This paper analyzes the errors made by a group of twenty-five students between the ages of 13 and 16, who participate in a project to stimulate mathematical talent, when solving geometric tasks during three sessions of curricular enrichment focused on argumentation techniques. Specific errors of visual argumentation are identified (establishing false analogies between plane and space, not discussing all possible cases and reasoning from limited concrete examples) and derived from the incorrect use of the elements of reasoning, content and mathematical procedures. The correlation study shows that, for the most part, the errors are independent, both among themselves and with the scores on three tests that measure their visual and intellectual capacity. The results of the repeated measures ANOVA indicate that throughout the three sessions the frequency with which they manifest the specific errors of visual argumentation decreases significantly.
You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.