Why Johnny struggles when familiar concepts are taken to a new mathematical domain: towards a polysemous approach

Abstract

This article is concerned with cognitive aspects of students’ struggles in situations in which familiar concepts are reconsidered in a new mathematical domain. Examples of such cross-curricular concepts are divisibility in the domain of integers and in the domain of polynomials, multiplication in the domain of numbers and in the domain of vectors, and roots in the domain of reals and in the domain of complex numbers. The article introduces a polysemous approach for structuring students’ concept images in these situations. Post-exchanges from an online forum and excerpts from an interview were analyzed for illustrating the potential of the approach for indicating possible sources of students’ misconceptions and meta-ways of thinking that might make students aware of their mistakes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    The standard definition that was provided in the classroom stated the following: Let p(x) and q(x) be polynomials in [x]. If there is a polynomial r(x) such that  p(x)=q(x)·r(x), then p(x) is said to be divisible by q(x) and we denote q(x)∣p(x).

  2. 2.

    The students were exposed to the formal definition of addition of vector spaces in the classroom. However, similar to the case of Johnny, there was no evidence of that in their post exchange.

References

  1. Asiala, M., Brown, A., DeVries, D., Dubinsky, E., Mathews, D., & Thomas, K. (1996). A framework for research and curriculum development in undergraduate mathematics education. Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education II, CBMS Issues in Mathematics Education, 6, 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Austin, J. L., & Howson, A. G. (1979). Language and mathematical education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 10(2), 161–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bingolbali, E., & Monaghan, J. (2008). Concept image revisited. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 68(1), 19–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Biza, I., & Zachariades, T. (2010). First year mathematics undergraduates’ settled images of tangent line. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 29(4), 218–229.

  5. Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Carpenter, T. P., & Moser, J. M. (1984). The acquisition of addition and subtraction concepts in grades one through three. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, (15)3, 179–202.

  7. Chi, M. T. H. (1992). Conceptual change within and across ontological categories: Examples from learning and discovery in science. In R. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive models of science: Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (pp. 129–186). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

  8. Dreyfus, T. (1999). Why Johnny can’t prove. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38(1), 85–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Durkin, K., & Shire, B. (1991). Lexical ambiguity in mathematical contexts. In K. Durkin & B. Shire (Eds.), Language in mathematical education: Research and Practice (pp. 71–84). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

  10. Fischbein, E. (1987). Intuition in science and mathematics. Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gray, E. M., & Tall, D. O. (1994). Duality, ambiguity, and flexibility: A “proceptual” view of simple arithmetic. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(2), 116–140.

  12. Hazzan, O. (1999). Reducing abstraction level when learning abstract algebra concepts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 40(1), 71–90.

  13. Hazzan, O., & Zazkis, R. (2005). Reducing abstraction: The case of school mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 58(1), 101–119.

  14. IES & NSF. (2013). A report from Institute of Education Sciences. Washington: US Department of Education and the National Science Foundation.

  15. Kleiner, I. (1988). Thinking the unthinkable: The story of complex numbers (with a moral). Mathematics Teacher, 81(7), 583–592.

  16. Kline, M. (1973). Why Johnny can’t add: The failure of the New Math. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

  17. Kontorovich, I. (2016a). √9=? The answer depends on your lecturer. Research in Mathematics Education, 18(3), 284–299.

  18. Kontorovich, I. (2016b). Exploring students’ interactions in an asynchronous forum that accompanied a course in linear algebra. Paper presented at 13th International Congress on Mathematics Education, Hamburg, Germany. from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306280993_Exploring_students%27_interactions_in_an_online_forum_that_accompanied_a_course_in_linear_algebra?ev=prf_pub. Retrieved 24 Feb 2017

  19. Kontorovich, I. (2016c). Exploring the image of the square root concept among university students. In C. Csíkos, A. Rausch, & J. Szitányi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 40th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 99–106). Szeged: PME.

  20. Kontorovich, I. (2016d). Students’ confusions with reciprocal and inverse functions. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 48(2), 278–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kontorovich, I., & Zazkis, R. (2016). Turn vs. shape: Teachers cope with incompatible perspectives on angle. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 93(2), 223–243.

  22. Kontorovich, I., & Zazkis, R. (2017). Mathematical conventions: Revisiting arbitrary and necessary. For the Learning of Mathematics, 37(1), 15–20.

  23. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Mamolo, A. (2010). Polysemy of symbols: Signs of ambiguity. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 7(2), 247–262.

