Student’s Perception and Attitudes towards Proof and

Proving in Mathematics
Marjorie B. Malveda
Rea O. Saquillo
Rachelle Ann J. De Guzman
Graduate School
Bulacan State University, City of Malolos, Bulacan, Philippines

Abstract. The research aims to find out the attitude and perception of students towards proof and proving in Mathematics.

INTRODUCTION

Many mathematics educators believed that mathematics learning is a consequence of conceptual understanding.
The mathematics learners’ performance in the classroom is anchored on two things - their interest on the subject and
their ability to comprehend skillfully. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics 1 reiterated the importance
of developing conceptual understanding among students when it exhorted teachers to encourage their students to
develop their knowledge of mathematics through inquiry, exploration, problem-solving process, and research.
Teachers must instill the conceptual knowledge in the minds of their students so that they would have adequate
competence in order to solve all types of problems and tasks. The importance of gaining conceptual understanding is
aligned with the objective of mathematics education.
Here in the Philippines, educators were dismayed and alarmed by the continuous poor performance of Filipino
school children in international assessment programs in mathematics. It was noted that in the 2003 Trends in
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), the Philippines came out again in the cellar in the standing among
participating countries. In the second-year high school level (Grade 8 in other countries), science and mathematics
assessments, the Philippines emerged 42 nd or just three rungs from the lowest country. The poor showing of Filipino
students in science and mathematics was validated by national achievement tests for both public elementary and
secondary school children. This result supports feedbacks from many local educators that our students’ abilities in
math and science may have begun on level with students in other countries, but then progressively decrease as they
make their way through our educational system. By the end of high school, our students rank among the lowest in
math and science achievement. Higher education institutions inherit these students and have to deal with their
deficiencies in scientific and mathematical thinking.
Indeed, mathematics education in all levels of our educational system is in a pretty bad shape. It is true that many
students learn a lot, but for the most part, these are the talented, motivated ones. This will not do since the nature of
our society requires, and will increasingly require in the 21 st century, a mathematically literate populace. We need
people who can think logically.
Despite reform recommendations, mathematics in many classrooms still observe a teacher – lecture – student –
practice pattern where students look on their teachers as the sole source of instruction and assistance. That is why; it
is not surprising why mathematics curriculum in all levels of the educational system is not producing graduates with
sufficient understanding and appreciation of the subject. There is need for teachers to look for pedagogical strategies
that will enhance students understanding of mathematical concepts. Math teachers should take an active role in
curriculum reforms in their field of specialization. They should engage in the design, implementation and testing of
effective, alternative methods of helping students learn mathematics.
 There are quite a number of theories that explain the students’ learning of mathematics. One posited that
conceptual development in mathematics results from the construction or reconstruction of mathematical actions,
processes, and objects and organizing these in schemas so as to use them in problem solving situations. 2 In reference
to these mental constructions, the theory was called APOS Theory. Dubinsky and McDonald3 explained that a
theory of learning facilitates understanding of the learning process undergone by the students as they construct their
understanding of mathematical concepts and provides direction for pedagogy that guides the learning process. This
theory has been very useful in attempting to understand students’ learning in a broad range of topics in
undergraduate mathematics. One area of mathematics that poses several difficulties for students is calculus. 4 Related
studies identified specific topics of calculus that pose conceptual problems to students. Among them are limit of a
function, graphical understanding of the derivative, the chain rule, and the definite integral. Students have very little
success in understanding these important mathematical concepts.
In view of this, the study was undertaken with aim of determining the consequences of an APOS – Theory based
teaching approach on students’ understanding of the definite integral and related topics. In the study, the researcher
proposed that if the students understand all aforementioned mathematical concepts on the definite integral and
related topics, then they should be able to solve various problems and discuss their thought processes on the
concepts.

