ZDM

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01083-3

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Symbolizing while solving linear systems

Michelle Zandieh1   · Christine Andrews‑Larson2

Accepted: 23 August 2019

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2019

Abstract
Solving systems of linear equations is of central importance in linear algebra and many related applications, yet there is
limited literature examining the symbolizing processes students use as they work to solve systems of linear equations. In this
paper, we examine this issue by analyzing final exam data from 68 students in an introductory undergraduate linear algebra
course at a large public research university in the United States. Based on our analysis, we expanded our framework (Larson
& Zandieh, 2013) for interpretations of matrix equations to include augmented matrices and symbolic forms commonly used
in solving linear systems. We document considerable variation in students’ symbolization processes, which broadly occurred
along two primary trajectories: systems trajectories and row reduction trajectories. Row reduction trajectories included at
least five symbolic shifts, two of which students executed with a great deal of success and uniformity. Students’ symbol-
izing processes varied more in relation to the other three shifts, and these variations were often linked to trends of variable
renaming, variable creation, or imagined parameter reasoning. Students were more flexible in their solution strategies when
solving systems involving lines than for systems involving planes.

Keywords  Linear algebra · Systems of equations · Augmented matrices · Student reasoning

1 Introduction an introductory linear algebra course: for instance, when

The origins of linear algebra lie in efforts to solve systems of
linear equations and understand the nature of their solution
sets. In our experience, instructors of linear algebra tend to
see the work of teaching students to solve linear systems
as the more straightforward and procedural portion of the
course. We speculate that solving linear systems and inter-
preting their solution sets in fact entails hidden and signifi-
cant challenges for students that are important for their later
success in linear algebra, as well as their work in related
science and engineering courses. In particular, students
will encounter and need to make sense of systems of linear
equations that have infinitely many solutions throughout
* Michelle Zandieh
zandieh@asu.edu
Christine Andrews‑Larson
cjlarson@fsu.edu
1
Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, College of Integrative
Sciences and Arts, Arizona State University, Polytechnic
Campus, 6073 S. Backus Mall MC 2780, Mesa,
AZ 85212‑2780, USA
2
Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA
making sense of linearly dependent sets of vectors, when
dealing with linear transformations whose null spaces are
non-trivial, and when making sense of eigenvectors.
Student struggles in linear algebra are well-documented
(e.g., Dorier, Robert, Robinet, & Rogalski, 2000; Stewart
& Thomas, 2009; Trigueros & Possani, 2013; Larson &
Zandieh, 2013). Researchers have speculated that the for-
malization of ideas such as span, linear independence, null
spaces, basis, and eigenvectors is problematic for students
for a variety of reasons including their preference for prac-
tical rather than theoretical thinking (Dorier & Sierpinska,
2001) and struggles shifting among representations (e.g.,
Hillel, 2000; Sierpinska, 2000). In the context of systems of
linear equations, Trigueros (2018) argues it is well-known
that students struggle to make sense of solutions and that
these struggles have links to students’ understanding of vari-
ables, functions, and sets.
In the United States, it is generally the case that students
taking a first course in linear algebra at the undergradu-
ate level have prior experience solving 2 × 2 systems, and
many have some experience solving 3 × 3 systems. Students
often recall that such systems should have 0, 1, or infinitely
many solutions. In this paper, we explore the complex work

