Analyzing proof using two frameworks: Toulmin's model and the Onto-Semiotic configuration
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15359/ru.39-1.7Keywords:
mathematical proof, mathematical argumentation, university education, ontosemiotic configuration, Toulmin modelAbstract
In mathematics education research, there has been a growing interest in analyzing how students understand proof as they progress in their studies. This analysis requires specific theoretical tools that guide both the design of concrete tasks and the recognition and management of students' knowledge. [Objective] The objective of this paper is to exemplify the articulated use of two frameworks for studying proof: the extended Toulmin’s model and the Onto-Semiotic configuration of the Onto-Semiotic approach. [Methodology] A qualitative, descriptive study is conducted, based on a case study with first-year university students as they prove arithmetic properties. The study was implemented three different times during the Discrete Mathematics course at an Argentinian university in 2023. [Results] At the beginning of the course, the analysis tool revealed the limitations in the arguments proposed by the students to validate the given propositions. Using inductive and abductive arguments, students formulated conjectures, demonstrating conviction in their truth. As their studies advanced, results improved, since they resorted to deductive arguments in their proofs. Nevertheless, the analysis revealed difficulties in the processes faced when developing proofs. [Conclusions] This research highlights the synergy between the tools used to characterize the argumentative structures in the students’ proof process and underscores the importance of recognizing its complexity as an explanatory factor for the difficulties encountered.
Downloads
References
Alfaro-Carvajal, C. y Fonseca-Castro, J. (2024). Specialized Knowledge of Prospective Mathematics Teachers on the Concept of Mathematical Proof. Uniciencia 38(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.15359/ru.38-1.5
Arce, M. y Conejo, L. (2019). Razonamientos y esquemas de prueba evidenciados por estudiantes para maestro: relaciones con el conocimiento matemático. En J. M. Marbán, M. Arce, A. Maroto, J. M. Muñoz y Á. Alsina (Eds.), Investigación en educación matemática XXIII (pp. 163-172). SEIEM. https://funes.uniandes.edu.co/funes-documentos/razonamientos-y-esquemas-de-prueba-evidenciados-por-estudiantes-para-maestro-relaciones-con-el-conocimiento-matematico/
Cohen, L., Manion, L. y Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456539
Font, V., Planas, N. y Godino, J. D. (2010). Modelo para el análisis didáctico en educación matemática. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 33(1), 89-105. https://doi.org/10.1174/021037010790317243
Gascón, J. A. (2020). How to argue with coherence. An International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science, 35(3), 327-344. https://doi.org/10.1387/theoria.20435
Godino, J. D. Batanero, C. y Font, V. (2007). The onto-semiotic approach to research in mathematics education. ZDM, 39(1-2), 127-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-006-0004-1
Godino, J. D., Batanero, C. y Font, V. (2019). The ontosemiotic approach: Implications for the prescriptive character of didactics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 39(1), 38-43. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26742011
Godino, J. D., Batanero, C. y Font, V. (2020). El enfoque ontosemiótico: Implicaciones sobre el carácter prescriptivo de la didáctica. Revista Chilena de Educación Matemática, 12(2), 3-15. https://doi.org/10.46219/rechiem.v12i2.25
Godino, J. D., Wihelmi, M. R., Blanco, T. F., Contreras, A. y Giacomone, B. (2016). Análisis de la actividad matemática mediante dos herramientas teóricas: registros de representación semiótica y configuración ontosemiótica. AIEM, 10,91-110. https://doi.org/10.35763/aiem.v0i10.144
González-Gutiérrez, F. (2004). Apuntes de Matemática Discreta. Universidad de Cádiz. https://www.didacticamultimedia.com/registro/matematica/7/documentos/algoritmodivision.pdf
Hernández-Suárez, C. A., Prada-Núñez, R., Parada-Carrillo, D. A. y Pumarejo-García, L. D. (2020). La comprensión de las demostraciones matemáticas. Un estudio de revisión. Eco Matemático, 11(2), 100-110. https://doi.org/10.22463/17948231.3201
Inglis, M., Mejía-Ramos, J. P. y Simpson, A. (2007). Modelling mathematical argumentation: The importance of qualification. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66, 3-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-9059-8
Knipping, C. y Reid, D. A. (2019). Argumentation analysis for early career researchers. En G. Kaiser y N. Presmeg (Eds.), Compendium for early career researchers in mathematics education (pp. 3-31). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15636-7_1
Komatsu, K. y Jones, K. (2022). Generating mathematical knowledge in the classroom through proof, refutation, and abductive reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 109(3), 567-591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-021-10086-5
Lew, K. y Mejía Ramos, J. P. (2019). Linguistic conventions of mathematical proof writing at the undergraduate level: Mathematicians' and students' perspectives. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 50(2), 121-155. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.50.2.0121
Lew, K. y Zazkis, D. (2019). Undergraduate mathematics students’ at-home exploration of a prove-or-disprove task. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 54, 100674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2018.09.003
Lockwood, E., Caughman, J. S. y Weber, K. (2020). An essay on proof, conviction, and explanation: multiple representation systems in combinatorics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 103(2), 173-189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-020-09933-8
