How can the relationship between argumentation and proof be analysed?

By Bettina Pedemonte. 2007

290 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Education, Language and Linguistics, Philosophy

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b4c7f9c874755e90867e22cc22dd55a1d94e4203

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 Language and Linguistics

In Philosophy

Citations in the corpus

Learning opportunities from group discussions: warrants become the objects of debate (2008, background): “Second, other researchers use this model to categorize or assess the quality of a specific mathematical argument (Pedemonte 2007; Weber and Alcock 2005; Inglis et al. 2007)–sometimes as a normative tool with which to judge whether an argument constitutes a mathematical proof (Pedemonte 2007; Weber a”
‘Warrant’ revisited: Integrating mathematics teachers’ pedagogical and epistemological considerations into Toulmin’s model for argumentation (2012, background): “example, listed by Shulman (1987) and, more recently, Kennedy (2002)—shape teachers’ arguments.”
The role of abduction in proving processes (2011, methodology): “Through this model, argumentation and proof can be analyzed and compared from a structural point of view (Pedemonte, 2007).”
Deductive reasoning: in the eye of the beholder (2008, background): “…proof has been, and still is, a central research focus in the field of mathematics education (e.g., Fischbein and Kedem 1982; Duval 1991; Hanna 1990, 1996; Balacheff 1988; Mariotti 2006; Pedemonte 2007), conceptions, views and approaches to deductive reasoning per se have received less attention.”
What Do We Mean by Mathematical Proof (2011, background): “Pedemonte [42] considers proof to be a specialized form of argumentation, and further argues that there”
Argumentation and algebraic proof (2008, methodology): “As shown in a previous paper ( Pedemonte, 2007a ), when analyzing student protocols it is important to distinguish between argumentation connected to a conjecture and the proof as product, in order to understand when the proof phase begins for students.”
Indirect proof: what is specific to this way of proving? (2008, background): “In particular, different structures of mathematical proofs can be compared with the structures produced by the analysis of observable argumentations (Pedemonte 2007).”
From visual reasoning to logical necessity through argumentative design (2012, methodology): “Pedemonte (2007) who also distinguished between a conjecturing and a proving activity stressed the importance of the “structural unity of theorems” in order to study the possible continuity between the structure of argumentation in the conjecturing and early proving phases, and the final structure ”
Proofs as bearers of mathematical knowledge (2008, background): “... proofs in teaching at the tertiary level (Selden and Selden 1995); proof as explanation and justification (Hanna 1990, 2000; Sowder and Harel 2003); proof and hypotheses (Jahnke 2007); curricular issues (Hoyles 1997); proof in the context of dynamic software (Jones et al. 2000; Moreno and Sriram”
Semiotic and theoretic control in argumentation and proof activities (2011, methodology): “Following other researchers (see for instance Pedemonte, 2007; Inglis, Mejia-Ramos & Simpson, 2007; Jahnke, 2008), we shall adopt Toulmin's (complete) model to study argumentation and proof not only as products but also as processes.”
Identifying Kinds of Reasoning in Collective Argumentation (2014, background): “Combining Peirce’s (1956) and Toulmin’s (1958/2003) perspectives provides opportunities to extend research related to argumentation and reasoning and explore connections between the two.”
Mathematics Majors' Perceptions of Conviction, Validity, and Proof (2010, background): “Pedemonte (2007) referred to this type of verification as abductive reasoning; she argued that this is preferable to naïve empiricism because it reduces the distance between verification and proof.”