Advertisement

Examining Students’ Procedural and Conceptual Understanding of Eigenvectors and Eigenvalues in the Context of Inquiry-Oriented Instruction

  • Khalid Bouhjar
  • Christine Andrews-Larson
  • Muhammad Haider
  • Michelle Zandieh
Chapter
Part of the ICME-13 Monographs book series (ICME13Mo)

Abstract

This study examines students’ reasoning about eigenvalues and eigenvectors as evidenced by their written responses to two open-ended response questions. This analysis draws on data taken from 126 students whose instructors received a set of supports to implement a particular inquiry-oriented instructional approach and 129 comparable students whose instructors did not use this instructional approach. In this chapter, we offer examples of student responses that provide insight into students’ reasoning and summarize broad trends observed in our quantitative analysis. In general, students in both groups performed better on the procedurally oriented question than on the conceptually oriented question. The group of students whose instructors received support to implement the inquiry-oriented approach outperformed the other group of students on the conceptually oriented question and performed equally well on the procedurally oriented question.

Keywords

Eigenvalues Eigenvectors Linear algebra Inquiry-oriented instruction Student thinking 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Numbers DRL 0634099, 0634074; DUE 1245673, 1245796, 1246083, and 1431393. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

References

  1. Andrews-Larson, C., Wawro, M., & Zandieh, M. (2017). A hypothetical learning trajectory for conceptualizing matrices as linear transformations. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 48(6), 809–829.Google Scholar
  2. Carlson, D. (1993). Teaching linear algebra: Must the fog always roll in? The College Mathematics Journal, 24(1), 29–40.Google Scholar
  3. Cline, K., Zullo, H., Duncan, J., Stewart, A., & Snipes, M. (2013). Creating discussions with classroom voting in linear algebra. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 44(8), 1131–1142.Google Scholar
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. 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 Netherlands.Google Scholar
  6. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415.Google Scholar
  7. Gol Tabaghi, S., & Sinclair, N. (2013). Using dynamic geometry software to explore eigenvectors: The emergence of dynamic-synthetic-geometric thinking. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 18(3), 149–164.Google Scholar
  8. Haider, M., Bouhjar, K., Findley, K., Quea, R., Keegan, B., & Andrews-Larson, C. (2016). Using student reasoning to inform assessment development in linear algebra. In Tim Fukawa-Connelly, Nicole E. Infante, Megan Wawro, & Stacy Brown (Eds.), 19th Annual Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education (pp. 163–177). Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
  9. Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of research in science teaching, 48(8), 952–984.Google Scholar
  10. Hiebert, J. (1986). Conceptual knowledge and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics. Hilsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  11. Hiebert, J., & Lafevre, P. (1986). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: An introductory analysis. In J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics (pp. 1–27). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  12. Johnson, E., Caughman, J., Fredericks, J., & Gibson, L. (2013). Implementing inquiry-oriented curriculum: From the mathematicians’ perspective. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32(4), 743–760.Google Scholar
  13. Johnson, E., Keene, K., & Andrews-Larson, C. (2015). Inquiry-Oriented Instruction: What It Is and How We are Trying to Help. [Web log post.]. American Mathematical Society, Blog On Teaching and Learning Mathematics.Google Scholar
  14. Kwon, O. N., Rasmussen, C., & Allen, K. (2005). Students’ retention of mathematical knowledge and skills in differential equations. School science and mathematics, 105(5), 227–239.Google Scholar
  15. Lapp, D. A., Nyman, M. A., & Berry, J. S. (2010). Student connections of linear algebra concepts: An analysis of concept maps. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 41(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
  16. Larson, C., & Zandieh, M. (2013). Three interpretations of the matrix equation Ax = b. For the Learning of Mathematics, 33(2), 11–17.Google Scholar
  17. Laursen, S. L., Hassi, M. L., Kogan, M., & Weston, T. J. (2014). Benefits for women and men of inquiry-based learning in college mathematics: A multi-institution study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 45(4), 406–418.Google Scholar
  18. Plaxco, D., Zandieh M, Wawro M. (2018) Stretch directions and stretch factors: a sequence intended to support guided reinvention of eigenvector and eigenvalue (pp. XXX)Google Scholar
  19. Salgado, H., & Trigueros, M. (2015). Teaching eigenvalues and eigenvectors using models and APOS theory. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 39, 100–120. https://doi.org//10.1016/j.jmathb.2015.06.005.
  20. Schoenfeld, S. (1995). Eigenpictures: picturing the eigenvector problem. The College Mathematics Journal, 26(4), 316–319.Google Scholar
  21. Selinski, N. E., 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.Google Scholar
  22. Star, J. R. (2005). Reconceptualizing procedural knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36(5), 404–415.Google Scholar
  23. Stewart, S., & Thomas, M. (2006). Process-object difficulties in linear algebra: Eigenvalues and eigenvectors. International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education: 185.Google Scholar
  24. Stewart, S., & Thomas, M. (2009). A framework for mathematical thinking: The case of linear algebra. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 40(7), 951–961.Google Scholar
  25. Stewart, S., & Thomas, M. O. (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.Google Scholar
  26. Thomas, M., & Stewart, S. (2011). Eigenvalues and eigenvectors: Embodied, symbolic and formal thinking. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 23(3), 275–296.Google Scholar
  27. Vinner, S. (1997). The pseudo-conceptual and the pseudo-analytical thought processes in mathematics learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 34(2), 97–129.Google Scholar
  28. Wawro, M., Rasmussen, C., Zandieh, M., & Larson, C. (2013). Design research within undergraduate mathematics education: An example from introductory linear algebra. Educational design research—Part B: Illustrative cases, 905–925.Google Scholar
  29. Zandieh, M., Wawro, M., & Rasmussen, C. (2017). An example of inquiry in linear algebra: The roles of symbolizing and brokering. PRIMUS, 27(1), 96–124.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Khalid Bouhjar
    • 1
  • Christine Andrews-Larson
    • 1
  • Muhammad Haider
    • 1
  • Michelle Zandieh
    • 2
  1. 1.Florida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA
  2. 2.Arizona State UniversityMesaUSA

Personalised recommendations