Analysis of Mathematical Proving in Geometry Based

Mathematics Education Research Journal
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-022-00420-2
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Analysis of mathematical proving in geometry based

on Habermas’ construct of rationality
Selin Urhan1 · Ali Bülbül2
Received: 9 September 2021 / Revised: 1 May 2022 / Accepted: 16 May 2022

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Inc. 2022
Abstract
Habermas’ construct of rationality is a tool adaptated from social sciences into
mathematics education to identify the difficulties in the proving process and to
plan the teaching of proof for reducing these difficulties. According to Habermas,
people engaged in an activity/action are considered to “act rationally” if they choose
and use the available criteria and communication tools in the field to reach their aim.
Habermas’ construct is composed of three integrated components which are epistemic,
teleological, and communicative rationality, and in this study, the proving process
of university students was analyzed based on this construct. The aim was to identify
the performance of students in the context of rationality components and explore the
reasons for the difficulties students experience during the proving process. Freshmen
mathematics teacher candidates participated in the study and the researchers focused
on the field of geometry. The findings revealed that different interactions between
the rationality components considerably affected the proving process of students.
On the other hand, during the analysis, the modeling requirements of the epistemic
rationality and communicative rationality components needed to be structured with
new sub-components. It is thought that this expanded version of Habermas’ construct
of rationality can be used more effectively to identify the difficulties students have in
mathematical activities such as problem solving, proving, and modeling.
Keywords Proving · Habermas’ construct of rationality · Geometry
This article was compiled from Selin Urhan’s doctoral thesis titled “Analysis of Proof Process Based
on Habermas Rational Behaviour Construct” which is submitted to the Institute of Educational
Sciences, Hacettepe University.
* Selin Urhan
selin.urhan@hacettepe.edu.tr
Ali Bülbül
a.bulbul054@gmail.com
1
Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Faculty of Education, Hacettepe University,
06800 Beytepe, Ankara, Turkey
2
Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
S. Urhan, A. Bülbül
Introduction
Students are expected to demonstrate abilities such as reading and working on dia-
grams during the geometrical proving process (Sinclair et al., 2012) and drawing
valid conclusions in this way (Cirillo & Hummer, 2019, 2021). During geometri-
cal reasoning, students must realize that geometric figures and objects form a con-
nected network of concepts (Seah & Horne, 2020). According to Fischbein (1993),
in geometric reasoning, students experience difficulties when the components of the
concept and figure cannot be transformed into figural concept knowledge and the
reasoning process is under the control of the figure. If the theoretical mathematics
knowledge of the student working on the figure is not sufficient, the student may
have difficulty making the perceptual interpretation of the figure. Thus, the stu-
dent ignores the instructions given in the problem and acts based only on the fig-
ure. They generally make invalid inferences based on what looks correct in the dia-
gram, instead of reasoning by using the diagram in accordance with the purpose
(Cirillo & Hummer, 2019). In the processes where the figure manages the concept,
the deductive structure of geometry, which ensures the logical consistency of the
solution steps and the generalizability of the result, is missing, and this deficiency
predominantly brings intuitions into the forefront in problem situations, which is an
important source of errors (Fischbein, 1993; Fischbein & Kedem, 1982; Fischbein
& Nachlieli, 1998). For this reason, attention should be given to both the drawn figure
and to the conceptual information in the geometrical proving (Karpuz & Atasoy,
2020).
Students often talk about a particular drawing as if it were the object itself (Gal
& Linchevski, 2010). Studies have shown that visual elements have an effect on
students’ formation of geometric concepts due to prototype examples (Haj-Yahya,
2021). The use of a prototype drawing, which is the most usual model of a figure,
away from axioms and theorems can lead to many false generalizations (Duval,
1995). In their study with Australian students, Seah and Horne (2019) revealed that
the students were more likely to identify shapes with standard features as examples
of the concept than shapes with non-standard features. Haj-Yahya (2019) showed
that the position of the drawing added to a task affects students’ ability to prove
and that the difficulty in identifying the shapes presented in a non-prototype posi-
tion limits students’ ability to produce proof. Jones (2000) emphasized the impor-
tance of encouraging students to switch from arguments such as “because it looks
straight” or “because it works in these situations” to persuasive arguments. Duval
(1999) claimed that it is necessary for students to transition from naïve behavior
at visual level to mathematical behavior. Students should move from visual per-
ception, in which they make inferences based on the shape, to analytical obser-
vation, in which results are drawn according to the characteristics of the object
(Haj-Yahya, 2021).
Considering the studies of Bradis et al. (1999), and Fetisov (2012), Karpuz and
Atasoy (2020) list the errors in proving arising from the interaction of figural-
concept as follows:
13
Analysis of mathematical proving in geometry based on Habermas’…
• Not basing the information obtained from the figure (or changes in the figure)
on an axiom or theorem,
• Making comprehensive generalizations based on geometric figures, and
• Not being able to draw the geometric figures correctly.
The first error occurs when the deductive structure of proof is not known, while
the other two errors arise when correct interactions cannot be constructed between
the geometric figure and the concept represented by the geometric figure (Karpuz
& Atasoy, 2020). Cirillo and Hummer (2021) argue that more research is needed
to develop students’ proving abilities in geometry and to help them understand
the nature of proof. Different theoretical perspectives are used in mathematics
education research in order to identify the difficulties experienced by students
in the proving process and to eliminate these difficulties. Duval’s (1991) frame-
work on the cognitive distance between argumentation and mathematical proof
can be applied to estimate the distance between argumentation and proof. How-
ever, Duval’s framework seems to be insufficient in explaining the quality of the
problem-solving strategy used and the evaluations of teachers (Boero, 2006). The
proof scheme produced by Harel and Sowder (1998) is the argument one uses to
convince oneself and others of the correctness or incorrectness of a mathematical
proposition. However, proof schemes cannot overcome the problem of distance
between a student’s proving performance and the usual requirements of a proof
text and cannot offer an explanation for teachers’ beliefs (Boero, 2006). Boero
(2006) underlined the need for a framework that simultaneously and comprehen-
sively addresses the epistemological context central to the analysis of the proving
process and the quality of the problem-solving strategy and communication per-
formance in the process. Habermas’ construct of rationality is one of the theoreti-
cal tools adapted from social sciences to mathematics education to meet this need
by identifying the difficulties experienced in the proving process and planning
mathematics teaching in a way that minimizes these difficulties (Boero, 2006;
Morselli & Boero, 2011).
According to Stylianides (2007), proving requires using correct statements and
transferring valid and known reasoning strategies within the classroom community
with appropriate and known statements. In this context, Habermas’ construct of
rationality, which serves to examine the epistemic validity of the expressions used in
the proving process with epistemic rationality, the strategic choices with teleologi-
cal rationality, and the communication needs with communicative rationality, can
be used to reveal the difficulties students experience in the proving process and the
reasons behind these difficulties (Boero & Morselli, 2009; Boero & Planas, 2014;
Morselli & Boero, 2011). Considering the geometrical proof in particular, draw-
ing a figure correctly and/or basing the process of making correct arrangements on
the figure on an axiom or theorem is related with the epistemic rationality; making
comprehensive generalizations based on geometric figures can be examined in the
context of the teleological rationality; and mastering the rational structure of proof
refers to communicative rationality.
13
The analysis of the proving process with Habermas’ construct of rationality
According to Habermas (2003), people are considered to be “rational” when they

