Important Notice: Our web hosting provider recently started charging us for additional visits, which was unexpected. In response, we're seeking donations. Depending on the situation, we may explore different monetization options for our Community and Expert Contributors. It's crucial to provide more returns for their expertise and offer more Expert Validated Answers or AI Validated Answers. Learn more about our hosting issue here.

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

0
Posted

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

0

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

Related Questions

Thanksgiving questions

*Sadly, we had to bring back ads too. Hopefully more targeted.