Skip Navigation


Teaching Mathematics and its Applications Advance Access first published online on October 1, 2007
This version published online on October 15, 2007
Teaching Mathematics and its Applications, doi:10.1093/teamat/hrm014
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (Rapid PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
27/1/1    most recent
hrm014v2
hrm014v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lee, C.-Y.
Right arrow Articles by Chen, M.-P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Institute of Mathematics and its Applications. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Original Papers

Bridging the gap between mathematical conjecture and proof through computer-supported cognitive conflicts

Chun-Yi Lee and Ming-Puu Chen *

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Ming-Puu Chen, E-mail: mpchen{at}ntnu.edu.tw


  Abstract

In many mathematical problems, students can feel that the universality of a conjecture or a formula is validated by their experiment and experience. In contrast, students generally do not feel that deductive explanations strengthen their conviction that a conjecture or a formula is true. In order to cope up with students’ conviction based only on empirical experience and to create a need for deductive explanations, we developed a problem-solving activity with technology support intended to cause cognitive conflict. In this article, we describe the process conducted for this activity that led students to contradictions between conjectures and findings. The teacher could create familiar problem-solving situations and use students’ naïve inductive approaches to make students think mathematically and establish the necessity for proof via computer support.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.