Advertisement

Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 78, Issue 1, pp 1–19 | Cite as

Subspace in linear algebra: investigating students’ concept images and interactions with the formal definition

  • Megan Wawro
  • George F. Sweeney
  • Jeffrey M. Rabin
Article

Abstract

This paper reports on a study investigating students’ ways of conceptualizing key ideas in linear algebra, with the particular results presented here focusing on student interactions with the notion of subspace. In interviews conducted with eight undergraduates, we found students’ initial descriptions of subspace often varied substantially from the language of the concept’s formal definition, which is very algebraic in nature. This is consistent with literature in other mathematical content domains that indicates that a learner’s primary understanding of a concept is not necessarily informed by that concept’s formal definition. We used the analytical tools of concept image and concept definition of Tall and Vinner (Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12(2):151–169, 1981) in order to highlight this distinction in student responses. Through grounded analysis, we identified recurring concept imagery that students provided for subspace, namely, geometric object, part of whole, and algebraic object. We also present results regarding the coordination between students’ concept image and how they interpret the formal definition, situations in which students recognized a need for the formal definition, and qualities of subspace that students noted were consequences of the formal definition. Furthermore, we found that all students interviewed expressed, to some extent, the technically inaccurate “nested subspace” conception that R k is a subspace of R n for k < n. We conclude with a discussion of this and how it may be leveraged to inform teaching in a productive, student-centered manner.

Keywords

Linear algebra Subspace Concept image and concept definition Undergraduate mathematics education 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under grants no. DRL 0634099 and DRL 0634074. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. We are grateful to Chris Rasmussen and Michelle Zandieh for helpful advice during data collection and analysis.

References

  1. Artigue, M. (1992). Cognitive difficulties and teaching practices. In G. Harel & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), The concept of function: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy (pp. 109–132). Washington, DC: The Mathematical Association of America.Google Scholar
  2. Bernard, R. H. (1988). Research methods in cultural anthropology. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Bingolbali, E., & Monaghan, J. (2008). Concept image revisited. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 68, 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Britton, S., & Henderson, J. (2009). Linear algebra revisited: An attempt to understand students’ conceptual difficulties. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 40(7), 963–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carlson, D. (1993). Teaching linear algebra: Must the fog always roll in? The College Mathematics Journal, 24(1), 29–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to research methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  7. Dorier, J.-L. (1995). Meta level in the teaching of unifying and generalizing concepts in mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 29, 175–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dorier, J.-L., Robert, A., Robinet, J., & Rogalski, M. (2000). The obstacle of formalism in linear algebra. In J.-L. Dorier (Ed.), On the teaching of linear algebra (pp. 85–124). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  9. Edwards, B. (1999). Revisiting the notion of concept image/concept definition. In F. Hitt & M. Santos (Eds.), Proceedings of PME-NA 21 (pp. 205–210). Columbus, OH: ERIC.Google Scholar
  10. Edwards, B., & Ward, M. (2008). The role of mathematical definitions in mathematics and in undergraduate mathematics courses. In M. Carlson & C. Rasmussen (Eds.), Making the connection: Research and teaching in undergraduate mathematics (pp. 221–230). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.Google Scholar
  11. Gueudet-Chartier, G. (2006). Using geometry to teach and learn linear algebra. Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education, 6, 171-195.Google Scholar
  12. 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(2), 139–148.Google Scholar
  13. Harel, G. (2000). Three principles of learning and teaching mathematics: Particular reference to linear algebra—Old and new observations. In J.-L. Dorier (Ed.), On the teaching of linear algebra (pp. 177–190). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  14. Harel, G., & Kaput, J. (1991). The role of conceptual entities and their symbols in building advanced mathematical concepts. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 82–94). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  15. 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.Google Scholar
  16. Larson, C. (2010). Conceptualizing matrix multiplication: A framework for student thinking, an historical analysis, and a modeling perspective. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA.Google Scholar
  17. Possani, E., Trigueros, M., Preciado, J. 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
  18. Robert, A., & Robinet, J. (1989). Quelques résultats sur l’apprentissage de l’algèbre linéare en première année de DEUG. Cahier de Didactique des Mathématiques, n 53. Paris: IREM de Paris VII.Google Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. Stewart, S., & Thomas, M. O. J. (2008). Student learning of basis in linear algebra. In O. Figueras & A. Sepúlveda (Eds.), Proceedings of 32nd PME Conference, and XX PME-NA, Vol. 1 (pp. 281–288). Morelia, Michoacán, México: PME.Google Scholar
  21. Strang, G. (1988). Linear algebra and its applications (3rd ed.). San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanich.Google Scholar
  22. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newsbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Tall, D., & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept definition in mathematics, with special reference to limits and continuity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12(2), 151–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Vinner, S. (1991). The role of definitions in the teaching and learning of mathematics. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 65–81). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  25. Vinner, S., & Dreyfus, T. (1989). Images and definitions for the concept of function. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(4), 356–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wawro, M. (2009). Task design: Towards promoting a geometric conceptualization of linear transformation and change of basis. Paper presented at the Twelfth Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, Raleigh, NC.Google Scholar
  27. Zandieh, M. (2000). A theoretical framework for analyzing student understanding of the concept of derivative. In E. Dubinsky, A. H. Schoenfeld, & J. J. Kaput (Eds.), Research in collegiate mathematics education, IV (Vol. 8, pp. 103–127). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
  28. Zandieh, M., & Rasmussen, C. (2010). Defining as a mathematical activity: A framework for characterizing progress from informal to more formal ways of reasoning. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 29(2), 57–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Megan Wawro
    • 1
    • 2
  • George F. Sweeney
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jeffrey M. Rabin
    • 2
  1. 1.San Diego State UniversitySan DiegoUSA
  2. 2.University of California, San DiegoSan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations