African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and

Technology Education

ISSN: 1811-7295 (Print) 2469-7656 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmse20

An Exploratory Study on the Understanding of the

Vector Subspace Concept

Lillias Mutambara & Sarah Bansilal

To cite this article: Lillias Mutambara & Sarah Bansilal (2019): An Exploratory Study on the
Understanding of the Vector Subspace Concept, African Journal of Research in Mathematics,
Science and Technology Education, DOI: 10.1080/18117295.2018.1564496

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/18117295.2018.1564496

Published online: 24 Jan 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 32

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rmse20
African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2019
https://doi.org/10.1080/18117295.2018.1564496
© 2019 Southern African Association for Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology
Education (SAARMSTE)

An Exploratory Study on the Understanding of the Vector

Subspace Concept
a,b b
Lillias Mutambara , and Sarah Bansilal

a
Bindura University of Science Education, Bindura, Zimbabwe
b
University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa

This exploratory study investigated 10 pre-service mathematics students’ understanding of vector

subspaces at a university in Zimbabwe. The study involved an in-depth document analysis of the
students’ written responses to five items based on the vector subspace concept. An APOS (Action–
Process–Object–Schema) approach was used to identify the difficulties associated with developing the
mental constructions of the vector subspace concept. The responses revealed that most of these pre-
service teachers used reasoning associated with Action, or not even Action, conceptions of the
prerequisite concepts of binary operations and sets, which hampered their engagement with the higher-
level concepts of checking axioms. It is recommended that students should work with different sets and
different types of binary operations, allowing them to routinise the Action of carrying out the binary
operations on the sets first before moving to abstract applications. The data also revealed that students
had difficulties in making links within the embodied, symbolic and formal worlds of thinking. It is
suggested that instructors ensure that these links form an explicit focus of tasks.

Keywords: Linear algebra; vector subspace; APOS theory; binary operations; axioms

Introduction

The importance of linear algebra in many fields of mathematics, science, computer science and engin-
eering is acknowledged by both mathematicians and scientists (Anton, 2010). However, educators and
learners perceive the teaching and learning of linear algebra as a difficult and challenging experience
(Hillel, 2000; Dorier, Robert, Robinet, & Rogalski, 2000; Wawro, Sweeney & Jeffrey, 2011). Many uni-
versity students cope well with the initial procedural aspects of solving systems of linear equations but
struggle with the concepts behind the study of vector spaces such as subspace, linear independence
and spanning (Stewart, 2018; Ndlovu & Brijlall, 2015).
Hillel (2000) distinguishes three basic languages that are used in linear algebra, namely the abstract
(concepts of generalised formalised theorems), algebraic (concepts in Rn) and geometric (concepts of
two- and three-dimensional space) languages. He argues that major sources of conceptual difficulties
arise from these different languages, and also from problems of representation and applicability of the-
ories. These different languages are related to the formal, symbolic and embodied worlds as respect-
ively described by Tall (2008). The embodied world is based on reflections about, and properties of,
objects in the real world (Tall, 2008). The symbolic world is seen as the world of symbols, algebra
and algorithms, while in the formal world, concepts are introduced by definitions, and their relationships
are delineated by stating and proving theorems (Tall, 2008).
Some researchers describe the experience of learning of vector space concepts as akin to landing
on another planet (Dorier et al., 2000) or having a heavy fog rolled over them (Carlson, 1993). The intro-
duction of these concepts is seen as an obstacle of formalism whereby students are overwhelmed by
learning new definitions, symbols, words and theorems (Dorier et al., 2000). Britton and Henderson
2 Lillias Mutambara and Sarah Bansilal

(2009) argue that it is important for students to make links between different representations—for
example, a vector may be presented geometrically as an arrow, algebraically as row vectors and/or
abstractly as an element of a vector space. Similarly, Stewart (2018) argues that part of an instructor’s
role is to identify and design suitable tasks that help students to move between the different worlds by
linking their intuitive ideas to the formal definitions.
There have been few studies conducted in Africa in linear algebra (Ndlovu & Brijlall, 2015; Kazunga
& Bansilal, 2018) and those carried out have focused primarily on students’ understanding of matrix
algebra concepts. A previous study on the vector subspace concept (Mutambara & Bansilal, 2018),
focusing on the set of 2 × 2 matrices, found that many students could not go further than just carrying
out the binary operation given two particular elements.
In this study, Action Process Object Schema (APOS) theory is used to analyse the understandings of
the vector subspace concept held by a group of 10 Zimbabwean student teachers. The research ques-
tion is: what does an APOS analysis reveal about student teachers’ conceptions of the vector sub-
space concept? It is hoped that the identification of students’ difficulties in terms of the genetic
decomposition can be used to improve instruction for students in similar contexts.

