# BREAKING THE EQUATION

Document Sample

```					BREAKING THE EQUATION
Andreas Stylianides describes working with students on a journey to
appreciate the difference between being convinced and ‘proof’.

Empirical argument vs. proof                                 (e.g., 213 + 399 = 612), some with the same
odd numbers (e.g., 25 + 25 = 50), and some
Consider the generalisation: ‘the sum of any two             with prime odd numbers (e.g., 17 + 31 = 48).
odd numbers is an even number.’ What argument                No pair gave me a counterexample – the sum
would your students offer for it? Would that be a            was always an even number. So the sum of any
proof?                                                       two odd numbers is an even number.
An overwhelming body of research shows that
students of all levels of schooling including high-          Even though both arguments are invalid, the
attaining secondary students ‘prove’ mathematical        second argument can be considered more advanced
generalisations such as the above by using empirical     than the first, because, by seeking possible counter-
arguments (e.g., Coe and Ruthven, 1994). By              examples, it communicates a concern that the
empirical arguments I mean those that purport to         generalisation may not be true. Balacheff (1998)
show the truth of a generalisation by validating the     used the terms naïve empiricism and crucial experiment
generalisation in a proper subset of all possible        to describe the special categories of empirical
cases. These arguments are clearly invalid, because      arguments represented by the first and second
they cannot exclude the possibility of the existence     examples, respectively. The search of possible
of a counterexample to the generalisation. Here are      counterexamples in crucial experiment requires a
two examples of empirical arguments for the above        strategic selection of cases in contrast to the
generalisation:                                          random (or convenience) sampling of cases in naïve
Empirical argument 1: naïve empiricism               empiricism.
I tried many different pairs of odd numbers              The fact that a generalisation is true in some
and their sum was always an even number:             cases does not guarantee and, thus, does not prove
7 + 9 = 16, 15 + 21 = 36, 25 + 27 = 52,              that the generalisation is true for all possible cases.
etc. So the sum of any two odd numbers is an         This is the main limitation of any kind of kind of
even number.                                         empirical argument that many students find diffi-
cult to understand. What would be a proof for the
Empirical argument 2: crucial experiment             generalisation then? Figure 1 shows three possible
I checked different kinds of pairs of odd            proofs for the generalisation on the set of whole
numbers: some with small odd numbers (e.g.,          numbers.
1 + 9 = 10), some with big odd numbers

Figure 1: Three possible proofs (on the set of whole numbers) for “odd + odd = even.”

MATHEMATICS TEACHING 213 / MARCH 2009                                                                              9
Notice the correspondences among the three          empiricism as a method for validating patterns, to
arguments: they all seem to be saying the ‘same         using crucial experiment, to feeling a need to learn
thing’ using different representations. Notice also     about more secure methods for validating patterns
how each argument can be used to help someone           (i.e., to learn about proofs). Note that a pattern is
understand why the generalisation is true, but also     a kind of generalisation. The teacher and student
convince someone that the generalisation is true        names are pseudonyms.
for all cases without requiring that person to make
Activity 1: The squares problem
a leap of faith. A proof ’s potential to promote
understanding and conviction is one of the main         Kathy, the teacher, introduced the Squares Problem
reasons for which proof is so important for             (Figure 3). The hardest part of the problem was the

```
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
 views: 19 posted: 6/11/2010 language: English pages: 7
Description: Balacheff (1998) used the terms nave empiricism and crucial experiment to describe the special categories of empirical arguments represented by the first and second examples, respectively The search of possible counterexamples in crucial experiment requires a strategic selection of cases in contrast to the random (or convenience) sampling of cases in nave empiricism. [...] we may say that the students reached the point when they felt a need to learn about more secure validation methods cf.
BUY THIS DOCUMENT NOW PRICE: \$6.95 100% MONEY BACK GUARANTEED
PARTNER
ProQuest creates specialized information resources and technologies that propel successful research, discovery, and lifelong learning.