This article was downloaded by: [Simon Fraser University]

On: 26 July 2015, At: 21:46

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG

Mathematical Thinking and

Learning
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hmtl20

Introducing Young Children

to the Role of Assumptions in
Proving
Andreas J. Stylianides

University of Oxford , United Kingdom

Published online: 05 Dec 2007.

To cite this article: Andreas J. Stylianides (2007) Introducing Young Children to the
Role of Assumptions in Proving, Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 9:4, 361-385,
DOI: 10.1080/10986060701533805
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10986060701533805

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,

Downloaded by [Simon Fraser University] at 21:46 26 July 2015

sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is

expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

MATHEMATICAL THINKING AND LEARNING, 9(4), 361385

Copyright 2007, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Downloaded by [Simon Fraser University] at 21:46 26 July 2015

Introducing Young Children to the Role

of Assumptions in Proving
Andreas J. Stylianides
University of Oxford, United Kingdom

The notion of assumptions permeates school mathematics, but instruction tends to

highlight this notion only in the advanced grades. In this article, I argue that it is
important for even young children to develop a sense of the role of assumptions
in proving, and I investigate what it might mean and look like for instruction
to promote this goal. Toward this end, I study an episode from third grade that
describes the first time that the students in the class were introduced in a deliberate
and explicit way to the role of assumptions in proving. The central role of the
mathematical task in the episode is identified, and features of mathematical tasks
that can generate rich mathematical activity in the intersection of assumptions
and proving are discussed. In addition, issues of the role of teachers in fostering
productive interactions between students and mathematical tasks that have those
features are considered.

Almost every conclusion in life depends on a set of statements to which people

have agreed or which they accept (implicitly or explicitly); these statements
may be called assumptions (Fawcett, 1938). For example, a group of children
who say that the librarian of their school can win the best teacher award are
operating under the assumption that the librarian is a teacher. The notion of
assumptions permeates almost every mathematical activity, both in school and
in the discipline. Consider, for example, a class working on the task of showing
how many different addition sentences there are for 5. Do the sentences 1 + 4 = 5
and 4 + 1 = 5 count as different? Ones interpretation of what counts as different

Correspondence should be sent to Andreas J. Stylianides, University of Oxford, Department

of Education, 15 Norham Gardens, Oxford OX2 6PY, United Kingdom, E-mail: andreas.
stylianides@education.ox.ac.uk

Downloaded by [Simon Fraser University] at 21:46 26 July 2015

362

STYLIANIDES

in this task reflects ones assumptions. In the context of proving1 in particular,

assumptions play a crucial role as the building blocks of arguments, proofs,
and mathematical theories. One cannot make sense, or examine the validity, of
arguments and proofs unless one understands the (stated or unstated) assumptions
that underlie them and support their conclusions. To continue with the number
sentences example, consider a child who concludes that there are exactly four
different addition sentences for 5: 1 + 4 = 5, 2 + 3 = 5, 3 + 2 = 5, and 4 + 1 = 5. Is
this conclusion true? It would be true under a specific set of assumptions: (1)
the task refers to two-addend number sentences over the set of positive integers
from 1 to 5, and (2) commutative number sentences count as different. Yet,
the conclusion would be false under a different set of assumptions that would
permit, for example, multi-addend number sentences such as 1 + 1 + 3 = 5.
Although assumptions permeate students mathematical activity in all grades,
instruction tends to highlight them only in advanced grades. This raises the
question of whether it would be meaningful for instruction to help even young
children (i.e., children in the early elementary grades) develop a sense of the
role of assumptions in their mathematical activities, especially in the context
of proving. There are at least three (interrelated) reasons that it is important to
introduce even young children to the role of assumptions.
First, given the growing appreciation of the idea that doing and knowing mathematics is a sense-making activity (e.g., Fennema & Romberg, 1999; Hiebert &
Carpenter, 1992; Mason, Burton, & Stacey, 1982; National Council of Teachers
of Mathematics, 2000), explicitness on the role of assumptions can allow children
to understand and examine critically the conclusions that they accept based on the
grounds that support them. According to Fawcett (1938), proving situations offer
a natural context for children to understand the relationship between conclusions
and their underlying assumptions, thereby fostering childrens ability for reflective
thinking (Dewey, 1910); that is, active, persistent and careful consideration of
any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support
it and the further conclusions to which it tends (quoted in Fawcett, 1938, p. 6).

1
I use the term proving to describe the activity associated with the search for a proof. In turn,
I use the term proof to describein the context of a classroom community at a given timea
mathematical argument that fulfills three criteria: (1) it builds on true statements that are accepted
by the community and that can be used without further justification, (2) it uses valid modes of
argumentation that are known or conceptually accessible to the community, and (3) it employs
appropriate modes of representation that are known or conceptually accessible to the community (see
Stylianides, 2007, for elaboration). The terms true, valid, and appropriate that are used in the
descriptions of the three criteria for a proof should be understood in the context of what is typically
agreed on in the field of mathematics within the domain of particular mathematical theories. In
addition, it should be noted that the notion of assumptions corresponds to the first criterion regarding
the statements on which a given argument or a proof is based.

Downloaded by [Simon Fraser University] at 21:46 26 July 2015

THE ROLE OF ASSUMPTIONS IN PROVING

363

Second, the fact that assumptions tend to be highlighted only in the advanced
grades creates a discontinuity in students mathematical experiences, as it
involves a didactical break (Balacheff, 1988) represented by the requirement
for a new way of thinking about mathematics. Studies such as Fawcett (1938)
and Schoenfeld (1985) at the high school and university levels, respectively,
point to the systematic work that is generally required by instruction at these
levels to help students develop an appreciation of important mathematical ideas
and processesrelated to assumptions, proving, and problem solvingthat
instruction at the lower levels tends not to highlight. If instruction in the lower
grades highlighted these ideas and processes, then more advanced mathematics
would not seem so alien to students and the remedial part of advanced instruction
would not be so necessary.
Third, given the central role that assumptions play in mathematical practice
(see, e.g., Fawcett, 1938; Kitcher, 1984), one may claim that we cannot have a
viable school mathematics curriculumor opportunities that have integrity for
students to learn itunless we help even young children develop an appreciation of the role of assumptions in mathematics. This claim finds support from
ideas that were advanced by educational scholars such as Bruner (1960), Schwab
(1978), and Lampert (1992) about how instruction can organize students experiences with disciplinary concepts in school. Bruner (1960) asserted that there
should be a continuity between what a scholar does on the forefront of his
discipline and what a child does in approaching it for the first time (pp. 2728).
Likewise, Schwab (1978) argued for a school curriculum in which there is,
from the start, a representation of the discipline (p. 269), and in which students
have more intensive encounters with the inquiry and ideas of the discipline as
they progress through school. The idea expressed in these quotations is not that
instruction should treat students as little mathematicians. Rather, the idea is
that instruction should help students learn how to do what Lampert (1992) called
authentic mathematics; that is, participate in activities that are genuinely mathematical and learn from those activities. According to Lampert, [c]lassroom
discourse in authentic mathematics has to bounce back and forth between being
authentic (that is, meaningful and important) to the immediate participants and
being authentic in its reflection of a wider mathematical culture (p. 310).
These reasons on the importance of helping even young children develop
a sense of the role of assumptions in mathematical activityespecially in the
context of provingraise the following question: What might it mean and look
like for teachers to help young children develop a sense of the role of assumptions
in proving? In this article, I investigate this question, with particular attention
to how young children can be assisted to develop a sense of the fundamental
mathematical idea that the truth of conclusions depends on the assumptions
supporting these conclusions. To promote my research goal, I will study an
episode from a third-grade class that describes the first time when the children

364

STYLIANIDES

Downloaded by [Simon Fraser University] at 21:46 26 July 2015

in this class were introduced in a deliberate and explicit way to the role of
assumptions in proving.
Before presenting the episode, I will use an example from Fawcetts (1938)
high school geometry class to exemplify the idea that the truth of conclusions
depends on the assumptions that support them. In addition, the example will offer
an image of how instruction can introduce advanced students to this idea through
experiences that center on the concept of proof and will set the stage for my
investigation of how instruction can promote the same goal in the early grades.

EXEMPLIFYING THE IDEA THAT THE TRUTH OF CONCLUSIONS

DEPENDS ON THE ASSUMPTIONS THAT SUPPORT THEM
Fawcetts (1938) high school geometry class at Ohio State Universitys
laboratory school was organized as a community of mathematical discourse in
which students were invited to explore interesting situations while the teacher
assumed the role of a facilitator, guiding students explorations and directing
them toward discovery and proof of important mathematical results. A key idea
discussed in Fawcetts class was that conclusions are true only within the
limits of the assumptions on which they depend (p. 71). In a series of lessons,
the teacher engaged the students in a number of explorations, which culminated in a task asking the students to analyze a proof of the following theorem:
The sum of the interior angles of a triangle is 180 . The students analyses
revealed that the proof depended on several assumptions. Fawcett focused the
students attention on one of the assumptions, the parallel postulate (i.e. the
fifth postulate of Euclidean geometry), which denotes that through a given point
not on a given line one and only one line can be drawn parallel to the given
line. As a result of their engagement in this task, and under the guidance of their
teacher, the students were introduced to the non-Euclidean worlds of Elliptic
(or Riemannian) and Hyperbolic (or Lobatchewskian) geometries. Mathematicians developed these geometries essentially by changing one of the assumptions
of Euclidean geometry; namely, the parallel postulate. For the development of
Elliptic geometry, Riemann replaced the parallel postulate with a statement that
asserted the existence of no parallel lines; whereas for the development of Hyperbolic geometry, Lobatchewsky replaced the same postulate with a statement
that asserted the existence of many parallel lines. This difference in the sets of
assumptions of the three geometries supports some different conclusions. For
example, although the sum of the interior angles of a triangle in Euclidean
geometry is equal to 180 , in Elliptic geometry the sum is more than 180 and
in Hyperbolic geometry the sum is less than 180 .
According to Fawcett, the analysis of the proof of the theorem concerning
the sum of the interior angles of a triangle, followed by a consideration of the

Downloaded by [Simon Fraser University] at 21:46 26 July 2015

THE ROLE OF ASSUMPTIONS IN PROVING

365

mathematical developments connected with the change of the parallel postulate,

helped his students realize that Euclids assumptions were not inherent in the
nature of space and that the choice of assumptions by Euclid, Riemann, and
Lobatchewsky offered accurate accounts of particular kinds of geometrical
spaces. For example, Euclidean geometry describes the planar space, whereas
Elliptic geometry describes the surface of a sphere. Thus, this activity helped
the students develop a sense of the fact that different sets of assumptions
can give rise to self-consistent and useful theories that promote understanding
of different aspects of mathematics. Even though the theories yield some
conclusions that appear to be contradictory across theories, the theories are in
peaceful coexistence.
The example from Fawcetts high school class illustrates how a teacher can help
advanced mathematics students understand the role of assumptions in proving and,
in particular, the idea that the truth of conclusions depends on the assumptions
that support them. Fawcett promoted his students understanding of this idea by
engaging them with problems and issues faced by mathematicians in the historical
development of geometry. The advanced mathematical level of his students allowed
such an instructional approach. The question that is raised at this point is: How
might teachers promote much younger students understanding of the same idea?
My discussion of the episode from third grade offers insights into this question.
THE EPISODE
Background
The episode is derived from a large longitudinal database of the Mathematics
Teaching and Learning to Teach Project at the University of Michigan. This
database documents an entire year of the mathematics teaching of Deborah Ball,
a well-known teacherresearcher (see, e.g., Ball, 1993; 2000), in a third-grade
class in a U.S. public school. The records collected across that year include
videotapes and audiotapes of the classroom lessons; observation notes; classroom
and interview transcripts; copies of students work in their notebooks, homework
assignments, and quizzes; and copies of the teachers journal entries with her
lesson plans and teaching reflections.
The class was socioeconomically, ethnically, and racially diverse, with 22
students of multiple ability levels. The mathematics period in the class was
approximately one hour long, five days per week. During each period, the class
worked on one or two tasks that were carefully selected by the teacher to engage
students in rich mathematical activity. The period often began with the students
exploring a task individually or in pairs, then in small groups, and ultimately
in the whole group. The curriculum was organized around units on general
mathematical topics such as number theory, integer arithmetic, and probability.

Downloaded by [Simon Fraser University] at 21:46 26 July 2015

366

STYLIANIDES

Deborah Balls teaching of the third-grade class was organized as a year-long

teaching experiment. One of the goals of this experiment was to explore what it
would mean and look like to help young children become skilled mathematical
reasoners. To promote this goal, Ball modeled her classroom as a community
of mathematical discourse, in which the validity for ideas rest[ed] on reason and
mathematical argument, rather than on the authority of the teacher or the answer
key (Ball, 1993, p. 388). Inspired by Bruners (1960) notion of intellectual
honesty, Balls teaching was a continuous struggle to achieve a defensible balance
between two (often competing) considerations: mathematics as a discipline and
children as mathematical learners.
I must consider the mathematics in relation to the children and the children in
relation to the mathematics. My ears and eyes must search the world around us,
the discipline of mathematics, and the world of the child with both mathematical
and child filters. (Ball, 1993, p. 394)