The Concept of Vector Subspace

The definition of vector subspace used in the course taught to the student teachers was: let V be a
vector space over a field K and let W be a subset of V. Then W is a subspace of V if W is itself a
vector space over K with respect to the operations of vector addition and scalar multiplication in V
(adapted from Anton, 2010).
The students in this study were also introduced to the following theorem derived from Anton (2010):
Suppose W is a subset of a vector space V, , then W is a subspace of V if the following conditions
hold:
i W is a non-empty set or the zero vector 0 belongs to W ;
ii W is closed under vector addition, that is, for every u, v [ W , the sum u + v [ W ;
iii W is closed under scalar multiplication, that is, for every u [ W , k [ K, the multiple
ku [ W .

Theoretical Framework: APOS Theory

The APOS theory is based on the principle that individuals learn mathematics by applying certain
mental mechanisms (such as interiorisation, encapsulation, assimilation, coordination and de-encap-
sulation) to build specific mental structures (Actions, Process, Objects, Schema) (Arnon et al., 2014).
Drawing on the definitions used by Arnon et al. (2014), these mental mechanisms are now explained in
further detail.

Action
A transformation is first conceived as an Action when it is a reaction to stimuli which an individual per-
ceives as external. It involves following specific external or internal instructions, and the individual
needs to perform each step of the transformation explicitly.

Process
The interiorisation of an Action into a Process is evident when the individual can carry out the same
Action without the need for the external stimuli—it can take place entirely in the mind of the individual
without having to execute each step explicitly, and the individual can also describe the procedure trans-
formation verbally. Two or more Processes can be coordinated to form a new Process.
An Exploratory Study on the Understanding of the Vector Subspace Concept 3

Object
A Process is encapsulated into an Object when an individual becomes aware of a Process as a totality,
perceiving it as an entity upon which other transformations (other Actions or Processes) can take place
and when the individual can also carry out the transformations.

Schema
Many Actions, Processes and Objects are interconnected in the individual’s mind and these will be
organised to form a coherent framework called a Schema.1 Three levels of Schema development
can be distinguished according to Piaget and Garcia (1989): Intra (Objects, Processes, Actions may
be present but seen in isolation), Inter (the relationships between the cognitive items start to
emerge) and Trans (characterised by an awareness of the structures and relationships between
Actions, Processes and Objects forming a complete structure).

Genetic Decomposition
A genetic decomposition (GD) is a detailed description of the types of APOS mental structures and
the associated mechanisms, and is used to give researchers insight into how learners construct
various Schemas (Arnon et al., 2014). The genetic decomposition of a vector subspace was devel-
oped, drawing from Arnon et al. (2014), the study by Parraguez and Oktaç (2010) that focused on
the construction of the vector space concept, and also the study by Mutambara and Bansilal (2018)
which considered teachers’ difficulties in working with the vector subspace formed by 2 × 2
matrices.

Set Schema
With an Action conception, an individual conceives a set when given a specific listing or a particular
condition of set membership. The Action involves considering elements, one at a time, to see if they
satisfy the condition of membership to the set. The Action is interiorised into a Process when the indi-
vidual is able to describe general characteristics of the elements of the set and recognise whether or
not arbitrary elements are members of the set. This is encapsulated into an Object when an individual
can apply other Actions or Processes to the Process such as compare two sets or consider a set to be
an element of another, and analyse properties of the set (Arnon et al., 2014).

Binary operation Schema

A binary operation is a function of two variables defined on a single set or on a cartesian product of two
sets. With an Action conception, given a binary operation, an individual can take two specific elements
of the sets and apply the operation. The individual interiorises the Action into a Process when consid-
ering any two objects (elements) without the need to work on specific elements and without having to
make specific calculations, and can consider the result of the binary operation. With an Object con-
ception, an individual can distinguish between two binary operations, check whether a binary operation
satisfies an axiom and compare Objects arising from two different binary operations (Arnon et al.,
2014).

