How persuaded are you? A typology of responses.
Saved in:
| Title: | How persuaded are you? A typology of responses. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Inglis, Matthew1 (AUTHOR), Mejia-Ramos, Juan Pablo2 (AUTHOR) j.p.mejia@warwick.edu |
| Source: | Research in Mathematics Education. 2008, Vol. 10 Issue 2, p119-133. 15p. 3 Diagrams, 1 Chart. |
| Subject Terms: | *Mathematics education, *Students, *Mathematical ability, *Classification, Persuasion (Rhetoric), Evidence, Debate, Mathematicians, Mathematical analysis |
| Abstract: | Several recent studies have suggested that there are two different ways in which a person can proceed when assessing the persuasiveness of a mathematical argument: by evaluating whether it is personally convincing, or by evaluating whether it is publicly acceptable. In this paper, using Toulmin's (1958) argumentation scheme, we produce a more detailed theoretical classification of the ways in which participants can interpret a request to assess the persuasiveness of an argument. We suggest that there are (at least) five ways in which such a question can be interpreted. The classification is illustrated with data from a study that asked undergraduate students and research-active mathematicians to rate how persuasive they found a given argument. We conclude by arguing that researchers interested in mathematical conviction and proof validation need to be aware of the different ways in which participants can interpret questions about the persuasiveness of arguments, and that they must carefully control for these variations during their studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Research in Mathematics Education is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Education Research Complete |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Several recent studies have suggested that there are two different ways in which a person can proceed when assessing the persuasiveness of a mathematical argument: by evaluating whether it is personally convincing, or by evaluating whether it is publicly acceptable. In this paper, using Toulmin's (1958) argumentation scheme, we produce a more detailed theoretical classification of the ways in which participants can interpret a request to assess the persuasiveness of an argument. We suggest that there are (at least) five ways in which such a question can be interpreted. The classification is illustrated with data from a study that asked undergraduate students and research-active mathematicians to rate how persuasive they found a given argument. We conclude by arguing that researchers interested in mathematical conviction and proof validation need to be aware of the different ways in which participants can interpret questions about the persuasiveness of arguments, and that they must carefully control for these variations during their studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 14794802 |
| DOI: | 10.1080/14794800802233647 |
