"Measuring is not a valid argument in mathematics." Really? Do students recognize the context-specificity of sociomathematical norms?
Conference contribution (Article) › Research › Peer reviewed
Publication data
| By | Femke Sporn, Kristin Litteck, Irene Neumann, Aiso Heinze |
| Original language | English |
| Published in | Heidi Krzywacki, Markus Hähkiöniemi, Eeva Haataja, Markku S. Hannula, Peter Hästö (Eds.), Proceedings of the 49th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education: Research Reports |
| Pages | 1403-1410 |
| Editor (Publisher) | PME |
| ISBN | 2790-3648 |
| DOI/Link | https://www.igpme.org/publications/RR_PME49/pdf/PME49_RR_323_Sporn_F.pdf |
| Publication status | Published – 10.2026 |
| Keywords | Derivative, International Comparison, Replication Study, Quantitative Study, Operational-Structural Knowledge |
Mathematics is encountered both as a deductive discipline, where proofs are central, and as an applied discipline, where reasoning is used to model and solve real-world problems. While arguments based on examples, measurements, or drawings are generally invalid in proofs, they are often legitimate when mathematics is applied in
context. This study investigates whether high school students can distinguish between these normative frameworks and apply appropriate sociomathematical norms flexibly. Data from 436 Grade 11 students show that students’ knowledge of proof-related norms does not systematically predict their evaluation of applied mathematical context. However, the results suggest that some students are familiar with proofrelated norms but seem to transfer them inappropriately to applied contexts.
