Educational Studies in Mathematics

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-020-09956-1

New approaches for two-variable inequality graphs

utilizing the Cartesian Connection and the APOS theory

Kyunghee Moon 1

# Springer Nature B.V. 2020

Abstract
This study utilizes the Cartesian Connection and the action, process, object, and schema
(APOS) theory to investigate how preservice mathematics teachers constructed and
justified graphs of two-variable inequalities. The analysis shows that most teachers were
not equipped with the skills and knowledge that were prerequisites for action, process,
and object conceptions of two-variable inequality graphs. Many teachers used informal
rules, rather than mathematical ideas such as the Cartesian Connection, to construct and/
or justify inequality graphs. They also perceived inequality graphs as shapes rather than
as representations based on the meaning of inequalities. I present a genetic decomposition
for inequality graphs, through the concepts of variable and of parameter, as well as tasks
associated with the genetic decomposition. I call for more studies on inequalities,
including those relating to the implementation of the suggested genetic decomposition
and tasks.

Keywords Inequality . Cartesian Connection . APOS theory . Graph . Variable . Parameter .

Preservice teachers

Inequalities are important in mathematics because they relate to various topics, such as
equations and functions, and because they apply to real-life situations, such as optimization.
However, despite calls for more research from the mathematics education community (Boero
& Bazzini, 2004; Vaiyavutjamai & Clements, 2006), research on inequalities has been under-
represented. Furthermore, most of the studies on inequalities have dealt with one-variable
inequalities in algebraic form (Almog & Ilany, 2012; Schreiber & Tsamir, 2012; Tsamir &
Bazzini, 2004).
In one-variable inequalities, many students’ difficulties are related to either the properties or
the meaning of inequalities. Students incorrectly apply properties of equations, such as the
Multiplication Property and the Zero Property, to inequalities. They also do not understand the

* Kyunghee Moon
kmoon@westga.edu

1
Department of Mathematics, University of West Georgia, Carrollton, GA 30118, USA
 Moon K.

role of connectives, such as and and or, embedded in inequalities, such as (x-2)(x-3) < 0 (Kroll,
1986; Tsamir, Tirosh, & Almog, 1998). They solve inequality problems by solving parallel
equations—for example, finding the solutions of R(x) ≤ 0 from R(x) = 0—or have difficulty
articulating what solutions of inequalities are (Almog & Ilany, 2012; Blanco & Garrote, 2007;
Frost, 2015; Sfard & Linchevski, 1994; Tall, 2004; Vaiyavutjamai & Clements, 2006).
Research on two-variable inequalities is rare. An article by Switzer (2014) describes how a
guided discovery approach helps students understand the meaning and the graph of an
inequality. Yet the article is limited to linear inequalities. Furthermore, it does not delve into
the critical concepts and ideas involved in the understanding of inequality graphs. In this paper,
I attempt to address these issues with the research question: How do preservice teachers
construct and justify graphs of two-variable inequalities in various forms?

1 Literature review and theoretical underpinnings

1.1 The Cartesian Connection on equations

I begin this section with the definitions of a graph and of the Cartesian Connection. The graph
of a mathematical relation in this study refers to a graphical representation that consists of all
the points whose coordinates satisfy the relation. As such, a graph is represented as a curve,
surface, region, etc., that shows the relationships among the variables involved in the relation
(Borowski & Borwein, 2002). Moschkovich, Schoenfeld, and Arcavi (1993) defined the
Cartesian Connection as follows: “A point is on the graph of the line L if and only if its
coordinates satisfy the equation of L” (p. 73)—an interpretation of graph at the local (point-
wise) level. Moon, Brenner, Jacob, and Okamoto (2013) then extended it to two-variable
equations and incorporated it in their research on conic curves. In this study, I further extend it
to all mathematical relations, including inequalities, and define the Cartesian Connection as
follows: A point is on the graph of a mathematical relation if and only if its coordinates satisfy
the relation.
There are several studies showing individuals’ struggles with the Cartesian Connection and
graphs. Students have difficulty providing the coordinates of points on lines, even when they
know the equations of the lines (Moschkovich et al., 1993). Students use algebraic approaches
over more efficient, geometric approaches to determine a coefficient of a linear equation
(Knuth, 2000). Prospective secondary teachers incorrectly represent x2 + y2 = qx as a circle
centered at the origin and have difficulty representing conic curves based on the definitions
(Moon et al., 2013).
Understanding graphs of relations requires both local and global views. In the case of
function, for example, a local view is needed to consider some points whose coordinates
satisfy the given function (the Cartesian Connection); a global view is needed to consider
all such points as a whole (see Even, 1998). As such, in order to examine learners’
understanding of graphs, one needs a lens that can address both local and global under-
standings of graphs, such as point-wise and global views (Monk, 1992), operational and
structural views (Sfard, 1991), and action, process, and object conceptions in the APOS
theory (Arnon et al., 2014; Dubinsky & Harel, 1992). For the purpose of this study, I
utilize the APOS theory, as it seems to best explain the phenomena involved in the
visualization of two-variable inequality graphs.
New approaches for two-variable inequality graphs utilizing the...

