Towards a Comprehensive Conception of Mathematical Proof

Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn)
Vol.12, No.4, November 2018, pp. 702~708
ISSN: 2089-9823 DOI: 10.11591/edulearn.v12i4.9557  702
Journal homepage: http://journal.uad.ac.id/index.php/EduLearn
Towards a Comprehensive Conception of Mathematical Proof
Zakaria Ndemo1
, David. J. Mtetwa2
, Fred Zindi3
1
Department of Science and Mathematics Education, Bindura University of Science Education, Zimbabwe
2
Department of Science and Mathematics Education, University of Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe
3
HRRC, University of Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe
Article Info ABSTRACT
Article history:
Received Apr 10, 2018
Revised Jul 20, 2018
Accepted Aug 26, 2018
There is overwhelming evidence that students face serious challenges in
learning mathematical proof. Studies have found that students possess a
superficial understanding of mathematical proof. With the aim of
contributing to efforts intended to develop a comprehensive conception of
mathematical proof, literature search was conducted to identify areas where
research could be directed in order to increase proof understanding among
students. To accomplish this goal, literature on modes of reasoning involved
in proof construction, ideas on the classification of activities that constitute a
proof path, and categories of proof understanding are exemplified using
mathematical content drawn from Real Analysis. These exemplifications
were used to illustrate the connections between modes of reasoning and
levels of proof understanding. With regard to students’ fragile grasp of
mathematical proof this critique of literature has revealed that many previous
studies have given prominence to proof validations while there is lack of
crucial interplay between structural and inductive modes of reasoning during
proving by students. Hence, it is suggested in this paper that current research
could also focus on mechanisms that promote an analytic conceptions of
mathematical proof that are comprehensive enough to allow students to
engage in more robust proof constructions.
Keywords:
Analytic proof
Mathematical proof
Modes of reasoning
Proof path
Copyright © 2018 Institute of Advanced Engineering and Science.
All rights reserved.
Corresponding Author:
Zakaria Ndemo,
Department of Science and Mathematics Education,
Bindura University of Science Education,
G03 Faculty of Science Education Complex, Bag 1020, Bindura, Zimbabwe.
Email: zndemo@gmail.com, zndemo@buse.ac.zw
1. INTRODUCTION
This paper discusses aspects of knowledge of content and students (KCS) which Lesseig [1]
describes as knowledge of students’ typical conceptions or misconceptions of mathematics. In Zimbabwe the
mathematics education community faces the challenge of improving students’ abilities to autonomously
produce proofs of mathematical statements at all scholastic levels. Generally, students focus on reproducing
proofs from lecture notes, yet mathematics learning requires far more than simply working on exercises and
doing desired computations and regurgitation of routine proofs. But why do we need to pay attention to
mathematical proof?
The concept of mathematical proof has a central place in the learning of mathematics because of its
potential to promote justification and understanding as suggested by Olsker [2]. Mathematical proving
promotes students argumentative skills which are essential for developing deep learning. However, in spite of
several benefits mathematical proof has failed to permeate the curriculum at all scholastic levels as reported
by Stylianides [3]. In other words, studies have shown the absence of a good understanding of proof and
proving among learners.

EduLearn ISSN: 2089-9823 
Towards a Comprehensive Conception of Mathematical Proof (Zakaria Ndemo)
703
There is overwhelming evidence that students face serious challenges in comprehending proofs.
Jahnke [4] has remarked that “many school and university students and even teachers of mathematics have
only superficial ideas on the nature of proof”. Yet the knowledge of teachers related to proof and proving
directly influences their way of teaching proof. Further, limited knowledge of proof allows misconceptions in
many students regarding proofs to persist as suggested by Ug
̌urel et. al. [5]. Hence, if undergraduate
mathematics education students do not master the concept of mathematical proof adequately they are less
likely to develop it in their own learners in a persuasive manner. Undergraduate student teachers should
therefore have a deep understanding of mathematical proof and proving. Hence, studies to determine
teachers’ competences in content knowledge in mathematical proof are crucial.