Axiom Schema
For vector space, an axiom can be considered as a Boolean-valued function, which accepts a set (or
cartesian product of sets), and a binary operation defined on the set (or sets) and checks whether the
axiom property is satisfied. In order to apply the axiom to a set and binary operation, the set and binary
operation Objects must be de-encapsulated and coordinated with the Process of checking the axiom
property in question.

Vector space Schema

The vector space concept is constructed by ‘coordinating the three Schemas’ of set, binary operations
(vector addition; scalar multiplication) and axioms (Parraguez & Oktaç, 2010, p. 2114). The 10 oper-
ations of checking if each axiom is satisfied are coordinated into a single Process that can establish
4 Lillias Mutambara and Sarah Bansilal

if the system is a vector space, which is then encapsulated into an Object vector space, that is, a set
with binary operations that satisfies the axioms (Arnon et al., 2014; Parraguez & Oktaç, 2010).

Vector subspace Schema

The instance of checking if each of the two axioms (closure condition of binary operations) is satisfied is
coordinated into a single Process that can establish if a non-empty subset is a vector subspace. The
Process of verifying that a set satisfies the subspace conditions can then be encapsulated into a vector
subspace Object, making it possible to determine properties of vector subspaces and to see relation-
ships between vector subspaces. At this stage an individual can judge the equivalence between differ-
ent definitions of subspaces. Counter-examples can also be constructed to show that a set does not
satisfy the properties of a vector subspace.

Methodology

This exploratory study was conducted with a class of 10 Zimbabwean pre-service mathematics stu-
dents taking their second course in linear algebra. Their first linear algebra course included the con-
cepts of vectors, matrix manipulation and solving systems of linear equations.
In order to identify students’ difficulties using the GD, their written responses to five items based
on the concept of vector subspace were analysed. The purpose was to learn more about the stu-
dents’ understanding of vector space concepts. By drawing upon the GD, an in-depth analysis of
the language and symbols used by the students in building up their arguments was carried out.
With such a content analysis it is sometimes possible to infer differences between an Action,
Process or Object conception based on how verbs, nouns, specific or general cases, quantifiers,
connecting phrases and/or counter-examples are used in the arguments. For example, with binary
operations, a response can indicate whether the individual has been constrained by the need to
work with the step-by-step procedure/calculation carried out on a specific element or elements
(Action) or was not constrained by the need to work with specific vectors (Process) or was able to
describe the procedure in general (Process). These distinctions have been applied in document-
based studies of students’ understandings of other concepts (e.g. Arnon et al., 2014; Bansilal, Brijlall
& Trigueros, 2017). Note also that in this study, rather than using the theory to verify the proposed
GD, as is the case for many APOS-based studies, we opted to take the GD as an established
tool. This step allowed us to interpret the student teachers’ difficulties in terms of the genetic
decomposition and to make recommendations from an instructional standpoint. The five tasks are
presented in Table 1. In this analysis, the students are referred to as student A - student J so as
to preserve their anonymity.

Results

The results are presented according to four demands emanating from these items, that is working with
the definition of a vector subspace; verifying that a subset forms a subspace; showing that the inter-
section of subspaces is a subspace; and showing that a set does not form a subspace.

Working with the Definition

Question 1 asked for the definition which is considered as abstract, forming part of the formal world
(Tall, 2008). Responses of students C, D and J were close to the expected definition, while other
responses suggested difficulties in the interiorisation of the binary operation and set Processes.
Other students showed signs of more fundamental problems which will be briefly discussed. The
responses of students A and E are shown in Figures 1 and 2.
Student A gave the original definition of a vector subspace and then followed it with the theorem.
However, the second condition of the theorem was not clearly articulated, indicating possible problems
with the checking axioms Process. She may have constructed binary operations as a Process and set
 An Exploratory Study on the Understanding of the Vector Subspace Concept
Table 1. Questions and suggested solutions related to the concept of vector subspace

