Perceiving the derivative: the case of Susanna
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7146/nomad.v11i1.147982Abstract
This paper is a report of a study on how a less successful student perceives the derivative from the graph of a function. A task-based interview of a grade 11 student was analyzed to find how she perceived the derivative from a graph of a function and what kind of representations she used for this. The results show how she used representations of the increase, the steepness, and the horizontalness of the graph to perceive the derivative. Gestures were an integral part of her thinking. This case shows that with appropriate representations students can perceive essential aspects of the derivative from the graph of the function, and that students can consider the derivative as an object at the very beginning of the acquisition process.
References
Ainley, J. (2000). Transparency in graphs and graphing tasks. An iterative design process. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19, 365-384. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(00)00052-3
Asiala, M., Cottrill, J., Dubinsky, E., & Schwingendorf, K. (1997). The development of students' graphical understanding of the derivative. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 16 (4), 399-431. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(97)90015-8
Beichner, R. (1994). Testing student interpretation of kinematics graphs. American Journal of Physics, 62 (8), 750-762. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.17449
Berry, J., & Nyman, M. (2003). Promoting students' graphical understanding of the calculus. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 22, 481-497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2003.09.006
Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & Wood, T. (1992). A constructivist alternative to the representational view of mind in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23 (1), 2-33. https://doi.org/10.2307/749161
Davis, R., & Maher, C. (1997). How students think: the role of representations. In L. English (Ed.), Mathematical reasoning. Analogies, metaphors, and images (pp. 93-115). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Goldin, G. (1998). Representational systems, learning, and problem solving in mathematics. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17 (2), 137-165. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(99)80056-1
Gray, E., & Tall, D. (2001). Relationships between embodied objects and symbolic procepts: an explanatory theory of success and failure in mathematics. In M. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th conference of the international group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME), vol. 3 (pp. 65-72). Utrecht: Freudenthal Institute.
Hauger, G. (1997, March). Growth of knowledge of rate in four precalculus students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), Chicago.
Heid, K. (1988). Resequencing skills and concepts in applied calculus using the computer as a tool. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19 (1), 3-25. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.19.1.0003
Hähkiöniemi, M. (2004). Perceptual and symbolic representations as a starting point of the acquisition of the derivative. In M. Høines & A. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th conference of the international group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME), vol. 3 (pp. 73-80), Bergen University College.
Hähkiöniemi, M. (2005). The role of different representations in teaching and learning of the derivative through open approach. In E. Pehkonen (Ed.), Problem solving in mathematics education. Proceedings of the ProMath meeting June 30 - July 2, 2004 in Lahti (pp. 71-82) (Department of Applied Sciences of Education. Research Report 261). University of Helsinki.
Hähkiöniemi, M. (in press). Associative and reflective connections between the limit of the difference quotient and limiting process. Journal of Mathematical Behavior.
Janvier, C. (Ed.) (1987). Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: tasks, learning, and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60 (1), 1-64 https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543060001001
McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind. What gestures reveal about thought. The University of Chicago Press.
Meira, L. (1998). Making sense of instructional devices: the emergence of transparency in mathematical activity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29 (2), 121-142. https://doi.org/10.2307/749895
McDermott, L., Rosenquist, M., & van Zee, E. (1987). Student difficulties in connecting graphs and physics: examples from kinematics. American Journal of Physics, 55 (6), 503-513. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.15104
Moschkovich, J. (1996). Moving up and getting steeper: negotiating shared des- criptions of linear graphs. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5 (3), 239-277. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0503_4
Nemirovsky, R. (2003). Three conjectures concerning the relationship between body activity and understanding mathematics. In N.A. Pateman, B.J. Dougherty & J.T. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th conference of the international group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME), vol. 1 (pp. 105-109). University of Hawaii.
Nemirovsky R., & Rubin A. (1992). Students' tendency to assume resemblances between a function and its derivative (TERC Working Paper 2-92). Cambridge, MA: TERC Communications.
Noble, T., Nemirovsky, R., DiMattia, C., & Wright, T. (2004). Learning to see: making sense of the mathematics of change in middle school. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9, 109-167. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:IJCO.0000040891.50250.7e
Nohda, N. (2000). Teaching by open-approach method in Japanese mathematics classroom. In T. Nakahara & M. Koyama (Eds.) Proceedings of the 24th conference of the international group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME), vol. 1 (pp. 39-53), Hiroshima University.
Poynter, A. (2004). Mathematical embodiment and understanding. In A. Noyes (Ed.), Proceedings of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics (BSRLM), 24 (3), 39-44.
Radford, L. (2000). Signs and meanings in students' emergent algebraic think- ing: a semiotic analysis. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 42, 237-268. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017530828058
Radford, L., Demers, S., Guzmán, J., Cerulli, M. (2003). Calculators, graphs, gestures and the production of meaning. In N.A. Pateman, B.J. Dougherty & J.T. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th conference of the international group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME), vol. 4 (pp. 55-62). University of Hawaii.
Rasmussen, C., Stephan, M., & Allen, K. (2004). Classroom mathematical practices and gesturing. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 23, 301-323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2004.06.003
Repo, S. (1996) Matematiikkaa tietokoneella. Derivaatan käsitteen konstruoiminen symbolisen laskennan ohjelman avulla [Mathematics in the computer environment. Constructing the concept of the derivative by means of the computer algebra program.]. (Publications in education, No 33). University of Joensuu.
Roth, W-M. (2003). Competent workplace mathematics: how signs become transparent in use. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 8, 161-189. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:IJCO.0000003873.36183.2d
Roth, W-M., & Welzel, M. (2001). From activity to gestures and scientific language. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38 (1), 103-136. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200101)38:1<103::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-G
Schorr, R. (2003). Motion, speed, and other ideas that "should be put in books". Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 22, 467-479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2003.09.005
Sfard, A. (1991). On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: reflections on processes and objects as different sides of the same coin. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22, 1-36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00302715
Sfard, A. (2000). Symbolizing mathematical reality into being - or how mathematical discourse and mathematical objects create each other. In P. Cobb, E. Yackel & K. McClain (Eds.), Symbolizing and communicating in mathematics classrooms. Perspectives on discourse, tools, and instructional design (pp. 37-98). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sfard, A., & McClain, K. (2002). Analyzing tools: perspectives on the role of designed artifacts in mathematics learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(2&3), 153-161. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS11,2-3n_1
Speiser, B., Walter, C., & Maher, C. (2003). Representing motion: an experiment in learning. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 22, 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(03)00002-6
Tall, D. (2003). Using technology to support an embodied approach to learning concepts in mathematics. In L. Carvalho & L. Guimarães (Eds.), História e tecnologia no ensino da matemática, vol. 1 (pp. 1-28). Rio de Janeiro University.
Tall, D. (2004). Thinking through three worlds of mathematics. In M. Høines & A. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th conference of the international group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME), vol. 4 (pp. 281-288), Bergen University College.
Tall, D. (2005, July). A theory of mathematical growth through embodiment, symbolism and proof. Paper presented at International Colloquium on Mathematical Learning from Early Childhood to Adulthood, Centre de Recherche sur l'Enseignement des Mathématiques, Nivelles, Belgium.
Trowbridge, D., & McDermott, L. (1980). Investigation of student understanding of the concept of velocity in one dimension. American Journal of Physics, 48 (12), 1020-1028. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.12298
Wright, T. (2001). Karen in motion. The role of physical enactment in developing an understanding of distance, time, and speed. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 20, 145-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(01)00072-4
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
