Finding effective ways to engage students in sense-making while learning is one of the central challenges discussed in mathematics education literature. One of the big issues is the prevalence of summative assessment tasks prompting students to demonstrate procedural knowledge only, which is a common problem at the tertiary level. In this study, in a large university classroom setting (N = 355), an instructional innovation was designed, developed, implemented and evaluated involving novel tasks–Knowledge Organisers. The tasks comprised prompts for students to generate examples/non-examples and construct a concept map of the key mathematical concepts in the course. The initiative's design was based on the current understanding of human cognitive architecture. A concept map is a visualisation of a group of related abstract concepts with their relationships identified by connections using directed arrows, which can be viewed as an externalisation of a schema stored in a learner's long-term memory. As such, we argue for a distinction between a local conceptual understanding (e.g., example space) versus a global conceptual understanding, manifesting through a high-quality concept map linking a group of related concepts. By utilising a mixed-methods approach and triangulation of the findings from qualitative and quantitative analyses, we were able to discern critical aspects pertaining to the feasibility of implementation and evaluate learners' perceptions. Students' performance on concept mapping is positively correlated with their perceptions of the novel tasks and the time spent completing them. Qualitative analysis showed that students' perceptions are demonstrably insightful about the key mechanisms that supposedly make the tasks beneficial to their learning. Based on the results of the data analyses and their theoretical interpretations, we propose pedagogical strategies for the effective use of Knowledge Organisers.
Citation: Inae Jeong, Tanya Evans. Knowledge Organisers for learning: Examples, non-examples and concept maps in university mathematics[J]. STEM Education, 2023, 3(2): 103-129. doi: 10.3934/steme.2023008
[1] | Yanlin Li, Nasser Bin Turki, Sharief Deshmukh, Olga Belova . Euclidean hypersurfaces isometric to spheres. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(10): 28306-28319. doi: 10.3934/math.20241373 |
[2] | Nasser Bin Turki, Sharief Deshmukh, Olga Belova . A note on closed vector fields. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(1): 1509-1522. doi: 10.3934/math.2024074 |
[3] | Meraj Ali Khan, Ali H. Alkhaldi, Mohd. Aquib . Estimation of eigenvalues for the $ \alpha $-Laplace operator on pseudo-slant submanifolds of generalized Sasakian space forms. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(9): 16054-16066. doi: 10.3934/math.2022879 |
[4] | Sharief Deshmukh, Mohammed Guediri . Some new characterizations of spheres and Euclidean spaces using conformal vector fields. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(10): 28765-28777. doi: 10.3934/math.20241395 |
[5] | Mohammed Guediri, Norah Alshehri . Rigidity of almost Ricci solitons on compact Riemannian manifolds. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(6): 13524-13539. doi: 10.3934/math.2025608 |
[6] | Songting Yin . Some rigidity theorems on Finsler manifolds. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(3): 3025-3036. doi: 10.3934/math.2021184 |
[7] | Ibrahim Aldayel . Value of first eigenvalue of some minimal hypersurfaces embedded in the unit sphere. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(11): 26532-26542. doi: 10.3934/math.20231355 |
[8] | Amira Ishan . On concurrent vector fields on Riemannian manifolds. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(10): 25097-25103. doi: 10.3934/math.20231281 |
[9] | Ibrahim Al-Dayel, Meraj Ali Khan . Ricci curvature of contact CR-warped product submanifolds in generalized Sasakian space forms admitting nearly Sasakian structure. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(3): 2132-2151. doi: 10.3934/math.2021130 |
[10] | Hanan Alohali, Sharief Deshmukh . Some generic hypersurfaces in a Euclidean space. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(6): 15008-15023. doi: 10.3934/math.2024727 |
Finding effective ways to engage students in sense-making while learning is one of the central challenges discussed in mathematics education literature. One of the big issues is the prevalence of summative assessment tasks prompting students to demonstrate procedural knowledge only, which is a common problem at the tertiary level. In this study, in a large university classroom setting (N = 355), an instructional innovation was designed, developed, implemented and evaluated involving novel tasks–Knowledge Organisers. The tasks comprised prompts for students to generate examples/non-examples and construct a concept map of the key mathematical concepts in the course. The initiative's design was based on the current understanding of human cognitive architecture. A concept map is a visualisation of a group of related abstract concepts with their relationships identified by connections using directed arrows, which can be viewed as an externalisation of a schema stored in a learner's long-term memory. As such, we argue for a distinction between a local conceptual understanding (e.g., example space) versus a global conceptual understanding, manifesting through a high-quality concept map linking a group of related concepts. By utilising a mixed-methods approach and triangulation of the findings from qualitative and quantitative analyses, we were able to discern critical aspects pertaining to the feasibility of implementation and evaluate learners' perceptions. Students' performance on concept mapping is positively correlated with their perceptions of the novel tasks and the time spent completing them. Qualitative analysis showed that students' perceptions are demonstrably insightful about the key mechanisms that supposedly make the tasks beneficial to their learning. Based on the results of the data analyses and their theoretical interpretations, we propose pedagogical strategies for the effective use of Knowledge Organisers.