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

entailed in symbolizing the steps in a solution trajectory
as well as in symbolizing and interpreting a solution to the
system. In cases where there are infinitely many solutions,
characterizing the solution set can be particularly chal-
lenging and involves creating and interpreting a variety of
symbolizations.
2 Literature on systems of equations
There is limited research on students’ reasoning about sys-
tems of linear equations and their solution sets. We attend
to two primary aspects of students’ reasoning about sys-
tems of linear equations and their solution sets: manipula-
tion of equations and systems of equations, and interpreta-
tion of solution sets.
2.1 Manipulating equations and systems
The notion of equivalence is central to making sense of the
manipulation of (systems of) equations in order to identify
solution sets, as two equations or two systems of equations
are considered to be equivalent if they have the same solu-
tion set. Thus the work of solving an equation (or a system)
becomes a question of how one can manipulate the equation
(or system) in ways that leave the solution set unchanged
while making it clearer what that solution set is.
In the context of solving single equations in secondary
mathematics, Steinberg, Sleeman, and Ktorza (1991) found
that eighth and ninth grade students who transformed equa-
tions to determine equivalence (rather than solving and com-
paring solution sets) exhibited the greatest levels of success.
This suggests it is important that students understand how
two sides of an equation can be manipulated in coordina-
tion so that the solution is unchanged (e.g. you can add any
number to both sides or multiply both sides by a non-zero
number). In the case of a system of linear equations, students
must also come to reason about how/why equations can be
manipulated simultaneously so as to leave the solution set
unchanged (e.g. you can substitute the value of an unknown
found in one of the equations into another equation, or you
can systematically eliminate one variable from subsets of
the original system to find an equivalent system with fewer
unknowns). Harel (2017) detailed a teaching experiment
with in-service teachers regarding equivalent systems of
equations revealing conceptual complexities involved in
reasoning about what manipulations of systems maintain
equivalence.
Harel (2017) focused primarily on sense-making regard-
ing algebraic manipulations within the context of systems
of equations. In contrast, many undergraduate linear algebra
courses in the United States allow students to use technology
13
M. Zandieh, C. Andrews‑Larson
to complete a row reduction process. In such cases, as in the
data for this paper, student symbolization then focuses on
moving between systems of equations, augmented matrices
and even vector equations as part of solving systems and
interpreting those solutions.
2.2 Interpreting solution sets
Several papers focus on issues of interpreting systems and
their solutions geometrically. Oktaç (2018) drew on ques-
tionnaire data from 27 students enrolled in an introductory
undergraduate linear algebra course in Mexico and argued
that the students primarily thought of systems in terms of
two equations and two unknowns. These students conceived
of solutions both geometrically as a point where two lines
meet (which parallel lines do not do, regardless of whether
they overlap) and algebraically as an ordered pair that simul-
taneously satisfies both equations. Thinking of the solution
as one point and not considering overlapping lines as inter-
secting raised difficulties for the students in the case of infi-
nitely many solutions.
Sandoval and Possani (2016) examined the ways in which
undergraduate linear algebra students make sense of and
transition among representations of vectors, lines, and planes
in three-space. In particular, they found that while students
could easily check if a point lies in a plane given the alge-
braic equation of that plane, students exhibited considerably
more difficulty in coordinating geometric and algebraic rep-
resentations when constructing the parametric equation of a
line in three-space and relating that line to the intersection
of two planes. They argued that relating this coordination to
augmented matrices and their row-reduced forms is an area
that needs to be explored.
Others have drawn on a modeling perspective to exam-
ine students’ reasoning related to systems of linear equa-
tions and found that after some initial difficulties develop-
ing systems of linear equations to algebraically represent
real-world situations, these contexts have the potential to
aid or constrain students’ efforts to make sense of infinite
solution sets (e.g., Possani, Trigueros, Preciado & Lozano,
2010; Trigueros, 2018). These studies suggest that paramet-
ric vector equations tied to real-world contexts can be a help-
ful representation in supporting students’ reasoning about
infinite solution sets.
Based on the existing literature, we argue that there is a
need to better understand how students make sense of solu-
tion sets of systems of linear equations, and the symbolizing
processes students use for identifying these solutions. The
work presented in this paper aims to contribute to this lit-
erature by drawing on the conceptual framework of Larson
and Zandieh (2013) which we elaborate to focus more on the
Symbolizing while solving linear systems
nuances involved in student symbolizing when solving and
reasoning about systems of linear equations.
3 Conceptual framing
For this paper we are interested in student participation
in the mathematical practice of symbolizing. Our fram-
ing is based in Freudenthal’s (1991) notion of mathemat-
ics as a human activity. Individual student participation in
mathematical activity is one of the four ways of describing
mathematical progress posited by Rasmussen, Wawro, and
Zandieh (2015). Although there are many aspects of student
participation that may be documented, for this paper, we
follow Rasmussen, Zandieh, King, & Tempo’s (2005) focus
on the “notion of advancing mathematical activity as acts
of participation in different mathematical practices” (p. 53).
These disciplinary practices of mathematics include proving,
defining, algorithmatizing (creating algorithms) and symbol-
izing (Rasmussen et al., 2005; Zandieh & Rasmussen, 2010;
Zandieh, Wawro, & Rasmussen, 2017).
We take symbolizing broadly to mean how students
reason with any inscriptions including analytic as well as
graphical inscriptions. In approaching the data for this paper,
Fig. 1  Expansion of Larson and
Zandieh’s (2013) framework for
views of Ax = b 
we determined that the framework of Larson and Zandieh
(2013) would be useful for describing and documenting stu-
dents’ transitions between a range of inscriptions in solving
systems. In addition, as we analyzed the data and wrote the
paper, we realized that additional aspects would be needed to
more fully describe the nuances in symbolizing that students
were engaged in. In what follows we describe the original
Larson and Zandieh (2013) conceptual framework and our
extensions of it for this paper.
Larson and Zandieh (2013) developed a framework
for making sense of student thinking by identifying three
important interpretations of the matrix equation Ax = b
where A is an m × n matrix, x is in R n and b is in R m.
Namely, Ax = b can be interpreted as a system of equa-
tions, a linear combination of column vectors, or as a
transformation from Rn to Rm (see Fig. 1). In this paper,
we expand this framework to also include the interpre-
tation of augmented matrices. Figure 1 emphasizes that
we see algebraic and geometric as two contexts within
which a person may interact with each interpretation. As
in Zandieh (2000) we acknowledge that there may be addi-
tional contexts such as a physical setting or an applica-
tion context, but we focus on these two primary contexts
for the purpose of this paper. In Fig. 1 each row is an
13

interpretation and each of the eight boxes represents an
interpretation–context pair, with each pair being illus-
trated for the case where x and b are vectors in R 2 and
there is one unique solution.
There are two things of particular interest in terms of
the Augmented Matrix interpretation. First is that the literal
symbol x disappears completely from the algebraic context
[A|b]. This condensing of expression is helpful for efficiency
but has the potential for loss of information in communica-
tion (Zandieh & Knapp, 2006, 2018). As such, we conjecture
that transitions from the Augmented Matrix interpretation
into other interpretations are more difficult because the sym-
bols of the vector x have to be reconstructed. Second, to
our knowledge there is no generally accepted geometrical
representation associated with augmented matrices. In other
words, there is not a geometric picture that can be drawn for
the augmented matrix interpretation that is different from
the geometric contexts drawn for the other interpretations.
In addition, although a person might transition directly from
an augmented matrix into any of the geometric contexts,
students in our data always transitioned into a different
algebraic interpretation first before relating to the problem’s
geometry.
In analyzing our data, we realized that the interpreta-
tion–context pairs in Fig. 1 were important but did not cap-
ture all aspects of student symbolizing when solving systems
of equations. Sometimes students transitioned between two
different interpretations or between two different contexts,
whereas in other cases students transitioned between sym-
bolizations that are within a particular interpretation–context
pair. Therefore, Fig. 2 lists three different algebraic forms
within each of the algebraic interpretations occurring most
often in our data. Original (O) forms have the same set of
constraints as the given problem. Equivalent (E) forms have
the same solution set as the original form, but a different set
of constraints. Solution (S) forms have the same constraints
as the Equivalent forms but are formatted so that the values
of the unknowns can be read off directly.
Fig. 2  Original, equivalent and
solution forms within each of
three interpretations
13
M. Zandieh, C. Andrews‑Larson
Figure 2 illustrates each of these algebraic interpretation-
form pairs for one of the systems students solved in our data:
three planes intersecting in a line. One thing to note is that
the augmented matrix equivalent form (AM-E) is what is
often called in textbooks (e.g., Lay, 2012) the reduced row
echelon form (RREF). In the case of infinitely many solu-
tions (as in Fig. 2), there is no augmented matrix solution
form (AM-S) that has a direct correspondence to the other
solution forms listed in the final column of Fig. 2. On the
other hand, in the case of a system with a unique solution,
the reduced row echelon form would correspond to other
solution forms in the sense that the values for each of the
variables in the solution would be explicitly listed.
Given the lack of research on students’ symbolizing while
solving linear systems, as well as the complexities and sub-
tleties involved, our research questions are: How do students
engage in symbolizing when solving consistent systems of
equations involving lines and planes? More specifically,
what interpretations, contexts, and forms do students draw
on as they proceed through their solution process?
We explore examples that have a single solution as well as
examples that have infinitely many solutions. In the Sect. 5,
we illustrate the trajectories that students used in transition-
ing through various interpretations, contexts, and forms. In
doing so we shed light on the nuances involved in solving
these systems of equations. In Sect. 6 we reflect on the simi-
larities and differences in student symbolizing trajectories
when solving four different consistent systems.
4 Data sources and methods of analysis
To answer our research questions, we draw on data taken from
the final exams of 68 students enrolled in two sections of an
introductory linear algebra classes at a large public research
university in the United States. Both sections were taught by
the same instructor who was an experienced linear algebra
instructor at the institution. Most students in the class were
engineering majors in their junior or senior year of college,
Symbolizing while solving linear systems
and had completed three semesters of calculus including dif-
ferential, integral, and multi-variable calculus prior to enroll-
ing in this linear algebra course. About half of the students in
the classes were non-traditional students (e.g. not continuously
enrolled in post-secondary education since graduating from
high school), about twenty percent of the students spoke a
native language other than English, and 8 of the 68 students
were women.
Course topics included systems of linear equations, span
and linear independence, linear transformations, determi-
nants, eigenvectors, eigenvalues, and diagonalization. The
course textbook was Lay (2012). The primary deviation
from the course textbook sequence of topics was that span
and linear independence were introduced prior to methods
for solving systems of linear equations. Two 75-min class
sessions were spent on explicit instruction of row reduction
methods, and these were regarded as part of standard instruc-
tion (not the focus of any particular instructional interven-
tion). Instruction on solving systems included conventions
for converting between systems of equations and augmented
matrices, row operations, their origin in manipulating sys-
tems of equations, reduced row echelon form, representation
of solutions in general and parametric vector equation forms,
and interpretations of solutions in real-world and geometric
contexts (e.g. intersections of lines, planes, etc.).
In this report, we examine student responses to four ques-
tions that offer insight into students’ symbolizing processes,
Fig. 3  Exam questions to be
analyzed
two on each of two versions of the course’s written final
examination. One version of the exam asked about equations
of lines (Version L) and the other asked about equations of
planes (Version P). The questions are shown in Fig. 3. Both
versions include a system with a unique solution (part a on
each) and a system with infinitely many solutions that cor-
respond to a line of intersection (part b on each). There are
more equations than unknowns in all parts except Version
P part b, in which there are the same number of equations
and unknowns. Note that 31 students took Version P of the
exam, and 37 students took Version L.
Our analysis took place in three main phases: we first
broadly categorized interpretations used in students’ solving
processes, then coded the chain of inscriptions in individual
students’ solving trajectories, and finally aggregated solution
trajectories across all students taking each version of the
exam. During each phase of analysis, both authors of this
paper analyzed the data to come to consensus for each stu-
dent on how their response should be categorized or coded.
In order to get a sense of students’ broad use of interpreta-
tions, in the first phase of analysis, we categorized students’
responses according to their primary solution strategy, which
fell into two broad categories. If a student rewrote the system
as an augmented matrix and fully row reduced, we catego-
rized the solution strategy as a reduced row echelon form or
RREF strategy. If a student solved the system using meth-
ods of elimination or substitution or otherwise analyzed the
13

