1-S2.0-S0732312321000092-Main Taxicab Geometri

Journal of Mathematical Behavior 62 (2021) 100848
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Mathematical Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jmathb
Ways secondary mathematics teachers apply definitions in

Taxicab geometry for a real-life situation: Midset
Aubrey Kemp a, *, Draga Vidakovic b
a
California State University, Bakersfield, Department of Mathematics, 9001 Stockdale Highway, Bakersfield, CA, 93311, United States
b
Georgia State University, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, 33 Gilmer Street SE Atlanta, GA, 30303, United States
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Definitions in mathematics are an integral part of understanding concepts and are often not used
Euclidean geometry correctly by students in mathematical proofs and problem-solving situations. Research shows that
Taxicab geometry by observing properties and making conjectures in non-Euclidean geometry, students can better
Real-life situation
develop their understanding of concepts in Euclidean geometry. For this study, Taxicab geometry
APOS theory
Secondary mathematics teachers
(defined by Taxicab distance, or the L1 norm) was introduced to students enrolled in a College
Midset Geometry course at a university. Action-Process-Object-Schema (APOS) Theory was used as a
guiding framework in the data analysis of responses from eleven secondary mathematics teachers
to a real-life problem situated in Taxicab geometry. This report provides illustrations of the
conceptual understanding of midset (known as a perpendicular bisector in Euclidean geometry)
found among participants and suggestions for teaching material to help facilitate development of
a deeper understanding of definitions in geometry.
1. Introduction
Despite the expectations held for students enrolled in higher-level mathematics courses, it has been found that commonalities exist
regarding obstacles students face in properly completing tasks involving definitions (Edwards & Ward, 2004). What is most likely due
to a lack of opportunities students have to develop such an understanding, many math majors have been deemed successful students in
advanced mathematical courses despite evidence of a lack of understanding of the role of definitions in mathematics (Edwards & Ward,
2008). In fact, Edwards and Ward (2004) state there were misconceptions in students’ understanding of “the very nature of mathe
matical definitions, not just from the content of the definitions,” (p. 411). Speer, King, and Howell (2015) claim there is evidence that
suggests mathematics majors (or those with equivalent degrees) who are prospective high school mathematics teachers do not have
sufficiently deep understanding of the mathematics of the high school curriculum. As teachers must draw upon a specialized content
knowledge in order to interpret, evaluate, choose, or use definitions (Chesler, 2012), it is important for them to reach a formal un
derstanding of definitions in mathematics.
Mathematicians and mathematics educators have observed in several studies that many pre-service and even in-service teachers do
not exhibit sufficient understandings of definitions (Chesler, 2012; Leikin & Winicki-Landman, 2001; Moore-Russo, 2008; Zazkis &
Leikin, 2008). It is most likely that many of them did not have sufficient opportunity to develop or expand upon their existing un
derstanding. For example, Moore-Russo (2008) reported that all of the in-service teachers who participated in the author’s study had
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Akemp2@csub.edu (A. Kemp), Dvidakovic@gsu.edu (D. Vidakovic).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2021.100848
Received 29 April 2020; Received in revised form 24 January 2021; Accepted 4 February 2021
Available online 20 February 2021
0732-3123/Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
A. Kemp and D. Vidakovic Journal of Mathematical Behavior 62 (2021) 100848
never constructed a definition before. Although some studies have been conducted, research is lacking in terms of teacher knowledge
of the roles and uses of definitions in mathematics (De Villiers, 1998; Moore-Russo, 2008; Vinner, 1991; Zaslavsky & Shir, 2005).
Emphasizing the importance of definitions in geometry, Güner and Gülten (2016) explain that geometry has three dimensions:
definitions, images that represent these definitions, and their properties. Because the properties of geometric figures are derived from
definitions within an axiomatic system, it is important for students to understand the role of definitions within their logic, and to note
that a figure is “controlled by its definition,” (Fischbein, 1993, p. 141). That is, the context in which a figure is defined may change
certain properties of the figure, but the definition itself does not change. This preliminary report is a part of a larger research study
pertaining to student use of definitions in college geometry courses. The purpose of this study is to investigate, detect, and analyze
students’ perceptions and understanding of mathematical definitions as they transition into higher mathematics concepts in geometry.
In this paper, we present results and discussion on the following research questions pertaining to their understanding of Midset (the set
of points equidistant from two fixed points):
1 How do secondary mathematics teachers enrolled in a College Geometry course adapt their knowledge of definitions from
Euclidean geometry to Taxicab geometry (and vice-versa) in a real-life situation?
2 What cognitive structures are necessary in order to help students successfully make this transition of using definitions in an atypical
context?
2. Literature review
Oladosu (2014) states that “geometry is a central aspect of the school mathematics curriculum and is crucial in the mathematics
education of our children from the perspective of providing them with the opportunity to develop spatial awareness and geometric
thinking” (p. 2), and reasoning activities can strengthen the evaluation of mathematical arguments. It is common for students to come
into the college geometry classroom underprepared regarding their formal mathematical background, so when exposed to formal
mathematics, many students dislike it because of the demands imposed by writing formal solutions or using formal logic (Armitage,
1973). We believe this is the case because many students do not have opportunities to fully develop their understanding of an
axiomatic approach to geometry.
In college geometry courses, Euclidean geometry and its axiomatic system is deeply studied, but other axiomatic systems receive
little consideration (Byrkit, 1971; Hollebrands, Conner, & Smith, 2010). However, research shows that by exploring concepts in
Non-Euclidean geometry, students can better understand concepts in Euclidean geometry (Dreiling, 2012; Hollebrands et al., 2010;
Jenkins, 1968). College geometry is often difficult for students because they are used to reasoning from intuitive understandings and
experiences rather than from axiomatic systems (Hollebrands et al., 2010). They are surprised to find they are underprepared and/or
struggle to understand axiomatic systems which are necessary for most mathematics (Jenkins, 1968). Dreiling (2012) found that
through the process of exploring ‘constructions’ in Taxicab geometry, his students “gained a deeper understanding of constructions in
Euclidean Geometry.” (Dreiling, 2012, p. 478). There is a need for further research to investigate whether students develop deeper
insight to Euclidean axioms, concepts, and theorems as a result of a comparison of these ideas in different geometries (Kinach, 2012).
2.1. Taxicab geometry
Learning about Non-Euclidean geometry is important to the process of using a rigorous axiomatic approach to reasoning. As Krause
(1973) explains, having an understanding of Non-Euclidean geometry can deepen students’ insights in Euclidean geometry. According
to this author, regarding higher mathematics, Non-Euclidean geometry is recognized as a great way to illustrate the nature of axioms
and the meaning behind the independency of axioms. The understanding of geometry for students is significantly altered when they are
challenged by different axiomatic systems (Hollebrands et al., 2010). However, Byrkit (1971) states even in many cases when axiom
systems are discussed, “examples are usually too difficult to develop (such as non-Euclidean systems), too limited in development (such
as finite geometry), or too trivial to create any interest,” (p. 418).
Siegel, Borasi, and Fonzi (1998) describe some reasons for introducing students to Taxicab geometry before other non-Euclidean
geometries. One of these reasons is that a simpler space should allow students to make more sense than they would in other
non-Euclidean geometries. Another is that this simpler situation can enable instructors to focus on particular goals, such as developing
definitions, proof, and exploration in a new space. One advantage to learning Taxicab geometry is that it can be modeled after the
interworking of the streets in a city and can be used as a model for various applications, such as laying pipes in a home. Caballero
(2006) explains how it can be used to model the spread of forest fires and to improve computer code for these types of simulations.
Therefore, learning concepts in Taxicab geometry not only can help facilitate geometrical reasoning, but can be applicable to in
dividuals in various careers. Next, we discuss the definition of distance, midpoint, and midset (called a perpendicular bisector in
Euclidean geometry) and resulting properties of these definitions in Taxicab geometry.
2.1.1. Distance
Imagine a city where all the streets form a grid system. A car can only travel forwards (and, in theory, backwards), with the ability
to make left and right turns. Thus, driving three blocks straight, making a left, and driving two more blocks is a total of five blocks, or
the Taxicab distance between the start and end of that trip. In contrast, Euclidean distance would have been found by the straight line
segment connecting the start and end of that trip (or “as the crow flies”). In general, the Taxicab distance between two points is
measured as the sum of the horizontal and vertical distances between two points. Mathematically, Euclidean distance (dE ) and Taxicab
2
Fig. 1. a and b. Visual representations of Euclidean distance and Taxicab distance, respectively.
distance (dT ) between two points P(x1 , y1 ) and Q(x2 , y2 ) are defined algebraically as:
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
dE (P, Q) = (x2 − x1 )2 + (y2 − y1 )
2
(i)
dT (P, Q) = |x2 − x1 | + |y2 − y1 | (ii)

