Abstract

In addition to demonstrating the validity of mathematical propositions through proof, it also reveals functions such as explanation, discovery, systematization, and communication. It is essential to utilize all proof functions to transform it into a meaningful and profound mathematical activity in classrooms. Since mathematical proof and reasoning are social processes, teaching proof at the middle school level, particularly in demonstrating its importance and necessity, is influenced by certain norms. Therefore, teachers' consideration of proof's functions and the social and socio-mathematical norms supports students' reasoning processes. In this context, this study aims to reveal the functions of proof, social and socio-mathematical norms, and the relationship between these functions and norms within a learning environment that enables students to solve proof problems through interaction. The study participants comprised 7th-grade students attending a public middle school in the Central Anatolia Region. Since uncovering proof functions and establishing norms require long-term interaction in an authentic learning environment, the teaching experiment method was adopted in this study. The findings were presented by analyzing the video and audio recordings and worksheets obtained from the 12-week teaching process. The study results revealed that the classroom community developed shared norms regarding discussion, problem-solving, justification, and collaboration. These social and socio-mathematical norms guided students' participation in discussions and enhanced the quality of their contributions. Additionally, the study revealed that norms and functions of proof were intertwined in dialogues and that the norms across different themes and the functions of proof were interconnected. In the study, it was determined that the norms in the themes of discussion and collaboration mainly supported the communication function of proof, while the norms in the themes of justification and problem-solving mainly supported the verification, explanation, discovery, and systematization functions of proof. It is recommended that studies focus on the social aspect of proof to demonstrate how social and socio-mathematical norms and the functions of proof support each other at different grade levels.

Keywords: Functions of proof, Mathematical proof, Mathematical reasoning, Classroom microculture, Social norms, Socio-mathematical norms

References

  1. Almeida, D. (2003). Engendering proof attitudes: Can the genesis of mathematical knowledge teach us anything? International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 34(4), 479-488. doi:10.1080/0020739031000108574
  2. Ayala-Altamirano, C., & Molina, M. (2021). Fourth-graders’ justifications in early algebra tasks involving a functional relationship. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 107(7), 359-382. doi:10.1007/s10649-021-10036-1
  3. Baki, A. (2006). Kuramdan uygulamaya matematik eğitimi. Trabzon: Derya Kitabevi.
  4. Bartlo, J. R. (2013). Why ask why: An exploration of the role of proof in the mathematics classroom (Doctoral dissertation). Portland State University, Portland, OR.
  5. Battista, M. T. (2017). Mathematical reasoning and sense making. In M. T. Battista, J. M. Baek, K. Cramer, & M. Blanton, Reasoning and sense making in the mathematics classroom: Grades 3-5 (pp. 1-26). Reston, VA: NCTM Store.
  6. Bell, A. W. (1976). A study of pupils’ proof-explanations in mathematical situations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 7(1), 23-40. doi:10.1007/BF00144356
  7. Bleiler-Baxter, S. K., & Pair, J. D. (2017). Engaging students in roles of proof. Education The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 47, 16-34. doi:10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.05.005
  8. Campbell, T. G., Boyle, J. D., & King, S. (2020). Proof and argumentation in K-12 mathematics: A review of conceptions, content, and support. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 51(5), 754-774. doi:10.1080/0020739X.2019.1626503
  9. Cervantes-Barraza, J. A., Moreno, A. H., & Rumsey, C. (2020). Promoting mathematical proof from collective argumentation in primary school. School Science and Mathematics 120(1), 4-14. doi:10.1111/ssm.12379
  10. Cilli-Turner, E. (2017). Impacts of inquiry pedagogy on undergraduate students conceptions of the function of proof. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 48, 14-21. doi:10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.07.001
  11. Chua, B. L. (2016). Justification in Singapore secondary mathematics. In P. C. Toh & B. Kaur (Eds.), Developing 21st century competencies in the mathematics classroom (pp. 165-188). World Scientific. doi:10.1142/9789813143623_0010
  12. Cobb, P., Stephan, M., McClain, K., & Gravemeijer, K. (2001). Participating in classroom mathematical practices. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(1/2), 113-163. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS10-1-2_6
  13. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri: Beş yaklaşıma göre nitel araştırma ve araştırma deseni (M. Bütün, & C. B. Demir, Ed. & Trans.). Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi.
  14. Çakır, A. (2021). Üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin matematik sınıf kültürlerinin sosyo-matematiksel normlar bağlamında incelenmesi (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Marmara University, İstanbul.
  15. Çakir, A., & Akkoç, H. (2024). Socio-mathematical norms related to problem solving in a gifted and talented mathematics classroom. Mathematics Teaching Research Journal, 16(1), 79-99.
  16. Dennis, A. (2000). A survey of mathematics undergraduates’ interaction with proof: some implications for mathematics education. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 31(6), 869-890. doi:10.1080/00207390050203360
  17. De Villiers, M. (1990). The role and function of proof in mathematics. Pythagoras, 24(24), 17-24. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26478464
  18. De Villiers, M. (1999). Rethinking proof with the geometer’s sketchpad. Oakland, CA: Key Curriculum Press.
  19. Dogan, M. F. (2015). The nature of middle school ın-service teachers' engagements in proving-related activities (Doctoral dissertation). University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.
  20. Dreyfus, T. (1999). Why Johnny can’t prove. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38(1), 85-109. doi:10.1023/A:1003660018579
  21. Fredriksdotter, H., Nor´en, N., & Bråting, K. (2022). Investigating grade-6 students’ justifications during mathematical problem solving in small group interaction. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 67(1), 1-19. doi:10.1016/j.jmathb.2022.100972
  22. Hanna, G. (1983). Rigorous proof in mathematics education. Toronto, Ont.: OISE Press.
  23. Hanna, G. (1995). Challenges to the importance of proof. For the Learning of Mathematics, 15(3), 42-49. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40248188
  24. Hanna, G. (2000). Proof, explanation and exploration: An overview. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44, 5-23. doi:10.1023/A:1012737223465
  25. Hanna, G., & Knipping, C. (2020). Proof in mathematics education, 1980-2020: An overview [Special issue]. Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics, 1-13. doi:10.29275/jerm.2020.08.sp.1.1
  26. Harel, G., & Sowder, L. (2007). Toward a comprehensive perspective on on the learning and teaching of proof. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 1-60). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Pub. Inc.
  27. Hemmi, K. (2010). Three styles characterizing mathematicians’ pedagogical perspectives on proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75(3), 271-291. doi:10.1007/s10649-010-9256-3
  28. Herbst, P., Miyakawa, T., & Chazan, D. (2010). Revisiting the functions of proof in mathematics classrooms: A view from a theory of instructional exchanges. Deep Blue at the University of Michigan. Retrived from http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/78168
  29. Hersh, R (2009). What I would like my students to already know about proof. In M. Blanton, D. Stylianou, & E. Knuth (Eds.), Teaching and learning proof across the grades: K-16 perspective (pp. 17-20). London: Routledge.
  30. Ingram, J., Andrews, N., & Pitt, A. (2019). When students offer explanations without the teacher explicitly asking them to. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 101(2), 51-66. doi:10.1007/s10649-018-9873-9
  31. Jahnke, H. N. (2010). The conjoint origin of proof and theoretical physics. In G., Hanna, H. N., Jahnke, & H., Pulte (Eds.), Explanation and proof in mathematics: 17 philosophical and educational perpectives (pp. 17-32). Berlin: Springer.
  32. Jones, K., & Herbst, P. (2012). Proof, proving, and teacher-student interaction: Theories and contexts. In G. Hannai & M. De Villiers (Eds.), ICMI study 19: Proof and proving in mathematics education (pp. 261-279). Berlin: Springer.
  33. Knuth, E. J. (2002). Teachers' conceptions of proof in the context of secondary school mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 5(1), 61-88. doi:10.1023/A:1013838713648