  25. Mason, J. (1989). Mathematical abstraction seen as a delicate shift in attention. For the Learning of Mathematics, 9(2), 2–8.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Merenluoto, K., & Lehtinen, E. (2002). Conceptual change in mathematics: Understanding the real numbers. In M. Limón & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual Change. Issues in theory and practice (pp. 233–257). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  27. Moreno, L. E., & Waldegg, G. (1991). The conceptual evolution of actual mathematical infinity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22(3), 211–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Nachlieli, T., & Tabach, M. (2012). Growing mathematical objects in the classroom. International Journal of Educational Research, 51–52, 10–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Panaoura, A., Michael-Chrysanthou, P., Gagatsis, A., Elia, I., & Philippou, A. (2016). A structural model related to the understanding of the concept of function: definition and problem solving. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(4), 1–18.

  30. Peirce, C. S. (1955). Philosophical writings of Peirce (J. Buchler, Ed.). New York: Dover.

  31. Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibration of cognitive structures: The central problem of intellectual development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  32. Pirie, S., & Kieren, T. (1994). Growth in mathematical understanding: how can we characterise it and how can we represent it? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26(2–3), 165–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Sandoval, I., & Possani, E. (2016). An analysis of different representations for vectors and planes in ℝ3. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 92(1), 109–127.

  34. Sapir, E. (1970). Culture, language and personality: Selected essays. Berkeley: University of California Press.

  35. Sfard, A. (1991). On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: Reflections on processes and objects as different sides of the same coin. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22(1), 1–36.

  36. Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, development of discourses, and mathematizing. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

  37. Shire, B., & Durkin, K. (1989). Junior school children’s responses to conflict between the spatial and numerical meanings of ‘up’and ‘down’. Educational Psychology, 9(2), 141–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Sierpińska, A. (1987). Humanities students and epistemological obstacles related to limits. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 18(4), 371–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Smith, C. P., King, B., & Hoyte, J. (2014). Learning angles through movement: Critical actions for developing understanding in an embodied activity. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 36, 95–108.

  40. Svennevig, J. (2001). Abduction as a methodological approach to the study of spoken interaction. Norskrift, 103, 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  41. 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.

  42. Tirosh, D. (1999). Finite and infinite sets: Definitions and intuitions. International Journal of Mathematics in Science and Technology, 30(3), 341–349.

  43. Tirosh, D., & Even, R. (1997). To define or not to define: The case of \( {\left(-8\right)}^{\frac{1}{3}} \). Educational Studies in Mathematics, 33(3), 321–330.

  44. Tirosh, D., & Stavy, R. (1999). Intuitive rules and comparison tasks. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 1(3), 179–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Tsamir, P. (2005). Enhancing prospective teachers’ knowledge of learners’ intuitive conceptions: The case of 'same A-same B'. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8(6), 469–497.

  46. Vamvakoussi, X., & Vosniadou, S. (2004). Understanding the structure of the set of rational numbers: A conceptual change approach. Learning and Instruction, 14(5), 453–467.

  47. Van Dooren, W., Lehtinen, E., & Verschaffel, L. (2015). Unraveling the gap between natural and rational numbers. Learning and Instruction, 37, 1–4.

  48. Vosniadou, S. (2014). Examining conceptual development from a conceptual change point of view: The framework approach. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 11(6), 645–661.

  49. Vosniadou, S., & Skopeliti, I. (2014). Conceptual change from the framework theory side of the fence. Science and Education, 23(7), 1427–1445.

  50. Vosniadou, S., & Verschaffel, L. (2004). Extending the conceptual change approach to mathematics learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 14(5), 445–451.

  51. Williams, S. R. (1991). Models of limit held by college calculus students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(3), 219–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Zazkis, R. (1998). Divisors and quotients: Acknowledging polysemy. For the Learning of Mathematics, 18(3), 27–30.

  53. Zazkis, R. (2000). Factors, divisors and multiples: Exploring the web of students’ connections. Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education, 4, 210–238.

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Arthur Bakker and to anonymous reviewers for their thorough criticism and insightful suggestions. I wish to thank Sze Looi Chin for proofreading.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Igor’ Kontorovich.

Additional information

The title of this article was inspired by Dreyfus’s (1999) work entitled Why Johnny can’t prove (which is an adaptation from the famous Kline, 1973). In his work, Dreyfus identified some of the reasons for students struggling with proofs and clarified why this struggle cannot be avoided. In this article, I focus on another struggle that many students go through when familiar mathematical concepts are reconsidered in a new (mathematical) domain. My approach and the answer to the question in the title resonate with Dreyfus’s.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kontorovich, I. Why Johnny struggles when familiar concepts are taken to a new mathematical domain: towards a polysemous approach. Educ Stud Math 97, 5–20 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-017-9778-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Concept image
  • Conceptual change
  • Cross-curricular concepts
  • Epistemological obstacles
  • Polysemy