The Laplace operator Δ acting on smooth functions of a Riemannian manifold (Mn,g), is defined by Δf=div(∇f), where ∇f is the gradient of f. It is known that Δ is a self adjoint elliptic operator with respect to the inner product (,) defined on the algebra of smooth functions C∞(Mn) with compact support by
(f,h)=∫MnfhdVg, |
where dVg is the volume form on Mn with respect to the metric g. If Δf=−λf, for a constant λ, then λ is said to be an eigenvalue of the Laplace operator Δ, the negative sign in the definition chosen so that for non-zero eigenvalue λ, λ>0. The set of eigenvalues λi of the Laplace operator Δ on a Riemannian manifold (Mn,g) is called the spectrum of (Mn,g). Spectra of known Riemannian manifolds such as the sphere Sn(c) and the real projective space RPn are known, and a nice description could be found in [2] (Chapter 2, Section 5). Two Riemannian manifolds of same dimension (Mn,g) and (¯Mn,¯g) having the same spectra are said to be isospectral manifolds, whereas they are said to be isometric if there exists a diffeomorphism ϕ:Mn→¯Mn that preserves the metric ϕ∗(¯g)=g∘ϕ, that is, ϕ is an isometry. In the mid Nineteenth century, it was an open question whether isospectral Riemannian manifolds are isometric. We see that physicists followed this question under the topic "On hearing the shape of a drum" or "Can one hear the shape of a drum?" (cf. [5,11]), while Milnor constructed two flat tori in dimension 16, which are isospectral but not isometric (cf. [12]). In [12], the author constructed two 2-dimensional compact manifolds of constant negative curvature which are isospectral and not isometric. Further, Ejiri constructed two non-flat compact Riemannian manifolds which are isospectral but not isometric (cf. [6]). This initiated an interest in comparing spectra of two Riemannian manifolds, for further results in this direction, we refer to (cf. [1,7,8,9,10,15]). One of the natural questions is under what conditions two isospectral Riemannian manifolds are isometric? We know that the n-sphere Sn(c) has first non-zero eigenvalue λ1=nc, and, supposing an n-dimensional Riemannian manifold (Mn,g) also has non-zero eigenvalue λ1=nc, we reduce the above general question to the following specific question: Under what condition is an n-dimensional Riemannian manifold (Mn,g) that has non-zero eigenvalue λ1=−nc for a positive constant c isometric to Sn(c)? In order to answer this question, naturally, we need a smooth function ρ on an n-dimensional Riemannian manifold (Mn,g) that satisfies Δρ=−ncρ. In order to address this issue of finding a smooth function, we consider two situations:
(ⅰ) Considering (Mn,g) as an isometrically immersed hypersurface in the Euclidean space (Rn+1,⟨,⟩) with isometric immersion f:(Mn,g)→(Rn+1,⟨,⟩), though there are several known functions on the hypersurface (Mn,g), namely, the mean curvature function, the scalar curvature function, as well as the support function, but they cannot be eigenfunctions of the Laplace operator corresponding to a non-zero eigenvalue, while (Mn,g) is isometric to the sphere Sn(c). Then, we go for the alternative, namely, for a constant unit vector field →a on the Euclidean space Rn+1, we get a smooth function ρ=⟨f,→a⟩ on the hypersurface (Mn,g), which we require to satisfy Δρ=−ncρ, c>0.
(ⅱ) We seek the Riemannian manifold (Mn,g), and there exists a non-trivial concircular vector field ξ with potential function ρ and we require that the potential function ρ satisfies Δρ=−ncρ, c>0.
In this article, we explore the above two situations that an n-dimensional Riemannian manifold (Mn,g) has an eigenvalue of the Laplace operator same as the first non-zero eigenvalue of the sphere Sn(c), and find an additional condition so that these two are isometric (See Theorems 1, 2, 3). In the language of physics, "yes, we could hear a node through an apparatus to predict the shape of a drum".
On an n-dimensional Riemannian manifold (Mn,g), denote by ∇ the Riemannian connection. The curvature tensor R of (Mn,g) is given by
R(X,Y)Z=[∇X,∇Y]Z−∇[X,Y]Z, X,Y,Z∈Γ(TMn), | (2.1) |
where Γ(TMn) is the space of smooth sections of the tangent bundle TMn. The Ricci tensor Ric of (Mn,g) is a symmetric tensor given by
Ric(X,Y)=n∑l=1g(R(el,X)Y,el), X,Y∈Γ(TMn), | (2.2) |
where {e1,..,en} is a local orthonormal frame (or lof) on (Mn,g). The Ricci operator Q of (Mn,g) is related to the Ricci tensor by
Ric(X,Y)=g(QX,Y), X,Y∈Γ(TMn) |
and therefore Q is a symmetric (1,1) tensor field. The scalar curvature τ of the Riemannian manifold (Mn,g) is given by
τ=n∑l=1Ric(el,el). |
The following formula is well known (cf. [2]),
12∇τ=n∑l=1(∇elQ)(el), |
where ∇τ is the gradient of τ, and the covariant derivative is given by
(∇XQ)(Y)=∇XQY−Q(∇XY). |
Given a smooth function f:Mn→R on a Riemannian manifold (Mn,g), the Laplace operator Δ acts on f, given by
Δf=div(∇f), |
where ∇f is the gradient of f and
divX=n∑l=1g(∇elX,el). |
If (Mn,g) is closed, then Stokes's theorem implies
∫Mn(divX)dVg=0, |
where dVg is the volume element of (Mn,g).
Given a symmetric (1,1) tensor field T on an n-dimensional Riemannian manifold (Mn,g) with trace t, that is,
t=n∑l=1g(Tel,el), |
then the Cauchy–Schwartz inequality is
‖T‖2≥1nt2, | (2.3) |
where
‖T‖2=n∑l=1g(Tel,Tel). |
Moreover, the equality in (2.3) holds if and only if
T=tnI, |
where I is the identity (1,1) tensor.
Suppose on an n-dimensional closed Riemannian manifold (Mn,g) there is a smooth function f that satisfies Δf=−ncf for a constant c. Then we have fΔf=−ncf2. Then, integrating by parts, the last equation leads to
∫Mn‖∇f‖2dVg=nc∫Mnf2dVg. | (2.4) |
In this section, we consider an n-dimensional Riemannian manifold (Mn,g) that admits an isometric immersion f:(Mn,g)→(Rn+1,⟨,⟩) into the Euclidean space (Rn+1,⟨,⟩), where ⟨,⟩ is the Euclidean inner product. We denote by ς the unit normal to the hypersurface (Mn,g), and by B the shape operator with respect to the isometric immersion f. Then, denoting the Euclidean connection on (Rn+1,⟨,⟩) by ¯∇ and the Riemannian connection on the hypersurface (Mn,g) by ∇, we have the following fundamental equations for the hypersurface (cf. [2])
¯∇XY=∇XY+g⟨BX,Y⟩ς, X,Y∈Γ(TMn) | (3.1) |
and
¯∇Xς=−BX, X∈Γ(TMn). | (3.2) |
The mean curvature β of the hypersurface (Mn,g) is given by
β=1nn∑l=1g(Bel,el), | (3.3) |
where {e1,..,en} is a local orthonormal frame on (Mn,g).