1.2 APOS theory

In the APOS theory, there are four types of mental structures involved in understanding a
mathematical concept: action, process, object, and schema (Arnon et al., 2014). An action is a
mental or physical manipulation of objects that can transform one object into another. It can be
a single-step action performed explicitly, including recalling memorized facts, or a multi-step
action without conscious control. When repeated and interiorized, the actions become a mental
process. When the process is understood as a totality that can take actions or processes, the
process is encapsulated into an object. An individual may reach a totality level, but not the
object conception, failing to apply actions on it (Dubinsky, Arnon, & Weller, 2013). An
individual’s construction of action, process and object is realized through mental mechanisms
that connect them, such as interiorization, encapsulation, and de-encapsulation. A schema is a
structure that consists of the aforementioned structures and mechanisms.
Prior research suggests that many individuals understand graphs of one-variable functions
only as actions. They may plot and trace points to visualize functions, but do not understand
the existence of infinitude points or the continuity of the graphs (Kerslake, 1981; Leinhardt,
Zaslavsky, & Stein, 1990). They may explain graphs at certain points, but not over intervals
(Carlson, 1998). They incorrectly represent the table of a non-linear function as a line, even
when their algebraic to geometric transfers exhibit points in a non-linear pattern (Presmeg &
Nenduradu, 2005).
Students also have difficulty seeing a function as a process or an object in two-variable
functions. Many calculus students make connections between algebraic and geometric repre-
sentations of points. But they can neither explain the y = x + z + 3 graph as a set of points nor
understand cross-sections of the y = x + z + 3 graph at fixed values of x, (Trigueros & Martinez-
Planell, 2010). On the other hand, covariational reasoning (Weber & Thompson, 2014) is
shown to be critical to the understanding of two-variable function graphs. A student who
understands the graph of y = x2 − 2x as a collection of points visualizes the y = a(x2 − 2x) graph
as a stretching of the points on the y = x2 − 2x graph, and then the y = z(x2 − 2x) graph as a
“sweeping out” (p. 72) of all y = a(x2 − 2x) graphs (i.e., as a collection of two-dimensional
curves, y = a(x2 − 2x), in a three-dimensional space). Another student who perceives the
y = x2 − 2x graph only as a shape is unable to visualize the y = z(x2 − 2x) graph.

1.3 The Cartesian connection and inequality graphs

When it comes to equations, multiple actions of transfer—from a pair of x and y values to a

point in a plane—followed by a tracing of such points, may create the images of graphs for
basic equations. For inequalities, however, it is nearly impossible to create the images by such
actions, even for basic inequalities. As such, different approaches are needed to visualize
inequality graphs.
In US curricula, two methods have been used to visualize inequality graphs: the solution
test method and the ray method, with the solution test method more commonly used than the
ray method. For y < f(x), for example, the solution test method comprises of two parts: the
drawing of y = f(x), and the testing of the truth values of y < f(x) for some points, with the
points chosen from either side of the two regions divided by the y = f(x) graph. The y < f(x)
graph is then determined as a shaded region that contains points with true truth-values. The
solution test method may include a note that every point in the region is a solution of the
inequality (see, e.g., David et al., 2001 and Lehmann, 2008). Yet its focus is on the
 Moon K.

construction of the image of the y < f(x) graph rather than on the meaning of graph. Further-
more, the y < f(x) graph is presented as a static object.
The ray method also comprises of two parts: the drawing of y = f(x) (identical to the first
step of the solution test method), and the construction and justification of the y < f(x) graph by
implicitly utilizing the concept of ray. For example, the Algebra I textbook from the Center for
Mathematics Education Project (Cuoco et al., 2013) states:
So for any x, you want the value of the y-coordinate to be less than 3x + 5. Try x = 0. The
point on the line with x-coordinate 0 would be (0, 5). Any point on the vertical line with
equation x = 0 with y-coordinate less than 5 is part of the solution set. Next try x = 5. …
It would take forever to write out the situation for every possible value of x, but you can
see that any point that is below the line is part of the solution set. (p. 756).
The y < f(x) graph is then represented as the region under the y = 3x + 5 graph, shaded in pink,
as a static Object. There is no trace of geometric rays in the y < f(x) graph.
On the other hand, anecdotal evidence from my previous teaching suggested that preservice
teachers had problems with the justification of inequality graphs. Despite having taken
methods courses that emphasized the construction and justification of mathematical ideas,
ten of fourteen preservice secondary teachers did not provide any explanation for inequality
graphs on their homework. The other four teachers used the solution test method to explain
their graphs: two solely using the solution test method, and the other two using the solution test
method in combination with a “near-by points” argument, a seemingly topological argument
that was beyond the secondary level.
Acknowledging the above issues with the solution test method and the ray method, as well
as preservice teachers’ difficulties with inequality graphs, I constructed a preliminary genetic
decomposition (Arnon et al., 2014) by incorporating the APOS theory and the sweeping out
idea of covariational reasoning (Weber & Thompson, 2014) and put it to the test through an
interview (which I explain in the next section). Provided are the details of the genetic
decomposition of inequality graphs. Note that I use the concept of variable in inequalities—
meaning x (or y) is a changing quantity (Thompson, 1994) where inequalities are defined—and
also incorporate the terms, conversion and treatment (Duval, 2006), with conversion referring
to the transformation between two different registers and treatment referring to the transfor-
mation within the same register.
The genetic decomposition of two-variable inequality graphs, for example, the R(x,y) < 0
graph, consists of the following:

& A function or equation schema associated with R(x, y) = c and its graph. One should have
developed this schema from the previous learning.
& Actions of treatments and conversions with pairs of real numbers and points as objects in
R2, which are associated with the meaning of inequalities or the truth-value testing of
R(x, y) < 0.
& Actions of treatments and conversions for R(k,y) < 0 (or R(x,k) < 0), for some k. The
geometric representation of R(k,y) < 0 (or R(x,k) < 0) is a ray(s), line, or line segment(s),
which one should have understood from the previous learning.
& Processes that interiorize the actions of R(k,y) < 0 (or R(x,k) < 0) for some k to any k and the
R(x,y) < 0 graph as a totality that sweeps out all R(k,y) < 0 (or R(x,k) < 0) graphs. This
require an understanding of the concept of variable as one should understand the role of x
and y in inequalities. The R(x,y) < 0 graph, as a totality (Dubinsky et al., 2013) that sweeps
New approaches for two-variable inequality graphs utilizing the...

out all R(k,y) < 0 (or R(x,k) < 0) graphs, has a dynamic image, similar to the image of two-
variable functions in Weber and Thompson (2014).

