The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » Math Topics » geometry.pre-college

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Are proofs convincing?
Replies: 1   Last Post: Jan 28, 1994 11:54 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]

Posts: 3
Registered: 12/6/04
Are proofs convincing?
Posted: Jan 28, 1994 1:47 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Walter Whiteley's story about his students not being convinced by proofs in
the face of unexpected results reminded me of a story told by Joel Teller of
the College Prep School, a prestigious private school in Oakland, CA.

Years ago, while experimenting with alternative forms of proof, Joel asked
students on an exam to provide a "convincing argument" for some basic
geometric theorem. He wanted to leave open the possibility for some students
to write "paragraph" or flowchart proofs, but was shocked to find that NO
student wrote any sort of formal proof (much less the expected two-column
proof). When he asked his students about this, they responded indignantly
that they all knew how to write a formal proof of the basic theorem, but
since he had asked for a convincing argument, they thought he did NOT want a
traditional proof, since no one would ever be convinced by one of those.

While I agree that students need experience in logic and systematic argument,
I doubt that proofs provide this for the vast majority of high school
students. In fact, I am convinced that they can do much more harm than good,
by focusing attention away from more fruitful (and useful and accessable)
mathematical ideas. As with much of traditional mathematics instruction, our
attempts to teach (geometric or algebraic) proofs tend to fail because we
start with the abstract before students have enough experience with the
concrete. We start with minute details like the definition of betweenness or
the commutative property, and try to erect a delicate intertwined structure,
instead of routinely asking students to justify, conjecture, explain, or
convince in informal terms that they can all understand.

My objection to proofs (at the high school level) is that they not only fail
to teach cogent argumentation, but prevent large numbers of students from
going on to learn further mathematics, and falsely convince many that they
are not "good" at math. How many adults do we know that hit a wall in high
school geometry because of proofs? I'm thinking of students who might never
choose to study formal mathematics, but would nevertheless be interested in
studying science, engineering, or any other technical field. I have students
in my (non-AP) calculus class who cannot "do" fractions without a calculator,
but are pros at understanding what derivatives are and how they relate to
graphs and applications. A non-traditional curriculum has allowed them to
reach this point. Imagine how they perceive their own mathematical ability!
Isn't that what teaching high school mathematics is about -- opening up
opportunities? I tend to think that any mathematical topic that weeds out
students at such an early age needs to be reevaluated. Is it so important?
If so, when is is appropriate to introduce? What alternative methods of
instruction are available? Who would suffer if it were delayed, and who
suffers if it isn't?

Carlos Cabana, San Lorenzo High School, San Lorenzo, CA

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.