EVALUATING AN INTERACTIVE LECTURE MODEL FOR TEACHING COMPLEX NUMBERS: A COMPARISON WITH TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION: EVALUATING AN INTERACTIVE LECTURE MODEL FOR TEACHING COMPLEX NUMBERS: A COMPARISON WITH TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

Valentina Todorova-Lazarova

doi:10.46687/jsar.v31i1.509

Authors

Valentina Todorova-Lazarova Mathematics, Informatics and Natural Sciences, Faculty of Economics, Technical University of Gabrovo, Gabrovo 5300, 4 Hadzhi Dimitar St., E-MAIL: lazarova@tugab.bg

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.46687/jsar.v31i1.509

Keywords:

Complex numbers, Interactive lecture, Multiple representations, Mathematics education, Engineering students

Abstract

In this paper, an interactive lecture model for teaching complex numbers through coordinated algebraic, geometric, and trigonometric representations is examined. Two existing groups of first-year engineering students received traditional (n = 17) or interactive instruction (n = 24). A common post-test was administered immediately after the 45-minute lecture, followed by a questionnaire in the interactive group.
A higher overall mean score was obtained by the interactive group (5.92 versus 4.12 out of 10; p = 0.035, Hedges’ g = 0.66). For the six conversion and coordination questions, the difference was not statistically significant (3.38 versus 2.47 out of 6; p = 0.117). Higher performance was also observed on within-representation questions; therefore, a representation-specific advantage was not established. Attention and active involvement were generally reported, while understanding of relationships among representations was less consistently endorsed.
Higher immediate achievement was associated with interactive instruction. Causal conclusions and evidence of lasting differences are limited by non-random group assignment and assessment after a single lecture.

Author Biography

Valentina Todorova-Lazarova, Mathematics, Informatics and Natural Sciences, Faculty of Economics, Technical University of Gabrovo, Gabrovo 5300, 4 Hadzhi Dimitar St., E-MAIL: lazarova@tugab.bg

Mathematics, Informatics and Natural Sciences, Faculty of Economics, Technical University of Gabrovo, Gabrovo 5300, 4 Hadzhi Dimitar St., E-MAIL: lazarova@tugab.bg

References

Arnon, I., J. Cottrill, E. Dubinsky, A. Oktaç, S. Roa Fuentes, M. Trigueros, and K. Weller, APOS Theory: A Framework for Research and Curriculum Development in Mathematics Education. New York: Springer, 2014, p. 254. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7966-6.

Duval, R., Understanding the Mathematical Way of Thinking: The Registers of Semiotic Representations. Cham: Springer, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56910-9.

Hillmayr, D., L. Ziernwald, F. Reinhold, S. I. Hofer, and K. M. Reiss, “The potential of digital tools to enhance mathematics and science learning in secondary schools: A context-specific meta-analysis.” Computers & Education, vol. 153, 2020, article 103897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103897

Juandi, D., Y. S. Kusumah, M. Tamur, K. S. Perbowo, and T. T. Wijaya, “A meta-analysis of GeoGebra software decade of assisted mathematics learning: What to learn and where to go?” Heliyon, vol. 7, no. 5, 2021, article e06953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06953.

Karagöz Akar, G., M. Belin, N. Arabacı, Y. İmamoğlu, and K. Akoğlu, “Teachers’ knowledge of different forms of complex numbers through quantitative reasoning.” Mathematical Thinking and Learning, published online, 2024, pp. 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2024.2378910.

Karagöz Akar, G., M. Saraç, and M. Belin, “Exploring prospective teachers’ development of the Cartesian form of complex numbers.” Mathematics Teacher Educator, vol. 12, no. 1, 2023, pp. 49–69. https://doi.org/10.5951/MTE.2022.0034.

Karakok, G., H. Soto-Johnson, and S. A. Dyben, “Secondary teachers’ conception of various forms of complex numbers.” Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, vol. 18, no. 4, 2015, pp. 327–351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-014-9288-1.

Kin Eng, C., and J. Fui Fong, “Knowing and grasping of two university students: The case of complex numbers.” The Mathematics Enthusiast, vol. 17, no. 1, 2020, article 11. https://doi.org/10.54870/1551-3440.1487.

Mutambara, L. H. N., and M. Tsakeni, “Cognitive obstacles in the learning of complex number concepts: A case study of in-service undergraduate physics student-teachers in Zimbabwe.” Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 18, no. 10, 2022, article em2158. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/12418.

Panaoura, A., I. Elia, A. Gagatsis, and G. P. Giatilis, “Geometric and algebraic approaches in the concept of complex numbers.” International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, vol. 37, no. 6, 2006, pp. 681–706. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207390600712281.

Seloane, M. P., S. Ramaila, and M. Ndlovu, “Harnessing GeoGebra as a modelling tool to mitigate undergraduate engineering mathematics students’ misconceptions and errors associated with complex numbers.” Pythagoras, vol. 46, no. 1, 2025, article a825. https://doi.org/10.4102/pythagoras.v46i1.825.

Seloane, P. M., S. Ramaila, and M. Ndlovu, “Developing undergraduate engineering mathematics students’ conceptual and procedural knowledge of complex numbers using GeoGebra.” Pythagoras, vol. 44, no. 1, 2023, article a763. https://doi.org/10.4102/pythagoras.v44i1.763.

Smith, E. M., J. P. Zwolak, and C. A. Manogue, “Isolating approaches: How middle-division physics students coordinate forms and representations in complex algebra.” Physical Review Physics Education Research, vol. 15, no. 1, 2019, article 010138. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.010138.

Todorova-Lazarova, V. P., “Teaching Complex Numbers through Coordinated Representations: an Interactive Lecture Model Integrating Dynamic Visualization.” Black Sea Journal of Engineering and Transport, vol. 2, 2026, pp. 27–32.

EVALUATING AN INTERACTIVE LECTURE MODEL FOR TEACHING COMPLEX NUMBERS: A COMPARISON WITH TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION