# What Do Technology-Intensive, Standards-Based, and Traditional Curricula Have to Offer in Terms Mathematical Proof and Reasoning?.

In this study, I present an analysis of high school geometry curricula regarding mathematical proof opportunities. I examined eight U.S. high school level geometry textbooks, which were categorized into three main groups: technology-intensive, standards-based, and traditional curricula. I conceptualized ‘ideal’ proving activity combining two fundamentally different ways of knowing: a posteriori (or experimental/empirical) and a priori (or deductive/propositional). I argued that two major forces have given rise to such conception of proving: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics-led reform that favors a ‘doing’ perspective of mathematics and the availability of dynamic geometry software, a genre of computer tools that allow experimentation, which enables such a vision. Using an analytical framework that maps onto this conception of proving, I investigated proof opportunities along two main dimensions: making mathematical generalizations and providing support to mathematical claims