Balls pedagogical commitment to the two considerations is important in understanding her decisions in the episode I describe later.
The above description of Balls teaching practice, as well as research reports
on this practice (see, e.g., Ball & Bass, 2003; Stylianides, 2007), indicate its nontypical character. This non-typical character is, from a methodological point of
view, a necessity for the purposes of this article: Given that in most elementary
classrooms today there is little attention to issues of proving (see, e.g., Ball,
Hoyles, Jahnke, & Movshovitz-Hadar, 2002, for an account of the current place
of proving at the elementary school level in different countries), to study what it
might mean and look like for teachers to help young children develop a sense of
the role of assumptions in proving, researchers need to examine teaching practices
that promoted this goal with considerable success. By so doing, researchers can
develop a better understanding of what is entailed in introducing young children
to the role of assumptions in proving, thereby setting the foundations for the
design of means that can support large numbers of elementary school teachers
to promote this goal effectively among students.
The episode occurred on October 3 and describes part of the work of the
class on integer addition and subtraction, which began on September 26. What
prompted the class to investigate aspects of integer arithmetic was students
conceptions that one cant take nine away from zero, which on September 25
made many students think that 300 190 = 290. Ball noted in her journal that
day: [E]xpanding [students] working domain for numbers seems a reasonable
priority before either estimation competence (number sense) or precision with
computation (Teachers Journal, September 25, p. 26).
To support her students thinking about integers, Ball made a representational
model available to them that she called the building model (see Figure 1). The

Downloaded by [Simon Fraser University] at 21:46 26 July 2015

THE ROLE OF ASSUMPTIONS IN PROVING

367

Roof
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0 (ground floor)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

FIGURE 1 The building model.

model consisted of a building with 12 floors below ground, the ground floor (called
the 0th floor), 12 floors above ground, and a roof. Ball used the circumflex
() above the numerals in the place of the minus sign of negative integers. Her
decision to not follow the standard mathematical notation was based on pedagogical
reasons. She believed that substituting the circumflex for the minus sign would
help the students focus on the idea of a negative number as a number, not as an
operation (i.e., subtraction) on a positive number (Ball, 1993, p. 380; emphasis in
original). For consistency, I use the same notation in this article.
The class used the building model to figure out answers to number sentences
with integer addition and subtraction in which negative integers appeared only
at the beginning of the sentences. To interpret and figure out answers to such
number sentences, the students imagined that each number sentence represented

the trip of a person in the building. For example, the number sentence 5+21
=?
would be interpreted and solved as follows.
The first term indicates the persons starting position. So, in this case, the person
begins five floors below the ground floor. The addition operation indicates that the
person has to go up the building. The second term indicates that the person has

368

STYLIANIDES

to travel two floors in this direction. The subtraction operation indicates that the
person has to go down the building. The third term indicates that the person has to
travel one floor in this direction. The person ends up being four floors below the

ground floor, so the answer to the number sentence is 4.

On October 2, the day before the episode, the students worked on finding
different ways for a person to get to the second floor.

Downloaded by [Simon Fraser University] at 21:46 26 July 2015

Description
On October 3, the teacher gave the following task to the class: How many ways
are there for a person to get to the second floor? Prove your answer. In her
journal entry after class that day, the teacher noted about the task:
1. The emphasis here, compared to yesterday, was on figuring out and
justifying how many different ways there are for a person in the building to
get to the second floor. I knew that those kids who only wrote two-addend
number sentences (e.g., 4 + 6 = 2) would have 25 answers but those, like
Lisa, who wrote multi-addend number sentences (e.g., 6 + 10 + 3 2 + 1
4 = 2) would have infinite solutions. (Teachers Journal, October 3, p. 37)
The class period began with the students working on the task individually or
in their small groups. At some point, Ball called them back to the whole group
to clarify the task:
2. Ball: [   ] Maybe you finished finding all the ways, maybe you didnt.
I want you to think right now about how many ways there are.
Did you find them all? If you found them all, figure out how many
there are and prove thats all there are. If you didnt find them all,
write down what you think about how many there should be and
why you think that.
The students continued their work on the task for 10 more minutes. Then, Ball
called them back to the whole group and asked them to share their work on the
task. Among several volunteers, Ball chose Riba to share her work. Riba went
up to the board, stood by the building model, and said:
3. Riba: See, look [pause] arent there 25 numbers [she points to the floors
at the building model]? Then there have to be 25 cause [pause] 25
answers because you cant make more because there are only 25.
Nathan pointed out that one would have to also count the roof to find 25 floors,
but Riba said that there were 25 floors without counting the roof as a floor. Ball

THE ROLE OF ASSUMPTIONS IN PROVING

369

Downloaded by [Simon Fraser University] at 21:46 26 July 2015

asked Riba to show Nathan why she thought there were 25 floors. Riba counted
the floors one by one, beginning from the floor minus twelve and ending at the
twelfth floor. Nathan admitted that Riba was right. Riba then offered to give a
different explanation, as she said, about why there were 25 ways for a person
to get to the second floor:
4. Riba: This is twelve below zero [points to the lowest floor]. If you write
on the board], you
twelve below zero in your notebook [writes 12
would [pause] Im saying, look, take twelve below zero. Then
you take [counts floors up from minus twelve to two] one, two,
three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen,
fourteen! Plus fourteen equals two [completes the following number
+ 14 = 2].
sentence on the board: 12
Riba then noted that the same idea would apply for all 25 floors, not just the
floor minus twelve. Ball asked Riba to write down some more number sentences
and helped her record the sentence that corresponded to the trip beginning at
+ 13 = 2. Riba took over from there.
floor minus eleven: 11
5. Riba: And there could be another one and another one. You see, ten below
zero plus [pause] this would have to be twelve equals two [writes
+ 12 = 2 on the board]. You have to keep on going like that, so
10
you will finish at one below zero, and then go to ground and you
say: zero plus two equals two [writes 0 + 2 = 2 on the board]. Like
that. And then keep on going, keep on going, keep on going until
this, and after you finish you go to twelve [points to the highest
floor] and then you go this way and you get to two [moves her hand
downwards from the twelfth floor to the second]. Ill show you this
other way. Twelve [writes 12 on the board] there is [counts floors
down from the eleventh floor to the second] one, two, three, four,
five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten! Then it will be twelve take away ten
equals two [completes the following number sentence on the board:
12 10 = 2]. I stopped at two, and thats why it equals two! [   ]
6. Ball: So you are saying that there are 25 answers?
7. Riba: Yeah!
Ball invited comments from the other students. Betsy asked for some clarification
and Riba explained her thinking again. Ball then summarized Ribas argument:
8. Ball: [   ] What she is saying is that you can start in every floor and
then add up to two [shows up the building to the second floor] or
subtract to two [shows down the building to the second floor]. And
there are 25 floors, so she got 25 answers. Thats all she is saying
right now. Does that make sense or not?

370

STYLIANIDES

Downloaded by [Simon Fraser University] at 21:46 26 July 2015

The class seemed to have a good understanding of Ribas argument and Ball
decided to move on, asking whether other students found a different answer to
the task.
Several students said that they found more than 25 ways. Jeannie said that
she found 26 ways while Lucy said that she could not read the number of ways
she thought there were because the number was big. Ball decided to give the
floor to Lucy. In her journal entry after the class period that day, Ball explained
the rationale for her decision.
9. I deliberated for a moment about whether to have Jeannie write all her 26 ways
up so we could see how she got more than Ribas 25. Since I knew shed only
written two-addend number sentences, I decided it would not be a fruitful use
of time just to discover that shed written one down more than once. Still, this
is a dilemma, for will Jeannie understand that it has to be 25 if you only write
two-addend sentences? Or will she not understand that, logically, there can only
be 25. (Teachers Journal, October 3, p. 38; emphasis in original)

When Lucy came up to the board, she said that she had written number sentences
+ 24 10 = 2, and this was how she decided that there was a big
such as 12
number of ways. Lisa was the next person to come up to the board. She said
she had followed an approach similar to Lucys, and she recorded the number
+ 11 + 2 = 2.
sentence 11
Ball then asked the class to think about what was the same between the
solutions of Lucy and Lisa, and how this was different from what Riba had
presented earlier. After eliciting some ideas from the students, Ball pointed out
that in Ribas solution the person in the task went to the second floor in a single
stop, whereas in the solutions of Lucy and Lisa the person made more than one
stop en route to the second floor. Balls journal entry after the class period that
day is illuminating of her thinking:
10. I decided to push the point that Lucy and Lisa had both made the assumption
that the person in the problem could make more than one stop en route to the
second floor (e.g., 5 + 9 2 = 2). This seemed, for the moment, the more important
issue relative to the problem at hand: of how many solutions there are to the
problem how many ways are there to get to the second floor. With each of the
assumptions kids have made, the answer would be different (25 vs. infinite) and
I wanted the kids to see that, and to begin to develop a sense for the role of
assumptions. (Teachers Journal, October 3, p. 39; emphasis in original)

In trying to ensure that the students understood what Lucy and Lisa did, Ball
invited the class to describe a trip with multiple stops en route to the second
floor. The class as a group made up a trip that corresponded to the following
number sentence: 6 1 + 7 8 2 = 2. As soon as the class concluded the

Downloaded by [Simon Fraser University] at 21:46 26 July 2015

THE ROLE OF ASSUMPTIONS IN PROVING

371

description of the trip, Lucy observed that the person could keep going up and
down many times before finishing his trip at the second floor. This observation
provoked Betsys reaction. Betsy objected to the way Lucy and Lisa solved the
task by saying: The person wants to go to the second floorhe doesnt want
to go all over the building. Lisa defended hers and Lucys approach on the
grounds that, even if the person made multiple stops, he would eventually get to
the second floor.
Ball asked the other students in the class what they wrote in their notebooks
in solving the task. Four students said that they had solutions like those of Lucy
and Lisa. The other students in the class said that they had only two-addend
number sentences like Riba did. Ball said the following:

11. Ball:

Neither one of these is right or wrong. Both are okay, but

they are important. There is an important thing here for you
to look at. Everyone look up here, please. Lucy and Lisa and
Mei and, I dont remember who else [students mention Seans
name] and Sean made a different, what we call, assumption. Im
going to write the word on the board because its an important
word for us [writes the word assumption on the board]. That
means that they thought something a little bit different than what
Betsys assumption was. Betsys assumption was that the person
wanted to go as fast as possible to the second floor. The problem
doesnt say that, but its okay that she thought that. That was her
assumption. That means: thats what she thought. And then she
did all her work on the problem because of that way of thinking.
Right, Betsy? [Betsy affirms.] So did some of the rest of you. Like
Cassandra assumed the same thing. [   ] She assumed that the
person wanted to get there quickly. What was Lisas assumption?
What did Lisa think about the person? Betsy?
12. Betsy: That he wanted to take the whole day going from place to place.
[Students laugh.]
13. Ball: Maybe he wanted to visit people, or wasnt in a rush. The problem
doesnt say that, does it? [Students agree that the problem does
not say that.] But it also doesnt say that he didnt. So they made
two different assumptions. They had two different ideas. Lisa did
her work after she made her assumption. You [turning to Betsy]
did your work after you made yours [i.e., your assumption]. And
both are right, but they are different assumptions. If you make
Betsys assumption, if you assume that the person wants to get to
the second floor as fast as possible, how many ways are there for
the person to get to the second floor? [pause] If the only thing you

372

Downloaded by [Simon Fraser University] at 21:46 26 July 2015

14.
15.
16.
17.

STYLIANIDES

Chris:
Ball:
Chris:
Ball:

are going to let the person do is start somewhere and go right to

the second floor, in how many ways can the person do that? Chris?
26.
Why 26?
Because he can also start from the roof.
Okay. He can start from the roof or every other floor and go to
the second floor.

Ball remarked that the proof for 26 would be similar to the proof that was
presented earlier by Riba, but, in this case, one would also have to consider the
roof as a possible starting point for the trips. She also pointed out that Chris
made a different assumption. The class stated Chriss assumption: that you can
also count the roof. Then Ball raised the question:
18. Ball: If you assume what Lisa and Lucy and Sean assumed, that the
person wanted to travel around, how many ways are there for the
person to do it?
Ball called on Ofala to answer this question because, as she noted in her journal
entry after the class period that day, she knew that Ofala had in her notebook an
idea about afinidy (meaning to say infinity). However, Ofala did not seem to
remember this idea. Ball then called on Lucy, who had said earlier that she could
not read the number of ways she thought there were because the number was
big. Ball asked her to come up to the board to write this number. Lucy wrote
the number 8,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 on the board, commenting that
she wanted to add more zeroes to the number but there was not enough space in
her notebook.
19. Ball: What are you trying to say with this number?
20. Lucy: Im trying to say that there is a lot of them!
Then Ball called on Jeannie, who said:
21. Jeannie: I think there are as much as you want because [pause] he can
spend months going up and down if he wanted to! [Students
laugh.]
The discussion continued for a few more minutes before the class period
ended. Several students tried to explain how many ways there would be if one
assumed that a person could travel around. Just before the end of the period Mei
said, The answer goes on for ever. However, there was not enough time left
for her to explain what she meant by that.
Ball concluded her journal entry about the class period that day with a
reflection on the students emerging understanding of the notion of infinity:

THE ROLE OF ASSUMPTIONS IN PROVING

373

22. I think people got the sense that there were a LOT of answers, given the second
assumption [i.e., that the person could travel around]. But a LOT can mean 28 or
1,000 or 9,000,000,000,000 to an eight-year-old. And endless doesnt necessarily
mean something different from a very big numberbig numbers are themselves
endless to these kids, I think. (This is a new twist on the idea of the confounding
of infinity as a very big number.) (Teachers Journal, October 3, p. 41)

Downloaded by [Simon Fraser University] at 21:46 26 July 2015

Discussion
My discussion of the episode is organized into four sections. In the first, I specify
the two main assumptions one could make about the conditions of the task in
the episode and I connect them with the proving activity that was generated
in the class. In the second, I elaborate further on the role of assumptions in
the episode. In the third, I identify analogues between students experience
with assumptions in the episode and mathematicians work with assumptions in
the discipline. In the last section, I discuss features of mathematical tasks that
can generate rich mathematical activity in the intersection of assumptions and
proving. This discussion raises issues about the relationship between assumptions
and definitions, and about the role of teachers in fostering productive interactions
between students and mathematical tasks that have those features.
Two different assumptions for the tasks conditions and proving activity
generated in the class. The mathematical task in which the teacher engaged
her students in the episode (figuring out and proving how many ways there
are for a person to get to the second floor of the building) was purposefully
ambiguous, thus allowing the formulation of different assumptions about its
conditions. In particular, there were two main assumptions a student could make
about the nature of the persons trips in the task: direct route to the second floor
versus multiple stops en route to the second floor. Depending on the assumption
a student would make (consciously or unconsciously), the student would engage
in a proving activity that was expected to result in a different conclusion: 25
ways (if the roof was not taken as a possible starting point of the persons trips)
versus infinitely many ways.
In implementing the task in her class, Ball had two primary goals. First, she
aimed to help her students develop arguments (and, if possible, proofs) for the
number of different ways, based on each of the two main assumptions about
the tasks conditions (line 1). Second, she aimed to help her students understand
that the apparent conflict between the different conclusions students could reach
(25 ways versus infinitely many ways) was due to the different assumptions that
supported these conclusions (line 10).
Ribas approach to the task was based on the assumption that the person in
the task would go directly to the second floor, even though she did not seem
to be conscious of the fact that she was making this assumption. Riba provided

