510 Mathematik
Refine
Year of publication
- 2020 (2)
Document Type
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
- Working Paper (1)
Language
- English (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- empirische Studie (2)
- Argumentieren (1)
- Bounded Rationality (1)
- Kommunikation (1)
- Logical Pluralism (1)
- Mathematics Education (1)
- Mathematikdidaktik (1)
- Mathematikunterricht (1)
- Proof (1)
- Rationalität (1)
This thesis presents the results of a series of studies (on syllogisms, on the interpretation of mathematical statements and on probabilistic thinking) conducted with the idea that different, legitimate kinds of reasoning are used by humans in a contextual way, and that therefore no single logic (e.g., classical logic) can be expected to account for this diversity.
The crucial role of interpretation is highlighted, showing how intensional and extensional reasoning may be mobilized according to it. In particular, in communication settings, this depends on our adoption of a cooperative, credulous disposition, or on the contrary, of an adversarial, sceptical one.
In reasoning about mathematics in an educational setting, students (and teachers) may be enrolled in a back and forth between believing, doubting, making sense, giving arguments and proving. These changes in dispositions imply changes in the logics used. All the studies presented show, in different ways, evidence for cooperative, intensional reasoning and, in some cases, the possibility of a shift towards the acquisition of an extensional view. This suggest that if we expect as educators the adoption of specific norms and the development of reasoning skills from students, we need first to know well what the point of departure is where they are, and that it is often not at all “irrational”.
We report on a study on syllogistic reasoning conceived with the idea that subjects' performance in experiments is highly dependent on the communicative situations in which the particular task is framed. From this perspective, we describe the results of Experiment 1 comparing the performance of undergraduate students in 5 different tasks. This between-subjects comparison inspires a within-subject intervention design (Experiment 2). The variations introduced on traditional experimental tasks and settings include two main dimensions. The first one focuses on reshaping the context (the pragmatics of the communication situations faced) along the dimension of cooperative vs. adversarial attitudes. The second one consists of rendering explicit the construction/representation of counterexamples, a crucial aspect in the definition of deduction (in the classical semantic sense). We obtain evidence on the possibility of a significant switch in students' performance and the strategies they follow. Syllogistic reasoning is seen here as a controlled microcosm informative enough to provide insights and we suggest strategies for wider contexts of reasoning, argumentation and proof.