Students and researchers gave systematically different types of explanatory comments about the visual argument, with students rejecting pictures as proofs¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2008 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The two groups' comment categories differed significantly: researchers more often discussed how easy or difficult it would be to turn the argument into a proof, while students more often stated that a picture is not a proof. → Matthew Inglis 2008

Evidence¶

Matthew Inglis 2008¶

Matthew Inglis, Juan Pablo Mejia-Ramos. (2008). The Effect of Authority on the Persuasiveness of Mathematical Arguments. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000802584513

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Qualitative coding of explanatory comments from roughly 20% of Experiment 1 participants, independently assigned by the two authors to pre-defined categories; the group difference in comment types was significant. No effect size printed.

"The two groups had a different range, 2(3)=20.9, p<0.001, with the researchers more often discussing how easy or difficult it would be to turn the argument into a proof, and the students more often stating that a picture is not a proof."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Authority figures do not increase persuasion for formal proofs, regardless of proof complexity or author eminence — related
• Expert teachers interpret complex classroom phenomena more accurately and fluidly than novices and postulants — related
• In two online comparisons, a rubric changed what peer reviewers commented on (one study) and helped peer raters place writing in quality tiers, most for complex criteria (the other); the first study says the rubric restrained reflective thinking — related
• Students at all levels have serious difficulties constructing proofs, with instruction explicitly teaching expert heuristics substantially increasing proof-writing ability — related