Questions Expected solutions

1. Define the term subspace of a vector space. Let V be a vector space over a field F. Then a non-empty subspace W of V is said to be a subspace of V if W
is itself a vector space under precisely the same operation of addition and scalar multiplication on V.
Comment Q1: Although it is not possible to infer solely from students’ responses to Question 1 whether they were engaging in reasoning associated with a Process
conception of the vector subspace concept, the responses provided hints about their understanding of the concept.
2. Determine whether the subset of R 4 consisting of the set Can show that any of the three conditions is not satisfied, for example: let
of all vectors of the form {(a,b,c,d): a–b = 2 are v = (a, b, c, d), with a − b = 2, w = (e, f , g, h), with e − f = 2
subspaces of R 4. v + w = (a + e, b + f, c + g, d + h). but (a + e)–(b + f) = (a–b) + (e–f) = 4. Hence v + w does not belong to the
set.
Hence it is not a subspace of the vector space.
Comment Q2: This may require reasoning associated with an Object conception of binary operations since students have to generate a counter-example showing that
the set is not closed under vector addition.
3. Determine whether the set consisting of all vectors of the Let w = {(x, y, z, t):2x + y + t = 0 and z = 0} and v = {(a, b, c, d):2a + b + d = 0 and c = 0 }.
form {(x, y, z, t):2x + y + t = 0 and z = 0} is a The given set W is not
subspace of R 4. empty.w + v = (x + a, y + b, c + z, t + d) and (2x + y + t) + (2a + b + d) = 0 and z + c = 0.
Let l be the scalar then
lw = (lx, ly, lz, lt) and 2lx + ly + t l = l(2x + y + t) = 0 and lz = 0.
Since all three conditions are satisfied the given set is a subspace of R 4.
Comment Q3: This requires students to verify that the given subset forms a subspace, that is, to carry out the operation of checking if each of the two axioms (closure
condition of binary operations and the non-empty condition) is satisfied. Hence their responses may reveal if students have developed a Process conception of vector
subspace
4. Let S and T be subspaces of a vector space V. Show that Let S and T be subspaces of a vector space V.
S > T is also a subspace of V which is contained in S 0 [ S and 0 [ T , since S and T be subspaces, hence 0 [ S > T . Now suppose u, v [ S > T, then
and T. u, v [ S and u, v [ T. For any scalars a, b [ R, au + bv [ S and au + bv [ T .
Hence au + bv [ S > T . Thus S > T is a subspace of V.
Comment Q4. Taking the intersection of two subspaces can be seen as an Action applied to the vector subspace Object. Hence the verification that the intersection of
two subspaces is a subspace requires reasoning associated with an Object conception of a vector subspace.
5. Let X= {(2a − b, a, 2b):a, b [ R}. Show that X is a The set is non-empty since (0,0,0) [ R.
subspace of R 3. 2.Suppose x = (2a − b, a, 2b) and y = (2c − d, c, 2d).
Thus
x + y = {2(a + c) − (b + d), a + c, 2(b + d)} [ X
3. l(x) = {(2a − b), a, 2b} [ X
Comment Q5. The demand of this question is similar to that of Question 3, and may provide hints about whether students have developed Process conceptions.

5
6 Lillias Mutambara and Sarah Bansilal

Figure 1. Student A’s written response to Question 1.

Figure 2. Student E’s response to Question 1.

as a Process, but it is not clear whether she identified that the axiom on closure has to be satisfied. She
has given the impression that vectors v, w were chosen because their sum lies in S and not because of
an axiom that needed to be checked. Student E’s disconnected statements appear in Figure 2.
Student E seems to have recalled some of the conditions that a subset needs to satisfy to be con-
sidered as a vector subspace, but these were presented incoherently. Three statements organised in a
step-by-step manner were provided, without details about which sets the vectors v and w and the
scalar l, belonged to.
Student B (Figure 3) inserted a linear combination expression for an arbitrary vector into her expla-
nation which she did not refer to again.
Student B has confused elements of a set A with the set itself showing that the student has not
moved past an Action conception of set itself, making it impossible for her to disentangle the relation-
ships between set and binary operations.
Students G, H and I presented irrelevant statements about linearly independent vectors and
matrices, suggesting that they could not recall the definition.

Verifying that a Subset of a Vector Space Forms a Subspace

Questions 3 and 5 required students to determine whether certain subsets described in terms of alge-
braic conditions formed a subspace of R 3 (Question 5) or R 4 (Question 3).

Figure 3. Student B’s written response to Question 1.

An Exploratory Study on the Understanding of the Vector Subspace Concept 7

Students C and J responded correctly to both questions. Being able to verify that each of the two
axioms (closure condition of binary operations) was satisfied indicates that these students may
have developed a Process conception of Vector Subspace.
The GD helps identify what it is that may have hindered certain students from developing a robust
conception of vector subspace. For example, Student D showed clearly that the sets were closed
under vector addition for both questions but he neglected the scalar multiplication condition in both
cases. Hence his Schema did not include the checking of the axiom for closure of scalar multiplication.
Some students (A, E) struggled to show that the axiom for vector addition was met. They were able to
generate the sum of two vectors but did not show that the sum belonged to the stipulated subset. The
response (Question 3) from student E is as follows:

p(x) + q(x) = {x + a, y + b, z + c, t + d:2x + y + t + 2a + b + d = 0 and z + c = 0}

It’s in R 4.
This response suggests that mental constructions of binary operations as an Action may have been
developed because he was able to generate the sum of two vectors, but he had problems with demon-
strating an understanding of what the elements of the set were or what the characterising property of
the subset was. The student has not explained that the result of the operation belongs to the subset;
instead the conclusion is that the sum of the vectors belongs to R 4, suggesting that the Action con-
ception of set has not been interiorised into a Process.
Another example (Question 3) from student G illustrates that she was unclear about what she
needed to show:

{(x, y, z, t):2x + y + t = 0 and z = 0} + {(a, b, c, d):2a + b + d = 0 and c = 0} [ R.

[ closed.
Student G has identified that she should find the sum of the two vectors but has not generated the
sum and is not clear in showing what the closure condition means.
Student F similarly revealed confusion about many of the concepts and used an inappropriate pro-
cedure normally used for linear transformations, as shown in Figure 4.
Similar to the response of student E to Question 3, Student F also showed confusion between the
vector space and the subset under consideration, because he attempted to show that the axioms

Figure 4. Student F’s response to Question 5.

8 Lillias Mutambara and Sarah Bansilal

are satisfied for the R 3 (vector space) instead of the subset of the vector space. Furthermore, student
F, in considering the binary operations, has worked with specific vectors and not vectors in a general
form, showing that the binary operation Actions has not been interiorised into Processes.

Verifying that an Intersection of Two Subspaces is a Subspace

Question 4 was focused on showing that the intersection of two subspaces is a subspace. Taking the
intersection of two subspaces can be seen as an Action applied to the vector subspace Object, hence it
requires reasoning associated with an Object conception of a subspace. None of the students’
responses constituted a complete proof, and the written responses provided hints of their difficulties.
Most of the students could state the closure axioms but were not able to check if these were satisfied
for the specific set given.
Student A seemed to be at a loss in trying to identify exactly what the elements of the set should be.
She first drew a Venn diagram as shown in Figure 5, without an explanation.
The problem may have arisen because the question was framed using the formal world, and the
student had difficulty in switching to the algebraic mode associated with Tall’s (2008) symbolic
world. Furthermore, the student wrote S > T [ V etc., indicating that she had difficulties with dis-
tinguishing between sets and elements of sets. Hence, for Student A, the Action of gathering elements
together or identifying elements appears to be not yet developed.
Student E listed the three conditions and further wrote:
Let S = a1 + a2 + a3 and T = b1 + b2 + b3 .
i S is non-empty set
ii a1 + a2 + a3 + b1 + b2 + b3 [ S satisfied.
iii l T [ S; (a1 + a2 + a3 ) [ S ⇒ l a1 + a2 + a3 [ S.
Student E showed confusion between elements of a set and the set itself. He has generated his own
vectors and tried to check the axioms based on these vectors. Student B similarly generated her own
vectors which she assumed belonged to the set R 3 and wrote the following:
For a subspace it must satisfy the following a, b [ R then let u = (x, y, z) and

v = (a, b, c).

Hence students E and B were trying to show that the vector subspace conditions were satisfied for
some specific vectors which they made up. Other unrelated responses included that of student F
who wrote: if polynomial characteristic is expressed in terms of A for example l2 + l = 0
implies A2 + A = 0.
Student C had an idea about what he wanted to accomplish and listed the subspace conditions as if
they were satisfied, as shown in Figure 6.
The ways in which student C used the symbols are appropriate, unlike most of the other students,
and show that some of the Actions (that of set and binary operations) were interiorised into Processes.

Figure 5. Student A’s response to Question 4.

An Exploratory Study on the Understanding of the Vector Subspace Concept 9

Figure 6. Student C’s written response.

However, he was unable to show that the closure axioms were satisfied. The student drew a diagram
(Figure 7) to illustrate S > T , which can be seen as part of the embodied world (Tall, 2008). He did not
go on to present a formal argument that the sum of the vectors and scalar multiple of a vector belonged
to the intersection, to show that the closure axioms were satisfied. Hence it is likely that the Processes
of set and binary operations have not been coordinated into the Process of checking axioms yet. Fur-
thermore, the response from Student C illustrates that he was more comfortable with working in the
embodied world rather than the formal world (Tall, 2008). He was able to provide a geometric represen-
tation of the intersection, but did not progress beyond a mere listing of the conditions to outline the
formal proof of how the closure axioms were satisfied.

Showing that a Set is not a Subspace

Question 2 required students to show that a given set is not a subspace, which we considered as
requiring Object-level reasoning because a student would have to generate a counter-example to
show that one of the subspace conditions was not met. The abstractness of the definition of subspace
forms part of the formal world while the algebraic symbolism used in the question forms part of the sym-
bolic word, hence it may be that students struggled to switch between the different modes (Tall, 2008).
For this question, only one student, D, presented a completely correct solution. The student showed
that the sum of two vectors from the set did not satisfy the condition (that the difference between the
first and second coordinate should be 2) and then concluded that the given set was not a subspace.
Students B and I left Question 2 blank. The other six students were able to list elements of the set as
n-tuples of real numbers. However, the students made many mistakes in trying to show that the set was

Figure 7. Student C’s written response.

10 Lillias Mutambara and Sarah Bansilal

not closed under vector addition. Students A, F, C and J were able to generate the sum u + v of the two
vectors u and v but struggled to show that the sum u + v did not belong to the given set. The respect-
ive students solutions are shown below. Student A wrote:

{a + e, b + f , c + g , d + h:(a − b) + (e − f ) = 2 − 2} implies that

{a + e, b + f , c + g, d + h:(a + e) − (b + f ) = 0} not an element of R 4.

Student F wrote:

{a + x, b + y, c + z, d + t:(a + x) − (b + y) = 2 }[ not a subspace

Student C wrote:

{a + e, b + f , c + g , d + h:(a − b) − (e − f ) = 0?}. Therefore it is not a subspace of R 4.

Student J wrote:

{a + e, b + f , c + g , d + h:(a − b) − (e − f ) = 0}. v + w  S [ it is not a subspace.

The students struggled to show that the condition (difference between the first and second coordinate
must equal 2) was not satisfied for all vector sums. To show that a condition is not always true one
needs to produce a counter-example but these students were unable to do this. The fact that students
C and J were able to define the subspace concept but struggled to show that the closure condition was
not satisfied suggests that these students may have only a Process conception of a vector subspace
concept. Students E and H demonstrated even greater problems. They did not generate the sum of the
vectors. Student E wrote:

{a − x, b − y, c − z , d − w:(a − x), − b + y) = 0} hence it is not subspace.

Student H wrote:

{a, b, c, d: a − b = 2}. It is not empty since a − b = 2 and a = 2 + b. It is a subspace.

Their struggles suggest that students E and H were confused about whether an element belonged to
the subset or not, suggesting that they had not yet interiorised the set Actions into a Process.
Question 2 highlights the importance of being able to link different representations of vectors. Those
who could interpret the given symbolic representation of the vector in terms of its geometric represen-
tation of a vector may have found it easier to see that all the vectors in the set U were not lines that
would go through the origin, hence illustrating that 0 = (0,0,0,0) did not belong to U. Hence students
may have coped more easily if they had the necessary representational versatility enabling them to
make links between the symbolic and the embodied world (Tall, 2008).

Discussion and Concluding Comments

In this paper we suggested a genetic decomposition which focusses on how students might construct
the subspace schema. Their written responses presented some clues about their conceptions. We first
discuss some APOS insights from the study before presenting some suggestions for future teaching.

Insights Arising from the APOS Analysis

This study has shown that even within such a small group, students took on concepts differently with
one student (D) being close to developing Object conceptions, while others had not yet developed
Action conceptions of the prerequisite concepts.
An Exploratory Study on the Understanding of the Vector Subspace Concept 11

