Exploring students’ thinking process in mathematical proof of abstract algebra based on Mason’s framework

Year 2020, , 871 - 884, 15.06.2020

Siti Faizah , Toto Nusantara , Sudirman Sudirman Rustanto Rahardi

https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.689809

Abstract

Mathematical proof is a logically formed argument based on students' thinking process. A mathematical proof is a formal process which needs the ability of analytical thinking to solve. However, researchers still find students who complete the mathematical proof process through intuitive thinking. Students who have studied mathematical proof in the early semester should not have completed abstract algebraic proof intuitively. Therefore, the aim of this research is to explore students' thinking process in conducting mathematical proof based on Mason's framework. The instrument used to collect data was mathematical proof problems test related to abstract algebra and interviews. There are three out of 25 students who did abstract algebra through intuitive thinking as they only used two stages of the Mason's thinking framework. Then, two out of three students were chosen as the subjects of the study. The selection of research subjects is based on the student's ability to express intuitive thinking verbally process which were conducted while completing the test. It is found that students can form structural-intuitive warrant that they use to complete the mathematical proof of abstract algebra. Structural-intuitive warrant formed by students at the stage of attack and review are in the form of: institutional warrant and evaluative warrant, while at the entry and attack stage are a priori warrant and empirical warrant.

Keywords

Thinking Process, Mathematical Proof, Mason’s Framework

References

• As’ari, A. R., Kurniati, D., Abdullah, A. H., Muksar, M., & Sudirman, S. (2019). Impact of infusing truth-seeking and open-minded behaviors on mathematical problem-solving. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 7(4), 1019–1036. https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.606031.
• As’ari, A. R., Kurniati, D., & Subanji. (2019). Teachers expectation of students’ thinking processes in written works: A survey of teachers’ readiness in making thinking visible. Journal on Mathematics Education, 10(3), 409–424. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.10.3.7978.409-424.
• Astawa, I.W.P., Budayasa, I. K., & Juniati, D. (2018). The process of student cognition in constructing mathematical conjecture. Journal on Mathematics Education, 9(1), 15–25.
• Creswell, John W., (2012). Educational Research. Boston: Pearson Education.
• Ejersbo, L.R., Leron, U., Arcavi, A. (2014). Bridging Intuitive and Analytical Thinking: Four Looks at the 2-Glass Puzzle. For the Learning of Mathematics. 34(3), 2-7.
• Faizah, S., Nusantara, T., Sudirman, & Rahardi, R. (2020). The construction of explicit warrant derived from implicit warrant in mathematical proof. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2215(April). https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0000517.
• Freeman, J. B., & Freeman, J. B. (2005). Systematizing Toulmin ’ s Warrants : An Epistemic Approach. University of Windsor. Scholarship at UWindsor.
• Freeman, J. B. (2006). Systematizing Toulmin ’ s Warrants : An Epistemic Approach. Argumentation. Springer. 331–346.
• Giacomone, B., Beltrán-Pellicer, P., & Godino, J. D. (2019). Cognitive analysis on prospective mathematics teachers’ reasoning using area and tree diagrams. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 27(2), 18–32.
• Gilbert, L. & GIlber, J. (2015). Elements of Modern Algebra, Eighth Edition. Cengage Learning: United State of American.
• Imamoglu, Y. & Togrol, A. Y. (2015). Proof construction and evaluation practices of prospective mathematics educators. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 3(2), 130–144.
• Inglis, M, Ramos, JP, & Simpson, A (2007) Modelling mathematical argumentation : the importance of qualification. Loughborough ’ s Institutional Repository. 66(1), 3–21.
• Kosko, K. W., & Singh, R. (2019). Children’s Coordination of Linguistic and Numeric Units in Mathematical Argumentative Writing. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 14(2), 275–291.
• Kurniati, D., & Zayyadi, M. (2018). The critical thinking dispositions of students around coffee plantation area in solving algebraic problems. International Journal of Engineering and Technology(UAE), 7(2), 18–20. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i2.10.10946.
• Laamena, C. M., Nusantara, T., Irawan, E. B., & Muksar, M. (2018). How do the Undergraduate Students Use an Example in Mathematical Proof Construction : A Study based on Argumentation and Proving Activity. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education. 13(3), 185–198.
