Cognitive development of vectors as forces in mechanics

and process and concept in mathematics

Panayotis Spyrou David Tall Anna Watson

Department of Mathematics Mathematics Education Research Centre Kenilworth School
University of Athens University of Warwick Kenilworth
Panepistimiopolis Coventry CV4 7AL, UK CV8 2DA, UK
GR 157 84 Greece [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]

The main scope of this article is to investigate student

understanding of vectors. The investigation took place in the
environment of mechanics in which the students have a more
natural contact with the concept of vector as an enactive concept.
We analyse how students seem to conceptualise the underlying
ideas both in terms of the physical aspects of displacement, force,
and other vector concepts, and the corresponding analysis in terms
of the use of mathematical symbolism as both process and concept.
The former is already well-founded in science education research,
the latter is analysed in terms of the notion of procept (Gray &
Tall, 1994, 2001). We propose a theoretical analysis of the
situations and we confirm facts by tests and interviews. The
research was conducted in the Sixth Form Centre at Kenilworth
School in Spring of 2001. Forty eight students responded to a
conceptual questionnaire and six of these were selected for in-
depth clinical interviews.
INTRODUCTION
Mechanics occupies the interface between physics and mathematics. It builds on
our perceptions of and interactions with the outside world, giving sensori-motor
and visuospatial aspects that underpin our mathematical conceptions.
Research into the understanding of mechanics began in science education:
The great wealth of information and comment about students understanding
of mechanics concepts has been produced virtually exclusively by science
educators. Orton, (1985, p. 8)
Science educators were aware that understanding vectors was essential for a
students scientific development:
A lack of understanding of the general nature of vector quantities may restrict
students from the further understanding of wide range of physics topics.
Hawkins (1978, p.?)
The main focus of attention in science education was on students conceptual
frameworks and their cognitive development. For instance, Aguirre and Ericson

This paper was presented at

(1984) investigated students conceptions of a kinematic vector quantity and
represented their findings as a conceptual network. They suggested:
Teachers could [...] build upon students intuitions (developed through
experience in everyday settings) by relating these intuitions to the more formal
problem settings in the scientific domain. Aguirre & Erickson (1984, p 440)
However, in the long-term, the promise of solving students difficulties by such
an approach do not seem to be fully realised:
even various attempts at classifying student conceptions have been by and
large unsuccessful [... ]. A taxonomy of students conceptions may be
impossible because the considerations of misconceptions require a specific
regard for the framework from which the misconception occur [...] and how
misconception is linked to the other forms of reasoning.
Rowlands, Graham & Berry (1999, p 247).
If we seek in a particular direction and do not find what we are looking for, then
it may be sensible to look somewhere else. Our goal here is not simply to
perform an analysis of a concept such as a vector. Our focus is on performing
an analysis of the cognitive growth of such a concept. For instance, Aguirre and
Ericksons idea of building upon students intuitions seems self-evident.
However, learning is more than that. In addition to knowing about student
intuitions, telling us where students come from, we also need to analyse where
their learning needs to go to. For the act of teaching is more than simply
allowing students to build on their intuitions, it also involves guidance as to the
central ideas that need to be the future focus of attention. Performing an analysis
of students conceptions of such things as force, displacement, translation,
velocity, acceleration and vector, we will find a wide range of differing
experiences which can lead to impediments to learning. As an example,
consider The motion of
In this paper, therefore, we wish to re-consider the intuitive bases of student
knowledge and to carry it through to the cognitive development of the
mathematical ideas themselves. For an expert mathematician, the notion of
vector seems eminently simple. A coordinate representation enables technical
calculations to be made using matrix algebra, and a formal definition can be
given in a list of axioms. However, the cognitive journey to formal definitions
and technical calculations takes the student through a variety of experiences in
which the students need to focus their thoughts on important generative
properties without being misled by distractions in the specific detail. This leads
us to focus on the nature of what is required mathematically in the concept of
vector and the cognitive resources that are available to students to accomplish
the task.
Mathematically a vector may be introduced as a quantity having magnitude
and direction. A symbol such as AB dually represents two different aspectsa
process of translation from A to B and the corresponding concept of vector. The

2
vector can be represented both enactively and visually as an arrow with a
starting point (or tail) at A and a finishing point (or nose) at B.
The duality of symbol as process and concept is described using the term
procept (Gray & Tall, 1994). This idea is embedded in a range of theoretical
developments relating mental process and mental object (Davis, 1975, Dienes,
1960, Dubinsky, 1991, Piaget, , Sfard, 1991) which we shall use to analyse the
mathematical concept of vector. On the other hand, the physical idea of a vector
as an arrow may be described using the notion of embodied object (Gray & Tall,
2001), based on the embodied theory of Lakoff and his colleagues (Lakoff,
198?, Lakoff and Johnson, 1980, 1999, Lakoff and Nunez, 2000) and fitting
well with an increasingly sophisticated meaning following a van Hiele type
development (van Hiele, 1986). These two ideasembodied object and
proceptare two complementary types of mathematical concept essentially
equivalent to the structural and operational duality of Sfard (1991). They are
re-presentations of the original theory of Piaget in which empirical abstraction
occurs by abstracting properties of objects by acting upon them to give
embodied objects, whilst pseudo-empirical abstraction focuses on the actions
themselves which are symbolised and encapsulated as procepts.
There is a third development, focusing now not on the properties of objects
or the properties of symbols as procepts, but focusing simply on properties
themselves in axiomatic form to build formal mathematical theories in advanced
mathematical thinking. In the development of the vector concept, this
corresponds to the formal notion of vector space over an arbitrary field.

The embodied underpinnings of mechanics

Problem solving in mechanics incorporates many different concepts and
demands various abilities of understanding by students. They need knowledge
of concepts in physics and from mathematics, including trigonometry and
vector calculus. Freudenthal argued:
Among the sciences, mechanics is the closest to mathematics, in particular to
geometry. Freudenthal (1993, p 72).
He also saw mechanics as a key area for introducing mathematical thinking into
real world situations:
A key concept in nowadays views on mathematical invention is
mathematising, which means, turning a non mathematical matter into
mathematics, or a mathematically underdeveloped matter into more distinct
mathematics Freudenthal, (ibid, 72).
Kitchen, Savage & William (1997, p 165) advocate that mechanics should be
seen not only as the natural partner of Pure Mathematics but also an essential
grounding for understanding modelling. Crighton argued from a similar
viewpoint:

3
 Of all the fields to which one might wish to apply mathematics mechanics has
the strongest claim to a very prominent place in syllabuses for mathematics in
U.K schools and universities. Crighton (1985, p 10)
Research into student understanding in these areas initially began in science
education:
The great wealth of information and comment about students understanding
of mechanics concepts has been produced virtually exclusively by science
educators. This seemed to suggest that it was all the more important that
teachers of mathematics should be made more aware of the difficulties their
students were experiencing in learning mechanics. Orton, (1985, p 8)
In this paper we wish to build on the physical experiences and interpretations of
ideas in mechanics, focusing particularly on the notion of vector, and build a
corresponding theory of cognitive development from a mathematical viewpoint.

THE PECULIARITIES OF MECHANICS

In order to describe the physical phenomenon, we have to deal first with
physical concepts through which we construct our physical model and then
transfer our formulation into a mathematical model. Crighton (1985) sees the
distinction between the two different models involved in mechanics as being
essential for the understanding of physics.
It is to be noted that the interaction involving the real world is always with
the scientific model, and that involving mathematics is between the
mathematical model and the scientific model. The term scientific model
refers here to a comprehensive set of idealizations and abstractions from the
real world, comprising well defined quantities amenable to experimental
measurement and comprising also the basic laws relating this quantities. In
classical mechanics, for example, the scientific model comprises the notions
of mass, momentum, energy, angular momentum [] and the basic laws are
simply Newtons laws, supplemented with other general laws where
appropriate.
Crighton (1985, 11)
The initial translation of the real-world problem into a conceptual idealization
may make gross simplifications of the original to be able to formulate a solvable
mathematical model, as in the following excerpt:
Mechanics is concerned with the motion of objects and in many cases is rather
complicated. Take, for example, the motion of a leaf falling to the ground.
To start such problem we simplify it, considering first the motion along
straight line. We ignore any rotation and follow the path of some point in or
on the object. This is very important simplification in mechanics. A point
object is called a particle. It is a mathematical idealization of an object in
which all the matter of the object is assumed to occupy a single point in space.
The particle has a mass of the object but no dimension.
Berry, Graham, Holland & Porkess (1994, p 10)
This is the first of three stages in the modelling strategy:

4
 The problem of mathematical modeling consists of three main stages; we
make a problem set in the real world and first formulate it as a mathematical
problem; this together with any assumptions made is the mathematical model.
The mathematical problem is then solved and finally the solution is translated
back into the original context so that the results produced by the model can be
interpreted and used to help the real problem. (Berry & Houston, p.1)
The translation of a real world problem into a symbolic mathematical problem,
allows a mathematical solution to be sought through the manipulation of
mathematical symbols and the solution taken back to the real world context.
However, before the translation into mathematics a requi In case of mechanics
the translation from the real world to symbolism of mathematics pass via the
physical model.

