Abstract / Description of output
This paper is as follows: We introduce Hyperproof, and then study two cases of proofs constructed in Hyperproof. The two students addressed the same problem, but we observe a number of significant differences in the way they solved it. We then discuss the experimental regime under which these proofs were gathered; we focus on our finding that there is a robust distinction between subjects who are more or less successful on an independent task, whose solution can involve the use of external representations (such as tables). We then return to properties we noted in the case studies, and show how their patterns of rule use and proof structure reflect systematic differences between the two classes of subjects. We conclude by suggesting how these patterns might be explained by the `specificity hypothesis' we have developed in earlier work.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Title of host publication | Logic, Language and Computation |
Editors | Jerry Seligman, Dag Westerståhl |
Publisher | CSLI Publications |
Pages | 403-414 |
Number of pages | 12 |
Volume | 1 |
ISBN (Print) | 188-1526-895, 188-1526-909 |
Publication status | Published - 19 Mar 1996 |
Keywords / Materials (for Non-textual outputs)
- proof style
- multimodal reasoning
- significant difference
- external representation
- systematic difference
- experimental regime
- robust distinction
- independent task
- case study
- proof structure
- rule use
- specificity hypothesis