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

This study is based on the principle that research in mathematics education is strengthened when based on a
theoretical perspective. Hence, using the Action – Process – Object – Schema framework (APOS Theory), as a
guide in the exploratory investigation, students’ responses to the mastery tests were analyzed and interpreted to
attain the objectives of the study.
Specifically, the study aimed to determine the level of the students’ understanding of the following mathematical
concepts: The Definite Integral, Properties of the Definite Integral, Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, and Areas
between Curves;

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
The study used a framework consisting of three components in a cycle: theoretical component, design and
implementation of instruction, and collection and analysis of data.
Theoretical component. The theoretical component of the framework is based on the APOS Theory, a
constructivist theory rooted in Piaget’s work on reflective abstraction. The theory states: An individual’s
mathematical knowledge is her or his tendency to respond to perceived mathematical problem situations by
reflecting on problems and their solutions in a social context and by constructing or reconstructing mathematical
actions, processes, and objects and organizing these in schemas to use in dealing with the situations. 5 The theory
asserts that an action conception is a transformation of a mathematical object by individuals according to an explicit
algorithm which is conceived as externally driven. As individuals reflect on their actions, they can interiorize them
into a process. Each step of a transformation may be described or reflected upon without actually performing it. An
object conception is constructed when a person reflects on actions applied to a particular process and becomes aware
of the process as a totality, or encapsulates it. A mathematical schema is considered as a collection of action, process
and object conceptions, and other previously constructed schemas, which are synthesized to form mathematical
structures utilized in problem situations.6
Instructional Component. Since the instructional component of the framework is based on the theoretical
component, then it is also grounded on the APOS Theory. The nature of instruction adheres to the theory’s
perspective on what it means to learn and know something in mathematics. In this light, instruction is designed to
accommodate the non-linear growth of understanding, reflection, social context, and (re)constructions. 7 The
instructional treatment is the ACE Teaching Cycle and the steps for this pedagogical approach include:
A - Students spend time working in teams on assigned activities and discussing these and related tasks. These
activities are specifically designed with mental constructions in mind;
C – In classroom sessions, the students are again given mathematical tasks to perform based on the mental
constructions they have made previously. In addition to working on these tasks, from time to time the students will
listen to the explanations or brief lectures by the instructor; who must decide when to let the students try to figure
out something on their own and when they are ready to hear an explanation. This interplay between discovery and
explanation is where the teacher has the greatest opportunity to control the pace of the course and apply her or his
pedagogical creativity;
E – Here, exercises are assigned to do as homework. These are traditional drill and practice as well as problems
that require deeper thought. Unlike traditional instruction, the number of illustrative examples is minimized until the
students have had ample opportunity to construct understanding of the mathematics involved. The construction that
comes from practice is an important part of learning, but it should not take place until the possibility of constructing
misconceptions is reduced.
The figure below shows a visual representation of the ACE Teaching Cycle and the APOS Theory as interpreted
by the researcher.

ACE Teaching
Cycle

A – Cooperative
Learning
Learning Experiences
Tasks

C – Large Class
Discussion

E - Exercises

Figure 1. The APOS Theory and ACE Teaching Cycle

Data Component. The data analysis component uses both the qualitative and quantitative measures, which
include in-depth interviews and written solutions. The scheme is designed to reveal students’ mental constructions,
as well as to measure the extent of their conceptual understanding.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research Design. The study is a descriptive research on students’ understanding of the definite integral and area
of a plane region using the APOS - Theory Model. Specifically, the qualitative – quantitative research method was
applied. The quantitative component of the research used means, standard deviations and percentages to describe the
levels of students’ understanding of the aforementioned concepts. The qualitative approach was used to analyze and
interpret students’ written responses in the mastery tests, worksheets and transcribed oral responses of the 8
randomly selected subjects in the talk-aloud test. For this tranche of research output presentation, only results from
the mastery tests will be shared.
The Subjects. The subjects of the study consist of one intact class of undergraduate mathematics students of the
Bulacan State University enrolled in Integral Calculus purposively selected for the study. The subjects have already
completed the course Differential Calculus during the previous semester.
Research Procedure. The first step in this methodology is to make an initial analysis of the mathematical
concepts being studied using the APOS theory. The purpose of this component is to propose descriptions of specific
mental constructions that a learner will make in order to develop his understanding of the aforementioned concepts.
In relation to this procedure, the researcher developed a table of indicators to describe the mathematical concepts
that the students should mentally construct in each APOS level structures.
 Instructional treatments for the areas of concern took place after the topic on the Indefinite Integral, was
completed. The design for the remaining phase of the course, in particular for the topics covered in the study, took
into account the descriptions of specific mental constructions that a learner makes in order to develop his
understanding of these mathematical concepts. The pedagogical strategy used in the teaching of the aforementioned
topics is the ACE Teaching Cycle.
Data were collected in as many forms as possible to provide the researchers with various insights in the research
problems. But for the purpose of this study only the results of the mastery tests will be presented. Descriptive
statistics such as the mean, standard deviation, and percentage were used to describe students’ levels of
understanding in the specified mathematical concepts.
Table 1. Scale to Interpret Students’ APOS- Based Levels of Understanding
Scales APOS – Based Levels of Understanding
ACTION PROCESS OBJECT SCHEMA
4.50 – 5.0 Action Process Object Schema
3.50 – 4.49 Pre-Action Pre-Process Pre-Object Pre-Schema
2.50 – 3.49 Pre-Action Action Process Object
1.50 – 2.49 * Pre-Action Action Process
0 – 1.49 * Pre-Action Pre-Action Action

Through the data analysis of the results of the mastery tests, levels of understanding were described
quantitatively and qualitatively in terms of the APOS – based levels of understanding – action, process, object, and
schema using the scale described in Table 1. Furthermore, the researcher developed scoring rubrics that formalize
the criteria at each APOS level of understanding.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The following are the results and the discussions of the findings of the study. Table 2 shows the mean scores,
mean scores in percent, and standard deviations of the class in the four (4) mastery tests in the definite integral
component of the course.

Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations in the Four Mastery Tests of the Intact Class
Fundamental
Definite Properties of Areas Between
Mastery Test Theorem of
Integral Definite Integral Curves
Calculus
Mean 36.09 39.78 32.24 12.5
% 60.15 61.20 45.94 50.38
Standard
9.97 9.69 12.55 4.55
Deviation

An analysis of the means - in raw form and percent - in Table 2 revealed that the students had equitably similar
performance in Mastery Tests 1 and 2 (The Definite Integral and Properties of the Definite Integral, respectively).
The class mean in Mastery Test 4 (Areas between Curves) is slightly above the 50 percent mark. While in Mastery
Test 3 (Fundamental Theorem of Calculus), their mean performance is way below the 50 – percent mark. The group
posted the greatest standard deviation (12.55) in Mastery Test 3 and the least standard deviation (4.55) in Mastery
Test 4. This is demonstrated by the fact that the scores of the students in the topic – Fundamental Theorem of
Calculus - are more widely dispersed in the distribution compared with the other three topics.
An inspection of Table 3 shows that the students had comparable performances in three cognitive levels –
Action, Process, and Object, where they posted mean scores ranging from 2.40 to 5.0.
Table 3. Mean Scores of the Class Per APOS – Based Levels of Understanding in the Four Mastery
Tests
APOS Based MASTERY TESTS
 Fundamental
Properties of the Areas Between
Cognitive Definite Integral Theorem of
Definite Integral Curves
Demand per Item (1) Calculus
(2) (4)
(3)

x % x % x % x %
Action 2.84 56.8 5.0 100 3.19 63.8 3.04 60.8
Process 4.62 92.4 3.28 65.6 2.44 48.8 2.40 47.9
Object 3.12 62.4 3.71 74.2 2.50 50.1 2.86 57.1
Schema 2.78 55.6 2.04 40.8 1.82 36.4 1.50 30.0

In Mastery Test 1 (The Definite Integral), comparison of the three lower levels revealed that the lowest mean is
posted by the students in the Action level (2.84). This is surprising considering that in this level a learner is limited
to performing the action in carrying out a transformation. An analysis of the students’ solutions in the lone question
(Item 1) in the Action Level demonstrated most students’ failure to perform action on the use of the sigma notation
to write the expression

as a sum. Many students failed to see the glaring difference among the given terms of the sequence. Students failed
to employ pattern recognition which is a basic thinking skill. Hence, many answers did not properly reflect the index
of summation. In this item, the group is in the Pre- Action level of understanding. In contrast, Item 2 which is
requiring the Process level of understanding and where an individual is made to perform an interiorized action, the
students posted a high mean score of 4.62. The task asked the students to:

In this item, the students are required to perform a process that involves the application of the appropriate
property and formula of summation to obtain the sum. Majority of the students (25 respondents) got the correct
answer. This good result indicated students’ facility with problems involving algorithmic solutions. Hence, for this
item, they are in the process level of understanding.
In Mastery Test 2 (Properties of the Definite Integral), as expected, the students obtained a perfect mean score of
5.0 in Item 3. Thus, the group attained the highest required level of understanding for the item, the Action level. In
said item, the respondents were asked to:

Solutions revealed students’ skills in performing procedural problems with explicit instructions as shown above.
In the Object level, where an individual is made to perform an encapsulated process, the group showed a strong
performance as revealed by their mean score of 3.71. In item 6 which require an Object level of understanding,
students were asked to:

a a
Observe that the problem did not specify any values for ∫ xdx and∫ dx. Hence, the problem will require
0 0
students to reflect on the process, view the process as a totality, realize and construct the necessary transformations.
A random analysis of some solutions showed that 21 (65.6%) respondents accurately undertook the necessary
1 1 1
transformations for ∫ 2
6 v dv, ∫ 2 vdv , and ∫ 8 dv and correctly evaluated the resulting definite integral. Only
0 0 0
one (1) failed to employ the needed transformations. The rest committed procedural error in the evaluation of the
resulting definite integral. Their mean score showed that the group is in the Pre – Object level of understanding in
said item. In Mastery Test 3 (Fundamental Theorem of Calculus), comparison of the items requiring action, up to
process and up to object reveals that the lowest mean score of students are on items requiring up to the Process level
(2.44). In one of these items (Item B – 1), students were given the problem of differentiating the function:

1
The solution requires students to assume thatu= , the upper limit of the definite integral. It is expected that
x
1
students have interiorized the action conception consisting of differentiating u= . That is, they can perform the
x
action mentally without explicit listings of differentiation formulas. However, an analysis of the respondents’
solutions showed 14 (43.8%) of them either failing to make the correct assumption or making the correct assumption
but failing to differentiate correctly the assumed u. Furthermore, 6 (18.8%) respondents have failed to interiorize the
action conceptions consisting of the applications of the Chain Rule and FTC 1. The mean score of 2.8 received by
the group for Item B-1 revealed that the students are in the Action level of understanding for the item. Now, in items
requiring up to the Object level of understanding, the group showed that they are in the Process level of
understanding as revealed by their mean score of 2.50. In Item B-2, a problem related to Item B-1, but requiring up
to the Object level of understanding, the students were given the task of differentiating the function:

In this task, the students are required to transform the integral using the appropriate property of the definite
integral, make the necessary assumption (u = 1 – 3x), apply the Chain Rule, then FTC 1 to get the result. An analysis
of the students’ solutions shows that only 7 (21.9%) failed to transform the integral using the appropriate property of
the definite integral. For those who hurdled the first phase of the transformation, 5 (15.6%) subjects failed to make
the correct assumptions but for those who did, they performed the differentiation action correctly. Only 7 (21.9%)
subjects finished the complete process of applying the Chain Rule and FTC 1.
In Mastery Test 4 (Areas between Curves), results yielded mean scores of 3.04, 2.40, and 2.86 on the items that
require Action, up to the Process, and up to the Object levels of understanding, respectively. Problem Solving Task
Item # 1 (Action level) asked students to:
Find the area of the shaded region using the given representative element.

