On Mathematicians' Proof Skimming: A Reply to Inglis and Alcock

View More View Less
  • 1 Rutgers University

In a recent article, Inglis and Alcock (2012) contended that their data challenge the claim that when mathematicians validate proofs, they initially skim a proof to grasp its main idea before reading individual parts of the proof more carefully. This result is based on the fact that when mathematicians read proofs in their study, on average their initial reading of a proof took half as long as their total time spent reading that proof. Authors Keith Weber and Juan Pablo Mejía-Ramos present an analysis of Inglis and Alcock's data that suggests that mathematicians frequently used an initial skimming strategy when engaging in proof validation tasks.

Contributor Notes

Keith Weber, Graduate School of Education, Rutgers University, 10 Seminary Place, New Brunswick, NJ 08901; keith.weber@gse.rutgers.edu

Juan Pablo Mejía-Ramos, Graduate School of Education, Rutgers University, 10 Seminary Place, New Brunswick, NJ 08901; pablo.mejia@gse.rutgers.edu

(Corresponding author is Weber keith.weber@gse.rutgers.edu)(Corresponding author is Mejía-Ramos pablo.mejia@gse.rutgers.edu)
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 5 5 2
Full Text Views 0 0 0
PDF Downloads 0 0 0
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0