• Daniel Lee McGeeEmail author
  • Rafael Martinez-Planell


Tracing the path from a numerical Riemann sum approximating the area under a curve to a definite integral representing the precise area in various texts and online presentations, we found 3 semiotic registers that are used: the geometric register, the numerical register, and the symbolic register. The symbolic register had 3 representations: an expanded sum, a sum in sigma notation, and the definite integral. Reviewing the same texts, we found that in the presentation of double and triple integrals, not a single textbook continues to present the numerical register and the expanded sum representation of the symbolic register. They are implied and the expectation appears to be that students no longer need them. The omission of these representations is quite ubiquitous and correspondingly affects millions of students. Materials that present the missing numerical register representation and the expanded sum representation of the symbolic register throughout topics associated with double and triple integrals have been created. This paper presents the results of a clinical study on the improvement of student comprehension of multivariable integral topics when these representations are included.


definite integral functions of two variables multivariable calculus register of representations Riemann sum semiotic registers synergy of registers transitional auxiliary representation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arzarello, F. (2006). Semiosis as a multimodal process. Revista Latinoamericana de Investigación en Matemática Educativa, Special Issue on Semiotics, Culture and Mathematical Thinking, 267–299.Google Scholar
  2. Breidenbach, D., Hawks, J., Nichols, D. & Dubinsky, E. (1992). Development of the process conception of function. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23, 247–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Camacho, M., Depool, R., & Santos-Trigo, M. (2003). Promoting student comprehension of definite integral and area concepts through the use of Derive software. Educación Matemática, 15(3), 447–454. English translation accessed at
  4. Duval, R. (1999). Representation, vision and visualization: Cognitive functions in mathematical thinking Basic issues for learning. In F. Hitt & M. Santos (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-first Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Mexico, (1), pp. 3–26.Google Scholar
  5. Duval, R. (2006). A cognitive analysis of problems of comprehension in a learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61, 103–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Edwards, H. & Penney, D. (2002). Calculus: Early Transcendentals (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  7. Eisenberg, T. & Dreyfus, T. (1991). On the reluctance to visualize in mathematics. In W. Zimmermann & S. Cunningham (Eds.), Visualization in teaching and learning mathematics, MAA notes no 19 (pp. 25–37). Washington, DC: MAA.Google Scholar
  8. Gagatsis, A., Christou, C. & Elia, I. (2004). The nature of multiple representations in developing mathematical relationships. Quaderni di Ricerca in Didattica, 14, 150–159.Google Scholar
  9. Goldin, G. A. (1998). Representational systems, learning, and problem solving in mathematics. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17, 137–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goldin, G. A. (2002). Representation in mathematical learning and problem solving. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 197–218). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Gutiérrez, A. (1996). Visualization in 3-dimensional geometry: In search of a framework. In L. Puig & A. Gutiérrez (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 3–19). Valencia, Spain: Universidad de Valencia.Google Scholar
  12. Hitt, F. (Ed.). (2002). Representations and mathematics visualization. North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Mexico City, Mexico: Cinvestav-IPN.Google Scholar
  13. Hitt, F., Gonzalez, A., & Morasse, C. (2008). Visualization and students’ functional representations in the construction of mathematical concepts. An example: The concept of co-variation as a prelude to the concept of function. In ICME-11, Topic Study Group 20 (TSG 20), Visualization in the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics, July 6–13, 2008, Monterrey, N.L., Mexico. Retrieved from:
  14. Kant, I. (1929). Critique of pure reason. (N. K. Smith, Trans.). London: Macmillan. (Original work published 1781).Google Scholar
  15. Mehanavic, S. (2011). The potential and challenges of the use of dynamic software in upper secondary mathematics students’ and teachers’ work with integrals in GeoGebra based environments (thesis). Linköping Studies in Science and Technology, No. 1499. Accessed at
  16. Montiel, M., Wilhelmi, M., Vidakovic, D. & Elstak, I. (2009). Using the onto-semiotic approach to identify and analyze mathematical meaning when transiting between different coordinate systems in a multivariate context. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72(2), 139–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Moore-Russo, D. & Viglietti, J. M. (2012). Using the K5 connected cognition diagram to analyze teachers’ communication and understanding of regions in three-dimensional space. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31, 235–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. NAEP (2007). The nation’s report card: Mathematics 2007 performance of public school students in Puerto Rico—focus on the content areas. Retrieved from
  19. Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and knowledge. (B. Walsh, Trans.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published, 1967).Google Scholar
  20. Piaget, J. (1977). Understanding causality. (D. Miles & M. Miles, Trans.). New York, NY: Norton. (Original work published in French, 1971).Google Scholar
  21. Presmeg, N. (2006). Semiotics and the connections standard: Significance of semiotics for teachers of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61(1–2), 163–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Radford, L. (2002). The seen, the spoken, and the written: A semiotic approach to the problem of objectification of mathematical knowledge. For the Learning of Mathematics, 22(2), 14–23.Google Scholar
  23. Rodriguez, P. (2008). Calculus for the biological sciences. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  24. Sfard, A. (1992). Operational origins of mathematical objects and the quandary of reification—the case of function. In E. Dubinsky & G. Harel (Eds.), The concept of function: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy (pp. 59–84). Washington, DC: MAA.Google Scholar
  25. Stewart, J. (2006). Calculus: Early Transcendentals (6th ed.). Monterey, CA: Thomson-Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  26. Strauss, M., Bradley, G. & Smith, K. (2002). Calculus (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  27. Swokowski, E., Olinick, M. & Pence, D. (1992). Calculus (6th ed.). Boston, MA: PWS.Google Scholar
  28. Waner, S. & Costenoble, S. (2007). Finite mathematics and applied calculus (4th ed.). Monterey, CA: Thomson-Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Puerto RicoMayaguezPuerto Rico
  2. 2.Kentucky Center for MathematicsNorthern Kentucky UniversityHighland HtsUSA

Personalised recommendations