Observe that in this problem the

students are instructed to use the
vertical representative
element incorporated into the plane region
as a guide in doing the task. Hence, the
problem involves a transformation that is
essentially external, requiring from
memory, step-by- step instruction on
how to perform the task using the sketch and the identified representative element. An analysis of students’ solutions
showed fourteen of them demonstrating complete understanding of the task involved. All (90.6%), except three,
performed the action consisting of the formulation of correct definite integral that will determine the area of the
plane region. From this number of respondents, 14 (43.75%) students failed to perform the action involving
integration of the working expression. For Item 1, the class is the Pre-Action level of understanding as revealed by
their mean score of 3.1.
Now for Problem Solving Task Item 2 (Process level) students were asked to:

Note that in this task, the students are still required to decide on which representative element is more practical
for the bounded region; hence, an internal mental construction made that performs the same action as with Problem
Solving Task 1. But now, without an external stimulus (representative element) that preempts decisions on other
steps of the solution. Only after then that they can formulate the correct definite integral that determines the area of
the region, apply the correct integration formula and evaluate the resulting definite integral. An analysis of the
students’ solution revealed that 10 (31.2%) of them failed to identify the horizontal element as the more practical
element to represent the bounded region. Half of the respondents (16) failed to formulate the definite integral that
will determine the area of the region. However, 7 (21.9%) completed the task demonstrating a thorough
understanding of the problem. The mean score of the class for Item # 2 is 1.6 indicating that the group is in the Pre-
Action level of understanding for the item.
Results also showed that the students gained low mean scores ranging from 1.50 to 2.78. This is expected since
in this level of mathematical knowledge, the three lower APOS level structures are organized and linked; thereby,
requiring heavier cognitive loads and higher - order thinking skills.
In Item 10 of Mastery Test 1, students were asked to:
3
Use the limit definition of the definite integral to evaluate ∫ ( x 3−6 x ) dx .
0
Sketch the graph of the region.
Explain what the definite integral represents.

The analyses of the results of other studies indicated that the coordination of the schema of the Riemann sum and
the schema of the limit of the sequence is necessary for developing a good understanding of the concept of the
definite integral (Czarnocha, Loch, Prabhu, Vidakovic, 2002). Hence, the researcher analyzed the respondents
‘solutions based on this observation. Results showed that the mean score of the group in this item is 3.26 which
imply that the group is in the Pre-Action level of understanding for the item. Seven (21.9%) students failed to
perform both processes of identifying representation for the partition and choosing a convenient point (C i) to
represent the interval in terms of n and i. This showed students failure to perform object level of partition. Nine
(28.1%) failed to complete the object conception of the Riemann sum. This means that they were unable to
completely express the function as a limit of sums (in simplified form) using the appropriate summation properties
and formulas. Thirteen (40.6%) failed to apply the limit schema to obtain a number representing the definite
integral. On the other hand, 3 (9.4%) completed the task with an explanation of what the definite integral represents.
The mean score of 3.3 received by the class for the item showed that the group is in the Process level of
understanding in said item.
 In Item # 4 of Mastery test 4, the students were asked to find the first quadrant area bounded by the curves x 2 + y2
= 9 and 4x2 + 9y2 = 36. In this item, the group posted a mean score of 1.50 showing that the class is in the Action
level of understanding the problem. The task requires the coordination of the schema of the functions involved and
the schema of the area between two curves. A closer look at the solutions of the respondents showed twenty- one
(65.6%) of them have a weak visual schema of conic sections, in particular, circle and ellipse. They failed to sketch
the combined figures of the two conics, hence unable to perform on actions, processes, and objects of the area
between two curves. Six (18.8%) of those who did failed to complete the task because of their inability to formulate
the correct definite integral representing the area between two curves. The remaining five (15.6%) were unable to
successfully apply the schema of FTC 2 to obtain the area between the two curves.

