User Name:

Password:
Welcome Guest
Journals Home > Journal For The Education Of The Gifted > Volume 27 |  Issue 4 > Article Abstract
 

Abstract

Back to TOC
Reference
X

  • Almeida, D. (2003) Numerical and proof methods of Indian mathematics for the classroom. Mathematics in School, 32(2), 7–10.
  • Bell, A. W. (1976). A study of pupils’ proof explanations in mathematical situations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 7, 23–40.
  • Birkhoff, G. (1969). Mathematics and psychology. SIAM Review, 11, 429–469.
  • Burton, L. (1984). Mathematical thinking: The struggle for meaning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 15, 35–49.
  • Burton, L. (1999). The practices of mathematicians: What do they tell us about coming to know mathematics? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 37, 121–143.
  • Casey, E. S. (1978). Imaging: A phenomenological study. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
  • Chang, L. L. (1985). Who are the mathematically gifted elementary school children? Roeper Review, 8, 76–79.
  • Chazan, D. (1993). High school geometry students’ justification for their views of empirical evidence and mathematical proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24, 359–387.
  • Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Davis, P. J., & Hersh, R. (1981). The mathematical experience. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
  • Diezmann, C., & Watters, J. (2003). The importance of challenging tasks for mathematically gifted students. Gifted and Talented International, 17, 2, 76–84.
  • Dubinsky, E. (1991). Constructive aspects of reflective abstraction in advanced mathematics. In L. P. Steffe (Ed.), Epistemological foundations of mathematical experience (pp. 160–187). New York: Springer-Verlag.
  • Epp, S. S. (1990). The role of proof in problem solving. In A. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Mathematical thinking and problem solving (pp. 257–269). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Ernest, P. (1991). The philosophy of mathematics education. London: Falmer.
  • Ervynck, G. (1991). Mathematical creativity. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 42–53). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Fawcett, H. P. (1938). The nature of proof. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Fischbein, E. (1980, August). Intuition and proof. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Berkeley, CA.
  • Frensch, P., & Sternberg, R. (1992). Complex problem solving: Principles and mechanisms. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1977). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. San Francisco: University of California.
  • Goldberg, A., & Suppes, P. (1972). A computer assisted instruction program for exercises on finding axioms. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 4, 429–449.
  • Greenes, C. (1981). Identifying the gifted student in mathematics. Arithmetic Teacher, 28(6), 14–17.
  • Hadamard, J. W. (1945). Essay on the psychology of invention in the mathematical field. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Heid, M. K. (1983). Characteristics and special needs of the gifted student in mathematics. The Mathematics Teacher, 76, 221–226.
  • Hersh, R. (1993). Proof is convincing and explaining. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24, 389–399.
  • Hershkowitz, R. (1989). Visualization in geometry: Two sides of the coin. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 11, 61– 76.
  • Hoyles, C. (1997). The curricular shaping of students’ approaches to proof. For the Learning of Mathematics, 17(1), 7–16.
  • Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1971). Mental imagery in the child. New York: BasicBooks.
  • Ivanitsyna, E. N. (1970). Achieving skill in solving geometry problems. In J. Kilpatrick & I. Wirszup (Eds.), Soviet studies in the psychology of learning and teaching mathematics (Vol. 4). Stanford, CA: School Mathematics Study Group.
  • Johnson, M. L. (1983). Identifying and teaching mathematically gifted elementary school children. Arithmetic Teacher, 30(5), 25–26, 55–56.
  • Kamii, C., & DeClark, G. (1985). Young children re-invent arithmetic: Implications of Piaget’s theory. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Kanevsky, L. S. (1990). Pursuing qualitative differences in the flexible use of a problem solving strategy by young children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13, 115–140.
  • Kelly, A., & Lesh, R. (2000) Research design in mathematics and science education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Kline, M. (1976). NACOME: Implications for curriculum design. Mathematics Teacher, 69, 449–454.
  • Krutetskii, V. A. (1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in school children (J. Teller, Trans; J. Kilpatrick & I. Wirszup, Eds.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  • Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 29–63.
  • Lerman, S. (1983). Problem-solving or knowledge centered: The influence of philosophy on mathematics teaching. International Journal of Mathematics Education, 14(1), 59–66.
  • Manin, Y. I. (1977). A course in mathematical logic. New York: Springer-Verlag.
  • Mason, J. (1996). Expressing generality and roots of algebra. In N. Bednarz, C. Kieran, & L. Lee (Eds.), Approaches to algebra (pp. 65–86). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
  • Mason, J., Burton, L., & Stacey, K. (1992). Thinking mathematically. London: Addison-Wesley.
  • Menchinskaya, N. A. (1959). Psychology of the mastery of knowledge in school. Moscow: APN Press.
  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics: Reston, VA: Author.
  • Piaget, J. (1975). The child’s conception of the world. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams.
  • Poincaré, H. (1948). Science and method. New York: Dover Books.
  • Polya, G. (1954). Mathematics and plausible reasoning: Induction and analogy in mathematics, Vol. 1. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Presmeg, N. C. ( 1986). Visualization and mathematical giftedness. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 17, 297–311.
  • Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. (1997) Research methods for social work (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
  • Senk, S. (1985). How well do students write geometry proofs? Mathematics Teacher, 78, 448–456.
  • Shapiro, S. I. (1965). A study of pupils’ individual characteristics in processing mathematical information. Voprosy Psikhologii, 2.
  • Sheffield, L. J. (1999). Developing mathematically promising students. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  • Sriraman, B. (2002). How do mathematically gifted students abstract and generalize mathematical concepts? NAGC 2002 Research Briefs, 16 , 83–87.
  • Sriraman, B. (2003a). Mathematical giftedness, problem solving, and the ability to formulate generalizations. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 14, 151–165.
  • Sriraman, B. (2003b). The characteristics of mathematical creativity. The Mathematics Educator, 14, 19–34.
  • Strunz, K. (1962). Pädogogische Psychologie des mathematischen Denkens. Heidelberg, Germany: Quelle & Meyer.
  • Suppes, P., & Binford, F. (1965). Experimental teaching of mathematical logic in the elementary school. The Arithmetic Teacher, 12, 187–195.
  • Usiskin, Z. P. (1987). Resolving the continuing dilemmas in school geometry. In M. M. Lindquist & A. P. Shulte (Eds.), Learning and teaching geometry, K–12: 1987 yearbook (pp. 17–31). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  • van Hiele, P. M. (1986). Structure and insight. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
  • Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York: Harcourt Brace.
  • Wertheimer, M. (1945). Productive thinking. New York: Harper.
  • Yakimanskaya, I. S. (1970). Individual differences in solving geometry problems on proof. In J. Kilpatrick & I. Wirszup (Eds.), Soviet studies in the psychology of learning and teaching mathematics (Vol. 4). Stanford, CA: School Mathematics Study Group.
Fields marked with an asterisk * are mandatory.
 

