Como estudantes universitátios formulam e argumentam identidades algébricas

In this work, we investigate the argumentation strategies developed by students at the beginning of their university studies when formulating and justifying algebraic properties. We analyze the degree of algebraic reasoning and the observed errors, relating them to the types of arguments used. The results show that students often consider proof in particular cases to be sufficient and do not develop arguments that validate the truth or falsity of algebraic identities. Furthermore, a more algebraic nature does not guarantee greater relevance in the proposed argumentation. Despite the difficulties observed, discussions allowed students to reconstruct initially incorrect or incomplete arguments.