On Aspects of Mathematical Reasoning : Affect and Gender

This thesis explores two aspects of mathematical reasoning: affect and gender. I started by looking at the reasoning of upper secondary students when solving tasks. This work revealed that when not guided by an interviewer, algorithmic reasoning, based on memorising algorithms which may or may not be appropriate for the task, was predominant in the students reasoning. Given this lack of mathematical grounding in students reasoning I looked in a second study at what grounds they had for different strategy choices and conclusions. This qualitative study suggested that beliefs about safety, expectation and motivation were important in the central decisions made during task solving.  But are reasoning and beliefs gendered? The third study explored upper secondary school teachers conceptions about gender and students mathematical reasoning. In this study I found that upper secondary school teachers attributed gender symbols including insecurity, use of standard methods and imitative reasoning to girls and symbols such as multiple strategies especially on the calculator, guessing and chance-taking were assigned to boys. In the fourth and final study I found that students, both male and female, shared their teachers view of rather traditional feminities and masculinities. Remarkably however, this result did not repeat itself when students were asked to reflect on their own behaviour: there were some discrepancies between the traits the students ascribed as gender different and the traits they ascribed to themselves. Taken together the thesis suggests that, contrary to conceptions, girls and boys share many of the same core beliefs about mathematics, but much work is still needed if we should create learning environments that provide better opportunities for students to develop beliefs that guide them towards well-grounded mathematical reasoning. 

Teachers' conceptions about students' mathematical reasoning : Gendered or not?

This study looks at how upper secondary school teachers gender stereotype aspects of students' mathematical reasoning. Girls were attributed gender symbols including insecurity, use of standard methods and imitative reasoning. Boys were assigned the symbols such as multiple strategies especially on the calculator, guessing and chance-taking. 

Towards Qualitative Approaches to Bayesian Evidential Reasoning

A crucial aspect of evidential reasoning in crime investigation involves comparing the support that evidence provides for alternative hypotheses. Recent work in forensic statistics has shown how Bayesian Networks (BNs) can be employed for this purpose. However, the specification of BNs requires conditional probability tables describing the uncertain processes under evaluation. When these processes are poorly understood, it is necessary to rely on subjective probabilities provided by experts. Accurate probabilities of this type are normally hard to acquire from experts. Recent work in qualitative reasoning has developed methods to perform probabilistic reasoning using coarser representations. However, the latter types of approaches are too imprecise to compare the likelihood of alternative hypotheses. This paper examines this shortcoming of the qualitative approaches when applied to the aforementioned problem, and identifies and integrates techniques to refine them.

On Qualitative Probabilities for Legal Reasoning about Evidence

A crucial aspect of evidential reasoning in crime investigation involves comparing the support that evidence provides for alternative hypotheses. Recent work in forensic statistics has shown how Bayesian Networks (BNs) can be employed for this purpose. However, the specification of BNs requires conditional probability tables describing the uncertain processes under evaluation. When these processes are poorly understood, it is necessary to rely on subjective probabilities provided by experts. Accurate probabilities of this type are normally hard to acquire from experts. Recent work in qualitative reasoning has developed methods to perform probabilistic reasoning using coarser representations. However, the latter types of approaches are too imprecise to compare the likelihood of alternative hypotheses. This paper examines this shortcoming of the qualitative approaches when applied to the aforementioned problem, and identifies and integrates techniques to refine them.

Reasoning about Requirements Evolution Using Clustered Belief Revision

During the development of system requirements, software system specifications are often inconsistent. Inconsistencies may arise for different reasons, for example, when multiple conflicting viewpoints are embodied in the specification, or when the specification itself is at a transient stage of evolution. These inconsistencies cannot always be resolved immediately. As a result, we argue that a formal framework for the analysis of evolving specifications should be able to tolerate inconsistency by allowing reasoning in the presence of inconsistency without trivialisation, and circumvent inconsistency by enabling impact analyses of potential changes to be carried out. This paper shows how clustered belief revision can help in this process. Clustered belief revision allows for the grouping of requirements with similar functionality into clusters and the assignment of priorities between them. By analysing the result of a cluster, an engineer can either choose to rectify problems in the specification or to postpone the changes until more information becomes available.