Charracteristics Of Undergraduate’s Mathematical Proof

Construction On Proving Of Limit Theorem

Syukma Netti1,2, Akbar Sutawidjaja2, Subanji2, Sri Mulyati2
1
Universitas Bung Hatta
2
Universitas Negeri Malang

Corresponding Author: Syukma Netti Universitas Bung Hatta Padang Jl. Sumatera
Ulak Karang Padang 25133 Email: syukmaneti@bunghatta.ac.id
Abstract: Ability to construct proof is compulsory for whoever involved in
mathematics and mathematics education learning. However, many studies show the
result that most students still found that it is difficult to construct proof. Specially,
when it is related to constructing proof for function concept. Therefore, to find out
how it become difficult for the student, it needs to charraterize first the proof
construction done by students. This studys aims at describing charracteristic of proof
construction by student using assimilation and accommodation framework by Piaget.
As it had been conducted and processed by using qualitative method. This study had
found out three charracteristics of mathematical proof construction when students
attempting solved mathematical proof problem, that are (1) proof constraction with
complete schema, (2) proof constraction with incomplete schema, (3) proof
constraction with dismatch schema.
Keyword: constraction proof, mathematical proof problem, assimilation,
accommodation, schema.
1. Introduction
Ability to construct is necessarily important for mathematics learning in
mathematics education (Dreyfus, 1999; Harel & Sowder, 1998; Selden & Selden,
2009, 2015; Netti et all, 2016; Weber, 2006).However, most studies found out that
proof and constructing proof are difficult concept for students (Selden & Selden,
2004; Weber, 2001;Plaxco, 2011). What is need is close observations of syudent “in
the act” of provibg to get at the kinds of dificulties they have. For this, one can turn
to research on how student learn to construct and work with proofs. (selden &
Selden, 2004). To find out the students thinking process when they attemp construct
proof, it wiil help to recognize more about the problem faced by students and provide
ways to help them.

Previous studys had been comitted related to tracing the process of

constructing mathematical proof (Selden & Selden, 1987, 1995, 2009; VanSpronsen,
2008; Benkhalti. et al., 2016; Weber, 2001, 2006, Netti, 2016). Weber (2004) found
out that factors that coused students meet difficulties in constructing proof are
because the students do not have three types of strategic knowledge, that are (1)
Knowledge of the domain’s proof techniques, (2) Knowledge of which theorems are
important and when they will be useful, (3) Knowledge of when and when not to use
‘syntactic’ strategies, (4). Netti et al., (2016) described failure occurs on constructing
proof because two condition, that are incomolete schema on accomodation process
and complete schemas but unrelated on assimilation and accommodation process.
Selden & Selden (2014) proposed three factors that made students dificulties when
they contruct proof, that are (1) student did not construct proof according to proof
framework, (2) students were not able unpacking conclusion, and (3) students could
not use definition properly.
In this paper, I explore the issue of proof constraction within the context of
function, a central concept of limit function. While there has been some educational
research within the domain function (Abdussakir, 2014; Sudirman, 2014; Benkhalti
et al., 2016). Abdussakir (2014) membahas tentang proses mahasiswa mengonstruksi
bukti dengan menggunakan kerangka kerja tiga dunia dari David tall. Sudirman
(2014) mengaji tentang proses konstruksi dalam pemecahan masalah fungsi
komposisi. Benkhalti et al. (2016) menggunakan masalah pembuktian tentang
teorema limit untuk menjelaskan cara kerja dari kerangka bukti. Belum ada kajian
tentang proses konstruksi bukti berdasarkan skema penegtahuan dan kerangka kerja
asimilasi dan akomodasi.
The purpose of this paper is to address the following question; what
charracteristics of mathematical proof construction by students by assimilation and
accommodation framework from Piaget.
Schema is a terminology of psicological field for describing mental structure.
This term is not only used for complex mathematics structure but also for simoe
mathematics structure (Skemp, 1982). Construction of a schema is fruit of

assimilation and accomodation (NEISSER in ARBIB, 1990). Assimilation involves

the interpretation of events in terms of existing cognitive structure and

accommodation increases knowledge by modifying structure to account for new
experience (Kaasila, at al., 2009).
Process of assimilation and accommodation is closely related to student’s
mental structure. Tracing the process of proof construction by student is held by
observing and studying students schemas. Relation between process of assimilation
and accommodation with schema word form a cyclus. Existing schemas are also
indispensarble tool for acquisition of further knowledge. Almost everything we learn
depends on knowing something else already (Skemp, 1982). Ketika mahasiswa
berhadapan dengan sebuah masalah pembuktian maka mahasiswa terbut akan
merespon dalam dua kondisi, yaitu (1) Kondisi dimana mahasiswa memiliki skema
tentang masalah yang dihadapi maka mahasiswa dapat mengasimilasi masalah
tersebut, dan (2) mahasiswa tidak memiliki skema tentang masalah yang dihadapai
maka mahasiswa melakukan akomodasi terdahulu untuk mengubah atau menambah
skema yang telah dimiliki melalui akomodasi. Illustration for assimilation and
accommodation would be as follows

Figure 1. Assimilation and accommodation process (adopted Subanji & Nusantara, 2016)

Figure 1(a) would explain that if the pattern of strukture present in student’s
schemas, so she/he will able to interprete the proof problem directly through
assimilation process. Figure 1(a) show the pattern of schemes at problem structures
in knowledge schemes that bring about the process of assimilation, directly.
Figure 1(b) explain, schema of pattern of problem structure was not found in
knowledge schemas, therefore it was necessary to do accommodation process to
form a schema that suits problem structur. After the formaion of similar schema
structure, then students could progress to asimilaton process.
 Construction proof is a special case of problem solving (Weber, 2001;
Furinghetti, & Morselli, 2009). So the principles of solving problem are inadequate
to be used as guide for constructing proof, such as the principle of problem solving
of Polya (1945) and Tackling Question of Mason et al. (2010). In this studys, process
constructing proof by student, there were assumed that students melakukan 5
tahapan berpikir, yaitu (1) understanding proof problem, (2) creating connection and
select the consept of relevant theorems, (3) find the main idea of proof, (4) assembly
the proof, and (5) reflection.

Method
This studys use qualitatif method. The subjects were the students of
mathematics departement at state university of malang. For data collection 10
students who had passed calculus subject, were given proof problem task.They had
to do think aloud during working on the problem (Creswell, 2012). After they got
throught with proof problem, these students were going on interview for the need do
discover their thinking process. All activities during data collected were recorder
audiovisually, using video camera.

Proof problem task is as follows;

Solve the proof problem below.

Give set A, where 𝐴 ⊆ ℝ, 𝑎 ∈ 𝐴 and two function 𝑓 and 𝑔 difined in A If
f and g continous functions at a, proof that f + g continous at a.

Ideally, the proof problems above could have been solved if the students
possesed all schemas related to proof problem. These schemas were all about proof
concept, set teory, function concepts, continous function definition and it’s laws of
operation, limit function concepts and it’s the law for addition. If students posses
schemas, it can be assumed that they only went througth thinking procss of
assimilation. They were able to read and comprehend the proof problem, easily.
Students could make a direct connection with function schemas 𝑓 dan 𝑔, continous
function atc. Students could find the main idea directly that he/she had to formulate
𝑓 + 𝑔 continous at 𝑎. Students also were able to show that lim (𝑓 + 𝑔)(𝑥) =
𝑥→𝑎
(𝑓 + 𝑔)(𝑎) using property of function addition, law of addition of limit function and
it’s value. Finally, students convinced that they had done things properly in reflection
phase.
Analisis data dilakukan dengan membandingkan hasil konstruksi bukti
mahasiswa dengan tahapan konstruksi ideal yang dipaparkan di atas. Dengan
perbandingan dapat diketahui apa yang terjadi dengan struktur skema atau struktur
berpikir mahasiswa ketika berupaya menghasilkan kosntruksi bukti yang valid.

3. Finding and discussion

From 10 result of proof construction by students, none of them were purely
valid. The result of students proof construction can classified into three
cotegories. They are, three (1) proof construction with almost complete schema,
(2) proof construction with incomplete schema, and (3) proof construction with
dismatching schema. Each type can be explain as follows;
a. Proof construction with almost complete schema
Proof construction with almost complete schema which subject
worked to construct mathematics proof with almost complete schema
and the result is nearly valid. One out of three student who resulted the
almost/nearly valid construction was taken as sample data to be
analized. A student female called Nani. Her thinking structure can be
described as complete because it is nearly the same as problem
structure. Nani was successful to result proof construction that
waalmost similar to that of scientific concept.

Figure 1. Nani Evidence Construction Results

The result of proof construction by Nani schemed to be valid.
However, during the process of interview Nani was notconfident with
her construction. It wa because Nani didn’t us assimilation during the
phase of determining main idea. Sehe was inconfident with her property
of function addition. Nani should have written lim1 (x → a) ⁡ (f + g)
(x) = (f + g) (a) but she was doubtful. That she finally wrote as follows:
It will show that

Althought in the work sheet she had tried to make sure her self
about the function addition by writing the formula of function as below:
 She had a function schemes, schemes of definition for function
addition, schemes of rule of addition at limit and direct proof concept.
But these schemes were still week and fade. As the result she developed
their thinking process through not only assimilation process but also
accommodation one. In this case her proof construction could be called
…….. or pseudo proof constraction. It is according to Subanji who
described that.
b. Proof construction with incomplete schema
This process of proof construction with incomplete schemes
happened/accured on almost an strudent. A student, female, called
Yulia. She had been chosen as subject to be analized and described
about her thinking process. When she was reading the statement f, g: A
→ A is continuous in a∈A She became confused because she hardly
ever know the function symbol in general form. Yulia didn’t have
complete schemes about of f, g: A → A .There were subschemes about
function f and gthat Yulia had, such as f and g represented infinite
function, defined at A.
Yulia want on continuing the process of proof construction inspite of
being in incomplete shemes, she accommodated to interpete definition
of continuous function and continuous definition of function addition f +
g at a.
Because of her incomplete shemes of function f and g she could not
interprete well the properties and concept to do with the function f and
g.
The following figure shows the unsistematics.
Proof.
 When Yulia was successful to get the equation (inbox), she should have
realized thar she worried with unrecognized symbol. The next process of
proof construction would be another fact. She solved proof problem,
showing lim┬ (x → a) ⁡h = h (a) is true.
In this context, students were in unrecognitized condition because of her
incomplete schemes of function concept in general form.
In this same case as Yulia [] told. That students were not able to use
definition/theorems proprerly. In the same context [] told that students
didn’t know when and how a theorems is used in a “proof”. In this case
it can be understood that the root of the problem was that being in
incomplete scheme, it makestudents were unable to construct valid
proof.
Skemp explained:
Someone can interprete a problem if he has complete scheme and
sufricient.
In this same case as Yulia, incomplete scheme worry happen as
someone forget. There are two theories that discuss about “forget”:
decay theory and the theory of interference [stenberg].

c. Proof construction with dismatching schema.

This process is described based on the result of proof construction by
student, named Rina. Rina initiated her proof contruction with
assimilation when she readthe statement f and g continuous at a. In her
assimilation Rina interpreted statement continuous as “not
discontinuous”. In Rina’s schemes discontinuous is understood as zero
function value f and g. It’s the result,rina interpreted function f and g
continuous at a as f and g should have function value at a. Rina’s
 interpretation is not incorrect but incomplete. In scientifict concept,a
function continuous at a. Should fulfill three conditions:
1) The function defined at a,
2) Process limit value at a, and
3) Limit value at a and limit function at a is similar
Rina has a strong scheme about function continuous at a point. It doesn’t
match with scientific concept. It made Rina ignored two other conditions
of cntinious function.
Although Rina had other schemes that match scientific concept of
generalizing continuous for function f and g and concept of direct proof.
However, because of her schemes was incompatible, her proof
construction was invalid.
4. Conclution

REFERENSI
Arsyat, A. 2015. Fungsi Kontinu dan Turunan (Online)
www.academia.edu/9129048/Fungsi_ Kontinu_dan_turunan_1_ diakses 15
September 2016.
Arbib, A. M. 1990. A Piagetian Perspective on Mathematical Construction.
Synthesis. July 1990, Volume 84, Issue 1, pp 43–58 doi:10.1007/BF00485006
Bartle, R. G & Sherbert, D. R. 2000. Introduction to Real Analysis. Edisi ketiga.
John . Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York
Creswell, J.W. 2012. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting and Evaluating
Quantitative and Qualitatitive Research, Fourth edition , Boston, Amsterdam , Delhi.
Pearson.
Dreyfus, T. 1999. Why Johnny Can`t Prove (with apologies to Morris Kline)
Educational Studies in Mathematics.vol. 38. pp. 85-109 DOI:
10.1023/A:1003660018579
Gholamazad, S., Liljedahl, P., & Zazkis, R. 2003. One Line Proof: What can Go
Wrong? dalam Pateman, N., (Eds) Proceedings of the 27th Conference of the
International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 2, pp. 437-444.
Honolulu. HI.
Harel & Sowder. 1998. Harel, G., Sowder. L. 1998. Students’ Proof Schemes:
Results from exploratory studies. In E. Dubinsky, A. H. Soenfeld and J.J. Kaput
(eds), Issues in mathematics education: Vol.7. Research in collegiate mathematics
education, III, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, USA, 234-283
Heinze, A & Reiss, K. 2003. Reasoning and Proof: Methodological Knowledge as a
Component of Proof Competence. Procceding of the Third Conference of the
European Society for Research in Mathematics Education 28 February-3 March
2003. Thematic Group 4.
Kaasila, R & Pehkonen, E & Hellinen, A. 2009. Finnish pre-service teachers’ and
upper secondary students’ understanding of division and reasoning strategies used.
Educ Stud Math 73:247–261 DOI 10.1007/s10649-009-9213-1
Netti, S. Nusantara, T., Subanji, Abadyo & Anwar, L. 2016. The Failure to Construct
Proof Based on Assimilation and Accommodation Framework from Piaget.
International Education Studies; Vol. 9, No. 12; 2016
Plaxco, D.B. 2011. Relationship Between Students` Proof Schemes and Defiitions.
Thesis faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Tidak
dipublikasikan. online. http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-05172011-
121003/ diakses September 2015.
Selden, A. & Selden, J .2009. Understanding the Proof Construction Process. artikel
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/268630244 diakses 20 November 2015
Selden, A. & Selden, J. 1995. Unpacking the Logic of Mathematical Statements.
Educational Studies in Mathematics 29; 123-151. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Netherlands.
Selden, A. & Selden, J. 1987. Errors and Misconception in College level Theorema
Proving. in Novak, D. J (Eds) Proccedings of the Second International seminar on
Misconception and Educational Strategies In Science and Mathematics. Vol III.
Cornell University. July p. 457-470.
Selden, A. & Selden, J. 2008. Overcoming students’ difficulties in learning to
understand and construct proofs. In M. Carlson & C. Rasmussen (Eds.), Making the
connection: Research and teaching in undergraduate mathematics (pp.95-110).
Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
Selden, J., Benkhalti, A & Annie Selden. 2014. An Analysis Of Transition-To-Proof
Course Students’ Proof Constructions With A View Towards Course Redesign
(online) : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268278836. Diakses Desember
2016.
Selden, A. 2004. How Students Learn to Construct and Understand Proofs Presented
in AAAS Symposium The Changing Nature of Proof in Mathematics: Past, Present,
Future, February di New Mexico State University
Selden, A. & Selden, J. 2015. A Theoretical Perspective for Proof Construction.
CERME 9 Proceeding. (didownload melalui www.researchgate.net 12 Pebuari 2016.
Subanji & Nusantara, T. 2015. Teori Konstruksi Konsep dan Pemecahan Masalah
Matematika. Malang. UM Press
Subanji & Nusantara, T. 2017. Teori Defragmentasi Struktur Berpikir dalam
Mengonstruksi Konsep dan Pemecahan Masalah Matematika. Malang.UM Press.
Skemp, R. Richard. 1982. The Psychology of Learning Mathematics. Great Britain.
Harell Watson & Vinely Ltd.
Stylianides, Gabriel J. & Stylianides, Andreas J. 2009. Ability to Construct Proofs
and Evaluate One’s Own Constructions in Fou-Lai Lin, Feng-Jui Hsieh Gila Hanna,
Michael de Villiers (Eds) Proceeding ICMI 19th The Department of Mathematics,
National Taiwan Normal University Taipei, Taiwan. 2-166
Stemberg, R.J & Stenberg, K. 2012. Cognitive Psychology. Sixth edition.
Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Tabach, M & Levenson, E & Barkai, R & Tsamir, P. Tirosh, D & Dreyfus, T 2009.
Teachers’ Knowledge of Students’ Correct and Incorrect Proof Constructions in Fou-
Lai Lin, Feng-Jui Hsieh Gila Hanna, Michael de Villiers (Eds) Proceeding ICMI
19th The Department of Mathematics, National Taiwan Normal University Taipei,
Taiwan.
Tall. D. 2002. The Psychology of Advanced Mathematical Thinking. Dalam Tall. D
(Ed), Advanced Mathematical Thinking (hlm. 4-20). New York: Kluwer Academic
Publishers
VanSpronsen, H. D. 2008. Proof Processes of Novice Mathematics Proof Writers,
Dissertation doctorate in Doctor of Philosophy in Mathematics Education The
University of Montana Missoula, MT.
Weber, K. 2004. A Framework for Describing the Processes that Undergraduates
Use to Construct Proofs. Proccedings of the 28th Confrence of the International
Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Vol 4. pp. 425-432.
Weber, K. 2001. Student difficulty in constructing proofs: the need for strategic
knowledge. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 48, 101-119.
Weber, K. 2006 . Investigating and teaching the processes used to construct proofs.
In F. Hitt, G. Harel & S. Hauk (Eds.), Research in Collegiate Mathematics
Education. VI (pp.197-232). Providence: RI: American Mathematical Society. DOI:
10.1090/cbmath/013/07
Zhiqing, Z. 2015. Assimilation, Accommodation, and Equilibration: A Schema-
Based Perspective on Translation as Process and as Product. International Forum of
Teaching and Studies. Vol. 11 No. 1-2 page 84-89.