The analysis shows that three students, D, C and J, had made progress in understanding the vector
subspace concepts. It is evident that student D was possibly working beyond Process level and was
able to engage with some of the prerequisite concepts using Object-level reasoning. Student D pre-
sented a clear definition of a vector subspace. He was also able to present a coherent explanation
of why the given set in Task 2 was not a subspace, by showing that the given set was not closed
under the binary operation of vector addition. His reasoning about the non-closure is characteristic
of an Object conception of Set and that of the binary operation of vector addition. However, student
D’s responses did not show attention to the closure condition of scalar multiplication. This axiom
was left out in Tasks 3 and 5 and this suggests a gap in his Schema development of vector subspaces.
It may be that he just ignored the scalar multiplication binary operation; however, this illustrates a weak-
ness in his axiom Schema. He also did not respond to Question 4, which required him to show that the
intersection of two subspaces is a subspace, suggesting that he may not have yet been completely
comfortable with some aspects of Object-level reasoning.
The response from students C and J indicated that some Actions had been interiorised into Pro-
cesses: for example, they were both able to generate the sums of two vectors, and the scalar multiple
of a vector, showing that they had conceived of both binary operations as Processes. However, they
were not able to show that the axioms for closure of the two binary operations were satisfied,
suggesting that they had not encapsulated the binary operations. The responses of these two students
to Question 4 confirmed that they were limited to conceiving binary operations as Processes. Student
C’s response to Question 4 suggests that he did not have access to Object level reasoning to enable
him to argue that S > T would be closed under the two binary operations. He did not deduce that, if
u, v [ S > T , then u, v [ S and u, v [ T which implies that u + v [ S and u + v [ T ,
[u + v [ S > T . The response of Student J to Question 4 showed that he too could not explain
why S > T would be closed under the two binary operations. Hence for students C and J it is likely
that the binary operations had not yet been encapsulated into Objects. Furthermore, Student J’s
responses suggested that he too had not interiorised the Action conception of set into a Process,
because he was unable to distinguish between a set and the elements of a set. His problems with
understanding the notation of sets hampered his efforts to develop fluent proofs about the vector sub-
space conditions.
Student A in her response to Question 1 showed that she was not clear about what needed to be
checked with respect to the sum of the two vectors, suggesting that she had not yet interiorised the
binary operation as a Process. Student E may have constructed the binary operation of vector addition
as an Action; however, his responses to Items 2 and 3 do not provide any evidence of the Set concept
having been interiorised into a Process.
Students B, F, G, H and I seemed to be experiencing the ‘fog’ (Carlson, 1993) in mixing up the nota-
tion of polynomial functions, linear independence, linear transformation, sets and vectors. It is clear that
their weak Action (and sometimes not even Action) conceptions hampered them from engaging prop-
erly with the notion of vector subspace and they may need to be taught these concepts again.
These differences between the individual conceptions of concepts demonstrate that each student
develops their own cognitive pathway in learning a mathematics concept that is a function of their
own prior conceptions. Despite having been exposed to the same instruction, the 10 students were
at different stages of conceptual development. Hence it is important that instructors ensure that they
do not focus solely on the highly abstract but should also consider the requirements of those students
who need to engage with more concrete examples.

Reflections about the Instructional Environment

Overall, the items on which the students performed most poorly were Questions 2 and 4, both of which
required reasoning associated with an Object conception of Vector Subspace. Nobody produced a
coherent proof for Question 4 (intersection of subspaces) while only one student proved that the set
in Question 2 was not a subspace. Question 4 required the use of logic associated with set theoretic
proofs which is characteristic of the formal world (Tall, 2008). Deriving these proofs is very different
from carrying out the matrix algebra procedures and calculations encountered typically in a matrix
12 Lillias Mutambara and Sarah Bansilal

