Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

A Pathway to a Student-Worded Definition of Limits at the Secondary-Tertiary Transition

  • Published:
International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Over the last forty years of mathematics education research, a coherent body of knowledge has accumulated regarding the teaching of limits. On this basis, it remains a challenge to identify goals and design tasks compatible with ordinary teaching conditions. This paper reports on a teaching experiment carried out in France with year 12 students, which led to the formulation by the students of a correct formal definition of the infinite limit for sequences, with minimal background logical prerequisites and in the course of a 2-h session. On a more theoretical level, the teaching project was developed in the framework of didactic engineering, and provides opportunities to contribute to the ongoing work on its adaptation to the specific context of tertiary education. In the a priori analysis, we highlight the didactical potential of tasks of differentiation between neighboring concepts as a pathway to advanced mathematical concepts. In the a posteriori analysis, we focus on the nature and extent of teacher intervention in the shaping of a mathematical milieu that is conducive to the definition of an advanced mathematical concept.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In her reaction to (González-Martín et al. 2014), Artigue stressed the importance of “paying more attention to the linguistic and semiotic dimensions of TDS and developing its potential in that respect; looking for connections with approaches more focused on semiotics and discourse, is certainly a necessity for having TDS more productively used in university research (…).” (Artigue 2014, p.137)

  2. The double square-brackets denote the intersection of the interval with the set of natural numbers.

  3. From a more general standpoint, this excursus exemplifies a use of historical knowledge in research on mathematical education which seeks to avoid any form of ontogeny-philogeny parallelism, and in which the notion of “epistemological obstacle” plays no part. For methodological discussions grounding these choices, see (Artigue 1991) and (Chorlay and de Hosson 2016).

  4. Let l be a real number: by definition, l is the a subsequential limit of sequence (un) if

    \( \forall \varepsilon \in {\mathbb{R}}^{+\ast}\kern0.5em \forall N\in \mathbb{N}\kern0.5em \exists {n}_N\in \mathbb{N}\kern0.5em {n}_N>N\kern0.5em and\kern0.5em \mid {u}_{n_N}-l\mid \le \epsilon . \)

    In other words, l is the a subsequential limit of (un) iff there is a subsequence of (un) which tends to l.

  5. This list of dissimilarities should not be seen as making a case of incompatibility, but as paving the way for systematic comparison and articulation. For instance, our analysis of the relationships between the students and the mathematical milieu in terms of agency parallels the analysis of collective learning in terms of “shared knowledge” (Stephan and Rasmussen 2002).

References

  • Artigue, M. (1988). Ingénierie didactique. Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques, 9(3), 281–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Artigue, M. (1991). Epistémologie et didactique. Recherche en Didactique des Mathématiques, 10(2.3), 241–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Artigue, M. (2014). Potentialities and limitations of the Theory of Didactic Situations for addressing the teaching and learning of mathematics at university level. Research in Mathematics Education, 16(2), 135–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Artigue, M., Batanero, C., & Kent, P. (2007). Mathematical thinking and learning at post-secondary level. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 1011–1049). Greenwich (Connecticut): Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balacheff, N. (1987). Processus de preuve et situations de validation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 18(2), 147–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balacheff, N., & Pedemonte, B. (2016). Establishing links between conceptions, argumentation and proof through the cK¢-enriched Toulmin model. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 41, 104–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbé, J., Bosch, M., Espinoza, L., & Gascón, J. (2005). Didactic restrictions on the teacher’s practice: the case of limits of functions in Spanish high schools. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 59, 235–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barquero, B., & Bosch, M. (2015). Didactic engineering as a research methodology: from fundamental situations to study and research paths. In A. Watson & M. Ohtani (Eds.), Task design in mathematics education (pp. 249–272). Springer international publisher Switzerland.

  • Bartolini Bussi, M. (1998). Verbal interaction in the mathematics classroom: A Vygotskian analysis. In H. Steinbring, M. Bartolini Bussi, & A. Sierpinska (Eds.), Language and communication in the mathematics classroom (pp. 65–84). Reston (Virginia): National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

  • Bartolini Bussi, M. (2009). In search for theories: polyphony, polysemy and semiotic mediation in the mathematics classroom. In M. Tzekaki, M. Kaldrimidou, & C. Sakonidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33 rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 121–128). Thessaloniki: PME.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartolini Bussi, M., & Mariotti M. A. (2008) Semiotic mediation in the mathematics classroom: Artifacts and signs after a Vygotskian perspective. In L. English, M. Bartolini, G. Jones, R. Lesh, B. Sriraman, & D. Tirosh. (Eds.), Handbook of International research in Mathematics education (2 nd edition) (pp. 746783). New-York: Routledge Taylor & Francis.

  • Bloch, I., & Gibel, P. (2011). Un modèle d’analyse des raisonnements dans les situations didactiques. Etude des niveaux de preuve dans une situation d’enseignement de la notion de limite. Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques, 31(2), 191–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridoux, S. (2016). Introduire la notion de convergence avec une ingénierie des années 1980 : rêve ou réalité pour l’enseignant. In E. Nardi, C. Winslow, T. Hausberger (Eds.), Proceedings of INDRUM 2016 (pp.53–62). Montpellier: Université de Montpellier et INDRUM.

  • Burn, B. (2005). The vice: some historically inspired and proof-generated steps to limits of sequences. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 60(3), 269–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cauchy, A.-L. (1989). Cours d’Analyse de l’Ecole Royale Polytechnique, Première partie : Analyse Algébrique (reprint of the original 1821 edition). Paris: Gabay.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chorlay, R. (2011). “Local – Global”: The First Twenty Years. Archive for History of Exact Sciences, 65(1), 1–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chorlay, R. (2012). The making of a proof-chain: Epistemological and didactical perspectives. In B. Ubuz, Ç. Haser, & M.-A. Mariotti (Eds.), Proceedings of CERME 8 (pp. 106–115). Ankara (Turkey): Middle East Technical University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chorlay, R. (2015). Questions of Generality as Probes into 19th Century Analysis. In K. Chemla, R. Chorlay, & D. Rabouin (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Generality in Mathematics and the Sciences (pp. 385–410). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chorlay, R. (2018). An empirical study of the understanding of formal propositions about sequences, with a focus on infinite limits. In V. Durand-Guerrier, R. Hochmuth, S. Goodchild, & N. M. Hogstad (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second Conference of the International Network for Didactic Research in University Mathematics (INDRUM 2018, 5–7 April 2018) (pp. 24–33). Kristiansand (Norway): University of Agder and INDRUM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chorlay, R., & de Hosson, C. (2016). History of Science, Epistemology and Mathematics Education Research. In B. Hodgson, A. Kuzniak, J.-B. Lagrange (Eds.), The Didactics of Mathematics: Approaches and Issues. A Homage to Michèle Artigue (pp. 155–189). Springer International Publishing Switzerland.

  • Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1996). Constructivist, emergent, and sociocultural perspectives in the context of developmental research. Educational Psychologist, 31(3/4), 175–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Constantin, C. (2017). Formaliser, unifier et généraliser : Une alternative pour l’enseignement du calcul algébrique au collège ? Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques, 37(1), 53–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornu, B. (1991). Limits. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced Mathematical Thinking (pp. 153–166). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cottrill, J., Dubinsky, E., Nichols, K., Swhingendorf, K., Thomas, D., & Vidakovic, D. (1996). Understanding the limit concept: Beginning with a coordinated process scheme. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15, 167–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, R. B., & Vinner, S. (1986). The notion of limit: Some seemingly unavoidable misconception stages. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 5, 281–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, P., & Roh, K. (2016). Promoting metalinguistic and metamathematical reasoning in proof-oriented mathematics courses: A method and a framework. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 2, 197–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorier, J.-L. (1995). Meta level in the teaching of unifying and generalizing concepts in mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 29, 175–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorier, J.-L. (Ed.). (2000). On the Teaching of Linear Algebra. Mathematics Education Library, 23. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durand-Guerrier, V., & Arsac, G. (2005). An epistemological and didactic study of a specific calculus reasoning rule. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 60, 149–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Euclid. (1908). The thirteen books of Euclid’s Elements vol. III (translated by T.L. Heath). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischbein, E., & Mariotti, M. A. (1997). Defining in classroom activities. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 34, 219–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • González-Martín, A., Bloch, I., Durand-Guerrier, V., & Maschietto, M. (2014). Didactic Situations and Didactical Engineering in university mathematics: cases from the study of Calculus and proof. Research in Mathematics Education, 16(2), 117–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hache, C., & Robert, A. (2013). Why and how to understand what is at stake in a mathematics class. In F. Vandebrouck (Ed.), Mathematics classrooms: Students’ activities and teachers’ practices (pp. 23–74). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jablonka, E., Ashjari, H., & Bergsten, C. (2017). “Much palaver about greater than zero and such stuff” – First year engineering students’ recognition of university mathematics. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 3(1), 69–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Job, P. (2011). Etude du rapport à la notion de définition comme obstacle épistémologique du caractère lakatosien de la notion de limite par la méthodologie des situations fondamentales/adidactique (unpublished dissertation). Liège: Université de Liège.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, S., & Swinyard, C. (2012). Coming to understand the formal definition of limit: Insights gained from engaging students in reinvention. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 43(4), 465–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lecorre, T. (2016). Des conditions de conception d’une ingénierie relative à la définition de la notion de limite (unpublished dissertation). Grenoble (France): Université Grenoble Alpes.