The curvature tensor, the Ricci tensor, and the scalar curvature of the hypersurface (Mn,g) are given by (cf. [2])
R(X,Y)Z=g(BY,Z)BX−g(BX,Z)BX, X,Y,Z∈Γ(TMn), |
Ric(X,Y)=nβg(BX,Y)−g(BX.BY), X,Y∈Γ(TMn) |
and
τ=n2β2−‖B‖2. |
Also, the shape operator B has the following wonderful property (Codazzi equation of the hypersurfaces in flat spaces)
(∇XB)(Y)=(∇YB)(X), X,Y∈Γ(TMn). | (3.4) |
Using Eqs (3.3) and (3.4) as well as the symmetry of the shape operator, we have for any X∈Γ(TMn)
nX(β)=n∑l=1g(∇XBel,el)+n∑l=1g(Bel,∇Xel)=n∑l=1g((∇XB)(el)+B(∇Xel),el)+n∑l=1g(Bel,∇Xel)=n∑l=1g((∇elB)(el),X)+2n∑l=1g(Bel,∇Xel). |
Note that Bel=∑jg(Bel,ej)ej and ∇Xel=∑kωkl(X)ek, where g(Bel,ej) is symmetric while the connection forms ωkl are skew symmetric. Therefore,
n∑l=1g(Bel,∇Xel)=∑jklg(Bel,ej)ωkl(X)g(ej,ek)=n∑l=1g(Bel,ej)ωjl(X)=0. |
Thus, above equation becomes
nX(β)=n∑l=1g((∇elB)(el),X), |
that is, we have
n∑l=1(∇elB)(el)=n∇β. | (3.5) |
Treating the isometric immersion f:(Mn,g)→(Rn+1,⟨,⟩) as a position vector of points of Mn in Rn+1, and defining σ=⟨f,ς⟩, called the support function of the hypersurface (Mn,g), we express f as
f=ξ+σς, |
where ξ∈Γ(TMn) is tangential to (Mn,g). Differentiating equation (2.4), while using Eqs (3.1) and (3.2), we have upon equating the tangential and normal parts
∇Xξ=X+σBX | (3.6) |
and
∇σ=−Bξ. |
Taking a constant unit vector field →a on the Euclidean space Rn+1 (for instance a coordinate vector field), we define a smooth function h on the hypersurface (Mn,g), by h=⟨→a,ς⟩. Denoting the tangential part of →a to the hypersurface (Mn,g) by ζ, we have
→a=ζ+hς. | (3.7) |
Differentiating the above equation with respect to X∈Γ(TMn), while using Eqs (3.1) and (3.2), we have upon equating the tangential and normal parts
∇Xζ=hBX, X∈Γ(TMn) | (3.8) |
and
∇h=−Bζ. | (3.9) |
Now, we prove the main result of this section.
Theorem 1. An n-dimensional compact and connected isometrically immersed hypersurface f:(Mn,g)→(Rn+1,⟨,⟩) in the Euclidean space (Rn+1,⟨,⟩) with mean curvature β and a constant unit vector →a=ζ+hς on Rn+1, where the function ρ=⟨f,→a⟩ satisfies Δρ=−ncρ for a positive constant c, is isometric to the sphere Sn(c) if and only if the Ricci curvature Ric(ζ,ζ) satisfies
∫MnRic(ζ,ζ)dVg≥n(n−1)∫Mnh2β2dVg. |
Proof. Consider an n-dimensional compact and connected Riemannian manifold (Mn,g) that admits an isometric immersion f:(Mn,g)→(Rn+1,⟨,⟩) in the Euclidean space (Rn+1,⟨,⟩) with shape operator B, mean curvature β, and a constant unit vector →a=ζ+hς on Rn+1, where the function ρ=⟨f,→a⟩ satisfies
Δρ=−ncρ | (3.10) |
for a positive constant c. Also, the Ricci curvature Ric(ζ,ζ) satisfies
∫MnRic(ζ,ζ)dVg≥n(n−1)∫Mnh2β2dVg. | (3.11) |
Now, differentiating ρ=⟨f,→a⟩in the direction of X∈Γ(TMn), we get X(ρ)=⟨X,→a⟩=⟨f,ζ⟩. This gives us the gradient of ρ as
∇ρ=ζ. | (3.12) |
The Hessian operator Hρ of the function ρ is given by HρX=∇X∇ρ, X∈Γ(TMn), and using Eqs (3.8) and (3.12), we arrive at
HρX=hBX, X∈Γ(TMn). | (3.13) |
Taking the trace in the above equation and taking account of Eq (3.10), we get
cρ=−hβ | (3.14) |
and therefore, through Eq (3.13), we conclude
HρX+cρX=hBX−hβX, X∈Γ(TMn). |
From the above equation, we reach
‖Hρ+cρI‖2=h2‖B−βI‖2. | (3.15) |
Next, using Eq (3.8), we have
h(BX−βX)=∇Xζ−hβX, |
which yields
h2‖B−βI‖2=‖∇ζ‖2+nh2β2−2hβdivζ. |
Inserting divζ=nhβ (an outcome of Eq (3.8)), in the above equation, we arrive at
h2‖B−βI‖2=‖∇ζ‖2−nh2β2. | (3.16) |
Recalling the following well known integral formula (cf. [16])
∫Mn(Ric(ζ,ζ)+12|£ζg|2−‖∇ζ‖2−(divζ)2)dVg=0, |
and integrating Eq (3.16) while using the above integral formula, we conclude
∫Mnh2‖B−βI‖2dVg=∫Mn(Ric(ζ,ζ)+12|£ζg|2−(divζ)2−nh2β2)dVg. | (3.17) |
Using Eq (3.8), we compute
(£ζg)(X,Y)=2hg(BX,Y), X,Y∈Γ(TMn) |
and consequently, we have
12|£ζg|2=2h2‖B‖2. |
Thus, inserting above equation and divζ=nhβ in Eq (3.17) confirms
∫Mnh2‖B−βI‖2dVg=∫Mn(Ric(ζ,ζ)+2h2‖B‖2−n2h2β2−nh2β2)dVg, |
that is,
∫Mnh2‖B−βI‖2dVg=∫Mn(Ric(ζ,ζ)+2h2(‖B‖2−nβ2)−n(n−1)h2β2)dVg. | (3.18) |
For a local orthonormal frame {e1,..,en}, we have
‖B−βI‖2=∑kg(Bek−βek,Bek−βek)=‖B‖2+nβ2−2β∑kg(Bek,ek)=‖B‖2−nβ2. |
Utilizing the above equation in (3.18), we arrive at
∫Mnh2‖B−βI‖2dVg=∫Mn(n(n−1)h2β2−Ric(ζ,ζ))dVg. |
Inserting from Eq (3.15) in the above equation, we have
∫Mn‖Hρ+cρI‖2dVg=∫Mn(n(n−1)h2β2−Ric(ζ,ζ))dVg |
and treating it with inequality (3.11) allows us to reach the conclusion
Hρ=−cρI. |
Note that ρ satisfies Eq (3.10), that is, Δρ=−ncρ for a non-zero constant c. We claim that ρ can not be a constant, for if it were, Equation (3.10) will imply ρ=0, and then Eq (3.14) will imply hβ=0. Note that by Eq (3.6) we have divξ=n(1+σβ), and therefore on the compact hypersurface (Mn,g), we have (cf. [4])
∫Mn(1+σβ)=0, |
which does not allow β=0. Hence, in the situation where ρ is a constant, we have h=0, and, also, by Eq (3.12), ζ=0, and by virtue of Eq (3.7), we will reach the conclusion →a=0, contrary to the assumption that →a is a unit vector. Thus, ρ is a non-constant function which satisfies Obata's equation (3.8) proving that (Mn,g) is isometric to the sphere Sn(c) (cf. [13,14]).
