Annual Conference of Didactics of Mathematics

Klagenfurt 2002

Moderated Section:
Perspectives of empirical research on proving, justifying and arguing in teaching and learning of mathematics

with Tommy Dreyfus, Götz Krummheuer and Kristina Reiss
Moderation: Aiso Heinze, Christine Knipping

Arguing, justifying and proving are goals of mathematical instruction, which are considered to be of great importance within mathematics education. But, how are these goals to be interpreted? What is the difference between arguing, justifying and proving? What do we expect of heterogeneous students, e.g. students of different ages? What kind of abilities and capabilities can we presuppose or hope to teach? Which features characterise justification and proving processes in teaching? These and other questions have been raised in didactic discussions since the 1970s, but up to now these discussions have rarely been based on empirical research in the field of proving. For that reason this moderated section will focus explicitly on empirical approaches and perspectives.
Different ventures that have been realized in research projects will be the starting point for the discussion of perspectives of empirical research on proving, justifying and arguing in teaching and learning of mathematics. At the beginning representatives of different approaches will describe and discuss their research interests and perspectives as experts in the field. Their standpoints not only reflect different research interests, but imply different theoretical and methodological assumptions and concepts. To give an example, the concept of argumentation assumed in suggestions that consider arguing as a general requirement of mathematical learning, is not primarily directed towards mathematical reasoning and proving. Finally, all interested participants of the moderated section will be encouraged to contribute to the discussion of perspectives of empirical research on proving, justifying and arguing in teaching and learning of mathematics.