AnnaMarie Conner

Identifying Kinds of Reasoning in Collective Argumentation

We combine Peirce’s rule, case, and result with Toulmin’s data, claim, and warrant to differentiate between deductive, inductive, abductive, and analogical reasoning within collective argumentation. In this theoretical article, we illustrate these kinds of reasoning in episodes of collective argumentation using examples from one teacher’s practice. Examining different kinds of reasoning in collective argumentation can inform how students engage in generating and examining hypotheses using inductive and abductive reasoning and move toward the deductive reasoning required for proof. Mathematics educators can build on their understanding of these kinds of reasoning to support students in reasoning in productive ways.

Conceptions of Proof – In Research and Teaching

This chapter first analyses and compares mathematicians’ and mathematics educators’ different conceptualisations of proof and shows how these are formed by different professional backgrounds and research interests. This diversity of views makes it difficult to precisely explain what a proof is, especially to a novice at proving. In the second section, we examine teachers’, student teachers’ and pupils’ proof conceptions and beliefs as revealed by empirical research. We find that the teachers’ beliefs clearly revolve around the questions of what counts as proof in the classroom and whether the teaching of proof should focus on the product or on the process. The third section discusses which type of metaknowledge about proof educators should provide to teachers and thus to students, how they can do this and what the intrinsic difficulties of developing adequate metaknowledge are.