Conversely, consider the isometric immersion f:Sn(c)→(Rn+1,⟨,⟩) of the sphere Sn(c) in the Euclidean space (Rn+1,⟨,⟩) given by f(x)=x. Then, the unit normal ς=√cf, the shape operator B=−√cI, and the mean curvature β=−√c. Consider the unit constant vector →a given by the first Euclidean coordinate vector field, that is,
→a=∂∂x1=ζ+hς, |
where ζ is tangent to the sphere Sn(c) and h=⟨→a,ς⟩=⟨→a,√cf⟩=√c⟨f,→a⟩. Thus, defining ρ=⟨f,→a⟩, we have
h=√cρ. | (3.19) |
Now, differentiating (3.19) in the direction of X∈Γ(TSn(c)) and equating the tangential and normal parts, we confirm
∇Xζ=−√chX, ∇h=√cζ | (3.20) |
Using Eqs (3.19) and (3.20), we see √cζ=√c∇ρ, that is,
ζ=∇ρ, | (3.21) |
which, in view of the first equation in (3.20), provides
Δρ=divζ=−n√ch=−ncρ. | (3.22) |
Finally, using Eq (3.21), the Ricci curvature Ric(ζ,ζ) of the sphere Sn(c) is given by
Ric(ζ,ζ)=(n−1)c‖ζ‖2=(n−1)c‖∇ρ‖2. | (3.23) |
However, Equations (3.19) and (3.22) confirm
∫Sn(c)‖∇ρ‖2dVg=nc∫Sn(c)ρ2dVg=n∫Sn(c)h2dVg=nc∫Sn(c)h2β2dVg. |
Now, integrating Eq (3.23) while using above equation yields
∫Sn(c)Ric(ζ,ζ)dVg=n(n−1)∫Sn(c)h2β2dVg. |
Hence, the converse also holds.
Next, we prove the following result for the complete hypersurface (Mn,g) of the Euclidean space (Rn+1,⟨,⟩).
Theorem 2. An n-dimensional complete and simply connected isometrically immersed hypersurface f:(Mn,g)→(Rn+1,⟨,⟩), n>1, in the Euclidean space (Rn+1,⟨,⟩) with mean curvature β and a constant unit vector →a=ζ+hς on Rn+1, where the function h=⟨→a,ς⟩≠0 satisfies Δh=−nch for a positive constant c, is isometric to the sphere Sn(c) if and only if the mean curvature β is a constant along the integral curves of ζ and β2≥c holds.
Proof. Consider an n-dimensional complete and simply connected Riemannian manifold (Mn,g) that admits an isometric immersion f:(Mn,g)→(Rn+1,⟨,⟩) in the Euclidean space (Rn+1,⟨,⟩) such that the function h=⟨→a,ς⟩≠0 satisfies
Δh=−nch, | (3.24) |
with mean curvature β satisfying
ζ(β)=0 |
and
β2≥c. | (3.25) |
We use Eqs (3.5) and (3.8), the symmetry of the shape operator B, and a local orthonormal frame {e1,..,en} in order to find div(Bζ),
div(Bζ)=n∑l=1g(∇elBζ,el)=n∑l=1g((∇elB)(ζ)+B(hBel),el)=n∑l=1g(ζ,(∇elB)(el))+h‖B‖2=nζ(β)+h‖B‖2. |
Using Eq (3.15), we get
div(Bζ)=h‖B‖2. |
Now, taking the divergence in Eq (3.9) and using the above equation with Eq (3.24) yields
h‖B‖2=nch, |
that is,
h2(‖B‖2−nβ2)=nh2(c−β2). | (3.26) |
Combining above equation with inequality (3.25), while keeping in view Cauchy–Schwartz's inequality ‖B‖2≥nβ2, we get
h2(‖B‖2−nβ2)=0. |
Since h≠0, we get
‖B‖2=nβ2, |
which, being an inequality in Cauchy–Schwartz's inequality ‖B‖2≥nβ2, we must have
B=βI. | (3.27) |
The above equation implies
(∇XB)(Y)=X(β)Y, X,Y∈Γ(TMn), |
which gives
n∑l=1(∇elB)(el)=∇β. |
Combining the above equation with Eq (3.5) yields
(n−1)∇β=0 |
and, as n>1, we get that β is a constant, and by virtue of Eqs (3.26) and (3.27), we have
β2=c. |
Now, using Eq (3.27) in the expression of the curvature tensor of the hypersurface with the above equation gives
R(X,Y)Z=c{g(Y,Z)X−g(X,Z)Y}, X,,Y,Z∈Γ(TMn), |
that is, (Mn,g) is a complete and simply connected space of constant positive curvature c. Hence, (Mn,g) is isometric to Sn(c). The converse is trivial.