For simplicity sake, we note in this report when we refer to an object such as Euclidean distance, Taxicab distance, Euclidean circle,
Taxicab circle, etc., we are referring to this object (and associated concept) as it exists within that particular space, rather than
suggesting that object has two distinct concepts or definitions. For example, when we refer to “Taxicab circle,” we are referring to the
concept of circle within Taxicab geometry, not implying a circle is defined differently in Taxicab than it is in Euclidean geometry.
Below, Fig. 1 shows visual examples of both metrics. Seen in Fig. 1a, in Euclidean geometry, distance between two points is
represented visually as a straight line segment between them. As a result of the Pythagorean Theorem, this is calculated as the length of
a hypotenuse of a right triangle (constructed with legs parallel to the axes, seen as dotted segments in Fig. 1a, and hypotenuse as the
segment connecting the two points). In Taxicab geometry, a distance between two points is represented visually as a path from one
point to another by “walking” only in horizontal and vertical movements. Fig. 1b shows two pathways to represent Taxicab distance
between two points. In this illustration, one such path would be along the legs of the right triangle mentioned in the case of Euclidean
distance, and another path could be the “zig-zag” path shown in Fig. 1b. The Taxicab distance of both paths shown in Fig. 1b is equal.
Seen in Fig. 1a, for Euclidean geometry, there is a unique geometric representation of a [shortest] distance between two points, while
in Taxicab geometry, this is not the case. It is noted that we assume a continuously measured Taxicab metric. That is, the distance
between two points is not measured discretely (for example, only as a natural number).
2.1.2. Midpoint
A midpoint between two points P and Q is defined as a point M such that the distance from P to M is equal to the distance from Mto
Q, which is equal to half of the distance from P to Q. In Euclidean geometry, the midpoint between two points is unique and is located
on the segment connecting them. In Taxicab geometry, any two points have a set of points that satisfy this definition of a midpoint.
Fig. 2 provides illustrations of the set of midpoints (red segments) of three segments ABwith distinct slopes. If a segment connecting
two points has a slope of 1 or -1, the set of midpoints of that segment in Taxicab geometry is an infinite number of points and is
represented by a segment that is perpendicular to the segment, seen in the first image in Fig. 2. In the case that the segment connecting
two points is parallel to one of the axes, the set of midpoints of that segment in Taxicab geometry only consists of one point: the
Euclidean midpoint. Otherwise, the set of Taxicab midpoints contains an infinite number of points and is represented by a segment
intersecting the initial segment at its Euclidean midpoint, which can be seen in the second and third images in Fig. 2. We note for any
two given points, one of the Taxicab midpoints of the segment connecting them is also the Euclidean midpoint of the two points. Thus,
the formula that can be used to find the midpoint of a segment in Euclidean geometry will also provide a midpoint in Taxicab geometry.
Fig. 2. Graphical Representation of the set of midpoints of three distinct segments in Taxicab geometry.
3
Fig. 3. The Euclidean and Taxicab midset of a segment AB, respectively.
2.1.3. Midset
A midset of two points is the set of points that are equidistant from both points. In Euclidean geometry, this results in a straight line
that intersects the segment that connects the two points at its midpoint and does so at a right angle. Thus, in Euclidean geometry, the
midset of two points is referred to as the perpendicular bisector (of the segment that connects them). However, the midset of two points
in Taxicab geometry is not necessarily a straight line and does not necessarily intersect the segment connecting them at a right angle,
depending on the slope of the segment with respect to the axes. To clarify, if the segment connecting two points is parallel to one of the
axes, the Euclidean and Taxicab midset of that segment are the same line. If the segment connecting two points has a slope of 1 or -1,
the Taxicab midset includes the set of midpoints described in Section 2.1.2 as well as two infinite areas extending off the endpoints of
that segment. Otherwise, its Taxicab midset consists of the set of Taxicab midpoints of the segment as well as two rays extending from
the endpoints of the segment formed from the midpoints. Fig. 3 illustrates an example of a midset of a segment AB in Euclidean and
Taxicab geometry, respectively.
2.2. Definitions
When undergraduate students first take upper-level math classes, it is a common occurrence for individuals to struggle writing
mathematical proofs (Edwards & Ward, 2004). Selden and Selden (2015) suggest that helping individuals understand how to interpret
formal mathematical definitions so that they become operable is a good place to start when attempting to teach proof construction. The
authors explain that for a student to construct an adequate proof, they need the skill of converting definitions into operable in
terpretations. Zandieh and Rasmussen (2010) identified a formal stage of operation of a student when he or she uses definitions
without having to “unpack” the meaning of these definitions in order to use them as “links in chains of reasoning,” (p.70). In an effort to
guide students to reach this formal stage of operation, it is important to consider obstacles faced by students in their attempts to “pack”
the definitions. Along these lines, Edwards and Ward (2004) identify that students often do not categorize or use mathematical def
initions the way mathematicians do. This is often true even when the students can correctly state and explain the definition. The
authors suggest that students can benefit from deepening their understanding of the content of relevant definitions and how to use
them in proof writing, which could be a main cause in the difficulties individuals are facing when writing proofs (Edwards & Ward,
2004).
2.2.1. Developing an understanding of a concept definition

