, Volume 51, Issue 7, pp 1055–1068 | Cite as

The development of a linear algebra schema: learning as result of the use of a cognitive theory and models

  • María TriguerosEmail author
Original Article


Learning is a complex phenomenon. Analyzing its development can provide knowledge about regularities and differences in students’ progress, which is needed to better understand learning. The aim of this study is to examine the development of students’ Linear Algebra Schema through an introductory one semester course. For that purpose, Action Process Object Schema (APOS) theory’s notions of Schema and Schema development were used to analyze students’ constructions at three different times throughout the course. Results show how students’ Schema are progressively constructed. They illustrate differences and commonalities in different students’ Schema development. Some concepts and factors were found to play an important role in promoting Schema development.


Linear algebra APOS theory Schema Linear algebra schema development Modeling 



Work on this project has been possible thanks to the support of the ITAM.


Funding was provided by Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologίa (MX) (Grant number 62375).


  1. Arnon, I., Cottrill, J., Dubinsky, E., Oktaç, A., Roa Fuentes, S., Trigueros, M., et al. (2014). APOS: A framework for research and curriculum development in mathematics education. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker, B., Cooley, L., & Trigueros, M. (2000). A calculus graphing Schema. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,31(5), 557–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dogan, H. (2018). Differing instructional modalities and cognitive structures: Linear algebra. Linear Algebra and its Applications,542, 464–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dubinsky, E. (1991). Reflective abstraction in advanced mathematical thinking. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 95–126). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  5. Gueudet- Chartier, G. (2006). Using geometry to teach and learn linear algebra. Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education,13, 171–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Harel, G. (2008). A DNR perspective on mathematics curriculum and instruction. Part II: With reference to teacher’s knowledge base. ZDM—The International Journal of Mathematics Education,40, 8393–8907.Google Scholar
  7. Harel, G. (2017). The learning and teaching of linear algebra. Observations and generalizations. Journal of Mathematical Behavior,46, 69–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lay, E., Lay, S., & McDonald, J. (2016). Linear algebra and its applications (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  9. Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. (2003). Beyond constructivism: A models & modelling perspective on mathematics teaching, learning, and problem solving. New Hampshire: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Parraguez, M., & Oktaç, A. (2010). Construction of the vector space concept from the viewpoint of APOS theory. Linear Algebra and its Applications,432(8), 2112–2124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology. New York: W.W. Norton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Piaget, J. (1975). L’équilibration des structures cognitives. Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  13. Piaget, J., & García, R. (1982). Psicogénesis e Historia de la Ciencia. México: Siglo XXI.Google Scholar
  14. Possani, E., Trigueros, M., Preciado, G., & Lozano, M. D. (2010). Use of models in the Teaching of Linear Algebra. Linear Algebra and its Applications,432(8), 2125–2140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rasmussen, C., Wawro, M., & Zandieh, M. (2015). Examining individual and collective level mathematical progress. Educational Studies in Mathematics,88(2), 259–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Salgado, H., & Trigueros, M. (2015). Teaching eigenvalues and eigenvectors using models and APOS. Journal of Mathematical Behavior,30, 100–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sandoval, I., & Possani, E. (2016). An analysis of different representations for vectors and planes in R3: Learning challenges. Educational Studies in Mathematics,92, 109–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Selinski, N., Rasmussen, C., Wawro, M., & Zandieh, M. (2014). A method for using adjacency matrices to analyze the connections students make within and between concepts: The case of linear algebra. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,45(5), 550–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Thomas, M., & Stewart, S. (2011). Eigenvalues and eigenvectors: Embodied, symbolic and formal thinking. Mathematics Education Research Journal.,23, 275–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Trigueros, M. (2018). Learning linear algebra using models and conceptual activities. In S. Steward, C. Andrews-Larson, A. Berman, & M. Zandieh (Eds.), Challenges in teaching linear algebra. ICME-13 Monographs (pp. 20–50). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Trigueros, M., & Possani, E. (2013). Using an economics model for teaching linear algebra. Linear Algebra and its Applications,438, 1779–1792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wawro, M. (2014). Students reasoning about the invertible matrix theorem in linear algebra. ZDM—The international Journal of Mathematics Education,46(3), 389–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wawro, M., Rasmussen, C., Zandieh, M., Larson, C., & Sweeney, G. (2012). An inquiry-oriented approach to span and linear independence: The case of the magic carpet ride sequence. PRIMUS: Problems Resources, and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies,22(8), 577–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MatemáticasInstituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México (ITAM)Mexico CityMexico

Personalised recommendations