Synthesis of the Findings

Table 4 below identifies the APOS – based levels of understanding attained by the intact class per topic on the
written tests given during the duration of the study.
Table 4. APOS – Based Levels of Understanding Attained by the Intact Class per Topic
Based on the Results of the Mastery Tests

APOS-Based Level of Understanding Attained by the Class Per Topic

Cognitive Properties of Fundamental Araes
Demand Definite
the Definite Theorem of Between
Per Item Integral
Integral Calculus Curves
Action Pre-Action Action Pre-Action Pre-Action
Process Process Action Pre-Action Pre-Action
Object Process Pre-Object Process Process
Schema Process Action Action Action

In the Mastery test results, observe that in items requiring the Action level of understanding, the group attained
the required level only in the topic Properties of the Definite Integral. For the other topics – The Definite Integral,
Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, and Areas between Two Curves - they were described to be at the Pre-Action
level of understanding only.
In items requiring the Process level of understanding, it is only on the topic, The Definite Integral, in which the
group attained the maximum level of understanding possible. For the topic, Properties of the Definite Integral, their
mean score shows they were only up to Action level of understanding. Whereas for the other topics – Fundamental
Theorem of Calculus and Areas between Two Curves, the results show they were only at the Pre-Action level of
understanding of the problems given.
Now, for items requiring the Object level of understanding, the mean scores revealed that the group was only at
the Process level of understanding in the topics - The Definite Integral, Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, and
Areas between Two Curves, and at the Pre-Object level in the Properties of the Definite Integral.
In items requiring the Schema level of understanding, the group was described to be at the Action level of
understanding for the topics - Properties of the Definite Integral, Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and Areas
between Two Curves; but in the Process level for The Definite Integral.

Conclusions

In the light of the findings of the study, the following conclusions are drawn:
1. Using a specific framework for research in collegiate mathematics education, ie. the Action – Process –
Object – Schema (APOS Theory), provides means of exploring conceptual understanding and its
development.
2. Levels of students’ mathematical performance relate with the levels of understanding they attained as they
perform a problem-solving task.
 3. From the results of the mastery tests, the instructional treatment (ACE Teaching Cycle) during the teaching-
learning process can contribute in the development of the conceptual understanding of the students from all
levels of mathematical performance on the concerned topics.

Recommendations
Based on the findings and conclusions of the study, the following recommendations are hereby drawn:
1. Math practitioners should continue undertaking research on mathematics education based on a theoretical
basis and exploring on theories of learning that can help them understand the learning process.
2. Further investigations on the consequences of using the ACE Teaching Cycle on the conceptual
understanding of students should focus on very specific concepts. Its effectiveness should be tested not only
in calculus but in other related areas as well.
3. Math teachers should continuously propose instructional strategies that will be more effective in helping
more students to learn and develop their conceptual understanding on mathematical concepts.
4. Math teachers should develop instructional materials that will foster mental constructions among learners
with the conceptual knowledge of the mathematics involved as the end - product.
5. To address the difficulty in the understanding of the concept of limit, definite integral, area of a plane
region, and other concepts, activities in which students can explore these ideas in an intuitive way have to be
developed.

REFERENCES

1
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. (Reston,
VA:Author, 2000)
2
E. Dubinsky, Reflective abstraction in advanced mathematical thinking. In D. Tall (ed), Advanced mathematical
thinking. (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1991)
3
E. Dubinsky & M. A. McDonald, (2001). APOS: A constructivist theory of learning in undergraduate
mathematics education research. In D. Holton (Ed.), The teaching and learning of mathematics education at
university level: An ICMI study (pp. 275 – 282) Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
4
B.. Czarnocha et al., Conceptions of Area: In students and history. College Mathematics Journal. MAA (2001).
5
M. Asiala et al, A framework for research and development in undergraduate mathematics education. Research in
Collegiate Mathematics Education, 2, 1 – 32 (1996).
6
M. Trigueros & R. Martinez – Planell, Geometrical representations in the learning of two-variable functions.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 73, 3-19 (2010).
7
C. Van de Sande, The development of students’ understanding of volume: Solid of Revolution. (Ohio State
University, USA, 2002).