Harel and Sowder [6] write that the problems that students experience with mathematical proof are a
result of the manner in which the concept of mathematical proof is presented to students. Proof is usually
presented as a finished product so that students sometimes lack the intellectual curiosity to wonder why a
given mathematical statement is true as proposed by Stylianides [3]. The lack of intellectual curiosity stems
probably from learners’ view of the role of proof as a tool needed to confirm something that is intuitively
obvious and is already known to be true. An exemplification of this point is the proof of the theorem: The
square root of 2 is irrational. Before the truth seeking activity (proving process), students are well aware of
the fact that the square root of 2 is irrational. Ndemo and Mtetwa [8] suggest the source of such awareness
among learners can be explained in terms of their met-befores, which precisely refer to the learners’ previous
experiences with irrational numbers. In secondary school mathematics, students would have looked at topics
that involve use of irrational numbers such as: Quadratic equations with inexact roots. Thus, the proposition:
The square root of 2 is irrational, is perceived as something that is intuitively obvious in the sense suggested
by Harel [9], hence, the lack of intellectual curiosity in the proposition’s validation. Such a viewpoint is a
consequence of the manner in which mathematics is usually presented to learners—a finished product.
Following Wilkerson-Jerde and Wilensky [10] we argue that most challenges faced by students in
learning a mathematical concept are related to the nature of the network of mathematical resources formed by
an individual. To clarify our argument about the influence of the nature of the network of resources on one’s
conception we draw on Duffin’s categorization of mathematical understanding. Duffin and Simpson [11]
categorize mathematical understanding by differentiating building, having, and enacting as different
components of mathematical understanding. Duffin and Simpson [11] describe building as an aspect that
refer to the process of developing the connections, having denotes the state of the connections, and enacting
is used to describe the process of applying the connections available to solve a problem.
From Duffin and Simpson [11] categorization we can therefore assert that learning new mathematics
can be thought of as the creation of a network of mathematical resources. If the network of mathematical
resources is not well coordinated, then one’s conception of the concept can be considered to be weak. Hence,
students’ superficial understanding of mathematical proof is related to the students’ network of resources
with respect to the concept of mathematical proof, which in turn determines their manner of understanding of
the concept.
Before describing the nature of problems related to students’ fragile grasp of the notion of
mathematical proof we shall first examine basic constructs that inform social science research. According to
Charmaz [12] there are two fundamental notions in social science research, namely, basic social problem and
basic social process. A basic social problem refers to a problematic phenomenon from the point of view of
people being studied. Charmaz [12] says for something to qualify as a basic social problem, it must not be
short-lived. Mathematical philosophers, mathematicians and mathematics educators have been grappling with
the notion of proof for years and as such students’ difficulties with proof can count as a basic social problem.
Charmaz [12] describes a basic social process, as what the participants (people being studied) essentially do in
dealing with their basic social problem. In the context of this article the basic social problem is superficial
understanding of mathematical proof by undergraduate mathematics student teachers as reflected through the
students’ rote memorization of routine proofs and lack of intellectual curiosity and appreciation for meaning
in proof constructions. In other words, there is lack of deep understanding of mathematical proof among
Zimbabwean undergraduate student teachers.
Evidence of the basic social process, that is, what students do as a way of dealing with their weak
command of the concept of mathematical proof includes:
a. Students have been so inept at producing deductive arguments.
b. The concept of mathematical proof has failed to permeate the undergraduate mathematics curriculum
because of the tendency to focus on rote memorization and regurgitation of routine instructors’ notes by
learners. Further, Pfeiffer [13] writes that instructors rarely engage learners in construction of novel proof
tasks.
c. Martin [13] report that students experience extreme difficulties with proof tasks to an extent that some do
not even know how to begin the proving process.

 ISSN: 2089-9823
EduLearn Vol. 12, No. 4, November 2018 : 702 – 708
704
d. Harel [6] write that student teachers insist on being told the proofs rather than taking part in the proof
construction process.
