The precalculus concept assessment: A tool for assessing students' reasoning abilities and understandings

Cognition and Instruction

Volumn 28, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 113-145

  Carlson, Marilyn ^a   Oehrtman, Michael ^a   Engelke, Nicole ^a  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77951271521     PISSN: 07370008     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/07370001003676587     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Arismendi-Pardi, E. J. (1996). Development of a revised course outline in precalculus for biological, management, and social sciences at Orange Coast College. Fort Lauderdale, FL: Nova Southeastern University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED405922)
2. Breidenbach, D., Dubinsky, E., Hawks, J., & Nichols, D. (1992). Development of the process conception of function. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23(3), 247-285.
3. Bridgeman, B., & Wendler, C. (1989). Prediction of grades in college mathematics courses as a component of the placement validity of SAT-mathematics scores (College Board Report No. 89-9). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
4. Business Higher Education Forum. (2007). An American imperative: Transforming the recruitment, retention and renewal of our nation's mathematics and science teaching workforce. Washington, DC.
5. Carlson, M. (1995). A cross-sectional investigation of the development of the function concept. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Kansas, Lawrence.
6. Carlson, M. (1997). Obstacles for college algebra students in understanding functions: What do high performing students really know? American Mathematical Association of Two-Year Colleges Review, 48-59.
7. Carlson, M. (1998). A cross-sectional investigation of the development of the function concept. Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education III, Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences, Issues in Mathematics Education, 7(2), 114-162.
8. Carlson, M., & Bloom, I. (2005). The cyclic nature of problem solving: An emergent multidimensional problem solving framework. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 58, 45-75.
9. Carlson, M., Jacobs, S., Coe, E., Larsen, S., & Hsu, E. (2002). Applying covariational reasoning while modeling dynamic events: A framework and a study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33(5), 352-378.
10. Carlson, M., Larsen, S., & Lesh, R. (2003). Modeling dynamic events: A study in applying covariational reasoning among high performing university students. In R. Lesh & H. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism in mathematics teaching and learning: A models & modeling perspective (pp. 465-478). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11. Carlson, M., & Oehrtman, M. (2004). Key aspects of knowing and learning the concept of function. MAA Notes Online, Professional Development, Teaching and Learning, Research Sampler.
12. Carlson, M., & Rasmussen, C. (2008). Making the connection: Research and teaching in undergraduate mathematics education. MAA Notes, 73, Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
13. Carlson, M., Smith, N., & Persson, J. (2003). Developing and connecting calculus students' notions of rate-of-change and accumulation: The fundamental theorem of calculus. Proceedings of the 2003 Joint Meeting of PME and PME-NA, 2, 165-172. Honolulu, HI.
14. Cohen, P., Cohen, J., Teresi, J., Marchi, M., & Velez, C. N. (1990). Problems in the measurement of latent variables in structural equations causal models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14(2), 183-196.
15. 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(2), 167-192.
16. DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
17. 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, 25, 85-106. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
18. Engelke, N. (2007). Students' understanding of related rates problems in calculus. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.
19. Engelke, N., Oehrtman, M., & Carlson, M. (2005). Composition of functions: Precalculus students' understandings. Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Roanoke: Virginia Tech.
20. Halloun, I., & Hestenes, D. (1985a). The initial knowledge state of college physics students. American Journal of Physics, 53,1043-1055.
21. Halloun, I., & Hestenes, D. (1985b). Common sense concepts about motion. American Journal of Physics, 53, 1056-1065.
22. Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. P. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 65-97). New York: Macmillan,.
23. Hestenes, D., & Wells, M. (1992). Mechanics Baseline Test. The Physics Teacher, 30, 159-169.
24. Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force Concept Inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141-158.
25. Kaput, J. (1992). Patterns in students' formalization of quantitative patterns. In G. Harel & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), The concept of function: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy, MAA Notes, 25, 290-318. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
26. Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60(1), 1-64.
27. Lissitz, R., & Samuelsen, K. (2007). A suggested change in terminology and emphasis regarding validity and education. Educational Researcher, 36(8), 437-448.