2 Methodology

This study is a part of a larger project that investigated the big ideas underlying difficulties in
algebra. The participants were 15 preservice secondary mathematics teachers at a mid-sized
state university in the Southeast region of the USA. All 15 students in the secondary teaching
track who responded to my invitation emails (sent to all students in the track) were selected as
participants of this study. The level of their mathematical backgrounds was varied, with four
taking precalculus, one calculus I, and the other ten calculus II or above.
The interview items relevant to this study were two-variable inequality questions, Q1 and
Q2, included in one interview—the first of the two total interviews conducted for the project.
All 15 teachers had learned two-variable inequalities in secondary school through the solution
test method, and none had college courses that particularly focused on the topic of inequalities.
The participants were individually interviewed in the form of a semi-structured clinical
interview.

Q1: (a) Find a solution of an inequality, x + 2y − 32 < 0. (b) Represent all the solutions of
the inequality above in the Cartesian plane.
Q2: (a) Find a solution of a system of inequalities, y < x2 + 1 and x2 + y2 > 1. (b) Represent
all the solutions of the system of inequalities above in the Cartesian plane.

The interview questions were designed so that the teachers could represent inequality graphs
based on the meaning of graph, by first finding solutions of an algebraic inequality, either
numerically or algebraically, in part (a), and then by representing all the solutions in a plane in
part (b). There was no specific a priori protocol prescribed for the interview, and all 15 teachers
were asked to do both Q1 and Q2 regardless of their abilities. The interview was also
conducted in a non-teaching manner to minimally influence their performances on other
questions in the interviews. However, whenever opportunities arose, I (the interviewer) asked
the teachers additional questions by following up on their comments or work. In particular, for
those who correctly, or somewhat closely, represented the parallel equation figures or had a
line of thinking somewhat in the right direction, I asked them to justify their figures and to
graphically represent verbal or algebraic statements of rays in a plane. My expectation was that
the design of the questions, in combination with my questioning, would help them construct an
inequality graph as a totality that sweeps out rays, lines, or line segments.
For analysis, I utilized an open coding strategy (Strauss, 1987) to capture teachers’
difficulties with and understandings of inequalities, using a priori codes: action, process,
object, algebraic, verbal, geometric, treatment, conversion, equation, inequality, and the
Cartesian Connection. The initial coding showed some patterns and thus yielded categories
and subcategories. I then performed the second stage of coding: reexamining and revising the
prior codes, and at the same time performing an axial coding (Strauss, 1987) to focus on the
categories and subcategories from the previous coding. The results are presented in the next
section, where I describe teachers’ understandings of and difficulties with inequalities using
the genetic decomposition. In the last section, I provide a revised genetic decomposition and
tasks to address the issues found in this study.
 Moon K.

3 Understanding inequalities: genetic decomposition

3.1 Action, process, and object conceptions of functions or equations

The analysis showed that many teachers did not have a solid function or equation schema. For
x + 2y − 32 = 0, ten teachers provided a drawing for x + 2y − 32 = 0, with six having a correct drawing.
The six teachers with a correct drawing first treated x + 2y − 32 = 0 to y = − x/2 + 16 and then converted
the latter to a line, either by plotting the x and y intercepts of y = − x/2 + 16 and connecting them
(action), or by translating a y = − x/2 figure upward by 16 (action if done as a memorized fact or object
if done with an understanding that y = − x/2 is an object that can take actions).
Among the four teachers who attempted, but were unsuccessful in providing a correct
drawing of x + 2y – 32 = 0, two teachers treated x + 2y − 32 = 0 to y = − x/2 + 16 and plotted
(0,16) on the y-axis (action). They, however, represented it as a line with a positive slope or as
a parabola, without performing appropriate actions of treatments or conversions of substituting
or plotting. Another teacher treated x + 2y − 32 = 0 incorrectly to y = x − 16 and falsely
represented the latter as an x = 16-like figure without actions of substituting or plotting. The
remaining teacher directly worked with the x + 2y − 32 = 0 equation and plotted (32,0) on the
x-axis (action). He then falsely drew a line with a positive slope that passed (32,0) without
performing more actions.
For y = x2 + 1, five out of six teachers provided a correct figure and translated a y = x2-like
figure upward by 1 (action or object). The teacher with an incorrect figure represented it as a
y = x2-like figure by saying “I think it looks like this,” failing to show an action or object
conception. For x2 + y2 = 1, five out of seven teachers provided a correct figure based on their
memories of circle with radius 1 (action). Two teachers with an incorrect figure treated
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffi pffiffiffi
x2 + y2 = 1 to y ¼ 1−x2 and drew a y ¼ x- or y ¼ x þ 1-like figure without performing
actions that would confirm the accuracy of their figures.
In all, all the teachers who provided correct equation figures, and some of the teachers who
provided incorrect equation figures showed some action or object conceptions of functions or
equations—plotting some points whose coordinates satisfy the equations, drawing correct
figures as memorized facts, or translating parent functions or equations. The problem, how-
ever, was that when the teachers could not remember how to draw graphs or were not
convinced of the figures they created, they did not use an action or process conception to
construct or confirm equation graphs.

