# Dealing with the Abstraction of Vector Space Concepts

• Lillias H.N. Mutambara
• Sarah Bansilal
Chapter
Part of the ICME-13 Monographs book series (ICME13Mo)

## Abstract

University mathematics students often find the content of linear algebra difficult because of the abstract and highly theoretical nature of the subject as well as the formal logic required to carry out proofs. This chapter explores some specific difficulties experienced by students when negotiating vector space and subspace concepts. Seventy-three in-service mathematics teachers’ responses to two items testing the ability to prove that a given set is not a subspace and that a given set is a subspace of a vector space were studied in detail. Follow-up interviews on the written work were conducted to identify the participants’ ways of understanding. The action–process–object–schema (APOS) theory was used to unpack the structure of the concepts. Findings reveal that the teachers struggled with the vector sub-space concepts mainly because of prior non-encapsulation of prerequisite concepts of sets and binary operations and difficulties with understanding the role of counter-examples in showing that a set is not a vector subspace.

## Keywords

APOS Vector subspace Binary operations Counter-example Vector space

## References

1. Arnon, I., Cottrill, J., Dubinsky, E., Oktac, A., Fuentes, S. R., Trigueros, M., & Weller, K. (2014). APOS Theory. A framework for research and curriculum development in mathematics education. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
2. Bansilal, S. (2015). An exploration of students’ conversions from a symbolic to a verbal representation. Journal of Communication, 6(1), 38–47.Google Scholar
3. 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(7), 963–974.Google Scholar
4. Brodie, K. (2010). Teaching mathematical reasoning in secondary school classrooms. London: Springer.Google Scholar
5. Cangelosi, R., Madrid, S., Cooper, S., Olson, J., & Hartter, B. (2013). The negative sign and exponential expressions: Unveiling students’ persistent errors and misconceptions. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32(1), 69–82.Google Scholar
6. De Lima, R. N., & Tall, D. (2008). Procedural embodiment and magic in linear equations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67(1), 3–18.Google Scholar
7. Donevska-Todorova, A. (2014). Three modes of description and thinking of linear algebra concepts at upper secondary education. In J. Roth & J. Ames (Eds.), Beiträge zum Mathematikunterricht (pp. 305–308). Munster: WTM-Verlag.Google 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. 85–125). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
9. Dubinsky, E. (1991). Reflective abstraction in advanced mathematical thinking. In D.O. Tall (Ed). Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 95–126). Springer: Netherlands.Google Scholar
10. Foster, C. (2014). “Can’t you just tell us the rule?” Teaching procedures relationally. In S. Pope (Ed.), Proceedings of the 8th British Congress of Mathematics Education (pp. 151–158). Nottingham: University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
11. Harel, G. (2000). Principles of learning and teaching mathematics, with particular reference to the learning and teaching of linear algebra: Old and new observations. In J.-L. Dorier (Ed.), On the teaching of linear algebra (pp. 177–189). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
12. Hazzan, O. (1999). Reducing abstraction level when learning abstract algebra concepts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 40(1), 71–90.Google Scholar
13. Hazzan, O. & Zazski, R. (2005). Reducing abstraction: The case of school mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22(1), 101–119.Google Scholar
14. Hershkowitz, R., Schwarz, B., & Dreyfus, T. (2001). Abstraction in context: Epistemic actions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(2), 195–222. https://doi.org//10.2307/749673.
15. Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. P. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
16. Hillel, J. (2000). Modes of description and the problem of representation in linear algebra. In I. J. L. Dorier (Ed.), The teaching of linear algebra in question (pp. 191–207). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
17. Luneta, K. & Makonye, P. J. (2010). Learner errors and misconceptions in elementary analysis: A case study of a grade 12 class in South Africa. Acta Didactica Napocensia, 3(3), 35–46.Google Scholar
18. Ndlovu, D., & Brijlall, D. (2015). Pre-service teachers’ mental constructions of concepts in matrix algebra. African Journal of Research in Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 19(2), 1–16.Google Scholar
19. Parraguez, M., & Oktaç A. (2010). Construction of the vector space concept from view point of APOS theory. Linear Algebra and its Applications, 432(8), 2112–2124.Google Scholar
20. Piaget J. (1965). The child’s conception of number (C. Gattegno & F. M. Hodgson, Trans.). New York: W.W. Norton (Original work published 1941).Google Scholar
21. Piaget, J. (1973). Comments on mathematical education. In A. G. Howson (Ed.), Developments in mathematical education: Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Mathematical Education (pp. 79–87). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
22. Salgado, H., & Trigueros, M. (2015). Teaching eigenvalues and eigenvectors using models and APOS theory. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 39, 100–120.Google Scholar
23. Siyepu, S. W. (2013). Students’ interpretations in learning derivatives in a university mathematics classroom. In Z. Davis & S. Jaffer (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Annual Congress of the Association for Mathematics Education of South Africa, 1, 183–193.Google Scholar
24. Stewart, S., & Thomas, M. O. J. (2009). A framework for mathematical thinking: The case of linear algebra. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 40(7), 951–961.Google Scholar
25. 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.Google Scholar
26. Tall, D., & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept definition in mathematics with particular reference to limits and continuity. Educational studies in mathematics, 12(2), 151–169.Google Scholar
27. Tall, D. O. (2008). The transition to formal thinking in mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20(2), 5–24.Google Scholar
28. Thomas, S. (2011). An activity theory analysis of linear algebra teaching within university mathematics (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Loughborough, UK.Google Scholar
29. Uhlig, F. (2002). The role of proof in comprehending and teaching elementary linear algebra. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 50(3), 335–346.Google Scholar
30. Wawro, M. (2014). Student reasoning about the invertible matrix theorem in linear algebra. ZDMThe International Journal on Mathematics Education, 46(3), 389–406.Google Scholar
31. Wawro, M., Sweeney, G., & Rabin, J. M. (2011). Subspace in linear algebra: Investigating students’ concept images and interactions with the formal definition. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 78(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
32. Zaslavsky, O., & Ron, G. (1998). Students’ understandings of the role of counterexamples. In A. Olivier, & K. Newstead (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4). Stellenbosch: PME.Google Scholar
33. Zaslavsky, O., & Peled, I. (1996). Inhibiting factors in generating examples by mathematics teachers and student teachers: The case of binary operation. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(1), 67–78.Google Scholar