Layers of abstraction: Theory and design for the instruction of limit concepts

Making the Connection: Research and Teaching in Undergraduate Mathematics Education

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 65-80

  Oehrtman, Michael ^a  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84928359408     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.5948/UPO9780883859759.007     Document Type: Chapter

References (27)

1. Artigue, M. (1991). Analysis. In D. Tall (Ed.) Advanced mathematical thinking. Boston: Kluwer, 167–198.
2. 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.
3. Davis, R. (1986). Calculus at university high school. In Douglas, R.G. (Ed.). Toward a lean and lively calculus. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
4. Frid, S. (1994). Three approaches to undergraduate calculus instruction: Their nature and potential impact on students’ language use and sources of conviction. Research in College Mathematics Education I, Conference Board of the Mathematical Society, Issues in Mathematics Education, Volume 4, American Mathematical Society, 69–100.
5. Jacobs, S., Larsen, S., & Oehrtman, M. (2003). Taking command of the limit concept, Presentation at the 29th Annual Conference of the American Mathematical Association of Two-Year Colleges, Salt Lake City, UT.
6. Monk, G. (1987). Students’ understanding of functions in calculus courses. Unpublished manuscript, University of Washington, Seattle.
7. Monk, G. (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, Volume 25. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
8. Oehrtman, M. (2002). Collapsing dimensions, physical limitation, and other student metaphors for limit concepts: An instrumentalist investigation into calculus students’ spontaneous reasoning, Doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas, Austin, TX.
9. Oehrtman, M. (2003) Strong and weak metaphors for limits. In N. Pateman, B. Dougherty & J. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-seventh Annual Meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii, (3) 397–404.
10. Oehrtman, M. (2004) Approximation as a foundation for understanding limit concepts. In D. McDougall, & J. Ross (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-six annual meeting of the North American chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Toronto: University of Toronto, (1) 95–102.
11. Piaget, J. (1970a). Genetic epistemology. (E. Duckworth, Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press.
12. Piaget, J. (1970b). Structuralism. (C. Maschler, Trans.). New York: Basic Books, Inc.
13. Piaget, J. (1975). Piaget’s theory. In P. B. Neubauer (Ed.), The process of child development.
14. Piaget, J (1980). Adaptation and intelligence. (S. Eanes, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15. Piaget, J (1985). The equilibration of cognitive structures. (T. Brown & K. J. Thampy, Trans.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
16. Piaget, J (1997). The principles of genetic epistemology. (W. Mayes, Trans.). New York: Routledge.
17. Rodi, S. (1986). Some systemic weaknesses and the place of intuition and applications in calculus instruction. In R.G. Douglas (Ed.). Toward a lean and lively calculus. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
18. Sealey, V. & Oehrtman, M. (2005). Student understanding of accumulation and Riemann sums. In G. M. Lloyd, M. R. Wilson, J. L. M. Wilkins, & S. L. Behm (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education [CD-ROM]. Eugene, OR: All Academic.
19. Tall, D. (1986). Graphic calculus. London: Glentop Press.
20. Tall, D. (1990). Inconsistencies in the learning of calculus and analysis. Focus on learning problems in mathematics, 12, 49–62.
21. Tall, D. (1992). The transition to advanced mathematical thinking: Functions, limits, infinity, and proof. In Grouws, D. (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 495–511). New York: Macmillan.
22. Tall, D. & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept definition in mathematics with particular reference to limits and continuity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12, 151–169.
23. Thompson, P. (1994). Images of rate and operational understanding of the fundamental theorem of calculus. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26, 229–274.
24. Tucker, T. (Chair), (1986). Calculus syllabi: Report of the content workshop. In R. G. Douglas (Ed.), Toward a lean and lively calculus (pp. vii–xiv). Washington, DC: The Mathematical Association of America.
25. Tucker, A.C. & Leitzel, J.R. (Eds.). (1995). Assessing calculus reform efforts: A report to the community. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
26. Vygotsky, L. (1987). The development of scientific concepts in childhood. In R. W. Rieber and A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Vol. 1, 167–241.
27. Williams, S. (1991). Models of limit held by college calculus students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 219–236.