Downloaded by [Simon Fraser University] at 21:46 26 July 2015

374

STYLIANIDES

two related arguments about why, given her assumption, there were exactly 25
ways (lines 35).2 Ribas first argument, summarized also by Ball (line 8), went
as follows: The person can begin from any floor and travel directly from there
to the second floor; because there are 25 floors, there are 25 (different) ways for
the person to get to the second floor. This argument was based on the statement
that there were 25 floors in the building, which was not readily accepted by
students such as Nathan who claimed that one would also need to count the
roof to find 25 floors. To refute Nathans claim, Riba counted, one by one, all
the floors in the building. Ribas second argument took the form of systematic
enumeration of all the possible trips to the second floor, but, instead of listing the
number sentence corresponding to each trip, she described in some detail how
one would go about generating these number sentences and gave representative
examples on the board (lines 45).
After the presentation of Ribas arguments, Ball directed the students
attention to the other main assumption one could make about the tasks conditions, namely, that the person could make multiple stops en route to the second
floor. She gave the floor to Lucy and Lisa, who wrote multiterm number
sentences on the board to illustrate what made them think that the number of ways
for the person to get to the second floor was big. The two different approaches
to the task that were followed by different groups of students generated some
controversy in the class. Some students (e.g., Betsy) thought that the direct
route approach was the only legitimate approach. Other students (e.g., Lisa)
thought that the multiple stops approach was also legitimate because the person
does eventually get to the second floor. This controversy naturally raised the
need for the teacher to highlight the role of assumptions in what the students had
been arguing about. Ball explained to the students that each approach was based
on a different assumption (lines 11 and 13). She called the students attention to
the term assumptions and tried to help them understand the relationship between
different assumptions and different conclusions by asking them to consider what
would be the answer to the task given each assumption (lines 13 and 18).
The students easily addressed the case in which the person in the task would
follow a direct route to the second floor. They did so by referring to the arguments
that Riba presented at the beginning of the episode. However, the students faced
difficulties in dealing with the case in which the person in the task could make
multiple stops en route to the second floor, primarily because the solution set
in this case had infinite cardinality. Although several students expressed ideas
that approximated the notion of infinity, they could not articulate and explain
their thoughts clearly (lines 1921). For example, Jeannie claimed there are as
much [ways] as you want (line 21). She tried to justify her claim by saying
that the person in the task could spend months going up and down if he wanted
2

These arguments can be considered as proofs in the given context.

THE ROLE OF ASSUMPTIONS IN PROVING

375

Downloaded by [Simon Fraser University] at 21:46 26 July 2015

to (line 21). This argument could potentially be the basis of a proof that would
develop along the following lines: The person can go up and down, visiting
floors in the building before he ends up at the second floor, so that in each
new trip the person makes a different number of stops than in any previous
trip. Because the number of stops the person can make extends ad infinitum, the
number of possible trips is infinite.3 Yet, it is an empirical question whether
third graders can formulate or understand an argument such as this.
The role played by assumptions in the episode. Figure 2 summarizes
the work of the class on the mathematical task in the episode, indicating the
two-fold role that assumptions played in the episode.

Mathematical task

Assumptions

about the
conditions of the
mathematical task

Proving activity

How many ways are there for a

person to get to the second floor?
Prove your answer.

The person needs to

follow a direct route to the
second floor

The person can make

multiple stops en route to
the second floor

Development of arguments
based on the assumption
above. The development
of these arguments has to
consider an infinite number
of possible cases

Development of arguments
based on the assumption
above. The development
of these arguments has to
consider a finite number of
possible cases

Conflict

Conclusions

Resolution

Finite number of ways

(25 ways, if the roof is not taken
as a possible starting point)

Infinite number of ways

Different (legitimate) assumptions gave rise to

different arguments, which in turn resulted in different
conclusions. So, although the two conclusions seem
to be contradictory, both of them are legitimate.

FIGURE 2 The work of the class on the mathematical task in the episode.

3
For example, the person in the problem can make his trips according to the following process.
For the first trip, the person goes up and down once between the third floor and the fourth floor, and
then ends up at the second floor. For each new trip, the person goes up and down one time more
than in the previous trip between the third floor and the fourth floor, and then ends up at the second
floor. This procedure contains no terminating condition and enters a process of infinite recursion.

Downloaded by [Simon Fraser University] at 21:46 26 July 2015

376

STYLIANIDES

The first role that assumptions played was as a tool in the hands of the teacher
to engage students in two broad categories of proving activity: activity that
involves a finite number of cases, and activity that involves an infinite number
of cases. Accordingly, the students had an opportunity to develop a sense of the
fundamental mathematical idea that some proving strategies that can be used to
solve tasks that belong to the former category are not applicable in solving tasks
that belong to the latter category (Stylianides & Ball, in press). For example,
if a student assumes that the person has to follow a direct route to the second
floor, then the systematic enumeration of cases is a valid strategy for proving
that there are exactly 25 ways for the person to get there. This is an important
strategy that can also be used by students to solve tasks on combinatorial ideas
(see, e.g., English, 1991; 2005; Inhelder & Piaget, 1958). However, this strategy
is not as useful if a student tries to prove that there are infinitely many ways for
the person to get to the second floor, operating under the assumption that the
person can make multiple stops en route to the second floor.
Besides the two main assumptions described in Figure 2 about the nature of
the persons trip, there were some other elements in the tasks conditions that
in some students eyes were also subject to different assumptions. For example,
even though almost all students assumed that the 25 floors of the building
were the only possible starting points for the persons trips, Chris assumed
that the roof of the building was another possible starting point (lines 1317).
Nevertheless, the teacher did not have students explore the implications of the
different assumptions about the possible starting points for the persons trips.
Specifically, she did not ask them to produce a new proof for 26; rather, she
simply remarked that the proof for 26 would be similar to Ribas proof for
25. Had the teacher decided to have students explore the implications of these
assumptions, the students would engage in the same type of proving activity;
namely, activity that involves a finite number of cases. Thus, the understandings
that the students could develop about proving strategies from engaging in this
activity would likely not make a significant difference to the understandings that
they developed in the activity in the episode. Using Daviss (1992) notion of
residue as a way of describing the student understandings that remain after an
activity, we may say that the activity of exploring different assumptions about
the possible starting points for the persons trips would not offer the chance of
leaving behind any important residue in addition to the residue that remained
from the activity in the episode.
The second role that assumptions played in the episode was as a means for
resolving a problematic situation; namely, the apparent conflict between the
different conclusions reached by different groups of students for the number
of possible trips to the second floor. This was a situation that allowed and
encouraged students to problematize what they stud[ied], to define problems that
elicit[ed] their curiosities and sense-making skills (Hiebert et al., 1996, p. 12).

THE ROLE OF ASSUMPTIONS IN PROVING

377

Downloaded by [Simon Fraser University] at 21:46 26 July 2015

Specifically, the class examined the arguments that gave rise to the conflicting
conclusions, tried to examine the validity of these arguments, and searched
for resolutions. The teacher, consistent with the role of the representative of
the mathematical community in the classroom (see Ball, 1993; Lampert, 1992;
Stylianides, 2007; Yackel & Cobb, 1996), aimed to help students understand
that the situation could be resolved by reference to the different (legitimate)
assumptions that constituted the basis of the different arguments and conclusions.
As a result, the students were offered an opportunity to develop a sense that the
truth of conclusions depends on the assumptions that support them.
Analogues between students experiences with assumptions in the
episode and mathematicians work with assumptions in the discipline. It
may seem inappropriate to consider students experiences with assumptions in
the episode in relation to mathematicians work with assumptions in the discipline. After all, [c]hildren are different than mathematicians in their experiences,
immediate ambitions, cognitive processing power, representational tools, and
so on (Hiebert et al., 1996, p. 19). Nevertheless, it is worth describing some
analogues that exist between students work in the episode and mathematicians
work as it relates to the development of Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries (presented earlier in the example from Fawcetts class). I will describe the
analogues and then explain what these analogues suggest about the students
experiences.
Figure 3 presents these analogues. In sum, different groups of students in the
episode made (unconsciously) different assumptions about the tasks conditions
(analogously to the adoption of different sets of axioms by Euclid, Riemann,
and Lobatchewsky); they attempted to build valid arguments based on these
assumptions (analogously to the attempts of Euclid, Riemann, and Lobatchewsky
to build self-consistent geometrical theories based on different sets of axioms);
they resolved, with their teachers help, the issue of contradictory conclusions
of their arguments by reference to the different assumptions that supported
them (analogously to the fact that the different sets of axioms of Euclidean,
Riemannian, and Lobatchewskian geometries account for their contradictory
conclusions for the sum of the interior angles of a triangle); and were offered
opportunities to promote their understanding of different proving strategies and to
develop a sense of the role of assumptions in proving (analogously to the fact that
mathematicians development of different geometrical theories based on different
sets of axioms promoted the fields understanding of the geometrical space).
These analogues suggest that, in supportive classroom environments, even
young children can engage in authentic mathematical activity (Lampert, 1992)
that is related to assumptions and proving. The analogues suggest further that
young children, similar to mathematicians, can problematize mathematical situations (Hiebert et al., 1996) that are related to assumptions and proving, with

Downloaded by [Simon Fraser University] at 21:46 26 July 2015

The work of the class on the task

presented in the episode

The work of mathematicians in

developing the Euclidean and
non-Euclidean geometries

Groups of students used as

starting points of their proving
activity different assumptions
about the conditions of the task

Groups of mathematicians
used as starting points of their
theory-building in geometry
different sets of axioms

The groups engaged in

important proving activity,
which differed among groups

The groups engaged in

important theory-building,
which differed among groups

The groups produced different

arguments that were legitimate,
but the conclusions of these
arguments appeared to be
contradictory across groups

The groups produced different

geometries that are selfconsistent and useful, but some
of their conclusions appear to
be contradictory across theories

The discussion of the different

arguments surfaced the
different assumptions on
which they were based and
resolved the issue of
contradictory conclusions

The different sets of axioms

on which the geometries are
based helps explain why the
geometries yield some
conclusions that appear to be
contradictory across theories

Students were offered

opportunities to: (1) advance
their understanding of different
proving strategies, and (2)
develop a sense of the role
of assumptions in proving

The development of different

geometries based on
different sets of axioms
advanced mathematicians
understanding of the
geometrical space

FIGURE 3 Analogues between the work of the class in the episode and the work of
mathematicians.

378

Downloaded by [Simon Fraser University] at 21:46 26 July 2015

THE ROLE OF ASSUMPTIONS IN PROVING

379

the goal of resolving these situations in sensible ways. Thus, we may say that
childrens engagement with assumptions in the context of proving can serve,
similarly to mathematicians engagement, as a vehicle to deep understanding of
mathematics.
Finally, it may be useful to think of students engagement with assumptions in
the episode as a genuine yet rudimentary version (Bruner, 1960) of mathematicians engagement with assumptions in the discipline. A possible instructional
sequence on students engagement with assumptions in school mathematics may
begin with students engagement with assumptions in the local setting of
mathematical tasks with ambiguous conditions (lower grades) and conclude with
students engagement with assumptions in the global setting of mathematical
theories that are supported by different sets of axioms (advanced grades).
Mathematical tasks that can generate rich mathematical activity in
the intersection of assumptions and proving. Several researchers have
elaborated on the role that different kinds of mathematical tasks can play in
classroom activity (e.g., Christiansen & Walther, 1986; Doyle, 1988; Leinhardt,
Zaslavsky, & Stein, 1990; Zaslavsky, 2005). In this section, I aim to contribute
to this body of research by discussing features of mathematical tasks that
can generate rich mathematical activity in the intersection of assumptions and
proving, using the task in the episode as a basis for my discussion.
The mathematical task in the episode had three primary features: (1) the
conditions of the task were ambiguously stated and, therefore, were subject to
different legitimate assumptions; (2) each of the main assumptions students could
make about the conditions of the task led to important mathematical activity that
called for the use of different proving strategies; and (3) the conclusions of the
arguments or proofs that students constructed (or could construct) based on each
assumption appeared to be contradictory, thus surfacing the role of assumptions.
I do not argue that these three features are necessary for a mathematical task
to generate rich mathematical activity in the intersection of assumptions and
proving. Rather, I argue that tasks with these features have strong potential to
generate such activity, given that the implementation of the tasks preserves their
nature and cognitive demands (see, e.g., Stein, Grover, & Henningsen, 1996). In
addition, as was illustrated earlier by the mathematical activity in the episode,
tasks with these features can help students engage in authentic mathematical
activity (Lampert, 1992) and problematize mathematical situations (Hiebert et al.,
1996), thereby offering the chance of leaving behind important residue (Davis,
1992).
Next I present two examples of mathematical tasks that have the three features
that I previously described and that can be used (such as the task in the episode)
in the early grades. With these examples, I aim to clarify further the three features
and raise issues about the relationship between assumptions and definitions, and