Students’ struggles with mathematical proof articulated here have been persistent. Studies have
attributed students’ difficulties with mathematical proof to the abstract nature of the concept of mathematical
proof as has been reported by Ndemo and Mtetwa [8]. The act of proving distinguishes mathematics from
other disciplines because it involves abstraction__
a process used to obtain the essence of a mathematical
concept through the structural mode of reasoning as opposed to the concrete operational mode. Herlina and
Batusangkar [15] say the structural mode of thought omits dependence on real world objects such as numeric
examples which help one to grasp some sense of the mathematical relationship. It is therefore critical that
from the onset of any study on mathematical proof and proving a more powerful definition of proving
is developed.
Hence, in this section some definitions of mathematical proof are discussed. During the discussion
some flaws with those definitions are examined in order to orient current research towards a direction that is
likely to foster the development of a comprehensive view of mathematical proof. Such a direction, we
believe, has the potential to promote thinking processes about proving. In so doing challenges faced in
connection with proofs may be ameliorated.
2. CRITICAL REVIEW
Definitions of mathematical proof include;
• A socially sanctioned written product that results from mathematicians’ attempts to justify whether a
given conjecture is true as definedWeber and Mejia-Ramos [16].
• Mathematical proving is the process of searching for arguments used to convince a person or a
community, that is, to justify the accuracy of a mathematical statement in the sense suggested Bieda [17].
Bostic [18] describes a justification or argumentation as a process of constructing an explanation needed
to validate a mathematical claim. An example of a mathematical claim could be: a subset of ℝ is closed iff
it contains all its boundary points. Proving this claim will involve constructing an explanation a
justification that would lead to the conclusion that a subset of ℝ is closed if it contains all its boundary
points. Constructing such an explanation can involve defining terms such as a boundary point and a
closed set from Topology of the Real Line. Justifying mathematical assertions is central to the learning of
mathematics and even making crucial decisions in everyday life.
Justifications have been classified as either pragmatic or conceptual justifications by Balacheff [19].
Balacheff [19] use the term pragmatic justifications to describe explanations based on use of particular
instantiations in proving while conceptual justifications refer to abstract formulations of properties and
relationships among pertinent mathematical ideas embedded in the conjecture whose truth-value a prover
seeks to establish. A mathematical proof can thus be conceived as a product of the process of proving. So a
mathematical proof is a product that results from mathematicians’ attempts to establish the truth or falsity of
a mathematical proposition as defined by Harel and Sowder [6]. From the discussion it can be observed that
proving is a process of removing one’s doubts about the accuracy (or lack thereof) of a mathematical claim.
When removing one’s doubts about a conjecture a prover engages in activities that involve
manipulating mathematical objects in some specific ways. Hence, proving can be viewed as a path followed
in the process of converting a conjecture into mathematical fact [20]. A mathematical fact can be a theorem, a
lemma, or some corollary to a theorem. A pertinent question one can ask in light of difficulties students face
with proof and proving is: what sort of activities do students engage in during the creation of the path
connecting the conjecture (point of departure) and the mathematical theorem (destination). It is important to
observe that these activities are determined by the student’s knowledge structures which are products of the
student’s thinking about mathematical proof.
Ersen [20] defines mathematical proving as a process of establishing the logical structure of
pertinent mathematical ideas embedded in the mathematical proposition through deductive chains of
reasoning in order to validate or refute a mathematical proposition. A limitation of Ersen [20] definition is
that it is twisted in favour of deductive reasoning yet the process of proving can also call for counter-
argumentation. So, one end of the deductive-inductive continuum of the proving process is heavily
compromised. Hence, a prover who shares the same view of mathematical proof with Ersen [20] is more
likely to use the axiomatic proof scheme even in proof situations that call for use of particular instantiations.
Therefore, it can be noted that while a definition should be seen as a complete description of the structure of
mathematical ideas pertinent to a concept being defined that capture all instances of that idea, we see that
thinking of mathematical proof as chain of deductive reasoning is incomplete. Defining mathematical

705
proving as a sequence of deductive reasoning is incomplete because it does not encompass proof situations
that call for proof method by, for example, refutation.
