# EPISTEMOLOGICAL OBSTACLES IN COMING TO UNDERSTAND THE LIMIT OF A FUNCTION AT UNDERGRADUATE LEVEL: A CASE FROM THE NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LESOTHO

Article

First Online:

- 198 Downloads
- 1 Citations

## Abstract

This article reports on part of a doctoral study in which epistemological obstacles that mathematics students at undergraduate level encounter in coming to understand the limit of functions in different modes of representation were investigated. A group of mathematics students at undergraduate level at the National University of Lesotho was the sample for the study. Empirical data were collected using questionnaires and interviews.

## Key words

epistemological obstacles function genetic decomposition limit understanding## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- Brousseau, G. (1997).
*Theory of didactical situations in mathematics*. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar - Cornu, B. (1991). Limits. In D.O. Tall (Ed.),
*Advanced mathematical thinking*(pp. 153–166). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar - Cottrill, J., Dubinsky, E., Nichols, D., Schwingendorf, K., Thomas, K. & Vidakovic, D. (1996). Understanding the limit concept: beginning with a coordinated process schema.
*Journal of Mathematical Behavior*,*15*, 167–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Davis, R.B. & Vinner, S. (1986). The notion of limit: some seemingly unavoidable misconception stages.
*Journal of Mathematical Behavior*,*5*, 281–303.Google Scholar - Dubinsky, E. & Harel, G. (1992). The nature of the process conception of function. In G. Harel & E. Dubinsky (Eds.),
*The concept of function: aspects of epistemology and pedagogy*, MAA Notes (pp. 85–106). Washington, DC: MAA.Google Scholar - Ferrini-Mundy, J. & Gaudard, M. (1992). Secondary school calculus: preparation or pitfall in the study of college calculus.
*Journal for Research in Mathematics Education*,*1*(23), 56–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Fischbein, E. (1999). Intuitions and schemata in mathematical reasoning.
*Educational Studies in Mathematics*,*38*, 11–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Fischbein, E. (2001). Tacit models of infinity.
*Educational Studies in Mathematics*,*48*, 309–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Fischbein, E., Tirosh, D. & Melamed, U. (1981). Is it possible to measure the intuitive acceptance of a mathematical statement?
*Educational Studies in Mathematics*,*12*, 491–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Herscovics, N. (1989). Cognitive obstacles encountered in the learning of algebra. In S. Wagner & C. Kieran (Eds.),
*Research issues in the learning and teaching of algebra*(pp. 60–86). Reston, V: Lawrence Erlbaum for NCTM.Google Scholar - Kannemeyer, L. D. (2003).
*The development of a reference framework for measuring students’ understanding in a first year calculus course*. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Cape Town: University of the Western Cape.Google Scholar - Monaghan, J. (1991). Problems with language of limits.
*For the Learning of Mathematics*,*11*(3), 20–24.Google Scholar - Moru, E.K. (2006).
*Epistemological obstacles in coming to understand the limit concept at undergraduate level: a case of the National University of Lesotho.*Unpublished doctoral thesis. Cape Town: University of the Western Cape.Google Scholar - Moru, E.K. (2007). Talking with the literature on epistemological obstacles.
*For the Learning of Mathematics*,*27*(3), 34–37.Google Scholar - Sierpinska, A. (1987). Humanities students and epistemological obstacles related to limits.
*Educational Studies in Mathematics*,*18*, 371–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Taback, S. (1975). The child’s concept of limit. In M.F. Rosskopf (Ed.),
*Children’s mathematical concepts*(pp. 111–144). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar - Tall, D.O. (1991). Reflections. In D.O. Tall (Ed.),
*Advanced mathematical thinking*(pp. 251–259). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar - Tall, D.O. (1996). Functions and Calculus. In A.J. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick & C. Laborde (Eds.),
*International Handbook of Mathematics Education*(pp. 289–311). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar - Tall, D.O. & Schwarzenberger, R.L.E. (1978). Conflicts in the learning of real numbers and limits.
*Mathematics Teaching*,*82*, 44–49.Google Scholar - Tall, D.O., Thomas, M., Davis, G., Gray, E. & Simpson, E. (2000). What is the object of encapsulation of a process.
*Journal of Mathematical Behavior*,*18*(2), 223–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Tirosh, D. & Stavy, R. (1996). Intuitive rules in science and mathematics: the case of ‘everything can be divided by two’.
*International Journal of Science Education*,*18*(6), 669–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Williams, S.R. (1991). Models of limit held by college calculus students.
*Journal for research in Mathematics Education*,*22*(3), 219–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Winsløw, C. (2000).
*Semiotics as an analytic tool for the didactics of mathematics*. Retrieved November 13, 2004 from: http://wwww.naturdidak.ku.dk/winslow/NOMADICME10.pdf.

## Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2008