ZDM

, Volume 51, Issue 7, pp 1169–1181

# Some aspects of linear independence schemas

• Hamide Dogan
Original Article

## Abstract

In this study, I examined seven first-year linear algebra students’ linear independence schemas. Data came from participants’ interview responses to a set of nine questions. The analysis focused on the identification of concepts and connections pertaining to plans and activations. Overall, the findings revealed the existence of routinized plans, each containing one of six most frequently expressed connections. Moreover, I observed some participants activating these plans as fixed plans, and other participants activating them as ready-to-hand plans. Some activations were task specific. In short, I found participants’ linear independence schemas to be populated by three main routinized plans, each with varying characteristics.

## Keywords

Linear independence Schema theory Connections Plans Activation Knowledge

## Notes

### Acknowledgements

This paper is made possible partially by a grant from NSF (CCLI0737485). I thank the reviewers and the editors for their valuable feedback in improving earlier versions of the paper.

## References

1. Dogan, H. (2004). Visual instruction of abstract concepts for non-major students. International Journal of Engineering Education (IJEE),2, 671.Google Scholar
2. Dogan, H. (2014). Sets of linear combinations and their images under linear transformations. Wolfram Demonstrations. https://demonstrations.wolfram.com/SetsOfLinearCombinationsAndTheirImagesUnderLinearTransform/.
3. Dogan, H. (2018a). Mental schemes of linear algebra: visual constructs. In S. Stewart, C. Andrews-Larson, A. Berman, & M. Zandieh (Eds.), Challenges and strategies in teaching linear algebra (Part III, pp. 219-240). ICME-13 Monograhs series. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
4. Dogan, H. (2018b). Differing instructional modalities and cognitive structures: Linear algebra. Linear Algebra and its Applications,542, 464–483.
5. Dogan-Dunlap, H. (2006). Lack of set theory-relevant prerequisite knowledge. International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science and Technology,37, 41.
6. Dorier, J.-L., Robert, A., Robinet, J., & Rogalsiu, M. (2000). The obstacle of formalism in linear algebra. In J.-L. Dorier (Ed.), On the teaching of linear algebra (pp. 85–124). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
7. Dorier, J., & Sierpinska, A. (2001). Research into the teaching and learning of linear algebra. In D. Holton (Ed.), The teaching and learning of mathematics at university level (pp. 255–273). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
8. Dubinsky, E., & Mcdonald, A. M. (2002). APOS: A constructivist theory of learning in undergraduate mathematics education research. In D. Holton, M. Artigue, U. Kirchgraber, J. Hillel, M. Niss, & A. Schoenfeld (Eds.), The teaching and learning of mathematics at university level. An ICMI study (pp. 604–781). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
9. Glaser, B. (1992). Emergence vs. forcing: Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
10. 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. E. Watkins, & W. Watkins (Eds.), Resources for teaching linear algebra (pp. 107–126). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.Google Scholar
11. Harel, G. (2000). Three principles of learning and teaching mathematics: Particular reference to 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. 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.Google Scholar
13. Johnson, W. L., Riess, D. R., & Arnold, T. J. (2002). Introduction to linear algebra. Boston: Pearson Education Inc.Google Scholar
14. Larson, C., Zandieh, M., and Rasmussen, C. (2008). A trip through eigen-land: Where most roads lead to the direction associated with the largest eigenvalue. In Proceedings of the eleventh special interest group of the Mathematical Association of America on research in undergraduate mathematics education. San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
15. Olive, J., & Steffe, L. (2002). Schemes, schemas and director systems (an integration of Piagetian scheme theory with Skemp’s model of intelligent learning). In D. Tall & M. Thomas (Eds.), Intelligence, learning and understanding in mathematics: A tribute to Richard Skemp. Post Pressed. Coventry: University of Warwick.Google Scholar
16. Salgado, H., & Trigueros, M. (2015). Teaching eigenvalues and eigenvectors using models and APOS Theory. Journal of Mathematical Behavior,39, 100–120.
17. Selinski, E. N., Rasmussen, C., Wawro, M., & Zandieh, 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.
18. 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.Google Scholar
19. Skemp, R. R. (1976). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Mathematics Teaching,77, 20–26.Google Scholar
20. Skemp, R. R. (1979). Intelligence, learning, and action. A foundation for theory and practice in education. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
21. 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.
22. Tucker, A. (1993). The growing importance of linear algebra in undergraduate mathematics. College Mathematics Journal,24, 3–9.
23. Wawro, M. (2014). Student reasoning about the invertible matrix theorem in linear algebra. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education,46, 389–406.