  • Leibniz, G. W. (1859). Leibniz mathematische Schriften (herausgegeben von G. Gerhardt), Erste Abtheilung, Band IV. Halle: Schmidt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mamona-Downs, J. (2001). Letting the intuitive bear on the formal: A didactical approach for the understanding of the limit of a sequence. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 48, 259–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J., Oehrtman, M., & Swinyard, C. (2014). Problems and solutions in students’ reinvention of a definition for sequence convergence. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 33, 131–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oerhtman, M. (2009). Collapsing dimensions, physical limitation, and other student metaphors for limit concepts. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40(4), 396–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ouvrier-Buffet, C. (2006). Exploring mathematical definition construction processes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63, 259–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ouvrier-Buffet, C. (2011). A mathematical experience involving defining processes: in-action definitions and zero-definitions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 76, 165–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ouvrier-Buffet, C. (2013). Modélisation de l’activité de définition en mathématiques et de sa dialectique avec la preuve. Etude épistémologique et enjeux didactiques (unpublished habilitation thesis). Paris: Université Paris Diderot – Paris VII.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinto, M., & Tall, D. (2002). Building formal mathematics on visual imagery: a case study and a theory. For the Learning of Mathematics, 22(1), 2–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Przenioslo, M. (2005). Introducing the concept of convergence of a sequence in secondary school. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 60, 71–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robert, A. (1982a). L’acquisition de la notion de convergence des suites numériques dans l’enseignement supérieur (unpublished dissertation). Paris: Université Paris VII.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robert, A. (1982b). L’acquisition de la notion de convergence des suites numériques dans l’enseignement supérieur. Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques, 3(3), 307–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robert, A. (1983). L’enseignement de la convergence des suites numériques en DEUG. Bulletin de l’APMEP, 34, 432–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robert, A. (1998). Outils d’analyse des contenus mathématiques à enseigner au lycée et à l’université. Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques, 18(2), 139–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robert, A., & Schwarzenberger, R. (1991). Research in teaching and learning mathematics at an advanced level. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 127–139). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roh, K. H., & Lee, Y. H. (2017). Designing tasks of introductory real analysis to bridge the gap between student’s intuition and mathematical rigor: the case of the convergence of a sequence. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 3(1), 34–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, M. (2008). Entre recherche et développement : quel choix de valeurs pour l’ingénierie curriculaire ? In J. Traglova, G. Aldon, G. Gheudet, & Y. Matheron (Eds.), Ressources pour l’enseignement des mathématiques : conception, usage, partage (pp. 21–36). Lyon: INRP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, M., & Rasmussen, C. (2002). Classroom mathematical practices in differential equations. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21, 459–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swinyard, C. (2011). Reinventing the formal definition of limit: the case of Amy and Mike. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 30, 93–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tall, D. (Ed.). (1991). Advanced mathematical thinking. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinner, S. (1991). The role of definitions in teaching and learning of mathematics. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 65–81). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Volkert, K. (1987). Die Geschichte der pathologischen Funktionen – Ein Beitrag zur Entstehung der mathematischen Methodologie. Archive for History of Exact Sciences, 73, 193–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, A., & Mason, J. (2001). Getting students to create boundary examples. MSOR Connections, 1, 9–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yackel, E. (2002). What we can learn from analyzing the teacher’s role in collective argumentation. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21, 423–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zandieh, M., & Rasmussen, C. (2010). Defining as a mathematical activity: A framework for characterizing progress from informal to more formal ways of reasoning. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 29, 57–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix. Candidate-definitions written by students – or pairs of students – at the beginning of phase 2 in the 2016 experiments

Appendix. Candidate-definitions written by students – or pairs of students – at the beginning of phase 2 in the 2016 experiments

The candidate-definitions are numbered for the sake of clarity. We stayed as close as we could to the original French wording and to the layout of the original texts. The candidate-definitions selected for the collective discussion are in bold print.

