This is quite an elementary question, but I'm confused over terminology and whether $H_{dR}^k(M)$ is a module, or vector space (this confusion is exacerbated when it's often called the de Rham "group").
Since $\Omega^k(M)$ is the space of $(k,0)-$ anti-symmetric tensor fields on $M$, it is in fact a $C^{\infty}(M)$ module. We then define $B^k(M) = \{\omega\in\Omega^k(M) \::\: \exists \alpha \in\Omega^{k-1}(M) \text{ such that } d\alpha = \omega\}$ (the space of "exact forms"), and $Z^k(M) = \{\omega \in \Omega^k(M) \::\: d\omega = 0\}$ (the space of "closed" forms). It's not difficult to check that these are submodules of $\Omega^k(M)$.
Then we define $H^k_{dR}(M) = Z^k(M)/B^k(M)$, and I'm told this is a quotient vector space. Why is it not a $C^\infty(M)$ module? When did it become a vector space? If it were defined as $Z^k(T_p(M))/B^k(T_pM)$ (exact and closed forms on $T_p(M)$), this would make a lot more sense, but then it would be a different vector space at every point that we could potentially "glue" together like the tangent bundle. Is this the case?
Then when I go to calculate $H^1_{dR}(S^1)$, it's again treated as a vector space, and I'm supposed to show it's isomorphic to $\mathbb{R}$, but shouldn't it be $\Omega^1(\mathbb{R})$ since this is a $C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})$ module?
Any elucidation would be greatly appreciated.
You can always find the real numbers inside of $C^\infty(\mathbb{R})$ as the constant functions. So for any $C^\infty(\mathbb{R})$-module $M$, we get an $\mathbb{R}$-action by defining $\lambda \cdot m = c_\lambda m$, where $c_\lambda$ is the constant function with value $\lambda$.
Hence, all $C^\infty(\mathbb{R})$-modules become real vector spaces by forgetting most of the structure, and just remembering that you can multiply by constant functions.