7%
groups.

Figure 7. How Teachers use Proof in their Classrooms

86
 As can be seen on Figure 8, the teachers in this study reported using proof in their

classrooms in a wide variety of ways. Ninety-five percent of teachers in the study

claimed that they present proofs to their classes (which was the most common way for

teachers to use proof in their teaching. Seventy-six percent of the teachers claimed to give

homework assignments that involved proofs, and 69% reported they ask students to work

in groups with proofs. Sixty-eight percent of teachers reported that they include proofs on

tests and/or quizzes (68%).

Proof Formats. Teachers were asked what type(s) of proof formats they used in

their classes to record the arguments. Three potential formats were presented and

teachers approximated what percent of the proofs that they use were recorded in that way.

The results of these three items are displayed as bar charts in Figure 8.

87
 What percent of the proofs that you use
are written in two columns?

I I I I I I I
0- 12.5- 27.5- 42.5- 57.5- 72.5- 87.5-
12.5% 27.5% 42.5% 57.5% 72.5% 87.5% 100%

What percent of the proofs that you use

are written in a paragraph?

""I I I I I I
0- 12.5- 27.5- 42.5- 57.5- 72.5- 87.5-
12.5% 27.5% 42.5% 57.5% 72.5% 87.5% 100%

What percent of the proofs that you use

are written in aflowchart?

1 1 r
0- 12.5- 27.5- 42.5- 57.5- 72.5- 87.5-
12.5% 27.5% 42.5% 57.5% 72.5% 87.5% 100%

Figure 8. Percentage of Proofs written in Different Recording Formats

88
 There were 327 participants that responded to these items. The mean percentage

of class time spent using the two-column format was 68%; for paragraph format 16%;

and for flow chart 8%. Twenty-eight percent of teachers reported not using paragraph

proof at all and 61% of teachers reported that they are not using flow-chart at all in their

teaching.

Computers. Teachers in this study were prompted with four items that related

their conceptions of proof to the use of computers. The response percentages are

presented in Table 22 below.

Table 22.

Teachers' Conceptions of Proofs and the use of Computers

Strongly Strongly
Agree Agree Neither Disagree Disagree N
Item

I use dynamic geometry software

such as Geometer's Sketchpad. 13.4% 31.9% 12.4% 30.9% 11.4% 298

Using dynamic geometry software

is more convincing to me than seeing
a mathematical proof. 4.8% 19.4% 38.1% 29.9% 7.8% 294

Using dynamic geometry software

is more convincing to my students
than seeing a mathematical proof. 10.5% 46.6% 32.7% 7.5% 2.7% 294

Mathematicians no longer need

proofs like they once did because
ofcomputers. 1.7% 6.4% 20.2% 47.1% 24.6% 297

Teachers' desire to learn. Teachers in the study were interested in learning

more about the various aspects of proof. Survey responses for four items related to

teachers' desire to learn about proof can be found in Table 23.

89
Table 23.

Teachers' Desire to Learn about Proof

Strongly Strongly
Agree Agree Neither Disagree Disagree N
Item

I would like to learn more about proof in

the discipline of mathematics. 7.7% 42.3% 27.3% 18.7% 4.0% 300

I would like to learn more about what

mathematics teachers can do with proof
in their classrooms. 10.3% 58.8% 17.3% 10.6% 3.0% 301

I would like to learn more about the

history of mathematics. 11.3% 53.7% 18.3% 13.0% 3.7% 300

I would like to learn more about the

philosophy of mathematics. 11.4% 53.2% 19.1% 13.0% 3.3% 299

NCTM recommendations. When teachers in this study were asked whether they

agreed with the each of the three parts of NCTM's (2000) recommendations there was

general consensus. The results of these survey items can be found in Table 24.

Table 24.

Teachers' Conceptions of NCTM's Recommendations ___

Strongly Strongly
Agree Agree Neither Disagree Disagree N
Item

By the end of secondary school

students should be able to understand
proofs. 9.1% 65.3% 16.2% 8.1% 1.3% 297

By the end of secondary school

students should be able to produce
proofs. 5.4% 54.5% 25.6% 12.8% 1.7% 297

By the end of secondary school

students should be able to appreciate the value of
proofs. 12.7% 60.5% 19.6% 6.5% 0.7% 291

90
 One way ANOVA tests were conducted in order to determine if there were

significant differences in the responses between those participants who were NCTM

members and those who were not. Descriptive statistics for these items are shown in

Table 25 and the results of the ANOVA are presented in Table 26.

Table 25.

Descriptive Statistics for Teachers' Conceptions of NCTM's Recommendations

95% Confidence
Interval for Mean

Std. Std. Lower Upper

Recommendation Member
Status N Mean Deviation Error Bound Bound

Member 116 3.70 .867 .080 3.54 3.86

By the end of secondary
school students should be Non-Member 178 3.74 .745 .056 3.63 3.85
able to understand proofs.
Total 294 3.72 .794 .046 3.63 3.82

Member 116 3.39 .949 .088 3.21 3.56

By the end of secondary
school students should be Non-Member 178 3.56 .774 .058 3.44 3.67
able to produce proofs.
Total 294 3.49 .850 .050 3.39 3.59

Member 113 3.74 .864 .081 3.58 3.90

By the end of secondary
school students should be Non-Member 175 3.80 .719 .054 3.69 3.91
able to appreciate the value
of proofs. Total 288 3.78 .778 .046 3.69 3.87

Note. a The items scores ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

91
Table 26.

ANOVA Table for Teachers' Conceptions ofNCTM's Recommendations

Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
By the end of secondary Between .132 1 .132 .208 .648
school students should be Within 18455 2 92 .632
able to understand proofs. ^ m ^ ^

By the end of secondary Between 1.99 1 1.988 2.771 .097

school students should be within 209 48 292 717
able to produce proofs. ^ ^ ^ ^

By the end of secondary Between .220 1 .220 .363 .547

school students should within 173 56 2 86 .607
be able to appreciate the ^ m ?g ^
value of proofs.

As can be observed in Table 26, the ANOVA did not reveal any statistically

significant differences between NCTM members and non-members for any of the three

parts ofNCTM's recommendations regarding proof. In other words, NCTM members

were no more likely than non-members to agree with NCTM's recommendations.

However, NCTM members were more likely than non-members to be familiar with

NCTM recommendations about proof. Teachers were asked whether they were familiar

with NCTM's recommendations regarding proof and the descriptive statistics of the

results can be found in Table 27. The ANOVA that compared teachers' familiarity with

the recommendation of members versus non members is presented in Table 28.

92
Table 27.

Descriptive Statistics for Teachers' Familiarity with NCTM's Recommendations

95%
Confidence
Interval for
Mean
Std. Std. Lower Upper
N Mean Deviation Error Bound Bound

Member 115 3.32 1.013 .095 3.13 3.51

I am familiar with NCTM's
recommendations regarding
the role of proof in mathematics
classrooms.
Non-Member 178 2.87 .986 .074 2.72 3.02

Total 293 3.05 1.019 .060 2.93 3.16

Table 28.

ANOVA Table for Teachers' Familiarity with NCTM's Recommendations

Mean
Sum of Squares df Square F Sig.
Between Groups 14.207 1 14.207 14.300 .000
I am familiar with NCTM's
recommendations regarding
the role of proof in Within Groups 289.124 291 .994
mathematics classrooms.

Total 303.331 292

93
 As shown on Table 28 there was a significant difference between NCTM

members and non-member in their reported familiarity with the NCTM recommendations

regarding proof. In other words, NCTM members were more likely than non-members

to be familiar with NCTM's recommendations regarding the use of proof in mathematics

classrooms.

The following points are made to summarize the results presented in this section

that addressed high school mathematics teachers' conceptions of proof in mathematics

education, (a) Teachers' conceptions of the importance of proof in mathematics

education were found to be closely related to teachers conceptions of the importance of

proof in the discipline of mathematics as well as to teachers' conceptions of the viability

of proof as a vehicle to help students develop their logical thinking abilities, (b) teachers'

conceptions of the importance of proof in mathematics education varied according to

students' academic levels, (c) teachers reported that they believed a potion of the student

population to be intellectually incapable of understanding mathematical proof (d)

teachers believed there are students who are intellectually capable of understanding proof

but do not actually achieve understanding, (d) teachers perceived their students to have

generally negative attitudes towards proof, (e) teachers' conceptions of the importance of

proof varied according to the particular mathematical subject being taught, (f) teachers

reported that they were deterred from using proof in many different ways, (g) teachers

reported that they were in general dissatisfied with how their textbooks addressed

mathematical proof, (h) teachers reported that they used proof in their teaching in a

variety of ways, (j) two-column format was observed to be the dominant format for

recording proof arguments, (k) about half of the participants reported that they use

94
dynamic geometry software in their classrooms, (1) teachers reported to be generally

interested in learning more about mathematical proof, and finally (m) while NCTM

members were more likely than non-members to be familiar with NCTM's

recommendations regarding proof they were no more likely than non-members to agree

with those recommendations.

The Relationship between Teachers' Conceptions and Teachers' Practices

The remainder of this chapter will specifically examine the results that pertain to

the relationship between teachers' conceptions about mathematical proof and teachers'

classroom practices with mathematical proof. In order to quantitatively make this

comparison a new variable referred to as 'classtime' was created that combined teachers'

responses to the amount of class time a teacher would spend on proof in four different

types of classes (upper level geometry, lower level geometry, upper level algebra, and

lower level algebra). This compound variable was designed to reflect teachers general

practice with proof. A high value for 'classtime' would suggest that, in general, the

teacher spent a substantial amount of time on proof in their teaching. Relationships

between teachers' conceptions of proof in mathematics/mathematics education and

teachers pedagogical practices with proof were investigated by comparing survey items

or groups of items to the 'classtime' variable.

A relationship (Pearson's r = .2, p < .01; df = 316) was found between 'classtime'

and the percentage of students that teachers believed to be intellectually capable of

understanding mathematical proof. This suggests that the greater the percentage of

students that teachers in this study believed to be intellectually capable of understanding

proof, the greater amount of time the teachers were likely to report use proof in their

95
teaching. Teachers who reported spending more class time on proof were also somewhat

more likely (Pearson's r = .3, p < .01; df = 314) to perceive their students actually

achieving understanding of mathematical proof. A positive and significant correlation

(Spearman's rho = .3, p < .01; df = 315) was also found between 'classtime' and

teachers' reported interest in mathematical proof. The more a teacher was interested in

mathematical proof the more likely that teacher was to spend more time on proof in their

teaching.

Another compound variable was created to reflect teachers' conceptions of the

importance of proof in mathematics and in mathematics education at all academic levels.

Six items in all were combined to create this variable referred to as 'importance'. A high

value for the 'importance' variable indicated that the teacher believed mathematical proof

to be important to mathematics and mathematics education at all academic levels. A

positive and significant correlation (Pearson's r = .4, p < .01; df = 277) was found

between the computed variables 'importance' and 'classtime'. This correlation indicates

that teachers who believed that proof is important to mathematics and mathematics

education (at all levels) were more likely to spend more time on proof in their teaching

than those teachers who did not think that proof is important.

Several attempts were made to construct a compound variable that related to

teachers' confidence working with proof. There were seven potential items that were

appropriate, however, there was little or no relationship found between any of the

constructed teacher confidence variables and 'classtime'. This would suggest that the

amount of class time that a teacher spent on proof was not affected by their conceptions

of the importance of proof. Evidence of this can also be found on Figure 7 that reflects

96
the reasons that teachers felt deterred from using proof in their teaching. Only five

percent of teachers felt deterred because of their own mathematical knowledge and 10%

because of their own pedagogical knowledge.

97
 CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

This chapter presents a discussion that incorporates the statistical analysis

presented in chapter four to answer the primary research questions stated in chapter one.

Three major sections of the discussion are devoted to each of the primary research

questions. In answering these questions, connections are drawn between the key findings

of this study and the findings of previous studies presented in chapter two. Suggestions

for future research studies are made based on the limitations of the research methodology

used in this study that was described in the third chapter of this dissertation. Finally,

implications and suggestions are articulated so that the mathematics education

community may benefit from this study and continue to progress in area of research on

proof in mathematics education.

Answering the Research Questions

What are secondary school mathematics teachers' conceptions of proof?

According to the principle components analysis, teachers' conceptions of mathematical

proof are composed of four principle components: (i) Teachers ability to understand,

produce, and appreciate the value of mathematical proofs, (ii) teachers' conceptions of

the importance of proof, (iii) teachers' perceptions of students' capacity to understand

proof, and (iv) teachers' intellectual awareness of the philosophy, history, and teaching

and learning standards of mathematics. A sub-section of this discussion is presented for

each of these four components.

Teachers' ability to understand, produce, and appreciate the value of

mathematical proofs. Teachers that participated in this study were very likely to report a

98
high degree of confidence in their ability to understand and produce mathematical proofs.

A majority of the teachers reported that: proofs were not challenging for them to

understand (67%), they generally understood proofs by contrapositive (67%), proofs by

contradiction (74%), and proofs by mathematical induction (81%). Eighty-three percent

of the teachers described themselves as good at proving mathematical statements, 88%

reported that they were comfortable presenting proofs in their classrooms, and 86%

indicated that they are capable of evaluating their students' proofs.

These findings should be considered in light of a particular and unavoidable

limitation of this study, namely that these findings reflect what teachers reported about

their own conceptions. What teachers report is not necessarily the same as what teachers

actually believe about their own abilities, nor what actually occurs in their teaching

practice. Graham (2010) questions whether "teachers' responses to survey questions

reflect their true instructional practices" (p. 164). Cohen (1990) and Spillane and Zeuli

(1999) have pointed out that teachers do not necessarily teach the way they think they do.

While teachers' responses to survey items cannot be authenticated by the methodology of

this study these responses do provide a decent approximation of teachers' conceptions.

These data can simply be interpreted that in-service secondary mathematics teachers

seem to be confident about their ability to understand and produce mathematical proof.

It is interesting to point out that these findings contradict to what Knuth (2002a),

Martin and Harel (1996), and Seldon and Seldon (2008) observed in their research

studies. These researchers found that teachers noticeably struggled when working with

proof particularly when it came to identifying valid mathematical reasoning. It may be

that teachers in this study are unjustifiably optimistic about their actual abilities to

99
understand, evaluate, and produce mathematical proofs. Further research is needed to

accurately assess the true extent of teachers' abilities to understand, evaluate, and

produce mathematical proofs in a way that could be generalized to the population of

mathematics teachers. Such research might incorporate interviews that could probe more

deeply into the details of teachers' understanding in ways that a survey could not. Porter

(2002) and Stecher et al. (2006) have discussed how surveys are limited in the extent to

which they can describe the depth and complexity of teachers' instructional methods.

While conducting a survey was the most appropriate methodology to answer the

particular research questions in this study, research that specifically probes into teachers'

understanding of what constitutes valid mathematical reasoning would be valuable,

especially considering the following findings of this study.

While an overwhelming percentage (93%) of teachers in the study claimed to

understand the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning, there is convincing

evidence suggesting that in reality teachers might not understand the difference between

inductive and deductive reasoning. Thirty-five percent of the participating teachers

reported that the type of reasoning used in a mathematical proof is inductive. An

additional 37% of the teachers neither agreed nor disagreed that the type of reasoning in a

mathematical proof is inductive thus indicating a fair amount of uncertainty. When asked

directly whether deductive reasoning is used in a mathematical induction proof only

about half (52%) of the teachers agreed.

As explained in the theoretical framework, mathematical proof is necessarily

based on deductive reasoning, and thus a large number of teachers in this study seem to

be revealing one of two possible misconceptions. The first possible misconception would

100
be held by teachers who actually did understand the difference between inductive and

deductive reasoning but also believed that the type of reasoning acceptable in

mathematical proof is inductive. The second misconceptions would be held by those

teachers who believed that they did understand the difference between inductive and

deductive reasoning and were mistaken. It is also possible that some teachers were

simply providing the response that they believed was appropriate for a mathematics

teacher to provide. In other words, teachers may be reporting not what they understand

but rather what they believe a mathematics teacher should understand because they were

uneasy admitting (what they may perceive as) a shortcoming in their own knowledge.

These results provide quantitative confirmation of the qualitative results that have

been previously obtained. Martin and Harel (1996) observed that prospective elementary

teachers frequently did not distinguish between inductive and deductive reasoning for the

purposes of proof. Similarly, Knuth (2002a) found that in his study, "all of the teachers

reported that they would accept informal proofs (i.e., empirically-based arguments) as

proof from their students" (p. 76). When these findings are considered in sum one must

question whether teachers in general have a solid understanding of what constitutes

inductive and/or deductive reasoning, and moreover, whether teachers understand which

type of reasoning is acceptable in mathematical proof.

Perhaps teachers' apparent misconceptions related to the type of reasoning used in

a mathematical proof were related to the misleading nomenclature 'proof by

mathematical induction' which, as previously explained in chapter two, consists of

deductive reasoning (as does every mathematical proof regardless of its form). Many

teachers (in total 72%) may had not disagreed that inductive reasoning is the type of

101
reasoning found in mathematical proof because they assumed that inductive reasoning is

used in a proof by mathematical induction. Teachers may have formed their conceptions

of what constitutes inductive and/or deductive reasoning based on this terminology which

is understandably misleading.

Without a solid understanding of what constitutes inductive and/or deductive

reasoning it is unlikely that one would appreciate the discipline specific meaning that

proof has in mathematics. Part of what makes mathematical proof mathematical is the

exclusive use of deductive reasoning. Therefore, in consideration that 72% of the

teachers were mistaken or unsure of the type of reasoning in a mathematical proof, it is

entirely consistent that more than a third of the teachers in the study did not draw

distinction between mathematical proof and its colloquial meaning.

The colloquial meaning of proof, or the meaning of 'proof as it is frequently used

in English outside of mathematics, can be defined as evidence sufficient to establish a

statement as true. In the natural or physical sciences evidence of the truth of a hypothesis

is obtained through inductive reasoning (i.e., experimentation), but in mathematics only

deductive reasoning is acceptable to demonstrate truth. A mathematical statement may

be supported by examples, but not proven by examples.

Skemp (1976) emphasized the important difference between terms that are "used

in mathematics and in everyday life" (p. 20). He asserted that making (or not making)

these distinctions between different the meanings of terms has the potential to affect how

teachers teach mathematics. This study found that 37% of the teachers in this study were

apparently unaware of the fundamental distinction between the use of the term 'proof

within and outside of mathematics and agreed that proof had the same meaning in

102
mathematics as it did in every day language. Moreover, 40% believed that proof was

anything that helped convince someone. Given that more than 300 in-service high school

mathematics teachers responded to the two items described above, there is reason to

believe that a third (or more) of all in-service secondary mathematics teachers may not

understand that proof in mathematics has a discipline specific meaning. These results

further support the growing likelihood that many teachers do not or cannot distinguish

between inductive and deductive reasoning and thus would likely be incapable of fully

appreciating what makes mathematical proof mathematical (i.e., deductive reasoning).

Though there is ample data to suggest that some of the teachers in this study had

misconceptions concerning what constitutes proof in mathematics, most of the teachers

were aware of the functions of mathematical proof. Ninety-one percent reported that

proof was a means of establishing the truth of a mathematical statement, 89% thought

that proof was a means of justifying, 85% as a means of communication, 86% as a means

of systematizing, and 80% as a means of creating mathematical knowledge. However,

when asked as an open-ended question, the participants were likely to focus only on

validation and justification for the functions of proof in mathematics. It may be that

while teachers are aware that proof can be used to communicate, systematize, and create

mathematical knowledge these are not seen as primary functions of proof in mathematics.

To summarize teachers' ability to understand, produce, and appreciate the value

of mathematical proof the following points are made. Firstly, teachers were confident in

their ability to understand and produce mathematical proofs, though prior research leads

one to question whether this confidence is either authentic or justified. Secondly, there is

compelling evidence that two-thirds of teachers may be fostering misconceptions about

103
the type of reasoning that is acceptable in mathematical proof. Thirdly, these

misconceptions concerning the type of reasoning used in a mathematical proof may be

preventing some teachers from appreciating the discipline-specific meaning that proof

has in mathematics. Lastly, teachers seem to have an awareness of the functions of proof

in the discipline of mathematics though they seem to focus on validation and justification

as the primary functions of proof. This chapter continues by addressing the findings

related to the second principle component of teachers' conceptions of proof.

Teachers' conceptions of the importance of proof. Harel and Sowder (2007)

wrote, "No one questions the importance of proof in mathematics and in school

mathematics" (p. 2). However the results of this study indicate that a substantial number

of in-service secondary school mathematics teachers do question the importance of proof

in both mathematics and mathematics education. Given that a vast majority of the

participants were aware of the important functions of proof in mathematics, it seems

logically inconsistent that there was a lack of a consensus over whether proof was one of

the most important elements in the discipline. Only 54% of the teachers reported that

proof was one of the most important elements in the discipline of mathematics. Forty-

seven percent of the teachers believed that it was possible to understand the nature of

mathematical knowledge without proof, and 51% percent of the teachers did not agree

that mathematics would be entirely different if proof were removed.

There appears to be a serious contradiction when a teacher acknowledges that

proof is used to verify, justify, communicate, systematize, and create new knowledge,

and simultaneously believes that proof is not one of the most important elements in

mathematics. What would be left of mathematics without these functions would

104
probably resemble mathematics as it was in ancient times - a disconnected collection of

rules and formulae meant to solve practical problems. The stark difference between pre-

Greek mathematics (which did not include proof) and modern mathematics (which does

include proof) was discussed in chapter two and has been emphasized by many scholars

(e.g., Eves, 1969; Kline, 1972; Rossi, 2006). Proof was incepted into mathematics as its

focus developed beyond mere application to also include understanding and explaining as

primary objectives of the discipline. These results suggest that many high school

mathematics teachers in this study, might not have accurate conceptions of the

importance of proof in the discipline of mathematics.

A lack of consensus was also observed when teachers in this study were asked

whether proof was one of the most important elements in mathematics education. Only

52% of the teachers in this study reported this to be the case. Teachers' conceptions of

the importance of proof were observed to vary according to the particular mathematical

subject being taught. While 76% of the teachers agreed that proof was important in a

high school geometry class, only 47% thought that proof was important in all high school

mathematics classes. This difference was calculated to be highly statistically significant

(t = 20.7, p < .01) and demonstrates that many of the teachers in this study revealed a

misconceived notion that proof is somehow only important in geometry. As explained in

chapter two, proof is an essential component of the axiomatic system that serves as the

foundational structure for all branches of mathematics.

The notion that proof is only important in geometry seems to have been part of

teachers own high school learning experience. Eighty-eight percent of the teachers

reported that proof was important in their own high school geometry class as opposed to

105
32% who reported that proof was important in all of their high school mathematics

classes. This means that more than one half of teachers in this study recalled that proof

was important in their own high school geometry classes but not important in all of their

high school mathematics classes.

Though it is likely that there is some inconsistency between what teachers

recalled of their own high school experiences and what actually occurred, there is ample

reason to believe that teachers might be passing along the misconception that proof is

important only in geometry in a similar way that it was passed on to them while they

were students in high school. Ball (1988) discussed how, "teachers ... are most likely to

teach math just as they were taught" (p. 40). If teachers were only taught about proof in

geometry then they may conceive of proof as only important in geometry.

Further research could shed light on the relationship between teachers' high

school experience as students and the conceptions about proof that they have later on as

teachers. A longitudinal study would seem most appropriate for this purpose and could

track teachers' conceptions from high school through their teacher preparation and into

their own classrooms.

In chapter one, two arguments were presented why proof should be one of the

most important elements in all mathematics classrooms. The first related to the notion

that proof is a fundamental element of the discipline of mathematics, and therefore should

be a fundamental element of mathematics education (Hanna, 1995; Schoenfeld, 1994;

Wu, 1996). Analyses of these data collected in this study suggest that there is a strong

connection between teachers' conceptions of the importance of proof in the discipline of

mathematics and teachers' conceptions of the importance of proof in mathematics

106
education; as demonstrated by a positive and significant correlation (Spearman's rho = .5,

p < .01; N = 345 ). In other words, teachers were more likely to believe that proof was

one of the most important elements in mathematics education if they also believed that

proof was one of the most important elements in mathematics.

The second argument that was presented to support the notion that proof should

be one of the most important elements in all mathematics classrooms pertained to the use

of proof as a pedagogical tool that could help students to develop their logical reasoning

abilities (as suggested by Perrin, 2009; Wu, 1996). Analyses of these data, also suggest a

strong connection between teachers' conceptions of the importance of proof in

mathematics education and teachers' conceptions of the viability of proof as a tool to

assist students develop their logical reasoning abilities; as demonstrated by a positive and

significant correlation (Spearman's rho = .6, p < .01; N = 345 ). Stated differently,

teachers were more likely to report that proof was one of the most important elements in

mathematics education if they also reported that proof was a viable tool that could be

used to help students to develop their logical reasoning abilities.

An overwhelming 95% percent of the participating high school mathematics

teachers in this study reported that that helping students develop their logical thinking

abilities was a primary goal of mathematics education. Ninety-three percent believed that

proofs could be used to help students to develop their logical thinking abilities, and 83%

believed that proofs helped to develop their own logical thinking abilities. These findings

suggest yet another set of seemingly contradictory conceptions possessed by the teachers

in this study. If helping students to develop their logical thinking is a primary goal of

mathematics education and proofs can be, and in the case of their own education have

107
been, used to do so then it is warranted to conclude that teachers should see proof as one

of the most important elements in mathematics on pedagogical grounds alone. In other

words, even if teachers did not consider proof as one of the most important elements in

the discipline of mathematics, proof could still be considered one of the most important

elements in mathematics education as a teaching tool that helped students to develop their

logical reasoning abilities. There is not enough evidence available in this study to

understand how or why teachers hold these seemingly contradictory conceptions and

further research is needed.

To summarize teachers' conceptions of the importance of proof the following

points are made. Firstly, despite that fact that a majority of teachers were aware of the

important functions of proof in mathematics, there was no consensus that proof was one

of the most important elements in mathematics. Secondly, there was also no consensus

that proof was one of the most important elements in mathematics education. Thirdly,

teachers' conceptions of the importance of proof were observed to vary according to the

particular mathematical subject being taught (geometry vs. all mathematics

subdisciplines). Lastly, a vast majority of the teachers reported that (i) helping students

to develop logical thinking abilities was a primary goal of mathematics education and (ii)

proofs could be used to accomplish this goal, and (iii) proofs had helped them to develop

their own logical thinking abilities. This chapter continues by addressing the findings

related to the third principle component of teachers' conceptions of proof.

Teachers' perceptions of students' capacity to understand proof. In the

preceding section, it was explained that teachers' conceptions of the importance of proof

varied according to the particular mathematical subject being taught. Compelling

108
evidence was also collected through multiple measures that strongly suggested that

teachers' conceptions of the importance of proof also varied according to teachers'

perceptions of students' capacity to understand mathematical proof. On average, teachers

in this study believed that 30% of students are intellectually incapable of understanding

mathematical proof. If one accepts the fundamental role that proof was explained to have

(in chapter two) in the discipline of mathematics then claiming that a student is incapable

of understanding mathematical proof is tantamount to claiming that a student is incapable

of understanding the nature of mathematical knowledge. There is insufficient evidence in

this study to confirm or deny that teachers agreed with this characterization or believed

this to be the case.

When teachers were asked whether proof was important to students of differing

academic levels the responses were dramatically (and statistically) different. While 91%

of the participating teachers believed that proof was important for upper-level students,

only 74% believed that proof was important for mid-level students and 39% for lower-

level students.

When teachers' responses for the above items for upper and lower-level students were

compared, it was found that 72% of teachers believed that proof was more important for

upper-level students than it was for lower-level students.

These results echo what Knuth (2002b) identified in his study which also

examined in service high school mathematics teachers. He found that many high school

mathematics teachers "question the appropriateness [of proof] for all students" (p. 73).

Though NCTM (2000) advocated that mathematical proof should play a central role in

the mathematics education of all students, this study provides quantitative confirmation

109
that a majority of teachers did not believe that proof is important for lower-level students.

This finding illustrates a disconnect between in-service high school mathematics teachers

and the other members of the mathematics education community (e.g., NCTM, scholars,

researchers). Wu (1996) exemplified this disconnect when he wrote, "it does not seem

proper that correct mathematical reasoning should suddenly be declared too profound and

too difficult for all high school students and must be reserved for a few mathematics

majors in college" (p. 224). However, prior to this study, the notion that some teachers'

conceptions of proof varied according to students' academic level was merely speculation

based on anecdotal experiences. It now appears based on the results of this study that

these observations are representative of mathematics teachers in general.

It is possible that teachers have come to this conception on the grounds that they

expect upper-level students to be more likely to use proof (and mathematics in general) in

their future experiences in college and possibly in their future careers. However, as

previously explained, proof could also be considered centrally important to mathematics

education as a pedagogical tool that could be used to help students to develop their

logical thinking abilities. A vast majority of teachers believed that (i) helping students

develop logical thinking abilities was a primary goal of mathematics education, (ii) proof

was a viable pedagogical tool that could be used to accomplish this goal and (iii) proof

played an important role in the development of their own logical thinking abilities -

therefore it would seem logical for a vast majority of teachers to believe that proof was

important to all students, including those of a lower academic level.

A possible explanation for why half of the teachers in this study did not consider

proof important to lower-level students is because these teachers could have considered

110
those students to be intellectually incapable of understanding proof. There would be little

reason to spend class time on something that the students were truly incapable of

understanding. However, this conclusion rests on how the term 'intellectually capable'

was interpreted by the participants of the study. 'Capacity' was intended to mean the

possibility of understanding in ideal conditions. However 'capacity' might have been

interpreted by some to mean the possibility of understanding in the given conditions in

which they were teaching. Further qualitative research that delved deeply into teachers'

conceptions of what students are capable of understanding about proof (in both

interpretations of the term) would be very helpful in determining why so many teachers

seem to believe that proof is not important for lower-level students.

Teachers also reported that among those students who they considered to be

intellectually capable of understanding mathematical proof, a substantial portion of

students do not actually achieve this understanding. The mean value for this group of

students was 22%. In other words on average teachers believed that one fifth of the

population of students is intellectually capable of understanding mathematical proof but

fails to do so. Future studies might address the nature of the achievement gap that so

many teachers believed to exist between those that were capable and those that actually

achieved understanding of mathematical proof. Does such a gap suggest a failing on the

part of teachers, or limited school resources, the curriculum, or all of the above? Perhaps

this gap can be attributed to students' general attitudes toward learning about proof.

Teachers perceived their students had generally negative attitudes toward proof.

Sixty-six percent of teachers in this study believed that their students were not interested

in proofs, 75% believe that their students disliked proofs, and 88% believed that their

111
students struggled with proofs. Most (93%) of the teachers reported that the process of

teaching students about proof was very challenging.

In consideration of these results, a rather dreadful characterization of the status of

mathematical proof in high schools is presented. On average, teachers believed that 30%

of students are intellectually incapable of understanding proof, and another 22% are

capable but fail to achieve understanding. In sum, it seems that slightly more than half of

the high school students do not understand proof upon graduation from high school. It is

important to keep in mind that this estimate is coming from teachers who are

professionally charged with the responsibility for explaining mathematical proof to

students. Therefore one might expect in reality that the percentage of students leaving

high school not understanding mathematical proof is actually far greater. For the

remaining half of the students who are thought to achieve understanding of mathematical

proof it seems to be a rather unpleasant process given what was reported by the teachers

about students' perceived attitudes toward proof. Though NCTM (2000) believes that by

the end of secondary school students should be able to understand, produce and

appreciate the value of mathematical proofs, given the results presented above it is

unlikely that many students come to realize these expectations.

The following points are made in summation of teachers' perceptions of students'

capacity to understand mathematical proof. Firstly, teachers' conceptions about the

importance of proof seem to be related to teachers' conceptions of students' capacity to

understand proof. Teachers may not consider proof one of the most important elements

in mathematics education because they do not consider proof one the most important

elements of mathematics for all students. Secondly, the status of mathematical proof in

112
the classroom appears to be very negative - lower bounded estimates suggest that on

average three out of every ten students are perceived by teachers to be intellectually

incapable of understanding proof, two out of every ten students are perceived to be

intellectually capable of understanding proof but fail to so, and vast majorities of students

are perceived to have generally negative attitudes toward proof in mathematics. Thirdly,

while NCTM (2000) advocated that that by the end of secondary school students should

be able to understand, produce, and appreciate the value of mathematical proofs, the

results of this study suggest that teachers do not believe this to be possible for 30% of

their students who they believe lack the intellectual capacity to achieve these objectives.

This chapter continues by addressing the findings related to the fourth and final principle

component of teachers' conceptions of proof.

Teachers' intellectual awareness of the philosophy, history, and teaching and

learning standards of mathematics. NCTM appears to have done well disseminating its

recommendations regarding proof in secondary school as demonstrated by the analysis of

variances presented in chapter four. This ANOVA showed that the participating teachers

who were the members of the NCTM were significantly more likely than non-members

to be familiar with NCTM's recommendations regarding proof. However, the Council

seems to have not had much success convincing its members that its recommendations

ought to be taken seriously in high school mathematics classrooms. A second analysis of

variances showed no significant difference between members and non-members when it

came to agreeing with those recommendations.

Fifty-eight percent of teachers reported that they were familiar with the state

standards regarding mathematical proof though only 18% agreed that those standards

113
were realistic. Most teachers (63%) neither agreed nor disagreed that the state standards

were realistic most likely because they believe the state standard to be realistic for some

students (upper - level) and not realistic for other students (lower - level).

Teachers' familiarity with the history and philosophy of mathematics is also

likely to be related to how teachers conceived of proof in mathematics in general. As

explained in chapter two, proof was historically motivated by the ancient Greek

mathematicians who were searching for universal truths. Proof continues to play a

fundamental role in how one comes to understand the nature of truth in mathematics.

Forty-four percent of the teachers in this study claim to have studied the philosophy of

mathematics, and 71% claim that at some point in their own education they have

discussed the nature of truth in mathematics. Sixty-two percent reported that they had

studied the history of mathematics though only 30% considered themselves

knowledgeable about the history of mathematical proof. In consideration that a

substantial number of teachers were unfamiliar with the history and philosophy of

mathematics it is not surprising that serious misconception among the participants were

revealed when questioned about matters of validity of a mathematical argument, the

nature of mathematical truth, and evolution of the standards of rigor in mathematics.

Eight out of every ten teachers in this study believed that the validity of a proof

does not depend on who produced the proof. Weber's (2008) study, discussed in chapter

two, asserted that even at the highest level of mathematics this is not the case. He found

that mathematicians will often require differing amounts of justification from different

levels of their students and even from each other. Some proofs in his study were

considered valid by some mathematicians and not valid by other mathematicians.

114
 Thirty-two percent of the teachers in this study believed that once a statement is

proven in mathematics it is true forever and 30% believed that a proof once accepted by

the mathematical community could not be deemed unacceptable at a later date. In other

words, three out of every ten high school mathematics teachers in this study believed that

mathematical proofs produced eternal irrefutable Truth. This belief can be considered a

misconception from both a philosophical perspective and from a historical perspective.

In terms of philosophy, a proof uses deductive reasoning which relies on certain

assumptions and previously proven statements. As Hanna (2000) points out

mathematical knowledge is necessarily contingent upon these assumptions and therefore

not eternal nor irrefutable. From an historical perspective, there are many examples

throughout the history of mathematics where a truth thought to be universal (e.g.,

Euclid's proof for the sum of the interior angles of a triangle, explained in chapter two),

was later shown not to be universally true. Knowledge of either the history of

mathematics or of the philosophy of mathematics would likely prevent teachers from

forming the conception that proof in mathematics produced eternal irrefutable truths.

Nearly a third of the participating teachers were also apparently unaware that the

standards of rigor in mathematics have undergone a substantial evolution since the time

of Euclid. Thirty-one percent of the teachers believed that a proof considered rigorous

1000 years ago would still be considered rigorous today and 28% believed that a proof

considered rigorous today will still be considered 1000 years from now.

In summation of the teachers' awareness of the philosophy, history, and teaching

in learning standards of mathematics the following points are made. Firstly, NCTM

members were more likely than non-members to be aware of the Council's

115
recommendations regarding proof but no more likely than non-members to agree with

those recommendations. It would seem that NCTM might increase their efforts to

improve upon this situation. Secondly, while most teachers report familiarity with their

state's learning standards, few consider these standards to be realistic. It may be that

teachers consider these standards realistic for their upper-level students but not for their

lower-level students. Thirdly, some teachers appear to somewhat lacking in their

knowledge of the history and philosophy of mathematics and this may be contributing to

serious misconceptions that are likely to affect teachers practice with proof in their

classroom. This concludes the first section of this discussion which was aimed at

addressing the four principle components of teachers' conceptions of mathematical proof.

This chapter continues by answering the second research question.

How do secondary school mathematics teachers use proof in their teaching?

This section is composed of three subsections that address three aspects of teachers

practice with mathematical proof in their high school classrooms. The first subsection

explains how the participants reported using proof in their teaching. The second

subsection describes how often teachers use proof in their teaching, and the third

subsection discusses what teachers considered to deter them from using proof in their

teaching.

How teachers use proof in their teaching. Teachers reported that they provide

their students with a wide array of different classroom activities that involve

mathematical proof. The most common classroom activity was teacher's presentation of

proof to the students - 95% percent of the participants claimed to do this. Teachers also

expected students to produce their own mathematical proofs for homework (75%) and on

116
classroom assessments (67%). Only 7% of teachers reported that they ask their students

to use the Internet to study proofs.

While not many teachers in the study encouraged their students to use the Internet

to study mathematical proofs, about half (46%) of the teachers did report that they were

using dynamic geometry computer software in their classrooms. This software has the

potential to generate many examples in a short amount of time, and to vary these

examples in visually enlightening ways. However, as explained in chapter two, this

software may assist in the demonstration of potential patterns and the suggesting of

potential mathematical properties but no number of examples is sufficient to

mathematically confirm these patterns and properties. It could be argued that this

software could be used as part of a process where a mathematical pattern is first

suggested by the examples presented on the software and then the statement of that

pattern is proven using deductive arguments. There is insufficient evidence collected in

this study to determine whether teachers see the software as part of a larger proof

oriented process. This study did collect data that suggest that teachers may be willing to

accept inductive arguments as proof in their classrooms.

It has been suggested in the literature, that a substantial number of mathematics

teachers (Knuth, 2002b) and pre-service mathematics teachers (Martin & Harel, 1989)

may be more convinced by empirical justification of a mathematical statement than

through mathematical proof. Hanna (2000) attributes part of this phenomenon to the

advent of dynamic geometry software. This study provides quantitative confirmation of

the previously existing qualitative findings and anecdotal descriptions. Half of the

participants in this study believed that this software was more convincing to their

117
students than seeing a mathematical proof, and a quarter reported that this software was

more convincing to them than seeing a mathematical proof. Eight percent of the teachers

also believed that mathematicians no longer needed proof because of computers implying

an inaccurate conception of current mathematical practice.

If teachers themselves find inductive arguments more convincing than deductive

proof it may be that teachers are using the software in their teaching not as part of a larger

process of proving but rather as a complete substitute for proving. A future research

study might focus on direct observation of how teachers are using the software in high

school classroom. More specifically it would be interesting to assess whether teachers

are more likely to use the software as a supplement to mathematical proof or as a

replacement of mathematical proof. This substitution would result in a distortion of what

it means to prove in mathematics being presented to students in high school mathematics

classrooms.

Weiss, Herbst, and Chen (2009) conducted a research study examining another

potential classroom practice with proof that may also be contributing to a falsified picture

of the discipline of mathematics. The researchers observed that teachers in their study

were placing undue emphasis on the two-column proof format and neglecting matters of

content (e.g., valid reasoning, sufficient explanation). In other words, some teachers

came to envision mathematical proof as necessarily recorded in two-columns. It should

be noted that other formats such a paragraph-format and flowchart-format could also be

used to record students' arguments, but as articulated by NCTM (2000), "the particular

format of a mathematical justification or proof, be it narrative argument, 'two column

proof or a visual argument, is less important than a clear and correct communication of

118
mathematical ideas" (p. 57). Despite the recommendations of the Council, Weiss,

Herbst, and Chen (2009) suspect that the two-column format has become the dominant

format for recording the steps of proofs in the school setting.

The data collected in this study quantitatively confirms what Weiss, Herbst, and

Chen's (2009) found in their study - namely that a majority high school mathematics

teachers are using a much larger percentage of two-column proofs than proofs recorded

in alternative formats. On average teachers reported using two-column proof format five

times more than paragraph format and ten times more than diagrammatic formats.

Moreover, a third of the teachers reported that they exclusively use two-column format in

their classrooms.

How often teachers use proof in their teaching. The data collected in this study

provide compelling evidence that how often a teacher uses proof in their teaching

depends largely on the particular mathematical subject being taught as well as the

academic level of the students in the class. Teachers reported that they would spend on

average 39% of their class time in an upper-level geometry class, 25% in an upper-level

algebra class, 20% in a lower-level geometry class, and 12% in a lower level algebra

class.

The results of a t-test indicated that there is was a significant difference in the

amount of class time spent with respect to both students' academic level and the

particular mathematical subject being taught. On average, teachers reported that they

would spend twice as much time on proof in upper levels as they would spend in lower

levels. In regards to the particular subject comparison, teachers reported they would

119
spend 60% more time on proof in geometry than they would spend in algebra

(independent of students' academic level).

A difference was also observed between the percentages of teachers that reported

spending zero percent of class time in each of the course types (i.e., teachers that claimed

they would do nothing with proof in such a course.) Three percent of teachers claimed

that they would not spend any time on proof in an upper level geometry course, whereas

15% claimed the same for lower level geometry, 13% for upper level algebra, and 33%

for lower level algebra.

What teachers considered to deter them from using proof in their teaching.

There was little doubt that most of the teachers in this study felt deterred from using

proof in their teaching of high school mathematics. Nearly all (94%) of the 325 teachers

who responded to the survey item that asked what deterred them from using proof in their

teaching reported that they were deterred in at least one way. The most common

deterrent from using proof in their teaching was the ability level of the students being

taught. Three quarters (74%) of the teachers in this study reported that they were

deterred from using proof because of their students' ability level. Other common

deterrents included standardized testing (reported by 59% of the participants) and the

particular subjects being taught (reported by 53%) of the teachers). Teachers in the study

were asked specifically whether time was a deterrent from using proof in their teaching -

both in terms of time in class, as well as, time to plan. Only 17% of teachers reported

that proofs took too much time in class to be worthwhile and 8% reported that proofs take

too much time to plan to be worthwhile.

120
 A research study that examined whether teachers actually do alter their practices

under those conditions would be very valuable. One can speculate that if teachers are

provided with effective and appropriate professional development focused on accurate

representation and conceptions of proof then teachers might be able to provide their

students with more proof experiences.

In summation of teachers' practices with mathematical proof the following points

are made. Firstly, teachers seem to be using a variety of proof activities in their

classrooms. About half of the teachers in this study reported that they are using dynamic

geometry software though there is insufficient data to determine whether this software is

being used to supplement of the proving process or as a complete substitute for the

process of proving. When teachers do use proofs in their teaching it is very likely that

they are recording the proof in two-columns. Secondly, the amount of class time that a

teacher spends on mathematical proof varies according to academic level of the student

and the particular mathematical subject being taught. Third, teachers in general reported

that they feel deterred from using proof in their teaching in a variety of ways - most

notably three quarters of the teachers reported that they felt deterred from using proof in

their teaching because of the ability level of the students that they teach. This chapter

continues by answering the third research question which pertains to the relationship

between teachers' conceptions and practice.

How do secondary school mathematics teachers' conceptions of proof relate to

how teachers use proof in their teaching? This section will be organized in three

subsections that discuss three relationships between teachers' conceptions of proof and

teachers' practice with proof. Throughout this section teachers' practice with

121
mathematical proof will be reflected by the 'classtime' variable that reflects the amount

of class time that teachers would spend in all mathematical subjects at all levels.

Classtime and students capacity. A relationship (Pearson's r = .2, p < .01; df =

316) was found between 'classtime' and the percentage of students that teachers believed

to be intellectually capable of understanding mathematical proof. The greater the

percentage of students that teachers in this study believed to be intellectually capable of

understanding proof, the greater amount of time the teachers were likely to report using

proof in their teaching. This relationship makes sense on the grounds of efficiency. If a

teacher believed that most of the students in his/her class were capable of understanding

proof he/she would be more likely than a teacher who believed that most of the students

in the class were incapable of learning proof to use proof in his/her teaching. However

little is known how teachers come to the conclusion that certain students are incapable of

understanding proof. Further research might shed light on how teachers are making these

decisions and what exactly is the nature of the relationship between teachers' conceptions

of students' capacity and teachers' practices with proof.

Classtime and teachers' interest. A positive and significant correlation

(Spearman's rho = .3, p < .01; df = 315) was also found between 'classtime' and

teachers' reported interest in mathematical proof. The more the teachers were interested

in mathematical proof the more likely that the teachers reported that they would spend

more time on proof in their teaching. This study was limited in the sense that it merely

asked teachers if they were interested in mathematical proof in general. Future research

studies might investigate the nature of teachers' interests in mathematical proof. If more

is known about what teachers' interests are concerning proof, then it may be possible

122
through professional development to use that information to increase the amount of time

that teachers' are spending on proof in high school mathematics classrooms.

Classtime and Importance. A positive and significant correlation (Pearson's r =

.4, p < .01; df = 277) was found between the computed variables 'importance' and

'classtime'. This correlation indicates that teachers who believed that proof is important

to mathematics and mathematics education (at all levels) were more likely to spend more

time on proof in their teaching than those teachers who did not think that proof is

important. This finding suggests that if teachers could be convinced that proof is one of

the most important elements in mathematics that there is a likehood that teachers might

increase the amount of time they spend on proof in their classroom. Further research

would help to substantiate this idea and would be very valuable to the mathematics

education community.

This concludes the answering of the primary research questions. The last section

of this chapter and the dissertation will discuss the implications of this study and make

suggestions how its finding might be used by the mathematics education community.

Implications and Suggestions

Teaching of lower level students. The data collected in this study strongly

suggests that lower level students are likely receiving far fewer experiences with

mathematical proof than their upper level classmates. The teaching of proof in high

school mathematics classrooms is probably among the greatest challenges to face the

high school mathematics teacher. It is also to be expected that this challenge increases

dramatically when working with lower level students. It would seem from the data that

123
teachers are withholding proof from lower level students at least in part because these

students are believed to be incapable of understanding mathematical proof.

While there are surely some unfortunate individuals that through some medical

circumstance or physical injury are truly incapable of reasoning and thus incapable of

understanding mathematical proof, it is unlikely that a substantial proportion of high

school students are incapable of understanding any mathematical proofs. It is far more

likely that some students struggle to reason and take a great deal of time to understand

arguments.

It has be suggested that the term 'capable' may have been interpreted as what can

possibly be accomplished under the given conditions by some of the participants and

further research would help clarify why teachers would withhold proof lower level

students. However from a purely practical perspective it would make sense to for

teachers to spend more time on proof with lower level students than with upper level

students for a wide variety of reasons. Firstly, as Wu (1996) explains, citizens in a

functional democracy need to be able to reason effectively in order to "listen to [a]

national debate and make up their minds about knotty issues such as the national deficit

and the environment" (p. 224).

Lower level students, almost by definition, would require increased time and

effort on the part of the teacher to reach such proficiency with deductive logic. Secondly,

while upper level mathematics students can be expected to make use of high school

mathematical content in college and in there future careers, lower level mathematics

students are far less likely to make direct use of algebra, geometry, etc. in their future

lives. Noddings (1994) asserted that most people use virtually no algebra or geometry in

124
their personal or work lives" (p. 90) and wonders "what talents will go unnoticed and

underdeveloped while [mathematics teachers] cram algebra and geometry into unwilling

minds? What attitudes will students develop toward work? What sense will they make of

their world as a result of teaching?" (p. 93). Students of all levels would likely benefit

from mathematics education throughout high school if significant efforts are made to

develop logical thinking abilities in students using mathematical content (and specifically

proof) as a vehicle.

Perhaps high school mathematics teachers that work with lower level students

would be more likely to provide lower level students with equivalent class time on proof

if pedagogical strategies that made proof more accessible to lower level students were

available to them. Lastly, as explained in chapter two deductive reasoning is emphasized

in mathematics to an extent that cannot be found in any other discipline. Therefore it

makes sense for mathematics teachers to pay particular attention to the development of

deductive reasoning skills because if students do not build deductive reasoning abilities in

their mathematics education, then they are unlikely to build them at all.

Textbooks. Teachers in this study seemed generally dissatisfied with how their

textbooks were helping students develop their understanding of mathematical proof.

Given that NCTM, academic scholars, and educational research is placing substantial

attention on the importance of proof and reasoning in high school mathematics, text book

authors may want to reassess how mathematical proofs are being presented in their text.

Teachers in this study not only reported that they believe that their textbooks are not

effective at helping students learn about proof but indicated that they need to use proofs

in their teaching that are not in their texts. Collecting outside materials requires

125
substantial effort on the part of the teachers who would likely appreciate class materials

that were already collected for them. Textbook authors may be able to increase the

amount of attention being spent on proof by refocusing their textbooks to include a

centrally important role of proof in mathematics.

Standards and Testing. The teachers that participated in this study also

expressed a willingness to increase the amount of time that they spent on proof in their

high school classes if proofs were included on standardize testing. The merits of

including proofs on state testing would be accompanied by several negative implications

as well. On a positive note, teachers would be far more likely to devote specific attention

to proof as indicated from teachers' survey responses. However, including proofs on

state testing would likely increase the difficulty of the state test which in comparison to

other state tests is already well above national averages. The appropriateness of using a

paper and pencil test to assess students reasoning ability is also questionable. However

the fact remains that six out of ten of the teachers in the study listed the fact that proofs

are not included on state testing as the second most popular deterrent of teaching proof

(second only to students ability level).

Teacher education and professional development. The findings presented in

this analysis suggest many different implications to how high school mathematics

teachers are prepared to enter the classroom. As illustrated from several of the survey

responses, some prospective teachers may have had minimal or misconceived

experiences with proof in their own mathematics education. The responsibility of

improving teachers' conceptions about the role of proof in mathematics and in

126
mathematics education would seem to fall squarely on the shoulders of teacher educators

and professional developers.

Teachers may need considerable practice constructing their own proofs and

evaluating the proofs of others. Special attention may need to be given to working with

different proof forms (proof by contradiction, proof by contrapositive, proof by

mathematical induction) and prospective teachers would also likely benefit from

recording those proofs in several different formats (e.g., two-column, paragraph, flow-

chart). Making clear the distinction between proof forms and formats for recording

proofs would generate a very beneficial discussion in its own right.

High school mathematics teachers should have a clear understanding about what

constitutes inductive and deductive reasoning and know which is acceptable in a

mathematical proof. Teachers would also benefit from discussion about the nature of

truth in mathematics which would enrich their understanding about proof specifically but

also their understanding of mathematical content in general. With such understanding

high school mathematics teachers would be able to appreciate proof as a fundamental

component of the axiomatic system that serves as the structural foundation for all

branches of mathematics.

127
 References

Ash, T. (2003). Is it rational to believe in induction? Retrieved May 8th, 2008, from

http://www.bigissueground.com/philosophy/ash-induction.shtml.

Balacheff, N. (2002). The researcher epistemology: a deadlock from educational research

on proof. Fou Lai Lin (Ed.) 2002 International Conference on Mathematics -

Understanding proving and proving to understand. Taipei: NSC and NTNU (pp.

23-44).

Balacheff, N. (1988). Aspects of proof in pupils' practice of school mathematics. In D.

Pimm (Ed.), Mathematics, teachers and children (pp. 216-230). London: Hodder

& Stoughton.

Ball, D. (1988). Unlearning to teach mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics 8(1),

40-48.

Bell, A. (1976). A study of pupils' proof explanations in mathematical situations.

Educational Studies in Mathematics 7, 23-40.

Black, M. (1979) Is induction an acceptable scientific tool? In Mosedale, F. (Ed.),

Philosophy and science: the wide range of interaction (pp. 154-161). Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Inc.

Buckingham, A., Saunders, B. (2004). The survey methods workbook: from design to

analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Burgess, J. P. (1992). Proofs about proofs: A defense of classical logic; Part I: the aims of

classical logic. In Detlefsen (Eds.), Proof logic, and formalization (ppl-7). New

York: Routledge Publishing.

128
Chazan, D. (1993). High school geometry students' justification for their views of

empirical evidence and mathematical proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics

24, (359-387).

Cohen, D. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier.

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 12, 311-329.

Confrey, J. (1981). Conceptual change analysis: Implications for mathematics and

curriculum. Curriculum Inquiry 11(3), 244-257.

De Villiers, M. (1999). Rethinking Proof with Geometer's Sketchpad. USA: Key

Curriculum Press.

DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development theory and applications. London: Sage

Publications.

Dewey, J. (1938). Logic, the theory of inquiry. New York: Holt, Rinehart and

Winston.

Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. Hoboken,

NJ: John Wiley and Sons Inc.

Ernest, P. (1998). Social constructivism as a philosophy of mathematics. Albany, NY:

State University of New York Press.

Eves, H. W. (1969). An introduction to the history of mathematics. Fort Worth, TX:

Harcourt College Publishers.

Gamier, R. & Taylor J. (1996). 100% mathematical proof. New York: John Wiley and

Sons Publishing.

Goetting, M. M. (1995). The college students' understanding of mathematical proof.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.

129
Graham, S. E. (2010) Using propensity scores to reduce selection bias in mathematics

education research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 41(2), 147-

168.

Hanna, G. (1995). Challenges to the importance of proof. For the Learning of

Mathematics, 15(3), 42-49.

Hanna, G. (2000). A critical examination of three factors in the decline of proof.

Interchange 31(\), 21-33.

Harel, G. & Sowder, L. (2007). Toward comprehensive perspectives on the learning and

teaching of proof. F. Lester (Ed.), Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics

Teaching and Learning, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Harel, G. & Sowder, L. (1998). Students proof schemes: Results from exploratory

studies. In A. Schoenfeld, J. Kaput, & E. Dubinski (Eds.), Research in collegiate

mathematics education III, (pp. 234-283).

Healey L. & Hoyles C. (1998) Justifying and proving in school mathematics. Summary of the

results from a survey of the proof conceptions of students in the UK. Research Report

Mathematical Sciences, Institute of Education, University of London.

Heath,T. L. (2003). Euclid's Elements. Santa Fe, NM: Green Lion Press.

Hersh, R. (1997). What is mathematics, really? Oxford: Oxford University Press

Huck, S. W. (2004). Reading statistics and research. Boston: Pearson Education Inc.

Jones, K. (1997). Student-teachers' conceptions of mathematical proof. Mathematics

Education Review 9, 16-23.

Kitcher, P. (1983). The nature of mathematical knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

130
Kline, M. (1972). Mathematical thought from ancient to modern times. New York,

Oxford University Press.

Knuth, E. (1999). The nature of secondary school mathematics teachers' conceptions of

proof. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Colorado.

Knuth, E. J. (2002a). Teachers' conceptions of proof in the context of school

mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education 5, 61-88.

Knuth, E. J. (2002b). Secondary school mathematics teachers' conceptions of proof.

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 33(5), 379-405.

Lakatos, I. (1976) Proofs and Refutations: The logic of mathematical discovery. London:

Cambridge University Press.

Loehlin, J. C. (2004). Latent variable models. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, Inc. Publishing.

Martin, W.G. & Harel, G. (1989) Proof frames of preservice elementary teachers. Journal

for Research in Mathematics Education 20(1), 41-51.

Mingus, T. Y., & Grassl, R. M. (1999). Preservice teacher beliefs about proofs. School

Science and Mathematics 99(8), 438.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and standards

for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.

Perrin, J. R. (2009). Developing reasoning ability through proof in high school calculus.

Mathematics Teacher 102(5), 341-349.

Porter, A. C. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice.

Educational Researcher 31(6), 3-14.

131
Preacher, K. J. (2001, April). Calculation for the chi-square test: An interactive

calculation tool for chi-square tests of goodness of fit and independence

[computer software]. Available from http://vyww.quantpsy.org.

Reid, D. (1995). The need to prove. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of

Alberta, Department of Secondary Education.

Ross, K. (1998). Doing and Proving: The place of algorithms and proof in school

mathematics. American Mathematics Monthly, 3, 252-255.

Rossi, R. J. (2006). Theorems, corollaries, lemmas, and methods of proof. Hoboken, NJ:

John Wiley and Sons Inc.

Russell, B. (1902). The Teachings of Euclid. The Mathematical Gazette 33 (2). 165-167.

Schoenfeld, A.H. (1994). What do we know about mathematics curricula? Journal of

mathematical behavior 13, 55-80.

Seldon, A. & Seldon, J. (2003). Validations of proof considered as texts: Can

undergraduates tell whether an argument proves a theorem? Journal for Research

in Mathematics Education 34(\), 4-36.

Simon, M.A. & Blume G. W. (1996). Justification in the mathematics classroom: A

study of prospective elementary teachers. Journal of mathematical behavior 15,

3-31.

Skemp, R. R. (1976). Rational understanding and instrumental understanding.

Mathematics Teaching 77, 20-26.

Sowder, L. & Harel, G. (1998). Types of students' justifications. Mathematics Teacher

97(8), 670-675.

132
Spillane, J. P. & Zeuli, J. S. (1999). Reform and teaching: Exploring patterns of practice

in the context of national and state mathematics reforms. Educational Evaluation

and Policy Analysis 21, 1-27.

Stecher, B., Le, V. N., Hamilton, L., Ryan, G., Robyn, A., & Lockwood, J. R. (2006).

Using structured classroom vignettes to measure instructional practices in

mathematics. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 28, 101 - 130.

Stylianides, G. J. & Stylianides, A. J. (2009). Facilitating the transition from empirical

arguments to proof. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 40(3), 314-

352.

Varghese, T. (2007). Student teachers' conceptions of mathematical proof. Unpublished

master's thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.

Weber, K. (2008). How mathematicians determine if an argument is a valid proof.

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 39(4), 431-459.

Weiss, M., Herbst, P., & Chen, C. (2009). Teachers' perspectives on 'authentic

mathematics' and the two-column proof form. Educational Studies in

Mathematics 70, 275-293.

Wikipedia. Article entitled http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean geometry.

Retrieved on August 2nd, 2009.

Willerding, M. F. (1967). Elementary mathematics: Its structure and concepts. New

York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Wilder, R. L. (1968). Evolution of mathematical concepts. New York: John Wiley and

Sons.

133
Wu, H. (1996). The role of Euclidean geometry in high school. Journal of mathematical

behavior 75,221-237.
Appendix A: Examples of Proof Forms and Proof Formats.
Example 1: Number Theory Proof by Contradiction.

Prove -^i is irrational.

Assume -J2- is rational. That means that -fl =— .where

u
I and & arerelativelyprime integers.
-Jl = —
4?

- = —

26? =fl 2
Sins* 2&2 =fl 2 , 2 nmst be a. fac:or of a 3 . 2 is thus a.
n

fwtor of a , so it turns out that 4 is a factor of a . Simce 4

i> a factor of a 2 aid - S 2 = S 2 , it follows tliat 4 is a factor
rf ^.fe2 Hen?.* * miKf * * a fsfifn' nf to2 T ^ k m>aTK Hut
1 must he a factcr of b. 2 is tins a factor of hoti a and 6 ,
so a and & are iDt relatively prime. This contradUts the
assumption that -& is rational. Ey contradiction, - ^ is
irational.

Retrieved from http://wvvw.mathwords.eom/i/i assetsZi53.gif

135
Example 2: Number Theory Proof by Contrapositive.

Prove:
If n2 is an odd integer, then n is
odd.
Suppose n is an even integer.
Then there exists and integer w
such that:
n = 2w.
n2 = (2w)2
n2 = 4w2
n2=2(2w2).
By the definition of even n2 is
even.
Therefore, the original
statement:
2
If n is an odd integer, then n is
odd.
is true because its
contrapositive is true.

Retrieved from: http://www-math.cudenver.edU/~rpederse/introtoabstract/slidesl.5.pdf

136
Example 3: Algebraic Proof by Contrapositive.

Prove:
For all real numbers x,
ifx3 +X2 -2x < 0, then x<1.

Suppose that x > 1.

We wish to prove that x3+x2-2x >
0.
(the contrapositive)
To do this we work backwards
giving us the following:
x3 +x2 - 2x > 0
x(x2 +x - 2) > 0
x(x-1)(x+2)>0

This is true when x > 1, so we are

ready for our proof:
Suppose that x > 1, then x > 0, (x -
1)^0,
and (x+2) _ 0. So
x(x-1)(x+2)>0)
x(x2 +x - 2) > 0 )
x3 +x2 - 2x > 0.

Therefore if x > 1, then x3+x2-2x >

0. Thus...
if x3 +x2 - 2x < 0, then x < 1.
Retrieved from: http://www-math.cudenver.edU/~rpederse/introtoabstract/slidesl.5.pdf

137
Example 4: Number Theory Proof by Mathematical Induction.
Prove: by can be used to that the following statement holds for all natural numbers
n.

Basis: Show that the statement holds for n = 0.

0 + 1 + 2+ ... + n=!!i!l±i) o=^±ll.

In the left-hand side of the equation, the only term is 0, and so the left-hand side is
simply equal to 0. In the right-hand side of the equation, 0(0 + l)/2 = 0. The two
sides are equal, so the statement is true for n = 0.

Inductive step: Prove that ifthe statement is true for n=0 then the statement holds
for n+1. This can be done as follows.

Using the Basis step, the left-hand side can be rewritten from:

(n + l ) ( ( n + l ) + l )
0 + l + 2 + --. + w + (n + l) =
2

"(n+1) , {n , u _ (" + !)((» + !) + 1)

O ~r \7l -f- I) — 2
( n + l ) ( ( n + l ) + l)
( 0 + l + 2 + --- + n ) + ( n + l ) =
n ( n + 1)

=<»+D(M

_ (w+ !)(«+2)
2
{n + ! ) ( ( » + 1) + 1)
2
Therefore the statement is true for all natural numbers, n. Retrieved from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical induction

138
Example 5: Geometric Proof using two different proof formats (paragraph & two-
column).

Prove: If the two diagonals in a

quadrilateral bisect each other, then the
quadrilateral is a parallelogram.

a) Proof written in paragraph format:

b)

Since the diagonals bisect each other, the line segments with one mark line are
congruent. Similarly, the line segments two marks are also congruent. The two angles
marked are congruent, because they are vertical angles. It follows from SAS congruence
theorem that the two yellow triangles are congruent.
Since the triangles are congruent, angles A and A' have the same measure. And,
angles A' and A" are congruent because they are vertical angles. Since A and A' are
congruent, and A' and A" are congruent, it follows that angles A and A" are congruent.
This is equivalent to the two lines that form the top and bottom of the quadrilateral being
parallel. An identical argument using the two white triangles instead of the two yellow
ones proves that the two sides of the quadrilateral are parallel. Therefore, the
quadrilateral is a parallelogram.

a) Proof written in two-column format:

Argument Reason why

1. The lines with one mark are congruent.
2. The lines with two marks are congruent.
3. The two marked angles are congruent.
4. The two yellow triangles are congruent.
5. The angles A and A' are congruent.
6. The angles A' and A" are congruent.
7. The angles A and A" are congruent.
8. The lines that form bottom and top of the
quadrilateral are parallel.
9. The lines that form the two sides of the 9. Repeat steps 1-8 using the two white
quadrilateral are parallel.
10. The quadrilateral is a parallelogram.
1. The two diagonals bisect (given).
2. The two diagonals bisect (given).
3. They are vertical angles.
4. SAS theorem and 1, 2, and 3.
5. The two yellow triangles are congruent.
6. They are vertical angles.
7. 5 and 6 together.
8. 7 and if alternate interior angle of parallel
lines cut by a transversal are congruent
then the lines are parallel.
triangles.
10. 8 and 9 together.

Retrieved from: http://www.homeschoolmath.net/teaching/two-column-proof.php

139
Example 6: Geometric Proof using flow chart formats.

Given: E is tne midpoint or B D

JEZEC
Prove: AAEB = ACED

E is the ___"
midpoint of BD

fdBEA zdDEC* AEzEC

Vertical I angles
Midpoint forms two
congruent segments. are| congruent.

SAS

Retrieved from: http://www.regentsprep.org/Regents/mathb/lc/styleofproof.htm

140
Appendix B: The Survey

-\u , - i '* fi i r *• —, r~ '..i t « <t . c. i; •- t»rv -/> t i , i< t t-n* - ir H « - . . M » u - - , - • <•*.•#-

v
r IwiVf. < .1 f v J . *%< ' *" 1 »**. | > "••«." ! V i .! »--* h h n •."> **!* i ,1 •—***> * l j I , *• J>il — <1

«(> t - i i r t t ^ i ' (if ^r«".» t ' i * A I !><• » I H i w i I « M ' , c < , - * ! * • > « • ) v -, i t tt - - 4 i* « - ' j t » i i i '<«»«* *o
t,>, 'A' - I v. . a * - ' . i ! / ! » < ! , , f h d , « g - ( * II s- !»•••• ! .*'> • * " * * • I 'I'J't " <* 'he» r alf \~> « N'ii ...» .'
n i l 1 . '«»» «•• »",*•(! <> * > - *> A *<> ','•%'' Hi«* . , w r i f , c i ' * i >• » * r <**"'*' i t * Ii (••"!•'«•

I4l
 '.'->•£ '•' •••• ix-- - • : - > . *J'-" •"•*.-]

1. T© what extent dm y©u agree or disagree w i t h each of the f o l l o w i n g

statements?

«8«B i i f f ' t s-iCT a^S$f««

Taacns.sg i ; M m t s , «5»aa* | M « « ca« S« **r» «f»i!<(»s|M«.

M-f * t t t e « s «lri*S|!« w«ft watffts. . . . . . .

M^ H:«a«:wi.aail».*! ss>asftfs. . - . -

*' i ' ' - ' c " tt<• '• \ , s f <• * 1* ' " •' "i v i " ' i :11
I J .J -
•*"i":," J*"**:".(••",. " • i ' - - ' ' : i * " " * t * , 3-0 -?
> nf a i % J a a-

" . £<. • 4 S. , « >, a , . . , «, , . .

*"o.s v 'jc V - ' - t r •-' '• V I ' : >f - •, i* - t -s3
J -< i ' >*,

i , - - - - r~r t * -> <-<-,)-. - > , , > . , . . - . -

T • » - - - — i, 1 . - * >• - 1 f • , »; .' v ( v -f •'

S* !*i J ' .3

s«*s-f5?.og *«> pfo-si* SR m.»**>orr.Sinrs; t « f » j * f S s ^ M f l i - i *»"•/.<« tors

142
1, Approximately what percent of,.,

*fl f t r f w a a < ->-c — i - -,«-f v •.;* " • ' ! - ; ,-f-n- } f «#'* | • ]

Vsaf£ua*r* :i < <_.. .a.a , * ., ;* >,i : ,, t : > " i i y ,. psssf? J • j

« K u { t l | l 4 . L . I l » i i H . , r . Ct.- a : , . l i . l ' . , > ' < ; , , <• J _»J

*m* n*s*f . .. - * *«f j , f t . a IJ *•£"*<, .1. . . f j" *j

3, To what extent do v«*» agree or disagree w i t h each of the folia wing

statements?

d s»is«

" > - , - • ' s *, - J s v r -.',; /• , , . . » , . - , . . . . . , . . ..,,. r .. -.

- > - " • - . V-i1«l * V J * f--r* -• j i T -'••-- j -• \-L-;-'

- f ,-,-«••- »• -i 1 --a - j>j, - -,; r ir , * ,1- ' *<-i

4, How do you yse proof in your teaching? f Please check all that apply).
* s « M s s?:,iMi« mm woa^s ffi class.

%
I ass; tl^mmi. to r*&4 s, ,-'.V c<: t«-::>;;4.

I »«; MkiBtfts to its* i!«. • -'c ••?. t : ;:„£-. >.;;ts.

s SiVs teiTi«»«»i thst *!•;• ••:*• J : • « !" ;• v**

5 ?Msfj sSfeOfrrr* r»otti * ; . :• •.">r« - r, • . „ ; -

5, Approximately what percent of class lime would you spend on pro«f in

an,..

144
6w Approximately what p-erceot ©I the proofs that you use are...

i!H«r»p m case c a b n M i ? J

wtmma in a i-afiksisMft'?

7. Which of the following deter you from using proof in your teaching:
(Please check ait t | a t apply)

f r ; r r ; e t". •••" -;

--(if, ",,•.? • ' " .mms inm 1 r**r.h:

Tk t . *.,;*-< "£.-•; . c : ; A

»> ' , i--v Ui - . , p»H*f"s

S I M S 5?4Ada,-3s

145
8, T© w h a t e x t e n t d o yow a g r e e o r d i s a g r e e w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g
statements?

* i'if ' ' S't V f • ; i> ' ,i , * . A ••1 3 11

,
, 3 ""< ,r--i1 s.* ,i ^» <-, " • I S T < " I 3 - - * -J3';i

„ a .u i". it's , ^.-2 • (, • ,*"!«. i . . . . . _ ' - !.• j i ' j i i .

-.a ,& i. zzi,.: 1

. 2 • . , 1 i i &•• , . -.! . • .<

', 4 " tr * 4 ^ 1 ' ' r !".."».-if •«•*.-- mvf - • «• i - » r ; r it , 3 , - <•r

r>» a : i . : . . . " » i •« _«_r r it , K „> . <, . : » •„ i! <",

. „, f. A s „ :n • : : ; • ' . , . . , - i, > , ,

I j i ' t J . - " : . ' . ^ . / _ ' . i>, . . ( • a : . . . .

Ur.ci w : ia i.'i." ; ( i-rci y J i :-.'•.'

9, Approximately what percent of the proofs that you us© in your teaching
are p r o o f s by,.*

comaiSWiefs J _ » j

146
10. To what extent do you a-gre« or disagree w i t h each of the following
statements'?

-» • -p •-£>-) i * t i i r c f * " » " • • ft v •"'

; ' » <-«. *«. e t n c . c : f s "> . ' u *.r i.s _* t , „ t - ' A . z :f _<i' t r

" * r t -r
«U i if c i ' ^ ' >• s . i .' . _ . ( i i ' * j«- . J ' <*

">"'"-•> - -r, "-i - >• '

11, w h a t does proof d# in mathematics? (Please provide a brief description

m your own words in the sp«c« below).

*|

147
1 2 , T o w h a t e x t e n t d© y o t i a g r e e o r d i s a g r e e w i t h «ac(b o f t h e f o l l o w i n g
statements?

Sthfsi?

"*:%.' i a ' * ' - -j ' f i t ' t r : : . ( . ' ; * r. t . ; .

' i ra '' * 'if • . (•* ii - ' i .1 i a

. ' i . _ It .
** ' *. a ft*. '. . . ' „ <•. i s <* ' , j r M i. f . J-S

148
13. To w h a t extent do y o u agree or disagree w i t h each of t h e f o l l o w i n g
siaterae rtts ?

*3?«* ... . ' SiiMff**

» > ( , i . •.• » ;,' > < •• • * ••

149
14, To what ©Mtent d# y©u agree ©r disagree w i t h «ach of ttt«a following
statements?

*•*?«» » * ( * « nor s«s*grt« „

3 = * * « ! • «<>

" . f < -»< ' • ' I ... r . ' r » • «. t < •>„!)'«'

, - — ... , ^ f . ^ . f ^ _ j, < ( . . . , . .,

H ( 7 ' I" >*•>"* 3 P . ~f •> — — 3" K ~ < ?i f*'

, • f'<

150
15. To w h a t e x t e n t d© y o u agree or disagree w i t h each- of the f o l l o w i n g
statements?

• . v * i -a*..- -.
. *._ J st. *.v *.a i u * ct JJ "-".J ii ,. «< , <*» -set c*?'': fe

I 3 -..„„, ; c - , , ; r ~ , So; 1 "* -.a , .. ,-„ -. .

r
I «,">.C l»* " IP'S " ""•" » ! ? • . ' •*<• , » " ! ••--"„'f> •"' 1 i " f r % . J i ' . C%

"> •-!• *.t-. »'• r v -*;-,- fa>- ' ' - » J " ;* .•"»• i*rc.s

- . .,u , . , c . 4„ r s t " " i r •: •- i — • .r-f -•-(•- -,-• -r-'sft pf'SBfl.

151
16. To w h a t e x t e n t da y o u -agree or disagree with each ©f t h e following
statements ?

tiZftftjW s£lL^snt|J!
* § f fee Sifm-M « i slS5 - M f *
«B**« 3 «s8%f*<
i1:r-iSa f «'» -

V '-t c *ssir ,t ,>.*„ . •} . ' i i . i . ' l ; h < t « ,t,\ .* » j <; *_,- 4

. s i . I 4 1 * ^ ~"*) > . . 1 . ..: 1 . . J .: «, >> «* > . i I

"rt^'f <•-<•-,*: , t ,-ents shostMfe«sir-?* t s j i a S i s t *

152
17. To w h a t extent do y o u agree ©r disagree w i t h each of t h e f o l l o w i n g
statements?

afire* SS(«* !"*r S i * * i i « *

"L sec ; a i •*>*• " i* ..i t . '

153
IS. Measa indicate
y o u r geoder.

I f , Please indicate your race.

W»;«e • Stack iM« Hil|M:f;>i " 0t,*Wf

10, Please indicate your age,

2 1 , How m a n y years have you been teaching?

22, Which of the foliowitig degrees «I« you hold now?

(Piease check all that apply)

i.S. fc3is€»Mfl

M.S. &IkK*««;'

154
2 3 . Which of t h e f o l l o w i n g degrees are yoy c u r r e n t l y enrolled?
g.S. Hainssiiijis

6 . 5 . H i J m ' i l M & S M i M i M :;£n4:M:«iy>4, tsM - spt.ifa Si,.t«'' •"»' fits'.

8.5. Fcucas'v^

«LS. * * « « m . a t s t i

M % WaTftcr-ssf w s ss«iaT*« ;?:-!.p*"sf«f!rj. Css*!^';*!' $j\t?r?..Qjz~r.

m.% mmttmt'.

f-?5.|i «t*!.fi«sn^HK*

Pt.&fMM fa^MUi-R

NuSM c* ? '-,€. sfc 3wa

2 4 , What is y o u r typical class situ?

Less -nasi 5$ f!ite«m-

" I?- 10 st-rf«r*»

Ji ;:s 5.r^««ru

,JS 3fl M M 4 # M *

f M s * KSift 3 0 STuaaiVts

2 5 . W h a t courses d o you teach n o w o r have t a u g h t before ?

CPIeasc check a l l t h a t a p p l y ) .
e v f«--Sl3«ra

Aiaew* J

e*^(:-:'«r.tt

* ! # « * ! 4 "g

Pit: CMLii'tM,

QSttilwS

SlllMlffiS

t«ST &*«:B

2©« W h a t level of courses do y # » teach MOW or have taught before?

{Please Chech all that a p p l y ) .
L t » i.&Mt\ met-mtitsmn

* * « J f c i f t tft*t;S

M i p : ! . « . « • ^TKjfVafS'-

155
27. W h a t grades die- you teach n o w or have t a u g h t before?
(Pleas© check all t h a t apply).

23. How w o u l d yoy classify the economic status of your school district?

29. How would you describe the t o w n that your school is "ml

30, A r e you a m«mb«r of NCTM?

156
Appendix C: Correspondence Emails with Principals and Person Contacts.

Initial Contact Letter to High School Principals

Dear Principal <<Last Name>>,
Hello, my name is Brian Frasier and I am a doctoral student at the University of
Massachusetts Lowell. I am about to conduct a very important research study in the field
of mathematics education and am writing in advance to request your assistance. My study
examines high school mathematics teachers' conceptions of mathematical proof via an
extensively developed online survey. The findings of this study have the potential to
greatly impact future curricula design, professional development, and even affect the
state and national teaching and learning standards. I would greatly appreciate if you
would help me to invite the mathematics teachers at <<School N a m e » to take this survey.
One week from today on Tuesday December 1st, I will send to you an email
invitation and ask that you forward it to all high school (grades 9-12) mathematics
teachers at «School N a m e » . The survey will take teachers about 15 minutes to complete,
is completely anonymous, and has received approval from the university's institutional
review board. Please feel free to email me with any questions that you might have about
the study. Thank you very much for your time and I hope that I can count on your
support. Have a Happy Thanksgiving.
Sincerely yours,
Brian Frasier
Ed.D Candidate
University of Massachusetts Lowell
Graduate School of Education
Brian Frasier@uml.edu

157
Invitation Letter to High School Principals
Dear Principal « L a s t Name>>,
Last week you received an email from me about my research survey that examines
secondary school mathematics teachers' conceptions of mathematical proof. Today is the
official opening of the survey. I would greatly appreciate if you would forward the
following invitation letter (and internet link) to all of the high school mathematics
teachers at your school. Thank you so much for your cooperation.
Dear High School Mathematics Teacher,
My name is Brian Frasier and I am writing to invite you to participate in the High
School Teachers' Conceptions of Mathematical Proof Research Study which is being
conducted in affiliation with the University of Massachusetts Lowell, Graduate School of
Education. This study represents a substantial effort to better understand how high
school mathematics teachers think about proof, and how they use proof in their teaching.
Thousands of high school mathematics teachers have been invited to participate in this
research - which is the first of its kind. If you choose to participate, an extensively
developed online survey will collect a great deal of valuable information from you in
about 15 minutes of your time. With enough support from teachers like you, this study has
the potential to greatly impact future curricula design, professional development, and
even affect the state and national teaching and learning standards. I cannot
overemphasize how critically important your participation in this study is to the future
of the field of mathematics education.
To participate in this study right now simply click on the link at the bottom of
this email and you will be directly transferred to the research survey. If for whatever
reason you do not have time right now, you are more than welcome to use the link anytime
within the next two weeks. Thank you for your time and for all the care and effort that
you provide to your students who need you greatly.
Should you have any questions, please contact
Brian Frasier
Graduate School of Education
University of Massachusetts
61 Wilder Street
Lowell, MA 01854
978-934-4616
Brian Frasier@uml.edu
or
Regina M. Panasuk, Ph.D
Professor of Mathematics Education
Graduate School of Education
University of Massachusetts Lowell
61 Wilder Street
Lowell, MA 01854
978-934-4616
Regina Panasuk@uml.edu

http://www.survevmonkev.eom/s/FQ9N9XD
If you experience difficulty reaching the survey, try copying the link directly into your web browser.

158
Reminder Letter to High School Principals
Dear Principal <<Last Name>>,
Two weeks ago I sent a message asking that you distribute my research survey to
the high school mathematics teachers at «School N a m e » . If you have forwarded the
invitation to the mathematics teachers I want thank you on behalf of the field of
mathematics education - you have done a tremendous service for your mathematics faculty,
and especially for your students who stand the most to gain from quality educational
research. Knowing first hand how busy high school teachers (and principals!) can be, it
might be helpful to send a quick reminder to the teachers who may have inadvertently
overlooked the invitation at this busy time of year. I would certainly appreciate this
addition effort. I would also appreciate if you would extend my tremendous gratitude to
the teachers that have already participated.
If you have not yet sent the invitation to teachers there is still time. I have
extended the timeframe of the survey to the end of this calendar year in the hopes of
collecting as much data as possible. I have included the invitation below just in case
you misplaced the original email. Happy Holidays!
Should you have any questions, please contact
Brian Frasier
Graduate School of Education
University of Massachusetts
61 Wilder Street
Lowell, MA 01854
978-934-4616
Brian Frasier@uml.edu
or
Regina M. Panasuk, Ph.D
Professor of Mathematics Education
Graduate School of Education
University of Massachusetts Lowell
61 Wilder Street
Lowell, MA 01854
978-934-4616
Regina Panasuk@uml.edu

Dear High School Mathematics Teacher,

My name is Brian Frasier and I am writing to invite you to participate in the High
School Teachers' Conceptions of Mathematical Proof Research Study which is being
conducted in affiliation with the University of Massachusetts Lowell, Graduate School of
Education. This study represents a substantial effort to better understand how high
school mathematics teachers think about proof, and how they use proof in their teaching.
Thousands of high school mathematics teachers have been invited to participate in this
research - which is the first of its kind. If you choose to participate, an extensively
developed online survey will collect a great deal of valuable information from you in
about 15 minutes of your time. With enough support from teachers like you, this study has
the potential to greatly impact future curricula design, professional development, and
even affect the state and national teaching and learning standards. I cannot
overemphasize how critically important your participation in this study is to the future
of the field of mathematics education.
To participate in this study right now simply click on the link at the bottom of
this email and you will be directly transferred to the research survey. If for whatever
reason you do not have time right now, you are more than welcome to use the link anytime
within the next two weeks. Thank you for your time and for all the care and effort that
you provide to your students who need you greatly.
http://www.survevmonkey.eom/s/FQ9N9XD
If you experience difficulty reaching the survey, try copying the link directly into your web browser.

159
Personal Contacts Invitation Letter
Dear « F i r s t N a m e » ,
Hi,
How are you? I have begun collecting data for my doctoral dissertation and could really
use your help. I have developed an online survey that examines high school mathematics
teachers' conceptions of mathematical proof and would greatly appreciate if you would (1)
take the survey yourself and (2) if you would forward an invitation letter for the survey
(included below) to any and all high school mathematics teachers that you know. To get
to the survey all you need to do is click on the link below. The survey is completely
anonymous and only takes about 15 minutes. Every single participant is very important to
me so even if you only know one other teacher please do invite them! I am trying to put
together a very substantial piece of research that requires a very large number of
participants. Thank you so much for all your help and give me a call or send me email if
you have any questions.
Brian
Brian Frasier@uml.edu
(978) 837-8787
Dear High School Mathematics Teacher,
My name is Brian Frasier and I am writing to invite you to participate in the High
School Teachers' Conceptions of Mathematical Proof Research Study which is being
conducted in affiliation with the University of Massachusetts Lowell, Graduate School of
Education. This study represents a substantial effort to better understand how high
school mathematics teachers think about proof, and how they use proof in their teaching.
Thousands of high school mathematics teachers have been invited to participate in this
research - which is the first of its kind. If you choose to participate, an extensively
developed online survey will collect a great deal of valuable information from you in
about 15 minutes of your time. With enough support from teachers like you, this study has
the potential to greatly impact future curricula design, professional development, and
even affect the state and national teaching and learning standards. I cannot
overemphasize how critically important your participation in this study is to the future
of the field of mathematics education.
To participate in this study right now simply click on the link at the bottom of
this email and you will be directly transferred to the research survey. If for whatever
reason you do not have time right now, you are more than welcome to use the link anytime
within the next two weeks. Thank you for your time and for all the care and effort that
you provide to your students who need you greatly.
Should you have any questions, please contact
Brian Frasier
Graduate School of Education
University of Massachusetts
61 Wilder Street
Lowell, MA 01854
978-934-4616
Brian Frasier@uml.edu
or
Regina M. Panasuk, Ph.D
Professor of Mathematics Education
Graduate School of Education
University of Massachusetts Lowell
61 Wilder Street
Lowell, MA 01854
978-934-4616
Regina Panasuk@uml.edu

http://www.surveymonkey.eom/s/FQQLYJM
If you experience difficulty reaching the survey, try copying the link directly into your web browser.

160
Personal Contacts Reminder Letter
Dear «First N a m e » ,
Hi,
I just wanted to send you a quick reminder about my survey. If you have already
completed the survey thank you so much. If not there is still time. I will collect data
until the end of the month. Also, please don't forget to send the invitation and link to
any high school mathematics teachers that you know or maybe just remind them about the
survey. Thank you so much for all your help! Talk to you soon.
Brian
Brian Frasier@uml.edu
(978) 837-8787
Dear High School Mathematics Teacher,
My name is Brian Frasier and I am writing to invite you to participate in the High
School Teachers' Conceptions of Mathematical Proof Research Study which is being
conducted in affiliation with the University of Massachusetts Lowell, Graduate School of
Education. This study represents a substantial effort to better understand how high
school mathematics teachers think about proof, and how they use proof in their teaching.
Thousands of high school mathematics teachers have been invited to participate in this
research - which is the first of its kind. If you choose to participate, an extensively
developed online survey will collect a great deal of valuable information from you in
about 15 minutes of your time. With enough support from teachers like you, this study has
the potential to greatly impact future curricula design, professional development, and
even affect the state and national teaching and learning standards. I cannot
overemphasize how critically important your participation in this study is to the future
of the field of mathematics education.
To participate in this study right now simply click on the link at the bottom of
this email and you will be directly transferred to the research survey. If for whatever
reason you do not have time right now, you are more than welcome to use the link anytime
within the next two weeks. Thank you for your time and for all the care and effort that
you provide to your students who need you greatly.
Should you have any questions, please contact
Brian Frasier
Graduate School of Education
University of Massachusetts
61 Wilder Street
Lowell, MA 01854
978-934-4616
Brian Frasier@uml.edu
or
Regina M. Panasuk, Ph.D
Professor of Mathematics Education
Graduate School of Education
University of Massachusetts Lowell
61 Wilder Street
Lowell, MA 01854
978-934-4616
Regina Panasuk@uml.edu

http ://www. surveymonkey. com/s/FQQL YJM

If you experience difficulty reaching the survey, try copying the link directly into your web browser.

161
Appendix D: Institutional Review Approval Letter.

Stephen Moses, Ph.D., C.I.P. 883 Broadway Street

IRB Administrator 203 Dugan Hall
Tel 978.934.4134 Lowell, MA 01854
Fax 978.934.3018 Email: lRB@uml.edu
Office of the Provost- Institutional Compliance
U MASSEw Board
X11JL1LU.L1W11U.1 1VV V I V 1

November 5, 2009

Dr. Regina Panasuk

Graduate School of Education

IRB Protocol #: 09-100-PAN-EXM Study Status: Exempt

Status
Protocol Title: High School Teachers' Conceptions of Proof
Approval Date: 11/5/2009
This letter is to notify you that the above referenced Protocol has been
reviewed and approved by the UMass Lowell IRB for Exempt Status.
Please notify the IRB Office of any change in your research protocol,
unexpected adverse events, and also, if you decide not to continue or
postpone your research project.
Upon completion of this project, it is your responsibility to notify the IRB,
using the Final Report form, available on the website. Our best wishes for
continued success with your research!
For up-to-date forms and information go to
www.uml.edu/ora/institutionalcompliance
c: Brian Frasier

162