A Comparative Research on Proving: The Case of Prospective Mathematics Teachers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is of critical importance, in particular, for mathematics teachers who will teach future generations to understand and do mathematical proofs. It is important to determine future teachers' beliefs about and difficulties with proofs because their knowledge of this issue affects their teaching. This study aims to determine and compare the proof schemes of prospective mathematics teachers from two state universities, one in Turkey and the other in Spain. The case study was conducted within this study. The participants were 51 prospective teachers at their second year from the department of teaching mathematics education at Huelva University in Spain and 45 prospective teachers from the department of teaching mathematics education at Cumhuriyet University in Turkey. The Proof Test consisted of four questions about proofs for parallelograms. Semi-structured interviews were subsequently conducted to investigate the prospective teachers’ responses in-depth. The findings suggest that prospective teachers from Turkey and Spain indicated affinity in proving. The majority of the prospective mathematics teachers were either unable to complete the proof or completed the proof in an inaccurate way.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".