3. DISCUSSION
The foregoing review of literature justifies the importance of fostering a comprehensive conception
of mathematical proof among students. Thus, mathematical proving should be viewed as a search for a
deductive argument to validate a true mathematical proposition or the search for a counter-argumentation for
the purpose of refuting a false conjecture. Stylianou et. al. [21] define counter-argumentation as the process
of envisioning conditions, usually by picking instances that undermine the conjecture.
A mathematical proof should also be seen as a communicative act made within the mathematical
community which ensures correctness of a given conjecture through the use of an analytic argument as
proposed [22-23] posit that an analytic argument involves the application of both inductive and axiomatic
reasoning aspects in the path of a proof. An axiomatic justification that supports a mathematical statement
begins with some axioms, definitions, and previously proven theorems and then uses logically permissible
rules of logic to draw a conclusion. On the other hand, an inductive argument is construed to involve
referential mathematical objects. Referential objects include tables, graphs and other displays (usually in
visual form) that are used to ensure correctness (or lack thereof) of proposition through the structural-
intuitive mode of thought [23].
A structural-intuitive mode of thought involves examining a mathematical proposition to determine
whether it is a consequence of mental models a prover associates with the mathematical ideas embedded in
the mathematical conjecture being validated. In other words, a structural-intuitive mode of reasoning
involves use of particular instantiations. For example, part of the process of proving the implication statement
of the theorem: A subset 𝑈 of ℝ is open iff it can be expressed as a countable collection of disjoint open
intervals in ℝ, involves showing that two arbitrary intervals 𝐼𝑥 and 𝐼𝑦 selected from 𝑈 are disjoint. The
proving exercise can involve using a diagrammatic instantiation to demonstrate the fact that, 𝐼𝑥 ∩ 𝐼𝑦 = ∅. Use
of a diagrammatic instantiation together with axiomatic application during proving just described here
illustrates the crucial interplay between axiomatic and inductive modes of reasoning involved in
mathematical proof constructions.
To elucidate the point, we wish to make about the manner in which students should think of the
notion of mathematical proof we focus our attention to the question: what sort of activities should then
characterise the path involved in mathematical proving? Baki [24] describes three characteristics of the path
followed when proving. First, there is the accuracy phase where the truth-value of an assertion is ascertained.
Second, there is an illumination phase in which a prover explains why the proposition is accurate. Third, the
proof once composed should then be abstracted by examining to see its application in other contexts. Next we
address the question: how should the concept of mathematical proof be understood by students in light of
activities that constitute the path of a proof? We draw on ideas Maya and Sumarmo [25] categorization of
mathematical understanding.
Maya and Sumarmo [25] propose four levels of mathematical understanding ability: mechanical,
inductive, rational, and intuitive understanding. Mechanical understanding occurs when a person memorizes
rules and procedures that are then implemented correctly. However, no justification is provided by the
individual as to why such rules and procedures lead to a conclusion. [16] write that inductive understanding
of mathematical proof occurs when an individual verifies the accuracy of a statement by using mathematical
objects (specific examples, diagrams) drawn from a proper subset of the set of objects to which the
statement pertains.
Rational understanding of mathematical proof is defined as when an individual applies rules and
procedures to establish the correctness of an assertion meaningfully, that is, application of such rules and
procedures is accompanied by a justification. Finally, intuitive understanding is used to describe scenario in
which a prover demonstrates an awareness of the truth of an assertion and has no doubts about its truth upon
the production of the proof. In other words, an individual possessing intuitive understanding of a proof of
mathematical proposition would have attained absolute conviction.
The connections between modes of thought by Weber and Mejia-Ramos [16], the activities of the
proof path [24] and the categories of understanding of mathematical proof proposed by Baki [24] are now
presented. Technical and symbolic manipulation of mathematical objects leads to mechanical understanding
of mathematical claims. In this case the purpose of symbolic manipulations is to verify the accuracy of a
mathematical assertion. With regard to the structural-intuitive mode of thought a prover verifies the accuracy
of mathematical statement by using specific examples, and diagrams drawn from a proper subset of the set of
objects to which the statement pertains.

 ISSN: 2089-9823
706
It can be inferred that the structural-intuitive mode of thought will lead to inductive understanding.
An example that can be used to illustrate the much desired interaction between axiomatic and structural-
intuitive modes of reasoning about mathematical proof is the Archimedean principle in Real Analysis which
states that If 𝑎, 𝑏 ∈ ℝ with 𝑎 > 0 then there exists a natural number 𝑛 for which 𝑛𝑎 > 𝑏. The interpretation
of the Archimedean principle is that the set of natural numbers ℵ is not bounded above.
To construct a proof of the Archimedean principle a prover can proceed in the following ways. First,
a structural-intuitive verification can involve use of specific example 𝑎 =
1
2
, 𝑏 = 3 for which the inequality
1
2
𝑛 > 3 ⇒ 𝑛 > 6. While the specific example verifies the Archimedean principle and helps to gain inductive
understanding of the principle it does not count as proof. In other words, the single example employed cannot
be elevated to the status of a mathematical proof because by virtue of being an empirical verification it does
not provide conclusive evidence about the truth of the Archimedean principle.
Second, to compose proof of the Archimedean principle a prover can employ axiomatic reasoning or
the structural thinking where a person draws on ideas such as the Axiom of completeness of ℝ as a real field.
The proof method by contradiction could be employed to deduce that the set 𝑆 = {𝑘𝑎: 𝑘 ∈ ℵ} has no least
upper bound and hence 𝑆 is not bounded above. Within the proof path a prover should provide justification of
logical inferences made. In other words, a person engaging with the proof should justify why for instance 𝑎
can be used in place of 𝜀 (episilon radius). Further, if 𝑢 is a least upper bound of 𝑆, a prover should explain
why the relation 𝑢 − 𝑎 < 𝑁 holds and subsequently leads to a contradiction to the supposition that 𝑆 is
bounded above. Furnishing such finer details of the path will lead to rational understanding of the proof of
the Archimedean principle. Constructing a mathematical proof in this manner corresponds to activities in the
illumination phase of the path of a proof suggested by Baki [24]. It can be noted that a prover would have
gone beyond the verification phase of proof construction.
Finally, the Archimedean theorem can be abstracted by examining it in order to follow the reasoning
involved, and determine how the theorem can be coordinated with other theorems and lemmas to compose
proofs of other mathematical theorems. For example, the Archimedean principle can be examined to see its
application in proving theorems in Real Analysis. For instance, the Archimedean principle can be used in
conjunction with the axiom of completeness to prove the rational density theorem in ℝ which is stated as: let
𝑥, 𝑦 ∈ ℝ with 𝑥 < 𝑦 then there is a rational number, 𝑟, such that 𝑥 < 𝑟 < 𝑦.
Furthermore, in order to develop a comprehensive view of mathematical proof among students it is
important that they attain intuitive understanding of mathematical proofs composed. As alluded to earlier,
intuitive understanding is said to have been developed when an individual has absolute conviction about the
truth of a mathematical proposition. Weber [23] have revealed that students have instead shown some relative
conviction in proofs they would have generated. For example, a study by Harel [9] revealed that students
exhibited relative conviction in proofs constructed in the following manner. After producing deductive
arguments to validate a mathematical conjecture that requires proof by axiomatic reasoning, the students
went on to verify the same conjecture using specific numeric examples. In other words, the students were not
aware that valid deductive justifications provide complete and conclusive evidence about the truth of the
conjecture and so such cases do not warrant further empirical verifications.