3.2 Action conceptions of inequalities in algebraic forms

The teachers showed action conceptions of inequalities in algebraic forms when they looked
for or described solutions of inequalities algebraically. There were three kinds of actions
involved in algebraic inequalities, two anticipated and one unanticipated. The first of the two
anticipated kinds was the actions related to points. Many teachers substituted specific x, y
values into algebraic inequalities, such as x = 0 and y = 15 for x + 2y − 32 < 0, until they found
a pair of x, y that satisfied the inequalities. However, there were two teachers (in four incidents)
who provided more general action-related arguments, such as “I am going to choose a really
big x and really small y.”
The second of the anticipated kinds of actions was the actions related to rays, lines, or line
segments. Four teachers (in seven incidents) voluntarily performed such actions by fixing x or y as
constant when finding solutions of inequalities. One teacher did so only for x + 2y − 32 < 0, one
New approaches for two-variable inequality graphs utilizing the...

teacher only for y < x2 + 1, one teacher only for x2 + y2 > 1, and one teacher for all three
inequalities. Some of the examples for these incidents are “when y is 15, x has to be less than 2”
for x + 2y − 32 < 0 and “I will make x = 0, then you will get y less than 1” for y < x2 + 1.
For the unanticipated action, one teacher claimed that all x and y values that made “x + 2y less
than 32, like 31” were solutions of x + 2y − 32 < 0. Seeing x + 2y = 31 as a part of x + 2y − 32 < 0
was an action related to the concept of parameter. This is a noteworthy action in that such an action is
repeatable and has the potential to be interiorized into a process. The details on this idea will be
provided in the “Revised tasks and genetic decomposition” section.
The teachers’ actions in algebraic forms also revealed that most of them understood the
meaning of solutions of inequalities. Thirteen of fifteen teachers used the meaning of
solutions—as x, y pairs that satisfy inequalities—in at least one of the three inequalities when
finding or describing solutions. However, only eight teachers used the meaning consistently in
all three inequalities. Four teachers who found solutions in the linear inequality could not do so
in the parabolic and circular inequalities because they were unable to work with the system of
inequalities. One teacher who found solutions in the parabolic and circular inequalities failed
to do it in the linear inequality, claiming that he needed two inequalities to find solutions.

3.3 Action conceptions of inequalities connecting algebraic and geometric

representations

The three kinds of actions described in the above section were also observed when teachers
explained solutions of inequalities in relation to graphs or justified their drawings of inequal-
ities. As these actions pertain to both algebraic and geometric representations, I explain such
actions using the Cartesian Connection.

3.3.1 Actions of inequalities related to points: the Cartesian Connection in inequalities

Most actions related to points happened when the teachers tested the truth-values of inequal-
ities. And in many cases, such actions enabled them to successfully determine or confirm
which side of the regions divided by the equations had to be the visualizations of inequality
graphs. For example, a teacher performed an action of using a specific point of (0,0) to confirm
the correctness of his shading of the lower part to visualize x + 2y − 32 < 0, by saying “I will
use (0,0) then x + 2y is negative. So anything below the line that is shaded will be solutions.”
Another teacher performed an action of using a general point with negative coordinates to
visualize y < x2 + 1 by saying:
You can choose negative numbers. Over here it is actually going to be awesome because
x is squared but y is not. So y is going to be less than that (x2 + 1). So the way I am seeing
it is you can have x and y both being negative. So you can have the quadrant 3.
Whether they used actions with specific or general points, the teachers who correctly used the
truth-value test seemed to understand the Cartesian Connection in inequalities, as they chose
the region that contained the points with true truth values. Yet four teachers showed difficulty
applying the Cartesian Connection in inequalities to visualize inequality graphs. In one case, a
teacher shaded the correct region for x + 2y − 32 < 0 using the Cartesian Connection in
equations and using an argument related to the Cartesian Connection in inequalities, with
the help of my questioning. He, however, shaded an incorrect region for y < x2 + 1. In another
case, three teachers claimed that the parallel equation graphs themselves were the graphs of the
 Moon K.

inequalities. These teachers were unable to provide correct inequality graphs even with my
questioning and showed a lack of understanding of the Cartesian Connection in equations and
in inequalities. Provided are the excerpts showing the two cases above: Excerpt 1 for the first
case and Excerpt 2 for the second case.
Excerpt 1
I: Ok, now represent all the solutions in the x-y plane. How would you do that?
[He correctly draws y = 16 - x/2 (see Fig. 1a).]
T: Everything on the line should be a solution.
I: Why are they solutions?
T: Everything on the line should be a solution. Hold on. If I plug in (0,16), it is going to
be 32. I am trying to think now. Everything above this line, your y is going to be bigger.
Well, any point on this line will not work. I am sure there are still other examples to find.
If I go below every value of y, hold on. I have this whole region below.

The teacher in Excerpt 1 first claimed that the line itself was the graph of x + 2y − 32 < 0. With
my questioning, however, he showed his awareness of the Cartesian Connection in equations
by performing an action of choosing a point (0,16) and by substituting the coordinates into
x + 2y − 32, which made it equal to 0. With the realization that (0,16) could not be on the graph
of x + 2y − 32 < 0, an understanding related to the Cartesian Connection in inequalities, he then
considered the regions above and below the line and correctly determined the correct region
for the x + 2y − 32 < 0 graph.
When he visualized the y < x2 + 1 graph, however, he claimed that the upper region of the
y = x2 + 1 graph was the graph of y < x2 + 1, by saying:
This y = x2 + 1 is a parabola. So it is going to look like that, starting at the origin and plus
1. Now I have to remember if it is everything inside of this or outside of this. I want to
say it is everything inside the region (the upper part of the parabola).
When I asked him why it was inside, he replied “I don’t really know. It is more of a guess. It is
some of intuition. I don’t really have a reasoning for this.” Judging from his behaviors on both
inequality graphs, he did not seem to have a firm understanding of the Cartesian Connection in
inequalities. It was plausible that his claim, “everything above this line, your y is going to be
bigger”, came from his memory rather than his understanding of the Cartesian Connection in
inequalities.

a b c

Fig. 1 Reproduction of teachers’ incorrect conversions of rays for x + 2y − 32 < 0. a y < 16 when x = 0, b x +
2y + 32 < 0 when x = 1, c x + 2y − 32 < 0 when x = 32
New approaches for two-variable inequality graphs utilizing the...

Excerpt 2
I: Why do you think everything on the line is a solution?
T: I see 1, 16 [in x + 2y – 32 < 0]. Oh no, that will be greater than 0. It is 0, 16.
No, it would not be because 0 is not less than 0. So, I guess when x is 1, y is
15.5, so 1 + 31 is 32 minus 32 is 0.
I: Would everything on the line make it [x + 2y – 32] zero?
T: Well, we will see. 2 gives me 15. It seems like everything on this line will give me 0.
I: So how does that help you determine the answer?
T: It does not. I am confused.
I: You are saying everything on the line is 0. But you cannot determine what values will
make it less than 0.
T: Right.

The teacher in Excerpt 2 showed that he had an action conception, but not a process
conception of equations. As shown in lines 2–6, he was compelled to perform another action
of equations, finding another pair that satisfied x + 2y − 32 = 0 when asked whether the x and y
coordinates of any point on the line would satisfy x + 2y − 32 = 0 (the Cartesian Connection in
equations), even after he had already found two such pairs meeting the condition. Furthermore,
with a pair of x and y values, x = 1 and y = 16, which made x + 2y − 32 greater than 0 (action in
inequalities), he was unable to use the pair in relation to the graph of x + 2y − 32 < 0, showing a
lack of understanding of the Cartesian Connection in inequalities. It seemed that the image of
line graphs associated with linear inequality graphs engrained in his memory, together with his
lack of understanding of the Cartesian Connection, the meaning of graph, and action and
process conceptions of equations and inequalities, negatively influenced his performance.

3.3.2 Actions of inequalities related to rays

As previously shown, many teachers voluntarily made comments related to rays by fixing x or
y. When I noticed such behaviors, I asked the teachers to convert them geometrically in a
plane. All but one teacher who voluntarily created such statements were asked to do conver-
sions at least once. In addition, two teachers who did not voluntarily create such statements,
but correctly visualized two or three inequalities, were also asked to do conversions. In total,
all but one teacher who had at least one correct parallel equation figure were asked to do
conversions at least once. As such, what is reported here reflects the conversion abilities of the
teachers who performed better on the inequality tasks than the rest of the participating teachers
in the interviews.
Seven teachers, in ten incidents, were asked to perform actions of algebraic or verbal to
geometric conversions: seven incidents for the linear and three for the parabolic case. Of
the ten conversions, only two conversions were successfully made by a teacher for the
linear case, which I will later explain in more detail. For the other eight incidents, teachers
falsely made conversions either as a region or as an incorrect ray. For x + 2y − 32 < 0, three
of the five incorrect responses represented algebraic rays, such as “y shouldn’t be bigger
than 16 when x=0”, as the region under the x + 2y − 32 = 0 line (see, e.g., Fig. 1a). One
represented the statement “x + 2y – 32 < 0 when x = 1” as the region under the y = 31/2 line
(Fig. 1b). The remaining response represented the statement “x + 2y – 32 < 0 when x = 32”
 Moon K.

a b c

Fig. 2 Teachers’ incorrect conversions of rays for y < x2 + 1. a y < x2 + 1 when x = 0, b y < x2 + 1
when y = 3, c y < x2 + 1 when x = 3

as the intersection of the region under the horizontal line y = 0 and the region under the
x + 2y − 32 = 0 line (Fig. 1c).
For the three ray conversions in the parabolic inequality, two were represented as regions
and the other as an incorrect ray. One teacher incorrectly represented the two statements,
“y < x2 + 1 when x = 0” and “y < x2 + 1 when y = 3”, as the region below the y = l line (Fig. 2a)
pffiffiffi
and the region right to the x = 2 line (Fig. 2b), respectively. The other teacher represented
“y < x2 + 1 when x = 3” as a ray on the y-axis instead of on the x = 3 line (Fig. 2c). Although
she remembered the shape of a ray, she could not use the information of x = 3 in the expression
“y < x2 + 1 when x = 3” to visualize it as a correct ray. It is plausible that she had the y-axis, and
probably the x-axis, as a sub-structure of the R2 schema, but not k  R and R  k as sub-
structures of the R2 schema for nonzero k.
In summary, many teachers voluntarily considered algebraic inequalities at specific x or y
values. However, they did not have the skills to convert the algebraic rays to geometric rays.
Even in cases where they had correct inequality graphs, they could not de-encapsulate the
inequality graphs into processes to visualize the graphs at local values. It seemed that the
teachers understood inequality graphs as pseudo-objects—objects that do not refer to the
processes that led to them (Sfard, 1991).

3.3.3 Actions related to curves

An action related to curves was observed in one teacher (in one incident) when he explained
the x2 + y2 > 1 graph. He stated:
If x2 + y2 is equal to 2, which is greater than 1, then that would mean the radius of 2,
which means it is a circle slightly larger than the one I already have here. So, it must be
everything outside of the circle and beyond.
Instead of choosing a point outside of the circle of radius 1, he considered the circle of
x2 + y2 = 2 as a part of the x2 + y2 > 1 graph and argued that the outside of the x2 + y2 = 1 circle
had to be the graph of x2 + y2 > 1. This is a similar idea to the idea of seeing x + 2y = 31 as a
part of x + 2y − 32 < 0, which was explained in the previous section. This unanticipated action,
which is related to the concept of parameter, has the potential to evolve into a process and then
to the totality. Further details regarding this approach will be explained in the “Revised tasks
and genetic decomposition” section.
New approaches for two-variable inequality graphs utilizing the...

3.4 Process and totality of inequality graph

There was only one incident in which teachers’ actions in inequalities could be explained in
connection to a process or totality, even on a minimal level. For actions related to points, it is
almost impossible to visualize inequality graphs by interiorizing point-related actions into a
process. As such, none of the teachers attempted to take the route, nor did I ask them any
questions relating to it. For the curve-related actions, I had not previously anticipated the
actions. As such, I failed to prompt the teachers with appropriate questions, such as those in the
revised tasks in the next section, so they could develop the actions into a process and then to a
totality.
As for the ray-related actions, as previously explained, there was only one teacher who
correctly converted algebraic rays to geometric rays. Below is the excerpt that shows her action
and process conceptions of inequalities.
Excerpt 3
T: I will probably make x equal to 0. Then 2y is less than 32, so y is less than 16.
I: Can you represent that in the x, y coordinate plane?
T: How have I done this before? Here is 16 [plotting (0,16)]. So you will be not
including it [meaning (0,16)].
[She represents the ray correctly. See Fig. 3.]
I: Is that all the solutions?
T: No there are more.
I: Like what?
T: I will make x = 2, then … you get y less than 15.
I: Can you represent that too?
T: Here is x equals 2 and y is 15. It is less than 15, so it is this.
[She represents the ray correctly. See Fig. 3.]
I: Can you represent all the solutions in the plane?
[She finds the x and y intercepts of y = −x/2 + 16 and draw the y = −x/2 + 16 line by
connecting them. See Fig. 3].
T: It will be all of these [shading the region below the line].
I: Why is it?

Fig. 3 A teacher’s ray conversions

 Moon K.

T: I do not know. That is how I did in the class [in the secondary school].
I: Can you use these two graphs [pointing rays] somehow to represent all the solutions of
the inequality?
T: I do not know how to do it.
In lines 1–12 of Excerpt 3, the teacher voluntarily created an algebraic ray, y < 16 when x = 0,
to find solutions of x + 2y – 32 < 0 (action of inequalities). She then correctly represented her
algebraic ray as a geometric ray on the y-axis upon request (action of inequalities). When she
was asked to find more solutions of the inequality, she repeated the algebraic action at x = 2,
and successfully represented the expression, y < 15 when x = 2, as a geometric ray on the x = 2
line (Fig. 3). She seemed to have the potential to interiorize the actions into a process in the
visualization of inequality graphs.
However, as the rest of Excerpt 3 shows, when she was asked to represent all the solutions
of x + 2y – 32 < 0 in a plane, she did not use her rays as part of the x + 2y − 32 < 0 graph.
Instead, she seemed to depend on her memory of less is under (action conception of
inequalities) to sketch the x + 2y − 32 < 0 graph. When she was asked to use her two rays to
explain the x + 2y − 32 < 0 graph, she could not interiorize her actions into a process using the
concept of variable. As such, she did not have an opportunity to visualize the x + 2y − 32 < 0
graph as a totality that sweeps out rays. It seemed that she needed more elaborate prompts than
just being asked to use rays in order to interiorize the actions into a process.

4 Revised tasks and genetic decomposition

The results above suggest that only five teachers had somewhat sound understandings of
equations in the lens of the APOS theory. They showed an action conception of equations by
providing correct drawings of equations either as memorized facts or by plotting and
connecting points. They showed an object conception of equations by drawing equation
graphs from translations of parent functions. The other ten teachers also showed an action
conception of equations when describing solutions of algebraic equations. However, they
could not successfully use the action conception of equations in algebraic forms when
converting three equations to graphs. Five of the ten teachers did not even attempt to draw
any of the three equation graphs, either because they did not know how to draw equation
graphs, especially for parabolic and circular equation graphs, or because they did not under-
stand how solutions of equations and inequalities were related. The other five teachers
provided incorrect drawings of equations for at least one equation and could not activate an
action conception of equations even when they doubted the accuracy of their drawings.
For the APOS theory in inequalities, all fifteen teachers had at best an action conception of
inequalities. They successfully found solutions of algebraic inequalities, either by substituting
values into inequalities (point-related actions) or by fixing x or y as constant (ray-related
actions). However, only three teachers used the algebraic actions to explain inequality graphs
by connecting algebraic and geometric points. Furthermore, only one teacher was able to
transform the algebraic, ray-related actions into geometric rays. It was evident that none of the
teachers could de-encapsulate inequality graphs into processes and visualize graphs at local
values when needed, suggesting that they understood inequality graphs as pseudo-objects
(Sfard, 1991).
New approaches for two-variable inequality graphs utilizing the...

In addition, the teachers perceived two-variable inequality graphs as shapes and used the
rules such as “less is under” to explain graphs. Some teachers also could not discern between
equation graphs and inequality graphs due to their lack of understanding of the Cartesian
Connection and misapplied the shapes of linear inequality graphs to parabolic inequality
graphs. It seemed that their prior learning fell short of having them acquire or sustain the
skills and knowledge needed for a meaningful understanding of inequality graphs.
The results also indicate that my interview questions combined with my questioning were
not sufficient to help teachers visualize inequality graphs as a totality. When one teacher
showed potential to develop actions into a process through the concept of variable, I failed to
successfully prompt the teacher to move forward. When two teachers performed actions
related to the concept of parameter, I missed the opportunity to develop them into a process,
as I was unaware that it would occur during the interview. Reflecting on the teachers’
difficulties as well as the shortcomings of my tasks and questioning, I here present revised
tasks for inequality graphs (see Fig. 4).
Before explaining the tasks in detail, I emphasize that the goal of the tasks is beyond simply
providing a tool for the construction of inequality graphs. As described below, the tasks are

Fig. 4 Revised inequality tasks

 Moon K.