Consider an n-dimensional Riemannian manifold (Mn,g) that possesses a concircular vector field ξ (cf. [3]), that is, the vector field satisfies
∇Xξ=σX, X∈Γ(TMn), | (4.1) |
where σ is a smooth function, called the potential function of the concircular vector field. A concircular vector field is said to be non-trivial if the potential function σ≠0. Using Eq (4.1), we immediately have
divξ=nσ. | (4.2) |
In this section, we are interested in an n-dimensional compact Riemannian manifold (Mn,g) that possesses a non-trivial concircular vector field ξ with potential function σ satisfying
Δσ=−ncσ, |
where c>0 is a constant, that is, σ is an eigenfunction of the Laplace operator with eigenvalue the same as the first non-zero eigenvalue of the sphere Sn(c), and we find a condition under which (Mn,g) is isometric to the sphere Sn(c).
Before we approach this issue, we first prepare an auxiliary result to prove the main result. First, for Eq (4.1), using Eq (2.1) immediately gives the following expression of the curvature tensor, namely
R(X,Y)ξ=X(σ)Y−Y(σ)X, X,Y∈Γ(TMn). |
Taking the trace in the above equation and using Eq (2.2), we reach
Ric(X,ξ)=−(n−1)X(σ) | (4.3) |
and this equation gives the following expression for the Ricci operator Q operating on ξ, namely
Q(ξ)=−(n−1)∇σ, |
where ∇σ is the gradient of the potential function σ.
In the following paragraph, we show that for each concircular vector field ξ on a connected Riemannian manifold (Mn,g) there corresponds a smooth function f, which we call a concircular function of the concircular vector field ξ. Note that Eq (4.2) implies
R(X,ξ)ξ=X(σ)ξ−ξ(σ)X, X∈Γ(TMn) |
and the operator R(X,ξ)ξ, X∈Γ(TMn) is symmetric in X, and, therefore, the above equation implies
X(σ)g(ξ,Y)=Y(σ)g(ξ,X), X∈Γ(TMn). |
The above equation implies
X(σ)ξ=g(ξ,X)∇σ |
and taking the inner product in the above equation with ∇σ and replacing X by ξ, we conclude
(ξ(σ))2=‖ξ‖2‖∇σ‖2, |
that is
‖ξ‖2‖∇σ‖2=g(ξ,∇σ)2. |
This proves that vector fields ∇σ and ξ are parallel, and, consequently, there exists a smooth function f such that
∇σ=fξ. |
We call this function f the concircular function of the concircular vector field ξ.
First, we prove the following proposition.
Proposition 1. Let ξ be a non-trivial concircular vector field on an n-dimensional compact Riemannian manifold (Mn,g) with potential function σ and concircular function f. If the potential function σ satisfies
Δσ=−ncσ |
for a positive constant c, then
∫Mn(‖Hσ‖2−1n(Δσ)2)dVg=n−1n∫Mn(ξ(f))2dVg. |
Proof. Let ξ be a non-trivial concircular vector field on an n-dimensional compact Riemannian manifold (Mn,g) with potential function σ and concircular function f, and the potential function σ satisfies
Δσ=−ncσ | (4.4) |
for a positive constant c. Using Eqs (4.2) and (4.3), we have
Ric(ξ,ξ)=−(n−1)ξ(σ)=−(n−1)[div(σξ)−nσ2] |
and integrating the above equation, we confirm
∫MnRic(ξ,ξ)dVg=n(n−1)∫Mnσ2dVg. |
Using the integral formula in [16], we have for a vector field ζ on (Mn,g)
∫Mn(Ric(ζ,ζ)+12|£ζg|2−‖∇ζ‖2−(divζ)2)dVg=0. |
Replacing ζ in the above equation by ∇σ and noting that
12|£ζg|2=2‖Hσ‖2, ‖∇ζ‖2=‖Hσ‖2, |
we conclude
∫Mn(Ric(∇σ,∇σ)+‖Hσ‖2−(Δσ)2)dVg=0. |
Thus, we have
∫Mn(‖Hσ‖2−1n(Δσ)2)dVg=∫Mn(n−1n(Δσ)2−Ric(∇σ,∇σ))dVg |
and, inserting Eq (4.4), we reach
∫Mn(‖Hσ‖2−1n(Δσ)2)dVg=∫Mn(n(n−1)c2σ2−Ric(∇σ,∇σ))dVg. |
Now, inserting from Eq (4.4) in the above equation takes us to
∫Mn(‖Hσ‖2−1n(Δσ)2)dVg=∫Mn(n(n−1)c2σ2−f2Ric(ξ,ξ))dVg. | (4.5) |
Using Eqs (4.3) and (4.4), we have
Ric(ξ,ξ)=−(n−1)ξ(σ)=−(n−1)g(ξ,∇σ)=−(n−1)f‖ξ‖2 |
and using this in Eq (4.5) leads to
∫Mn(‖Hσ‖2−1n(Δσ)2)dVg=(n−1)∫Mn(nc2σ2+f3‖ξ‖2)dVg. | (4.6) |
Note that taking the divergence on both sides of Eq (4.4) and using Eq (4.2) gives
Δσ=ξ(f)+nfσ |
and combining this with Eq (4.4) allows us to conclude
ξ(f)=−nσ(c+f). | (4.7) |
Using Eqs (4.2), (4.4), and (4.7), we compute
div(f2σξ)=ξ(f2σ)+nf2σ2=f2g(ξ,∇σ)+2σfξ(f)+nf2σ2=f3‖ξ‖2−2nσ2f(c+f)+nf2σ2 |
and, integrating the above equation, gives
∫Mnf3‖ξ‖2dVg=∫Mn(nf2σ2+2ncfσ2)dVg. |
Inserting the above equation into Eq (4.6) leads to
∫Mn(‖Hσ‖2−1n(Δσ)2)dVg=n(n−1)∫Mnσ2(c+f)2dVg |
and combining it with Eq (4.7) yields
∫Mn(‖Hσ‖2−1n(Δσ)2)dVg=(n−1)n∫Mn(ξ(f))2dVg. |
As a straightforward application of the above result, we have the following theorem.