2016–1.

  1. 1.

    For a sequence to tend to + ∞, we need to have∀ n ∈ , un +1> un.

  2. 2.

    The sequence (un) tends to + ∞ if and only if for all natural numbersn, (un) is increasing and not bounded above.

    ∀ n ∈   un +1> unand (un) not bounded above

  3. 3.

    The sequence (un) tends to + ∞ when it is not bounded above.

  4. 4.

    The sequence (un) tends to + ∞: the sequence increases while getting ever closer to + ∞ but without ever reaching it.

  5. 5.

    A sequence (un) which tends to + ∞ is a sequence whose terms increase so that we cannot determine the last term of this sequence.

  6. 6.

    M ∈   ∃ n ∈ ℕ  un > M, moreover, the sequence (un) has to be bounded below.

  7. 7.

    To say that a sequence tends to +∞ means that there is no upper limit to the sequence.

  8. 8.

    A limit is a real number, unreachable for a given sequence.

  9. 9.

    A sequence (un) tends to +∞ if it is constant in +∞, or increasing without being bounded above.

    Sometimes some sequences tend to both +∞ and -∞

  10. 10.

    \( \underset{n\to \infty }{\lim }=+\infty \)

    In a sequence (un), there exists a n such that un =  + ∞

  11. 11.

    A sequence is said to “tend to +∞” when it is either constant at +∞, or constantly increasing. Exception: a sequence can also tend to +∞ and -∞, then it tends to +∞.

  12. 12.

    You never reach the limit, you can just come closer to it. By taking the greatest value of n that you please, you come really closer to the limit but you never go beyond it.

  13. 13.

    A sequence (un) which tends to +∞ is a sequence that is increasing and not bounded above by one of its terms.

  14. 14.

    The limit of a sequence is the value beyond which it cannot go any further

  15. 15.

    A sequence which tends to +∞ is a sequence which increases more than it decreases.

  16. 16.

    This sequence has no end. It is increasing. This increasing is endless, it is infinite. You always find an ordinate greater than the preceding one.

    un + 1 > un holds all in all for sequences in general, but, for instance, for (−1)n × n it does not, it becomes un + 2 > un.

2016–2

  1. 1.

    A sequence has limit + ∞ when it’s bounded below by a real number m .

  2. 2.

    Let (un) be any sequence. Then the sequence tends to + ∞ when (un) is strictly increasing

  3. 3.

    One can say that a sequence has limit + ∞ if all the terms of the sequence belong to (a number known or unknown, n ) or ( n , a number known …), this number of terms must not be finite.

  4. 4.

    The greatest value to which the sequence tends, whether it’s increasing or decreasing, is its limit.

  5. 5.

    A sequence has limit + ∞ ⇔ it’s increasing and not bounded above

  6. 6.

    A sequence (un) has limit + ∞ if and only if whenntends to + ∞, (un) tends to a unique number close to + ∞. If (un) is bounded above, the limit of (un) is the upper bound.

  7. 7.

    A limit is a value that a given sequence will never go beyond, whatever the value of its unknown.

    A sequence with limit + ∞ is an increasing sequence which has no limit.

  8. 8.

    A sequence has limit +∞ when ∀n, un + 2 > un and the sequence is bounded above by no real number.

  9. 9.

    There exists a unique limit to a sequence such that the values of that sequence are not greater than or equal to +∞

  10. 10.

    The limit of a sequence is a maximal value towards which the sequence tends.

  11. 11.

    A sequence (un) has limit k if and only if un tends towards k.

  12. 12.

    A sequence (un) has limit +∞ if and only if ∀n ∈ , (un) is not bounded and strictly increasing.

  13. 13.

    A sequence has limit +∞ if and only if it is strictly increasing and not bounded above and un can increase up to infinity

  14. 14.

    A sequence (un) has limit +∞ if and only if ∀n ∈ , the sequence (un) is increasing and not bounded above.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chorlay, R. A Pathway to a Student-Worded Definition of Limits at the Secondary-Tertiary Transition. Int. J. Res. Undergrad. Math. Ed. 5, 267–314 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-019-00094-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-019-00094-5

Keywords

Navigation