Advertisement

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

  • Eunice Kolitsoe MoruEmail author
Article

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.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Cornu, B. (1991). Limits. In D.O. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 153–166). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Davis, R.B. & Vinner, S. (1986). The notion of limit: some seemingly unavoidable misconception stages. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 5, 281–303.Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. Fischbein, E. (1999). Intuitions and schemata in mathematical reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38, 11–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fischbein, E. (2001). Tacit models of infinity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 48, 309–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Monaghan, J. (1991). Problems with language of limits. For the Learning of Mathematics, 11(3), 20–24.Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Moru, E.K. (2007). Talking with the literature on epistemological obstacles. For the Learning of Mathematics, 27(3), 34–37.Google Scholar
  15. Sierpinska, A. (1987). Humanities students and epistemological obstacles related to limits. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 18, 371–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Tall, D.O. (1991). Reflections. In D.O. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 251–259). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Tall, D.O. & Schwarzenberger, R.L.E. (1978). Conflicts in the learning of real numbers and limits. Mathematics Teaching, 82, 44–49.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. Williams, S.R. (1991). Models of limit held by college calculus students. Journal for research in Mathematics Education, 22(3), 219–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The National University of LesothoLesothoSouthern Africa

Personalised recommendations