Abstract
We argue that examples can do more than serve the purpose of illustrating the truth of an existential statement or disconfirming the truth of a universal statement. Our argument is relevant to the use of technology in classroom assessment. A central challenge of computer-assisted assessment is to develop ways of collecting rich and complex data that can nevertheless be analyzed automatically. We report here on a study concerning a dedicated design pattern of a special kind of task for assessing student’s reasoning when establishing the validity of geometry statements that go beyond a single case, concerning the similarity of triangles. In each task students are given three relations that exist either in every triangle or in special types. Their task is to verify, by creating an example, claims that argue for logically compounded claims built out of the given relations. 50 students, aged 15–16, were asked to verify or disprove claims. Their submissions were automatically characterized along categories based on the correctness of the claims they chose and the examples they used to support the claims. We focus on characterizing the properties of the conjunction/disjunction design for automatically assessing conceptions related to examples generated by the learner with interactive diagrams. Our analysis shows that our automated scoring environment, which supports interactive example-eliciting-tasks, and the design principles of conjunction and disjunction of geometric relations, enable one to assess students’ exploration of the logic of universal claims, characterize successful and partial answers, and differentiate between students according to their work.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, J. R. (1985). Cognitive psychology and its implications. San Francisco: Freeman.
Arzarello, F., & Soldano, C. (2019). Approaching proof in the classroom through the logic of inquiry. In G. Kaiser & N. Presmeg (Eds.), Compendium for early career researchers in mathematics education (pp. 221–243). Cham: Springer.
Arzarello, F., Bartolini Bussi, M. G., Leung, A., Mariotti, M. A., & Stevenson, I. (2012). Experimental approaches to theoretical thinking the mathematics classroom: Artefacts and pro proofs. In G. Hanna & M. de Villiers (Eds.), Proof and proving in mathematics education: The 19th ICMI study (Vol. 15, pp. 97–143). New York: Springer.
Buchbinder, O. & Zaslavsky, O. (2009). A framework for understanding the status of examples in establishing the validity of mathematical statements. In M. Tzekaki, M. Kaldrimidou, & H. Sakonidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 2, pp. 225–232).
Buchbinder, O., & Zaslavsky, O. (2019). Strengths and inconsistencies in students’ understanding of the roles of examples in proving. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 53, 129–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2018.06.010.
Buchbinder, O., Zodik, I., Ron, G., & Cook, A. L. (2017). What can you infer from this example? Applications of online, rich-media tasks for enhancing pre-service teachers’ knowledge of the roles of examples in proving. In A. Leung & A. Baccaglini-Frank (Eds.), Digital technologies in designing mathematics education tasks (pp. 215–235). Cham: Springer.
Chazan, D. (1988). Similarity: Exploring the understanding of a geometric concept (Technical Report 88–15). Cambridge, MA: Educational Technology Center, Harvard Graduate School of Education. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED295822.
Chazan, D. (1993). High school geometry students' justification for their views of empirical evidence and mathematical proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24(4), 359–387.
Clark-Wilson, A. (2010). Emergent pedagogies and the changing role of the teacher in the TI-Nspire Navigator-networked mathematics classroom. ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 42(7), 747–761.
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in education research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.
Cusi, A., & Olsher, S. (2019). Task design fostering construction of limit confirming examples as means of argumentation. In U. T. Jankvist, M. Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, & M. Veldhuis (Eds.), Proceedings of the eleventh congress of the European society for research in mathematics education (CERME11, February 6–10, 2019). Utrecht: Freudenthal Group & Freudenthal Institute, Utrecht University and ERME.
Dreyfus, T., Nardi, E., & Leikin, R. (2012). Forms of proof and proving. In G. Hanna & M. de Villiers (Eds.), Proof and proving in mathematics education—The 19th International Commission for Mathematics Instruction study (pp. 111–120). New York: Springer.
Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (2002). Software tools for geometrical problem solving: Potentials and pitfalls. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6(3), 235–256.
Hoz, R. (1981). The effects of rigidity on school geometry learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12(2), 171–190.
Jeannotte, D., & Kieran, C. (2017). A conceptual model of mathematical reasoning for school mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 96(1), 1–16.
Jones, K. (2000). Providing a foundation for deductive reasoning: Students' interpretations when using dynamic geometry software and their evolving mathematical explanations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44(1–2), 55–85.
Komatsu, K., & Jones, K. (2018). Task design principles for heuristic refutation in dynamic geometry environments. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(4), 801–824.
Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, A., Wong, K. L., & Leung, A. (2006). Developing learning and assessment tasks in a dynamic geometry environment. In C. Hoyles, J. B. Lagrange, L. H. Son, & N. Sinclair (Eds.), 17th study conference of the international commission on mathematical instruction (pp. 334–341).
Mejia-Ramos, J., Fuller, E., Weber, K., Rhoads, K., & Samkoff, A. (2012). An assessment model for proof comprehension in undergraduate mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79(1), 3–18.
Mills, M. (2014). A framework for example usage in proof presentation. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 33, 106–118.
Mislevy, R. J., Haertel, G., Riconscente, M., Rutstein, D. W., & Ziker, C. (2017). Assessing model-based reasoning using evidence-centered design: A suite of research-based design patterns. New York: Springer.
Mithalal, J., & Balacheff, N. (2019). The instrumental deconstruction as a link between drawing and geometrical figure. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 100(2), 161–176.
Nagari Haddif, G. & Yerushalmy, M. (2015). Digital interactive assessment in mathematics: The case of construction e-tasks. In K. Krainer & N. Vondrová (Eds.), Proceedings of the ninth congress of the European society for research in mathematics education (CERME9, 4–8 February 2015) (pp. 2501–2508). Prague: Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Education and ERME.
Olsher, S. & Yerushalmy, M., (2017). What can we learn about mathematics multiple choice problems from attached supporting examples? In T. Dooley, & G. Gueudet (Eds.), Proceedings of the tenth congress of the European society for research in mathematics education (CERME10, February 1–5, 2017) (pp. 2437–2445). Dublin: DCU Institute of Education & ERME (hal-01942129).
Olsher, S., Yerushalmy, M., & Chazan, D. (2016). How might the use of technology in formative assessment support changes in mathematics teaching? For the Learning of Mathematics, 36(3), 11–18.
Sangwin, C., Cazes, C., Lee, A., & Wong, K. L. (2010). Micro-level automatic assessment supported by digital technologies. In C. Hoyles, & J. B. Lagrange (Eds.), Mathematics education and technology—Rethinking the terrain. The 17th ICMI study. (Vol. 13, New ICMI Study Series, pp. 227–250). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0146-0_10
Sinclair, N., Watson, A., Zazkis, R., & Mason, J. (2011). The structuring of personal example spaces. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 30(4), 291–303.
Stylianides, G. J. (2008). An analytic framework of reasoning-and-proving. For the Learning of Mathematics, 28(1), 9–16.
Stylianides, G. J., & Stylianides, A. J. (2010). Mathematics for teaching: A form of applied mathematics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(2), 161–172.
Watson, A., & Mason, J. (2005). Mathematics as a constructive activity: Learners generating examples. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Yerushalmy, M. (1993). Generalizations in geometry. In J. L. Schwartz, M. Yerushalmy, & B. Wilson (Eds.), The geometric supposer: What it is a case of? (pp. 57–84). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Yerushalmy, M., Nagari-Haddif, G., & Olsher, S. (2017). Design of tasks for online assessment that supports understanding of students’ conceptions. ZDM Mathematics Education, 49(5), 701–716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0871-7.
Zaslavsky, O., & Zodik, I. (2014). Example-generation as indicator and catalyst of mathematical and pedagogical understandings. In Y. Li, E. A. Silver, & S. Li (Eds.), Transforming mathematics instruction (pp. 525–546). Cham: Springer.
Zazkis, D., & Zazkis, R. (2016). Prospective teachers’ conceptions of proof comprehension: Revisiting a proof of the Pythagorean theorem. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(4), 777–803.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yerushalmy, M., Olsher, S. Online assessment of students’ reasoning when solving example-eliciting tasks: using conjunction and disjunction to increase the power of examples. ZDM Mathematics Education 52, 1033–1049 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01134-0
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01134-0