Introduction to Proof: The Mediation of a Dynamic Software Environment

By Maria Alessandra Mariotti. 2000

303 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Education, Literature and Literary Theory

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4846b8f6cd1f0a1f94961fb12476f75d3f52d1a9

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Education

In Literature and Literary Theory

Citations in the corpus

Students’ understanding of the structure of deductive proof (2016, background): “This model hypothesises four levels of reading comprehension of geometric proofs; these levels are Bcomprehension of surface (epistemic value)^, Bcomprehension of recognising elements (micro level, logical value)^, Bcomprehension of chaining elements (local level, logical value)^, and…”
From static to dynamic mathematics: historical and representational perspectives (2008, background): “parts of the geometric construction allows a semiotic mediation (Falcade et al. 2007; Kozulin 1990; Mariotti 2000; Pea 1993) between the object and the user who is trying to make sense, or induce some particular attribute of the diagram or prove some theorem.”
Time for telling stories: narrative thinking with dynamic geometry (2009, background): “Much of the research work on DGEs has highlighted the cognitive consequences associated with this software feature and its role in different moments of mathematical exploration, such as constructing and proving conjectures (Ho ¨lzl, 1996; Arzarello et al., 1998; Mariotti, 2000; Healy and Hoyles, 2”
Approaching Proof in a Community of Mathematical Practice (2008, background): “…with students’ investigations (Alibert, 1988; Haddas & Hershkowitz, 1998, 1999; Schalkwijk, Bergen, & Rooij, 2001), the use of technology in teaching of proof (Jones, 2000; Laborde, 2000; Mariotti, 2000) and how to help students in transition to more formal proof (Chin & Tall, 2000; Moore, 1994).”
International group for the psychology of mathematics education (2008, methodology): “Despite this there is no agreed definition of the concept of beliefs (McLeod & McLeod, 2002). It is thus the responsibility of researchers in the area to make clear the meaning that they attach to the term (Pajares, 1992). In this paper “beliefs” is used to mean anything that a person regards as tru”
How can the relationship between argumentation and proof be analysed? (2007, background): “Experimental research (Boero et al. 1996; Garuti et al. 1996, 1998; Mariotti 2001 ) shows that proof is more ‘accessible’ to students if an argumentation activity is developed for the construction of a conjecture.”
The Hidden Role of Diagrams in Students’ Construction of Meaning in Geometry (2005, background): “As reflected by four papers of a special issue devoted to proof in Dynamic Geometry environments (Hadas et al., 2000; Jones, 2000; Marrades & Guttierez, 2000; Mariotti, 2000 ) it seems that such environments break down the traditional separation between action (as manipulation associated to observa”
Semiotic Mediation in the Mathematics Classroom: Artefacts and Signs after a Vygotskian Perspective (2008, result): “Elsewhere other partial analyses were carried out in relation to this notion (Falcade et al., 2007) and other mathematical notions, see for instance (Mariotti 2000, 2001) in the case of the notion of theorem.”
Proof and Proving in School Mathematics (2007, background): “Several researchers (Mariotti, 2000; Marrades & Gutidrrez, 2000; Moore, 1994; Solomon, 2006; Sowder & Harel, 1998; Usiskin, 1987) have identified the abrupt introduction of students to proof at secondary school as a possible explanation for the difficulties that many secondary school and university ”
From visual reasoning to logical necessity through argumentative design (2012, background): “Other researchers showed that the proof itself is more accessible to students if an argumentation activity is developed for the construction of a conjecture (Arzarello, Olivero, Paola, & Robutti, 2008; Garuti, Boero, & Lemut, 1998; Boero, Garuti & Lemut, 2007; Garuti, Boero, Lemut, & Mariotti, 1996;”