Search

The purpose of this study is to reveal how prospective mathematics teachers evaluate proofs that are proved by others in the field of analysis. In this regard, skills of prospective teachers to evaluate the accuracy of arguments were presented in various ways, and strategies they use during the evaluation process were examined. This study adopted as a qualitative approach is a case study. The sample consisted of eight prospective teachers studying primary school mathematics teaching in their third year at a state university in Turkey. The data were collected with the help of task-based interviews on subjects of functions, sequences, limit and derivatives. In the study, it was found that prospective teachers were successful at choosing valid proofs, whereas they had difficulties in identifying invalid proofs. It was determined that especially some prospective teachers were not able to distinguish proving methods, they were not aware of the power of counterexample, and they considered inductive arguments and, even if they were not correct, they accepted deductive arguments as valid proofs. It was found that prospective teachers used three strategies while evaluating proofs. These were structural examination, argument examination and authoritarian examination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Integración is the property of Universidad Industrial de Santander and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)