RME_dist.pdf (312.94 kB)

How persuaded are you? A typology of responses

Download (312.94 kB)
journal contribution
posted on 05.07.2011, 12:14 by Matthew Inglis, Juan P. Mejia-Ramos
Several recent studies have suggested that there are two different ways in which a person can proceed when assessing the persuasiveness of a mathematical argument: by evaluating whether it is personally convincing, or by evaluating whether it is publicly acceptable. In this paper, using Toulmin’s (1958) argumentation scheme, we produce a more detailed theoretical classification of the ways in which participants can interpret a request to assess the persuasiveness of an argument. We suggest that there are (at least) five ways in which such a question can be interpreted. The classification is illustrated with data from a study that asked undergraduate students and research-active mathematicians to rate how persuasive they found a given argument. We conclude by arguing that researchers interested in mathematical conviction and proof validation need to be aware of the different ways in which participants can interpret questions about the persuasiveness of arguments, and that they must carefully control for these variations during their studies.

History

School

  • Science

Department

  • Mathematics Education Centre

Citation

INGLIS, M. and MEIJA-RAMOS, J.P., 2008. How persuaded are you? A typology of responses. Research in Mathematics Education. 10 (2), pp. 119-133.

Publisher

Routledge (© British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics)

Version

AM (Accepted Manuscript)

Publication date

2008

Notes

This is an electronic version of an article published in Research in Mathematics Education [© British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics]. The definitive version is available online at: www.tandfonline.com

ISSN

1754-0178;1479-4802

Language

en

Exports

Loughborough Publications

Exports