• Leron, U., & Hazzan, O. (2009). Intuitive vs analytical thinking: Four perspectives. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71(3), 263–278.
• Leron, U. (2014). Intuitve vs. Analytical Thinking: Four Theoretical Frameworks. Technion-Israel Istitute of Techonology.
• Mason, J. (2005). Frameworks for Learning, Teaching and Research: Theory and Practice. Frameworks That Support Research & Learning: Procedings of PME-NA.
• Mason, J. Burton, L. & Stacey, K. (2010). Thinking Mathematically. Second Edition. University of Melbourne.
• Metaxas, N., Potari, D., & Zachariades, T. (2016). Analysis of a teacher’s pedagogical arguments using Toulmin’s model and argumentation schemes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 93(3), 383–397.
• Nardi, E., Biza, I., & Zachariades, T. (2012). Warrant ’ revisited : integrating mathematics teachers ’ pedagogical and epistemological considerations into Toulmin ’ s model for argumentation. Loughborough’s Institutional Repository. Springer Science.
• Nardi, E., Biza, I., & Watson, S. (2014). What makes a claim an acceptable mathematical argument in the secondary classroom? A preliminary analysis of teachers’ warrants in the context of an Algebra Task. Procedings of the 8th British Congress of Mathematics Education. University of Cambridge, 247–254.
• Nurrahma, A. & karim, A. (2018). Analisis Kemampuan Pembuktian Matematis Pada Matakuliah Teori Bilangan. Jurnal Edumath. 4(2), 21–29.
• Öztürk, M., & Kaplan, A. (2019). Cognitive analysis of constructing algebraic proof processes: A mixed method research. Egitim ve Bilim, 44(197), 25–64. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2018.7504.
• Panza, M. (2014). Mathematical Proofs. Synthese (June). https://doi.org/10.1023/A.
• Pedemonte, B. (2008). Argumentation and algebraic proof. ZDM Mathematics Education. Springer. 385–400.
• Pedemonte, B. (2014). How can the relationship between argumentation and proof be analysed ?. Educational Studies in Mathematics. Springer Science.
• Sekiguchi, Y. (2002). Mathematical Proof, Argumentation, and Classroom Communication : From a Cultural Perspective. Tsukuba Journal of Educational Study in Mathematics, 21.
• Selden, A., & Selden, J. (2003). Validations of proofs considered as texts: Can undergraduates tell whether an argument proves a theorem? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(1), 4–36.
• Simpson, A. (2015). The anatomy of a mathematical proof: Implications for analyses with Toulmin’s scheme. Educational Studies in Mathematics, Springer Science. 90(1), 1–17.
• Tall, D. (2009). The Development of Mathematical Thinking: Probem Solving and Proof. The University of Warwick. Researchgate.
• Tall, D. (2010). The Transition to Formal Thinking in Mathematics, 20(2), 5–24. The University of Warwick.
• Toh, P. C., Leong, Y. H., Toh, T. L., & Ho, F. H. (2014). Designing Tasks For Conjecturing And Proving In Number Theory. Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of PME 38 and PME-NA 36. 5, 257–264.
• Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument: Updated edition. The Uses of Argument: Updated Edition.
• Tristanti, L. B., Sutawidjaja, A., As’ari, A. R., & Muksar, M. (2016). The construction of deductive warrant derived from inductive warrant in preservice-teacher mathematical argumentations. Educational Research and Reviews, 11(17), 1696–1708.
• Tristanti, L. B., Sutawidjaja, A., Rahman, A., & Muksar, M. (2017). Types of Warrant in Mathematical Argumentations of Prospective-Teacher. International Journal of Science and Engineering Investigation. 6-68.
• Utami, A. D. Sa'dijah, C. Subanji, & Irawati, S. (2018). Six Levels of Indonesian Primary School Students ’ Mental Model in Comprehending the Concept of Integer, International Journal of Instruction. 11(4), 29–44.
• Varghese, T. (2009). Secondary-level Student Teachers' Conceptions of Mathematical Proof. IUMPST: The Journal (Content Knowledge). 1. 1–14.
• Wardhani, W. A., & Subanji, D. (2016). Proses berpikir siswa berdasarkan kerangka kerja Mason. Jurnal Pendidikan: Teori, Penelitian, Dan Pengembangan, 1(3), 297–313.
• Zayyadi, M., Nusantara, T., Hidayanto, E., Sulandra, I. M., & Sa’dijah, C. (2020). Content and Pedagogical Knowledge of Prospective Teachers in Mathematics Learning Commognitive. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young. 8(1), 515-532.
• Zetrisulita, Wahyudin, & Jarnawi. (2017). Mathematical Critical Thinking and Curiosity Attitude in Problem Based Learning and Cognitive Conflict Strategy : A Study in Number Theory course. International Education Studies. 10(7). https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v10n7p65.