4. CONCLUSION
This piece has discussed literature on students’ understanding schemata with regard to the notion of
mathematical proof. The construct of a concept understanding schemata coined [25] refers to ways in which
an individual uses a particular concept in sense making of ideas embedded in the concept as well as how that
concept is applied in problem solving contexts. As noted earlier the concept of mathematical proof is central
to mathematical learning because it provides a justification for the truth or falsity of a mathematical
statement. Our interrogation of literature has identified an analytic conception of the idea of mathematical
proof as more powerful. Studies examined have revealed that students have difficulty in acquiring rational
and intuitive understanding of mathematical proof. Further, studies have revealed that students have
displayed relative conviction in proofs of mathematical statements formulated via deductive means by
engaging in extra empirical verifications of the statements. Overall, literature examined has shown lack of
deep understanding of the notion of mathematical proof among students. Evidence of fragile grasp of the
concept of mathematical proof includes rote memorization of uncoordinated fragments of proof facts to be
regurgitated later. On the basis of these students’ understandings of mathematical proof we recommend that:
a. Preferably an analytic conception of mathematical proof should be acquired by students. An analytic
understanding of mathematical allows interplay between the axiomatic and structural-intuitive
modes of thought. So, one of the goals of current research efforts in mathematics education
concerning the concept of mathematical proof should aim at promoting an analytic conception of

707
mathematical proof. This is so because challenges faced by students in composing mathematical
proofs can only be overcome if a comprehensive view of mathematical proof is achieved among
students.
b. Efforts intended to understand critical elements in students’ thinking processes should also involve
evaluating whether a comprehensive conception of the definition of mathematical proof would have
been developed.
The voice of the students should be the focal idea in current research endeavours to build a genuine
and authentic analytic conception of mathematical proof among student teachers. Hence, efforts to promote a
comprehensive conception of mathematical proof should be based on students’ own proof construction
productions as opposed to a focus on rote learning of instructors’ notes.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We greatly appreciate the granting of Sabbatical Leave to the first author Z. Ndemo by his
employers Bindura University of Science Education (BUSE) that made it possible for the three authors to
create time for the production of this manuscript. We also express our appreciation of the tremendous support
by Library Staff at BUSE and University of Zimbabwe in assisting us with access to data bases from which
we obtained relevant literature ideas. Finally, we acknowledge useful comments and suggestions made by
peer educators during conference and seminar presentations that include: Faculty Higher Degrees Committee
Seminar Presentations held at University of Zimbabwe, Paper Presentations at Local Zimbabwe Chapter
Workshop of the Southern African Association for Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology
Education and the Third International Science and Mathematics Educators’ Conference held at BUSE
in August 2017.
REFERENCES
[1] K. Lesseig, “Investigating mathematical knowledge for teaching proof in professional development,” International
Journal of Research in Education and Science, vol. 2(2), pp. 253-270, 2016.
[2] T. Cadawallader Olsker, “What do we mean by mathematical proof?”, Journal of Humanistic Mathematics, vol. 1,
pp: 1-33, 2011.
[3] A.J. Stylianides, “Towards a comprehensive knowledge package for teaching proof: A focus on the misconception
that empirical arguments are proofs,” Pythagoras, vol. 32(1), pp. 1-14, 2011.
[4] H.N. Jahnke, “Proofs and hypotheses,” ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, vol. 39, pp. 79-
88, 2007.
[5] I. Ug
̌urel, S. Morali, K. Yig
̌it and O. Karahan, “Pre-service secondary mathematicsteachers’ behaviors in the proving
process,” Eurasian Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 12(2), pp. 203-231, 2016.
[6] G. Harel and L. Sowder, “Toward a comprehensive perspective on proof,” In Lester (ed), Second Handbook of
Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2007.
[7] A.H. Schoenfeld, “Mathematical problem solving,” Orlando, Fla: Academic Press, 1985.
[8] Z. Ndemo and D.K. Mtetwa, “Negotiating the transition from secondary to undergraduate mathematics: Reflections
by some Zimbabwean students,” Middle Eastern and African Journal of Educational Research, vol. 14, pp. 67-78,
2015.
[9] G. Harel and L Sowder, “Students proof schemes: Results from exploratory studies,” In Schoenfeld, Kaput and
Dubinsky (Eds). Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education III, pp. 234-282, 1998.