  34. Levenson, E., Tirosh, D., & Tsamir, P. (2009). Students’ perceived sociomathematical norms: The missing paradigm. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 28(2-3), 171-187. doi:10.1016/j.jmathb.2009.09.001
  35. Lev, M., & Leikin, R. (2017). The interplay between excellence in school mathematics and general giftedness: Focusing on mathematical creativity. In R. Leikin & B. Sriraman (Eds.), Creativity and giftedness (pp. 225-238). Berlin: Springer.
  36. Lopez, M., & Allal, L. (2007). Sociomathematical norms and the regulation of problem solving in classroom microcultures. International Journal of Educational Research, 46(5), 252-265. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2007.10.005
  37. McClain, K., & Cobb, P. (2001). An analysis of development of sociomathematical norms in one first-grade classroom. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(3), 236-266. doi:10.2307/749827
  38. Maher, C. A. (2009). Children’s reasoning discovering the idea of mathematical proof. In M. Blanton, D. Stylianou, & E. Knuth (Eds.), Teaching and learning proof across the grades: A K-16 curriculum (pp. 120-132). London: Routledge.
  39. Makar, K., & Fielding-Wells, J. (2018). Shifting more than the goal posts: Developing classroom norms of inquiry-based learning in mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 30(1), 53-63. doi:10.1007/s13394-017-0215-5
  40. Martin, T. S., & Mccrone, S. (2003). Classroom factors related to geometric proof construction ability. The Mathematics Educator, 7(1), 18-31. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228574478
  41. Martin, T. S., McCrone, S. M. S., Bower, M. L. W., & Dindyal, J. (2005). The interplay of teacher and student actions in the teaching and learning of geometric proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 60, 95-124. doi:10.1007/s10649-005-6698-0
  42. Mason, J., Burton, L., & Stacey, K. (2010). Thinking mathematically. Pearson Education Limited.
  43. Merriam, S. B. (2018). Nitel araştırma desen ve uygulama için bir rehber (S. Turan, Trans.). Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
  44. Meydan, A. (2021). Nitel araştırmalarda örnekleme yöntemleri. In A. Uzungöz (Ed.), Bilimsel araştırma becerileri ve araştırmada güncel desenler (pp. 47-61). Ankara: Pegem Akademi
  45. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
  46. Mudaly, V. (2007). Proof and proving in secondary school. Pythagoras, 66, 64-75. doi:10.4102/pythagoras.v0i66.81
  47. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
  48. Ozdemir Baki, G., & Kilicoglu, E. (2023). Social and socio-mathematical norms constructed by teachers in classes through the development of noticing skills. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 18(1), em0723. doi:10.29333/iejme/12649
  49. Ozgur, Z. (2017). Relationships between students' conceptions of proof and classroom factors (Doctoral dissertation). University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison.
  50. Öksüz, H., & Gürefe, N. (2021). 5. Sınıf matematik öğretmenlerinin öğrenme güçlüğüne sahip öğrencilerin bulunduğu sınıfta oluşturmayı amaçladığı sosyomatematiksel normlar. Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education, 10(2), 601-626. doi:10.30703/cije.742571
  51. Partanen, A. M., & Kaasila, R. (2015). Sociomathematical norms negotiated in the discussions of two small groups investigating calculus. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(4), 927-946. doi:10.1007/s10763-014-9521-5
  52. Rocha, H. (2019). Mathematical proof: From mathematics to school mathematics. Philosophical Transactions, 377(2140), 2-12. doi:10.1098/rsta.2018.0045
  53. Sekiguchi, Y. (2006). Mathematical norms in Japanese mathematics classrooms. In D. Clarke, C. Keitel, & Y. Shimizu (Eds.), Mathematics classrooms in twelve countries: The ınsiders perspective (pp. 289-306). Rotterdam: Sense.
  54. Steffe, L.P. (1991). The constructivist teaching experiment: Illustrations and implications. In E. Von Glasersfeld (Ed.). Radical constructivism in mathematics education. Mathematics education library (pp. 177-194). Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/0-306-47201-5_9
  55. Steffe, L. P., & Thompson, P. (2000). Teaching experiment methodology: Underlying principles and essential elements. In R. Lesh & A. E. Kelly (Eds.), Research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 267- 307). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  56. Stylianides, A. J. (2007). Proof and proving in school mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(3), 289-321. doi:10.2307/30034869
  57. Tall, D. (1998). The cognitive development of proof: Is mathematical proof for all or for some?. In Z. Usiskin (Ed.), Developments in school mathematics education around the world (pp. 117-136). Reston, VA: NCTM.
  58. Tanışlı, D., & Yavuzsoy-Köse, N. (2013). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının genelleme sürecindeki bilişsel yapıları: Bir öğretim deneyi. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 12(44), 255-283. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/70448
  59. Toker, Z. (2020). Etkinlikler yoluyla sınıf içinde ispat ve sorgulama. In Y. Dede, M. F., Doğan, & F. Aslan-Tutak (Eds.), Matematik eğitiminde etkinlikler ve uygulamaları (pp. 439-463). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
  60. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458-477. doi:10.2307/749877
  61. Yalman, E., & Uzungöz, A. (2021). Nitel araştırmalarda geçerlik ve güvenirlik. In A. Uzungöz (Ed.), Bilimsel araştırma becerileri ve araştırmada güncel desenler (pp. 125-140). Ankara: Pegem Akademi
  62. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2006). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  63. Yılmaz, T. Y. (2021). 7. sınıf öğrencilerinin kanıtlama süreçlerinin ve bu süreçte ortaya çıkan kanıt işlevlerinin incelenmesi (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Anadolu University, Eskişehir.
  64. Zaslavsky, O., Nickerson, S. D., Stylianides, A. Kidron, I., & Winicki-Landman, G. (2012). The need for proof and proving: mathematical and pedagogical perspectives. In G. Hanna & M. De Villiers (Eds.), ICMI study 19: Proof and proving in mathematics education (pp. 215-229). Berlin: Springer.

Copyright and license

Copyright © 2025 The Author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite

Yılmaz, T., & Yavuzsoy Köse, N. (2025). Relations Between the Functions of Proof and Social and Socio-Mathematical Norms: Reflections from the KARİDE Model. Education and Science, 50(222), 67-98. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2025.12938