Markiewicz, M. E., Etchegaray, S. y Milanesio, B. (2021). Análisis ontosemiótico de procesos de validación en estudiantes del último año de la escuela secundaria. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación Matemática, 17(62), 1-21. https://union.fespm.es/index.php/UNION/article/view/232
Marraud, H. (2007). La analogía como transferencia argumentativa. Revista de Teoría, Historia y Fundamentos de la Ciencia, 22(2), 167-188. https://doi.org/10.1387/theoria.466
Milanesio, B. y Markiewicz, M. E. (2024). La complejidad ontosemiótica de demostraciones matemáticas que se proponen en la entrada a la universidad. Revista De Educación Matemática, 39(1), 29-56. https://doi.org/10.33044/revem.44897
Molina, O., Camargo, L., Vargas, C., Samper, C. y Perry, P. (2024). Una propuesta para la formación de profesores de matemáticas: el caso de la argumentación matemática. RIME, 1(1), 151-185. https://doi.org/10.32735/S2810-7187202400013356
Molina, O., Font, V. y Pino-Fan, L. (2019). Estructura y dinámica de argumentos analógicos, abductivos y deductivos: un curso de geometría del espacio como contexto de reflexión. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 37(1), 93-116. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/ensciencias.2484
Molina, O. y Samper, C. (2019). Tipos de problemas que provocan la generación de argumentos inductivos, abductivos y deductivos. Bolema, 33(63), 109-134. https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-4415v33n63a06
Morales-Ramírez, G., Rubio-Goycochea, N. y Larios-Osorio, V. (2021). Tipificación de argumentos producidos por las prácticas matemáticas de alumnos del nivel medio en ambientes de geometría dinámica. Bolema, 35(70), 664-689. https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-4415v35n70a06
Nagel, K., Schyma, S., Cardona, A. y Reiss, K. (2018). Análisis de la argumentación matemática de estudiantes de primer año. Pensamiento Educativo, 55(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.7764/PEL.55.1.2018.10
Papadaki, C., Reid, D. y Knipping, C. (2019). Abduction in argumentation: Two representations that reveal its different functions. En T. Jankvist, M. Heuvel-Panhuizen y M. Veldhuis (Eds.), Eleventh congress of the european society for research in mathematics education (pp. 310-317). Utrecht University. https://hal.science/hal-02398497v1
Pedemonte, B. y Reid, D. (2011). The role of abduction in proving processes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 76, 281-303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-010-9275-0
Reuter, F. (2023). Explorative mathematical argumentation: A theoretical framework for identifying and analyzing argumentation processes in early mathematics learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 112, 415-435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-022-10199-5
Ríos-Cuesta, W. (2021). Argumentación en educación matemática: elementos para el diseño de estudios desde la revisión bibliográfica. Amazonia Investiga, 10(41), 96-105. https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2021.41.05.9
Sessa, C. (2005). Iniciación al estudio didáctico del álgebra. Libros del zorzal. https://delzorzal.com/libro/iniciacion-al-estudio-didactico-del-algebra/
Soler-Álvarez, M. y Manrique, V. (2014). El proceso de descubrimiento en la clase de matemáticas: los razonamientos abductivo, inductivo y deductivo. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 32(2), 191-219. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/ensciencias.1026
Sommerhof, D. y Ufer, S. (2019). Acceptance criteria for validating mathematical proofs used by school students, university students, and mathematicians in the context of teaching. ZDM, 51, 717-730. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01039-7
Staples, M. y Conner, A. (2022). Introduction: Conceptualizing argumentation, justification, and proof in mathematics education. En K. Bieda, A. Conner, K. Kosko y M. Staples (Eds.), Conceptions and consequences of mathematical argumentation, justification, and proof (pp. 1-10). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80008-6
Stylianides, G. J. (2008). An analytic framework of reasoning-and-proving. For the Learning of Mathematics, 28(1), 9-16. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40248592
Stylianides, A. J., Komatsu, K., Weber, K. y Stylianides, G. J. (2022). Teaching and learning authentic mathematics: The case of proving. En M. Danesi (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive mathematics (pp. 727-761). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44982-7_9-1
Stylianides, G. J., Stylianides, A. J. y Weber, K. (2017). Research on the teaching and learning of proof: Taking stock and moving forward. En J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in mathematics education (pp. 237-266). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. https://sites.math.rutgers.edu/~jpmejia/files/Stylianides_Weber_(Compedium).pdf
Toulmin, S. (2003). The Uses of Arguments. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Shared by Journal and Authors (CC-BY-NC-ND)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1. Authors guarantee the journal the right to be the first publication of the work as licensed under a Creative Commons License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
2. Authors can set separate additional agreements for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in the journal (eg, place it in an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
3. The authors have declared to hold all permissions to use the resources they provided in the paper (images, tables, among others) and assume full responsibility for damages to third parties.
4. The opinions expressed in the paper are the exclusive responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the editors or the Universidad Nacional.
Uniciencia Journal and all its productions are under Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0 Unported.
There is neither fee for access nor Article Processing Charge (APC)
