Timeline for Critiquing Proof Style During Class
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 22, 2015 at 19:09 | vote | accept | Austin Mohr | ||
| Jun 22, 2015 at 19:08 | vote | accept | Austin Mohr | ||
| Jun 22, 2015 at 19:09 | |||||
| Jun 19, 2015 at 20:02 | history | edited | Austin Mohr | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Jun 18, 2015 at 21:39 | history | rollback | Austin Mohr |
Rollback to Revision 3
|
|
| Jun 18, 2015 at 21:38 | history | edited | Austin Mohr | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Jun 18, 2015 at 1:08 | answer | added | JRN | timeline score: 5 | |
| Jun 17, 2015 at 22:05 | answer | added | Joseph O'Rourke | timeline score: 12 | |
| Jun 17, 2015 at 18:28 | answer | added | Aeryk | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jun 17, 2015 at 18:09 | comment | added | Aeryk | Related question: matheducators.stackexchange.com/questions/2206/… | |
| Jun 17, 2015 at 5:31 | history | edited | Austin Mohr | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Jun 16, 2015 at 21:22 | comment | added | Benjamin Dickman | Somewhat close work I know of is Amabile's Consensual Assessment Technique around having experts in a domain (e.g. mathematics) rate products (e.g. different proofs) for undefined attributes (e.g. creativity). One then checks for agreement (e.g. using the intraclass correlation method or Cronbach's alpha) and, in the case of consensus, operationalizes accordingly. For the case of creativity, validity has been pretty well established (see e.g. here). (This comment is mostly to note that there's probably a good Math Ed thesis hiding here.) | |
| Jun 16, 2015 at 21:15 | comment | added | Benjamin Dickman | I remember giving this some thought a while ago, and wondering whether there was anything in the literature on writers developing "voice" that could be applied to the context of proof-writing in mathematics. I tracked down a book entitled Poetry and Mathematics (Buchanan) that was interesting but of no real help, and abandoned ship. I think your best bet is to solicit proofs from a few people in your department of a simple proposition, and then suggest categories (as you did: correctness, rigor, clarity, conciseness) to help get students started in examining them. | |
| Jun 16, 2015 at 21:11 | history | edited | Austin Mohr | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 16 characters in body
|
| Jun 16, 2015 at 21:06 | comment | added | Austin Mohr | The specific content doesn't matter to me, but it should be basic (numbers, sets, functions, etc.). The point is to dive right into the proof, not fuss over definitions. I think "good proof" is one of those things I can't define, but I know it when I see. Some (competing) qualities such proofs might have include correctness, rigor, clarity, and conciseness. | |
| Jun 16, 2015 at 21:00 | comment | added | Karl | Which theorems are you interested in? I think this is a great idea. How would you define a good proof? | |
| Jun 16, 2015 at 20:49 | history | asked | Austin Mohr | CC BY-SA 3.0 |