Theorem 3. An n-dimensional compact and connected Riemannian manifold (Mn,g) admits a non-trivial concircular vector field ξ with potential function σ and concircular function f such that the potential function σ satisfies
Δσ=−ncσ |
for a positive constant c, and the concircular function f is a constant along the integral curves of ξ if and only if (Mn,g) is isometric to Sn(c).
Proof. Suppose an n-dimensional compact and connected Riemannian manifold (Mn,g) admits a non-trivial concircular vector field ξ with potential function σ and concircular function f such that the potential function σ satisfies
Δσ=−ncσ | (4.8) |
for a positive constant c, and the concircular function f is a constant along the integral curves of ξ. Then, by Proposition 1 we have
∫Mn(‖Hσ‖2−1n(Δσ)2)dVg=0. | (4.9) |
The Cauchy–Schwartz inequality implies
‖Hσ‖2≥1n(Δσ)2 | (4.10) |
and equality holds if and only if
Hσ=ΔσnI. | (4.11) |
In view of inequality (4.10) and Eq (4.9), we are ready to conclude the equality
‖Hσ‖2=1n(Δσ)2 |
and, therefore, Eq (4.11) holds. Combining Eqs (4.8) and (4.11), we arrive at
Hσ=−cσI. | (4.12) |
Note that the potential function σ can not be a constant, for if it were a constant, the above equation would imply σ=0, which is contrary to the assumption that ξ is a non-trivial concircular vector field. Thus, Equation (4.12) is Obata's equation, and therefore (Mn,g) is isometric to the sphere Sn(c) (cf. [13,14]).
Conversely, take a constant unit vector →a on the Euclidean space (Rn+1,⟨,⟩) while treating Sn(c) as a hypersurface of (Rn+1,⟨,⟩) with unit normal ς, shape operator B=−√cI, and expressing →a as
→a=ξ+hς, | (4.13) |
where ξ is tangent to Sn(c) and h=⟨→a,ς⟩. Differentiating equation (4.13) with respect to X∈Γ(TSn(c)) and equating the tangential and normal parts, we arrive at
∇Xξ=−√chX, ∇h=√cξ. | (4.14) |
This confirms that ξ is a concircular vector field on Sn(c) with potential function σ=−√ch, and the second equation gives ∇σ=−cξ. This proves that the concircular function f=−c. Moreover, if the potential function σ=0, we get h=0, and by the second equation in (4.14), we get ξ=0. In this case, Eq (4.13) confirms →a=0, a contradiction to the fact that →a is a unit vector. Thus, the potential function σ≠0, that is, the concircular vector field ξ on Sn(c) is non-trivial. Note that divξ=−n√ch=nσ, and, combining it with the equation ∇σ=−cξ, we get Δσ=−ncσ with c a positive constant. Hence, the converse holds.
We have initiated the study of an n-dimensional compact Riemannian manifold (Mn,g) that has an eigenvalue nc for a positive constant c of the Laplace operator the same as the first non-zero eigenvalue of the n-sphere Sn(c) of constant curvature c, and searched for an additional condition under which (Mn,g) is isometric to the sphere Sn(c). The main aim was to find an appropriate smooth function on (Mn,g) that will become the eigenfunction of the Laplace operator with eigenvalue nc as seen in Theorems 1 and 3. Naturally, the scope of this study is quite modest, for instance one can consider an n-dimensional compact Riemannian manifold (Mn,g) that admits a torse forming vector field ξ (cf. [17]). Recall that a torse forming vector field ξ on (Mn,g) satisfies
∇Xξ=σX+ω(X)ξ, X∈Γ(TMn), |
where σ is a smooth function defined on Mn called the conformal scalar and ω is a smooth 1-form on Mn called the generating form of the a torse forming vector field ξ. It will be an interesting question to consider torse forming vector field ξ on an n-dimensional compact Riemannian manifold (Mn,g) such that its conformal scalar σ satisfies Δσ=−ncσ for a positive constant c, and find conditions under which (Mn,g) is isometric to Sn(c).
We know that the second non-zero eigenvalue of the sphere Sn(c) is given by λ2=2(n+1)c, and another aspect of our work could be, if there is a smooth function f on an n-dimensional compact Riemannian manifold (Mn,g) such that Δf=−2(n+1)cf, that is, (Mn,g) has an eigenvalue same as second non-zero eigenvalue of the sphere Sn(c), to find additional condition on (Mn,g) so that (Mn,g) is isometric to Sn(c).
Sharief Deshmukh: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing-original draft, Writing-review and editing, Supervision; Amira Ishan: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing-review and editing; Olga Belova: Formal analysis, Writing-original draft, Writing-review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The authors would like to acknowledge the Deanship of Graduate Studies and Scientific Research, Taif University for funding this work.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.
