Methods of Mathematical Proof and Logic in Mathematics Courses at the Faculty of Education – Sana'a University

Fawzi Abdullah Khaled Al-Haded
{"title":"Methods of Mathematical Proof and Logic in Mathematics Courses at the Faculty of Education – Sana'a University","authors":"Fawzi Abdullah Khaled Al-Haded","doi":"10.20428/JSS.27.1.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study aimed to identify the extent to which mathematical proof and logic methods are achieved in mathematics courses for student-teachers at the University of Sana'a. To achieve this objective, the descriptive and analytical method was used. Checklists for analyzing mathematical content according to methods of mathematical proof and logic were developed, and a questionnaire was used to verify the validity of the checklists. The tools were validated by a jury of experts, and the degree of agreement was (98.1%) (85.82%). The tools were applied to a sample of mathematics courses, including mathematical analysis, real analysis and abstract algebra (1), (2). The findings revealed that the most frequent proof methods found in mathematical courses were proof by deduction and transgression (65.86%) of the total methods, followed by proof by mathematical induction (11.75%), and the least frequent was proof by contradiction (9.61%). The courses did not include method of evaluative, critical and reversed proof. The direct method of proof was (82.93%), whereas the occurrence of the indirect proof method was (17.07%). The course content also did not include method of evaluative, critical and reversed proof, and there were statistically significant differences at (0.01), between the weights of the methods of mathematical proof and logic, which were included in the current courses, and the weights that should be included.","PeriodicalId":53082,"journal":{"name":"mjl@ ldrst ljtm`y@","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"mjl@ ldrst ljtm`y@","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20428/JSS.27.1.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aimed to identify the extent to which mathematical proof and logic methods are achieved in mathematics courses for student-teachers at the University of Sana'a. To achieve this objective, the descriptive and analytical method was used. Checklists for analyzing mathematical content according to methods of mathematical proof and logic were developed, and a questionnaire was used to verify the validity of the checklists. The tools were validated by a jury of experts, and the degree of agreement was (98.1%) (85.82%). The tools were applied to a sample of mathematics courses, including mathematical analysis, real analysis and abstract algebra (1), (2). The findings revealed that the most frequent proof methods found in mathematical courses were proof by deduction and transgression (65.86%) of the total methods, followed by proof by mathematical induction (11.75%), and the least frequent was proof by contradiction (9.61%). The courses did not include method of evaluative, critical and reversed proof. The direct method of proof was (82.93%), whereas the occurrence of the indirect proof method was (17.07%). The course content also did not include method of evaluative, critical and reversed proof, and there were statistically significant differences at (0.01), between the weights of the methods of mathematical proof and logic, which were included in the current courses, and the weights that should be included.
萨那大学教育学院数学课程中的数学证明和逻辑方法
本研究旨在确定在萨那大学学生-教师的数学课程中,数学证明和逻辑方法的实现程度。为了实现这一目标,采用了描述和分析的方法。根据数学证明和逻辑的方法,编制了分析数学内容的清单,并采用问卷调查的方式对清单的有效性进行了验证。该工具经专家评审团验证,一致性为(98.1%)(85.82%)。将这些工具应用于数学分析、实分析和抽象代数(1)、(2)等课程样本。结果表明,在数学课程中使用最多的证明方法是演绎法和超越法(65.86%),其次是数学归纳法(11.75%),使用最少的是矛盾法(9.61%)。这些课程不包括评价法、批判法和反证明法。直接举证方式占82.93%,间接举证方式占17.07%。课程内容中也未包含评价证明法、批判证明法和反证明法,现有课程中已包含的数学证明法和逻辑证明法的权重与应包含的权重差异有统计学意义(0.01)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信