algebra course (Stewart, 2018; Wawro et al., 2011; Mutambara & Bansilal, 2018) and students find
these abstractions arising from the formal world particularly difficult to manage. Hence it may be
helpful for students if these conventions and assumptions associated with the formal world (Tall,
2008) are unpacked as part of the linear algebra course.
Another issue identified in this study was the difficulty of working within and across Tall’s (2008) three
worlds. Student C, in his response to Question 4, was able to provide a geometric representation but
did not provide a formal proof, suggesting that he found it easier to work within the embodied rather
than the formal world. For Question 2, students would have arrived at the solution easily if they had
been able to make links between the algebraic representation and the geometric interpretation, corre-
sponding to the symbolic and embodied worlds respectively. Stewart (2018) presented a collection of
activities which are strategically designed to facilitate nine different kinds of movements in embodied,
symbolic and formal worlds (Tall, 2008): exposure to such tasks may be useful to help students make
links between these different worlds.
The responses also showed that the students struggled with the prerequisite concepts of set, binary
operations and checking the closure axioms. Students were unable to distinguish between a set and its
elements, indicating that set was not even constructed as an Action yet, a problem which has been
identified in previous studies (Bansilal et al., 2017). Similarly, with binary operations, many students
could not carry out a binary operation on two elements to produce another element. Given that the con-
struction of binary operations and set as Objects are necessary for the axioms, vector space and vector
subspace Schema, the data suggests that these students had not consolidated the prerequisite con-
cepts of binary operations and set, thus compromising the development of the aforementioned
Schema. The students’ serious errors with Actions on binary operations and sets suggest that not
enough attention had been given to consolidating the Actions. If sufficient attention is not devoted to
developing the concrete Actions, then the abstractions that should emerge from reflecting on these
Actions are compromised because the fundamental Actions have simply not been recognised.
Hence a pedagogic suggestion arising from this study is that students are given many opportunities
to work with different sets and different types of binary operations, enabling them to routinise the
Action of carrying out the binary operations on sets.
In conclusion, this study has shown that, even within such a small group, students conceived con-
cepts differently, with only one student being close to developing an Object conception, while others
were not yet able to work at Action level with the concepts. Interpreting students’ difficulties in terms
of the genetic decomposition not only revealed weaknesses in the students’ understanding but also
points to instructional implications that could provide guidance for the design of similar courses.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Note

1. Note that the terms Schema, concept and conception are somewhat different. Within APOS theory, a Schema is
a collection of mental constructions and the relationships between these while a concept refers to a ‘communal’
or ‘collective understanding’ of something. A ‘conception’ is an ‘individual’s idea or understanding’ of a concept
(Arnon et al., 2014, p. 18).

ORCID

Lillias Mutambara http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6135-8036

Sarah Bansilal http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5445-5612

References

Anton, H. (2010). Elementary linear algebra. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
An Exploratory Study on the Understanding of the Vector Subspace Concept 13

Arnon, I., Cottrill, J., Dubinsky, E., Oktac, A., Fuentes, S.R., Trigueros, M., & Weller, K. (2014). APOS theory. A fra-
mework for research and curriculum development in mathematics education. New York: Springer.
Bansilal, S., Brijlall, D., & Trigueros, M. (2017). An APOS study on pre-service teachers’ understanding of injections
and surjections. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 48, 22–37.
Britton, S., & Henderson, J. (2009). Linear algebra revisited. An attempt to understand students conceptual difficul-
ties. International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science and Technology, 40(7), 963–974.
Carlson, D. (1993). Teaching linear algebra: Must the fog always roll in? College Mathematics Journal, 24(1), 29–40.
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. 85–125). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Hillel, J. (2000). The teaching of linear algebra in question. In J.-L. Dorier (Ed.), Modes of description and the
problem of representation in linear algebra (pp. 191–207). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Kazunga, C. & Bansilal, S. (2018). Misconceptions about determinants. In S. Stewart, C. Andrews-Larson, A.
Berman & M. Zandieh (Eds.), Challenges and strategies in teaching linear algebra (pp. 127–145). New York:
Springer.
Mutambara, L.H., & Bansilal, S. (2018). Dealing with the abstraction of vector space concepts. In S. Stewart, C.
Andrews-Larson, A. Berman & M. Zandieh (Eds.),Challenges and strategies in teaching linear algebra (pp.
147–173). New York: Springer.
Ndlovu, Z., & Brijlall, D. (2015). Pre-service teachers’ mental constructions of concepts in matrix algebra. African
Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(2), 156–171.
Parraguez, M., & Oktaç, A. (2010). Construction of the vector space concept from view point of APOS theory. Linear
Algebra and its Applications, 432(8), 2112–2124.
Piaget, J., & Garcia, R. (1989). Psychogenesis and the history of science (H. Felder, trans.). New York: Columbia
University Press. (Original work published in 1983.)
Stewart, S. (2018). Moving between the embodied, symbolic and formal worlds of mathematical thinking with
specific linear algebra tasks. In S. Stewart, C. Andrews-Larson, A. Berman & M. Zandieh (Eds.), Challenges
and strategies in teaching linear algebra (pp. 51–67). New York: Springer.
Tall, D.O. (2008). The transition to formal thinking in mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20(2),
5–24.
Wawro, M., Sweeney, G., & Jeffrey, M. (2011). Subspace in linear algebra: Investigating students’ concept images
and interactions with the formal definition. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 78(1), 1–19.