Cognition And Institutional Setting

Undergraduates’ understandings of the derivative
  • Erhan Bingolbali
  • John Monaghan
Chapter
Part of the Mathematics Education Library book series (MELI, volume 45)

Abstract

This chapter examines Mechanical Engineering and Mathematics undergraduates’ understanding of the derivative and addresses institutional issues in the social formation of knowledge. It summarises results from a study and examines student and lecturer data. Significant differences over the course of the first year are noted. It is claimed that these differences arise from their participation in different departments (institutions). The closing section examines students’ developing conceptions of the derivative in institutional settings by addressing the question: what brought about these changes in students’ conceptual development?

Keywords

derivative cognition institutional setting departmental affiliation engineering and mathematics students 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amit, M. & Vinner, S. (1990), ‘Some Misconceptions in Calculus: Anecdotes or the tip of an iceberg?’. In G. Booker, P. Cobb & T. N. de Mendicuti (eds.) Proceedings of the 14 th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Oaxtepec, Mexico, 1, 3-10.Google Scholar
  2. Artigue, M., Assude, T., Grugeon, G., & Lenfant, A. (2001). Teaching and learning algebra: Approaching complexity trough complementary perspectives. In H. Chick, K. Stacey & J. Vincent (Eds.), The future of the teaching and learning of algebra, proceedings of 12th ICMI study conference. Melbourne, Australia: The University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  3. Asiala, M., Cottrill, J., Dubinsky, E., & Schwingendorf, K. (1997). The development of student’s graphical understanding of the derivative. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 16 (4), 399-431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barab, S. A., & Duffy, T. M. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. In D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  5. Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories; intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines (2nd ed.). Buckingham: SRHE/Open University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bezuidenhout, J. (1998). First-year university students’ understanding of rate of change. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 29(3), 389-399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Biglan, A. (1973). Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 204-213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bingolbali, E. (2005). Engineering and mathematics students’ conceptual development of the derivative: An institutional perspective. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Leeds, UK.Google Scholar
  9. Castela, C. (2004). Institutions influencing mathematics students’ private work: A factor of academic achievement. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 57(1), 33-63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chevallard, Y. (1999). L’analyse des pratiques enseignantes en théorie anthropologique du didactique. Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques, 19(2), 221-266.Google Scholar
  11. Crook, C., & Light, P. (1999). Information technology and the culture of learning. In J. Bliss, R. Saljo & P. Light (Eds.), Learning sites: Social and technological resources for learning (pp. 183-193). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd.Google Scholar
  12. Daniels, H. (2001). Vygotsky and pedagogy. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  13. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.Google Scholar
  14. Engeström, Y. (1999). Situated learning at the threshold of the new millennium. In J. Bliss, R. Saljo & P. Light (Eds.), Learning sites: Social and technological resources for learning (pp. 249-257). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd.Google Scholar
  15. Holland, D., Lachicotte, W., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Lagrange, J-b (2005). Transposing computer tools from the mathematical sciences into teaching. In D. Guin, K. Ruthven & L. Trouche (Eds.), The didactical challenge of symbolic calculators: Turning a computational device into a mathematical instrument (pp. 67-82). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Maull, W., & Berry, J. (2000). A questionnaire to elicit the mathematical concept images of engineering students. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 31(6), 899-917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Praslon, F. (1999). Discontinuities regarding the secondary/university transition: The notion of derivative as a specific case. In O. Zaslavsky (Ed.), Proceedings of the 23rd conference of Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 73-80). Haifa, Israel: PME.Google Scholar
  20. Sazhin, S. S. (1998). Teaching mathematics to engineering students. International Journal of Engineering Education, 14(2), 145-152.Google Scholar
  21. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  22. Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erhan Bingolbali
    • 1
    • 2
  • John Monaghan
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.University of FiratTurkey
  2. 2.University of LeedsUK

Personalised recommendations