28. Monk, S. (1987). Students' understanding of functions in calculus courses. Unpublished manuscript, University of Washington Mathematics Department, Seattle.
29. Monk, S. (1992). Students' understanding of a function given by a physical model. In G. Harel & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), The concept of function: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy, MAA Notes, 25 (pp. 175-193). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
30. National Center for Education Statistics. (1995). Third international mathematics and science study. Office of Educational Research & Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/timss/timss95/index.asp
31. Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling procedures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32. Oehrtman, M. (2004). Approximation as a foundation for understanding limit concepts. In D. McDougall, & J. Ross (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol. 1, pp. 95-102). Toronto: University of Toronto.
33. Oehrtman, M. (2008a). Layers of abstraction: Theory and design for the instruction of limit concepts. In M. Carlson & C. Rasmussen (Eds.), Making the connection: Research and practice in undergraduate mathematics, MAA Notes Volume, 73, 65-80. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
34. Oehrtman, M. (2008b). Collapsing Dimensions, Physical Limitation, and other Student Metaphors for Limit Concepts. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40(4), 396-426.
35. Oehrtman, M., Carlson, M., & Thompson, P. W. (2008). Foundational reasoning abilities that promote coherence in students' function understanding. In M. Carlson & C. Rasmussen (Eds.), Making the connection: Research and practice in undergraduate mathematics, MAA Notes Volume, 73, 27-41. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
36. Rasmussen, C. (2000). New directions in differential equations: A framework for interpreting students' understandings and difficulties. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 20, 55-87.
37. Schmidt, W., Houang, R., & Cogan, L. (2002). A coherent curriculum: The case of mathematics. American Educator, 26(2),10-26.
38. Seymour, E. (1992a, February). The problem iceberg in science, mathematics and engineering education: Student explanations for high attrition rates. Journal of College Science Teaching, 230-232.
39. Seymour, E. (1992b, March/April). Undergraduate problems with teaching and advising in SME majors: Explaining gender differences in attrition rates. Journal of College Science Teaching, 284-292.
40. Seymour, E. (2001). Tracking the process of change in US undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Science Education, 1, 79-105.
41. Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview.
42. Sierpinska, A. (1992). On understanding the notion of function. In G. Harel & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), The concept of function: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy. MAA Notes, 25, 25-58.
43. Thompson, A. G., Philipp, R. A., Thompson, P. W., & Boyd, B. A. (1994). Calculational and conceptual orientations in teaching mathematics. In A. Coxford (Ed.), 1994 Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 79-92). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
44. Thompson, P. W. (1994a). The development of the concept of speed and its relationship to concepts of rate. In G. Harel & J. Confrey (Eds.), The development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics (pp. 179-234). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
45. Thompson, P. W. (1994b). Images of rate and operational understanding of the fundamental theorem of calculus. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26, 229-274.
46. Thompson, P. W. (1994c). Students, functions, and the undergraduate mathematics curriculum. In E. Dubinsky, A. H. Schoenfeld & J. J. Kaput (Eds.), Research in collegiate mathematics education, 1 (Vol. 4, pp. 21-44). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society. Retrieved from http://pat-thompson.net/PDFversions/1994StuFunctions.pdf
47. Thompson, P. W., Carlson, M. P., & Silverman, J. (2007). The design of tasks in support of teachers' development of coherent mathematical meanings. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10, 415-432.
48. Thompson, P. W., & Silverman, J. (2008). The concept of accumulation in calculus. In M. Carlson & C. Rasmussen (Eds.), Making the connection: Research and teaching in undergraduate mathematics. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
49. Thompson, P. W., Castillo-Chavez, C., Culbertson, R., Flores, A., Greeley, R., Haag, S., et al. (2007). Failing the future: Problems of persistence and retention in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics majors at Arizona State University. Provost Office Report. Tempe: Arizona State University.
50. Vinner, S., & Dreyfus, T. (1989). Images and definitions for the concept of function. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 356-366.
51. White, P., & Mitchelmore, M. (1996). Conceptual knowledge in introductory calculus. Journal for Research in Mathe-matics Education, 27, 79-95.
52. Zandieh, M. (2000). A theoretical framework for analyzing student understanding of the concept of derivative. In E. Dubinsky, A. H. Schoenfeld, & J. Kaput (Eds.), Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education IV. (pp. 103-127). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.