equations without row reduction, we categorized the solution
strategy as a Systems strategy.
In the second phase of analysis, we documented the tra-
jectory of each student’s solution process. To do this, we
developed codes for the variety of inscriptions that students
used as they worked toward a solution. Code Names and
descriptions are detailed in Fig. 4. The Code Names in the
first column of Fig. 4 are accurate to our analysis process
and align with common ways of talking about these forms in
mathematical language. However, as our analysis of student
symbolizing evolved to include the forms in Fig. 2, we began
using the descriptions corresponding to the interpretation-
form abbreviations listed in the third column of Fig. 4. Note
that P and V do not have a designation as an interpretation-
form from Fig. 2 because they do not refer to an equation.
After the Code Names had been developed, they were
recorded in a spreadsheet (1 row per student) with anno-
tations added to note any idiosyncratic details related to
a particular inscription. The cells in the row were color
coded according to whether each inscription was correct
or included an error (neon green for correct, yellow for
incorrect). For each student row, the column entries were
populated chronologically with the code names as they
appeared in each student’s solution process. To do this, we
Code Description
Name
AM
RREF
Student writes the system as an augmented matrix
Student writes the system in reduced row echelon
form (or row echelon form)
SE’ Student writes the RREF form of the matrix as a
system of equations
SE’’ Student writes the system of equations in another
form
VE Student writes the system as a vector equation
P Student writes solution as a point
V Student writes solution as a vector
Fig. 4  Code names and descriptions
Fig. 5  Student trajectory (A14) to planes part b with coding
13
M. Zandieh, C. Andrews‑Larson
made inferences about the order of inscriptions based on
a combination of physical organization (e.g. left to right,
top to bottom), students’ use of arrows and annotations, and
our own understandings of which inscriptions were com-
mon manipulations of others when solving systems. We also
documented any written explanations students made, which
were particularly helpful in seeing how they made sense
of the solutions to the systems (and at times in helping us
understand their reasoning during the solving process).
To illustrate our process, Fig. 5 shows the work of student
A14 and a portion of A14’s row of the spreadsheet with
Code Names. The student first correctly rewrote the system
as an augmented matrix (AM), then correctly rewrote it in
row reduced form (RREF), then correctly rewrote it as a
system of equations in which x was written in terms of z
(SE’’), then correctly rewrote this as a vector equation (VE).
Note that the third code name is SE’’ because it is not a
direct rewriting of the RREF as a system but also involved
some manipulation to write x = 2 − z. As illustrated with
this student, the Code Names were our first window into the
interpretations and forms used by students and thus into the
complexities of the symbolizing process.
In the third and final phase of analysis, we sorted the
spreadsheet from the second phase of analysis by the first
column of code names, then the second column, and so on
Interpretation -
Form so that students with similar initial codes were grouped
AM-O
AM-E
together. The resulting visualization helped us decide to
aggregate the trajectories of the students into a new spread-
SE-E or SE-S
sheet in which each row corresponded to a single aspect
SE-E or SE-S of the trajectory (identified by Code Name) and each col-
LC-S umn corresponds to a student (e.g., Figure 6). Due to minor
none
none
variation in individual student trajectories, we collapsed
(or expanded) some cells to align individual trajectories
with common milestones observed as students progressed
toward a solution. For example, student A14 in Fig. 5 did
Symbolizing while solving linear systems

Fig. 6  Aggregated trajectory diagram for planes part a

not directly rewrite the RREF matrix as a system (SE′) but

expressed the solution correctly in two ways—in general Planes Planes Lines Lines
part a part b part a part b
form (SE″) and as a parametric vector equation (VE). This RREF 94% 94% 78% 51%
Initial
process gave rise to the Aggregated Trajectory diagram Strategy
Systems 6% 3% 14% 43%
Other (e.g. matrix or vector equation) 0% 3% 8% 5%
shown in Fig. 6, in which each row corresponds to a com- RREF 94% 94% 57% 46%
mon milestone and each column corresponds to a student. Final Strategy Systems 6% 3% 41% 51%
Other (e.g. matrix or vector equation) 0% 3% 3% 3%
Note that the darker shade is for a correct inscription for the
milestone whereas a lighter shade corresponds to an incor-
Fig. 7  Initial and Final strategies to solving (sums may not equal
rect inscription for the milestone; green indicates an RREF 100% because of rounding)
strategy and blue indicates a Systems strategy. We stopped
recording student work in the Aggregated Trajectory figures
followed an RREF trajectory, whereas when solving the
after an incorrect milestone, even if the student continued on
lines case many students transitioned from an RREF tra-
writing other incorrect statements.
jectory to a more systems-based trajectory. Percentages of
The Aggregated Trajectory allowed us to see patterns in
students using these solution strategies are listed in Fig. 7.
symbolizing trajectories across students solving the same
problem. For example, in the first row of Fig. 6, the dark
5.1 Planes tasks
green represents the 29 students who correctly wrote the
augmented matrix (AM) followed by dark blue for the two
In the planes case, student RREF trajectories tended to fol-
students who made a first step towards a Systems strategy.
low a relatively standard sequence of at least five symbolic
In the second row, the dark green represents the 27 students
shifts indicated here by arrows between symbolizations (as
who wrote a correct row reduced form (RREF), followed in
discussed in Figs. 1 and 2):
light green by two students who wrote an incorrect RREF,
one student in dark blue who wrote a second correct system SE (orig) → AM (orig) → RREF (AM equiv)
step, and one student in light blue who wrote a second sys-
→ SE (equiv) → SE (sol’n)
tem step incorrectly. The table continues in this way with the
third row representing the interpretation of the row reduction → Geometric Context.
as a system of equations (SE′), the fourth row representing A great deal of uniformity was observed in the first two
a statement of the solution to the system, and the fifth row shifts, whereas greater variation was observed in the lat-
representing the choice the student circled in part c regard- ter three shifts. These shifts correspond to the rows in the
ing a geometric context for their solution. Aggregated Trajectory diagrams shown in Figs. 6 and 8.
The Aggregated Trajectory diagrams helped us identify at Common variations in symbolic shifts in the latter parts of
which milestones large numbers of students diverged in their the trajectory correspond to the longer light green bands in
in their symbolizing. Examples of common trajectories and the bottom three rows of these figures. In Sect. 5.1.1, we
diversions are illustrated and analyzed in Sect. 5. highlight the symbolic shifts in the correct RREF trajecto-
ries and compare to a Systems strategy. In Sects. 5.1.2 and
5.1.3, we provide examples of common trends in student
5 Findings responses that varied from the typical correct RREF trajec-
tory. These trends feature issues related to variable creation
Our central finding is that there is considerable nuance and and renaming, as well as imagined parameter reasoning.
variation entailed in the symbolizing work of students in
their efforts to solve systems of linear equations. Student 5.1.1 Correct RREF strategies and an attempted systems
symbolizations primarily occurred along two aggregated tra- strategy
jectories, which we refer to as an RREF trajectory (which
heavily leverages AM interpretations) and a Systems tra- Planes part a: Four planes intersect in a point When asked
jectory. When solving the planes case, students primarily to find the intersection of four planes in part a (which