[1] |
Schroeder, N.L., Nesbit, J.C., Anguiano, C.J. and Adesope, O.O., Studying and Constructing Concept Maps: a Meta-Analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 2018, 30(2): 431‒455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9403-9 doi: 10.1007/s10648-017-9403-9
![]() |
[2] | Barta, A., Fodor, L.A., Tamas, B. and Szamoskozi, I., The development of students critical thinking abilities and dispositions through the concept mapping learning method – A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 2022, 37: 100481. https://doi.org/1016/j.edurev.2022.100481 |
[3] | Novak, J.D., Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations, 2010. Routledge. |
[4] | Farrokhnia, M., Pijeira-Díaz, H.J., Noroozi, O. and Hatami, J., Computer-supported collaborative concept mapping: The effects of different instructional designs on conceptual understanding and knowledge co-construction. Computers & Education, 2019,142: 103640. |
[5] |
Novak, J.D., Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of research in science teaching, 1990, 27(10): 937‒949. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660271003 doi: 10.1002/tea.3660271003
![]() |
[6] | Novak, J.D. and Cañas, A.J., The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct them, 2008, Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition. |
[7] |
Chiou, C.-C., Effects of concept mapping strategy on learning performance in business and economics statistics. Teaching in Higher Education, 2009, 14(1): 55‒69. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510802602582 doi: 10.1080/13562510802602582
![]() |
[8] |
Lambiotte, J.G., Skaggs, L.P. and Dansereau, D.F., Learning from lectures: Effects of knowledge maps and cooperative review strategies. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 1993, 7(6): 483‒497. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350070604 doi: 10.1002/acp.2350070604
![]() |
[9] | Sas, M., The effects of students' asynchronous online discussions of conceptual errors on intentionally flawed teacher-constructed concept maps, 2008, UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations. 2800. |
[10] |
Ryve, A., Can collaborative concept mapping create mathematically productive discourses? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 2004, 56(3): 157‒177. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:educ.0000040395.17555.c2 doi: 10.1023/b:educ.0000040395.17555.c2
![]() |
[11] |
Williams, C.G., Using Concept Maps to Assess Conceptual Knowledge of Function. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education JRME, 1998, 29(4): 414‒421. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.29.4.0414 doi: 10.5951/jresematheduc.29.4.0414
![]() |
[12] |
Wilcox, S.K. and Sahloff, M., Assessment: Another Perspective on Concept Maps: Empowering Students. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 1998, 3(7): 464‒469. https://doi.org/10.5951/mtms.3.7.0464 doi: 10.5951/mtms.3.7.0464
![]() |
[13] |
Baroody, A.J. and Bartels, B.H., Using Concept Maps to Link Mathematical Ideas. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 2000, 5(9): 604‒609. https://doi.org/10.5951/mtms.5.9.0604 doi: 10.5951/mtms.5.9.0604
![]() |
[14] |
Gallenstein, N.L., Mathematics concept maps: assessing connections. Teaching Children Mathematics, 2011, 17(7): 436‒440. https://doi.org/10.5951/teacchilmath.17.7.0436 doi: 10.5951/teacchilmath.17.7.0436
![]() |
[15] | Afamasaga-Fuata, K., Concept mapping in mathematics, 2009. Springer. |
[16] | Prestage, S. and Perks, P., Adapting and Extending Secondary Mathematics Activities, 2013. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203462386 |
[17] | Ollerton, M. and Watson, A., Inclusive Mathematics 11-18, 2001, London: Continuum. |
[18] | Schmittau, J., Uses of concept mapping in teacher education in mathematics. in AJ Canãs, JD Novak & Gonázales (Eds), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Concept Mapping. 2004,571‒578. |
[19] | Jin, H. and Wong, K., Training on concept mapping skills in geometry. Journal of Mathematics Education, 2010, 3(1): 104‒119. |
[20] |
Jin, H. and Wong, K.Y., Mapping conceptual understanding of algebraic concepts: An exploratory investigation involving grade 8 Chinese students. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2015, 13(3): 683‒703. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9500-2 doi: 10.1007/s10763-013-9500-2
![]() |
[21] |
Jin, H. and Wong, K.Y., Complementary measures of conceptual understanding: a case about triangle concepts. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-021-00381-y doi: 10.1007/s13394-021-00381-y
![]() |
[22] |
Evans, T. and Jeong, I., Concept maps as assessment for learning in university mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 2023,113: 475–498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-023-10209-0 doi: 10.1007/s10649-023-10209-0
![]() |
[23] |
Riegel, K., Evans, T. and Stephens, J.M., Development of the measure of assessment self-efficacy (MASE) for quizzes and exams. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 2022, 29(6): 729‒745. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2022.2162481 doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2022.2162481
![]() |
[24] | Sweller, J., Human cognitive architecture. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, 2008, 35: 369‒381. |
[25] |
Evans, T. and Dietrich, H., Inquiry-based mathematics education: a call for reform in tertiary education seems unjustified. STEM Education, 2022, 2(3): 221‒244. https://doi.org/10.3934/steme.2022014 doi: 10.3934/steme.2022014
![]() |
[26] |
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J.J. and Paas, F., Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 2019, 31(2): 261‒292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5 doi: 10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5
![]() |
[27] | Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J.J. and Paas, F.G., Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 1998, 10(3): 251‒296. |
[28] | Sweller, J., Evolution of human cognitive architecture. Psychology of learning and motivation, 2003, 43: 216‒266. |
[29] | Klausmeier, H.J. and Feldman, K.V., Effects of a definition and a varying number of examples and nonexamples on concept attainment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1975, 67(2): 174. |
[30] |
Fukawa-Connelly, T.P. and Newton, C., Analyzing the teaching of advanced mathematics courses via the enacted example space. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 2014, 87(3): 323‒349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-014-9554-2 doi: 10.1007/s10649-014-9554-2
![]() |
[31] | Mason, J. and Watson, A., Mathematics as a constructive activity: Exploiting dimensions of possible variation, in Making the connection: Research and teaching in undergraduate mathematics education. 2008,191‒204: The Mathematical Association of America Washington, DC. |
[32] | Weber, K., Porter, M. and Housman, D., Worked Examples and Concept Example Usage in Understanding Mathematical Concepts and Proofs, in Making the Connection: Research and Teaching in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, C. Rasmussen and M.P. Carlson, Editors. 2008,245‒252. Mathematical Association of America. |
[33] |
Sandefur, J., Mason, J., Stylianides, G.J. and Watson, A., Generating and using examples in the proving process. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 2013, 83(3): 323‒340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9459-x doi: 10.1007/s10649-012-9459-x
![]() |
[34] | Watson, A. and Mason, J., Mathematics as a constructive activity: learners generating examples, 2005, Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. |
