We present a study in which mathematicians and undergraduate students were asked to explain in writing what mathematicians mean by proof. The 175 responses were evaluated using comparative judgement: mathematicians compared pairs of responses and their judgements were used to construct a scaled rank order. We provide evidence establishing the reliability, divergent validity and content validity of this approach to investigating individuals’ written conceptions of mathematical proof. In doing so, we compare the quality of student and mathematician responses and identify which features the judges collectively valued. Substantively, our findings reveal that despite the variety of views in the literature, mathematicians broadly agree on what people should say when asked what mathematicians mean by proof. Methodologically, we provide evidence that comparative judgement could have an important role to play in investigating conceptions of mathematical ideas, and conjecture that similar methods could be productive in evaluating individuals’ more general (mathematical) beliefs.
This paper was accepted for publication in the journal The Journal of Mathematical Behavior and the definitive published version is available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2020.100824.