In-service teachers mental construction of linear algebra concepts. an undergraduate case study
List of Authors
  • Mutambara, Lillias Hamufari Natsai

Keyword
  • APOS theorem, linear algebra, linear independence, in-service teachers, understanding

Abstract
  • This study investigated how undergraduate in-service mathematics teachers understand linear algebra concepts. The significance of the study is to reveal the difficulties and type of mental constructions they make when they are solving linear independence concepts by using inspection. The action, process, object, schema (APOS) theory was used to analyse the data collected. A descriptive qualitative case study design was used. The participants were 73 in-service teachers studying a Bachelor of Science Education Honours Degree in mathematics. Data was collected through a structured activity sheet and semi-structured interviews. The results showed that the teachers had an inadequate understanding of linear independence concepts. Many of the students developed the action conceptions of linear algebra as they were engrossed in step-by-step procedures trying to show that given vectors are linearly independent. The findings indicated that the schemata for determinants and the various theorems for determining linear independence promote learning. The modified genetic decomposition proposed has implications for teaching the concept and students should be given different kinds of sets to manipulate so that they can develop their mental constructions at the process level.

Reference
  • 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.
    2. Bouhjar, K., Andrews-Larson, C., Haider, M., & Zandieh, M. (2018). Examining students’ procedural and conceptual understanding of eigenvectors and eigenvalues in the context of inquiry-oriented instruction. In S. Stewart, C Andrews-Larson, A Berman, & M Zandieh (Eds), Challenges and strategies in teaching linear algebra (pp. 193-216). Springer, Cham.
    3. Bertram, C. & Christiansen, I. (2014). Understanding research: An introduction to reading research: Van Schaik Publishers.
    4. Brijlall, D., & Ndlovu, Z. (2013). High school learners' mental construction during solving optimisation problems in Calculus: A South African case study. South African Journal of Education, 33(2), 1-18. http://doi.10.15700/saje. v33n2a679
    5. Carlson, M. (1997). Obstacles for college algebra students in understanding functions. What do high-performing students really know? AMATYC Review, 19, 48-59.
    6. Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research Design: Quantitative and Qualitative Mixed Methods Approaches (4thed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    7. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    8. Donevska-Todorova, A. (2016). Procedural and Conceptual Understanding in Undergraduate Linear Algebra. First conference of International Network for Didactic Research in University Mathematics, Montpellier, France . France https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01337932
    9. Dogan-Dunlap, H. (2010). Linear algebra students’ modes of reasoning: Geometric representations. Linear algebra and its applications, 432(8), 2141-2159. doi: 10.1016/j.laa.2009.08.037
    10. Dorier, J. L., Robert, A., Robinet, J., & Rogalski, M. (2000). On a research programme concerning the teaching and learning of linear algebra in the first-year of a French science university. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 31(1), 27-35.
    11. Dorier, J. L., & Sierpinska, A. (2001). Research into the teaching and learning of linear algebra. In The teaching and learning of mathematics at university level (pp. 255-273). Springer, Dordrecht.
    12. Dubinsky, E., & McDonald, M. A. (2001). APOS: A constructivist theory of learning in undergraduate mathematics education research. In The teaching and learning of mathematics at university level (pp. 275-282). Springer, Dordrecht.
    13. Gueudet-Chartier, G. (2004). Should we teach linear algebra through geometry? Linear Algebra Appl., 379, 491-501. http:// doi:10.1016/S0024-3795(03)00481-6
    14. Hannah, J., Stewart, S., & Thomas, M. (2016). Developing conceptual understanding and definitional clarity in linear algebra through the three worlds of mathematical thinking. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications: An International Journal of the IMA, 35(4), 216-235.http// doi:10.1093/teamat/hrw001
    15. Harel, G. (2008). What is mathematics? A pedagogical answer to a philosophical question (pp. 1-26). na.
    16. Hiebert, J. (2013). Conceptual and procedural knowledge. The case of mathematics. New York and London: Routledge.
    17. Kazunga, C., & Bansilal, S. (2017). Zimbabwean in-service mathematics teachers’ understanding of matrix operations. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 47, 81-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.05.003
    18. Kazunga, C., & Bansilal, S. (2020). An APOS analysis of solving systems of equations using the inverse matrix method. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 103, 339-358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-020-09935-6
    19. Klapsinou, A., & Gray, E. (1999). The Intricate Balance Between Abstract and Concrete in Linear Algebra, Proceedings of the 23th PME Conference 3,153-160.
    20. Maharaj, A. (2015). A framework to gauge mathematical understanding: A case study on linear algebra concepts. International Journal of Educational Sciences, 11(2), 144-153. https://doi.org/10.1080/09751122.2015.11890385
    21. Mutambara, L.H.N, and Bansilal. S. (2019). "An exploratory study on the understanding of the vector subspace concept." African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 23.1 (2019): 14-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/18117295.2018.1564496
    22. Mutambara, L. H. N., & Bansilal, S. (2021). A case study of in-service teachers’ errors and misconceptions in linear combinations. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2021.1913656 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
    23. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10288457.2015.1028717
    24. Ndlovu, Z., & Brijlall, D. (2019). Pre-service mathematics teachers’ mental constructions when using Cramer’s rule. South African Journal of Education, 39(1). https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v39n1a1550
    25. Possani, E., Trigueros, M., Preciado, J. G., & Lozan, M. D. (2010). Use of models in the teaching of linear algebra. Linear Algebra and its Application, 432(8), 2125-2140. doi: 10.1016/j.laa.2009.05.00
    26. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207390903200984
    27. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207390903399620
    28. Tall, D. (2004). Building theories: The three worlds of mathematics. For the learning of mathematics, 24(1), 29-32.
    29. Thomas, M.O.J. & Stewart, S. (2011). Eigenvalues and egenvectors: Embodied, symbolic and formal thinking. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 23, 275-296. https:/doi.org/10.1007/s13394-011-0016-1.
    30. Tomita, M. K. (2008). Examining the Influence of Formative Assessment on Conceptual Accumulation and Conceptual Change. Doctor of Philosophy, Stanford University.
    31. Tucker, A. (1993). The growing importance of Linear algebra in Undergraduate Mathematics. The College Mathematics Journal, 24(1), 3-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/07468342.1993.11973500
    32. Wawro, M. (2014). Student reasoning about the invertible matrix theorem in linear algebra. ZDM The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 46(3), 389–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-014-0579-x
    33. 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), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-011-9307-4