# Convergence of Sequences and Series 2: Interactions Between Nonvisual Reasoning and the Learner’s Beliefs about their own Role

- 249 Downloads
- 18 Citations

## Abstract

This paper examines the work of students who, when reasoning about real analysis, do so almost exclusively by means of verbal and algebraic reasoning, and tend not to incorporate visual images into their work. It examines the work of students from two parallel courses of introductory real analysis, whose reasoning ranges from those who introduce definitions appropriately and work with them competently, to those who cannot recall definitions and appear to manipulate notation without regard for its reference. It presents a theory that relates the differences to students’ expectations regarding their role as learners of mathematics. Throughout, the argument is illustrated with interview data from which the theory was inductively generated.

## Keywords

advanced mathematical thinking beliefs convergence definitions proof real analysis representations sequences series symbolic reasoning## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- Alcock, L.J.: 2001,
*Categories, definitions and mathematics: Student reasoning about**objects in Analysis*, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Mathematics Education Research Centre, University of Warwick, UK.Google Scholar - Alcock, L.J. and Simpson, A.P.: 2001, ‘The Warwick analysis project: Practice and theory’, in D. Holton, (ed.),
*The teaching and learning of mathematics at**university level*, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 99–111.Google Scholar - Alcock, L.J. and Simpson, A.P.: 2002, ‘Definitions: Dealing with categories mathematically’,
*For the Learning of Mathematics*, {22}(2), 28–34.Google Scholar - Alcock, L.J. and Simpson, A.P.: In press, ‘Convergence of sequences and series: Interactions between visual reasoning and the learner’s beliefs about their own role’,
*Educational Studies in Mathematics*.Google Scholar - Azarello, F., Bazzini, L. and Chiappini, G.: 1995, ‘The construction of algebraic knowledge: towards a socio-cultural theory and practice’, in L. Meira and D. Carraher (eds.),
*Proceedings of the 19**th**International Conference for the**Psychology of Mathematics Education*, Vol. 1, Recife, Brazil, pp. 119–134.Google Scholar - Burn, R.P.: 1992,
*Numbers and functions: Steps into Analysis*, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar - Byers, V. & Erlwanger, S.H.: 1985, ‘Memory in mathematical understanding’,
*Educational Studies in Mathematics*, 16, 259–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Cerulli, M. & Mariotti, M.A.: 2001, ‘Arithmetic and algebra, continuity or cognitive break? The case of Francesca’, in M. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen (ed.),
*Proceedings of the 25**th**Conference of the International Group for the Psychology**of Mathematics Education*, Vol. 2, Utrecht: The Netherlands, pp. 225–232.Google Scholar - Copes, L.: 1982, ‘The Perry development scheme: a metaphor for learning and teaching mathematics’,
*For the Learning of Mathematics*, 3(1), 38–44.Google Scholar - Cornu, B.: 1991, ‘Limits’, in D.O. Tall (ed.),
*Advanced Mathematical Thinking*, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 153–166.Google Scholar - Davis, R. B.: 1988, ‘The interplay of algebra, geometry and logic’,
*Journal of**Mathematical Behavior*, 7(1), 9–28.Google Scholar - Davis, R.B. and Vinner, S.: 1986, ‘The notion of limit: Some seemingly unavoidable misconception stages’,
*Journal of Mathematical Behaviour*, 5(3), 281–303.Google Scholar - Dubinsky, E. and McDonald, M.A.: 2001, ‘APOS: A constructivist theory of learning in undergraduate mathematics education research’, in D. Holton (Ed.),
*The Teaching**and Learning of Mathematics at University Level: An ICMI Study*, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 275–282.Google Scholar - Dubinsky, E. and Yiparaki, O.: 2000, ‘On student understanding of AE and EA quantification’,
*CBMS Issues in Mathematics Education*, 8, 239–289.Google Scholar - Duffin, J.M. and Simpson, A.P.: 1993, ‘Natural, conflicting and alien’,
*Journal of**Mathematical Behaviour*, 12(4), 313–328.Google Scholar - Edwards, C.H.: 1979,
*The Historical Development of the Calculus*, Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar - Ferrari, P.L.: 2002, ‘Understanding elementary number theory at the undergraduate level: A semiotic approach’, in S.R. Campbell and R. Zazkis (Eds.),
*Learning and**teaching number theory: Research in cognition and instruction*, Ablex Publishing, Westport, Conneticut, pp. 97–115.Google Scholar - Glaser, B.: 1992,
*Emergence vs. Forcing: Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis*, Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA.Google Scholar - Gray, E.M. Pinto, M., Pitta, D. and Tall, D.O.: 1999 ‘Knowledge Construction and diverging thinking in elementary and advanced mathematics’,
*Educational**Studies in Mathematics*, 38(1-3), 111–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Harel, G. and Kaput, J.: 1991, ‘The role of conceptual entities and their symbols in building mathematical concepts’, in D.O. Tall (ed.),
*Advanced Mathematical**Thinking*, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 82–94.Google Scholar - Harel, G. and Sowder, L.: 1998, ‘Students’ proof schemes: results from exploratory studies’, in A.H. Schoenfeld, J. Kaput and E. Dubinsky (eds.),
*CBMS Issues in**Mathematics Education*, 7, 234–283.Google Scholar - Leron, U.: 1985, ‘Heuristic presentations: The role of structuring’,
*For the Learning of**Mathematics*, 5(3), 7–13.Google Scholar - Mason, J.H.: 2002,
*Researching your own practice: The discipline of noticing*, Routledge Falmer, London.Google Scholar - Monaghan, J.: 1991, ‘Problems with the language of limits’,
*For the Learning of**Mathematics*, 11(3), 20–24.Google Scholar - Moore, R.C.: 1994, ‘Making the transition to formal proof’,
*Educational Studies in**Mathematics*, 27, 249–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Perry, W.G.: 1988, ‘Different worlds in the same classroom’, in P. Ramsden (ed.),
*Improving learning: New perspectives*, Kogan Page, London.Google Scholar - Pinto, M. and Tall, D.O.: 1996, ‘Student teachers’ conceptions of the rational numbers’, in L. Puig and A. Guitiérrez, (Eds.),
*Proceedings of the 20**th**International**conference on the Psychology of Mathematics Education*, Valencia, Spain, Vol. 4, pp. 139–146.Google Scholar - Presmeg, N.C.: 1986, ‘Visualisation and mathematical giftedness’,
*Educational Studies in**Mathematics*, 17, 297–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Radford, L.: 2000, ‘Signs and meanings in students’ emergent algebraic thinking: a semiotic analysis’,
*Educational Studies in Mathematics*, 42, 237–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Schoenfeld, A.H.: 1987, ‘What’s all the fuss about metacognition?’, in A.H. Schoenfeld, (Ed.),
*Cognitive science and mathematics education*, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 189–215.Google Scholar - Sfard, A. and Linchevsky, L.: 1994, ‘The gains and pitfalls of reification – the case of algebra’,
*Educational Studies in Mathematics*, 26, 191–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Sierpinska, A.: 1987, ‘Humanities students and epistemological obstacles related to limits’.
*Educational Studies in Mathematics*, 18, 371–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Skemp, R.R.: 1976, ‘Relational understanding and instrumental understanding’,
*Mathematics Teaching*, 77, 20–26.Google Scholar - Strauss, A. and Corbin, J.: 1990,
*Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory**Procedures and Techniques*, Sage, London.Google Scholar - Weber, K. and Alcock, L.J.: In press, ‘Syntactic and semantic production of proofs’,
*Educational Studies in Mathematics*.Google Scholar - Weyl, H.: 1940, ‘The mathematical way of thinking’,
*Science*, 92, 437–446.Google Scholar