act based on thought, on valid criteria in the field, and on communication rules to
accomplish their goals. Habermas’ construct has three components which are epis-
temic rationality (ER), teleological rationality (TR), and communicative rationality
(CR). Epistemic rationality is related to controlling the validity of statements and
inferences within a shared knowledge system consciously. According to epistemic
rationality, when students can explain the validity of the judgments with reasons,
it can be said that they know the facts. This shows that there is an exact linkage
between “knowing what” and “knowing why.” Dogmatic beliefs refer to irrational
beliefs based on epistemic rationality. Teleological rationality is concerned with the
intentionality of the activity and the awareness about choosing and using the appro-
priate tools to carry out the activity based on the aim. It requires a rational action
in the form of practical inference supported by justification and motivation. Com-
municative rationality is related to the communication practices between the mem-
bers of a community. Speech should be comprehended and accepted by the listener
when the speaker could provide valid reasons for the claims. In order for a speech
to be rational in the context of communication, it must be not only valid but also be
supported with reliable warrants by the speaker and thus be understandable by oth-
ers (Habermas, 2003).
Theoretical constructs adopted from other sciences cannot be used in the way
they are used in their disciplines of origin; they must be adapted to mathematics
education considering the teaching and learning of specific mathematics topics
(Boero, 2006). Morselli and Boero (2009) adapted Habermas’ construct of rational-
ity to the use of algebraic language in modeling and proving. Based on this adapta-
tion, epistemic rationality involves the validation of statements based on exact prem-
ises, correct statements, and rules of inference. There are two sub-components of
epistemic rationality which are modeling requirements (MR) and systemic require-
ments (SR). The consistency between the modeled state and the algebraic model
is concerned with modeling requirements. Systemic requirements involve using and
applying the algebraic language and rules, manipulating the rules of the system of
signs, and applying the methods correctly to solve equations and inequalities. Tele-
ological rationality involves conscious choice and use of algebraic formalizations,
transformations, and interpretations that fit the purpose of a mathematical activity.
It requires the correct and conscious management of the process through the writ-
ing of a useful algebraic expression, and transforming and interpreting this expres-
sion based on the aim. Communicative rationality involves producing processes by
adopting the standards and communication rules in mathematics. It investigates how
students use standard notations and whether they follow mathematical rules and cri-
teria to facilitate the reading and manipulation of algebraic expressions. It involves
communicating with others as well as communicating with oneself to initiate the
writer-interpreter dynamics.
Some researchers used Habermas’ construct of rationality to analyze students’
rational behavior in proving activities (Boero, 2006; Boero & Morselli, 2009;
Morselli & Boero, 2011) and problem-solving processes (Morselli, 2013) in different
13
domains of mathematics, and to plan and analyze students’ discussion process

within the scope of geometry and basic number theory (Boero et al., 2010; Morselli
& Boero, 2011). Boero (2017) related the idea of cognitive unity of theorems in
algebra and geometry to the rationality framework in conjecturing and proving.
Integrating Habermas’ construct with Toulmin’s model using a semiotic approach,
some researchers identified the different levels of awareness and control required to
manage arguments in reasoning (Arzarello & Sabena, 2011). Habermas’ construct
of rationality was also used to identify students’ rationality when constructing
arguments and trying to reach to the levels and types of rationality targeted by the
teacher (Durand-Guerrier et al., 2012), and to reveal ideal rational behaviors in the
field of mathematics based on epistemic, teleological, and communicative rationality
criteria (Boero et al., 2013).
Boero (2017) suggests that the relationship between the students’ intention,
which constitutes the teleological component of rational behavior, and the produc-
tion of the elements of proving, must be considered carefully. Lesseig et al. (2019)
recommend teacher educators to design content and activities in a way that they
could productively coordinate the proving process with pedagogical knowledge and
appropriate representations. They also maintain that possible cultural differences
should be considered during proof learning and teaching. Conner (2018) stated that
teachers should adopt behaviors that support students’ reasoning process in the argu-
mentation and proving processes in the field of geometry. Brown (2017) argues that
teachers should support students in communicating with each other in mathemati-
cal activities. This is important and necessary for students to gain autonomy in the
learning process and to ensure that students actively participate in the learning pro-
cess. With activities focusing on students’ epistemic, communicative, and teleologi-
cal rationality, students become aware of the components of rationality during con-
jecturing and proving.
Rationale of the study
Geometry and arithmetic are two different fields of mathematics. While the topics of
geometry include mostly continuous sizes such as line, plane, curve, and surface, arith-
metic includes topics of numbers, operations, equations, and some other discrete sizes
(Stillwell, 1989). Herbert and Brown (1997) define algebraic reasoning as presenting
mathematical knowledge with words, diagrams, tables, graphs, and equations, calcu-
lating unknowns, testing assumptions, diagnosing functional relationships, and using
mathematical symbols and tools to analyze different situations. During geometrical
reasoning, students must realize that geometric shapes and objects form a connected
network of concepts provided in the form of points, lines, angles, and concrete objects
(Seah & Horne, 2020). The difference in the nature of reasoning processes in the field
of algebra and geometry suggests that the difficulties students may encounter while
proving in the field of algebra and geometry will also be different. The fact that the
results obtained in the analysis of the relations between argumentation and proving dif-
fered in geometry and algebra (Pedemonte, 2007, 2008) also strengthens this idea. In
13
this context, it can be stated that it is important and necessary to analyze the proving
process in the fields of geometry and algebra separately.
Morselli and Boero (2009) adapted the components of Habermas’ construct of
rationality to analyze the mathematical activities in the field of algebra in mathematics,
and they added some new subcomponents to the model, which are necessary for the
analysis of algebraic proving. However, no studies have yet analyzed students’ proving
process within the context of rationality components and taking into account the figural
concept notion in the field of geometry. In addition, no studies have adapted the model
to evaluate mathematical activities in the field of geometry. In this context, this study
aims to analyze the proving process of students in geometry using Habermas’ construct
of rationality.
We focus on rational behaviors in proving and prospective mathematics teachers
because their engagement in proving activities fosters both their knowledge about the
nature of proving and proving competencies in the context of rationality. The improve-
ment in knowledge and the competencies in proving helps teachers become aware of
the difficulties students may encounter in proving activities (Guala & Boero, 2017).
Teachers’ interventions encourage students to adopt strategies that facilitate the rational
behaviors through engagement in proving activities (Boero, 2017; Boero & Planas,
2014; Conner, 2018; Douek, 2014; Goizueta, 2014; Martignone & Sabena, 2014).
Knowing the link between the proving process and the components of rationality can
help teachers guide their students to act rationally in the proving process by highlight-
ing the processes and rationality components that foster the generation of rational
behaviors.
Research questions
This study aimed to analyze the proving processes of students in geometry and to
investigate the difficulties they experienced and the reasons behind these difficul-
ties. The study addressed the following research question: “What are the difficulties
students experience while proving in geometry?” The study addressed the following
sub-questions:
According to Habermas’ construct of rationality, what components do the students

have more difficulty achieving during the proving process in geometry?
How does the dominance or lack of one of the rationality components affect the
other rationality components during the proving process in geometry?
Method
In this study, we adopted the case study methodological approach because our objec-
tive is to reach the greatest possible amount of information on the given phenom-
enon and to understand how prospective mathematics teachers conduct geometrical
proving process based on rationality components through different sources of data.
In this way, we aimed to gain a deeper insight into how prospective mathematics
13
teachers develop rational behavior in geometrical proving activity, considering both

the differences and similarities between the processes they go through. To obtain
data, four geometry problems requiring proof were presented to the students. Then,
a coding table (Table 2) was formed. The proving process of each student was coded
using this table. Based on these codings, the students were interviewed to reveal the
unclear aspects of their proving process.
Participants
The study was carried out with twenty-five freshmen students studying at the Math-
ematics Teaching Program of a public university in Ankara. These students took
Analysis I, Abstract Mathematics I, and Analytical Geometry I as first semester
mathematics courses. The contents of these courses are presented in Table 1.
In these courses, the students learned basic calculus concepts and propositions,
gained experience in deductive and inductive proving, familiarized themselves
with the formal language of mathematics, and experienced using this language in
the proving process. They took part in the problem-solving process by performing
operations with matrices and vectors, finding the solution set of systems of linear
equations, constructing line and plane equations in different forms, and finding the
solution set of these equations. Only the students who took the mathematics courses
in the fall semester of the first year for the first time and who did not take another
mathematics course were included in the study because it was thought that taking
other mathematics courses may affect the knowledge, theorems, and methods stu-
dents could use during the proving process. Three students who did not participate
regularly in the study were excluded from the study and the process was completed
with twenty-two students in total.
Table 1 The contents of mathematics courses
Analysis I Sets and number systems

Relation, function, and graphic drawings
Sequences, limit, continuity, and related propositions
Concept of derivative, its algebraic properties
Differentiation rules and its applications
L’Hospital rule and its applications
Graphic drawings
Analytic Geometry I Vector spaces
Properties of vectors
Matrix
Determinant
Scalar product and vector product
Linear system of equations
Cartesian coordinate system
Constructing equation of lines and planes
Abstract Mathematics I Propositions, conjunctions, and accuracy tables
Proof methods and their applications
Set operations, indexed sets, multiplication sets
Relations and properties of relation
13
Data collection tools
Firstly, eight problems that are thought to serve the purpose of the research were
prepared so that students’ proving processes in geometry could be analyzed
according to the components of Habermas’ construct of rationality. A common
feature of all the individual tasks was that they required proof as well as an
explanation for the strategies followed for proving. We drew on previous studies on
the same topic (Boero & Planas, 2014; Boero et al., 2010; Martinez & Pedemonte,
2014; Pedemonte, 2007; Pedemonte & Balacheff, 2016; Pedemonte & Buchbinder,
2011; Pedemonte & Reid, 2011) and various books (Houston, 2009; Nesin, 2010;
Stillwell, 1989; Struik, 1987; Terzioğlu, 2013; Velleman, 2006) to ensure the
reliability of the problems.
Regarding the appropriateness of the problems to the aim of the research and their
mathematical comprehensibility, opinions of six faculty members, three in the field
of mathematics and three in the field of mathematics education, were received. In
this way, it was aimed to ensure construct validity (Lather, 1991). The experts were
also asked to prove the statements given in the questions individually and to check
whether the information provided was sufficient and understandable for the students
to draw the desired geometric figures. They stated that the students would have dif-
ficulty in drawing the desired geometric figure in the question prepared with the title
of “arcs on a circle.” The explanation in the question was expanded in line with the
opinions of the experts, and a clearer and more understandable language was used.
The experts also stated that the content of the “similarity question” is complex, and
hence, ABC and CED triangles should be presented to the students to eliminate the
risk of not being able to denote the lengths of the line segments BD and AE with r
and s, respectively. The requested addition was made. On the other hand, two ques-
tions, which required problem solving rather than proving according to the experts,
were removed from the study. Among the questions prepared for the same subject,
the questions that are thought to provide richer data based on Habermas’ construct
of rationality were determined, and accordingly, two more questions were excluded
from the study. As a result, the study included four open-ended geometry problems
requiring assumptions and eventually the production of proof. The experts also rec-
ommended that the activities should not be performed sequentially as it will be a
very complex and cognitively tiring process. Instead, they suggested that the activi-
ties should be applied in separate sessions at different times.
After the application of each task, the researchers worked together and prepared
interview questions to make a more detailed analysis of important and remark-
able sections of each individual task and to clarify the sections that are considered
ambiguous. The students were asked questions such as “What did you think during
the process?” and “Can you explain what you did in this problem?” The students
were also asked some follow-up questions such as “How did you understand that
there was congruency here?” During the interviews, the students were presented
with the written works they produced. Here, the aim was to make it easier for stu-
dents to remember the steps they took in the proving process and to explain the rea-
sons for their claims.
13
Data collection process
A pilot application was conducted to test the questions. Yin (2003) suggests that
a pilot application helps to refine the research instrument and to develop relevant
lines of questions, which increases reliability. In the pilot application, the problems
were administered to nine students who completed their first year and attended the
summer school prior to the academic year when the main application would be con-
ducted. Within two days after the first application, the experts analyzed the data and
then started the interview process. Three participants were interviewed every day, so
the interviews for the first application were completed in 3 days. The same plan was
followed for the following three applications. The students were not intervened in
the proving process during the implementations and interviews. The analysis of the
data obtained from the proving process and the interviews showed that the questions
served the aim of the research. Only the necessary revisions were made in language
and expressions in order to increase the comprehensibility of the questions.
In the main application, the procedure in the pilot application was followed and
a separate session was held for each problem. Each session was held with the par-
ticipation of all students. The researcher, who carried out the application, answered
the questions of the students by making explanations that did not give any clues,
but helped clarify the vague parts in the problem situations. No time limit was set
during the applications. The students completed each session in about 20 to 30 min.
After each application, the researchers completed the analyses in about five days,
and then started the interview process about the proving process the students experi-
enced. The interviews were video-recorded receiving permission from the students.
The interview process of each application lasted approximately three days. All the
applications were completed in about two months. The research model that repre-
sents the experimental design of the study is given in Fig. 1.
Data analysis
The definitions and criteria of rationality components (Habermas, 2003) were

considered in the evaluation of the proving processes of students. Epistemic
rationality requires presenting reasons for the accuracy of the judgements. Tele-
ological rationality involves the free choice of a deciding actor to provide results
based on deliberately selected and implemented means and purposive justifica-
tions. Communicative rationality requires students to provide credible warrants,
to produce not only valid but also comprehensible and an acceptable proof. The
criteria prepared to analyze the proving processes of the students in order to meet
the requirements of the rationality components are presented in Table 2.
The rational steps expected from students in each problem for each rational-
ity component were determined by the researchers. Then, they came together to
discuss the criteria and used the final version in the analysis of the proving pro-
cesses. The rational steps expected from the students in the Octagon Problem are
presented in Table 3.
13
Preparing the Problems
Expert Opinion
(Construct validity)
Pilot A
Application
ppllic
(Refinement in the research
instrument)
APPLICATION ANALYSIS
22 Each The The researchers The researchers

students problem students analysed the conducted an interview
attended was proved the individual works with each student about
the presented to statements based on their individual work to
sessions the students (20-30 rationality obtain detailed results
altogether. in a minutes). components (3 days, each interview
separate (5 days). took 25 minutes)
session.
1st Octagon Individual Analysis Interview
session Problem work
2nd Square Individual Analysis Interview

session Problem work
3rd Arcs on a Individual Analysis Interview

Session Circle work
Problem
4th Similarity Individual Analysis Interview
Session Problem work
INTERPRETATION ON THE
QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS RESULTS
Fig. 1 The research model
13
The rational steps expected from students in the Square Problem are given in
Table 4.
The rational steps expected from students in the Arcs on a Circle Problem are
presented in Table 5.
The rational steps expected from students in the Similarity Problem are pre-
sented in Table 6.
Researchers analyzed each proving process separately based on these criteria.
Then, they came together and compared their results and evaluations. They re-
analyzed the parts they evaluated differently, taking into account the criteria for
rationality components. Interviews were conducted with the students in order to
clarify the parts that could not be agreed on, and for this purpose, the researchers
prepared the interview questions together, taking into account the analysis results
they obtained about the written proving process. After each interview, the inter-
view data were transcribed. To ensure reliability, the data was transcribed verba-
tim (Silverman, 2005). The data were presented to the reader in the form of direct
quotations in the relevant parts of the analysis results.
Findings
Since this study is a novel application of Habermas’ construct of rationality to the

geometry context, the aim was to investigate how Habermas’ construct can be used
to reveal the difficulties students experience in the geometrical proving process and in
what ways it contributes to the analysis using the rationality components, rather than
presenting results reflecting the general performance of the students in the proving pro-
cess. The difficulties experienced by the students in the proving process and the rea-
sons behind these difficulties were evaluated, and how students’ failures or mistakes
resulted from the deficiencies in some aspects of rationality and/or the predominance of
one aspect over the others was explained. In the interview extracts, the researcher was
denoted with the letter “R,” while the students were denoted with the letter “S.” Fur-
thermore, the order of responses of the students during the interview are represented as
S_1, S_2, etc.
Table 2 Evaluation criteria based on rationality components

Rationality components Criteria
Epistemic rationality No intuitive or implicit knowledge or step without justification

Presents the reasons for the accuracy of the judgements
Teleological rationality Implementation of the free choice of a deciding actor
Results based on deliberately selected and implemented means
Purposive justifications
Communicative rationality Speaker provides credible warranties
Not only valid but also comprehensible speech
Acceptable since the speaker could provide valid reasons
Discursive vindication
13
Table 3 Rational steps expected in the “Octagon Problem” based on the components of Habermas’ con-
struct of rationality
An ABC triangle is placed in a regular octagon in a way that the AB edge of the triangle is coincident
with an edge of the octagon and the C vertex is the midpoint of the edge opposite AB edge. Based on
this information, prove that the area of the octagon is four times the area of the triangle. Explain the
reason for the result you found (Nesin, 2010)
ER MR Forming figures such as right-angled triangles and rectangles in octagon and justifying the
steps of forming figures
Writing and justifying the length of the edges of these figures with correct and valid algebraic
expressions in terms of the length of one edge of the octagon
Writing the algebraic expressions for the areas of figures correctly and justifying the steps of
writing the algebraic expressions
Providing the reasons for the accuracy of each judgement
SR Expanding the square power of an algebraic expression
Simplifying algebraic expressions correctly
Solving equations correctly
TR Using Pythagoras theorem to write the length of the hypothenus of the isosceles right-angled
triangle in terms of the length of one edge of the regular octagon
Writing algebraically the height of the ABC triangle in terms of the length of one edge of the
regular octagon
CR Being able to use the formal language and symbols of mathematics correctly and in a valid
manner
Being able to write valid reasons regarding the steps taken
Providing credible warranties for each step during the interview
Table 4 Rational steps expected in the “Square Problem” based on the components of Habermas’ con-
struct of rationality
An ABC triangle is given. Draw three squares on each side of the triangle, completely outside the trian-
gle and one edge equal to that edge of the triangle. Create three new triangles by combining the free
vertex of these squares with each other one by one. Prove that the areas of these new triangles are equal
to the area of the ABC triangle (Pedemonte, 2007)
ER MR Being able to write and justify the length of the edges of the new triangles in terms of the
length of the edges of the ABC triangle
Constructing the Sine Rule correctly
Establishing the similarity ratio correctly in similar triangles and justifying each step of the
related method
Constructing algebraic expressions for the areas of triangles correctly and justifying them
SR Not making an operation error during cross-multiplication in the equation built by the simi-
lary ratio of similar triangles and justifying each operation
Making the inference about the Sine value of supplementary angles correctly and justifying it
TR Choosing one of the methods of “similarity in triangles” or “Sine Rule”
Choosing the triangles that serve the aim among similar triangles
Using the appropriate edges and angle of the triangles to find the area with the Sine Rule
CR Using mathematical language and symbols correctly and in accordance with the aim
Marking the equal angles of similar triangles on the figure
Expressing the similarity between triangles symbolically
13
Table 5 Rational steps expected in the “Arcs on a Circle Problem” based on the components of Haber-
mas’ construct of rationality
An ABC right-angled triangle is given. The areas of the crescent-shaped surfaces on the inside of the
circles that accept the perpendicular edges of this triangle as diameter and the outer part of the circle
that accepts the hypotenuse as diameter are indicated by S1 and S2 . Prove that the area of the ABC tri-
angle is equal to the sum of the areas of the S1 and S2 surfaces (Lune of Hippocrates, Hippocrates von
Chios, 450 B.C.; cited in Nesin, 2010)
ER MR Considering the circle theorems, drawing the figure in line with what has been given in the
problems, and thus determining the areas indicated with S1 and S2 correctly on the figure
Setting a correct equation between the perpendicular edges of the ABC triangle and the
length of its hypotenuse and justifying it
Writing algebraic expressions about the area of circles, circle segments and triangle on figure
correctly and justifying them
SR Not making an operation mistake while structuring the process
Expanding the square power of algebraic expressions during the application of Pythagoras
theorem, finding the area of circle segments, and justifying each step
Making simplifications correctly while creating algebraic expressions related to the area of
the triangle and circle segments and justifying them
TR Establishing a correct equation between the perpendicular edges of the ABC triangle and its
hypotenuse using Pythagoras theorem
Using this equation to relate the algebraic expressions established for the area of circle seg-
ments
CR Using the formal language and symbols of mathematics correctly; thereby producing formal
proof
Writing correct and valid explanations regarding the steps taken during the process
The lack of teleological rationality: correct but not goal oriented steps
in the proving process
As seen in the proving process in Fig. 2, the student was able to draw the figure cor-
rectly in accordance with the criteria given in the problem. During the interview,
she was able to explain how she drew the figure and the arrangements she made on
it by presenting reliable warrants. She did not use intuitive or implicit knowledge in
the process of building the figure and she was able to justify the steps she took. This
shows that the student fulfilled the modeling requirements of epistemic rationality in
terms of creating a geometric model, since she provided valid reasons for the accu-
racy of the judgements related with creating the geometric model.
The student chose to use the Sine Rule to build the expressions for the area of tri-
angles A1 , A2 , and A3. She applied the Sine Rule correctly. Also, she was able to use
the knowledge that the Sine value of supplementary angles is equal. Therefore, she
correctly established the algebraic expressions for the area of the A1 , A2 , and A3 tri-
angles, and met the modeling requirements of epistemic rationality. In this process,
it is seen that the student implemented the intention of the free choice of a deciding
13
Table 6 Rational steps expected in the “Similarity Problem” based on the components of Habermas’
construct of rationality
Let us take any ABC triangle, which is not equilateral, as given in the
figure. Let us show the ACB angle with β. Suppose 60° < β < 90°. Let us
place a CED isosceles triangle in this triangle whose top is at C, base is on
AB line, and both base angles are equal to β. Let us denote the lengths of
the line segments BD and AE with r and s, respectively. In this case, prove
that a2+b2=(r+s)c (Sabit İbn Kurra, cited in Terzioğlu, 2013).
ER MR Placing angles correctly on the given figure

Identifying triangles whose angles are equal and hence similar and justify-
ing them
Establishing the similarity ratio correctly using the edges across equal
angles and justifying it
Constructing algebraic expressions related to the area of triangles correctly
if the student preferred the method of finding the area of the triangles and
justifying them
Constructing and justifying the Cosine Rule correctly if the student chose
to use it
SR Not making an operation mistake while structuring the process
Using mathematical rules and the signs system correctly and justifying
them
Making simplifications correctly while creating algebraic expressions
related to the area of a triangle and justifying them
Making the inference about the Cosine value of an angle correctly if the
student chose to use the Cosine Rule and justifying it
TR Choosing the “similarity in triangles” method to prove the expression
given in the problem and using this tool in the process in a purposive
manner
Selecting the triangles that serve the aim among the similar ones, and using
this tool in the process in a purposive manner
CR Using mathematical language and symbols correctly during the process
Expressing the similarity between triangles symbolically and correctly
Making symbolic or textual explanations while establishing the similarity
ratio
actor (deciding to use Sin rule to reach the aim) and based the results she obtained
on the deliberately selected and implemented means (purposive choosing and using
lengths and the angle to apply the Sin rule to build the expressions for the area of
the triangles A1 , A2 , and A3). This shows that the student met the teleological ration-
ality requirements in the proving process. The student’s purposive justifications in
the interview process also confirm that she met the teleological rationality require-
ments. In addition, the student based the claims on reliable warrants and presented
a comprehensible and acceptable process for the listener, which shows that she met
the requirements of communicative rationality in terms of the verbal transfer of the
proving process. However, at the end of the proving process, she wrote a note as “I
13
Fig. 2 Lack of teleological

rationality in the last step of the
proving process
couldn’t find the area of the triangle in the middle.” Below is a quotation about this
part:
S_5: Well, I couldn’t write the equation for the area of the ABC triangle like
these (showing the areas of A1 , A2 and A3). It is very complicated. I have to
write something common for all of them so I can make a comparison. Now, for
example, I wrote the area of A1 , using the ∝ angle and a and c edges. Then, for
example, how do I write A2 in the same way? a, b, and c are not equal. Angles
are not equal. I cannot do anything right now, I cannot see.
The student should use the edges that she used while constructing the algebraic
expression for the area of A1 triangle to establish the algebraic expression for the
area of the ABC triangle. The angle between these edges in the ABC triangle is the
supplementary angle of the angle used in the area expression of triangle A1 and has
the same Sine value as this angle. In this way, the student would be able to see that
the algebraic expressions representing the areas of the two triangles were the same.
She could follow the same procedure to show that the area of A2 and ABC triangles
are equal and the area of A3 and ABC triangles are equal. But the student chose to
compare the areas of the A1 , A2 , and A3 triangles within themselves. As a result,
although the student had all the necessary knowledge to reach the aim, she could
not make the purposive choices and could not use the visual model in accordance
with the purpose in order to transition from the visual model to the algebraic model.
Hence, she was not able to make the practical inference from what she had at the
end of the process (S_5). This shows that the student could not meet the teleological
rationality requirements in the last step, as she could not use the information she had
in accordance with the purpose.
As seen in Fig. 3, another student made the correct arrangements on the figure. In the
interview, the student provided reliable warrants for the judgements she used. In this
13
context, it can be stated that the student met the modeling requirements of epistemic
rationality in terms of creating a geometric model.
Using the Pythagoras theorem, the student wrote two algebraic expressions rep-
resenting the length h in the right-angled triangles and constructed a valid equation
between these expressions. Below is a quotation from the interview.
R: Can you tell me what you did during the proving process?
S_1: I used the isosceles triangle EDC. I know that in an isosceles triangle, the
height divides the base into two equal parts. I used this feature. There are also
two right angled triangles here. I used Pythagoras theorem in these triangles.
Actually it was going well. I do not understand why it did not work.
R: What if you tried to do it in another way? Would you like to do it all over
again?
S_2: Well, I do not know. I cannot think of anything else. This method was
really good. Why didn’t it work? Did I make an operation error?
In the interview, the student provided valid warrants (S_1) for each step in the
proving process and presented reasons for the accuracy of the judgements and
operations, which shows that the student did not act intuitively and did not use
dogmatic knowledge. Hence, she fulfilled both the systemic and the modeling
requirements of epistemic rationality. In addition, the student presented reliable
warrants and comprehensible and acceptable steps for the listener, which shows
that she met the requirements of communicative rationality in terms of the verbal
transfer of the proving process. On the other hand, the method she employed is
not suitable for the proof of the statement given in the problem. Hence, the stu-
dent could not meet the requirements of teleological rationality. As the student
believed that the method she followed would work (S_1), she did not realize that
the tool she selected was not sufficient to help her reach the goal; thus, she did not
change it (S_2). In this context, it can be stated that she insisted on using the use-
less tool in the proving process, could not provide a purposive justification, could
Fig. 3 Lack of teleological rationality
13
not meet the requirements of teleological rationality, and thus could not reach her
goal.
As seen in Fig. 4, one of the students wanted to prove the expression given in
the problem using similar triangles. During the interview, the student justified the
accuracy of the arrangements made on the figure by presenting valid warrants. Since
the student did not use intuitive or implicit knowledge while making arrange-
ments on the figure, she fulfilled the modeling requirements of epistemic rational-
ity in terms of creating a geometric model.
As seen in Fig. 4, the similarity ratio established by the student and the equa-
tions she built with this ratio are correct. During the interview, the student veri-
fied how she built the similarity ratio and equations with valid warrants. The stu-
dent presented valid reasons for the accuracy of the judgements without using
intuitive or implicit knowledge and fulfilled the modeling requirements of epis-
temic rationality in terms of creating an algebraic model.
However, as seen in Fig. 5, the student could not choose the suitable similar
triangles that would allow her to justify the expression she tried to prove.
R: I see that you have identified three similar triangles, but you worked
with two of them. Why didn’t you consider using other triangles?
S_4: Yes, that’s right. I really do not know why I did not write ratios from
the others. I guess I got upset when I could not reach the result with these.
Although she took all the necessary steps to achieve her goal, she could not
make the practical inference from what she had at the end of the process and she
was lost (S_4). This shows that the student could not choose the appropriate tool
for her purpose and therefore could not meet the requirements of teleological
rationality. In the continuation of the interview, the student was able to prove the
expression and explained the process providing reliable warrants as seen below.
Fig. 4 The figure the student

drew during the proving process
13
Fig. 5 Lack of teleological

rationality
S_5: I used the similarity between the ABC triangle and the ACE trian-
gle and also the similarity between the ABC triangle and the CBD tri-
angle. I wrote ratios from the similarity. It came from there. When I did
cross-multiplication, I found a2 and b2 . When I added them up, I found
a2 + b2 = rc + cs . When I factorised the expression rc + cs , I obtained the
expression given in the problem.
At this stage, it is seen that the student implemented the intention of the free
choice of a deciding actor and performed purposive justification in her steps
(S_5). This time, the student met the requirements of teleological rationality
by choosing the suitable tool to achieve her goal. She presented credible war-
rants to the listener during the interview and produced not only valid but also a
comprehensible and acceptable speech, which shows that she could make discur-
sive vindication and was competent in the verbal transfer of the proving process
within the context of communicative rationality.
The lack of epistemic rationality: incorrect but goal‑oriented steps in the proving
process
It was observed that the student could draw the figure correctly, in accordance
with what was given in the problem. She made correct arrangements on the figure
and was able to provide reliable warrants for the steps she took in the process of
drawing the figure and editing the figure during the interview. Thus, she met the
modeling requirements of epistemic rationality in terms of creating a geometric
model. As seen in Fig. 6, the student preferred to use the Sine rule to set up the
equation for the area of the triangles, yet could not write the rule correctly.
The student’s statements about the process are given below.
13
S_3: I found the areas of triangles using the area theorem. Then, I saw that
the areas were equal because cos(∝) and cos(180◦ − ∝) are equal.
R: For what purpose do we use the area theorem in triangles? Can we go
over it again?
S_4: To find the area of the
triangle, we multiply the lengths and the Cosine
of the angle in between and then, we divide it by 2 . So, we calculate the area
of the
triangle. In other words, it is a useful method if the base and height of
the triangle is not available.
R: You just mentioned here that the Cosine of the angles are equal. How did
you come to this conclusion?
S_5: Well, the lengths are already the same. 1∕2 is the same anyway. These
are what we have. Cosine values must be equal so that the areas are equal.
R: I see, but why are the Cosine value of these angles equal?
S_6: This is the rule.
R: Where does this rule come from?
S_7: I cannot remember now. What I remember is they are equal.
It is seen that the student did not know the Sine rule (S_4) and also considered
the Cosine values of the supplementary angles to be equal (S_3, S_5). During the
interview, it was observed that the student could not provide reliable warrant regard-
ing the steps she took and used implicit knowledge (S_3, S_5) and dogmatic state-
ments (S_6, S_7). Since the student could not justify the accuracy of the steps she
took in the proving process with reliable warrants, she could not meet the modeling
requirements of epistemic rationality. It was also seen that in order to achieve her
goal, the student constructed the process (S_5) considering that the values of cos
( ∝) and cos (180°- ∝) are equal. Although she could not explain this equality by
presenting a valid warrant, she tried to achieve her aim and made a purposive justifi-
cation (S_5). In this context, the student fulfilled the teleological rationality require-
ments. Although the student seems to have reached the expression given at the end
Fig. 6 Lack of modeling requirements of epistemic rationality in terms of creating an algebraic model
13
of the proving, the process she built is invalid due to using incorrect mathematical
knowledge. In addition, as the student explained the steps she took with implicit and
dogmatic reasons during the interview, she could not present a comprehensible and
acceptable speech to the listener and could not discursively vindicate her product.
This indicates that the problem she experienced in epistemic rationality negatively
affected her communicative rationality.
As seen in Fig. 7, another student claims that the BO line segment is perpendicu-
lar to the AC line segment in the ABC triangle. However, point O is the midpoint of
the AC line segment, and for the BO to be perpendicular to AC , the ABC triangle
must be an isosceles triangle; however, this information is not given in the problem.
Below are the explanations of the student on this part:
S_1: AOB is a right angle. Point O is the center of this circle (showing the cir-
cle with the AC diameter). The height is drawn from the top to the very center.
R: Can you guarantee that the height you draw from point B to the AC base
will pass right through point O?
S_2: It looks so.
R: What does it mean?
S_3: When I draw a perpendicular line to the base from B, it goes to O; oth-
erwise, it will not be perpendicular. I mean when B is combined with O, BO
seems to be perpendicular to the base.
It is seen that the student experienced the dominance of the figure (S_2) over the
knowledge of the equivalence of the height and side bisector of an isosceles triangle.
As mentioned by Fischbein (1993), the student experienced a challenge when the
components of the concept and figure could not be transformed into figural concept
knowledge and the reasoning process was under the control of the figure (S_1, S_3).
The student used intuitive knowledge in the process. She failed to provide valid war-
rants to verify the steps she took and used dogmatic phrases, which indicates that
the student could not meet the modeling requirements of epistemic rationality. On
the other hand, the student implemented the intention of the free choice of a decid-
ing actor and proceeded towards achieving her goal. Although she could not provide
valid warrants regarding the steps she took, she presented purposive justifications.
Therefore, although she could not meet the modeling requirements of epistemic
rationality, she met the requirements of teleological rationality. In the interview, the
student could not provide a comprehensive and acceptable vindication to the listener
as she could not provide credible warrants regarding the steps she took. This shows
that the failure of the student in meeting the requirements of epistemic rationality
also caused problems in meeting the requirements of communicative rationality.
Teleological rationality without sufficient epistemic control: the dominance

of arithmetic thinking
As seen in Fig. 8, the student considered proving the expression given in the prob-
lem using 2cm for one length of the regular octagon.
13
Fig. 7 Lack of the modeling requirements of epistemic rationality in terms of creating a geometric model
It is seen that the student made correct arrangements on the figure. However, she
did not explain how she found the interior angle of the regular octagon, why the angle
AFC is a right angle, and how she constructed isosceles right-angled triangles on
the figure during the proving process on paper. During the interview, she could not
provide a reliable warrant regarding these steps. She made explanations using dog-
matic and implicit knowledge. She stated that she knew and used an interior angle
of a regular octagon by heart and created right angles and right angled triangles
“because the figure looks like that.” It was seen that the reasoning process of the
student was under the control of the figure. As mentioned by Fischbein (1993), the
student experienced a challenge since the components of the concept (regular poly-
gon, interior angle of a regular polygon, isosceles right-angled triangle) and figure
cannot be transformed into figural concept knowledge. In this context, the student
could not meet the modeling requirements of epistemic rationality in terms of creat-
ing a geometric model. Since the proving process and the speech of the student were
structured with intuitive and implicit steps, she could not present reliable warrants
to the listener and discursively vindicate the proving process. This shows that she
13
Fig. 8 Teleological rationality

