# Sloppy notation doesn’t seem to be reducing understanding of solving linear systems

A couple of weeks ago I wondered here:

Is sloppy notation for solving linear systems reducing understanding?

The TL;DR is “no, not really”. There are other problems besides notation.

Using subscripts to denote a specific point isn’t something Grade 10 students seem super-familiar with, in spite of their supposed experience with the slope formula: $m = \frac{y_2 - y_1}{x_2 - x_1}$

More than three quarters of my students simply neglected to use those subscripts when solving systems. They wrote solutions without following the model I presented to them in class.

The ones who did use the notation had a stronger understanding of the concepts/strategy on average. I don’t believe the use of good notation was the cause of that improved understanding; rather, students who understood the concepts were more likely to use the [more complex] notation I presented.

There were two main barriers to understanding in this unit.

First, students do not connect the graphical and algebraic representations of lines. If presented with an equation like $y=3x+5$

most students can tell me the slope and the y-intercept. But until I ask for those parameters, or until they actually graph the line, they typically don’t visualize that line at all – it’s just a bunch of symbols.

This lack of crossover between representations means that students are not making sense of their own work and judging the reasonableness of their solutions.

Second, students are neither skilled nor fluent with solving linear equations. They do not always remember the inverse operations, and they rely on phrases and tricks to complete these processes. They have trouble because phrases like “move it to the other side and make it negative” doesn’t work well for multiplication and division, and they forget to apply an operation to each term in an equation.

It’s kind of the same problem as the first. There is a feeling of flailing about in the classroom, of trying to apply poorly understood or misunderstood rules to a fairly complex process without even being able to confidently test whether the result is correct.

So notation isn’t the issue. If you have kids in grades 8 or 9, make sure they can solve equations quickly and accurately, including those with fractions. If you have kids in grade 9 make sure they practice graphing lines and determining equations based on graphs. They’ll be in much better shape when learning the more complex techniques in Grade 10.

# Is sloppy notation for solving linear systems reducing understanding?

Whenever I prepare to teach a concept in my class I typically flip through my previous years’ stuff (notes, handouts, blog posts) to see how I approached things before. I also look in the textbook, especially to see the notation that is used.

I’m about to start teaching my MPM2D class how to solve linear systems. I’m going to start with the “Substitution” method, so I’ve been browsing the archives.

Solving linear systems is challenging, in my experience. Students tend to lack a good understanding of why we can substitute expressions for variables, and then they assume it’s simply arcane magic they need to memorize (albeit temporarily).

Today it occurred to me that our notation might be causing some of the problems, and improving clarity might improve understanding.

## The Graphical Interpretation

When we are solving a linear system of two equations, we are looking for the point(s) of intersection between the lines represented by the equations. Graphically, we want to find the point at which the lines cross each other. Students generally are fine with this idea. They get the picture (haha). The trouble starts with algebra (doesn’t it always?).

## The Algebraic Interpretation

We have two linear equations, and we are looking for the point(s) which satisfy both equation. That is, we want to find an $x$-value for which both lines have the same $y$-value.

The equations are statements about how the $x$– and $y$-coordinates of points on the lines are related. For example, here are two lines: $y=2x+5$ $y=\frac{1}{2}x-7$

These lines have a single intersection point, at $(-8,-11)$. So -8 is the $x$-value for which both lines have the same $y$-value, -11.

## The Substitution Method

To find this, my textbook, my past self, and my colleagues would all employ the Substitution Method, which says that if you can isolate a variable in one equation, you can substitute the corresponding expression in for that variable in the other equation to find the intersection point. This works because we are looking for the point for which both equations are true simultaneously.

In the example above, the first equation tells us that $y=2x+5$. If we apply that restriction to the second equation, by replacing $y$ with $2x+5$, we get $2x+5 = \frac{1}{2}x-7$

This is the substitution for which the method is named. We now have an equation with one unknown, $x$. Solving this equation tells us that at the intersection point we have $x=-8$. We can now substitute $x=-8$ back into either original equation and solve to get $y=-11$.