Your Name:*
 

Your Email:*
 

Friend's Name:*
 

Friend's Email:*
 

Message:
 

 
Send CC to self
 

 
 

Bookmark
X
  • Volume 27
  •  Issue 4
  • Publication Date: Summer 2004



Gifted Ninth Graders’ Notions of Proof: Investigating Parallels in Approaches of Mathematically Gifted Students and Professional Mathematicians

Bharath Sriraman

High school students normally encounter the study and use of formal proof in the context of Euclidean geometry. Professional mathematicians typically use an informal trial-and-error approach to a problem, guided by intuition, to arrive at the truth of an idea. Formal proof is pursued only after mathematicians are intuitively convinced about the truth of an idea. Is the use of intuition to arrive at the plausibility of a mathematical truth unique to the professional mathematician? How do mathematically gifted students form the truth of an idea? In this study, 4 mathematically gifted freshmen with no prior exposure to proof nor high school geometry were given the task of establishing the truth or falsity of a nonroutine geometry problem, sometimes referred to as “circumscribing a triangle” problem. This problem asks whether it is true that for every triangle there is a circle that passes through each of the vertices. This paper describes and interprets the processes used by the mathematically gifted students to establish truth and compares these processes to those used by professional mathematicians. All 4 students were able to think flexibly, as evidenced in their ability to reverse the direction of a mental process and arrive at the correct conclusion. This paper further validates the use of Krutetskiian constructs of flexibility and reversibility of mental processes in gifted education as characteristics of the mathematically gifted student.


ShoppingCart Summary

Shopping
Your cart is empty.