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

View More View Less
  • 1 Loughborough University, United Kingdom

We recently reported a study in which undergraduate students and research mathematicians were asked to read and validate purported proofs (Inglis & Alcock, 2012). In our eye-movement data, we found no evidence of the initial skimming strategy hypothesized by Weber (2008). Weber and Mejía-Ramos (2013) argued that this was due to a flawed analysis of eye-movement data and that a more fine-grained analysis led to the opposite conclusion. Here we demonstrate that this is not the case, and show that their analysis is based on an invalid assumption.

Contributor Notes

Matthew Inglis, Mathematics Education Centre, Loughborough University, Loughborough, LE11 3TU, United Kingdom; m.j.inglis@lboro.ac.uk

Lara Alcock, Mathematics Education Centre, Loughborough University, Loughborough, LE11 3TU, United Kingdom; l.j.alcock@lboro.ac.uk

(Corresponding author is Inglis m.j.inglis@lboro.ac.uk)(Corresponding author is Alcock l.j.alcock@lboro.ac.uk)
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 1 1 0
Full Text Views 0 0 0
PDF Downloads 0 0 0
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0