Author Correction: International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education
The original version of this article unfortunately contained two instances where the task names are mislabeled by switching the abbreviations “EA” and “AE.”
Under “Rates of Normative Construal” in the “Results” section, second paragraph, fourth sentence, the sentence should be written as:
First, this pattern may confirm our hypothesis about the Maxim of Relation, namely that students were less likely to construct the normative construal when its meaning was either uninteresting (the AE function statement) or patently false (the EA geometry statement).
Under “Rates of Normative Construal” in the “Results” section, fourth paragraph, first sentence, the sentence should be written as:
A third pattern we observe in Fig. 3 is that on the posttest the rate of normative construal greatly increased for the more difficult statements (function AE and geometry EA), resulting in a more consistent rate of normative construal across group and context.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The online version of the original article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-019-00097-2
About this article
Cite this article
Dawkins, P.C., Roh, K.H. Author Correction: Assessing the Influence of Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics in Student Interpretation of Multiply Quantified Statements in Mathematics. Int. J. Res. Undergrad. Math. Ed. 6, 145 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-019-00105-5