Advertisement

Mathematics Education Research Journal

, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 239–256 | Cite as

First-year engineering students’ use of their mathematics textbook - opportunities and constraints

  • Mira Randahl
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

The role of the mathematics textbook at tertiary level has received limited exposure in previous research although it is likely that students work individually and that some of this work depends on the use of the textbook. The aim of this study was to investigate the process of approaching the textbook from epistemological, cognitive, and didactical perspectives. The focus was on identifying and discussing the opportunities and constraints in the process. The study was an explorative case study and the participants were first-year engineering students taking a basic calculus course. The data were collected through questionnaires, observations, and interviews. Results showed that the textbook was used to a very low degree and mainly perceived as a source of tasks. Different opportunities and constraints are pointed out and some didactical implications are suggested. The results and discussion indicate that a need for greater awareness about the use of mathematical textbooks in meaningful ways at tertiary level.

Keywords

Mathematics textbook Calculus Engineering students Constraints 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Adams, R.A. (2006, 2003). Calculus. A complete course. Toronto, Canada: Pearson.Google Scholar
  2. Alsina, C. (2001). Why the professor must be a stimulating teacher? In D. Holton (Ed.), The teaching and learning of mathematics at university level: an ICMI Study (pp. 3–12). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Artigue, M. (1994). Didactical engineering as a framework for the conception of teaching products. In R. Biehler, R. W. Scholtz, R. Strasser, & B. Winkelmann (Eds.), Didactics of mathematics as a scientific discipline (pp. 27–39). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher.Google Scholar
  4. Artigue, M. (2001). What can we learn from educational research at the university level? In D. Holton (Ed.), The teaching and learning of mathematics at university level: an ICMI Study (pp. 207–220). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher.Google Scholar
  5. Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Dreyfus, T. (1991). Advanced mathematical thinking processes. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 25–41). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Eisenberg, T. (1991). Functions and associated learning difficulties. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 140–152). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Golden, S. T. (2006). Observation in poverty research. Focus, 24(3), 29–32.Google Scholar
  9. Holton, D. (Ed.). (2001). The teaching and learning of mathematics at university level. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Johansson, M. (2006). Teaching mathematics with textbooks. A classroom and curricular perspective. PhD thesis, Department of Mathematics, Luleå University of Technology.Google Scholar
  11. Juter, K. (2006). Limits of functions. University students’ concept development. PhD thesis, Department of Mathematics, Luleå University of Technology.Google Scholar
  12. Kajander, A., & Lovric, M. (2009). Mathematics textbooks and their potential role in supporting misconceptions. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 40(2), 173–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kummerer, B. (2001). Trying the impossible. In D. Holton (Ed.), The Teaching and learning of mathematics at university level: an ICMI Study (pp. 321–334). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  14. Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations. The logic of mathematical discovery. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Leder, G. C., & Forgasz, H. J. (2002). Measuring mathematical beliefs and their inpact on the learning of mathematics: A new approach. In G. Leder, E. Pehkonen, & G. Toerner (Eds.), Mathematical beliefs and their impact on teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 95–113). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  16. Lester, F., & Lambdin, D. (1998). The ship of Theseus and other metaphors for thinking about what we value in mathematics. In A. Sierpinska & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), Mathematics education as a research domain: a search for identity (pp. 415–426). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Niss, M. (1998). Mathematics and mathematics education research, Proceedings ICMU98. Berlin, Germany: University of Berlin Press.Google Scholar
  18. Norway Ministry of Education and Research. (2005). Rammeplan for ingeniørutdanning. Norway: Oslo.Google Scholar
  19. Raman, M. (2002). Coordinating informal and formal aspects of mathematics: students’ behaviour and textbooks messages. Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, 21, 135–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Randahl, M., & Grevholm, B. (2010). Learning opportunities offered by a classical calculus textbook to engineering students about differentiation. NOMAD, 15(2), 5–27.Google Scholar
  21. Schoenfeld, F. (2007). Methods. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 69–107). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. Sosniak, L. A., & Perlman, C. L. (1990). Secondary education by the book. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 22(5), 427–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tall, D. (1991). The psychology of advanced mathematical thinking. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 3–24). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tall, D., & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept definition in mathematics with particular reference to limits and continuity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12, 151–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tietze, U.-P. (1994). Mathematical curricula and the underlying goals. In R. Biehler, R. W. Scholtz, R. Strässer, & B. Winkelmann (Eds.), Didactics of mathematics as a scientific discipline (pp. 41–53). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  26. Vinner, S. (2007). Mathematics education: procedures, rituals and man’s search for meaning. Journal for Mathematical Behaviour, 26, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wellington, J. (2000). Educational research. Contemporary issues and practical approaches. London, UK: Continuum.Google Scholar
  28. Wood, L. (2001). The secondary-tertiary interface. In D. Holton (Ed.), The Teaching and learning of mathematics at university level: an ICMI Study (pp. 87–98). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  29. Zevenbergen, R. (2001). Changing contexts in tertiary mathematics: Implications for diversity and equity. In D. Holton (Ed.), The Teaching and learning of mathematics at university level (pp. 13–26). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Inc. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AgderKristiansandNorway
  2. 2.Narvik University CollegeNarvikNorway

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options