without sufficient epistemic
control
could not meet the requirements of communicative rationality. The student also did
not build algebraic expressions by using symbolic language. She used only numbers
to justify the statement without algebraic thinking. Below are some quotations from
the interview with the student.
R: Do you think you have proven this statement?
S_9: Yes, if I assume that the length is 2 cm, the statement turned out to be
correct.
R: Does this guarantee that you will find the same result when one length of
the regular octagon gets a different value?
S_10: Well, if the statement is correct when I check its accuracy by using a
random number for the unknown term, it means that the statement will be true
in general, I mean for all numbers. Otherwise, it would cause a problem. So,
there is no need to any other way.
The student thought that it is sufficient to show the accuracy of an expression
by an example structured with numerical values (S_9) and did not feel the need for
a generalization (S_10). This shows that the student did not know the nature and
requirements of proving. As a result, she could not construct the algebraic models
and could not meet the modeling requirements of epistemic rationality. The student
focused on reaching her aim and implemented the intention of the free choice of a
deciding actor. During the interview, she presented purposive justifications about
the steps. It was revealed that the lack in epistemic rationality in the proving process
of the student depended on the dominance of teleological rationality without suffi-
cient epistemic control. Since the student presented a valid product in only one case,
her product is not an acceptable proof. This supports our inference that the student
who cannot discursively vindicate the given statement in general could not meet the
communicative rationality requirements.
As seen in Fig. 9, another student was able to draw the figure according to the criteria
given in the problem and make the correct arrangements on the figure. However, it
13
is seen that the student made the arrangements on the figure through a numerical
example and she could not achieve to use algebraic language.
Below is a quotation about this situation.
R: If you were using another right-angled triangle with different lengths, could
you guarantee that the areas are equal again?
S_3: Well, only numbers would change; I would find the same result when
simplified.
R: Do you think it is enough to give numerical examples to prove an expres-
sion?
S_4: I think this is enough. In the end, I always show that the areas are equal.
The student thought that it is sufficient to prove an expression by assigning a
numerical value to the unknown term (S_3). She stated that generalization is not
required to justify a statement (S_4). Although she acted in accordance with her
aim, the purposive justifications she presented belong to a special case. This shows
that the student experienced problems in teleological rationality due to the loss of
epistemic control in the algebraic field. Hence, she justified the statement without
making sense of algebraic expressions. This means that she could not meet the mod-
eling requirements of epistemic rationality in terms of creating algebraic models.
Furthermore, the student made an operation mistake during the calculation process.
This indicates that she had deficiencies in the systemic requirements of epistemic
rationality. The statements of the student and the steps she took in the proving pro-
cess are not acceptable in terms of generalization as they do not contain sufficient
credible warrants. This means that she could not meet the requirements of commu-
nicative rationality during the proving process and the interview.
Fig. 9 Lack of teleological rationality under the dominance of arithmetic thinking
13
Evaluation of communicative rationality from a different perspective: textual

communication
One of the students tried to compare the area of the regular octagon and the area of
ABC triangle given in the problem. Figure 10 shows the process followed by the
student.
The written explanation presented by the student during the proving process
shows that he used intuitive expressions such as “As I did not draw the figure well,
it is not evident here,” “A proper octagon is made up of eight equilateral trian-
gles,” “… the height twice as much…,” “they could be drawn like this from four
edges,” and “when we draw it from the fifth edge, they overlap.” He acted under the
dominance of the figure instead of the dominance of the mathematical principles.
He could not present valid warrants and explain how he obtained the equilateral tri-
angles and how he established the relationship between the heights of the triangles.
Below are some quotes from the student’s statements in the interview.
R: In your description, you are talking about eight equilateral triangles. Can
you explain this part?
S_1: Considering that the regular octagon is in the circle, I labeled the center
point and connected this point with the vertices of the regular octagon. In this
way, eight identical small triangles emerged. Their vertex angle is the same. If
we divide 360◦ by 8, they are all equal, 45◦. Their bases are already the same,
as one side of the regular octagon. The other two edges are the radius of the
circle. Well, so these are the same.
R: You wrote equilateral, but now you said same. Which one is correct?
S_2: Oh, I wrote equilateral. Sorry, these cannot be equilateral, of course. As I
said, their vertex angle is 45°. How can it be possible?
Fig. 10 Evaluation of communicative rationality from different perspectives
13
During the interview, he presented purposive justifications for the steps he took
in the proving process; however, the justification statements did not include reliable
warrants. The phrases of the student (“I labeled the center point,” “… eight iden-
tical small triangles emerged,” “Their vertex angle is the same,” “The other two
edges are the radius of the circle”) contain implicit knowledge and remain intuitive.
These show that he could not meet the requirements of epistemic rationality during
the interview. On the other hand, the student implemented the intention of the free
choice of a deciding factor in his speech in the interview (S_1) and in his written
explanation in the proving process (Fig. 3). His explanation indicates that his practi-
cal inferences were based on deliberately selected and implemented means. In this
context, it can be stated that he met the requirements of teleological rationality.
Since the student could not discursively vindicate the proving process in his
speech, he could not present a comprehensible and acceptable product to the listener.
This shows that he could not meet the requirements of communicative rationality
in terms of verbal communication. Additionally, the proving process of the student
does not meet the requirements in terms of using the formal language of mathemat-
ics. Since the student made intuitive inferences in his written explanation and could
not present an acceptable product to the reader, he also could not meet the require-
ments of communicative rationality in terms of textual communication.
Discussion and suggestions
This study aims to analyze university students’ proving process based on Haber-
mas’ construct of rationality and to identify the challenges they encounter. The study
addresses one main and two sub-research questions. The main research question
aims to reveal the difficulties university students experience while proving in geom-
etry. The first sub-question addresses the rationality components students have more
difficulty achieving and the second research question addresses how the success or
failure in one of the rationality components influences the rationality in other com-
ponents and hence the proving process of the students.
To address the first sub-research question, the proving processes of the students
were analyzed based on the requirements of rationality components. It was seen that
the formalization and/or interpretations in the proving processes might be correct,
indicating achievement in epistemic rationality, but not goal-oriented, indicating
failure in teleological rationality. The results revealed that some of the students
took the right steps at the beginning of the proving process; however, they could
not cope with the later stages and could not use the tool that would enable them
to reach the goal. Some students chose a tool that was not suitable for the pur-
pose. They believed that the tool they chose was useful. This prevented them from
seeking an alternative way, and thus, they got stuck in the process. It was also
observed that the formalization and/or interpretations may be incorrect, which indi-
cates failure in epistemic rationality; however, they may be goal-oriented, which
means being focused only on justifying the statement even without considering
whether the method is valid or correct. In this context, some students justified
13
the statement using numerical values to reach their aim as soon as possible, yet this
is not appropriate for the construction of formal proof. Some others were found to
take mathematically invalid steps only to achieve their aim. Some students experi-
enced the dominance of the figure over the definition as stated by Fischbein (1993),
which indicates that the reasoning process was under the control of the figure and
the students struggled when the concept and figure knowledge did not turn into figu-
ral concept knowledge (Fischbein & Kedem, 1982; Fischbein & Nachlieli, 1998).
As mentioned by Duval (2014), the theoretical knowledge of students is considered
to be insufficient when they cannot see beyond the perceptual interpretation as they
look at the figure. The communicative rationality of the students in our study was
analyzed using their proving processes on paper and the verbal performances during
the interview. It was observed that most of the students had difficulties in communi-
cative rationality, which involves presenting the steps taken during the proving pro-
cess to the reader or listener in a comprehensible and acceptable manner. Students
have difficulty in conveying the proving process to someone else, as they either do
not care about this, do not consider it necessary, or are stuck in the process of arith-
metic thinking instead of algebraic thinking.
In the context of the second sub-research question, the interaction between the
rationality components were examined in the proving processes of the students. The
results revealed that the students’ competence in epistemic rationality supported their
teleological rationality (last case in the section “The lack of teleological rational-
ity: correct but not goal oriented steps in the proving process”). Morselli and Boero
(2009) examined cases in which teleological rationality was supported by epistemic
rationality in the proving process of university students in mathematics department.
The students’ performance in these rationality components and thus the interaction
between them seemed to play a decisive role in the successful completion of the prov-
ing process. Studies have also revealed that communicative rationality is intertwined
with both epistemic and teleological rationality (Morselli & Boero, 2009; Morselli &
Boero, 2011). Morselli (2013) argued that effective communication necessitates both
the correct and conscious use of algebraic and geometric language, which means that
communicative rationality intertwines with epistemic and teleological rationality in
the proving process. Our study revealed that lack of epistemic rationality and lack of
teleological rationality affected the performance in communicative rationality nega-
tively. Since the proving process of students is shaped by their performance in epis-
temic and teleological rationality, it was seen that communicative rationality, which
involves presenting a mathematically comprehensible and acceptable process to the
reader or listener, is directly fed by epistemic and teleological rationality.
By drawing on Habermas’ construct of rationality, this study analyzes the
proving process of students in geometry in the context of rationality components. The
analysis revealed that some students were able to draw the figure according to the
criteria given in the problem and to make arrangements on the figure according to
the aim, but could not set the algebraic expression required to reach the aim (first
case in the section “The lack of teleological rationality: correct but not goal oriented
steps in the proving process”). In contrast, it was observed that some students drew
the figure incorrectly, but could set the valid algebraic expressions according to the
figure they drew (last case in the section “The lack of epistemic rationality: incorrect
13
but goal-oriented steps in the proving process”). This shows that being able to draw
the figure according to the given criteria and writing the algebraic expressions are two
related but different competencies. In this context, adding two sub-components to the
modeling requirements of epistemic rationality is thought to be necessary in order to
make more accurate and detailed analyses: the “geometric requirement” that is related
with the students’ ability to draw the appropriate figure and to justify the appropriate
arrangements on it, and the “algebraic requirement” that is related with the ability to
write the algebraic expressions required in the problem and to justify them. The anal-
ysis further revealed that the ways in which students expressed their reasoning pro-
cesses differed. Three forms of communication were encountered, namely expressing
the proving process using formal language, presenting the process by textual expla-
nations, and expressing the process verbally to the listener. This shows that three
sub-components of communicative rationality can be created: “symbolic communi-
cative rationality” which involves using the formal language and notation system of
mathematics correctly and producing a comprehensible and acceptable formal proof;
“textual communicative rationality” which involves mathematically valid, compre-
hensible, and acceptable written expressions, and providing the reader with a clear
and easy-to-follow text; “verbal communicative rationality” which involves the verbal
expressions related to the proof provided to the listener during the interview using
comprehensible and acceptable phrases and making the process understandable by
providing valid warrants to the listener’s criticism. In this context, the study by Widjaja
et al. (2021) supports the result of our study. They also revealed that students use
representations in communicating through written explanations, symbolic notations,
and oral explanations during the reasoning process. Widjaja et al. (2021) suggested
that while the students communicate using different and suitable representations of
mathematical concepts, their competency to justify of a statement could be improved.
The current adaptation of Habermas’ construct of rationality to the analysis of
proving in geometry is presented in Fig. 11.
Warren and Miller (2013) state that the development of mathematical tasks that
assist students’ engagement with mathematical concepts is necessary in learning
environments. This kind of tasks may close the educational gap in many students
by supporting the building of representations with the use of verbal language and
engagement in mathematics. In order for students to conceptualize scientifically
in mathematical tasks, it is necessary to support them in using theorems appro-
priately, acting consciously, and generalizing the process (Douek, 2014). To this
end, Habermas’ construct of rationality can be used to make rational inquiry in
the design and execution of mathematical activities in the classroom and to evalu-
ate the process and outputs. Thus, students’ behavior in mathematical activities
and their ability to develop discourse on action and to organize and express strat-
egies can be supported in mathematics classes. In addition, thanks to Habermas’
construct of rationality, teachers may feel the need to consider contexts such as
teleological rationality and communicative rationality that they often neglect
when evaluating students’ performance (Boero, 2006; Conner, 2018).
Learning environments represent a cultural community (Douek, 2014). The dif-
ficulty that teachers and students experience in learning environments when they
do not share a common culture is important (Boero & Planas, 2014). Especially
13
Habermas’ Construct of Rationality
Epistemic Teleological Communicative

Rationality Rationality Rationality
Modelling Systemic
Requirements Requirements Symbolic Textual Verbal
Geometric Algebraic
Requirements Requirements
Fig. 11 Adaptation of Habermas’ Construct of Rationality to the analysis of proving process in geometry
during the exploration of mathematical knowledge, students may lack the abil-
ity to speak, or may not be able to grasp all the reasons behind their behaviors
because the conceptualization has not yet developed enough. Therefore, they may
not act consciously in the process or may have difficulty expressing themselves
through a logical discourse (Douek, 2014). All these difficulties should not mean
giving up rational inquiry in mathematical activities. The teacher should not
resort to an authoritarian process to establish a common culture with the student,
but rather should prefer to reach consensus through rational inquiry and to carry
out the process through collaborative rationalization (Douek, 2014). Habermas’
construct of rationality may be a useful tool in mathematics classes for teachers
to manage the rational inquiry process and correctly evaluate the outputs of the
process.
It is recommended that the sub-components provided for the analysis of the
geometrical proving process in this study should be tested in different domains of
mathematics such as algebra, calculus, number theory, and differential equations.
In this way, the benefit of the currently adapted version of Habermas’ construct of
rationality and its instructional effects can be evaluated and the results obtained
in different mathematical domains can be compared. In addition, Habermas’ con-
struct of rationality could be improved and presented to teachers in a more elabo-
rated structure as a design tool for the mathematical tasks and an analysis tool to
evaluate the students’ performances.
13
Declarations
Ethics approval The ethical approval for the research has been obtained from the Ethics Commission of
Hacettepe University (Decision Number: 35853172/433–354). Informed consent forms were signed by
human participants.
Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests.
References
Arzarello, F., & Sabena, C. (2011). Meta-cognitive unity in indirect proofs. In Proceedings of CERME 7.
Boero, P. (2006). Habermas’ theory of rationality as a comprehensive frame for conjecturing and proving
in school. Proceedings 30th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathemat-
ics Education, 2, 185–192.
Boero, P. (2017). Cognitive unity of theorems, theories and related rationalities. CERME 10, Dublin,
Ireland.
Boero, P., Douek, N., Morselli, F. & Pedemonte, B. (2010). Argumentation and proof: A contribution
to theoretical perspectives and their classroom implementation. Proceedings of the PME 34, Belo
Horizonte, Brazil.
Boero, P., Guala, E., & Morselli, F. (2013). Crossing the borders between mathematical domains: A con-
tribution to frame the choice of suitable tasks in teacher education. Proceedings of the 37th Confer-
ence of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 2, 97–104.
Boero, P., & Morselli, F. (2009). The use of algebraic language in mathematical modelling and proving
in the perspective of Habermas’ theory of rationality. In Proceedings of CERME 6, January
28th-February 1st.
Boero, P., & Planas, N. (2014). Habermas’ construct of rational behaviour in mathematics education: New
advances and research questions. In Proceedings 38th Conference of the International Group for the
Psychology of Mathematics Education, July 15–20.
Bradis, V. M., Minkovskii, V. L., & Kharcheva, A. K. (1999). Lapses in mathematical reasoning. Dover.
Brown, R. (2017). Using collective argumentation to engage students in a primary mathematics class-
room. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 29, 183–199.
Cirillo, M., & Hummer, J. (2019). Addressing misconceptions in secondary geometry proof. Mathemat-
ics Teacher, 112(6), 410–417.
Cirillo, M., & Hummer, J. (2021). Competencies and behaviors observed when students solve geometry
proof problems: An interview study with smartpen technology. ZDM Mathematics Education, 53,
861–875.
Conner, A. (2018). An application of Habermas’ rationality to the teacher’s actions: Analysis of argumen-
tation in two classrooms. CERME 10, Dublin, Ireland.
Douek, N. (2014). Pragmatic potential and critical issues. In Proceedings of the 38th Conference of the
International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 209–213). Vancou-
ver PME & UBC.
Durand-Guerrier, V., Boero, P., Douek, N., Epp, S., & Tanguay, D. (2012). Examining the role of logic in
teaching proof. In G. Hanna & M. De Villiers (Eds.), Proof and proving in mathematics education
(pp. 369–389). Springer.
Duval, R. (1991). Structure du raisonnement déductif et apprentissage de la demonstration. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 22, 233–261.
Duval, R. (1995). Geometrical pictures: Kinds of representation and specific processings. In R. Sutherland
& J. Mason (Eds.), Exploiting mental imagery with computers in mathematics education (pp. 142–
156). Berlin: Springer.
Duval, R. (1999). Representation, vision and visualization: Cognitive functions in mathematical thinking.
Basic issues for learning (plenary address). In F. Hitt & M. Santos (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st
Conference of the North American Group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 1, pp.
3–26). Morelos, Mexico: PME.
13
Duval, R. (2014). Commentary: Linking epistemology and semio-cognitive modeling in visualization.

