Abstract
This study investigated features of instructors’ classroom discourse on the derivative with the commognitive lens. The analysis focused on how three calculus instructors addressed the derivative as a point-specific value and as a function in the beginning lessons about the derivative. The results show that (a) the instructors frequently used secant lines and the tangent line on the graph of a curve to illustrate the symbolic notation for the derivative at a point without making explicit connections between the graphical illustration and the symbolic notations, (b) they made a transition from the point-specific view of the derivative to the interval view mainly by changing the literal symbol for a point to a variable rather than addressing how the quantity that the derivative shows, changes over an interval, (c) they quantified the derivative as a number using functions with limited graphical features, and (d) they often justified the property of the derivative function with the slope of the tangent line at a point as an indication of the universality of the property. These results show that the aspects of the derivative that the past mathematicians and today’s students have difficulties with are not explicitly addressed in these three classrooms. They also suggest that making explicit these aspects of the derivative through word use and visual mediators, and making clear connections between the ways that the quantities and properties of the derivative are visually mediated with symbolic, graphical, and algebraic notations would help students to understand why and how the limit component for the derivative are illustrated on graphs and expressed symbolically, and the derivative is expanded from a point to an interval, and properties of the derivative are investigated over an interval. More explicit discussions on these ideas perhaps make them more accessible to students.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
These are pseudonyms of the instructors.
References
Artigue, M., Batanero, C., & Kent, P. (2007). Mathematics thinking and learning at post-secondary level. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 1011–1049). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.
Dubinsky, E., & McDonald, M. A. (2001). APOS: A constructivist theory of learning in undergraduate mathematics education research. In D. Holton et al. (Eds.), The teaching and learning of mathematics at university level: An ICMI study (pp. 273–280). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Font, V., Godino, J. D., & D’Amore, B. (2007). An onto-semiotic approach to representations in mathematics education. For the Learning of Mathematics, 27(2), 1–7.
Grabiner, J. V. (2004). The changing concept of change: The derivative from Fermat to Weierstrass. In M. Anderson, V. Katz, & R. Wilson (Eds.), Sherlock Holmes in Babylon: And other tales of mathematical history (pp. 218–227). Washington, DC: The Mathematical Association of America.
Gray, E. M., & Tall, D. D. (1994). Duality, ambiguity, and flexibility: A “proceptual” view of simple arithmetic. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25, 116–146.
Hahkioniemi, M. (2005). Is there a limit in the derivative? – Exploring students’ understanding of the limit of the difference quotient. Paper presented at the Fourth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education, Sant Feliu de Guíxols, Spain. Retrieved from http://fractus.uson.mx/Papers/CERME4/Papers%20definitius/14/Haikionemi.pdf.
Hass, J., Weir, M. D., & Thomas, G. B. (2008). University calculus: Elements with early transcendentals. London: Pearson Addison Wesley.
Hauger, G. (1998). High school and college students’ knowledge of rate of change (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Michigan State University, Michigan, USA.
Katz, M., & Tall, D. (2011). The tension between intuitive infinitesimals and formal mathematical analysis. In B. Sriraman (Ed.), Crossroads in the history of mathematics and mathematics education. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast Monographs in Mathematics Education (Vol. 12, pp. 71–89). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Kim, D., Ferrini-Mundy, J., & Sfard, A. (2012). How does language impact the learning of mathematics? – Comparison of English and Korean speaking university students’ discourses on infinity. International Journal of Educational Research, 51, 86–108.
Lobato, J., Rhodehamel, B., & Hohensee, C. (2012). “Noticing” as an alternative transfer of learning process. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(3), 433–482.
Monk, G. S. (1994). Students’ understanding of functions in calculus courses. Humanistic Mathematics Network Journal, 9, 21–27.
Nemirovsky, R., & Rubin, A. (1992). Students’ tendency to assume resemblances between a function and its derivatives (TERC Working Paper 2–92). Cambridge MA: TERC Communications.
Oehrtman, M. C., Carlson, M. P., & Thompson, P. W. (2008). Foundational reasoning ability that promote coherence in students’ function understanding. In M. P. Carlson & C. Rasmussen (Eds.), Making the connection: Research and practice in undergraduate mathematics (pp. 150–171). Washington: Mathematical Association of America.
Orton, A. (1983). Students’ understanding of differentiation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 14, 235–250.
Park, J. (2013). Is the derivative a function? If so, how do students talk about it? International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 44(5), 624–640.
Radford, L. (2009). Signifying relative motion: Time, space and the semiotics of Cartesian graphs. In W. M. Roth (Ed.), Mathematical representations at the interface of the body and culture (pp. 45–69). Charlotte: Information Age Publishers.
Sajka, M. (2003). A secondary school student’s understanding of the concept of function – A case study. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 53, 229–254.
Sfard, A. (1992). Operational origins of mathematical objects and the quandary of reification - The case of function. In G. Harel & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), The concept of function: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy, MAA Notes 25 (pp. 59–84). Washington: MAA.
Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sfard, A., & Lavi, I. (2005). Why cannot children see as the same what grownups cannot see as different? – Early numerical thinking revisited. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 237–309.
Sierpinska, A. (1994). Understanding in mathematics. London: The Falmer Press.
Stewart, J. (2010). Calculus. Mason: Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning.
Tall, D., & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept definition in mathematics with particular reference to limits and continuity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12(2), 151–169.
Thompson, P. (1994). Images of rate and operational understanding of the fundamental theorem of calculus. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26(2/3), 229–274.
Weir, M. D., Hass, J., & Giordano, R. F. (2006). Thomas’ calculus: Early transcendentals. London: Pearson Addison Wesley.
Zandieh, M. (2000). A theoretical framework for analyzing students’ understanding of the concept of derivative. CBMS Issues in Mathematics Education, 8, 103–127.
Zandieh, M., & Knapp, J. (2006). Exploring the role of metonymy in mathematical understanding and reasoning: The concept of derivative as an example. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 25(1), 1–17.
Zaslavsky, O., Sela, H., & Leron, U. (2002). Being sloppy about slope: The effect of changing the scale. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49(1), 119–140.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Park, J. Is the derivative a function? If so, how do we teach it?. Educ Stud Math 89, 233–250 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-015-9601-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-015-9601-7