Advertisement

Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 93, Issue 3, pp 315–332 | Cite as

Three concepts or one? Students’ understanding of basic limit concepts

  • José Antonio Fernández-Plaza
  • Adrian Simpson
Article

Abstract

In many mathematics curricula, the notion of limit is introduced three times: the limit of a sequence, the limit of a function at a point and the limit of a function at infinity. Despite the use of very similar symbols, few connections between these notions are made explicitly and few papers in the large literature on student understanding of limit connect them. This paper examines the nature of connections made by students exposed to this fragmented curriculum. The study adopted a phenomenographic approach and used card sorting and comparison tasks to expose students to symbols representing these different types of limit. The findings suggest that, while some students treat limit cases as separate, some can draw connections, but often do so in ways which are at odds with the formal mathematics. In particular, while there are occasional, implicit uses of neighbourhood notions, no student in the study appeared to possess a unifying organisational framework for all three basic uses of limit.

Keywords

Limits Advanced mathematical thinking Definitions Card-sorting Phenomenography 

References

  1. Alcock, L., Simpson A. (2004) Convergence of sequences and series: Interactions between visual reasoning and the learner’s beliefs about their own role. Educational Studies in Mathematics 57 (1): 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alcock, L., Simpson A. (2005) Convergence of sequences and series 2: Interactions between nonvisual reasoning and the learner’s beliefs about their own role. Educational Studies in Mathematics 58 (1): 77–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borovik, A., Katz M. G. (2012) Who gave you the Cauchy–Weierstrass tale? The dual history of rigorous calculus. Foundations of Science 17 (3): 245–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bryant, V. (1990) Yet another introduction to analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bussolon, S., Russi B., Missier F. D. (2006) Online card sorting: As good as the paper version. Proceedings of the 13th European conference on Cognitive ergonomics: trust and control in complex socio-technical systems, 113–114.Google Scholar
  6. Chi, M. T., Feltovich P. J., Glaser R. (1981) Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science 5 (2): 121–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cottrill, J., Dubinsky E., Nichols D., Schwingendorf K., Thomas K., Vidakovic D. (1996) Understanding the limit concept: Beginning with a coordinated process scheme. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior 15 (2): 167–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dubinsky, E., Elterman F., Gong C. (1988) The student’s construction of quantification. For the learning of mathematics 8 (2): 44–51.Google Scholar
  9. Elia, I., Gagatsis A., Panaoura A., Zachariades T., Zoulinaki F. (2009) Geometric and algebraic approaches in the concept of “limit” and the impact of the “didactic contract”. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 7 (4): 765–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ely, R. (2010) Nonstandard student conceptions about infinitesimals. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 41 (2): 117–146.Google Scholar
  11. Fincher, S., Tenenberg J. (2005) Making sense of card sorting data. Expert Systems 223: 89–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Font, V., Bolite J., Acevedo J. (2010) Metaphors in mathematics classrooms: Analyzing the dynamic process of teaching and learning of graph functions. Educational Studies in Mathematics 75 (2): 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Güçler, B. (2013) Examining the discourse on the limit concept in a beginning-level calculus classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics 82 (3): 439–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jones, S. R. (2015) Calculus limits involving infinity: The role of students’ informal dynamic reasoning. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 46 (1): 105–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Keisler, H. J. (1986) Elementary calculus: An infinitesimal approach. Prindle Weber & Schimidt, Boston.Google Scholar
  16. Kidron, I. (2011) Constructing knowledge about the notion of limit in the definition of the horizontal asymptote. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 9 (6): 1261–1279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lakoff, G., Núñez R. E. (2000) Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. Basic books, New York.Google Scholar
  18. 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 (2–3): 259–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Marton, F. (1986) Phenomenography—a research approach to investigating different understandings of reality. Journal of Thought: 28–49.Google Scholar
  20. McDonald, M. A., Mathews D. M., Strobel K. H. (2000) Understanding sequences: A tale of two objects. Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education IV: 77–102.Google Scholar
  21. Monaghan, J. (1991) Problems with the language of limits. For the learning of mathematics 11 (3): 20–24.Google Scholar
  22. Nosofsky, R. M. (1986) Attention, similarity, and the identification–categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 115 (1): 39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Oehrtman, M. (2008) Layers of abstraction: Theory and design for the instruction of limit concepts. In: Carlson M. Rasmussen C. (eds) Making the connection: research and teaching in undergraduate mathematics, 65–80.. Mathematical Association of America Washington, Washington.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Oehrtman, 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
  25. Przenioslo, M. (2004) Images of the limit of function formed in the course of mathematical studies at the university. Educational Studies in Mathematics 55 (1–3): 103–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Raman, M. (2004) Epistemological messages conveyed by three high-school and college mathematics textbooks. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior 23 (4): 389–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Roh, K. H. (2008) Students’ images and their understanding of definitions of the limit of a sequence. Educational Studies in Mathematics 69 (3): 217–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sierpínska, A. (1987) Humanities students and epistemological obstacles related to limits. Educational Studies in Mathematics 18 (4): 371–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Spivak, M. (2006) Calculus corrected third edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  30. Swinyard, C. (2011) Reinventing the formal definition of limit: The case of Amy and Mike. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior 30 (2): 93–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Szydlik, J. E. (2000) Mathematical beliefs and conceptual understanding of the limit of a function. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 31 (3): 258–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tall, D., Thomas M., Davis G., Gray E., Simpson A. (1999) What is the object of the encapsulation of a process? The Journal of Mathematical Behavior 18 (2): 223–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Trigueros, M., Ursini S. (2003) First-year undergraduates’ difficulties in working with different uses of variable. CBMS Issues in Mathematics Education 8: 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Weber, K. (2005) Problem-solving, proving, and learning: The relationship between problem-solving processes and learning opportunities in the activity of proof construction. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior 24 (3): 351–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Williams, S. R. (1991) Models of limit held by college calculus students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 22 (3): 219–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • José Antonio Fernández-Plaza
    • 1
  • Adrian Simpson
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Didactics of MathematicsUniversity of GranadaGranadaSpain
  2. 2.School of EducationDurham UniversityDurhamUK

Personalised recommendations