The slippery road from actions on objects to functions and variables

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education

Volumn 40, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 18-39

  Paz, Tamar ^a,b   Leron, Uri ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HAIFA   (Israel)

^b TECHNION ISRAEL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Israel)

Author keywords

Algebra; Cognitive theory; Computers; Functions; High school (9 12); Piaget; Situated cognition

Indexed keywords

EID: 58549094300     PISSN: 00218251     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Abelson, H., & diSessa, A. (1981). Turtle geometry: The computer as a medium for exploring mathematics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
2. Ayers, T., Davis, G., Dubinsky, E., & Lewin, P. (1988). Computer experiences in learning composition of functions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19, 246-259.
3. Bogdan, R. C., & Bilden, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
4. Carlson, M., & Oehrtman, M. (2005). Key aspects of knowing and learning the concept of function. MAA Online, 9. Retrieved March 15,2005, from http://www.maa.org/t_and_l/sampler/rs_9.html
5. DeMarois, P., & Tall, D. (1999). Function: Organizing principle or cognitive root? In O. Zaslavsky (Ed.), Proceedings of the 23rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 257-264). Haifa, Israel: Technion - Israel Institute of Technology.
6. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Introduction entering the field of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1-17). London: SAGE Publications.
7. Dubinsky, E. (1995). ISETL: A programming language for learning mathematics. Communications in Pure and Applied Mathematics, 48, 1027-1052.
8. Dubinsky, E., & Harel, G. (1992). The nature of the process conception of function. In G. Harel & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), The concept of functions: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy (Vol. 25, pp. 85-106). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
9. Dubinsky, E., & McDonald, M. A. (2002). APOS: A constructivist theory of learning in undergraduate mathematics education research. In D. Holten (Ed.), The teaching and learning of mathematics at university level: An ICMI study (pp. 275-282). The Netherlands: Springer Netherlands Publishers.
10. Eisenberg, T. (1991). Functions and associated learning difficulties. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 140-152). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
11. Evans, J. St. B. T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255-278.
12. Felleisen, M., Findler, R. B., Flatt, M., & Krishnamuethi, S. (2001). How to design programs: An introduction to computing and programming. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
13. Fischbein, E. ( 1987). Intuition in science and mathematics: An educational approach. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
14. Geary, D. (2002). Principles of evolutionary educational psychology. Learning and Individual Differences, 12, 317-345.
15. Gigerenzer, G. (2005). I think, therefore I err. Social Research, 72, 1-24.
16. Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
17. Gray, E. M., & Tall, D. O. (2001). Relationships between embodied objects and symbolic precepts: An explanatory theory of success and failure in mathematics. In M. van den Heuval-Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 65-72). Utrecht, The Netherlands: Freudenthal Institute.
18. Harel, G., & Dubinsky, E. (Eds.). (1992). The concept of functions: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy (MAA Notes, Vol. 25). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
19. Harvey, B., & Wright, W. (1994). Simply scheme: Introducing computer science. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
20. Kahneman, D. (2002). Maps of bounded rationality: A perspective on intuitive judgment and choice. In T. Frangsmyr (Ed.), Les prix nobel (pp. 449-489). Retrieved December 28, 2007, from http://www.nobel.se/economics/ laureates/2002/kahnemann-lecture.pdf
21. Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2005). A model of heuristic judgment. In K. J. Holyoak & R. J. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 267-293). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
22. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
23. Lakoff, G., & Núñez, R. (2000). Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. New York: Basic Books.
24. Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M. K. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60, 1-64.
25. Leron, U., & Hazzan, O. (2006). The rationality debate: Application of cognitive psychology to mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62, 105-126.
26. Leron, U., & Zazkis, R. (1989). Learning mathematics though programming: The case of functions and variables. Mathematics and Computer Education, 3, 186-193.
27. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.
28. Piaget, J. (1983/1970). Piaget's theory. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (4th ed.) (Vol. 1, pp. 103-128). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
29. PLT Scheme group (2008). PLT Scheme (Version 4.1) [Computer language]. Retrieved August 19, 2008, from http://download.plt-scheme.org/drscheme/
30. Ponte, J. P. (1992). The history of the concept of function and some educational implications. The Mathematics Educator, 3(2), 3-8.
31. Samuels, R., Stitch, S., & Tremoulet, P. (1999). Rethinking rationality: From bleak implications to Darwinian modules. In E. LePore & Z. Pylyshyn (Eds.), What is cognitive science? (pp.74-120). Malden, MA: Blackwell publishing.
32. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
33. Sierpinska, A. (1992). On understanding the notion of function. In G. Harel, & E. Dubinsky, (Eds.), The concept of functions: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy (MAA Notes, Vol. 25, pp. 25-58). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
34. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 645-726.
35. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2003). Evolutionary versus instrumental goals: How evolutionary psychology misconceives human rationality. In D. E. Over (Ed.), Evolution and the psychology of thinking: The debate (pp. 171-230). Hove, East Sussex: Psychology Press.
36. Stavy, R., & Tirosh, D. (2000). How students (mis-) understandscience and mathematics: Intuitive rule. New York: Teachers College Press.
37. Stein, E. (1996). Without good reason: The rationality debate in philosophy and cognitive science. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
38. Vinner, S. (1983). Concept definition, concept image and the notion of function. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 14, 293-305.
39. Vinner, S., & Dreyfus, T. (1989). Images and definitions for the concept of function. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 356-366.