Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 62, Issue 3, pp 259–280 | Cite as

Some Cognitive Difficulties Related to the Representations of two Major Concepts of Set Theory

  • Giorgio T. BagniEmail author


The main focus of this paper is on the study of students' conceptual understanding of two major concepts of Set Theory – the concepts of inclusion and belonging. To do so, we analyze two experimental classroom episodes. Our analysis rests on the theoretical idea that, from an ontogenetic viewpoint, the cognitive activity of representation of mathematical objects draws its meaning from different semiotic systems framed by their own cultural context. Our results suggest that the successful accomplishment of knowledge attainment seems to be linked to the students' ability to suitably distinguish and coordinate the meanings and symbols of the various semiotic systems (e.g. verbal, diagrammatic and symbolic) that encompass their mathematical experience.

Key Words

belonging cognition cultural context Euler–Venn diagrams inclusion semiotic representations set 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Artigue, M.: 1998, ‘L'évolution des problématiques en didactique de l'analyse’, Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques 18(2), 231–262.Google Scholar
  2. Arzarello, F. and Bartolini Bussi, M.: 1998, ‘Italian trends of research in mathematics education: A national case study in the international perspective’, in J. Kilpatrick and A. Sierpinska (eds.), Mathematics Education as a Research Domain: The Search for Identity, Vol. 2, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 243–262.Google Scholar
  3. Arzarello, F., Bartolini Bussi, M.G. and Robutti, O.: 2002, ‘Time(s) in didactics of mathematics: A methodological challenge’, in L.D. English, M. Bartolini Bussi, G.A. Jones, R.A. Lesh and D. Tirosh (eds.), Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 525–552.Google Scholar
  4. Bagni, G.T.: in press, ‘Historical roots of limit notion. Development of its representative registers and cognitive development’, Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education.Google Scholar
  5. Balacheff, N.: 1991, ‘The benefits and limits of social interactions: The case of mathematical proof’, in A.J. Bishop, A.J. Bishop, S. Mellin-Olsen and J. van Dormolen (eds.), Mathematical Knowledge: Its Growth Through Teaching, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 175–192.Google Scholar
  6. Boero, P. and Szendrei, J.: 1998, ‘Research and results in mathematics education: Some contradictory aspects’, in J. Kilpatrick and A. Sierpinska (eds.), Mathematics Education as a Research Domain: The Search for Identity, Vol. 1, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 197–212.Google Scholar
  7. Bourguignon, J.-P.: 2001, ‘A basis for a new relationship between mathematics and society’, in B. Engquist and W. Schmid (eds.), Mathematics Unlimited-2001 and Beyond, Vol. I, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 171–188.Google Scholar
  8. Boyer, C.B.: 1985, A History of Mathematics, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ (1st ed., Wiley, New York, 1968).Google Scholar
  9. Casari, E.: 1964, Questioni di filosofia della matematica, Feltrinelli, Milano.Google Scholar
  10. Dodero, N., Baroncini, P. and Manfredi, R.: 1999, Lineamenti di matematica 1, Ghisetti e Corvi, Milano.Google Scholar
  11. Duval, R.: 1993, ‘Registres de représentations sémiotiques et fonctionnement cognitif de la pensée’, Annales de Didactique et de Sciences Cognitives IREM Strasbourg, 5, 37–65.Google Scholar
  12. Duval, R.: 1995, Sémiosis et pensée humaine, Lang, Paris.Google Scholar
  13. Duval, R.: 2000, ‘Basic issues for research in Mathematics Education’, in T. Nakahara and M. Koyama (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th PME, Vol. 1, Nishiki Print, Hiroshima, pp. 55–69.Google Scholar
  14. Ferrari, P.L.: 2004, ‘Mathematical language and advanced mathematics learning’, in M. Johnsen Høines and A. Berit Fuglestad (eds.), Proceedings of the 28th PME, Vol. 2, Bergen, Norway, pp. 383–390.Google Scholar
  15. Ferro, R.: 1993, ‘La teoria degli insiemi p. II.’, L’insegnamento della matematica e delle scienze integrate 16(11/12), 1077–1099.Google Scholar
  16. Fischbein, E.: 1993, ‘The theory of figural concepts’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 24, 139–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fischbein, E. and Baltsan, M.: 1999, ‘The mathematical concept of set and the “collection” model’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 37, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Freudenthal, H.: 1983, Didactical Phenomenology of Mathematical Structures, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  19. Halliday M.A.K.: 1985, An Introduction to Functional Grammar, Arnold, London.Google Scholar
  20. Johnson, M.: 1987, The Body in the Mind. The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  21. Kaput, J.J.: 1993, ‘The representational roles of technology in connecting mathematics with authentic experience’, in R. Bieler, R.W. Scholz, R. Strässer and B. Winkelman (eds.), Didactics of Mathematics as a Scientific Discipline, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 379–397.Google Scholar
  22. Kline, M.: 1972, Mathematical Thought from Ancient to Modern Times, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  23. Lakoff, G. and Núñez, R.: 2000, Where Mathematics Come From? How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being, Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
  24. Leckie-Tarry, H.: 1995, Language and Context –A Functional Linguistic Theory of Register, Pinter, London.Google Scholar
  25. Linchevski, L. and Livneh, D.: 2002, ‘The competition between numbers and structure: Why expressions with identical algebraic structures trigger different interpretations’, Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics 24(2), 38–20.Google Scholar
  26. Linell, P.: 1998, ‘Approaching dialogue: Talk and interactions in dialogical perspective’, John Benjamins, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  27. Mevarech, Z.R. and Kramarsky, B.: 1997, ‘From verbal description to graphic representations: Stability and change in students' alternative conceptions’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 32, 229–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Otte, M.: 2001, ‘Mathematical epistemology from a semiotic point of view’, Paper presented to the Discussion Group on Semiotics at the 25th PME.Google Scholar
  29. Rabardel, P.: 1995, Les hommes et les technologies: Approche cognitive des instruments contemporains, Colin, Paris.Google Scholar
  30. Radford, L.: 2000, ‘Signs and meanings in the students' emergent algebraic thinking’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 42, 237–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Radford, L.: 2002a, ‘The object of representations: Between wisdom and certainty’, in F. Hitt (ed.), Representations and Mathematics Visualization, Cinvestav-IPN, Mexico, pp. 219–240.Google Scholar
  32. Radford, L.: 2002b, ‘The seen, the spoken and the written. A semiotic approach to the problem of objectification of mathematical knowledge’, For the Learning of Mathematics 22(2), 14–23.Google Scholar
  33. Radford, L.: 2003a, ‘Gestures, speech and the sprouting of signs’, Mathematical Thinking and Learning 5(1), 37–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Radford, L.: 2003b, ‘On culture and mind. A post-Vygotskian semiotic perspective, with an example from Greek mathematical thought’, in M. Anderson, A. Sáenz-Ludlow, S. Zellweger and V.V. Cifarelli (eds.), Educational Perspectives on Mathematics as Semiosis: From Thinking to Interpreting to Knowing, Legas, Ottawa, pp. 49–79.Google Scholar
  35. Radford, L.: 2003c, ‘On the epistemological limits of language: Mathematical knowledge and social practice during the Renaissance’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 52, 123–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Radford, L.: 2005, ‘The semiotics of the schema. Kant, Piaget, and the Calculator’, in M.H.G. Hoffmann, J. Lenhard and F. Seeger (eds.), Activity and Sign. Grounding Mathematics Education, Springer, New York, pp. 137–152.Google Scholar
  37. Ryve, A.: 2004, ‘Can collaborative concept mapping create mathematical productive discourses?’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 26, 157–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schoenfeld, A.H.: 1986, ‘On having and using geometric knowledge’, in J. Hiebert (ed.), Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge: The Case of Mathematics, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 225–263.Google Scholar
  39. Steinbring, H.: 2002, ‘What makes a sign a mathematical sign? An epistemological perspective on mathematical interaction’, Paper presented to the Discussion Group on Semiotics at the 26th PME.Google Scholar
  40. Tall, D. and Vinner, S.: 1981, ‘Concept image and concept definition in mathematics with special reference to limits and continuity’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 12, 151–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tsamir, P. and Tirosh, D.: 1994, ‘Comparing infinite sets: Intuition and representation’, Proceedings of the XVIII PME. Lisboa, 2, 345–352.Google Scholar
  42. Tsamir, P.: 1999, ‘The transition from comparison of finite to the comparison of infinite sets: Teaching prospective teachers’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 38, 209–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tsamir, P. and Tirosh, D.: 1999, ‘Consistency and representations: The case of actual infinity’, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 30, 213–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tsamir, P. and Dreyfus, T.: 2002, ‘Comparing infinite sets – a process of abstraction. The case of Ben’, Journal of Mathematical Behavior 221(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. van Heijenort, J.: 1967, From Frege to Gödel, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  46. Vinner, S. and Dreyfus, T.: 1989, ‘Images and definitions for the concept of a function’, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 20, 356–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vygotsky, L.S.: 1962, Thought and Language. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (Mylenie i re, Gosudarstvennoe Social'no-Ekonomieskoe Izdatel'stvo, Moskva-Leningrad 1934).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and Computer ScienceUniversity of UdineUdineItaly

Personalised recommendations