[35] | Alcock, L. and Weber, K., Undergraduates' example use in proof construction: Purposes and effectiveness. Investigations in Mathematics Learning, 2010, 3(1): 1‒22. |
[36] | Zazkis, R. and Leikin, R., Exemplifying definitions: a case of a square. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 2008, 69(2): 131‒148. |
[37] |
Tall, D. and Vinner, S., Concept image and concept definition in mathematics with particular reference to limits and continuity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 1981, 12(2): 151‒169. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00305619 doi: 10.1007/bf00305619
![]() |
[38] |
Goldenberg, P. and Mason, J., Shedding light on and with example spaces. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 2008, 69(2): 183‒194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-008-9143-3 doi: 10.1007/s10649-008-9143-3
![]() |
[39] | Marton, F., Necessary conditions of learning, 2014. Routledge. |
[40] | Zaslavsky, O. and Shir, K., Students' conceptions of a mathematical definition. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 2005, 36(4): 317‒346. |
[41] | Henderson, K.B., A model for teaching mathematical concepts. The Mathematics Teacher, 1967, 60(6): 573‒577. |
[42] | Liz, B., Dreyfus, T., Mason, J., Tsamir, P., Watson, A. and Zaslavsky, O., Exemplification in mathematics education. Proceedings of the 30th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 2006,126‒154. ERIC. |
[43] | Tsamir, P., Tirosh, D. and Levenson, E., Intuitive nonexamples: The case of triangles. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 2008, 69(2): 81‒95. |
[44] | Novak, J.D. and Musonda, D., A twelve-year longitudinal study of science concept learning. American educational research journal, 1991, 28(1): 117‒153. |
[45] |
Nesbit, J.C. and Adesope, O.O., Learning With Concept and Knowledge Maps: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 2006, 76(3): 413‒448. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076003413 doi: 10.3102/00346543076003413
![]() |
[46] |
Gurlitt, J. and Renkl, A., Prior knowledge activation: how different concept mapping tasks lead to substantial differences in cognitive processes, learning outcomes, and perceived self-efficacy. Instructional Science, 2010, 38(4): 417‒433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9090-5 doi: 10.1007/s11251-008-9090-5
![]() |
[47] |
Kalyuga, S., Knowledge elaboration: A cognitive load perspective. Learning and Instruction, 2009, 19(5): 402‒410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.003 doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.003
![]() |
[48] |
Chi, M.T.H., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M.H. and LaVancher, C., Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 1994, 18(3): 439‒477. https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(94)90016-7 doi: 10.1016/0364-0213(94)90016-7
![]() |
[49] |
Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K.A., Marsh, E.J., Nathan, M.J. and Willingham, D.T., Improving Students' Learning With Effective Learning Techniques. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2013, 14(1): 4‒58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266 doi: 10.1177/1529100612453266
![]() |
[50] | Karpicke, J.D. and Blunt, J.R., Retrieval Practice Produces More Learning than Elaborative Studying with Concept Mapping. Science, 2011,331(6018): 772‒775. https://doi.org/doi:10.1126/science.1199327 |
[51] |
O'Day, G.M. and Karpicke, J.D., Comparing and combining retrieval practice and concept mapping. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2021,113(5): 986–997. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000486 doi: 10.1037/edu0000486
![]() |
[52] | Fiorella, L. and Mayer, R.E., Learning as a generative activity, 2015. Cambridge University Press. |
[53] | Skemp, R.R., Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Mathematics teaching, 1976, 77(1): 20‒26. |
[54] | Hiebert, J. and Lefevre, P., Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: An introductory analysis. Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics, 1986, 2: 1‒27. |
[55] | Star, J.R., Reconceptualizing procedural knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 2005, 36(5): 404‒411. |
[56] |
Inglis, M. and Mejía-Ramos, J.P., Functional explanation in mathematics. Synthese, 2021,198(S26): 6369‒6392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02234-5 doi: 10.1007/s11229-019-02234-5
![]() |
[57] | Chappuis, S. and Stiggins, R.J., Classroom assessment for learning. Educational leadership, 2002, 60(1): 40‒44. |
[58] |
Buchholtz, N.F., Krosanke, N., Orschulik, A.B. and Vorhölter, K., Combining and integrating formative and summative assessment in mathematics teacher education. ZDM, 2018, 50(4): 715‒728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0948-y doi: 10.1007/s11858-018-0948-y
![]() |
[59] |
Crooks, N.M. and Alibali, M.W., Defining and measuring conceptual knowledge in mathematics. Developmental review, 2014, 34(4): 344‒377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2014.10.001 doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2014.10.001
![]() |
[60] |
Bergqvist, E., Types of reasoning required in university exams in mathematics. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 2007, 26(4): 348‒370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2007.11.001 doi: 10.1016/j.jmathb.2007.11.001
![]() |
[61] |
Iannone, P., Czichowsky, C. and Ruf, J., The impact of high stakes oral performance assessment on students' approaches to learning: a case study. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 2020,103(3): 313‒337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-020-09937-4 doi: 10.1007/s10649-020-09937-4
![]() |
[62] |
Iannone, P. and Simpson, A., The summative assessment diet: how we assess in mathematics degrees. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications: An International Journal of the IMA, 2011, 30(4): 186‒196. https://doi.org/10.1093/teamat/hrr017 doi: 10.1093/teamat/hrr017
![]() |
[63] | Jeong, I. and Evans, T., Embedding concept mapping into university mathematics: comparison and validation of marking rubrics. Proceedings of the 13th Southern Hemisphere Conference on the Teaching and Learning of Undergraduate Mathematics and Statistics. 2021, 2‒16. Auckland, New Zealand. https://doi.org/10.17608/k6.auckland.20330460.v1 |
[64] |
Johnson, R.B. and Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come. Educational Researcher, 2004, 33(7): 14‒26. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007014 doi: 10.3102/0013189X033007014
![]() |
[65] |
Braun, V. and Clarke, V., Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2006, 3(2): 77‒101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
![]() |
[66] |
Wigfield, A. and Eccles, J.S., Expectancy–Value Theory of Achievement Motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 2000, 25(1): 68‒81. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015 doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1015
![]() |
[67] |
Stylianides, A.J. and Stylianides, G.J., Seeking research-grounded solutions to problems of practice: classroom-based interventions in mathematics education. ZDM, 2013, 45(3): 333‒341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0501-y doi: 10.1007/s11858-013-0501-y
![]() |
[68] | Peterson, J.C., Effect of an Advanced Organizer, A Post Organizer, or Knowledge of a Behavioral Objective on Achievement and Retention of a Mathematical Concept, 1971. |
[69] |
Peterson, J.C., Thomas, H.L., Lovett, C.J. and Bright, G.W., The Effect of Organizers and Knowledge of Behavioral Objectives on Learning a Mathematical Concept. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education JRME, 1973, 4(2): 76‒84. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.4.2.0076 doi: 10.5951/jresematheduc.4.2.0076
![]() |