Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 88, Issue 2, pp 259–281 | Cite as

Examining individual and collective level mathematical progress

  • Chris RasmussenEmail author
  • Megan Wawro
  • Michelle Zandieh


A challenge in mathematics education research is to coordinate different analyses to develop a more comprehensive account of teaching and learning. We contribute to these efforts by expanding the constructs in Cobb and Yackel’s (Educational Psychologist 31:175–190, 1996) interpretive framework that allow for coordinating social and individual perspectives. This expansion involves four different constructs: disciplinary practices, classroom mathematical practices, individual participation in mathematical activity, and mathematical conceptions that individuals bring to bear in their mathematical work. We illustrate these four constructs for making sense of students’ mathematical progress using data from an undergraduate mathematics course in linear algebra.


Individual and collective Emergent perspective Linear algebra Practices 



This material is based upon the work supported by the National Science Foundation under collaborative grants DRL 0634099 and DRL 0634074 and collaborative grants DUE 1245673, DUE 1245796, and DUE 1246083. 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.


  1. Bikner-Ahsbahs, A., & Prediger, S. (2014). Networking of theories as a research practice in mathematics education. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspectives and method. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  3. Bogomolny, M. (2007). Raising students’ understanding: Linear algebra. In J. H. Woo, H. C. Lew, K. S. Park, & D. Y. Seo (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 65–72). Seoul: PME.Google Scholar
  4. Bowers, J., Cobb, P., & McClain, K. (1999). The evolution of mathematical practices: A case study. Cognition and Instruction, 17(1), 25–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cobb, P. (1999). Individual and collective mathematical development: The case of statistical data analysis. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 1(1), 5–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cobb, P. (2000). Conducting classroom teaching experiments in collaboration with teachers. In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 307–334). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  7. Cobb, P. (2003). Investigating students’ reasoning about linear measurement as a paradigm case of design research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education Monograph, 12, 1–16.Google Scholar
  8. Cobb, P. (2007). Putting philosophy to work: Coping with multiple theoretical perspectives. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 3–38). Reston: NCTM.Google Scholar
  9. Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1996). Constructivist, emergent, and sociocultural perspectives in the context of developmental research. Educational Psychologist, 31, 175–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved from
  11. 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 Publishers.Google Scholar
  12. Dreyfus, T., Hillel, J., & Sierpinska, A. (1999). Cabri-based linear algebra: Transformations. In I. Schwank (Ed.), Proceedings of the First Conference on European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 209–221). Osnabrück, Germany. Retrieved from
  13. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  14. Harel, G. (1997). Linear algebra curriculum study group recommendations: Moving beyond concept definition. In D. Carlson, C. R. Johnson, D. C. Lay, A. D. Porter, A. Watkins, & W. Watkins (Eds.), Resources for teaching linear algebra (pp. 106–126). Washington, DC: The Mathematical Association of America.Google Scholar
  15. Harel, G., Behr, M., Lesh, R., & Post, T. (1994). Invariance of ratio: The case of children’s anticipatory scheme for constancy of taste. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25, 324–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hershkowitz, R., Tabach, M., Rasmussen, C., & Dreyfus, T. (2014). Knowledge shifts in a probability classroom—A case study involving coordinating two methodologies. ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 46(3), 363–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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 Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Krummheuer, G. (2007). Argumentation and participation in the primary mathematics classroom: Two episodes and related theoretical abductions. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 26, 60–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Krummheuer, G. (2011). Representation of the notion of “learning-as-participation” in everyday situations in mathematics classes. ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 43, 81–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Larson, C., & Zandieh, M. (2013). Three interpretations of the matrix equation Ax=b. For the Learning of Mathematics, 33(2), 11–17.Google Scholar
  21. Moschkovich, J. (2007). Examining mathematical discourse practices. For the Learning of Mathematics, 27(1), 24–30.Google Scholar