Downloaded by [Simon Fraser University] at 21:46 26 July 2015

380

STYLIANIDES

about the role of teachers in fostering productive interactions between students

and mathematical tasks that have these features.
The first example relates to the mathematical task from the introductory part
of the article on addition sentences for 5. In this task, students are asked to
explore different addition sentences for 5 and then to show how many such
sentences there are. The domain of discourse is not specified for the students,
thus allowing at least two different assumptions about what this set might be. If
a student makes (consciously or unconsciously) the assumption that the domain
of discourse is the set of positive integers from 1 to 5, then there are finitely
many different number sentences (the exact number depends on what counts as
different and on the number of addends that one allows; cf. introductory part of
the article). This claim can be proved by systematic enumeration of all possible
cases. However, if a student makes the assumption that the domain of discourse
is the entire set of integers, then there are infinitely many number sentences. This
claim cannot be proven by systematic enumeration of all possible cases; rather, it
requires the development of a general argument that describes, for example, the
solution set of the algebraic sentence x + x + 5 = 5, where x can be any integer.4
The apparent conflict between the different conclusions of the two arguments
(finitely many versus infinitely many number sentences) raises the need for an
explanation about why both conclusions are legitimate, thus surfacing the role
of assumptions.
The second example is a mathematical task that first engages students in
exploring properties of quadrilaterals and then asks students to consider the truth
or falsity of the statement: Every rectangle is a trapezoid. Depending on what
one takes the definition of a trapezoid to bea quadrilateral with at least one
pair of parallel sides versus a quadrilateral with exactly one pair of parallel
sidesthe statement is true or false, respectively. In each case, the statement can
be verified or refuted using different proving strategies such as the development
of a direct proof or the construction of a counterexample, respectively.
This example raises the interesting issue of the relationship between assumptions and definitions. The concept of assumption intersects with the concept of
4
Evidence from Deborah Balls third-grade class shows that young children can produce, after
appropriate teacher scaffolding, such general arguments. In particular, a student in Balls class
developed the following generic proof (Balacheff, 1988; Harel & Sowder, 1998; Rowland, 2002)
for the claim that there are infinitely many number sentences for 10: We would take any number,
it wouldnt matter what number, say 200. And then we would minus 200, then we would plus 10,
and it would always equal 10. So you could go on for a long, long time, just keep on doing that.
[   ] So, since numbers they never stop, you could go on and on and on and on and on and on and
on [   ] With Balls help, the students represented this argument algebraically, using the sentence
x x + 10 = 10, and noting that x can stand for any number. For elaboration on this classroom
episode (including an analysis of the students proof and of the teachers actions that supported the
reformulation of the proof in algebraic form), see Stylianides (2007).

Downloaded by [Simon Fraser University] at 21:46 26 July 2015

THE ROLE OF ASSUMPTIONS IN PROVING

381

definition in complicated ways. It is beyond the scope of this article to sort out
the relationship between assumptions and definitions, but I discuss two aspects
of this relationship in the context of the particular example.
First, the example shows that one possible form assumptions can take in the
context of proving relates to the choice of definition. Zaslavsky (2005) noted that
the choice of definition need not be connected to correctness; rather, [i]t could
be related to personal preferences, beliefs, values or the theoretical framework
or context to which one refers (p. 301). For example, the choice of the inclusive
definition of a trapezoid (i.e., the definition according to which a rectangle is a
special case of a trapezoid) may reflect a value of the fundamental mathematical
idea of generalization (see, e.g., Kitcher, 1984).
Second, a classroom community who shares a clear definition of a trapezoid
would most likely not engage in discussions about the role of assumptions in
verifying or refuting the statement that every rectangle is a trapezoid, because
the clear definition would rule out the ambiguity of the situation. This remark
suggests that clear definitions of mathematical terms can influence the interpretation of mathematical tasks that could allow different hidden assumptions, and
raises the issue of how teachers can manage the tension between clear definitions
and ambiguous situations that can support different assumptions. It is reasonable
to say that teachers decisions in managing this tension should be guided by the
goals that they try to accomplish in different situations. In situations in which
teachers aim to offer their students opportunities to develop a sense of the role of
assumptions in proving, unclear definitions and ambiguous task conditions might
be appropriate. In situations in which the emphasis of instruction is more on
introducing students to new proving strategies (e.g., proof by exhaustion through
systematic consideration of all possible cases) and less on increasing students
understanding of the elements that constitute the foundation of an argument or a
proof (assumptions, axioms, etc.), clear definitions and unambiguous task conditions might be appropriate. Finally, teachers might also engage students in situations that promote both an understanding of the role of assumptions in resolving
conflicting conclusions in mathematical tasks with ambiguous conditions and
an appreciation of the role of clear definitions in ensuring unambiguous interpretation of a tasks conditions. An instructional sequence that could promote this
expanded set of goals could begin with posing a task with ambiguous conditions
that would allow the generation of conflicting conclusions based on different
assumptions, continue with helping students make their assumptions explicit to
resolve the issue of different conclusions, and end by asking students to think
what kind of definitions would rule out the ambiguity in the tasks conditions so
that everybody would be working on the same problem.
To recapitulate, if and when teachers consider it important to help their
students develop a sense of the role of assumptions in proving, it seems fruitful
for teachers to use mathematical tasks that have the three features described

Downloaded by [Simon Fraser University] at 21:46 26 July 2015

382

STYLIANIDES

earlier. Teachers have an important role in identifying situations in which it

is appropriate to implement such mathematical tasks in classrooms given their
instructional goals. There may be situations in which teachers do not realize that a
particular mathematical task they implement in their classrooms has the features
described earlier. For example, a task may have an ambiguity that the teacher
fails to notice but that causes students to make different assumptions about the
conditions of the task. Even though it may not be in a teachers original intent to
discuss the multiple assumptions that students can make on the conditions of a
mathematical task, it is important that the teacher be able to recognize that some
student approaches to the task that appear faulty may in fact be mathematically
sound and based on an unforeseen set of legitimate assumptions. By recognizing
the value of such approaches (with reference to the assumptions on which they
are based), teachers not only help students develop their understanding of the
role of assumptions in proving, but also support students in making sense of the
mathematics involved.

CONCLUSION
The notion of assumptions permeates school mathematics, especially the activity
of proving, but it tends to be highlighted by instruction only in the advanced
grades. In this article, I argued for the importance of helping even young children
develop a sense of the role of assumptions in proving, primarily because explicitness on the role of assumptions can allow children to make sense of and examine
critically their conclusions based on the grounds that support them. In addition, if
instruction in the lower grades highlighted the notion of assumptions, then more
advanced mathematics would not seem so alien to students. Thus, the bulk of the
article was an investigation of what it might mean and look like for instruction
to highlight the role of assumptions in proving in the context of the early grades.
In conducting this investigation, I discussed features of mathematical tasks that
can generate rich mathematical activity in the intersection of assumptions and
proving. I also considered issues of the role of teachers in fostering productive
interactions between students and mathematical tasks with those features, and of
the relationship between the concept of assumption and definition.
This article identifies several directions for future research. For example, it
is important to investigate students and teachers understandings of the role of
assumptions in proving. The article has prepared the ground for such investigations by identifying features of mathematical tasks that can be used (e.g., in
specially designed tests or clinical interviews) to elicit students and teachers
understandings in this domain. These investigations can have implications for
teacher education and professional development programs that aim to equip
teachers with necessary knowledge to help students develop an appreciation

Downloaded by [Simon Fraser University] at 21:46 26 July 2015

THE ROLE OF ASSUMPTIONS IN PROVING

383

of the role of assumptions in proving. Furthermore, these investigations can

broaden and advance the existing research base on individuals understandings
of proof. To date, most research studies in this domain have focused primarily
on individuals understandings of logical principles, of proof methods, and
of the distinction between empirical and deductive arguments (e.g., Chazan,
1993; Harel & Sowder, 1998; Healy & Hoyles, 2000; Hoyles & Kchemann,
2002; Knuth, 2002; Martin & Harel, 1989; Simon & Blume, 1996; Stylianides,
Stylianides, & Philippou, 2004; 2007).
Finally, the article makes the point that elementary mathematics is real
mathematics, or has the potential to be, if we look at it as a sense-making
activity. For this activity to be authentic to students and authentic in its reflection
of the wider mathematical culture (Lampert, 1992), instruction needs to help
students understand the grounds that support the conclusions they draw and
the means by which these conclusions are derived and represented (Stylianides,
2007). Accordingly, notions such as assumptions, proof, and proving should be
seen as critical components of students interactions with mathematics and high
priorities of instruction.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The preparation of this article was supported in part by funds from the National
Science Foundation to the Diversity in Mathematics Education Center for
Learning and Teaching. The opinions expressed in the article are those of the
author and do not necessarily reflect the position, policy, or endorsement of the
National Science Foundation or of the aforementioned Center. The description
of the episode in the article is derived from the authors dissertation thesis, which
was completed at the University of Michigan under the supervision of Deborah
Ball; nevertheless, the discussion of the episode, with a focus on the role of
assumptions in proving, is new. The author wishes to thank Lyn English, Alan
Schoenfeld, Gabriel Stylianides, and three reviewers (Ken Clements and two
anonymous) for useful comments on an earlier version of the article.

REFERENCES
Balacheff, N. (1988). Aspects of proof in pupils practice of school mathematics. In D. Pimm (Ed.),
Mathematics, teachers and children (pp. 216235). London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Ball, D. L. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary
school mathematics. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 373397.
Ball, D. L. (2000). Working on the inside: Using ones own practice as a site for studying mathematics
teaching and learning. In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics
and science education (pp. 365402). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Downloaded by [Simon Fraser University] at 21:46 26 July 2015

384

STYLIANIDES

Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2003). Making mathematics reasonable in school. In J. Kilpatrick,
W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to Principles and Standards for School
Mathematics (pp. 2744). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Ball, D. L., Hoyles, C., Jahnke, H. N., & Movshovitz-Hadar, N. (2002). The teaching of proof.
In L. I. Tatsien (Ed.), Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians (Vol. III,
pp. 907920). Beijing: Higher Education Press.
Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Chazan, D. (1993). High school geometry students justification for their views of empirical evidence
and mathematical proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24, 359387.
Christiansen, B., & Walther, G. (1986). Task and activity. In B. Christiansen, A. G. Howson, &
M. Otte (Eds.), Perspectives on mathematics education (pp. 243307). Dordrecht, Netherlands:
Reidel Publishing Company.
Davis, R. B. (1992). Understanding understanding. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 11, 225241.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: D.C. Heath and Co.
Doyle, W. (1988). Work in mathematics classes: The context of students thinking during instruction.
Educational Psychologist, 23, 167180.
English, L. D. (1991). Young childrens combinatoric strategies. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
22, 451474.
English, L. D. (2005). Combinatorics and the development of childrens combinatorial reasoning.
In G. A. Jones (Ed.), Exploring probability in school: Challenges for teaching and learning
(pp. 121141). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Fawcett, H. P. (1938). The nature of proof (1938 Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics). New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Fennema, E., & Romberg, T. (Eds.) (1999). Mathematics classrooms that promote understanding.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Harel, G., & Sowder, L. (1998). Students proof schemes: Results from exploratory studies. In
A. H. Schoenfeld, J. Kaput, & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), Research in collegiate mathematics education
III (pp. 234283). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.
Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (2000). A study of proof conceptions in algebra. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 31, 396428.
Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. P. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. A. Grouws
(Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 6597). New York:
Macmillan.
Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Human, P., Murray, H., Olivier, A., &
Wearne, D. (1996). Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: The case
of mathematics. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 1221.
Hoyles, C., & Kchemann, D. (2002). Students understanding of logical implication. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 51, 193223.
Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking: From childhood to adolescence
(A. Parsons & S. Milgram, Trans.). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Kitcher, P. (1984). The nature of mathematical knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press.
Knuth, E. J. (2002). Secondary school mathematics teachers conceptions of proof. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 33, 379405.
Lampert, M. (1992). Practices and problems in teaching authentic mathematics. In F. K. Oser,
A. Dick, & J. Patry (Eds.), Effective and responsible teaching: The new synthesis (pp. 295314).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M. K. (1990). Functions, graph, and graphing: Tasks, learning,
and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60(1), 164.
Martin, W. G., & Harel, G. (1989). Proof frames of preservice elementary teachers. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 4151.

Downloaded by [Simon Fraser University] at 21:46 26 July 2015

THE ROLE OF ASSUMPTIONS IN PROVING

385

Mason, J., Burton, L., & Stacey, K. (1982). Thinking mathematically. London: Addison-Wesley.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Rowland, T. (2002). Generic proofs in number theory. In S. Campbell & R. Zaskis (Eds.), Learning
and teaching number theory: Research in cognition and instruction (pp. 157184). Westport, CT:
Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Schwab, J. J. (1978). Education and the structure of the disciplines. In J. Westbury & N. J. Wilkof
(Eds.), Science, curriculum, and liberal education: Selected Essays (pp. 229272). Chicago &
London: The University of Chicago Press.
Simon, M. A., & Blume, G. W. (1996). Justification in the mathematics classroom: A study of
prospective elementary teachers. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15, 331.
Stein, M. K., Grover, B., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical
thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American
Educational Research Journal, 33, 455488.
Stylianides, A. J. (2007). Proof and proving in school mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38, 289321.
Stylianides, A. J., & Ball, D. L. (in press). Understanding and describing mathematical knowledge
for teaching: Knowledge about proof for engaging students in the activity of proving. Journal of
Mathematics Teacher Education.
Stylianides, A. J., Stylianides, G. J., & Philippou, G. N. (2004). Undergraduate students understanding of the contraposition equivalence rule in symbolic and verbal contexts. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 55, 133162.
Stylianides, G. J., Stylianides, A. J., & Philippou, G. N. (2007). Preservice teachers knowledge of
proof by mathematical induction. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10, 145166.
Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 458477.
Zaslavsky, O. (2005). Seizing the opportunity to create uncertainty in learning mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 60, 297321.

Downloaded by [Simon Fraser University] at 21:46 26 July 2015