Reconsider pedagogical warnings that dismiss visual arguments in undergraduate mathematics¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 4 claims (4 for) · 1 study (1 causal), q3 · 1 of 1 report an effect size · 4 claims rest on one study

Description¶

The article suggests that lecturers' warnings that pictures are not rigorous may install a sociomathematical norm that leaves students dismissing visual arguments regardless of source, a norm that differs from practicing mathematicians' more flexible stance. It recommends exploring "the range of sociomathematical norms researchers and undergraduates act in accordance with in relation to visual arguments" and whether the differences are desirable, noting students respond to the "heavy warning" while missing visual arguments' potential for providing insight and suggesting results.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Awareness that classroom norms about visual arguments are shaped by lecturers' pedagogical strategies

Constraints¶

• The authors frame this as an interpretation and an area for future research rather than a tested recommendation

Target Learners¶

• undergraduate mathematics students

Target Learning Goals¶

• evaluating visual arguments in mathematics
• developing norms matching expert mathematical practice

Claims¶

• Authority effects on heuristic and visual arguments persist when instructions push participants toward evaluating conviction, ruling out an instruction-interpretation artifact [+W]
• Knowing an argument was written by an expert mathematician increases reported persuasion for a heuristic argument among both students and researchers [+W]
• Authority figures do not increase persuasion for formal proofs, regardless of proof complexity or author eminence [+W]
• Students and researchers gave systematically different types of explanatory comments about the visual argument, with students rejecting pictures as proofs [+W]

Related Strategies¶

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

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