Fig. 5 Revised genetic decomposition for inequality graphs

designed so that learners construct inequality graphs with reasoning, by strengthening their
prior learning of functions or equations and by expanding their understanding of variable and
parameter in functions or equations to inequalities. Figure 5 is the revised genetic decompo-
sition associated with the tasks in Fig. 4. It includes two approaches for inequality graphs: the
concept of variable approach and the concept of parameter approach.
Q1 is to help learners understand the meaning of a solution in an inequality, understand
variable and parameter concepts related to inequalities, reinforce process and object concep-
tions of functions or equations, and develop action and process conceptions as well as the
totality level of inequalities. In Q1(a), learners make sense of the meaning of the solution of
y − x < 1, or equivalently y < x + 1. In Q1(b), learners devise strategies that can provide
multiple solutions of y − x < 1 at once, inviting actions in COV-1 and COP-1 (Fig. 5). In
Q1(c1) and (c2), learners examine y − x < 1 at x = 1 (action related to rays, lines, or line
segments, COV-1) and y − x = 0 (action related to curves, COP-1) as solutions of y − x < 1.
This is to guide them to the concept of variable approach and the concept of parameter
approach even if they do not voluntarily come up with the related strategies in Q1(b). In
Q1(d1) and (d2), learners convert y − x < 1 at x = 1 and y − x = 0 to graphs (actions connecting
algebraic and geometric forms, COV-2 and COP-2, respectively). In Q1(e1) and (e2), learners
repeat the same action for a different value, a preparatory step toward the process conception.
New approaches for two-variable inequality graphs utilizing the...

a b

Fig. 6 Graph of y < x2 + 1 using concepts of variable and of parameter approaches. a Concept of variable
approach. b Concept of parameter approach

In Q1(f1) and (f2), learners evaluate all possible values that allow such actions to repeat,
reinforcing the understanding of the concepts of variable and of parameter in inequalities. They
then interiorize actions into a process and explain the y − x < 1 graph as a totality that sweeps
out rays, lines, or line segments (COV-3) or curves (COP-3). The graphs of y < x2 + 1 are
shown in Fig. 6: the first through the concept of variable approach and the second through the
concept of parameter approach.
Q2 is to develop an object conception of inequality graphs, which I did not deal with in this
study, but I believe it is an important understanding in inequalities. In Q2(a), learners are
expected to view the y − x = 1 graph as the boundary of the y − x < 1graph. This understanding
may already have been achieved by learners in Q1. However, considering the fact that many
teachers in this study could not discern between the two, a reinforcement may be beneficial. In
Q2(b), learners derive the y − x = 2 graph by translating the y − x = 1 graph upward by 1,
which requires an object conception of functions. In Q2(c), learners represent the y − x < 2
graph, by using the translated y − x = 2 graph and the understanding that the y − x = 2 graph is
the boundary of the y − x < 2 graph. In this step, learners understand that the y − x < 2 graph is
a vertical shift of the y − x < 1 graph, an object conception of inequalities (COV-4). In Q2(d),
learners describe the y − x < k graph for any k, strengthening the object conception of
inequalities.
Q3 is to reinforce learners’ inequality schema constructed in Q1 and Q2. By working with
various inequalities, and hence with various functions or equations, learners would better
establish function or equation schema as well. They would also avoid the common miscon-
ception that an inequality graph is a half plane divided by a line, which some teachers in this
study fell into.
For those who would like to implement the tasks, I make a few suggestions. First, the
algebraic to geometric ray, line, or line segment conversions, such as y − x < 1 at x = 1 in
Q1(d1), with which many teachers in this study struggled, may need to be handled with special
care. These ray conversions are supposed to involve an action conception of inequality if
learners correctly perform them based on their memories from prior learning. If not, learners
may need to construct the ray graphs through action, process, and object conceptions of
 Moon K.

inequalities. For example, learners treat y − x < 1 at x = 1 and transform it to x = 1 and y < 0.
They then perform actions of plotting x, y values, such as x = 1 and y = − 1 to the point (1,− 1)
(the Cartesian Connection in inequalities). After repeatedly performing such actions for
various values of y, learners interiorize the actions into a process and understand that (1,k)
for any k < 0 is a point on the x = 1 line. They then visualize the algebraic expression, x = 1 and
y < 0, as a geometric ray—a totality that sweeps out all such points. As shown above, the
visualization process involved in the ray conversion is very similar to that of two-variable
inequality graphs that learners will experience in the subsequent Q1 sub-tasks. As such, the
visualization of rays may serve as groundwork for the visualization of inequality graphs.
In addition, the interiorization of actions into a process in Q1(f1) and (f2) may not be easy
for many learners, due to the complexity of the concepts of variable and of parameter involved
in the process. In such a case, learners may first discuss the concepts of variable and parameter
in functions or equations, which they have already been exposed to from prior learning. They
may then extend their understanding of the concepts to inequalities. Furthermore, Q1(f1) and
(f2) are to be facilitated so that learners reinforce their understanding of the object conception
of functions or equations through the tasks. In particular, in the concept of parameter approach,
learners are expected to exercise the object conception of functions or equations by viewing
the y − x = k graph as a translation from the y − x = 1 or y − x = 0 graph rather than by drawing
the y − x = k graph independently from the y − x = 1 or y − x = 0 graph.
I conclude this paper by calling for more studies on inequalities, including those which test
the revised tasks and the genetic decomposition suggested in this study. As shown in this study,
understanding inequality graphs is much more complex than simply shading regions. It
involves critical concepts and ideas such as the concepts of variable and parameter; the concepts
of ray, line, and line segments; the concepts of functions and equations; the Cartesian Connec-
tion; action, process, and object conceptions of equations; and action, process, and object
conceptions of inequalities. With more research that investigates how these concepts and ideas
are intertwined together in the understanding of inequalities, the mathematics education
community could better direct future instruction and curriculum development for inequalities.

Funding information This work was partially supported by a grant from the Spencer Foundation (Grant No.
201400165). The opinions expressed in the paper are those of the author and not those of the Foundation.

References

Almog, N., & Ilany, B. S. (2012). Absolute value inequalities: High school students’ solutions and misconcep-
tions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 81, 347–364.
Arnon, I., Cottrill, J., Dubinsky, E., Oktaç, A., Fuentes, S. R., Trigueros, M., & Weller, K. (2014). APOS theory:
A framework for research and curriculum development in mathematics education. New York, NY: Springer
Science & Business Media.
Blanco, L. J., & Garrote, M. (2007). Difficulties in learning inequalities in students of the first year of
preuniversity education in Spain. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education,
3(3), 221–229.
Boero, P., & Bazzini, L. (2004). Inequalities in mathematics education: The need for complementary perspec-
tives. In M. J. Hoines & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International
Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 139–143). Bergen University College.
Borowski, E. J., & Borwein, J. M. (2002). Collins dictionary of mathematics. Collins.
Carlson, M. P. (1998). A cross-sectional investigation of the development of the function concept. In J. J. Kaput,
A. H. Schoenfeld, & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), Research in collegiate mathematics education, 3, CBMS issues in
mathematics education (Vol. 7, pp. 114–162). Washington DC: Mathematical Association of America.
New approaches for two-variable inequality graphs utilizing the...

Cuoco, et al. (2013). CME project algebra 1 common core. Boston, MA: Pearson Learning Solutions.
David, M. D., Landau, M. S., McCracken, L., & Thompson, L. (2001). Pre-Algebra. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, Inc..
Dubinsky, E., Arnon, I., & Weller, K. (2013). Preservice teachers’ understanding of the relation between a
fraction or integer and its decimal expansion: The case of 0.9 and 1. Canadian Journal of Science,
Mathematics and Technology Education, 13(3), 232–258.
Dubinsky, E., & Harel, G. (1992). The nature of the process conception of function. In G. Harel & E. Dubinsky
(Eds.), The concept of function: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy (pp. 85–106). Washington, DC:
Mathematical Association of America.
Duval, R. (2006). A cognitive analysis of problems of comprehension in a learning of mathematics. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 61(1), 103–131.
Even, R. (1998). Factors involved in linking representations of functions. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior,
17(1), 105–121.
Frost, J. (2015). Disappearing x: When solving does not mean finding the solution set. The Journal of
Mathematical Behavior, 37, 1–17.
Kerslake, D. (1981). Graphs. In K. M. Hart (Ed.), Children’s understanding of mathematics (pp. 11–16).
London, UK: John Murray.
Knuth, E. (2000). Student understanding of the Cartesian coordinate connection: An exploratory study. Journal
for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(4), 500–508.
Kroll, R. (1986). Metacognitive analysis of the difficulties caused by intervening factors in the solution of
inequalities. Doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Lehmann, J. (2008). Intermediate Algebra. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M. M. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning and
teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60, 1–64.
Monk, G. S. (1992). Students’ understanding of a function given by a physical model. In G. Harel & E. Dubinsky
(Eds.), The concept of function: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy (pp. 175–194). Washington, DC: MAA.
Moon, K., Brenner, M. E., Jacob, B., & Okamoto, Y. (2013). Prospective secondary mathematics teachers’
understanding and cognitive difficulties in making connections among representations. Mathematical
Thinking and Learning, 15(3), 201–227.
Moschkovich, J., Schoenfeld, A. H., & Arcavi, A. (1993). Aspects of understanding: On multiple perspectives and
representations of linear relations, and connections among them. In T. Romberg, E. Fennema, & T. Carpenter
(Eds.), Integrating research on the graphical representation of function (pp. 69–100). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schreiber, I., & Tsamir, P. (2012). Different approaches to errors in classroom discussions: The case of algebraic
inequalities. Investigations in Mathematics Learning, 5(1), 1–20.
Sfard, A. (1991). On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: Reflections on processes and objects as
different sides of the same coin. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22, 1–36.
Sfard, A., & Linchevski, L. (1994). Between arithmetic and algebra: In the search of a missing link the case of
equations and inequalities. Rendiconti Del Seminario Matematico, 52, 279–307.
Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Switzer, J. M. (2014). Graphing inequalities connecting meaning. The Mathematics Teacher, 107(8), 580–584.
Tall, D. O. (2004). Reflections on research and teaching of equations and inequalities. In M. J. Hoines & A. B.
Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of
Mathematics Education (vol. 1, pp. 158–161). Bergen, Norway: Bergen University College.
Thompson, P. W. (1994). Students, functions, and the undergraduate mathematics curriculum. In E.
Dubinsky, A. H. Schoenfeld, & J. J. Kaput (Eds.), Research in collegiate mathematics education, 1,
Issues in mathematics education (Vol. 4, pp. 21–44). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.
Trigueros, M., & Martinez-Planell, R. (2010). Geometrical representations in the learning of two variable
functions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 73, 3–19.
Tsamir, P., & Bazzini, L. (2004). Consistencies and inconsistencies in students’ solutions to algebraic ‘single-value’
inequalities. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 35(6), 793–812.
Tsamir, P., Tirosh, D., & Almog, N. (1998), Students’ solutions of inequalities. In Olivier, A., & Newstead, K.
(Eds.), Proceedings of the 22th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics
Education, (Vol. 6, pp. 129–136). Stellenbosch, South Africa. University of Stellenbosch.
Vaiyavutjamai, P., & Clements, M. A. (2006). Effects of classroom instruction on student performance on, and
understanding of, linear equation and linear inequalities. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 8(2), 113–147.
Weber, E., & Thompson, P. W. (2014). Students’ images of two-variable functions and their graphs. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 87, 67–85.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.