There are many different ways individuals can use mathematical terms, properties, and definitions to develop their understanding
of concepts. What follows is a quick description of two of these various strategies with a focus on the approach used in tasks given to
participants in this study. We illustrate the process individuals may take in two different types of activities related to definitions and
mathematical terms.
2.2.1.1. Deriving a definition of a mathematical concept from examples and non-examples. To construct a definition, an individual can
first consider examples and nonexamples to observe properties and non-properties of a certain mathematical concept. He or she can
then internalize these properties and derive a personal definition that is unique to the mathematical term. In other words, the indi
vidual is attempting to write a definition that captures his or her concept image, or “the total cognitive structure that is associated with
the concept, which includes all the mental pictures and associated properties and processes,” (Tall & Vinner, 1981, p. 152). By having
students complete activities of constructing definitions for mathematical concepts, they are more likely to develop a deeper under
standing of these concepts. In fact, definition constructions are an activity just as important as solving problems, making conjectures,
proving, and generalizing (Chesler, 2012; De Villiers, 1998).
4
This will then contribute to their understanding of that concept and definition along with the roles and features of it (Selden, 2011;
Wilson, 1990). Although there are pros to this type of activity, Dickerson and Pitman (2016) report that participants in their study were
“largely unsuccessful at writing definitions that captured their own concept image.” The authors claim that when writing their def
initions, students failed to consider key examples that would help refine their understanding of a concept. Further, Wawro, Sweeney,
and Rabin (2011) report that students’ descriptions of a mathematical concept were substantially different from the language of this
concept’s formal definition. The tension between a students’ personal concept definition and formal definition of a mathematical term
can lead to misconceptions. Literature suggests when attempting to apply mathematical definitions, many students have incomplete
concept images from which they reason, resulting in them rejecting given definitions to use their imprecise concept image (Dickerson
& Pitman, 2012). With more exposure to examples and nonexamples, a student can refine their personal concept definition to align
more closely with the formal definition.
2.2.1.2. Producing a mathematical term associated with a concept from properties of a definition. Another way to deepen the under
standing of a definition is to give a problem in which you do not name the mathematical object. A definition of a mathematical concept
can be given in a problem to explore the properties that result from this definition without explicitly stating the term that is defined. On
the contrary, when a mathematical term is named, students could evoke inaccurate or imprecise concept images for the concept, or
involuntarily restrict their understanding of the problem to their working concept image of the term. Stripping the problem of an
explicit mathematical term allows students to use sense-making abilities and logic to freely abstract and choose a mathematical
concept that most closely matches their understanding of the problem and definition. In general, students would be less likely to
associate an incomplete concept image with the problem which could restrict their ability to reason. In this way, students can explore
the problem freely according to their own interpretation. This type of problem may end up prompting the student to find examples and
nonexamples as well but does so attached only to a definition and not necessarily the mathematical object. Even if a student evokes an
inaccurate or incomplete concept image for the given definition, this personal definition is more malleable than it would be attached to
a particular concept, which allows for deeper understanding.
When asked to complete a task in this way, especially in an atypical context, this type of problem solving encourages students to
observe properties they may not have initially associated with a mathematical concept, expanding and refining their concept image of
the mathematical object. An example of this type of activity is the problem that was given to students whose solutions are presented in
this paper. This example asks students to identify location(s) for an apartment, given that they want it to be equidistant from two
buildings in a city that is on a grid system (so, rooted in Taxicab geometry). After reflecting on the task, students may draw a rep
resentation of possible locations for the apartment and may begin to notice patterns and/or properties of these locations. Then, once
students have a working concept image of this “unnamed” mathematical object, they are asked to reflect on their prior knowledge and
explicitly associate some mathematical concept with this object. They now can assimilate essentially un-biased properties of this
mathematical concept to their existing concept image by the nature of the task.
The study presented in this report was designed with the intention to provide opportunities for pre-service and in-service teachers
to expand on their understandings of axiomatic systems by reflecting on and comparing their learning of concepts in Taxicab geometry
and Euclidean geometry. As a result of a thorough literature review, historical development of concepts, and the researchers’ expe
riences, it was anticipated that two main concepts emerged from the secondary mathematics teachers’ responses based on their un
derstanding of the problem: Circle and Midset. Kemp and Vidakovic (2019) describe some results from this task related to the concept
of Circle. However, in this paper we focus on the secondary teachers’ conceptual understanding of Midset, or the set of points that are
equidistant from two fixed points. As a note, we define a subconcept to be a concept that is a main underlying component of the
definition of the “larger” concept. Based on the definition, geometrical representation, and algebraic representation of Midset, it was
determined it’s subconcepts are Distance, Midpoint, and Locus of points. When we refer to a subconcept, we specify that the
subconcept’s mental construction and development is directly related to the development of the “larger” concept. For example, how
students use their understanding of Distance within their Midset concept image informs the student’s overall understanding of both
Distance and Midset, because the idea of distance is used in the definition of a midset. What follows in Section 3 is a description of the
theoretical perspective used in analysis to answer the research questions of this project.
3. Theoretical perspective
APOS Theory is based on Jean Piaget’s constructivist theory of reflective abstraction, or the process of constructing mental notions
of mathematical knowledge and objects by an individual during cognitive development (Dubinsky, 2002). In APOS Theory, there are
four different stages of cognitive development that correspond to these mental structures: Action, Process, Object, and Schema. Through
reflective abstraction, these mental structures are reorganized through reflecting on a problem-solving situation. The construction and
reconstruction of these structures is accomplished through different mechanisms used to move between these stages of cognitive
development, such as interiorization and encapsulation (for more information about these mechanisms, see Arnon et al., 2014).
An Action in APOS Theory is when an individual is able to transform objects by external stimuli, performing steps to complete this
transformation. In the context of measuring distance, for example, an action conception of Distance could be a student using specific
coordinates of points to plug into a given formula to calculate the distance between two points. As an individual reflects on this Action
and has the ability to imagine or perform the Action in his or her head without guidance or external stimuli, we refer to that as an
interiorized Action and call it a Process. A process conception of Distance could be when an individual is able to imagine distances
geometrically in his or her head and can explain how to calculate the distance between any two points with given coordinates using a
5
formula. Once an individual is able to think of this Process as a whole, viewing it as a totality to which actions or other processes could
be applied, we say that an Object is constructed through the encapsulation of the Process. For Distance, an example of an object
conception could be a student comparing geometric representations of distances to determine if they are equal or not, where the Action
being applied to this Distance Object is a comparison. Finally, the entire collection of Actions, Processes, Objects, and other Schemas
that are connected to the original concept that form a coherent understanding in the mind of the individual is called a Schema
(Dubinsky, 2002). Specifically, every individual’s Schema of a concept is uniquely formed based on his or her experiences, and APOS
Theory emphasizes that “the construction of mathematical knowledge is nonlinear,” although “the APOS-based description of the
mental construction of a mathematical concept is presented in a hierarchal manner,” (Arnon et al., 2014 p. 19).
3.1. Genetic decomposition
As a facet of APOS Theory, a genetic decomposition is constructed by the researcher to outline and model the necessary cognitive
constructions individuals should make to develop understanding of mathematical concepts (Arnon et al., 2014). The authors define it
as a “description of how the concept may be constructed in an individual’s mind,” (p. 17). A genetic decomposition plays an important
role in mathematics education research based in APOS Theory, because it provides a theoretical model to aid in the design of in
struments to gather and analyze data from students. Based on the researcher’s experiences and understanding of the concept, historical
development of the concept, and results from relevant research, the researcher develops a preliminary genetic decomposition.
This preliminary genetic decomposition is used as a guide in the development of instructional methods. During or after imple
mentation of this instruction, data is collected and analyzed. Throughout the analysis of data, the preliminary genetic decomposition is
reflected upon to asses if the questions and activities asked of students helped to make the mental constructions suggested by the
genetic decomposition. Otherwise, if the data suggest something about students’ understanding or mental constructions of the concept
that was not included in the preliminary genetic decomposition, then this is noted and may lead to refinement of the genetic
decomposition. Depending on the results of data analysis, in addition to the genetic decomposition, the method of instruction may be
revised. The repetition of reflection, refinement/revision, new data collection, and analysis produces a genetic decomposition that will
closely mimic the cognitive development of a concept for a large portion of individuals who are learning the concept. In general, the
genetic decomposition can be used to design materials for instruction that will help to better facilitate student learning and under
standing of mathematical content by aiding in the construction of necessary mental structures associated with a concept (Arnon et al.,
2014). A preliminary genetic decomposition for various concepts in geometry relevant to this study was drafted and used in analysis.
What follows in the next section is a portion of the preliminary genetic decomposition, descriptions of the mental constructions we
suggest are necessary for students to reason about a given real-life problem in Taxicab geometry, and the relationship between these
relevant concepts.
3.2. Preliminary genetic decomposition
There is a multitude of literature on the investigation or emphasis on student understanding of various representations of math
ematical objects (just to name a few - Ainsworth, 1999; Dreher & Kuntze, 2015; Booth et al., 2017; Boaler, Chen, Williams, & Cordero,
2016; Wilkie, 2016). Thus, each concept and subconcept during analysis was further divided into Geometric Representation and
Algebraic Representation to be able to consider the relationship between different forms of representation in each student’s mind.
Kemp (2018) and Kemp and Vidakovic (2018, 2019) discuss results related to the geometric and algebraic representations of certain
concepts (like Circle) in Euclidean and Taxicab geometry. In particular, the authors describe student difficulty in relating different
types of representation to the definition of the mathematical concept. In the preliminary genetic decomposition presented below, we
omit the details of each form of representation of each concept but remind the reader it is an implied part of these constructions and the
analysis of student work. Further, if it is stated, for example, that a student has a process conception of a concept, it should be assumed
the student has coordinated his or her process conceptions of Geometric Representation and Algebraic Representation of that
concept and has constructed a new process from this coordination. From this coordination, a student can relate these representations to
one another. We remind the reader that when a mathematical object is referred to as a Euclidean circle, Taxicab circle, Euclidean
midpoint, etc., it is being referred to as it exists within that space, rather than suggesting the object is defined differently in each.
3.2.1. Distance
A student’s personal concept definition of distance can be related to a geometrical representation, algebraic representation, or a
mixture of these. For example, describing out loud that distance is the ‘straight line between two points’ exhibits more of a geometric
representation, because it elicits an image in an individual’s mind. In contrast, describing distance by referencing a formula related to
the Pythagorean theorem is more of an algebraic representation, because this directly relates to the formula for Euclidean distance. If a
student were to describe distance as “a measure of the straight line between two points using a right triangle and the Pythagorean
theorem,” then this clearly is an example of a student who is relating their geometric and algebraic representations of Distance.
Although there are several pathways for a student to successfully assimilate Taxicab distance into his or her existing Distance
schema, we describe one here. The path described may be one, for example, of a student who has taken high school or college
Euclidean geometry.
It is possible an individual has an object conception of Distance in Euclidean geometry when introduced to the concept of distance
in Taxicab geometry. Thus, when introduced to Taxicab geometry, an individual may need to de-encapsulate his or her Euclidean
distance Object to assimilate the new metric and coordinate his or her Euclidean distance Process and Taxicab distance Process.
6
Fig. 4. Illustration of a possible pathway a student follows in assimilating Taxicab distance into his or her understanding of Distance.
Once this happens, Euclidean distance and Taxicab distance conflate to one concept, which we will call Distance, and a new Process
is constructed which enables the student to compare properties of distance across geometries. From here, a student can further reflect
on his or her understanding and encapsulate his or her Distance Process into an object in order to perform actions on it. Fig. 4 il
lustrates this possible pathway a student might take in assimilating Taxicab distance into his or her existing understanding of Dis
tance. Below we describe how an individual may exhibit each stage of conception associated with Distance. We omit many details of
Geometric and Algebraic Representation to discuss the basic overall conceptions exhibited by an individual. We note that we
provide the portion of the genetic decomposition related to Distance, but not the other subconcepts of Midpoint and Locus of points,
as they are similar to Distance in assimilation and mental constructions.
