Advertisement

Students’ Obstacles to Using Riemann Sum Interpretations of the Definite Integral

  • Joseph F. Wagner
Article

Abstract

Students use a variety of resources to make sense of integration, and interpreting the definite integral as a sum of infinitesimal products (rooted in the concept of a Riemann sum) is particularly useful in many physical contexts. This study of beginning and upper-level undergraduate physics students examines some obstacles students encounter when trying to make sense of integration, as well as some discomfort and skepticism some students maintain even after constructing useful conceptions of the integral. In particular, many students attempt to explain what integration does by trying to use algebraic sense-making to interpret the symbolic manipulations involved in using the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Consequently, students demonstrate a reluctance to use their understanding of “what a Riemann sum does” to interpret “what an integral does.” This research suggests an absence of instructional attention to subtle differences between sense-making in algebra and sense-making in calculus, perhaps inhibiting efforts to promote Riemann sum interpretations of the integral during calculus instruction.

Keywords

Calculus instruction Definite integral Riemann sums Physics 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under grant No. PHY-1405616, and in part by a faculty development leave from Xavier University. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or Xavier University. I would like to thank Corinne Manogue, Tevian Dray, John Thompson, and Mike Loverude for their thoughtful conversations and feedback throughout the course this research.

References

  1. Bezuidenhout, J., & Olivier, A. (2000). Students’ conceptions of the integral. In T. Nakahara & M. Koyama (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 73–80). Hiroshima, Japan.Google Scholar
  2. Doughty, L., McLoughlin, E., & van Kampen, P. (2014). What integration cues, and what cues integration in intermediate electromagnetism. American Journal of Physics, 82, 1093–1103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dray, T., & Manogue, C. A. (2010). Putting differentials back into calculus. The College Mathematics Journal, 41(2), 90–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dray, T., Edwards, B., & Manogue, C. A. (2008). Bridging the gap between mathematics and physics. Retrieved from http://tsg.icme11.org/document/get/659.
  5. Engelke, N., & Sealey, V. (2009). The great gorilla jump: A Riemann sum investigation. Paper presented at the 12th Annual Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, Raleigh, NC. Retrived from http://sigmaa.maa.org/rume/crume2009/proceedings.html.
  6. Ferrini-Mundy, J., & Graham, K. (1994). Research in calculus learning: Understanding of limits, derivatives, and integrals. In J. Kaput & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), Research Issues in Undergraduate Mathematics Learning, MAA notes #33 (pp. 31–46). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.Google Scholar
  7. Grundmeier, T. A., Hansen, J., & Sousa, E. (2006). An exploration of definition and procedural fluency in integral calculus. Problems, Resources, and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies, 16(2), 178–191.Google Scholar
  8. Jones, S. R. (2013). Understanding the integral: Students’ symbolic forms. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32(2), 122–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jones, S. R. (2015a). Areas, anti-derivatives, and adding up pieces: Integrals in pure mathematics and applied contexts. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 38(1), 9–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jones, S. R. (2015b). The prevalence of area-under-a-curve and anti-derivative conceptions over Riemann sum-based conceptions in students’ explanations of definite integrals. International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science and Technology, 46(5), 721–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kieran, C. (2007). Learning and teaching algebra at the middle school through college levels: Building meaning for symbols and their manipulation. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 707–762). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  12. Kouropatov, A., & Dreyfus, T. (2014). Learning the integral concept by constructing knowledge about accumulation. ZDM, 46(4), 533–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mahir, N. (2009). Conceptual and procedural performance of undergraduate students in integration. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 40(2), 201–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Meredith, D. C., & Marrongelle, K. A. (2008). How students use mathematical resources in an electrostatics context. American Journal of Physics, 76(6), 570–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nguyen, D. H., & Rebello, N. S. (2011a). Students’ understanding and application of the area under the curve concept in physics problems. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 7(1), 010112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nguyen, D. H., & Rebello, N. S. (2011b). Students’ difficulties with integration in electricity. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 7(1), 010113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Oehrtman, M. (2009). Collapsing dimensions, physical limitations, and other students metaphors for limit concepts. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40(4), 396–426.Google Scholar
  18. Rasslan, S. & Tall, D. (2002). Definitions and images for the definite integral concept. In a. D. Cockburn & E. Nardi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 89–96). Norwich, UK. Google Scholar
  19. Sealey, V. (2006). Definite integrals, Riemann sums, and area under a curve: What is necessary and sufficient. In S. Alatorre, J. L. Cortina, M. Sáiz & A. Méndez (Eds.) Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 46-53). Mérida: Universidad Pedagógica Nacional.Google Scholar
  20. Sealey, V. (2014). A framework for characterizing student understanding of Riemann sums and definite integrals. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 33, 230–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sherin, B. L. (2001). How students understand physics equations. Cognition and Instruction, 19(4), 479–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Thompson, P. W., & Silverman, J. (2008). The concept of accumulation in calculus. In M. P. Carlson & C. Rasmussen (Eds.), Making the connection: Research and teaching in undergraduate mathematics, MAA notes #73 (pp. 43–52). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.Google Scholar
  23. Thompson, P. W., Byerly, C., & Hatfield, N. (2013). A conceptual approach to calculus made possible by technology. Computers in the Schools, 30, 124–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wagner, J. F. (2016). Analyzing students’ interpretations of the definite integral as concept projections. In (Eds.) T. Fukawa-Connelly, N. Infante, M. Wawro, and S. Brown, Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education (pp. 1385-1392). Pittsburgh, PA. Retrived from http://sigmaa.maa.org/rume/RUME19v3.pdf.
  25. Yeatts, F. R., & Hundhausen, J. R. (1992). Calculus and physics: Challenges at the interface. American Journal of Physics, 60(8), 716–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MathematicsXavier UniversityCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations