skip to main content


Title: Two Vignettes on Students’ Symbolizing Activity for Set Relationships
Mathematicians often use set-builder notation and set diagrams to define and show relationships between sets in proof-related courses. This paper describes various meanings that students might attribute to these representations. Our data consist of students’ initial attempts to create and interpret these representations during the first day of a paired teaching experiment. Our analysis revealed that neither student imputed or attributed our desired theoretical meanings to their diagrams or notation. We summarize our findings in two vignettes, one describing students’ attributed meanings to instructor-provided set-builder notation and the other describing students’ imputed meanings to their personally-created set diagrams to relate pairs of sets.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1954768
PAR ID:
10464326
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ; ;
Editor(s):
Cook, S.; Katz, B.; Moore-Russo, D.
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education
ISSN:
2474-9346
Page Range / eLocation ID:
652-660
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. In transition to proof courses for undergraduates, we conducted teaching experiments supporting students to learn logic and proofs rooted in set-based meanings. We invited students to reason about sets using three representational systems: set notation (including symbolic expressions and set-builder notation), mathematical statements (largely in English), and Euler diagrams. In this report, we share evidence regarding how these three representations provided students with tools for reasoning and communicating about set relationships to explore the logic of statements. By analyzing student responses to tasks that asked them to translate between the representational systems, we gain insight into the accessibility and productivity of these tools for such instruction. 
    more » « less
  2. In this study, we report one group of students’ efforts to create a community meaning for set- builder notation collectively. Students’ ability to develop and interpret set-builder notation is essential to transition-to-proof courses. Conventionally, a colon is used in set-builder notation to (1) separate the universe of discourse from the set’s defining property and (2) indicate an ordering to these components, with the universe to the left and the property to the right of the colon. We describe one normative and non-normative interpretation of this notation and how the students’ individual attribution of conventional meanings for the colon to different inscriptions within the notation helped (or inhibited) them from interpreting these expressions. We report how communicative discourse between the students affected their meanings and discussions. 
    more » « less
  3. Abstract Background

    Engineering students inconsistently apply equilibrium when solving problems in statics, but few studies have explored why. Visual cognition studies suggest that features of the visual representations we use to teach students influence what domain knowledge they use to solve problems. However, few studies have explored how visual representations influence what problem‐solving strategies and domain knowledge students of different levels of expertise use when solving problems that require them to create and coordinate multiple representations.

    Purpose/Hypothesis

    This study addressed the following research question: How do students with different levels of expertise coordinate their problem‐solving strategies, problem‐solving heuristics, and representation features when sketching their shear force and bending moment diagrams?

    Design/Method

    We conducted think‐aloud interviews while students sketched shear force and bending moment diagrams. These interviews were subsequently analyzed using the constant comparative method to examine the effect of representations on students' problem‐solving approaches.

    Results

    Three themes emerged from the data: Students used heuristics that are based on perceptually salient features to sketch their shear force and bending moment diagrams; students across levels of expertise rely on theobject translationheuristic rather than equilibrium problem‐solving schema to sketch and reason through their shear force and bending moment diagrams, and domain knowledge aids students' ability to resolve conflicting heuristics. Our findings suggest that students primarily rely on heuristics triggered by representation features they notice.

    Conclusions

    Students engaged with shear force and bending moment diagrams not as a way to describe systems that are not accelerating but as a series of representations that “should go to zero” or arrows that make things “not zero.”

     
    more » « less
  4. This theoretical article explores the affordances and challenges of Euler diagrams as tools for supporting undergraduate introduction-to-proof students to make sense of, and reason about, logical implications. To theoretically frame students’ meaning making with Euler diagrams, we introduce the notion of logico-spatial linked structuring (or LSLS). We argue that students’ use of Euler diagrams as representations of logical statements entails a conceptual linking between spatial and non-spatial representations, and the LSLS framework provides a tool for modeling this conceptual linking. Moreover, from our Piagetian epistemological perspective, reasoning with Euler diagrams entails engaging in spatial mental operations and making a logical conclusion from the result. We illustrate the utility of the LSLS framework through examples with two undergraduate students as they reasoned about the truth of the converse and contrapositive of a given logical implication, and we identify specific spatial operations that they used and coordinated in their problem solving. 
    more » « less
  5. Abstract

    How do children acquire exact meanings for number words likethreeorforty‐seven? In recent years, a lively debate has probed the cognitive systems that support learning, with some arguing that an evolutionarily ancient “approximate number system” drives early number word meanings, and others arguing that learning is supported chiefly by representations of small sets of discrete individuals. This debate has centered around the findings generated by Wynn's (,) Give‐a‐Number task, which she used to categorize children into discrete “knower level” stages. Early reports confirmed Wynn's analysis, and took these stages to support the “small sets” hypothesis. However, more recent studies have disputed this analysis, and have argued that Give‐a‐Number data reveal a strong role for approximate number representations. In the present study, we use previously collected Give‐a‐Number data to replicate the analyses of these past studies, and to show that differences between past studies are due to assumptions made in analyses, rather than to differences in data themselves. We also show how Give‐a‐Number data violate the assumptions of parametric tests used in past studies. Based on simple non‐parametric tests and model simulations, we conclude that (a) before children learn exact meanings for words likeone, two, three,andfour,they first acquire noisy preliminary meanings for these words, (b) there is no reliable evidence of preliminary meanings for larger meanings, and (c) Give‐a‐Number cannot be used to readily identify signatures of the approximate number system.

     
    more » « less