Advertisement

Monster-Barring as a Catalyst for Bridging Secondary Algebra to Abstract Algebra

  • John Paul Cook
Chapter
Part of the Research in Mathematics Education book series (RME)

Abstract

This chapter details a teaching experiment in which a pair of prospective secondary mathematics teachers leverages their knowledge of secondary algebra in order to develop effective understandings of the concepts of zero-divisors and the zero-product property (ZPP) in abstract algebra. A critical step in the learning trajectory involved the outright rejection of the legitimacy of zero-divisors as counterexamples to the ZPP, an activity known as monster-barring (Lakatos, Proofs and refutations, 1976; Larsen and Zandieh, Educational Studies in Mathematics 67:205–216, 2008). This monster-barring activity was then productively repurposed as a meaningful way for the students to distinguish between types of abstract algebraic structures (namely, rings that are integral domains vs. rings that are not). This chapter makes two primary contributions. First, it illustrates how students might be able to develop abstract algebraic concepts using their knowledge of secondary algebra as a starting point, thus addressing the issue of perceived irrelevance by forging a direct cognitive connection between ideas that are central amongst the two subjects. Second, and more generally, this chapter emphasizes the importance of identifying, attempting to understand, and leveraging student thinking, even when it initially appears to be counterproductive. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the implications for secondary teacher preparation.

Keywords

Teaching experiment Zero-product property Monster-barring 

References

  1. Alcock, L., & Simpson, A. (2011). Classification and concept consistency. Canadian Journal of Science Mathematics and Technology Education, 11(2), 91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bagley, S., Rasmussen, C., & Zandieh, M. (2015). Inverse, composition, and identity: The case of function and linear transformation. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 37, 36–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, A., DeVries, D. J., Dubinsky, E., & Thomas, K. (1997). Learning binary operations, groups, and subgroups. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 16(3), 187–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences. (2010). The mathematical education of teachers II (Vol. 17). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
  5. Cook, J. P. (2018). An investigation of an undergraduate student’s reasoning with zero-divisors and the zero-product property. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 49, 95–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cook, J. P. (2014). The emergence of algebraic structure: Students come to understand units and zero-divisors. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 45(3), 349–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis, R. B., & Vinner, S. (1986). The notion of limit: Some seemingly unavoidable misconception stages. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 5(3), 281–303.Google Scholar
  8. Dubinsky, E., Dautermann, J., Leron, U., & Zazkis, R. (1994). On learning fundamental concepts of group theory. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27(3), 267–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Freudenthal, H. (1973). What groups mean in mathematics and what they should mean in mathematical education. In A. G. Howson (Ed.), Developments in mathematical education, proceedings of ICME-2 (pp. 101–114). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gravemeijer, K. (1998). Developmental research as a research method. In A. Sierpinska & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), Mathematics education as a research domain: A search for identity (pp. 277–296). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  11. Harel, G. (1998). Two dual assertions: The first on learning and the second on teaching (or vice versa). The American Mathematical Monthly, 105(6), 497–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hazzan, O. (1999). Reducing abstraction level when learning abstract algebra concepts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 40(1), 71–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Larsen, S. (2010). Struggling to disentangle the associative and commutative properties. For the learning of Mathematics, 30(1), 37–42.Google Scholar
  15. Larsen, S., & Zandieh, M. (2008). Proofs and refutations in the undergraduate mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67(3), 205–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ross, B. H., & Makin, V. S. (1999). Prototype versus exemplar models in cognition. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of cognition (pp. 205–241). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Simpson, S., & Stehlikova, N. (2006). Apprehending mathematical structure: A case study of coming to understand a commutative ring. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61(3), 347–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Steffe, L., & Thompson, P. (2000). Teaching experiment methodology: Underlying principles and essential elements. In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 267–306). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Thompson, P. W. (2008). Conceptual analysis of mathematical ideas: Some spadework at the foundations of mathematics education. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 1, 31–49.Google Scholar
  20. Wasserman, N. H. (2014). Introducing algebraic structures through solving equations: Vertical content knowledge for K-12 mathematics teachers. PRIMUS, 24(3), 191–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wasserman, N. H. (2016). Abstract algebra for algebra teaching: Influencing school mathematics instruction. Canadian Journal of Science Mathematics and Technology Education, 16(1), 28–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wasserman, N. H. (2017). Making sense of abstract algebra: Exploring secondary teachers’ understanding of inverse functions in relation to its group structure. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 19(3), 181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wasserman, N., Weber, K., Villanueva, M., & Mejia-Ramos, J. P. (2018). Mathematics teachers’ views about the limited utility of real analysis: A transport model hypothesis. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 50, 74–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zazkis, R., & Chernoff, E. J. (2008). What makes a counterexample exemplary? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 68(3), 195–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zazkis, R., & Kontorovich, I. (2016). A curious case of superscript (−1): Prospective secondary mathematics teachers explain. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 43, 98–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zazkis, R., & Leikin, R. (2010). Advanced mathematical knowledge in teaching practice: Perceptions of secondary mathematics teachers. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 12(4), 263–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematical SciencesOklahoma State UniversityStillwaterUSA

Personalised recommendations