Advertisement

Theorems or procedures? Exploring undergraduates’ methods to solve routine problems in linear algebra

  • Igor’ KontorovichEmail author
Original Article
  • 12 Downloads

Abstract

While the lion’s share of mathematics education research in linear algebra has been concerned with the conceptual aspects of students’ learning, this study focuses on procedural knowledge that undergraduates can develop in a typical first-year course. The study analyzes the methods that a large cohort of second-semester students applied in a final exam to solve three routine problems: finding a basis for a matrix column space, solving a linear system of equations, and devising a normal to a subspace. The results indicate an inverse relation between the efficiency of the methods that students used and the number of students who used them. This was especially evident in the case of theorems, the application of which was avoided by all but a few students in favor of compound algebraic procedures. Furthermore, the study shows that at the end of an instructional sequence, many students can struggle with choosing an appropriate problem-solving method and carrying it out without mistakes. The analysis of students’ mistakes is leveraged to draw university teachers’ attention to common difficulties in linear algebra.

Keywords

Efficiency in problem solving Linear algebra Procedural knowledge Problem solving Procedures Theorems 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Peter Grootenboer and to anonymous reviewers for their thorough criticism and insightful suggestions. I wish to thank Lisa Kiyomoto-Fink for proofreading the paper.

References

  1. Britton, S., & Henderson, J. (2009). Linear algebra revisited: An attempt to understand students’ conceptual difficulties. International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science and Technology, 40, 963–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carlson, D., Johnson, C., Lay, D., & Porter, D. (1993). The linear algebra curriculum study group recommendation for the first course in linear algebra. The College Mathematics Journal, 24(1), 41–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–20). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  4. Dogan-Dunlap, H. (2010). Linear algebra students’ modes of reasoning: Geometric representations. Linear Algebra and its Applications, 432(8), 2141–2159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dorier, J. –. L., & Sierpinska, A. (2001). Research into the teaching and learning of linear algebra. In D. Holton (Ed.), The teaching and learning of mathematics at university level: An ICMI study (pp. 255–273). Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Dorier, J.-L., Robert, A., Robinet, J., & Rogalski, M. (2000a). The obstacle of formalism in linear algebra. In J. –. L. Dorier (Ed.), On the teaching of linear algebra (pp. 85–124). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Dorier, J.-L., Robert, A., Robinet, J., & Rogalski, M. (2000b). On a research program about the teaching and learning of linear algebra in first year of French science university. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 31(1), 27–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dubinsky, E. (1997). Some thoughts on a first course in linear algebra at the college level. In D. Carlson, C. R. Johnson, D. C. Lay, R. D. Porter, A. Watkins (Eds.), MAA Notes, 42, 85–105.Google Scholar
  9. Harel, G. (1989). Learning and teaching linear algebra: Difficulties and an alternative approach to visualizing concepts and processes. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 11(1–2), 139–148.Google Scholar
  10. Harel, G. (2017). The learning and teaching of linear algebra: Observations and generalizations. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 46, 69–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hazzan, O., & Leron, U. (1996). Students’ use and misuse of mathematical theorems: The case of Lagrange’s theorem. For the Learning of Mathematics, 16, 23–26.Google Scholar
  12. Hiebert, J., & Lefevre, P. (1986). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: an introductory analysis. In J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics (pp. 1–27). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  13. Hillel, J. (2000). Modes of description and the problem of representation in linear algebra. In J. –. L. Dorier (Ed.), On the teaching of linear algebra (pp. 191–207). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  14. Kieran, C. (2013). The false dichotomy in mathematics education between conceptual understanding and procedural skills: An example from algebra. In K. Leathman (Ed.), Vital directions for mathematics education research (pp. 153–171). Springer New York Heidelberg Dordrecht London.Google Scholar
  15. Kontorovich, I. (2018). Tacit models that govern undergraduates’ reasoning about subspaces. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 4(3), 393–414.Google Scholar
  16. Kontorovich, I. (2019). Non-examples of problem answers in mathematics with particular reference to linear algebra. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2019.01.001.
  17. Lester, F. (1980). Research on mathematical problem solving. In R. J. Shumay (Ed.), Research in mathematics education (pp. 286–323). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  18. Maciejewski, W., & Star, J. (2016a). Developing flexible procedural knowledge in undergraduate calculus. Research in Mathematics Education, 18(3), 299–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Maciejewski, W., & Star, J. (2016b). Justifications for choices made in procedures. Educational studies in Mathematics. Published online.Google Scholar
  20. Maracci, M. (2008). Combining different theoretical perspective for analyzing students’ difficulties in vector space theory. ZDM The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 40, 265–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mayer, R. (1983). Thinking, problem solving, cognition. New York, NY: Freeman.Google Scholar
  22. Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and practising. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning – ten years. Oxford: OCSLD.Google Scholar
  23. Movshovitz-Hadar Zaslavsky, O., & Inbar, S. (1987). An empirical classification model for errors in high school mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 18(1), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Pólya, G. (1945). How to solve it. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Rittle-Johnson, B., & Koedinger, K. (2009). Iterating between lessons on concepts and procedures can improve mathematical knowledge. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(3), 483–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rittle-Johnson, B., & Star, J. R. (2007). Does comparing solution methods facilitate conceptual and procedural knowledge? An experimental study on learning to solve equations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 561–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rittle-Johnson, B., Schneider, M., & Star, J. R. (2015). Not a one-way street: Bidirectional relations between procedural and conceptual knowledge of mathematics. Educational Psychology Review, 27, 587–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition and sense-making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook for research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334–370). New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  30. Selden, A., & Selden, J. (1987). Errors and misconceptions in college level theorem proving. In J. D. Noval (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2 nd International Seminar of Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics (pp. 901–928). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Selden, J., & Selden, A. (1995). Unpacking the logic of mathematical statements. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 29, 123–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses, and mathematizing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sierpinska, A. (2000). On some aspects of students’ thinking in linear algebra. In J. –. L. Dorier (Ed.), On the teaching of linear algebra (pp. 209–246). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  34. Star, J. R., & Seifert, C. (2006). The development of flexibility in equation solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 280–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stewart, S., & Thomas, M. O. J. (2010). Student learning of basis, span and linear independence in linear algebra. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 41(2), 173–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tallman, M. A., Carlson, M. P., Bressoud, D. M., & Pearson, M. (2016). A characterization of Calculus I final exams in U.S. colleges and universities. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 2, 105–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thomas, M. O. J. (2014). Algorithms. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education (pp. 36–38). Dordrecht, Heidelberg, New York, London: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Tucker, A. (1993). The growing importance of linear algebra in undergraduate mathematics. The College Mathematics Journal, 24(1), 3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vinner, S. (2007). Mathematics education: Procedures, rituals, and man’s search for meaning. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 26, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wang, T.-W. (1989). A course on applied linear algebra. Chemical Engineering Education, 23(4), 236–241.Google Scholar
  41. Wawro, M., Sweeney, G. F., & Rabin, J. M. (2011). Subspace in linear algebra: Investigating students’ concept images and interactions with the formal definition. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 78, 1–19.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MathematicsThe University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations