Action Proof: Analyzing Elementary School Students Informal Proving Stages through Counter-examples

Firana Amir, Mohammad Faizal Amir


Both female and male elementary school students have difficulty doing action proof by using manipulative objects to provide conjectures and proof of the truth of a mathematical statement. Counter-examples can help elementary school students build informal proof stages to propose conjectures and proof of the truth of a mathematical statement more precisely. This study analyzes the action proof stages through counter-examples stimulation for male and female students in elementary schools. The action proof stage in this study focuses on three stages: proved their primitive conjecture, confronted counter-examples, and re-examined the conjecture and proof. The type of research used is qualitative with a case study approach. The research subjects were two of the 40 fifth-grade students selected purposively. The research instrument used is the task of proof and interview guidelines. Data collection techniques consist of Tasks, documentation, and interviews. The data analysis technique consists of three stages: data reduction, data presentation, and concluding. The analysis results show that at the stage of proving their primitive conjecture, the conjectures made by female and male students through action proofs using manipulative objects are still wrong. At the stage of confronted counter-examples, conjectures and proof made by female and male students showed an improvement. At the stage of re-examining the conjecture and proof, the conjectures and proof by female and male students were comprehensive. It can be concluded that the stages of proof of the actions of female and male students using manipulative objects through stimulation counter-examples indicate an improvement in conjectures and more comprehensive proof.


Actionproof; Counter-Examples; Conjectures; Sex Differences

Full Text:



Astawa, I. W. P. (2020). The Differences in Students ’ Cognitive Processes in Constructing Mathematical Conjecture. Jurnal Pendidikan Indonesia, 9(1), 49–60.

Barahmand, A. (2019). On Mathematical Conjectures and Counterexamples. 9(1).

Brunner, E., & Reusser, K. (2019). Type of Mathematical Proof : Personal Preference or Adaptive Teaching Behavior ? ZDM, 51(5), 747–758.

Buchbinder, O., & Zaslavsky, O. (2019). Strengths and Inconsistencies in Students’ Understanding of the Roles of Examples in Proving. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 53, 129–147.

Bujuri, D. A. (2018). Analisis Perkembangan Kognitif Anak Usia Dasar dan Implikasinya dalam Kegiatan Belajar Mengajar. LITERASI (Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan), 9(1), 37–50.

Byrnes, J. P. (2016). Piaget’s Cognitive-Developmental Theory. The Curated Reference Collection in Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Psychology, April, 543–552.

Cresswell, J. W. (2012). Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Educational Research, 10, 1–12.

Fadiana, M., Yulaikah, & Lajianto. (2021). Tipe Pembuktian Mahasiswa Calon Guru Matematika. AKSIOMA: Jurnal Program Studi Pendidikan Matematika, 10(1), 351–358.

Guez, A., Peyre, H., & Ramus, F. (2020). Sex Differences in Academic Achievement are Modulated by Evaluation Type. Learning and Individual Differences, 83–84(January), 101935.

Halford, G. S. (2017). Cognitive Developmental Theories. Reference Module in Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Psychology, 1–11.

Juwantara, R. A. (2019). Analisis Teori Perkembangan Kognitif Piaget pada Tahap Anak Usia Operasional Konkret 7-12 Tahun dalam Pembelajaran Matematika. Al-Adzka: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Guru Madrasah Ibtidaiyah, 9(1), 27.

Komatsu, K. (2010). Counter-examples for Refinement of Conjectures and Proofs in Primary School Mathematics. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 29(1), 1–10.

Lanitis, A. (2020). Comparative Evaluation of Virtual and Augmented Reality for Teaching Mathematics in Primary Education. Education and Information Technologies, 25, 381–401.

Lestari, A. D., & Siregar, H. P. (2019). Analisis Butir Soal Matematika Buatan Guru SMP Negeri 1 Mempura. Pi: Mathematics Education Journal, 2(1), 26–33.

Liggett, R. S. (2017). The Impact of Use of Manipulatives on the Math Scores of Grade 2 Students. Brock Education Journal, 26(2), 87–101.

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook (Third Edit). SAGE Publications, Inc.

Miyazaki, M., Nagata, J., Chino, K., Sasa, H., Komatsu, K., Fujita, T., & Shimizu, S. (2019). Curriculum Development for Explorative Proving in Lower Secondary School Geometry : Focusing on the Levels of Planning and Constructing a Proof. Frontiers in Education, 4(April), 1–9.

Nugraha, T. H., & Pujiastuti, H. (2019). Analisis Kemampuan Komunikasi Matematis Siswa Berdasarkan Perbedaan Gender. Edumatica: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 09(1), 1–7.

Oppermann, E., Vinni-Laakso, J., Juuti, K., Loukomies, A., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2021). Elementary School Students’ Motivational Profiles Across Finnish Language, Mathematics and Science: Longitudinal Trajectories, Gender Differences and STEM Aspirations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 64(November 2020), 101927.

Regier, P., & Savic, M. (2020). How Teaching to Foster Mathematical Creativity May Impact Student Self-efficacy for Proving. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 57(June), 100720.

Setiawan, Y. E. (2020). Analisis Kemampuan Siswa dalam Pembuktian Kesebangunan Dua Segitiga. Al-Khwarizmi: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika dan Ilmu Pengetahuan Alam, 8(1), 23–38.

Shinno, Y., & Fujita, T. (2021). Characterizing How and When a Way of Proving Develops in a Primary Mathematics Classroom : a Commognitive Approach. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology.

Siswono, T. Y. E., Hartono, S., & Kohar, A. W. (2020). Deductive or Inductive? Prospective Teachers’ Preference of Proof Method on an Intermediate Proof Task. Journal on Mathematics Education, 11(3), 417–438.

Sokolowski, H. M., Hawes, Z., & Lyons, I. M. (2019). What Explains Sex Differences in Math Anxiety? A Closer Look at the Role of Spatial Processing. Cognition, 182(October 2018), 193–212.

Suandito, B. (2017). Bukti Informal dalam Pembelajaran Matematika. Al-Jabar : Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 8(1), 13–24.

Susilowati, J. P. A. (2016). Profil Penalaran Siswa SMP dalam Pemecahan Masalah Matematika Ditinjau dari Perbedaan Gender. Jurnal Review Pembelajaran Matematika, 1(2), 132–148.

Wittmann, E. C. (2021). Connecting Mathematics and Mathematics Education. Connecting Mathematics and Mathematics Education, 223–238.

Yopp, D. A. (2020). Eliminating Counterexamples: An Intervention for Improving Adolescents’ Contrapositive Reasoning. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 59, 100794.

Zazkis, D., & Villanueva, M. (2016). Student Conceptions of What it Means to Base a Proof on an Informal Argument. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 2(3), 318–337.

Zeybek, Z. (2017). Pre- service Elementary Teachers ’ Conceptions of Counterexamples. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 5(4).


Article Metrics

Abstract view : 604 times
PDF file view : 202 times


  • There are currently no refbacks.

IJEE indexed by:


Creative Commons License

IJEE is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.