Abstract
This chapter charts the growth of proof from early childhood through practical generic proof based on examples, theoretical proof based on definitions of observed phenomena, and on to formal proof based on set theoretic definitions. It grows from human foundations of perception, operation and reason, based on human embodiment and symbolism that may lead, at the highest level, to formal structure theorems that give new forms of embodiment and symbolism.
Increasing sophistication in mathematical thinking and proof is related to earlier experiences, called ‘met-befores’ where supportive met-befores encourage generalisation and problematic met-befores impede progress, causing a bifurcation in the perceived nature of mathematics and proof at successive levels of development and in different communities of practice. The general framework of cognitive development is offered here to encourage a sensitive appreciation and communication of the aims and needs of different communities.
This article is a product of personal experience, working with colleagues such as Shlomo Vinner who gave me the insight into the notion of concept image, Eddie Gray, whose experience with young children led me to grasp the essential ways in which children develop ideas of arithmetic and to build a theoretical framework for the different ways in which mathematical concepts are conceived, Michael Thomas who helped me understand more about how older children learn algebra, the advanced mathematical thinking group of PME who broadened my ideas about the different ways that undergraduates come to understand more formal mathematics, many colleagues and doctoral students who I celebrate in Tall (2008) and, more recently, the working group of ICMI 19 who focused on the cognitive development of mathematical proof (Tall et al. 2012).
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Asiala, M., Brown, A., DeVries, D., Dubinsky, E., Mathews, D., & Thomas, K. (1996). A framework for research and curriculum development in undergraduate mathematics education. In CBMS issues in mathematics education: Vol. 6 Research in collegiate mathematics education II (pp. 1–32).
Bachelard, G. (1938). La formation de l’esprit scientifique. Paris: Vrin (reprinted 1983).
Baron, R., Earhard, B., & Ozier, M. (1995). Psychology (Canadian edition), Scarborough: Allyn & Bacon.
Baroody, A. J., & Costlick, R. T. (1998). Fostering children’s mathematical power. An investigative approach to K-8 mathematics instruction. New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Brousseau, G. (1983). Les obstacles épistémologiques et les problèmes en mathématiques. Recherches En Didactique Des Mathématiques, 4, 164–198.
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Towards a theory of instruction, New York: Norton.
de Lima, R. N., & Tall, D. O. (2008). Procedural embodiment and magic in linear equations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67, 3–18.
Dreyfus, T., & Eisenberg, T. (1986). On the aesthetics of mathematical thought. For the Learning of Mathematics, 6(1), 2–10.
Gray, E. M., & Tall, D. O. (1994). Duality, ambiguity and flexibility: a proceptual view of simple arithmetic. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26, 115–141.
Harel, G., & Tall, D. O. (1991). The general, the abstract, and the generic in advanced mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 11(1), 38–42.
Koichu, B., Berman, A., & Katz, E. (2007). What is a beautiful problem? An undergraduate students’ perspective. In J. H. Woo, H. C. Lew, K. S. Park, & D. Y. Seo (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 3, pp. 113–120). Seoul: PME.
Krutetskii, V. A. (1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in schoolchildren. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
MacLane, S. (1994). Responses to “Theoretical mathematics”. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 30, 190–191.
Mason, J. H., & Pimm, D. (1984). Seeing the general in the particular. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 15, 277–289.
McGowen, M. C., & Tall, D. O. (2010). Metaphor or met-before? The effects of previous experience on the practice and theory of learning mathematics. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 29, 169–179.
Pinto, M. M. F., & Tall, D. O. (1999). Student constructions of formal theory: giving and extracting meaning. In O. Zaslavsky (Ed.), Proceedings of the 23rd conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 4, pp. 65–73). Haifa: PME.
Presmeg, N. C. (1986). Visualisation and mathematical giftedness. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 17, 297–311.
Sfard, A. (1991). On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: reflections on processes and objects as different sides of the same coin. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22, 1–36.
Skemp, R. R. (1971). The psychology of learning mathematics. London: Penguin.
Skemp, R. R. (1979). Intelligence, learning, and action. London: Wiley.
Tall, D. O. (2004a). The three worlds of mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 23(3), 29–33.
Tall, D. O. (2004b). Thinking through three worlds of mathematics. In M. J. Joines, M. Johnsen, & A. E. Fuglestadt (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 4, pp. 281–288). Bergen: PME.
Tall, D. O. (2008). A life-time’s journey from definition and deduction to ambiguity and insight. Mediterranean Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 7, 183–196.
Tall, D. O. (2011). Crystalline concepts in long-term mathematical invention and discovery. For the Learning of Mathematics, 31(1), 3–8.
Tall, D. O. (2013). How humans learn to think mathematically. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tall, D. O., Thomas, M. O. J., Davis, G., Gray, E. M., & Simpson, A. P. (2000). What is the object of the encapsulation of a process? The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18, 1–19.
Tall, D. O., Yevdokimov, O., Koichu, B., Whiteley, W., Kondratieva, M., & Cheng, Y. H. (2012). Cognitive development of proof. In G. Hanna & M. de Villiers (Eds.), Proof and proving in mathematics education: the 19th ICMI study (pp. 14–39). New York: Springer.
Van Hiele, P. (1986). Structure and insight. Orlando: Academic Press.
Van Hiele, P. (2002). Similarities and differences between the theory of learning and teaching of Skemp and the Van Hiele levels of thinking. In D. O. Tall & M. O. J. Thomas (Eds.), Intelligence, learning and understanding—a tribute to Richard Skemp (pp. 27–47). Flaxton: Post Pressed.
Weber, K. (2001). Student difficulty in constructing proofs: the need for strategic knowledge. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 48, 101–119.
Weber, K. (2004). Traditional instruction in advanced mathematics courses: a case study of one professor’s lectures and proofs in an introductory real analysis course. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 23, 115–133.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tall, D. (2014). Making Sense of Mathematical Reasoning and Proof. In: Fried, M., Dreyfus, T. (eds) Mathematics & Mathematics Education: Searching for Common Ground. Advances in Mathematics Education. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7473-5_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7473-5_13
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-7472-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-7473-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)