Loading…

Semantic contamination and mathematical proof: can a non-proof prove?

The way words are used in natural language can influence how the same words are understood by students in formal educational contexts. Hereweargue that this so-called semantic contamination effect plays a role in determining how students engage with mathematical proof, a fundamental aspect of learni...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Juan P. Mejia-Ramos, Matthew Inglis
Format: Default Article
Published: 2011
Subjects:
Online Access:https://hdl.handle.net/2134/8572
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1818175556921851904
author Juan P. Mejia-Ramos
Matthew Inglis
author_facet Juan P. Mejia-Ramos
Matthew Inglis
author_sort Juan P. Mejia-Ramos (7157663)
collection Figshare
description The way words are used in natural language can influence how the same words are understood by students in formal educational contexts. Hereweargue that this so-called semantic contamination effect plays a role in determining how students engage with mathematical proof, a fundamental aspect of learning mathematics. Analyses of responses to argument evaluation tasks suggest that students may hold two different and contradictory conceptions of proof: one related to conviction, and one to validity. We demonstrate that these two conceptions can be preferentially elicited by making apparently irrelevant linguistic changes to task instructions. After analyzing the occurrence of “proof” and “prove” in natural language, we report two experiments that suggest that the noun form privileges evaluations related to validity, and that the verb form privileges evaluations related to conviction. In short, we show that (what is judged to be) a non-proof can sometimes (be judged to) prove.
format Default
Article
id rr-article-9368681
institution Loughborough University
publishDate 2011
record_format Figshare
spelling rr-article-93686812011-01-01T00:00:00Z Semantic contamination and mathematical proof: can a non-proof prove? Juan P. Mejia-Ramos (7157663) Matthew Inglis (1384290) Other education not elsewhere classified Language Mathematics Proof Reasoning Semantic contamination The way words are used in natural language can influence how the same words are understood by students in formal educational contexts. Hereweargue that this so-called semantic contamination effect plays a role in determining how students engage with mathematical proof, a fundamental aspect of learning mathematics. Analyses of responses to argument evaluation tasks suggest that students may hold two different and contradictory conceptions of proof: one related to conviction, and one to validity. We demonstrate that these two conceptions can be preferentially elicited by making apparently irrelevant linguistic changes to task instructions. After analyzing the occurrence of “proof” and “prove” in natural language, we report two experiments that suggest that the noun form privileges evaluations related to validity, and that the verb form privileges evaluations related to conviction. In short, we show that (what is judged to be) a non-proof can sometimes (be judged to) prove. 2011-01-01T00:00:00Z Text Journal contribution 2134/8572 https://figshare.com/articles/journal_contribution/Semantic_contamination_and_mathematical_proof_can_a_non-proof_prove_/9368681 CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
spellingShingle Other education not elsewhere classified
Language
Mathematics
Proof
Reasoning
Semantic contamination
Juan P. Mejia-Ramos
Matthew Inglis
Semantic contamination and mathematical proof: can a non-proof prove?
title Semantic contamination and mathematical proof: can a non-proof prove?
title_full Semantic contamination and mathematical proof: can a non-proof prove?
title_fullStr Semantic contamination and mathematical proof: can a non-proof prove?
title_full_unstemmed Semantic contamination and mathematical proof: can a non-proof prove?
title_short Semantic contamination and mathematical proof: can a non-proof prove?
title_sort semantic contamination and mathematical proof: can a non-proof prove?
topic Other education not elsewhere classified
Language
Mathematics
Proof
Reasoning
Semantic contamination
url https://hdl.handle.net/2134/8572