13

Fig. 8  Aggregated student trajectories in planes task, part b
Fig. 9  Correct RREF strategy (student A9, planes part a)
intersect in a point), the vast majority of students started
with a correct augmented matrix (29/31), and most of these
(27) arrived at a correct RREF based on this (likely using
calculators to row reduce). Despite this high initial success
rate, only about a third of the students (11/31) correctly
found and interpreted the solution. Only 2 students used a
Systems strategy, and neither was successful in using this
approach to arrive at a correct solution. These two students
are indicated by the final two columns of Fig. 6.
We illustrate the difference between what we mean by
an RREF strategy and a Systems strategy using the work of
students A9 and A39. As we can see in Fig. 9, student A9
correctly solved the system with four equations and three
unknowns by using the standard RREF trajectory including
symbolizing the solution as a system of equations (SE) and
then writing the solution as the ordered triple, (1, 1, 1). The
student also circled “a point” when asked for a geometric
interpretation of the intersection in part c (not shown).
We contrast the row reduction approach of student A9
with the work of student A39, who drew on a Systems
approach as shown below in Fig. 10. We note that while
student A39 arrived at an incorrect answer due to a sign
error, there were no obvious conceptual errors in the stu-
dent’s solving process (other than perhaps the omission of
not checking the final solution). However, A39’s work high-
lights how complex a Systems strategy can be to implement
for larger systems.
Planes part b: Three planes intersect in a line When
asked to find the intersection of the three planes (that inter-
sect in a line), the vast majority of students (28/31) started
with a correct augmented matrix, and all but one of those
(27) used that to arrive at a correct RREF. An example of a
13
M. Zandieh, C. Andrews‑Larson
Fig. 10  Systems strategy with error (student A39, planes part a)
correct RREF strategy for Part b is the work of student A14
shown in Fig. 5 in Sect. 4. In both Figs. 6 and 8, the first 14
dark green columns indicate the 14 students who completed
the planes task using a correct RREF strategy.
5.1.2 Rewriting RREF as a system or vector equation:
variable creation and renaming
The third row in each of the Aggregated Trajectory dia-
grams (Figs. 6 and 8) illustrates in green the students who
transitioned from a correct RREF (AM-E) form to another
symbolization. Many students (17 in Part a, 22 in Part b)
transitioned to a correct SE interpretation, while other stu-
dents (10 in Part a, 5 in Part b) struggled at this point. In
making this transition, a student must list variables that are
not explicitly stated in the condensed notation of the RREF
form. Instead of referring to the original system (SE-O) to
determine these variables, some students renamed the vari-
ables or even created an additional variable.
Planes part a: Four planes intersect in a point Of the 10
students who identified a correct RREF but rewrote it incor-
rectly as a system of equations in part a, there was a strong
pattern: 9 of those 10 students added a fourth variable x4,
with all but one of these indicating x4 is free and the other
writing x4 = 0. We refer to this phenomenon as variable crea-
tion and renaming.
Figure 11 shows the work of a student that is typical of
the approach taken by students who incorrectly rewrote their
correct RREF as a system of equations. In particular, Stu-
dent A10 boxed and labeled the pivots and drew an arrow
Symbolizing while solving linear systems
Fig. 11  Correct RREF rewritten as incorrect system due to variable
creation and renaming
to the bottom row with the word “free.” It is possible this
student incorrectly thought that any row without a pivot
corresponds to a free variable. This would explain why the
student rewrote the general solution as a system of equations
with four variables, x1, x2, x3, x4 instead of the three variables
x, y, and z in the original problem statement.
Planes part b: Three planes intersect in a line In part b
only five students who arrived at the correct RREF tran-
sitioned incorrectly to a system of equations. The number
of students was smaller than in part a, which is perhaps
unsurprising as the system in part b has the same number of
equations and unknowns. However, two of the students still
created a 4­ th variable. Student A21 added a fourth variable,
­x4, and assumed it was zero, as shown in Fig. 12 below. In
both parts, variable creation and renaming often occurred
together.
5.1.3 Shifting from algebraic to geometric symbolization:
imagined parameter
The final task was to circle a geometric description of the
solution set. Several students who correctly completed an
RREF trajectory to this point, including stating a correct
solution to the problem, struggled to transition to the geo-
metric context. This is illustrated in light green shading on
Fig. 12  Correct RREF rewritten as incorrect system due to variable
creation and renaming
the bottom row of Fig. 6 (5 students) and Fig. 8 (4 students).
Most of these students appeared to be using what we refer to
as an imagined parameter.
Planes part a: Four planes intersect in a point There were
five students who correctly symbolized the solution to part
a in the algebraic context but did not transition correctly to
the geometric context. All five of these students indicated
the solution to be x = 1, y = 1, z = 1 or [1, 1, 1] written as
a vertical vector, but in part c, three circled “line” and two
circled “plane”. The written data does not indicate why these
students interpreted [1, 1, 1] as a line or a plane. An example
is shown in Fig. 13. It may be that students conflated solu-
tions that are all multiples of a certain vector (and thus a
line) with just having the vector itself listed. We refer to this
as imagined parameter reasoning. In other words, interpret-
ing the solution as if there is a parameter multiplied by a
vector when there actually is no parameter multiplied by
that vector. Another reason for students circling “line” in the
case of a single vector could be that, in our experience, many
students think of a single vector as a directed line segment,
which is more evocative of a line than a single point.
Planes part b: Three planes intersect in a line There
were four students who correctly symbolized a solution to
part b but incorrectly transitioned to the geometric context.
All 4 circled “ plane”. The work of one of these students,
A33, is shown below in Fig. 14. We conjecture that this
student may have reasoned as if the second vector in his or
her vector equation was also weighted by a coefficient that
varies through all real values. This would be an imagined
parameter view. Figures 13 and 14 are the work of the same
student, A33. In both cases A33 selected the correspond-
ing geometric object that would be consistent with having
a variable weight in front of each vector, or equivalently, of
considering the span (i.e., all possible linear combinations)
of the vectors presented in the solution expression.
In summary, in the Planes task, students were very suc-
cessful at the first two shifts of the standard RREF trajectory,
correctly rewriting the system as an augmented matrix (AM)
Fig. 13  Correct solution with imagined parameter interpretation (stu-
dent A33, planes part a)
13

Fig. 14  Correct solution with imagined parameter interpretation (stu-
dent A33, planes part b)
and finding the RREF of this matrix (typically using tech-
nology). In the shift(s) from the RREF to symbolizations of
the solution set, several students were challenged by issues
involving variable creation and renaming. In particular,
because the RREF is a condensed, efficient symbolization,
some information is hidden that students may not always
correctly reconstruct. In the final shift from the algebraic
context to the geometric context, some students engaged
in imagined parameter reasoning. In effect, by imagining a
parameter, these students acted as if their solution symboli-
zation was more condensed than it actually was.
5.2 Lines tasks
In the lines case, student trajectories varied more widely.
Some students symbolized using variations on the stand-
ard RREF trajectory as in the planes case. Other students
leveraged multiple various symbolizations of the original
system of equations instead of using an augmented matrix
(i.e., they used a Systems trajectory). In addition, many stu-
dents employed the geometric context to reason about their
solutions in ways that were notably different from the planes
case. Figure 15 presents an Aggregated Trajectory diagram
of student responses across both parts of the Lines question.
For example, the leftmost column represents the response of
student B11 for task La (top portion) and task Lb (bottom
portion).
Fig. 15  Aggregated trajectories for student solutions on lines task parts a and b (La, Lb)
13
M. Zandieh, C. Andrews‑Larson
Even though there are many different student trajectories
across the two tasks, in this section we focus on four main
groups: correct RREF strategies, incorrect RREF strate-
gies, Systems strategies, and switchers. The correct RREF
strategies group corresponds to the 9 students who correctly
completed both parts using an RREF strategy (shown in col-
umns colored dark green from top to bottom in Fig. 15; dis-
cussed in Sect. 5.2.1). The incorrect RREF strategies group
corresponds to the 8 students who exclusively used RREF
on both tasks and ended up with an incorrect answer on
both tasks (shown in columns whose coloring is dark and
light green; discussed in Sect. 5.2.2). The Systems strate-
gies group corresponds to the 5 students who started and
finished both parts using a Systems strategy (shown in col-
umns colored blue; discussed in Sect. 5.2.3). The switchers
group corresponds to the 12 students who started using an
RREF strategy and switched to a Systems strategy (shown in
columns with both green and blue; discussed in Sect. 5.2.4).
There were 3 additional students; the final three columns of
Fig. 15 indicate students who wrote down a vector equa-
tion, matrix equation or no work for the first problem. Two
of these students switched to a Systems strategy, one with
correct solutions.
5.2.1 Correct RREF strategies for both La and Lb (9 of 37
students)
We exemplify the group of students who used an RREF
strategy for the intersection of lines questions by drawing on
the work of student B11. In part a, (see Fig. 16a) the student
solved the system using a standard RREF trajectory by sym-
bolizing an augmented matrix (AM/AM-O), the row reduced
form of the augmented matrix (RREF/AM-E), the solution
as a system of equations (SE′/SE-S), and the solution as a
point (P). In part b (see Fig. 16b) the student completed a
similar RREF trajectory symbolizing an augmented matrix
(AM/AM-O), the row reduced form of the augmented matrix
(RREF/AM-E), and the solution as a system of equations
(SE′/SE-E). Of interest is that B11 rewrote the solution as a
different system (SE″) and explained that the intersection is
Symbolizing while solving linear systems
Fig. 16  Correct RREF strategy
(student B11, lines parts a and
b)
this line. Note that the particular rewrite of SE″ in this case
expressed the solution in the form y = mx + b, from which
students can directly read off the slope and y-intercept.
This SE’’ is a form of SE-S that is different from a typical
linear algebra solution form as explicated in Fig. 2 and in
the RREF strategies used by students in the Planes task. We
discuss below that this form was common in the solutions
of students who used a Systems strategy for solving Version
L. In addition, we note that student B11 did not indicate that
there is a free variable. Of the 9 students who started and
ended part b with a correct RREF solution, 5 of them did not
explicitly indicate that there was a free variable. In this way
these students (like B11 in Fig. 16b) may have switched at
the end from a more formal linear algebra interpretation of
the solution to one based in their familiarity with equations
of lines.
5.2.2 Incorrect RREF strategies for both La and Lb (8 of 37
students)
The work of students who exclusively used an RREF strat-
egy but were not able to complete this trajectory success-
fully had similarities with the work of students with incor-
rect RREF trajectories in the Planes tasks, particularly in
terms of variable creation and renaming. A compounding
factor was students not knowing how to manage a technical
difficulty with their calculator. The most commonly used
calculators in the class were the Texas Instruments, TI-83
and TI-84 calculators. Neither of these calculators will row
reduce a matrix that has more rows than columns. In class
students were taught a workaround of adding columns of
zeros to create a square matrix, and then ignoring those
Fig. 17  Incorrect RREF strate-
gies (students B13 and B2, lines
part a)
columns of zeros when interpreting their solution. However,
some students struggled to use this method. Figure 17a, b
illustrate these struggles.
Figure 17a shows the work of student B13, who appeared
to want to row reduce the matrix but wrote “not inverti-
ble” in the brackets where the RREF would have appeared.
Although it is true that the matrix is not invertible, this
student concluded incorrectly that the system has no inter-
section and never stated a row reduced form. In Fig. 17b,
student B2 attempted the workaround method by adding a
column of zeroes to row reduce. However, B2 then inter-
preted the row reduction as if the 4th column of zeroes was
what each equation is ‘equal to’ with the third column being
treated as a third variable column. This contributed to B2’s
engagement in variable creation and renaming.
When the students in this group moved on to Lb, there
was some divergence in how students proceeded. Of the 8
students, 3 students wrote down an incorrect augmented
matrix (light green boxes in first row of Lb in Fig. 15) and 1
student (B29) stopped after writing the correct augmented
matrix. The remaining 4 students all changed the names of
the variables but were split in how they reasoned.
Figure 18 follows the work of students B13 and B2 to
provide examples from this group’s solutions. Although B13
was not able to row reduce the matrix in part a (Fig. 17a),
B13 did row reduce the matrix in part b (Fig. 18a) and cor-
rectly symbolized the new system, indicating one free vari-
able. However, this student circled the word point instead
of line. We do not know why the student circled point, but
we note that renaming the variables from x, y to x1, x2 may
have kept the student from recognizing a familiar equation
of a line.
13

Fig. 18  Variable renaming (B13
and B2) and variable creation
(B2) on lines part b
Student B2 followed up on the work in Fig. 17b by still
using the extra column of zeros. Thus the one free variable
expected in a correct solution to part b turned into two free
variables for student B2 (Fig. 18b). This variable creation
and renaming suggests that B2 was not connecting to the
geometric context of the intersection of lines in ­R2.
5.2.3 Systems strategies for both La and Lb (5 students)
Systems trajectories relied on creating new forms of the
original system of equations and making connections to the
geometric context. Although only 5 students used a Systems
trajectory for all aspects of La and Lb, some of the strategies
they used were also leveraged by the students who switched
to a Systems strategy after an initial attempt to use an RREF
strategy (see Sect. 5.2.4). Of the 5 students using only a
Systems trajectory, two graphed the lines on their page and
stated the intersection of those lines as their solution to La.
Unfortunately, each of these students had sign errors that
caused them to have incorrect intersections. The other three
students leveraged the fact that the first three equations were
“the same” and used substitution or elimination to correctly
find the intersection point (4/3, 2/3). Figure 19a shows the
work of student B25.
On part b, all five students noted “same line” or “same
equation” referring to the first two or three equations. Some
students symbolized the y = mx + b format while other
students created new versions of the ax + by = c format.
Note that B25 symbolized the latter format for La, but y =
mx + b for Lb (see Fig. 19). Both notations leverage previ-
ous knowledge of algebra, but this is especially true for y
= mx + b which B25 uses to emphasize that “They are the
same line with the same slope and y intercept.” In this way,
students leveraged SE-E forms to note similarities and to
Fig. 19  Systems strategy lever-
aging geometry (student B25,
lines parts a and b)
13
M. Zandieh, C. Andrews‑Larson
solve. Students’ explanations of these solution forms (SE-
S) sometimes emphasized the geometric context and other
times focused more on algebraic similarity.
Four of the five students correctly circled that the inter-
section of the three lines in Lb was “a line”. As shown in
Fig. 19b, B25 explained this interpretation by saying “They
are on top of each other. There are inf [sic] many solutions.”
On the other hand, one of the five students, B3, had a differ-
ent interpretation for Lb. After correctly using substitution
to solve for (4/3, 2/3) in La, B3 answered Lb with, “They are
scalars A.K.A. same equation. THUS there is no intersec-
tion!” B3 indicated in La that the first three equations were
“scalars thus same as 2x − y = 2.” However, B3 interpreted
this in Lb to mean that the three “same” lines had no inter-
section. This is consistent with findings in Oktaç (2018), and
we imagine this may be based on a concept image or natu-
ral language interpretation of intersection as being a single
point where two non-parallel lines meet or cross. One of the
students in Sect. 5.2.4 also used this same lines means no
intersection reasoning.
5.2.4 Switching from an RREF strategy to a systems
strategy (12 students)
Switchers are illustrated in Fig. 15 by columns that have one
or more green boxes at the top of the column indicating an
RREF strategy with blue boxes underneath the green boxes
indicating a switch to a Systems strategy. Eight students in
this category switched to a Systems strategy after symbolizing
only the augmented matrix or the augmented matrix and the
RREF. These students appear in Fig. 15 in columns 21–27
and 29. In each of these cases, after switching to the Systems
strategy, the students used methods similar to the students in
Sect. 5.2.3 (e.g., Fig. 19b). For example, student B4 wrote
Symbolizing while solving linear systems
the correct augmented matrix, then marked it out and rewrote
each of the equations in the form y = 2x − 2 or y = 1/2x. Noting
that the first three equations were “same”, B4 used substitu-
tion to find the correct intersection point. For Lb, B4 wrote,
“They intersect at all points because they form a line.”
Two students (columns 10 and 11 of Fig. 15) completed
part a with an RREF trajectory just as in Fig. 16a, but then
switched to a Systems strategy similar to student B4 or stu-
dents in 4.2.3. For example, A15 stated, “The first three lines
are scalar multiples of each other, therefore they have infinite
intersection along y = 2x − 2.”
Columns 19 and 20 of Fig. 15, illustrate two additional
students (B10, B30) who made a switch to a Systems strategy
between La and Lb, but they adopted a (correct) “modified”
RREF strategy for La, denoted in mint green in Fig. 15. Fig-
ure 20 illustrates that student B10 wrote “Row 1, 2, 3 are sca-
lar multiples” and then row reduced a smaller matrix using
only row 1 and row 4. This modified RREF strategy lever-
ages an interpretation of the first three equations as being
the same line, so that the intersection of the four lines is just
the intersection of one of the “same” lines with the differ-
ent line. Consistent with this reasoning, both students who
used a modified RREF strategy for La completed Lb using a
Systems strategy. For example, B10 stated, “the first 3 lines
overlay and intersect on all points on the line y = 2x − 2.”
All 12 switchers showed considerable flexibility in sym-
bolizing various forms of the system of equations and in
coordinating those algebraic forms with the geometric con-
text of lines intersecting. A particularly powerful strategy
was same line reasoning, i.e., the ability to note when equa-
tions represent the same line using either a slope-intercept
symbolization or a scalar multiple symbolization.
6 Discussion
In this analysis, we examined how students engaged in the
disciplinary practice of symbolizing while solving systems
of linear equations. The primary symbolizing trajectories we
observed were organized around RREF strategies, Systems
strategies, or transitions from the former to the latter. In the
context of these trajectories, we analyzed students’ symbolic
Fig. 20  Modified RREF strategy (student B10, lines part a)
shifts using the lens of Larson and Zandieh’s (2013) inter-
pretations, their algebraic and geometric contexts, and the
various forms delineated in the expanded framework pro-
posed in this paper. This allowed us to do three things:
identify those symbolic shifts where students were highly
successful, identify those symbolic shifts that were trouble-
some, and identify particular student reasoning patterns (e.g.
variable creation and renaming, imagined parameter) that
occurred around troublesome symbolic shifts.
In the Planes case, most students relied on RREF strat-
egies and were highly successful rewriting the system as
an augmented matrix (AM-O) and using technology to find
the RREF (AM-E). However, students were less successful
reconstructing systems (SE-E) from the RREF and using
this information to identify and interpret solutions (SE-S or
LC-S). In particular, the condensed RREF form led some
students to engage in variable creation and renaming when
shifting from an AM interpretation (AM-E) to a systems
of equations interpretation (SE-S) in ways that were incon-
sistent with the original system. In addition, some students
seemed to engage in imagined parameter reasoning when
transitioning from algebraic solution forms into the geomet-
ric context.
In the lines case, a sizable portion of students began with
or switched to a Systems strategy. Students’ previous expe-
riences with lines in both algebraic and geometric contexts
gave them a flexibility in symbolizing the Lines task that
was not demonstrated by students solving the Planes task. In
particular, same line reasoning allowed for simplified Sys-
tems trajectories. In what follows, we use Figs. 21 and 22 to
summarize each of the two main strategies and to structure
our discussion about the conceptual subtleties involved when
students solve systems of equations. We then conclude with
recommendations for future research and instruction.
Figure 21 highlights the main symbolic shifts in student
trajectories when using an RREF strategy. Within the box
we also note the interpretation-form pair (as in Fig. 2) for
the first five boxes where a symbolic form was used. The last
box indicates the switch to a geometric context required by
part c. Clearly this process requests students to have consid-
erable flexibility in moving between various interpretations,
contexts, and forms.
In addition to the transitions between the boxes indicated
by the right-pointing arrows, below the boxes we empha-
size two particular groupings of the forms and contexts.
Although each of the interpretation-form pairs in Fig. 21
has the same solution set, we can think of them as actually
referring to two different systems of equations. The first two
boxes indicate two interpretations (SE and AM) of the same
system, the original system. The next three boxes indicate
interpretation-form pairs for a different system. This new
system is equivalent to the original system in that it has the
same solution set, but these new interpretation-form pairs
13

Fig. 21  Trajectory for RREF
strategies
Fig. 22  Trajectory for systems
strategies
cannot be determined from the original system by transi-
tioning between the interpretations as described in Fig. 1. In
other words, Fig. 1 describes interpretations of a particular
system. Transitioning among the interpretations and con-
texts in Fig. 1 allows one to describe that same system in
multiple ways. However, moving from box two to box three
in Fig. 21, is a change in the system that is being described.
This change requires movement to what could be considered
a new set of relationships between interpretations and con-
texts that is relevant to this new system. In essence, there are
two versions of Fig. 1 when solving, the set of relationships
for the original system and the set of relationships for the
new, equivalent system.
The main trajectory for the Systems strategy, as highlighted
in Fig. 22, has both similarities and differences with the RREF
trajectory. As shown in Fig. 22, the first two boxes describe
the original system and the last two boxes describe a new,
equivalent system that is created by the algebraic processes
of substitution and/or elimination. This parallels the trajectory
in Fig. 22 in which the equivalent system is created by a row
reduction process. One difference is that, for the students in
this study, the row reduction step was done on a calculator
which obscured the elements involved in the transition. Note
that each step in a row reduction or a substitution and elimi-
nation process potentially gives rise to a different equivalent
system. In Figs. 21 and 22, these multiple equivalent systems
are all grouped together in one box. Once a simplification pro-
cess (e.g. elimination, substitution, and/or row reduction) has
been completed, the final equivalent system may be rewritten
in various ways to denote a solution form.
13
M. Zandieh, C. Andrews‑Larson
We note two main differences between the trajecto-
ries for an RREF strategy and that for a Systems strategy
observed in our study. One is partially accounted for in the
second box of Fig. 22. Since the systems of equations that
the students were given for this study included some redun-
dancy, students often noticed that redundancy (e.g., same
line reasoning) and rewrote equations into a new form of
SE-O to account for that. The second difference that is not
highlighted in Fig. 22, is that students often used words ref-
erencing the geometric context (e,g., lines or intersection)
when progressing through the milestones of this Systems
trajectory. In contrast, students using an RREF strategy
rarely mentioned the geometric context until they were asked
directly about it for part c.
6.1 Implications for future research and instruction
The primary contribution of our analysis is twofold. First, we
highlight the considerable nuance and variation entailed in
students’ symbolizing processes as they work to solve sys-
tems of linear equations. Second, the expansion of our con-
ceptual framework in Figs. 1 and 2 provides a structure and
language for detailing these processes through interpretations,
contexts, and forms. Students must come to coordinate these
interpretations, contexts, and forms as they work with systems
that are the same, and that are different but equivalent in the
sense that they have the same solution set. In looking at the
various transitions indicated in Figs. 21 and 22, we note that
some transitions were much easier for students than others. An
important area for future research is to explore in more detail
which transitions are more or less challenging for students and
Symbolizing while solving linear systems
what causes some transitions to be easier than others. Although
we have a focus on particular transitions that our students
attempted for this solving process, transitions across the many
interpretations, contexts and form pairings could be relevant.
Our data was limited to students’ written responses, so studies
that incorporated interview data could be particularly helpful
in gaining more detailed insights into students’ reasoning.
We argue that the prevalence of variable creation and
renaming observed in our data set indicates a need for more
careful attention to the notion of equivalent systems. This
argument is consistent with Steinberg et al.’s (1991) finding
that secondary students who were most successful at reason-
ing about solutions to equations were those who transformed
equations to determine equivalence of equations. It is also
consistent with Harel’s (2017) finding that it is not immedi-
ately obvious to learners that some transformations of linear
systems will in fact leave solution sets unchanged. Thus, we
argue that further exploration of students’ understanding of
equivalent systems is fertile ground for future research, as
well as an important point to which instructors and instruc-
tional designers should attend more carefully.
We also argue that students’ success leveraging geometry
to reason about solutions in the lines case—paired with stu-
dents’ difficulties making sense of solutions geometrically
in the planes case—carries implications for instructors and
instructional designers. Our data in the lines case points to
the power of imagery when algebraic and geometric con-
texts are well-coordinated. Our data in the planes case sug-
gests that many students struggle to coordinate symbolic
and geometric contexts in ­R3. Sandoval and Possani (2016)
identify tasks that press students to explicitly coordinate the
geometry of planes and their intersections with parametric
vector equations. Perhaps experience working on tasks such
as these would help students develop more flexibility in tran-
sitioning between interpretations, contexts and forms in ­R3
in ways that could be leveraged to enhance their understand-
ings of linear systems and their solution sets.
Funding  Funding was provided by National Science Foundation (Grant
no. DUE 1712524).
References
Dorier, J. L., Robert, A., Robinet, J., & Rogalski, M. (2000). The
obstacles of formalism in linear algebra. In J. L. Dorier (Ed.),
On the teaching of linear algebra (pp. 85–124). Dordrecht:
Kluwer.
Dorier, J.-L., & Sierpinska, A. (2001). Research into the teaching and
learning of linear algebra. In D. Holton (Ed.), The teaching and
learning of mathematics at university level: An ICMI study (pp.
255–273). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Freudenthal, H. (1991). Revisiting mathematics education.
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Harel, G. (2017). The learning and teaching of linear algebra:
Observations and generalizations. The Journal of Mathemati-
cal Behavior, 46, 69–95.
Hillel, J. (2000). Modes of description and the problem of represen-
tation in linear algebra. In J.-L. Dorier (Ed.), On the teaching
of linear algebra (pp. 191–207). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Larson, C., & Zandieh, M. (2013). Three interpretations of the matrix
equation Ax = b. For the Learning of Mathematics, 33(2), 11–17.
Lay, D. (2012). Linear algebra and its applications (4th ed.). Hobo-
ken: Pearson.
Oktaç, A. (2018). Conceptions about system of linear equations and
solution. In S. Stewart, C. Andrews-Larson, A. Berman, & M.
Zandieh (Eds.), Challenges and strategies in teaching linear
algebra (pp. 71–101). Berlin: Springer.
Possani, E., Trigueros, M., Preciado, J. G., & Lozano, M. D. (2010).
Use of models in the teaching of linear algebra. Linear Algebra
and its Applications, 432(8), 2125–2140.
Rasmussen, C., Wawro, M., & Zandieh, M. (2015). Examining indi-
vidual and collective level mathematical progress. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 88(2), 259–281.
Rasmussen, C., Zandieh, M., King, K., & Teppo, A. (2005). Advanc-
ing mathematical activity: A view of advanced mathematical
thinking. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 7, 51–73.
Sandoval, I., & Possani, E. (2016). An analysis of different repre-
sentations for vectors and planes in ℝ3. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 92(1), 109–127.
Sierpinska, A. (2000). On some aspects of students’ thinking in lin-
ear algebra. In J.-L. Dorier (Ed.), On the teaching of linear
algebra (pp. 209–246). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Steinberg, R. M., Sleeman, D. H., & Ktorza, D. (1991). Algebra
students’ knowledge of equivalence of equations. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 22(2), 112–121.
Stewart, S., & Thomas, M. O. J. (2009). A framework for mathemati-
cal thinking: The case of linear algebra. International Journal
of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 40(7),
951–961.
Trigueros, M. (2018). Learning linear algebra using models and
conceptual activities. In S. Stewart, C. Andrews-Larson, A.
Berman, & M. Zandieh (Eds.), Challenges and strategies in
teaching linear algebra (pp. 29–50). Berlin: Springer.
Trigueros, M., & Possani, E. (2013). Using an economics model for
teaching linear algebra. Linear Algebra and its Applications,
438(4), 1779–1792.
Zandieh, M. (2000). A theoretical framework for analyzing student
understanding of the concept of derivative. CBMS Issues in
Mathematics Education, 8, 103–127.
Zandieh, M. J., & Knapp, J. (2006). Exploring the role of metonymy
in mathematical understanding and reasoning: The concept of
derivative as an example. The Journal of Mathematical Behav-
ior, 25(1), 1–17.
Zandieh, M., & Knapp, J. (2018). Metonymy and metaphor: How lan-
guage can impact understanding of mathematical concepts (Part
I). MathAMATYC Educator, 9(2), 23–27.
Zandieh, M., & Rasmussen, C. (2010). Defining as a mathematical
activity: A framework for characterizing progress from informal
to more formal ways of reasoning. The Journal of Mathematical
Behavior, 29(2), 57–75.
Zandieh, M., Wawro, M., & Rasmussen, C. (2017). An example of
inquiry in linear algebra: The roles of symbolizing and brokering.
PRIMUS, 27(1), 96–124.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13