Action: Algebraically, given two specific points and a formula, the individual can correctly identify which values are associated
with which variables and plug these values in. The individual can then evaluate this expression, resulting in the distance between the
two points. Geometrically, given two specific points, an individual can illustrate the distance between them.
Process: An individual has interiorized the action of calculating the distance between points into a process when, given a distance
formula or what geometry to consider, an individual can think in his or her head how to calculate the distance between any two points.
He or she does not need two specific points to imagine the distance between and can describe this distance using his or her own words.
Object: An individual encapsulates the process of imagining and calculating distance into an object when he or she can successfully
describe how to calculate the distance between any two points and can think of it as a totality to which he or she can apply an action to
this distance. An example of this would be comparing distances between various points to find a relationship between them, because
this requires an action of comparison on the object.
3.2.2. Midset
By identifying a point in the midset, an individual has to be aware that the distances from this point to the endpoints of the segment
are equal to one another, which requires an action on his or her Distance Object. Thus, an object conception of Distance is necessary
for an individual to identify a point that is equidistant from the two endpoints of a segment, and therefore in the midset. We note that in
this study the concept of Midset includes subconcepts of Euclidean midset and Taxicab midset that develop in a similar manner as
illustrated in Fig. 4.
Action: Given two points, the individual identifies a point that is equidistant from both points by guessing and checking for a point
that satisfies this property. He or she also can check to be sure the distances from this point to the two given points are equal by
counting units or using a formula.
Process: An individual coordinates his or her Distance, Midpoint, and Locus of points Processes to construct a Midset Process
(Seen in Fig. 5). In particular, the individual can imagine in his or her head what it looks like for a point to be in the midset of two given
points and can explain in his or her own words how to find such a point. As a midpoint is equidistant from the endpoints of a segment, a
midpoint is in the midset. So, in Taxicab geometry, if an individual can identify a midpoint but does not explicitly state it is in the
midset/on the perpendicular bisector, we do not have enough evidence to make claims about his or her Midset conception. Thus, we
classify this as the individual using his or her concept of Midpoint and not necessarily his or her concept of Midset.
Object: An individual has encapsulated a Midset Process into an Object when, if given two points, he or she identifies that the set of
points that is equidistant from these points is the midset/perpendicular bisector. He or she has recognized that not only is there more
than one point that is equidistant from these two points, but there are an infinite number of points that would satisfy this property. In
other words, the individual is able to consider all of these distances and points at the same time, and views these points as a totality, or a
line, and can apply actions to this object. The individual can compare properties of midsets in a single geometry, especially in Taxicab
geometry when the slope of the segment connecting the two given points directly influences the appearance of the midset.
We reiterate that if a student is able to make observations and comparisons of a concept across geometries, this indicates that the
student is exhibiting at least a process conception of this concept in both Euclidean and Taxicab geometry. This requires a coordination
of processes in both his or her Euclidean geometry and Taxicab geometry schemas in order to make connections between these
spaces. A possible pathway students may take in order to assimilate the concept of Taxicab midset into their Midset schema is shown
in Fig. 6, which is similar in structure to that of Fig. 4. We show this assimilation including the subconcept of Distance to illustrate the
7
Fig. 5. The construction of the Midset Process.
scaffolding involved within the schema. However, each of the subconcepts of Midset mentioned prior is expected to be assimilated into
the Midset schema a similar manner (and also include relationships between the subconcepts themselves.
4. Methodology
This research study was conducted at a large, south-eastern university in a College Geometry course during a Fall semester, which
has an introduction to proof course as a prerequisite. As it is a cross listed course, there were both undergraduate and graduate students
enrolled in the course, many of whom were pre-service or in-service secondary mathematics teachers. The study is defined as a
teaching experiment, as described by Cobb and Steffe (2010) and Steffe and Thompson (2000), as it consisted of sessions of instruction
followed up with individual interviews at the end of the semester. As a pedagogical result of APOS theory, the ACE Teaching Cycle was
the method of instruction used in this teaching experiment. In particular, ACE stands for Activities on the computer (A), Classroom
Discussion (C), Exercises done outside the class (E) (Asiala, Cottrill, Dubinsky, & Schwingendorf, 1997). To implement this cycle, first,
Activities are conducted in a group setting with guided tasks intended to help students make the mental constructions that the genetic
decomposition has suggested. Students are able to explore relationships and form and test conjectures, implementing the process of
reflective abstraction. The next step of the cycle, Classroom Discussion, is primarily an instructor-led discussion, but requires class
participation. These discussions are intended to allow students to reflect more formally on the activities from the first step of the cycle.
Instructors focus on explanations, definitions, and/or theorems for students to make connections between concepts, properties, and
relationships explored during the Activities phase and their formal mathematical representations. In the third step, Exercises, students
are required to complete homework assignments outside of the classroom on selective exercises intended to reinforce the concepts they
have learned and to help support the development of mental constructions. This part of the cycle allows students to consider related
concepts in mathematics and apply the concepts they have just learned. (Asiala et al., 1997).
Labeled as a “cycle,” this method of instruction moves through the activities, discussion, and exercises multiple times while
learning a single concept, aiming to foster the development of appropriate mental structures for each student in the classroom (Arnon
et al., 2014; Voskoglou, 2013). By this instruction, the teacher is meant to guide students to explore new topics in mathematics by
having students reflect on the activities they complete in class. Students typically complete these activities in groups, allowing dis
cussion to facilitate learning among one another. By hearing others’ perspectives and explanations, students can reinforce their own
knowledge of mathematical concepts. The textbook used in the course from which participants in this study were enrolled was College
Geometry Using the Geometer’s Sketchpad (Reynolds & Fenton, 2011), written based on APOS Theory and the ACE Teaching Cycle.
The textbook and the overall course focused heavily on students utilizing and exploring conceptions in the dynamic geometry software
Geometer’s Sketchpad.
Fig. 6. A possible way a student may assimilate Taxicab distance into his or her Midset schema.
8
The material of the course covered concepts and theorems often seen in a College Geometry course and introduced Taxicab ge
ometry at the end of the semester for four 75-minute class periods. After the semester, semi-structured interviews were conducted with
15 of the 18 students enrolled in the course who voluntarily signed up to participate in the interviews. In addition, all 18 students
consented for their in-class group work and discussion during the Taxicab geometry sections to be recorded, as well as written work
and exams throughout the course to be collected as data. We focus our attention in this report to responses from the eleven graduate
students enrolled in this course (who were also in-service secondary mathematics teachers) to a problem on the final exam pertaining
to concepts in Taxicab geometry. As a note, these students also volunteered to participate in the semi-structured interviews that were
conducted before the final exam. We remind the reader that students learned a continuous model of the Taxicab metric. That is,
distance between two points is measured continuously, not discretely. The two-part problem on the final exam was stated as follows:
Assume [University]’s campus and surrounding streets are designed explicitly in a grid pattern, i.e.- distance is measured by Taxi-
distance. You are looking for an apartment near campus, but you want to make sure that from your apartment, the walking distance to
[Building 1] (located at (-2, -2)) is the same as the walking distance to [Building 2] (located at (4, 3)), since you have classes in both
locations.
a Draw a graphical representation of where your apartment could be located, given that it needs to be equidistant from [Building
1] and [Building 2].
b What mathematical term would describe what you have drawn in your sketch?
The expectation for this problem, and an ideal solution, would be for students to recognize that there are an infinite number of
places they could have an apartment so that its location is equidistant from the two buildings, with a midpoint having the shortest
distance. Further, students should identify that this locus of points, the set of points equidistant from both buildings, is the Taxicab
midset (or the equivalent of a perpendicular bisector) of the two buildings. The problem was intentionally open-ended and simply
asked students to draw a graphical representation of where the apartment could be located. Although drawing and identifying the
midset was an ideal solution, the problem could be interpreted as asking for just one specific location or multiple distinct locations for
an apartment. If a student interpreted the problem so that he or she was looking for a location that was exactly halfway between both
buildings, then we consider the student to have been using his or her concept of Midpoint (unless he or she referenced the perpen
dicular bisector or midset).
This activity was designed with the goal of investigating students’ thinking as they reasoned through a problem outlined in Section
2.2.1.2: Producing a mathematical term associated with a concept from properties of a definition. In particular, students are prompted to
interpret from the problem the need for their solution point(s) to be equidistant from both buildings, finding such solution(s)
graphically and/or explicitly by whatever method they deem appropriate, and then identifying the mathematical concept that they
believe most accurately describes their solution(s)/drawing. We note that students learned about the concept of Midset in Euclidean
geometry throughout the semester, but it was exclusively called a perpendicular bisector. When the concept of Midset was introduced
in Taxicab geometry, it was often referred to as “the Taxicab perpendicular bisector” or “the equivalent of the perpendicular bisector.”
Because of this, in the results presented in Section 5, many students indicate they are talking about a perpendicular bisector rather than
a midset. In any case, this is treated as information about their understanding of Midset in Taxicab geometry.
What follows in this report are results and discussion on the following research questions pertaining to student understanding of
Midset:
1 How do secondary mathematics teachers enrolled in a College Geometry course adapt their knowledge of definitions from
Euclidean geometry to Taxicab geometry (and vice-versa) in a real-life situation?
2 What cognitive structures are necessary in order to help students successfully make this transition of using definitions in an atypical
context?
Using the theoretical framework, genetic decomposition, and written responses to the exam problem presented above, the re
searchers sought to answer these questions. All responses from participants to this question on the final exam were analyzed in detail
by both researchers in several passes of data analysis, including negotiations to agree upon what stages of conception students
exhibited for various concepts. In particular, the researchers first identified which stages of conception could be identified for the
subconcepts associated with Midset. Only concepts for which there was sufficient evidence to identify the stage of conception at which
a student was operating were included in identifying and describing a student’s overall understanding of Midset. Once the researchers
agreed upon these stages for a student it was determined what this meant regarding their overall Midset schema and understanding of
the concept of Midset, based on the genetic decomposition presented. Based on the obstacles faced or successes had by students while
reasoning through this problem (exhibited through their written responses), the researchers developed pedagogical suggestions meant
to help facilitate a deeper understanding of the concept of Midset and the role of mathematical definitions in general.
5. Results
In general, many of the secondary mathematics teachers believed the question to be asking for at least one point that satisfied a
certain criterion, which led to a variety of responses. As anticipated and noted previously, it was determined that there would be two
main concepts that emerge from the teachers’ responses based on their understanding of the problem: Circle and Midset. In this paper,
9
we focus on student conceptions of Midset as they exists within each student’s mind in the context of Euclidean geometry and Taxicab
geometry (which we call Euclidean midset and Taxicab midset) and include several subconcepts. We clarify that for Midset and each
of its subconcepts, we present our results as representative examples of stages of development as it relates to the individual’s ability to
adapt and apply his or her understanding of a midset from Euclidean geometry to Taxicab geometry and/or vice versa. We describe the
mental structures associated with each student’s understanding of relevant concepts, as evidenced by his or her response to the
provided question on the final exam. We do not attempt to classify a student’s overall conception of a concept, as the evidence we have
for this study is not sufficient to make such claims, but rather we provide examples of what these stages of conception may look like.
Also, an individual may only evoke a conceptual stage as they deem necessary, implying some students may have higher-order
constructions within their schemas that they just are not evoking for this particular problem.
Recall, a midset is defined as the set of points that are equidistant from two given points. In Euclidean geometry, this results in a line
that bisects the segment connecting these two points at a right angle. In Taxicab geometry, it results in a line with a variety of ap
pearances depending on the slope of the segment connecting the two points. In many cases, the midset in Taxicab geometry is not
perpendicular to the segment it bisects, nor is it a straight line. The only time the Euclidean and Taxicab geometry midset of a given
segment are the same is if the segment is parallel to one of the axes. If the segment connecting two points has a slope of 1 or -1, the
Taxicab midset includes the set of midpoints described in Section 2.1.2 as well as two infinite areas extending off the endpoints of that
segment. Otherwise, the Taxicab midset consists of the set of midpoints (represented as a segment) and two rays that extend off the
endpoints of this [midpoint] segment. The subconcepts called for by our preliminary genetic decomposition for Midset are Distance,
Midpoint, and Locus of points. What follows are representative examples of the conceptions and mental structures within the Midset
schema that were illuminated in our analysis using APOS Theory as a framework.
5.1. Process conception of Taxicab distance - Brianna
Although we do not provide all of the results from analysis of the conceptions of Distance exhibited by the participants in this
study, one is included here as an example. We provide Brianna’s solution below in Fig. 7 to illustrate a way students may exhibit a
process conception of Distance that was not called for by the preliminary genetic decomposition. We mainly want to draw attention to
the image Brianna provided and her indication that she drew a “triangle or a taxicircle,” (seen in the bottom right of Fig. 7). We omit
overall details of the analysis of her work but discuss the implications of how she interpreted her drawing.
Looking at the sketch in Brianna’s solution, in regard to her claim that it is “a triangle”, it is possible she saw the Euclidean distance
between the two points represented as the hypotenuse of a right triangle whose legs represent the Taxicab distance between the points.
This implies that Brianna may have been attempting to coordinate her processes of Euclidean distance and Taxicab distance, at least
geometrically, because it’s possible she was observing properties and relating these distances. As the problem did not probe further for
this type of information, we cannot conclusively say Brianna was coordinating these processes, however it brought attention to the
possibility and provoked the need to address this possibility in the refinement of the preliminary genetic decomposition. Thus, it is
possible for students to exhibit a process conception of Distance by relating these distances to one another geometrically as a right
triangle and explaining in his or her own words how to represent this graphically. As discussed in Fischbein (1993), this is an example
of images and concepts interacting cooperatively in the cognitive activity of an individual.
5.2. Action conception of Taxicab midset – Parker
An individual with an action conception of Midset can identify a point that is equidistant from both endpoints of a segment and is
aware this point falls in the midset (or on the “perpendicular bisector”). One way to identify a point in the midset of two fixed points
can be to guess a location for this point and check to be sure the distances from this point to the given points are equal. It is necessary
Fig. 7. Part of Brianna’s solution to the final exam problem.
10
for the individual to clarify that his or her point lies in the midset or “on the perpendicular bisector” of the given segment to be clearly
exhibiting evidence for their understanding of Midset (rather than Midpoint). Below we refer to Fig. 8 and provide evidence of
Parker’s action conception of Taxicab midset in the way that she identified her drawing as a perpendicular bisector.
As seen in her written work in the top right of Fig. 8, Parker seemed to attempt to first find her solution point by writing general
expressions for the distances between each building and a potential solution point, which she labeled as (x2 , y2 ). She denoted these
distances as |x2 + 2| + |y2 + 2| for the distance between ( − 2, − 2) and (x2 , y2 ), and |x2 − 4| + |y2 − 3| for the distance between (4, 3)
and (x2 , y2 ), respectively. Using these algebraic representations of distance, Parker set them equal to one another in what seems to
have been an attempt to solve an equation to obtain an ordered pair solution. By imagining the distance between a potential solution
point and one building as a totality, and setting it equal to the distance between this solution point and the other building, we believe
she was applying an action (comparison/equality) to her Taxicab distance Object, specifically algebraically. In addition, she denoted
she resorted to trial and error, which we assume meant using her geometrical representation coupled with calculating/counting any
necessary distances, to check if a potential solution was equidistant from both buildings. This required the calculation of multiple
distances and the comparison of these distances until she arrived at a solution that satisfied her criteria. By repeatedly applying an
action of comparison until she found a point that was equidistant from both buildings, we believe Parker was exhibiting an object
conception of Taxicab distance.
In Fig. 8, it can be seen that Parker identified two points, (1, 0.5)and (3.5, − 2) that are in the midset and, in particular, are
midpoints of the two given points. As she stated she found these points by “trial and error,” Parker exhibited an action conception of
Midpoint. Parker understood and wrote the term that she associated with her image was a “perpendicular bisector”. Thus, she used her
definition of perpendicular bisector to justify that the points she identified as possible locations for her apartment indeed fell in this set
(and did not exclusively refer to them as midpoints). We do not have explicit evidence to characterize Parker’s conception of Locus of
points, as she would have needed to describe/draw the entire set of points equidistant from the buildings in more detail, but it is
possible, if probed, that she would have been able to do so. Overall, Parker exhibited evidence of an object conception of Taxicab
distance and an action conception of Midpoint. This coupled with the fact that she operated by “trial and error” to find points that fell
in the Taxicab midset, we believe Parker exhibited an overall action conception of Taxicab midset.
5.3. Process Conception of Taxicab Midset – Robin
An individual with a process conception of Midset can imagine a point equidistant from the two given building locations and can
identify that this would be a point in the midset (or on the “perpendicular bisector”). Recall, if two points form a segment that is
parallel to one of the axes, the Euclidean midpoint is the only Taxicab midpoint of the two points. Otherwise, there are an infinite
number of points in the Taxicab midset of the two points. The following excerpt presented in Fig. 9 is not included as a clear illustration
of a process conception of Midset, but rather as an interesting example of what we believe may have been a student ready to construct
a Midpoint process while solving the problem on the final exam. In this excerpt, Robin clearly explained how he arrived at his
apartment location, and what seemed to be a conjecture about the uniqueness of this location.
Seen in Fig. 9, Robin explained that he calculated the location for his midpoint by taking the total Taxicab distance, dividing by two,
and counting blocks from one of the buildings. This is indicative of a process conception of Taxicab distance because he was able to
imagine and explain how he could use this process to identify a point halfway between both buildings. He also classified his solution as
a “midpoint in T[axicab]-geometry.” Thus, he is aware of the distinction of midpoints in Euclidean and Taxicab geometry, which
indicates at least a process conception of both Euclidean midpoint and Taxicab midpoint because this requires the coordination of
these processes. At the end of his solution to part (b), Robin clearly stated that “it seems that midpoints in Taxicab geometry are not
Fig. 8. Part of Parker’s solution.
11
Fig. 9. Part of Robin’s solution.
unique.” Evidently, through his exploration of this problem, Robin seemed to be generalizing his criteria for a solution and could
imagine multiple points being midpoints.
Although he did not explicitly provide multiple solution points, we believe Robin may have been exhibiting that he constructed a
Midpoint Process because he phrased his generalization almost as a conjecture by saying “it seems that…”. We do not have any further
evidence that Robin had fully constructed a Midpoint process, but Tall (2004) points out that this type of generalization is a facet of
going from an operational to a formal understanding of a concept. We do not have any evidence regarding Robin’s conception of Locus
of points because he did not attempt to find more points in the midset, nor do we have evidence he was aware there were other points
in the midset that were not midpoints, as he only referred to them as midpoints. However, by exhibiting a process conception of both
Taxicab distance and Midpoint and generalizing the idea that Taxicab midpoints are not unique, we believe, if prompted, it is
possible Robin could exhibit an overall process conception of Midset.
5.4. Process conception of Taxicab Midset – Hannah
The following is an illustrative example of a process conception of Midset, presented in Hannah’s solution, seen in Fig. 10 below.
Hannah described her drawing as a Taxicab circle and attempted to provide an equation of this circle, but then stated it “should model
a perpendicular bisector of the segment between” the two buildings. While it is clear Hannah also evoked her concept of Circle, we will
focus on her understanding of Midset, or perpendicular bisector, here.
We first draw attention to the location Hannah labeled as her “Apt” as (4, − 2). Through analysis of her solution, it was deduced
Fig. 10. Part of Hannah’s solution.
12
that Hannah was operating with Taxicab distance as a discrete measure, using only whole numbers while measuring distances. We
believe this is what led her solution point to be 5 units from one building and 6 units from the other (rather than, a “true” midpoint
which would be 5.5 units from each). We consider this to be a pure mistake and continue with an analysis given this error. Hannah
clearly calculated the Taxicab distance by using a formula and found it to be 11 units. It appears Hannah first wrote the distance
between the buildings to be 10 units, as seen in the upper right-hand corner of her work with what she wrote as “dT = 10,” and then
changed it to 11. It is possible this is a result of only wanting to use whole numbers as distance measurements, because she knew she
wanted to divide the total distance between the buildings by two and felt uncomfortable with this resulting in a distance of 5.5 units. In
any case, this anticipation of and understanding she could divide the total distance by two to help her arrive at a location for her
apartment is indicative of a process conception of Distance, specifically algebraically.
We also believe the marks all over Hannah’s graph were sketches of paths to help her count distances to find a location for her
apartment. After she calculated the correct distance of 11 units between the buildings, we notice smaller numbers written on her graph
labeling lengths of paths. A closer look at Hannah’s drawing, it appears she was attempting to find a location for her apartment
constructing segments of 5 or 6 units from both buildings, with what looks like “steps” in her drawing. She even wrote “5” and “6” next
to what we believe is two of the segments. This indicates that Hannah was calculating distances and comparing them to check to see if
they were equal in length. By performing an action of comparison to these distances, we believe Hannah exhibited an object conception
of Taxicab distance, specifically geometrically.
Further, Hannah emphasized at least six other points in her sketch in addition to the one she labeled “Apt” at (4, − 2). These can be
found roughly at ( − 3, 3), ( − 2, 3), ( − 1, 2), (1, 1), (1, 0), and (2, − 1). By attempting to find several midpoints of the two given
points by a guess and check method, Hannah exhibited here at least an action conception of Midpoint. By saying her sketch “should”
model a perpendicular bisector, Hannah was using her definition of perpendicular bisector (or midset) to imagine points that fall in this
set and what properties the geometric representation should have. We believe Hannah had generalized the solution beyond midpoints
to the midset, a result of coordinating her Locus of points Process with her Midpoint Process to graphically represent several points in
the midset. Although the solution provided by Hannah did not clearly indicate an overall process conception of Taxicab midset,
Hannah’s geometric solution and approach to the problem is evidence of an object conception of Distance and sufficient evidence to
deduce she exhibited that she had coordinated her process conceptions of Locus of points and Midpoint in Taxicab geometry. As she
was able to coordinate these Processes to provide her solution, Hannah exhibited that she may have been ready to construct a Midset
Process for her geometric representation of a midset if she had not already.
Overall, Hannah exhibited evidence that she was utilizing her understanding of several concepts in order to make sense of the
problem. Although she seemed to follow her initial approach of attempting to find a circle that would satisfy the problem, Hannah
indicated she may have understood or completed the problem differently if she had considered the midset (or perpendicular bisector)
in the beginning. Knuth (2002) found that secondary mathematics teachers based their determination of the validity of an argument on
whether it was mathematically sound, rather than the approach used. Similarly, when determining the mathematical term that was
associated with her solution, Hannah did not focus on how she approached the problem, but on what made sense mathematically in her
head. To this point, Fischbein (1993) explains that an individual does not necessarily need to “polish” a figure in order to understand or
reason through what it represents. The results presented from Hannah’s thinking are consistent with Fischbein (1993) in that re
lationships among figures “do not depend on the drawing itself. They are imposed by definitions and theorems,” (p. 142).
5.5. Object conception of Midset – Tyra
An individual with an object conception of Midset considers the set of solutions to this problem as a totality, or a line, and can apply
Fig. 11. Part of Tyra’s solution to the problem.
13
actions to it. The student can compare properties of midsets in various geometries, or properties of midsets of various segments in the
same geometry, especially in Taxicab geometry when the slope of the segment directly influences the appearance of the midset. We
present Tyra’s solution as an example of a possible process conception of Midset being encapsulated into an object. Seen in her
drawing in Fig. 11, Tyra was the only student out of the eleven that attempted to sketch a drawing of the entire midset of the segment
connecting the buildings.
Seen in the top right of Fig. 11, Tyra provided two specific points that were halfway between the buildings, making them both
midpoints. Furthermore, shown at the bottom of Fig. 11, Tyra used these points to find the equation of the line segment that contains all
of the points halfway between the buildings and called them Taxicab midpoints, as seen in part (b) in her work on the right. When she
wrote “on the domain shown,” we deduce she meant the part of her graph that is the line y = − x + 32, implying she understood all of the
points on this segment are Taxicab midpoints (and points off of this segment are not). With this generalization, Tyra was able to
identify and compare locations of multiple midpoints of the given segment. By using the midpoints she had found to find the equation
of the line containing the midset, Tyra was clearly applying an action to her Midpoint Object, specifically using them as an input into a
function which outputs the equation of a line and all possible solutions. Thus, Tyra exhibited an object conception of Midpoint,
because she viewed the set of midpoints as a totality and could use two known midpoints to find the equation of the segment of all
midpoints. This action on her Midpoint Object of using midpoints as inputs to a function was not considered in our preliminary genetic
decomposition.
By providing multiple midpoints which requires the comparison of many distances, we believe Tyra exhibited an object conception
of Distance. In her graph, not only did she sketch and find the equation of the segment containing all midpoints of the two given points,
Tyra also sketched the entire Taxicab midset (which includes the rays she sketched off of the “midpoint segment”). She was able to
graphically estimate/identify all points that are equidistant from the buildings and not just the midpoints. From her solution, we
believe she had interpreted the original problem to only be asking for solutions that were exactly halfway between the buildings, as she
specified her answer as the equation of the midpoints on a specific domain and described her solution as “Taxicab midpoints,” despite
the fact that she drew additional rays. Although she never explicitly stated that these vertical lines in her drawing are part of the
midset, we infer that this was her intention. As she clearly could imagine the locus of points equidistant from the buildings but did not
demonstrate performing an action on these points, we believe Tyra exhibited at least a process conception of Locus of points. Thus,
with object conceptions of Distance and Midpoint and a process conception of Locus of points, we deduce that Tyra coordinated the
appropriate corresponding processes to construct a Midset Process. Although Tyra did not exhibit an object conception of Midset in
this solution, given her drawing we believe, if prompted, she could have exhibited evidence of encapsulating her Midset Process into
an object.
Smith (2013) explained that in Taxicab geometry, seeing and discussing a problem as a locus problem instead of a specific shape (in
this case, a midset problem) helped his pre-service secondary mathematics teachers understand mathematical definitions and con
cepts. This is apparently true in the case of Tyra’s solution. We did not have any students who clearly exhibited an overall object
conception of Midset, most likely because the way in which the problem was posed did not probe for such an understanding. In Section
6, we provide suggestions as to how to adjust the problem to probe for this type of understanding as well as aide in the mental
constructions that could help deepen student understanding of Midset and its subconcepts.
6. Discussion
Fischbein (1993) explains that in geometrical reasoning, a major obstacle is the tendency to “neglect the definition under the
pressure of figural constraints,” (p. 155). By designing a problem where a student is essentially told a definition and has to identify a
mathematical concept, our results suggest we can (to some extent) overcome this obstacle. In general, many of the secondary
mathematics teachers were able to use their geometrical reasoning skills to arrive at a solution, and then apply their knowledge of
definitions to correctly identify a mathematical term that satisfies the conditions of the problem. As stated previously, because the
properties of geometric figures are derived from definitions within an axiomatic system, it is important to note that a figure is
“controlled by its definition,” (Fischbein, 1993, p. 141). The results presented in this paper support this notion, as the interpretation
and context of the original problem led students to arrive at various approaches and mathematical concepts describing their solution.
The participating secondary teachers in this study did face some obstacles in their understanding of and/or approach to this
problem. Moore-Russo (2008) specified that the teachers in her study seemed to struggle to understand the concept of slope deeply
when they thought about slope outside of a common scenario. Something similar seemed to occur with many of our participants. As
geometry courses examine the Euclidean geometry axiom system in depth (Byrkit, 1971), it follows that some of these students would
face obstacles in thinking about the concepts presented in this report in Taxicab geometry. As Kaisari and Patronis (2010) suggest, “the
meaning of mathematical concepts cannot be grasped or produced only by definitions and/or formal mathematical explanations. It
needs an awareness of human action and depends on the use of concepts within a particular concept…,” (p. 255). This perspective was
in mind with the design of this real-life situation, with the hope that students would be able to utilize their understanding of various
concepts to interpret, reason, and conjecture about various properties within Taxicab geometry.
Of the solutions that were provided by the in-service teachers to be midpoints, we see a variety of ways this occurred. These
strategies include, but are not limited to, guessing and checking until they found a point that was a midpoint, calculating the ordered
pair of the midpoint using a formula, and calculating the total distance between the buildings and using this to find a point that was
exactly halfway between the two. To some extent, Parker, Hannah, Robin, and Tyra indicated they were most likely aware midpoints
were not unique in Taxicab geometry (with Robin and Tyra explicitly stating this). Further, Tyra seemed to be aware there were an
14
infinite number of correct solutions and provided the equation for the set of these points.
A revision to our preliminary genetic decomposition pertains to students’ conception of Distance. We stated that a student should
have an object conception of Euclidean distance and de-encapsulate this object before successfully coordinating his or her Taxicab
distance Process with his or her Euclidean distance Process. We found through this analysis, that students do not necessarily have to
exhibit an object conception of concepts in Euclidean geometry to assimilate the corresponding Taxicab geometry concept into their
understanding. For example, an individual can begin with an action conception of Euclidean distance and interiorize this to be able to
coordinate it with their Taxicab distance Process. Fig. 12 provides an illustration of this revision to our genetic decomposition, in that
we believe a student can begin at various stages of conception of Distance in Euclidean geometry and still have the ability to un
derstand Taxicab distance.
Based on results, the claim that students must exhibit a process conception of both Euclidean and Taxicab distance in order to
make connections between properties and figures in these geometries is supported. This idea translates to all the concepts presented in
this paper. In other words, regardless of the conception a student has of this concept in both Euclidean or Taxicab geometries inde
pendently, he or she should have at least a process conception of that concept in both geometries in order to coordinate these processes
and make connections between them. Below we present two revisions to our description of mental structures within our preliminary
genetic decomposition based on our results.
One revision of our preliminary genetic decomposition arises from a solution posed by Brianna (presented in Section 5.1), one of the
teachers in the course, pertaining to her conception of Distance. Recall, Brianna seemed to illustrate both Euclidean and Taxicab
distance in the same image and related them to one another as the legs and hypotenuse of a right triangle. As we had not considered this
connect in our preliminary genetic decomposition nor what mental constructions were required to make this connection, we rephrase
that portion of our genetic decomposition as follows:
Process: An individual has interiorized his or her Distance Action into a process when given a distance formula or being aware of
what geometry to consider, an individual can think in his or her head how to calculate the distance between any two points. He or she
does not need two specific points to imagine the distance between and can describe this distance using his or her own words. In terms of
coordinating one’s Euclidean distance and Taxicab distance Processes geometrically, a student can consider these distances between
two points at the same time as a right triangle whose hypotenuse represents the Euclidean distance, and the legs of which represent the
Taxicab distance between the points.
The next revision is a result of Tyra’s solution to this problem with regard to Midpoint presented in Section 5.5. In our preliminary
genetic decomposition, we did not consider the case of using midpoints as an input into a function to determine an equation that
represents all midpoints of two points in Taxicab geometry. In this report we did not explicitly include the portion of the genetic
decomposition related to Midpoint but provide the revised version of the description of an object conception of Midpoint below.
Object: An individual has encapsulated his or her Midpoint Process into an Object if, when given two points, he or she identifies a
midpoint of the segment connecting them and can apply an action to it. An example of an action that can be applied to this Object is the
comparison of locations of multiple midpoints in Taxicab geometry. In addition, the individual can be aware that a midpoint is not
unique in Taxicab geometry (when the given segment is not parallel to one of the axes and does not have a slope of 1 or -1) and
explains/describes this clearly. Another way a student can perform an action on his or her Midpoint Object is by using two midpoints
of a segment in Taxicab geometry to derive an equation that, on a particular domain, represents the set of midpoints of the two given
points. The action being applied to this Object is a transformation of the object from two points to an equation of a line (or being used as
an input into a function which outputs this equation).
The understandings of many secondary teachers in this report support the findings of Kinach (2012) in that students in mathematics
teaching classes demonstrated an understanding of concepts in geometry mainly through algebraic and numerical methods, absent of a
spatial understanding. For example, some students appeared to provide a location for their apartment based solely on their algebraic
and numerical scratch work. On the other hand, many of the solutions and descriptions provided by these secondary mathematics
Fig. 12. Revised illustration of a possible way for a student to assimilate Taxicab distance into his/her understanding of Distance.
15
teachers were unexpected. Tyra’s solution demonstrated an understanding of a wide variety of topics in Euclidean geometry that were
touched on throughout the course (or acquired through previous knowledge) that we did not anticipate emerging in the students’
minds during this activity. This notion supports the claim that there is a need for further research in determining whether comparing
ideas and concepts in different geometries result in a deeper insight into Euclidean axioms (Kinach, 2012).
Kaisari and Patronis (2010) suggest there are three types of use of geometrical concepts: (1) as elements of representation of spatial
experience, (2) as objects of traditional School practice, and (3) as constituents of an abstract mathematical theory (pp. 255–256). The
first focuses on geometry as a model separated from formal definitions and proofs, the second focuses on defaulting to Euclidean
geometry, and the third focuses on abstraction and formalization. The students in this report illustrated a combination of these types of
uses. For example, Robin demonstrated in his work in Section 5.3, that he used spatial sense and a model of a real-life situation to first
identify the task at hand and then used abstraction and formalization to generalize that his solution may not be unique.
As designed, the intent of this problem was that students would see there were an infinite number of solution points which formed
the midset of the segment connecting the two buildings. Most likely due to the wording of the problem, students provided a variety of
responses and results. For this reason, although there was breadth in the variety of responses, our analysis of students’ understanding of
Midset was limited. In Section 7, we suggest an edit to the wording of the problem to better identify the understanding of Midset and
its subconcepts.
7. Conclusion
In this paper, we presented illustrations of various stages of conception exhibited by secondary mathematics teachers enrolled in a
college geometry course for different concepts involved in solving a real-life problem. It seems the flexibility with the interpretation of
the problem lead students to freely express their thought process as they worked to find a solution. By requiring students to observe
properties of a mathematical definition in Taxicab geometry concept in order to identify an associated mathematical concept, we
hoped to help these secondary mathematics teachers develop a deeper understanding of these definitions and how to apply them.
By using APOS Theory to analyze these secondary mathematics teachers’ solutions to a real-life situation, we were able to uncover
some common misconceptions about Taxicab distance, midpoints, and midsets. For example, multiple teachers seemed to believe one
could not travel in non-integer increments, i.e. – “split” units or measure distance continuously. This did lead to students attempting to
optimize distance under a certain constraint, although this was not intentional. This is consistent with Smith (2013) in that the author
found it necessary to have conversations with students about how it was possible to draw line segments “through the grid” even though
a car would not be able to drive through the blocks in a city. Also, many students could have been conflating the term midpoint with
any point in the midset (or on the “perpendicular bisector”). Thus, students may need assistance in seeing the difference between a
point that is equidistant from two fixed points (and not necessarily a midpoint) versus a point that is a midpoint of the two fixed points.
In addition, while some students were able to identify all possible solutions as the “perpendicular bisector” of the two endpoints, this
was a rarity. We believe this is due to the way the problem was written, as it did not probe for an abstraction to the point necessary to
have evidence of this understanding. While we consider the openness of the problem as a positive for our collected data and analysis,
for pedagogical use we suggest altering the problem to help students construct necessary mental structures and to probe for certain
understandings of mathematical concepts as follows:
Assume [University]’s campus and surrounding streets are designed explicitly in a grid pattern. You are looking for an apartment
near campus, but you want to make sure that from your apartment, the walking distance to [Building 1] (located at (-2, -2)) is the same
as the walking distance to [Building 2] (located at (4, 3)), because you have classes in both locations. You do not need to assume that
you can only walk in “whole” blocks.
a Provide one possible location of your apartment, given that you want it to be halfway between the two buildings. What mathe
matical term would describe the point you provided? Is this point unique? Explain.
b Is it possible to find a location of your apartment, given that you do not want to be halfway between the buildings but still
equidistant to them? Is there more than one possible point that you could have provided? What mathematical concept would you
associate with your solution?
c How would your responses to these questions change if we provided two new locations for the buildings?
d Instead of looking for an apartment that is the same walking distance from both buildings, assume there is a bird looking for a
location for its nest that is the same flying distance between both buildings (as perhaps the bird has friends on those rooftops). Work
through parts (a)-(c) within this new context. How did your approach change? What are some similarities and differences you
noticed between the apartment scenario and the bird scenario?
In the introduction of the problem, the words “i.e.- distance is measured by Taxi-distance” were removed. It is possible that by
clearly indicating students were to use Taxicab distance, they can evoke an incomplete or imprecise Taxicab distance concept image.
This can still occur once students interpret the problem, but by omitting this, we hope to make the problem more contextual to a real-
life situation. The sentence, “You do not need to assume that you can only walk in ‘whole’ blocks” was added in the anticipation that
students may be resistant to “splitting” units. For part (a), the goal is for students to identify a midpoint between the buildings and use
their definition of midpoint to understand this is what they have drawn. In addition, we hope students can generalize this point to all
points that are halfway between the buildings and understand their point is not unique. For part (b), the ideal solution would be that a
student provides a point that is in the midset and uses their personal definition of midset/perpendicular bisector to do so. Also, we aim
for students to see that they could have chosen any point in the midset that is not a midpoint, awareness again to the fact that a solution
16
outside of the set of midpoints is also not unique.

For part (c), we are attempting to probe students to see if they can observe what happens when we change the original two points. If
students can compare properties of a mathematical definition as you change certain conditions within one geometry, they may be
exhibiting an object conception of that mathematical concept. For example, if a student is able to describe how in Taxicab geometry the
midset appears differently if you change the slope of the original segment, this is evidence of an object conception of Midset. For part
(d), the aim is for students to “return” to Euclidean geometry after operating in Taxicab geometry. If students are able to compare
properties of a mathematical definition between Euclidean and Taxicab geometry, this is indicative of at least a process conception of
that concept. Further, facilitating the application of definitions back and forth between Euclidean and Taxicab geometry can poten
tially help students to generalize their understanding of that concept to the point of being able to apply it into an entirely new space.
Although that is most likely out of the scope of this refined problem, this would be evidence of encapsulating their process conception
of that concept into an object.
There are several limitations to our study. One limitation is that there were only eleven secondary teachers enrolled in the course,
and a greater number of participants could reveal more examples of various stages of conception for the concepts that emerged in the
minds of these participants. Another limitation is that there were no follow-up interviews for this question (which was on the final
exam), which restricts our understanding of the reasoning used by students in the process of determining their responses. Along these
lines, we also are not sure of the order in which these teachers drew items or wrote certain numbers or expressions in their work. This
study also investigated students’ understanding of concepts within the context of Taxicab distance without investigating in detail their
prerequisite knowledge of these concepts within Euclidean geometry. Future research could benefit from examining students’ un
derstanding of concepts with a similar problem in Euclidean geometry prior to approaching this problem in Taxicab geometry. The
revision of the problem given to participants provided above may also help to investigate student understanding of concepts in
Euclidean geometry.
Oladosu (2014) found that teacher education should assist teachers in learning to create and select challenging tasks that require
students to do more than reproduce solutions illustrated by the teacher. To do so, it is necessary that these teachers be able to
determine their own meanings, have the ability to complete such tasks, and be able to interpret students’ meaning. Also, there have
been few studies that involve secondary mathematics teachers, which is why more research should be done using this population
(Moore-Russo, 2008). We also discussed the different types of thought processes that arise from different types of activities. Moor
e-Russo (2008) points out that there is not as much literature on attributes of geometric figures and the relationships between them
than there is on the construction of definitions of geometric figures.
Moore (1994) discusses how mathematical language or definitions are a large influence on students’ struggle to write accurate
proofs. Thus, more research on how students and secondary mathematics teachers understand mathematical definitions could result in
bettering their understanding of proofs and proof-writing ability. Future research could benefit from investigating how differently
designed activities affect student understanding of definitions and mathematical terms. For example, do students better understand
mathematical concepts from constructing definitions (using their personal definitions to observe properties and incorporate these with
prior knowledge) or using given definitions and applying them in a situation to determine what mathematical concept is under
consideration? Further investigation into this can help to develop more instructional material that will help facilitate an understanding
of mathematical definitions, their roles, and their uses.
Author statement
• The work described has not been published previously (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture or ac
ademic thesis) and that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere.
• That all coauthors acknowledge their participation in conducting the research leading to the manuscript, that all agree to its
submission to be considered for publication by the Journal of Mathematical Behavior, and that all have agreed on the final version.
• The manuscript is approved tacitly or explicitly by the responsible authorities where the work was carried out.
References
Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33(2–3), 131–152.
Armitage, J. V. (1973). The place of geometry in a mathematical education. The Mathematical Gazette, 57(402), 267–278.
Arnon, I., Cottrill, J., Dubinsky, E., Oktaç, A., Fuentes, S. R., Trigueros, M., et al. (2014). APOS theory: A framework for research and curriculum development in
mathematics education. Springer Science & Business Media.
Asiala, M., Cottrill, J., Dubinsky, E., & Schwingendorf, K. E. (1997). The development of students’ graphical understanding of the derivative. The Journal of
Mathematical Behavior, 16(4), 399–431.
Boaler, J., Chen, L., Williams, C., & Cordero, M. (2016). Seeing as understanding: The importance of visual mathematics for our brain and learning. Journal of Applied
& Computational Mathematics, 5(5), 1–6.
Booth, J. L., McGinn, K. M., Barbieri, C., Begolli, K. N., Chang, B., Miller-Cotto, D., et al. (2017). Evidence for cognitive science principles that impact learning in
mathematics. Acquisition of complex arithmetic skills and higher-order mathematics concepts (pp. 297–325). Academic Press.
Byrkit, D. R. (1971). Taxicab geometry—A non-Euclidean geometry of lattice points. The Mathematics Teacher, 64(5), 418–422.
Caballero, D. (2006). Taxicab geometry: Some problems and solutions for square grid-based fire spread simulation. Forest Ecology and Management, 234(1), S98.
Chesler, J. (2012). Pre-service secondary mathematics teachers making sense of definitions of functions. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 14(1), 27–40.
Cobb, P., & Steffe, L. P. (2010). The constructivist researcher as teacher and model builder. A journey in mathematics education research (pp. 19–30). Netherlands:
Springer.
De Villiers, M. (1998). To teach definitions in geometry or teach to define?. In A. Olivier, & K. Newstead (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd conference of the International
Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 248–255) Stellenbosch, South Africa: University of Stellenbosch.
17
Dickerson, D. S., & Pitman, D. (2012). Advanced college-level students’ categorization and use of mathematical definitions. Proceedings of the 36th Conference of the
International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2,, 187–193.
Dickerson, D. S., & Pitman, D. J. (2016). An examination of college mathematics majors’ understandings of their own written definitions. The Journal of Mathematical
Behavior, 41, 1–9.
Dreher, A., & Kuntze, S. (2015). Teachers’ professional knowledge and noticing: The case of multiple representations in the mathematics classroom. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 88(1), 89–114.
Dreiling, K. M. (2012). Triangle construction in taxicab geometry. Mathematics Teacher, 105(6), 474–478.
Dubinsky, E. (2002). Reflective abstraction in advanced mathematical thinking. Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 95–126). Netherlands: Springer.
Edwards, B., & Ward, M. (2004). Surprises from mathematics education research: Student (mis)use of mathematical definitions. The Mathematical Association of America
[Monthly 111].
Edwards, B., & Ward, M. B. (2008). Undergraduate mathematics courses. In Making the connection: Research and teaching in undergraduate mathematics education, 73 p.
223).
Fischbein, E. (1993). The theory of figural concepts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24(2), 139–162.
Güner, P., & Gülten, D.Ç. (2016). Pre-service primary mathematic teachers’ skills of using the language of mathematics in the context of quadrilaterals. International
Journal on New Trends in Education & Their Implications, 7(1), 13–27.
Hollebrands, K. F., Conner, A., & Smith, R. C. (2010). The nature of arguments provided by college geometry students with access to technology while solving
problems. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 324–350.
Jenkins, T. L. (1968). Euclid, you must be kidding. Mathematics Magazine, 41(1), 34–37.
Kaisari, M., & Patronis, T. (2010). So we decided to call “straight line”(…): Mathematics students’ interaction and negotiation of meaning in constructing a model of
elliptic geometry. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75(3), 253–269.
Kemp, A. (2018). Generalizing and transferring mathematical definitions from Euclidean to taxicab geometry. Dissertation, 2018. Georgia State University https://
scholarworks.gsu.edu/math_diss/5Author.
Kemp, A., & Vidakovic, D. (2018). A student’s use of definitions in the derivation of the taxicab circle equation. Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference on Research in
Undergraduate Mathematics Education: SIGMAA on RUME, 1394–1399.
Kemp, A., & Vidakovic, D. (2019). The transfer and application of definitions from Euclidean to taxicab geometry: Circle. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference on
Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education: SIGMAA on RUME, 324–331.
Kinach, B. M. (2012). Fostering spatial vs. metric understanding in geometry. Mathematics Teacher, 105(7), 534–540.
Knuth, E. J. (2002). Secondary school mathematics teachers’ conceptions of proof. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 379–405.
Krause, E. F. (1973). Taxicab geometry. Mathematics Teacher, 66(8), 695–706.
Leikin, R., & Winicki-Landman, G. (2001). Defining as a vehicle for professional development of secondary school mathematics teachers. Mathematics Teacher
Education and Development, 3, 62–73.
Moore, R. C. (1994). Making the transition to formal proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27(3), 249–266.
Moore-Russo, D. (2008). Use of definition construction to help teachers develop the concept of slope. Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of International Group for the
Psychology of Mathematics Education and the North American Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3,, 407–414.
Oladosu, L. O. (2014). Secondary school students’ meaning and learning of circle geometry. Doctoral dissertation. University of Calgary.
Reynolds, B. E., & Fenton, W. E. (2011). College geometry: Using the geometer’s sketchpad: Using the geometer’s sketchpad. Wiley Global Education.
Selden, A. (2011). Transitions and proof and proving at tertiary level. Proof and proving in mathematics education (pp. 391–420). Netherlands: Springer.
Selden, J., & Selden, A. (2015). A perspective for university students’ proof construction. Proc. 18th Annual Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics
Education.
Siegel, M., Borasi, R., & Fonzi, J. (1998). Supporting students’ mathematical inquiries through reading. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 378–413.
Smith, C. E. (2013). Is that square really a circle? Mathematics Teacher, 106(8), 614–619.
Speer, N. M., King, K. D., & Howell, H. (2015). Definitions of mathematical knowledge for teaching: Using these constructs in research on secondary and college
mathematics teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 18(2), 105–122.
Steffe, L. P., & Thompson, P. W. (2000). Teaching experiment methodology: Underlying principles and essential elements. Handbook of research design in mathematics
and science education (pp. 267–306).
Tall, D. (2004). Thinking through three worlds of mathematics. International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.
Tall, D., & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept definition in mathematics with particular reference to limits and continuity. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 12(2), 151–169.
Vinner, S. (1991). The role of definitions in the teaching and learning of mathematics. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Voskoglou, M. G. (2013). An application of the APOS/ACE approach in teaching the irrational numbers. Journal of Mathematical Sciences and Mathematics Education, 8
(1), 30–47.
Wawro, M., Sweeney, G. F., & Rabin, J. M. (2011). Subspace in linear algebra: Investigating students’ concept images and interactions with the formal definition.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 78(1), 1–19.
Wilkie, K. J. (2016). Students’ use of variables and multiple representations in generalizing functional relationships prior to secondary school. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 93(3), 333–361.
Wilson, P. (1990). Inconsistent ideas related to definitions and examples. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 12(3–4), 31–47.
Zandieh, M., & Rasmussen, C. (2010). Defining as a mathematical activity: A framework for characterizing progress from informal to more formal ways of reasoning.
The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 29(2), 57–75.
Zaslavsky, O., & Shir, K. (2005). Students’ conceptions of a mathematical definition. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36(4), 317–346.
Zazkis, R., & Leikin, R. (2008). Exemplifying definitions: A case of a square. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 69(2), 131–148.
18

1-S2.0-S0732312321000092-Main Taxicab Geometri

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

1-S2.0-S0732312321000092-Main Taxicab Geometri

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1-S2.0-S0732312321000092-Main Taxicab Geometri

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Mathematical Behavior 62 (2021) 100848

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Mathematical Behavior

Ways secondary mathematics teachers apply definitions in

2.1. Taxicab geometry

dT (P, Q) = |x2 − x1 | + |y2 − y1 | (ii)

Fig. 3. The Euclidean and Taxicab midset of a segment AB, respectively.

2.2.1. Developing an understanding of a concept definition

3.1. Genetic decomposition

3.2. Preliminary genetic decomposition

Fig. 5. The construction of the Midset Process.

5.1. Process conception of Taxicab distance - Brianna

5.2. Action conception of Taxicab midset – Parker

Fig. 7. Part of Brianna’s solution to the final exam problem.

5.3. Process Conception of Taxicab Midset – Robin

Fig. 8. Part of Parker’s solution.

Fig. 9. Part of Robin’s solution.

5.4. Process conception of Taxicab Midset – Hannah

Fig. 10. Part of Hannah’s solution.

5.5. Object conception of Midset – Tyra

Fig. 11. Part of Tyra’s solution to the problem.

outside of the set of midpoints is also not unique.

You might also like