## My Concern

Maybe it doesn’t really matter, but I’m concerned with how we often write out the algebra without explanatory words and with imprecise notation. I don’t mean during a lesson; in that first, iconic example in class we write out words like crazy, trying to make all the magic connections apparent. I mean during later solutions – practice exercises, one-on-one help, and student work.

I think we should be saying this instead:

Suppose there is a point of intersection $(x_1,y_1)$. Then $y_1=2x_1+5$ and $y_1=\frac{1}{2}x_1-7$ $2x_1+5 =\frac{1}{2}x_1-7$ $\frac{3}{2}x_1=-12$ $x_1=-8$ $y_1=2x_1+5$ $y_1=2(-8)+5$ $y_1=-11$

So the point of intersection is $(-8,-11)$.

See the tiny, subtle difference? We’re picking a specific point and calling it $(x_1,y_1)$.

The reason I’m wondering if this might be better is that students often ask me why they can substitute $2x+5$ in for $y$ in the other equation. And their concern is reasonable, because $2x+5$ isn’t always equal to $\frac{1}{2}x-7$; that’s only true at the intersection point.

We write out the sentence “When the lines intersection we have $2x+5 = \frac{1}{2}x-7$” and go from there during our lesson or on our notes. That’s what my textbook does. But we rarely require this “extra” writing, and instead let a page of symbols replace clear communication and thorough thinking.

## Should I try it?

Do you think I should use $(x_1,y_1)$ and see what happens? Does it even matter? I’m not just being pedantic*; I’m hoping that better communication will lead to better understanding.

Let me know if you’ve done this before, if you think I should try it, or if I’m out to lunch on this one.

*I’m also being pedantic, I’m sure.

# LaTeX Math for e-Learning in D2L

I am teaching MCF3M online this semester, so I need to be able to include math notation in my online content, quizzes, etc. I know how to write math notation using LaTeX from my days at the University of Waterloo, and I find it a lot faster than using a graphical equation editor. I’ve tried Microsoft Word’s editor, which accepts LaTeX-like input as well as graphical input, but I still find it frustrating to use.
I’m teaching in the Desire2Learn/BrightSpace learning environment, so I need to ensure my content works well in there. Last semester I taught Computer Science/Programming and used PDF files that I created in Word Online, and I considered doing the same thing again.

But D2L has an equation editor as part of its HTML editor for webpages, discussion posts, etc. Could it be all I need?

I’ve taken it for a spin before. Here’s the workflow:

Create a new page and type into the HTML editor. Expand the toolbar so that the Equation tools are available. Choose \∑ LaTeX equation. Type in the LaTeX expression, using $$and$$ as delimiters for inline mode (otherwise it defaults to block mode).  Looks good. But look at the source HTML code: Uh-oh… that’s MathML (Math Markup Language), not LaTeX. What if I want to change something in my original LaTeX?

Well, you can see at the bottom that my LaTeX code is still there, but it’s not being used. I could remove all the MathML, cut out my LaTeX, modify it, and re-insert it using the LaTeX equation editor.

Ugh.

I thought that MathJax, the rendering engine that D2L uses for math notation, could only handle MathML (since notation from both LaTeX and graphical editors are converted to MathML), but it turns out that’s not true. MathJax can do LaTeX.

So I tried putting LaTeX directly into the WYSIWYG editor: No dice. The trouble is that D2L has parameters on its JavaScript call to MathJax: That config=MML_HTMLorMML bit is saying that only MathML is acceptable input (and HTML or MathML can be output).

So I added another call directly to MathJax in my own source code: I set the parameter to be config=TeX-AMS_HTML, which will accept my LaTeX input and render in HTML/JavaScript. Magic.

## But this is kind of a pain.

I can use D2L’s editor to insert math, but I get MathML (which I find hard to edit).

I can write in LaTeX and have it be preserved, but I need to add a script call to the start of the HTML source code (a hassle, but not too serious, I suppose).

Or I can write in some other (offline) development environment, include my script call all the time, and just upload my completed HTML files to my course. This has the advantages of being independent of D2L, available without internet access, and very shareable.

So that’s what I’ve decided to do, at least for now. So I’ve learned a little CSS to make my pages less vanilla/more functional, and I’ll try to improve the look and feel as the semester progresses.

Wish me luck.