ZDM Mathematics Education, 46, 159–170.
Fetisov, A. I. ([1954] (2012)). Proof in geometry. Bound with Y. S. Dubnov: [1955] Mistakes in Geomet-
ric Proofs. Mineola, NY: Dover.
Fischbein, E. (1993). The theory of figural concepts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24, 139–162.
Fischbein, E., & Kedem, I. (1982). Proof and certitude in the development of mathematical thinking. In
A. Vermandel (Ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference for the Psychology of Math-
ematical Education. Universitaire Instelling, Antwerpen.
Fischbein, E., & Nachlieli, T. (1998). Concepts and figures in geometrical reasoning. International Jour-
nal of Science Education, 20(10), 1193–1211.
Gal, H., & Linchevski, L. (2010). To see or not to see: Analyzing difficulties in geometry from the per-
spective of visual perception. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 74(2), 163–183.
Goizueta, M. (2014). The emergence of validity conditions in the secondary mathematics classroom:
Linking social and epistemic perspectives. In Proceedings of the 38th Conference of the Interna-
tional Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 214–218). Vancouver PME
& UBC.
Guala, E., & Boero, P. (2017). Cultural analysis of mathematical content in teacher education: The case
of elementary arithmetic theorems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 96, 207–227.
Habermas, J. (2003). Truth and justification. MIT Press.
Haj-Yahya, A. (2019). Do prototypical construction and self-attributes of presented drawings affect the
construction and validation of proofs? Mathematics Education Research Journal, 32, 685–718.
Haj‑Yahya, A. (2021). Can a number of diagrams linked to a proof task in 3D geometry improve proving
ability? Mathematics Education Research Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s13394-021-00385-8
Harel, G., & Sowder, L. (1998). Students’ proof schemes: Results from an exploratory study. In A. H.
Schoenfeld, J. Kaput, & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), Research in College Mathematics Education (Vol. 3,
pp. 234–283). Providence, RI: AMS.
Herbert, K., & Brown, R. (1997). Patterns as tools for algebraic reasoning. Teaching Children Mathemat-
ics, 3, 340–344.
Houston, K. (2009). How to think like a mathematician. Cambridge University Press.
Jones, K. (2000). The student experience of mathematical proof at university level. International Journal
of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 31(1), 53–60.
Karpuz, Y., & Atasoy, E. (2020). High school mathematics teachers’ content knowledge of the logical
structure of proof deriving from figural-concept interaction in geometry. International Journal of
Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 51(4), 585–603.
Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern. Routledge.
Lesseig, K., Hine, G., Na, G., & S., & Boardman, K. (2019). Perceptions on proof and the teaching of
proof: A comparison across preservice secondary teachers in Australia, USA and Korea. Mathemat-
ics Education Research Journal, 31, 393–418.
Martignone, F., & Sabena, C. (2014). Analysis of argumentation processes in strategic ınteraction prob-
lems. In Proceedings of the 38th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Math-
ematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 218–223). Vancouver PME & UBC.
Martinez, M. V., & Pedemonte, B. (2014). Relationship between inductive arithmetic argumentation and
deductive algebraic proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 86, 125–149.
Morselli, F. (2013). The “Language and argumentation” project: researchers and teachers collaborating
in task design. In C. Margolinas (Ed.), Proceedings of ICMI Study 22 - Task design in mathematics
education (pp. 481–490). Oxford, UK: ICMI.
Morselli, F., & Boero, P. (2009). Proving as a rational behaviour: Habermas’ construct of rationality as a
comprehensive frame for research on the teaching and learning of proof. In Proceedings of CERME
6, January 28th-February 1st.
Morselli, F., & Boero, P. (2011). Using Habermas’ theory of rationality to gain insight into student’s
understanding of algebraic language. In Early Algebraization, Advances in Mathematics Educa-
tion. Berlin, Heidelberg.
Nesin, A. (2010). Matematik ve sanat. İstanbul: Nesin Yayıncılık.
Pedemonte, B. (2007). How can the relationship between argumentation and proof be analysed? Educa-
tional Studies in Mathematics, 66, 23–41.
13
Pedemonte, B. (2008). Argumentation and algebraic proof. Zentralblatt Für Didaktik Der Mathematik,
40, 385–400.
Pedemonte, B., & Balacheff, N. (2016). Establishing links between conceptions, argumentation and proof
through the ck¢-enriched Toulmin model. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 41, 104–122.
Pedemonte, B., & Buchbinder, O. (2011). Examining the role of examples in proving processes through a
cognitive lens: The case of triangular numbers. ZDM Mathematics Education, 43, 257–267.
Pedemonte, B., & Reid, D. (2011). The role of abduction in proving processes. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 76(3), 281–303.
Seah, R., & Horne, M. (2019). The construction and validation of a geometric reasoning test item to
support the development of learning progression. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 32(3),
1–22.
Seah, R., & Horne, M. (2020). The construction and validation of a geometric reasoning test item to
support the development of learning progression. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 32,
607–628.
Silverman, D. (2005). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook (2nd ed.). Sage.
Sinclair, N., Pimm, D., & Skelin, M. (2012). Developing an essential understanding of geometry for
teaching mathematics in grades 9–12. Reston, VA: National Councilof Teachers of Mathematics.
Stillwell, J. (1989). Mathematics and its history. Springer- Verlag.
Struik, D. J. (1987). A concise history of mathematics. Courier Corporation.
Stylianides, A. J. (2007). Proof and proving in school mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 38(3), 289–321.
Terzioğlu, T. (2013). Bir analizcinin defterinden seçtikleri. Nesin Yayıncılık A.Ş., İstanbul.
Velleman, D. J. (2006). How to prove it: A structured approach. Cambridge University Press.
Warren, E., & Miller, J. (2013). Young Australian Indigenous students’ effective engagement in math-
ematics: The role of language, patterns, and structure. Mathematics Education Research Journal,
25, 151–171.
Widjaja, W., Vale, C., Herbert, S., Loong, E., & Y-K., & Bragg, L., A. (2021). Linking comparing and
contrasting, generalising and justifying: A case study of primary students’ levels of justifying. Math-
ematics Education Research Journal, 33, 321–343.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.
13

Analysis of Mathematical Proving in Geometry Based

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Analysis of Mathematical Proving in Geometry Based

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analysis of Mathematical Proving in Geometry Based

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mathematics Education Research Journal

Analysis of mathematical proving in geometry based

Selin Urhan1 · Ali Bülbül2

Received: 9 September 2021 / Revised: 1 May 2022 / Accepted: 16 May 2022

Keywords Proving · Habermas’ construct of rationality · Geometry

The analysis of the proving process with Habermas’ construct of rationality

According to Habermas (2003), people are considered to be “rational” when they

domains of mathematics, and to plan and analyze students’ discussion process

Rationale of the study

According to Habermas’ construct of rationality, what components do the students

teachers develop rational behavior in geometrical proving activity, considering both

Table 1 The contents of mathematics courses

Analysis I Sets and number systems

Data collection tools

Data collection process

The definitions and criteria of rationality components (Habermas, 2003) were

Preparing the Problems

22 Each The The researchers The researchers

2nd Square Individual Analysis Interview

3rd Arcs on a Individual Analysis Interview

Fig. 1 The research model

Since this study is a novel application of Habermas’ construct of rationality to the

Table 2 Evaluation criteria based on rationality components

Epistemic rationality No intuitive or implicit knowledge or step without justification

ER MR Placing angles correctly on the given figure

Fig. 2 Lack of teleological

Fig. 3 Lack of teleological rationality

Fig. 4 The figure the student

Fig. 5 Lack of teleological

Teleological rationality without sufficient epistemic control: the dominance

Fig. 8 Teleological rationality

Fig. 9 Lack of teleological rationality under the dominance of arithmetic thinking

Evaluation of communicative rationality from a different perspective: textual

Fig. 10 Evaluation of communicative rationality from different perspectives

Discussion and suggestions

Habermas’ Construct of Rationality

Epistemic Teleological Communicative

Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests.

Duval, R. (2014). Commentary: Linking epistemology and semio-cognitive modeling in visualization.

You might also like