VECTORS
The main mathematical tool in mechanics is the concept of vector with
everything this concept presupposes; it encompasses the idea of a translation
with magnitude and direction, the geometrical idea of the xy plane,
trigonometry (including the use of positive and negative angles), and algebraic
manipulation. Vectors are essential for the construction of mathematical models
in physics and in many others topics in science. Harel (1991) suggested that
vectors in high school can be used to lay the foundations for a good introduction
to the understanding of linear algebra.
The concept of the vector is subtle in meaning. It was developed as recently
as the nineteenth century. The addition of forces using the parallelogram law
was generated in mechanics by students of Fourier and Prony at the cole
Polytechnique, about 1803 (Grattan-Guiness, 1997, p 439). The idea of vector
was implicit in the work of Grassmann in 1844 (ibid., p 423). Maxwell extended
the use of vectors explicitly in electricity and magnetism in 1870 (ibid p 635).
The full concept of vector space was introduced by Gibbs in his Elements of
Vector Analsis in 1881 (ibid, p. 635, Wills, 1931). This furnished the concept of
vector with a coherent algebraic structure. It was used in a systematic way by
Weyl (1918).
The first presentation of vectors in schools may be given in various ways,
such as the translation of objects in space or in terms of a journey between two
points symbolised in the form of an arrow. The text *** (19??) used in
Kenilworth School begins the study of vectors with three distinct
representations.
x
translations described using column vectors, [] 6
y
1
6
with the column vector meaning 6 units in the
1
positive x direction and 1 unit in the positive y direction. 1
6

5
 an alternative notion which can be used to describe the
translation is AB representing where A is the starting B
point and B is the finishing point. [] The lines with A
arrows are called directed line segments and show a
unique length and direction
a third way to way to describe a translation is to use
a
single letters such as a . Translations are referred to
simply as vectors. [] [Each vector] has a unique length
and direction ...

Piaget (1966, p 157) describes the understanding of the distance using the
idea of the childs journey from the point A to B as AB. The understanding of
conservations of the length, the equality of AB with BA are not obvious in the
first stage (Piaget & Inhelerd & Sieminska 1960, part two). The schools books
represent the vector as an arrow, which refers to this idea of journey. The idea
of the journey constitutes a kind of metaphor (Pimm ,1988, Tall 1997).
Forest (2000, p 271-3) attempts an understanding of the vector under the
idea of the procept of Gray & Tall. The writer observes vector magnitude was
introduced in a real-world context that grounded the concept in the phenomenon
of distance.....The mathematical concepts perceived as static objects separate
from the processes that generate them, that is permanent entities in their own
right which can be operated on . She advocated a dynamic perception in terms
of processes on the objects as is suggested by the idea in proceptual thinking
(Gray & Tall 1994) which is focused on the interpretation of the symbols.
Nevertheless the approaching in order to understand the vector as a procept
should become a more sophisticated way that employs the idea of embodied
objects with the meaning of Gray & Tall (2000). The employment of spatial
perception for the understanding of geometrical concepts is older (Bishop 1980,
Bender & Schreiber 1980, Glen Lean & Clements 1981, Clements & Battista
1992) but deals with general description and does not help to the abstractive
mechanism of the advanced mathematical thinking. The idea of embodied
concept is joined by the procept, given by Gray & Tall (2000). They argue for
the lack of such understanding as a cause of some epistemological obstacles:
We take the notion of embodied object to begin with the mental
conception of a physical object in the world as perceived through the senses.
If we see the vector as an embodied object (Gray & Tall, 2000) that is
provided by many different procedures of body experience so it has the dynamic
character of a procept (Gray & Tall, 1994). But in order for the body experience
to transform into concept it needs to be an intervention of prototypes as Tall &
all refer, see Fig 1.

6
 Fig 1. From perceptual & procedural to formal mathematics
The prototypes is comprehensive as (Malt, 1999, p 333)The idea that there is
some core part of meaning that is invariant across all contexts or instances of a
category offers a useful solution to this problem in principle, but in practice,
cores for many words may be difficult or impossible to identify, just as were
defining features.
For instance, that the meaning of the word line is subtly different in each of
many different contexts (e.g., standing in line, crossing the line, typing a
line of text and that the variants are constructed at the time of hearing/reading
the word from some core meaning of the word in the combination with the
context in which it occurs.
The prototype approach, though, in proposing that meaning is much boarder
set of features with varying strengths of association to the word, opens the
possibility that individuals will differ from another in the features that they
represent and the strength of the associations to the word.
Bender & Schreiber (1980) attempting an understanding of spatial and
organizing spatial phenomena and especially the formation of concepts in
geometry they used the more primitive idea of norm instead of that of prototype
and they argue that the geometrical shapes as:
The genesis of concepts like straight line, circle, cylinder, plane,
orthogonal, parallel, is not complete if based mere contemplation or
reproduction of such forms. In fact, these concepts are not found as such in
nature, but exist first as ideas in man, who caries them into the physical world
for his own purposes. (p. 60).
The writers deem important the social purposes that are performed by
operations on the geometrical concepts and they give as an example of analysis
the geometric function of the brick:
It should fit copies into itself, it should fit into the gravitational field, it should
fit into the human hand...
From these considerations we derive the norm for bricks: A brick must
have parallel plane sides, these pairs being orthogonal to each other. Thus the
concept, the Quader [a type of brick] has been generated by ideation,
involving the concepts plane, parallel, and orthogonal...

7
 Thousands of years of practice have proved this form of brick to be most
expedient one for the purpose of constructing walls. (p. 61)
Under such a point of view the position of Bender & Schreiber (ibid, 61), about
the ideation that seems the difference of the Platonic idealization:
By ideation we mean, roughly speaking, procedures which lead, via norms,
to (a system of) concepts (ideas) being used as if those norms held. This means
essentially that the ideas are not gathered from reality, but conceived on their
own and then carried into it.
The segment as an initial idea of the magnitude and connection with the
number and the manipulation of numbers there is in Euclids Elements, where
the number is represented by a segment and all the operations on numbers are
represented by operations on segments. At the point we can do the observation
that the idea of a journey precedes of that of segment. The journey has starting
and end and in any case I trace a segment I have to start from a point. There are
many possible procedures to trace a journey from A to B. In the plane the
journey is single but I can trace by different pencils.
We can go from A to B but we can take in the journey AB through another
point S and we can do the journey AS and prolong SB. These two different
procedures are equivalent with respect of their result. They sum up in a process
producing the journey starting at A and ending at B and I would symbolize it as
AB. Alternatively I can trace a journey starting from one random point and give
it the name A and finish in a point that I name B.
The set of such equivalent procedures constitutes the process that
encapsulates the concrete object segment AB. So the segment AB does not has
in my brain an isolated position as a platonic rigid object but represent an
enactive hypostasis under which I have constructed for myself.
In my mind I can act by many procedures trying different combinations to
perform an operations on the set of journeys of the type AB. I can prolong the
journey AB with BC. I can construct the angle ABC to be various numbers of
degrees from 0 to 360, as I have decided about a rule for the accounting of the
angles. I can continue over of 360 to 400 or 3x360 etc. I can observe the
equivalence between the angles 30 and 360 + 30.
All this possible procedures are given with the comprehension of the concept
of the vector and are folded under the symbol of AB with an arrow.
The vector is a journey with a length and direction but, as journey, it has a
starting point as well.
We understand vector as an enactive concept that has encapsulated the
possible operations we can do on segments and on angles. In order to complete
the concept of the vector we need the sophisticated idea of coordinates and xy
plane. The algebraic notion of a plane vector starts by the concept of the order
pair, and we need render to it symbol (j, k) and we recognize it by this symbol.
Actions can performed on the ordered pairs (or triples) with respect of their
coordinates. This idea of coordinates should be imposed on our first

8
spontaneous idea of vector as a journey. The reducing on the axis is also an
enactive description and understanding, by projection of its point to axes. So the
concept vector contains a series of encapsulation and constitutes a multiple
Spectrum of Outcomes

To DO To perform To THINK
routine mathematics about
mathematics flexibily & mathematics
accurately efficiently symbolically

Procept
Process(es)
Procedure(s)

Progress
Process
Procedure(s)

Procedure Sophistication
of development

Figure 1: A spectrum of performance in using mathematical procedures, processes, procepts

procept as Gray & Tall has described in Fig 2.

Fig 2. A spectrum of performance in the carrying out of mathematical

processes
The theory of embodied object is discoursed with respect of the procept.
Gray & Tall (2000) write:
For several years we have been homing in on three distinct types of conceptin
mathematics. One is the embodied object, as in geometry and graphs that
begin with physical foundations and steadily develop more abstract mental
pictures through the subtle hierarchical use of language. Another is the
symbolic procept which acts seamlessly to switch from a mental concept to
manipulate to an often unconscious process to carry out using an
appropriate cognitive algorithm. The third is an axiomatic object in advanced
mathematical thinking where verbal/symbolical axioms are used as a basis for
a logically constructed theory.

Therefore in case of vector we have in the first level the procept of a journey
which encapsulate all possible actions of tracing under which I understand the

9
concept of a journey with a constant length, direction and starting point. In a
second level the concept of journey constitute an object under my possible
reification with the meaning of Sfard (1991). I can see a set of vectors on which
we can apply the operation of sum by many different procedures and I can
constitute the additive group of vectors. The sum of vectors needs the
parallelogram law, operation on angles and all notions that we use in
trigonometry. The trigonometric concepts and the operations on them is another
multi - procept that should encapsulate in the sum of vectors. By a modification
of the initial Fig 2 of Gray & Tall we attempt a description of this multi
development by the Fig 3.

Fig 3. A development of the multi procept of the vector.

Another operation that demands a mental experiment as well is the

multiplication by a number, scalar multiplication. In this case we have the
meaning of vector space as a field.

After understanding of the vector as a procept in the xy plane and as a

position of a concrete point we can go to the concept of the free vector.

10
 The concept of free vector gives the advantage to have the vectors as a
concept with the algebraic structures of field.
In this concept we hold the characteristic of the length and the direction by a
vector, the idea of the order pair (or n-ple) but no the starting point.
In the book of Mardsden & Tromba (1996, p. 6) we see the Fig 4 as a nice
description of the idea of the free vector.

Fig 4. A physical interpretation of vector addition.

For an easily visualized example, consider a bird or an airplane flying

through the air with velocity v1, but in the presence of a wind with velocity v2.
The resultant velocity, v1 + v2, is what one sees.

Therefore the vector with origin is a generic to the concept of free vector
with the meaning of Harel & Tall (1991).

FORCES

The understanding of Newtonian system of mechanics should be understood

the meaning of force, Warren (1979, p 25). The concept of force plays a
fundamental role and Freudenthal (1993, p 74) refers:

Among the fundamental magnitudes in mechanics ... are not likely to offer
big problems either. As such let me mention frequency, speed, even
acceleration, but also density (which I will recommend as an access towards
mass). What regards force, one has, in first instance, to contend with the
everyday ( semantic troubles, which are a well) known linguistic feature; but in

11
the language of physics the meaning of force has been settled only after
centuries long hesitations, and even now such forces as the centrifigural one are
kept alive, albeit with the adjective apparent.

The concept of the force has been understood under many difficulties in the
history of sciences. It is well known the main obstacle of non understanding by
Aristotle of inertia that has lasted into middle ages.

The meaning of force, as a concept arises by many muscle experiences

(Freudenthal ibid). It is provided by our actions in the world of life
(Freudenthal ibid, 73). In the concept of the force we encapsulate all these
varies procedures by which we experience the forces of actions and reactions on
the environment and we recognize it as weight, friction, pull, push etc. It is an
embodied concept (Gray & Tall, 2000) provided by many different procedures
of body experience.
The understanding the metaphor of forces should be under the modeling of
mechanics and with comparison of mathematical modeling that is involved.
There are a lot of misconceptions by students and teachers in the case of
mechanics as we can see in the literature. For many years research has dealt
with problems of understanding of forces from the science education point of
view (Williams 1985, Brown 1989, Kruger & Palacio & Summers 1992, Thijs
1992, Bar & Zinn & Goldmuntz & Sneider 1994, Palmer & Flanagan 1997,
Shymansky and al 1997) as well as with respect of a Computer environment
Tao & Gustone 1999. Rowlands & al proposed understanding of forces as a
demand that should remove the strict definitions and they employ the idea of
schemas as more flexible cognitive category.

In the research of vectors in the secondary school there is very little mention
with respect of conceptual thinking from mathematical point of view. The main
meeting with the concept of vector in overall syllabus starts in mechanics.
Aguirre and Erickson (1984) research the understanding of vector from physical
point of view and confront the ideas of students in which the mathematical
concept entangle with the physical concepts. They suggest teachers could [...]
built upon students intuitions (developed through experience in everyday
settings) by relating these intuitions to the more formal problem settings in the
scientific domain. (p 440)
Nevertheless the networks of the vector concepts that they produce after
investigation does not show any indication of mathematical concept of vector.
In their point of view vector is intertwined with vector magnitudes, which are
more difficult to understand in spite of real experience of them. Rowlands &
Graham & Berry (1999) observed that even various attempts at classifying
student conceptions has been by a large unsuccessful [... ]. A taxonomy of

12
students conceptions may be impossible because the considerations of
misconceptions require a specific regard for the framework from which the
misconception occur [...] and how misconception is linked to the other forms
of reasoning (p 247). The main reasoning that can produce a lot of
misunderstanding is forgotten and this is the clear mathematical knowledge of
vector. Hawkins (1978) says:
a lack of understanding of the general nature of vector quantities may
restrict students from the further understanding of wide range of physics
topics.
We agree with the idea of Aguirre & Erickson that teachers should built on
students experiences of real world but on the other hand we believe that the
mathematical tools should be made more explicit. According the former
researchers:
Teachers and curriculum materials may tacitly assume that students
naturally recognize the need for the use of a common reference point of
framework in vector analysis, in other contexts at least, this assumption may
not be warranted.
The method differs from the global approaching of Aguirre & Erickson and
Rowlands & al as well. The method of Aguirre & Erickson and the given data
does not lead to discover the mathematical understanding of vector. The
involving of vector in the general schemas (Rowlands & al) of all associative
concepts of vector magnitudes confuses the understanding with more obscure
concepts. On the other hand a clear mathematical understanding of vector
constructs the presupposition for the understanding of the vector magnitudes.
The physical models are simplifications of real situations. In mathematical
formulations these simplifications take a more clear form.

The table of Aguirre & Erickson :

Fig 5. General network for a kinematic vector quantity.

13
A non-clear perception of the mathematical idea of vector that we have is not
available to any abstraction because it is not focused on the specific properties
of the pure mathematical concept of the vector.

An abstraction process occurs when the subject focuses attention on specific

properties of a given object and then considers these properties in isolation from
the original. This might be done, for example, to understand the essence of a
certain phenomenon, perhaps later to be able to apply the same theory in other
case to which it applies. (Harel & Tall, 1991)

Our investigation is scrutinized by the idea of procept (Gray & Tall 1994),
and shows that the lack of fundamental mathematical concepts leads to
misunderstanding of physical concepts as well.
The idea of procept reduces the understanding of a concept to the set of
equivalent procedures that constitute the process of construction in the mind of
that concept and the symbol by which it is evoked. This cognitive category
gives us the possibility to confront analytically the construction of the concepts
by their decomposition to elementary actions on the objects of real world. For
Gray & Tall:

An elementary procept is the amalgam of three components: A process

which produces a mathematical object, and a symbol which is used to represent
either process or object.
A procept consists of a collection of elementary procepts which have the
same object (Gray & Tall 1994).

THE DESIGN OF THE INVESTIGATION

This perception causes a lot of methodological problems due to the lack of
investigation of vectors from mathematical point of view as well as by
deficiency of a proceptual approaching of the concept.
Numerous intervening factors must be acknowledged. The first is the role of
the student and the instructor in the classroom. The philosophy in the school is
that students should be actively engaged in doing mathematics. Student effort
and dedication to the course is a second intervening variable. Students chose
their favorite subjects at A level but despite this they have varying levels of
commitment to the academic excellence with respect to study of mathematics.
The third intervening factor is the implemented curriculum. Students study a
new A level course AQA syllabus B.
This initial investigation has as supplementary target investigation of a strict
methodology for the proceptual study of vector. The purpose of this study is to
make and test hypotheses about nature of students processes of constructing,
organizing, and assimilating new knowledge into their existing cognitive
constructs.

14
 Hypotheses
1. Understanding vector as a multi procept.
2. Problems in employing an appropriate system of axons in case of sloping
plane.
3. The competence in performance of mathematical modeling has influence
in solving problems in mechanics.
4. Problem of students to translate a verbal formulation to a workable model.
5. Students see the mathematical concept of vector implicitly in the vector
magnitudes.
6. Lack in understanding of fundamental concepts of mathematics has
influence in the understanding of physical concepts.

Methods of data collection included course test. Quantitative data were

analysed to identify areas of focus. Qualitative methods and data (clinical
interviews with individual students) added depth and detail to the quantitative
studies. The test also provided a method of categorizing students into more able
and less able.
Tests were designed to provide the opportunity of testing factors that already
exist such as their cognitive preferences, and concept images constructed
appropriately and inappropriately. This refers to students understanding of
concepts necessary to solve problems in mechanics and building mathematical
models connected with this problems (concept of angle, trigonometry, algebra
as far as solving equations, analytical geometry and operation on vector).
Students in their first year of the A level course deal, both in physics and in
mathematics, with the experiments involving forces. They are also presented
with the Video films designed especially for the mechanics course and based on
the mechanics in the theme park with different rides.
These experiences help students to develop real representations of all these
enactive concepts that occur in physics and mechanics.
It seemed sensible in this new area of research to set the test in the
framework which students have become familiar with.
The questions involve forces acting on a particle or a mass. In the first
question students had to deal with forces acting on a particle and being in
equilibrium. In this case the physical model coincides to the mathematical
model. In the second question we have a mass on a sloping plane. The students
had to understand and describe the physical model, and find the appropriate
mathematical model in order to solve the problem. There are other questions
testing students ability to interpret verbal formulation into a physical problem.
Using the test as starting point we initiated interviews with students. We
have conducted separate interviews with six volunteer of different ability levels.
Questions focused on students understanding of the fundamental notions of the
vector as a pure mathematical concept and the vector with respect of vector
magnitudes, especially with forces.

15
 According to Ginsburg
There is, in effect, no one clinical method; there are three, each designed for a
different research purpose. [...] [T]he clinical interviews effectiveness needs
to be evaluated. We must deal with such issues as the extend to which
verbalizations (reflections) yield insight into thinking, the reliability of the
method, individual differences in interviewer skill and style, and the uses of
the clinical interview in educational practice.
Working under Ginsburgs theoretical outlook, the persistence and repetition
style (where necessary) of interviewing has been chosen for this research
purpose. The style was considered to be most suitable as the interviewer is also
the teacher of students and she felt more comfortable with this style at this stage
of investigation.

RESULTS
Quantitative data results.
All 48 students who took the same test are A level students. Thirty of them
have studied Pure Mathematics and Mechanics since September 2000 and are in
the Lower Sixth and 18 are in the Upper Sixth and have studied Pure
Mathematics and Mechanics since September 1999.
The test was first evaluated according to the usual marking schemes used by
schools and examination boards.
The mean result for the Upper Sixth student was 57% with standard
deviation of 24%. The mean result for the Lower Sixth students was 61% with
standard deviation of 25%. Two groups had different teachers.
The test was then evaluated according to different indicators.
In the question, which tested mathematical modeling performance, the
indicators were the ability in: using trigonometry, building and solving
algebraic equations, vector analysis. Evaluating the physical model additional
indicators were the ability to: describe the forces, fitting mathematical model
into physical model, manipulate vectors when finding the resultant force. Next
two questions tested students ability of understanding physical model through a
verbal formulation.
In the first question students did not have to deal with the physical model.
This question has indicated students problem in mathematical modeling and
performance. In both groups 17% of students had a problem with applying their
knowledge of trigonometry, however 43% of students in the Lower Sixth and
50% of students in the Upper Sixth had difficulties in formulating or solving
algebraic equations. 23% of students in the Lower Sixth and 16% in the Upper
Sixth had problems in resolving vectors into two components (vertical and
horizontal).
Out of 48 students 12.5 % of students had a problem with describing forces
and 58% of students did not manage to manipulate vectors when finding the
resultant force. These problems were investigated further during the interviews.

16
From the tests there was a correlation of 0.69 between students competence in
performance of mathematical modeling and problem solving in mechanics
(hypothesis 3). Introducing an angle to the question in the form of sloping
plane, caused a problem to many students. They could not so easily apply
system of axons to the problem and the correlation between the question set
without the slope and with the slope is 0.43 (hypothesis 2).
This point was further verified through the interviews.
The correlation between the same kind of problem, where the second one
was given in the verbal form is 0.24. This would indicate that students had
A problem in translating a verbal formulation to a workable physical model
(hypothesis 4).

Qualitative data

Conclusions and perspectives

REFERENCES
Aguirre, J. & Erickson G. (1984), Students conceptions about the vector characteristics of
three physics concepts, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(5), 439457.
Bar, B., Zinn, B., & Goldmuntz,INITIAL (1994). Childrens Concepts about Weight and
Free Fall, Science Education 78 (2): 149169.
Bender, P. & Schreiber, A. (1980) The Principle of Operative Formation Teaching,
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 11, 5990.
Berry, J., Graham, T., Holland, D.,& Porkess, R. (1998), Mechanics 1, MEI Structural
mathematics, Hodder & Stoughton.
Berry, J., Graham, T. & Porkess R. (1998). Mechanics 2, MEI Structural mathematics,
Hodder & Stoughton.
Berry, J. & Houston, K. (1995), Mathematical Modeling, Edward Arnold: London.
Beth, E. W. & Piaget J. (1966): Mathematical Epistemology and Psychology, D Reidel:
Holland.

17
Bishop, J. A. (1980). Spatial Abilities and Mathematics Education - Review, Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 11 257-269.
Brown, D. E.(1989). Students concept of force: the importance of understanding Newtons
third law, Phys. Educ. 24. (page numbers?)
Clements D. H. & Battista M. T. (1992) Geometry and Spatial Reasoning. In D. Grouws
(Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 109161).
Enschede, The Netherlands: NICD.
Crighton D. G. (1985), Why Mechanics? In Orton A. (Ed.) Studies in Mechanics Learning,
Centre for studies in Science and Maths Education, University of Leeds.
Foster P. (2000), Process and Object Interpretations of Vector Magnitude Mediated by Use
the Graphics Calculator, Mathematics Education Research Journal, 12, 3, p 269285.
Freudenthal, H. (1993). Thoughts on Teaching Mechanics, Didactical Phenomenology of the
Concept of Force, Educational Studies in Mathematics, 25, 71 87.
Ginsburg, H. (1981). The Clinical Interview in Psychological Research on Mathematical
Thinking: Aims, Rationales, Techniques, For The Learning Mathematics, 1,3 5764.
Glen, L. & Clements, M. A. (1981). Spatial ability, visual imaginary and mathematical
performance, Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12, 267-299.
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, 115141.
Gray, E. M. & Tall, D. O. (2001), Relationships between embodied objects and symbolic
procepts: en explanatory theory of success and failure in mathematics. Proceedings of
PME 25.
Grattan-Guiness, I. (1997), The Fontana History of the Mathematical Sciences, Fontana
Press.
Harel, G (1990), Using geometric models and vector arithmetic to teach high-school students
basic notion of linear algebra, Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Techol. 3, p 387-392.
Harel, G. & Tall, D. O. (1991), The General, the Abstract, and the Generic, For the Learning
of Mathematics, 11, pp 3842.
Hawkins, D. (1978), Critical barriers to sciences learning, Outlook, 29, 323.
Jagger J. M, (1988). A Report on Questionnaire Designed to test Students Understanding of
Mechanics, Teaching Mathematics and its Applications, 7 (1), 3641.
Kitchen, A., Savage, M. & Williams, J. (1997) The continuing Relevance of Mechanics in A-
Level Mathematics, Teaching Mathematics and its Applications, 16 (4) 165170.
Kruger, C., Palacio, D. & Summers, M. (1992). Surveys of English Teachers Conceptions of
Force, Energy, and Materials, Science Education 76(4): 339351.
Malt B. C. (1999), Word meaning. In W. Bechtel & G. Graham, (Eds), A Companion to
Cognitive Science, p 331337. Blackwell: Oxford.
Marsden J. E. & Tromba A. J, (1996) Vector Calculus, Freeman & Co.
Orton A. (Editor) (1985), Studies in Mechanics Learning, Centre for studies in Science and
Mathematics Education, University of Leeds.
Palmer D. H. & Flanagan B. R. (1997) Readiness to Change the Conception That Motion-
Implies-Force: A Comparison of 12-Year - Old and 16 - Year - Old Students.
Science Educ. 81: 317331.
Piaget, J. Inhelder, B., & Sieminska, A. (1960). The Childs Conception of Geometry,
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Pimm, D. (1988), Mathematical Metaphor, For the Learning of Mathematics, 8 (1), 3034.
Rowlands S. & Graham T. & Berry j. (1999), Can We Speak of Alternative Frameworks and
Conceptual Change in Mechanics, Science and Education, 8: 241271.

18
Sfard A. (1991). On the dual nature of the mathematical conceptions: Reflections on
processes and objects as different sides of the same coin. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 22, 136.
Shymansky, J., Yore, L. D., Treagust, D. F., Thiele, R. B., Harrison, A.,Waldrip, B. G.,
Stocklmayer, S. M. & Venville, G. (1997). Examining the Construction Process: A
Study of Changes in Level 10 Students Understanding of Classical Mechanics,
Journal of Research in Science Teaching 34(6) pp 571-593.
Stavy, R. & Tirosh, D. (1996), Int. J. Sci. Educ. 18 (6), 653-667.
Swanson, D. Schwarz, R, Ginsburg, H., & Kossan, N. (1981). The Clinical Interview:
Validity, reliability and Diagnosis, For the Learning of Mathematics, 2, 3138.
Tall, D. O. (1997), Metaphorical objects in advanced mathematical thinking, International
Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning 2: 6165, 1997.
Tall, D. O., Gray, E. M., Ali, M. b., Crowley, L. R. F., DeMarois, P., McGowen, M., Pitta,
D., Pinto, M. M. F., Thomas. M. O. J., Yusof, Y. b. M. (2001). Symbols and the
Bifurcation between Procedural and Conceptual Thinking, Canadian Journal of
Science, Mathematics and Technology Education 1, 81104.
Tao, P. K. & Gunstone R. F. (1999) .The Process of Conceptual Change in Force and Motion
during Computer Physics Instruction, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 36 (7)
859882.
Thijs, G. D. (1992). Evaluation of an Introductory Course on Force Considering Students
Preconceptions. Science Education 76(2): 155174: 155174.
Warren, J. W. (1979): Understanding Force, John Murray, London.
Weyl, H. (1978), Space, Time, Matter, Dover.
Wills, A. P. (1931), Vector Analysis, Prentice - Hall
Williams, J. S. (1985) Using equipment in teaching mechanics. In A. Orton (ed.), Studies in
Mechanics Learning, University of Leeds Centre for Studies in Science and
Mathematics Education.

19