Undergraduate students' understanding
of the contraposition equivalence rule in symbolic and verbal contexts
Stylianides, A. J., Stylianides, G. J., & Philippou,
G. N.
ABSTRACT.
Literature suggests that the type of context wherein a task is placed relates
to students performance and solution strategies. In the particular domain
of logical thinking, there is the belief that students have less difficulty
reasoning in verbal than in logically equivalent symbolic tasks. Thus far, this
belief has remained relatively unexplored in the domain of teaching and learning
of mathematics, and has not been examined with respect to students major
field of study. In this study, we examined the performance of 95 senior undergraduate
mathematics and education majors in symbolic and verbal tasks about the contraposition
equivalence rule. The selection of two different groups of participants allowed
for the examination of the hypothesis that students major may influence
the relation between their performance in tasks about contraposition and the
context (symbolic/verbal) wherein this is placed. The selection of contraposition
equivalence rule also addressed a gap in the body of research on undergraduate
students understanding of proof by contraposition. The analysis was based
on written responses of all participants to specially developed tasks and on
semi-structured interviews with 11 subjects. The findings showed different variations
in the performance of each of the two groups in the two contexts. While education
majors performed significantly better in the verbal than in the symbolic tasks,
mathematics majors performance showed only modest variations. The results
call for both major- and context- specific considerations of students
understanding of logical principles, and reveal the complexity of the system
of factors that influence students logical thinking.