[10] M. Wilkerson-Jerde and U.J. Wilensky, “How do mathematicians learn math?: resources and acts for constructing
and understanding mathematics,” Educational Studies in Mathematics, vol. 78, pp. 21-43, 2011.
[11] J. Duffin and A. Simpson, “A search for understanding,” The Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, vol. 18(4), pp.
415-427, 2000.
[12] K. Charmaz, “Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis,” London: Sage, 2006.
[13] K. Pfeiffer, “The role of validation in students’ mathematical learning,” In Joubert ed: Proceedings of the British
Society for Research into Learning Mathematics, vol. 29(3), pp. 79-84, 2009.
[14] G. Martin and G. Harel, “Proof frames of pre-service elementary teachers.” Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 29, pp. 41-51, 1989.
[15] E. Herlina and S. Batusangkar, “Advanced mathematical thinking and the way to enhance it,” Journal of Education
and Practice, vol. 6(5), pp. 79-88, 2015.
[16] K. Weber and J. Mejia-Ramos, “Why and how do mathematicians read proofs: an exploratory study,” Educational
Studies in Mathematics, vol. 76, pp. 329-344, 2011.
[17] K.N. Bieda, “Enacting proof-related in middle school mathematics: Challenges and opportunities,” Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, vol.41, pp. 351-382, 2010.
[18] J.D. Bostic, “Fostering justification: A case study of preservice teachers,” proof-related tasks, and manipulatives.
Journal of Mathematics Education at teachers’ college, vol, 7(1), pp. 35-42, 2015.
[19] N. Balacheff, “Aspects of Proof in pupils' practice of school mathematics,” In D. Pimm ed: Mathematics, teachers
and children. London: Hodder & Stoughton, pp. 216-235, 1988.

 ISSN: 2089-9823
708
[20] Z.B. Ersen, “Pre-service mathematics teachers” metaphorical perceptions towards proof and proving,” International
Education Studies, vol. 9(7), pp. 88-97, 2016.
[21] D. Stylianou, M.L. Blanton and O. Rotou, “Undergraduate students’ understanding of proof: relationships between
proof conceptions, beliefs, and classroom experiences,” International Journal of Research in Mathematics Education,
vol. 1, pp. 91-134, 2015.
[22] N. B. Goethe and M. Friend, “Confronting the ideals of proof with the ways of proving of research mathematicians,”
an International Journal for Symbolic Logic, vol. 96(2), pp. 273-288, 2010.
[23] K. Weber and J.P. Mejia-Ramos, “On relative and absolute conviction in mathematics,” For the Learning of
Mathematics, vol. 35(2), pp. 15-21, 2015.
[24] A. Baki, “Mathematics education from theory to practice (4th
Ed.),” Ankra: Harf Education Publishing, 2008.
[25] R. Maya and U. Sumarmo, “Mathematical understanding and proving abilities: Experiment with undergraduate
student by using modified Moore learning approach,” IndoMS, Journal of Mathematics Education, vol. 2(2), pp. 231-
250, 2011.
BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS
Z. Ndemo is a Lecturer: Undergraduate mathematics courses Undergraduate and postgraduate
mathematics education courses Research interest: Issues in learning of mathematics concepts
Currently a PhD candidate: University of Zimbabwe
David Mtetwa is a lecturer in mathematics eduaction in the Department of Science and
Mathematics Education at the University of Zimbabwe. His research interests are in learning an
instructional processes in mathematics and continuing teacher professional learning. David
Mtetwa is a Professor of Mathematics Education
Fred Zindi is a lecturer in the Faculty of Education. Fred Zindi is interested in the psychology of
learning mathematics. He is a Professor of Educational Psychology.

Towards a Comprehensive Conception of Mathematical Proof

More Related Content

What's hot (15)

Similar to Towards a Comprehensive Conception of Mathematical Proof (20)

More from Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn) (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Towards a Comprehensive Conception of Mathematical Proof