Mathematics Education Research Journal

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 21–32 | Cite as

Teachers’ attitudes towards proof of mathematical results in the secondary school curriculum: The case of zimbabwe

  • Lovemore Nyaumwe
  • George Buzuzi


This study investigated teachers’ attitudes towards proofs in the secondary school mathematics curriculum. The study was motivated by a desire to fill a gap existing in the literature in relation to teachers’ attitudes towards proofs. Thirty-four secondary school mathematics teachers’ responses to a Likert type questionnaire and interviews were summarised using the five themes of utility, positive attitudes, methods of proof, negative attitudes, and suitability of level of students to perform proofs. The teachers expressed neutral attitudes on technology as a method of proof and disagreed that verbal proof was a valid method for proving the viability of mathematical claims. The implications of the results are discussed using the context of Zimbabwean classrooms with a view to promote debate on how teachers could implement learner-centred reform.


Mathematics Teacher Mathematical Knowledge Mathematical Result Argumentation Skill Secondary School Mathematics 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Boone, W. J. (2006, January).Designing and analyzing mathematics/science surveys and tests in Ohio. Paper presented at the 14th South African Association for Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education annual conference. University of Pretoria, South Africa.Google Scholar
  2. Brumbaugh, D. K., & Rock, D. (2001).Teaching secondary mathematics. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  3. Davis, R. B. (1990). Constructivist views on the teaching and learning of mathematics. In R. B. Davis, C. A. Mahler, & N. Noddings (Eds.),Constructivist views on the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 1–6). Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  4. Goldblatt, P. F., & Smith, D. (2004). Illuminating and facilitating professional knowledge through case work.European Journal of Teacher Education, 27 (3), 335–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hana, G. (1996). The ongoing value of proof. In L. Puig & A. Gutierrez (Eds.),Proceedings of the 20th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 21–34). Valencia, Spain: PME. Retrieved 8 April, 2002, from Scholar
  6. Herbst, P. G. (2002). Engaging students in proving: A double bind on the teacher,Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 33 (3), 176–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hobson, A. J. (2003). Student teachers’ conceptions and evaluations of theory in initial teacher training.Mentoring & Tutoring, 11 (3), 245–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Knuth, E. J. (2002). Proof as a tool for learning mathematics.Mathematics Teacher, 95 (7), 486–490.Google Scholar
  9. Martin, T. S., Mcrone, S. M. S., Bower, M. L. W., & Dindyal, J. (2005). The interplay of teacher and student actions in the teaching and learning of geometric proof.Educational Studies in Mathematics, 60 (1), 95–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mudaly, V. (1999). Who said that proof was boring?Proceedings of the 7th SAARMSE conference (pp. 303–308). Harare, South Africa: SAARMSE.Google Scholar
  11. Nyaumwe, L. J. (2004). The impact of full time student teaching on pre-service teachers’ conceptions of mathematics teaching and learning.Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 6, 23–36.Google Scholar
  12. Nyaumwe, L. J. (2006). Investigating Zimbabwean mathematics teachers’ dispositions on the ‘O’ Level calculator syllabus.South African Journal of Education, 26 (1), 39–47.Google Scholar
  13. Peressini, D., Borko H., Romagnano, L., Knuth, E., & Willis, C. (2004). A conceptual framework for learning to teach secondary mathematics: A situative perspective.Educational Studies in Mathematics, 56 (1), 67–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ross, K. (1998). Doing and proving: The place of algorithms and proof in school mathematics.American Mathematical Monthly, 3, 252–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Solomon, Y. (2006). Deficit or difference? The role of students’ epistemologies of mathematics in their interactions with proof.Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61 (3), 373–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995).Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. Washington DC: Falmer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Warren, E., & Nisbet, S. (2000). Factors in primary school teachers’ beliefs about mathematics and teaching and learning mathematics. In J. Bana & A. Chapman (Eds.),Mathematics education beyond 2000 (Proceedings of the 23rd annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Vol. 2, pp. 632–639). Sydney: MERGA.Google Scholar
  18. Wheatley, G. H. (1992). The role of reflection in mathematics learning.Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23(5), 529–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lovemore Nyaumwe
    • 1
  • George Buzuzi
    • 1
  1. 1.Bindura University of Science EducationZimbabwe

Personalised recommendations