  22. Prediger, S., Bikner-Ahsbahs, A., & Arzarello, F. (2008). Networking strategies and methods for connecting theoretical approaches: First steps towards a conceptual framework. ZDM – International Journal for Mathematics Education, 40, 165–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rasmussen, C. (2001). New directions in differential equations: A framework for interpreting students’ understandings and difficulties. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 20, 55–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rasmussen, C., & Stephan, M. (2008). A methodology for documenting collective activity. In A. E. Kelly, R. A. Lesh, & J. Y. Baek (Eds.), Handbook of innovative design research in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM) education (pp. 195–215). New York: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  25. Rasmussen, C., Zandieh, M., King, K., & Teppo, A. (2005). Advancing mathematical activity: A view of advanced mathematical thinking. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 7, 51–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rasmussen, C., Zandieh, M., & Wawro, M. (2009). How do you know which way the arrows go? The emergence and brokering of a classroom mathematics practice. In W.-M. Roth (Ed.), Mathematical representations at the interface of the body and culture (pp. 171–218). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  27. Saxe, G. B. (2002). Children’s developing mathematics in collective practices: A framework for analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 275–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Saxe, G. B., Gearhart, M., Shaughnessy, M., Earnest, D., Cremer, S., Sitabkhan, Y., et al. (2009). A methodological framework and empirical techniques for studying the travel of ideas in classroom communities. In B. B. Schwarz, T. Dreyfus, & R. Hershkowitz (Eds.), Transformation of knowledge through classroom interaction (pp. 203–222). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Selinski, N., Rasmussen, C., Zandieh, M., & Wawro, M. (2014). A method for using adjacency matrices to analyze the connections students make within and between concepts: The case of linear algebra. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 45(5), 550–583.Google Scholar
  30. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and on the danger of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27, 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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 Publishers.Google Scholar
  32. Stephan, M., & Akyuz, D. (2012). A proposed instructional theory for integer addition and subtraction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 43(4), 428–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stephan, M., & Cobb, P. (2003). The methodological approach to classroom-based research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education Monograph, 12, 36–50.Google Scholar
  34. Stephan, M., Cobb, C., & Gravemeijer, K. (2003). Coordinating social and individual analyses: Learning as participation in mathematical practices. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education Monograph, 12, 67–102.Google Scholar
  35. Stephan, M., & Rasmussen, C. (2002). Classroom mathematical practices in differential equations. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21, 459–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thompson, P. W. (1994). The development of the concept of speed and its relationship to concepts of rate. In G. Harel & J. Confrey (Eds.), The development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics (pp. 181–234). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  38. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Trigueros, M., & Possani, E. (2013). Using an economics model for teaching linear algebra. Linear Algebra and Its Applications, 438(4), 1779–1792. doi: 10.1016/j.laa.2011.04.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. Bristol: Falmer Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wawro, M. J. (2011). Individual and collective analyses of the genesis of student reasoning regarding the Invertible Matrix Theorem in linear algebra. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (Order No. 3466728)Google Scholar
  42. Wawro, M., & Plaxco, P. (2013). Utilizing types of mathematical activities to facilitate characterizing student understanding of span and linear independence. In S. Brown, G. Karakok, K. H. Roh, and M. Oehrtman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, Volume I (pp. 1–15), Denver, Colorado.Google Scholar
  43. Wawro, M., Rasmussen, C., Zandieh, M., Larson, C., & Sweeney, G. (2012). An inquiry-oriented approach to span and linear independence: The case of the magic carpet ride sequence. PRIMUS: Problems, Resources, and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies, 22(8), 577–599. doi: 10.1080/10511970.2012.667516 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wawro, M., Rasmussen, C., Zandieh, M., & Larson, C. (2013). Design research within undergraduate mathematics education: An example from introductory linear algebra. In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research—Part B: Illustrative cases (pp. 905–925). Enschede: SLO.Google Scholar
  45. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 458–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yackel, E., Gravemeijer, K., & Sfard, A. (Eds.). (2011). A journey in mathematics education research: Insights from the work of Paul Cobb. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  47. Yackel, E., & Rasmussen, C. (2002). Beliefs and norms in the mathematics classroom. In G. Leder, E. Pehkonen, & G. Toerner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education? (pp. 313–330). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  48. Yackel, E., Rasmussen, C., & King, K. (2000). Social and sociomathematical norms in an advanced undergraduate mathematics course. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19, 275–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zandieh, M. J. (2000). A theoretical framework for analyzing student understanding of the concept of derivative. Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education, IV, 103–127.Google Scholar
  50. 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, 57–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chris Rasmussen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Megan Wawro
    • 2
  • Michelle Zandieh
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and StatisticsSan Diego State UniversitySan DiegoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Mathematics (MC 0123)Virginia TechBlacksburgUSA
  3. 3.Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, School of Letters and SciencesArizona State UniversityMesaUSA

Personalised recommendations