 # Current Issue

Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics - Vol. 30 , No. 2

 [ Article ] Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics - Vol. 30, No. 1, pp.39-66 Abbreviation: JERM ISSN: 2288-7733 (Print) 2288-8357 (Online) Print publication date 28 Feb 2020 Received 10 Jan 2020 Revised 10 Feb 2020 Accepted 18 Feb 2020 DOI: https://doi.org/10.29275/jerm.2020.02.30.1.39 University Students’ Understanding of the Process-object Layers of Derivatives at a Point Through the Lens of Representational Fluency Lee, Jihyun* *Professor, Incheon National University, South Korea (jihyunlee@inu.ac.kr) Abstract

Representational fluency refers to the ability to easily and accurately interact with multiple representations of a concept. This study focused on a specific representation fluency about derivatives at a point: the ability to represent derivatives at a point algebraically, graphically, numerically, and verbally from the functions given by formulas, graphs, tables, and verbal descriptions. Thirty-four Korean university students participated in the representational fluency assessment consisting of 16 tasks, and their written responses were analyzed by using the qualitative content analysis method to explore their understanding of the process-object layers of derivatives at a point from their interactions with given representations of each task. The emergent students’ derivative conception categories indicate that a substantial portion of the students did not fully understand a derivative as a rate of change of a dependent variable with respect to an independent variable, and lacked understanding of the ratio, limit, and function process underlying the concept of the derivative. Students’ diverse responses to the representational fluency tasks and qualitative analysis of such tasks demonstrate what students’ interactions with the given multiple representations of derivatives involve and what possibilities multiple representations tasks have as a tool for assessing and facilitating students’ understanding of the complex concept structure of derivatives.

 Keywords: derivatives, multiple representations, representational fluency, process-object theory, a rate of change

References
 1. Acevedo Nistal, A., Van Dooren, W., Clarebout, G., Elen, J., & Verschaffel, L. (2010). Representational flexibility in linear-function problems: A choice/no-choice study. In L. Verschaffel, E. D. Corte, J. Elen, & T. D. Jong (Eds.), Use of representations in reasoning and problem solving: Analysis and improvement (pp. 84-103). UK: Routledge. 2. Adu‐Gyamfi, K., Stiff, L. V., & Bossé, M. J. (2012). Lost in translation: Examining translation errors associated with mathematical representations. School Science and Mathematics, 112(3), 159-170. 3. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183-198. 4. Amoah, V., & Laridon, P. (2004). Using multiple representations to assess students' understanding of the derivative concept. In O. McNamara (Ed.), Proceedings of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics, 24(1), 1-6. 5. Belding, D. F., & Mitchell, K. J. (2008). Foundations of analysis(2 ed.). New York: Dover publication. 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. 7. Byerley, C., Hatfield, N. J., & Thompson, P. W. (2012). Calculus student understandings of division and rate. Proceedings of the 15th annual conference on research in undergraduate mathematics education, 358-363. 8. Byerley, C., & Thompson, P. W. (2014). Secondary teachers’ relative size schemes. Proceedings of the 38th meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 2, 217-224. 9. Byerley, C., & Thompson, P. W. (2017). Secondary mathematics teachers’ meanings for measure, slope, and rate of change. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 48, 168-193. 10. Coe, E. (2007). Modeling teachers’ ways of thinking about rate of change. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University. 11. Cottrill, J., Dubinsky, E., Nichols, D., Schwingendorf, K., Thomas, K., & Vidakovic, D. (1996). Understanding the limit concept: Beginning with a coordinated process scheme. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15(2), 167-192. 12. DeCuir-Gunby, J. T., Marshall, P. L., & McCulloch, A. W. (2010). Developing and using a codebook for the analysis of interview data: An example from a professional development research project. Field Methods, 23(2), 136-155. 13. diSessa, A. A. (2004). Coordination and contextuality in conceptual change. In E. F. Redish & M. Vicentini (Eds.), Proceedings of the International School of Physics "Enrico Fermi": Research on physics education (pp. 137-156). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: ISO Press/Italian Physical Society. 14. Donaldson, M. (1963). A Study of Children's Thinking. London: Tavistock Publications. 15. Duval, R. (2006). A cognitive analysis of problems of comprehension in a learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61(1/2), 103-131. 16. Elia, I., Gagatsis, A., & Gras, R. (2005). Can we “trace” the phenomenon of compartmentalization by using the implicative statistical method of analysis? An application for the concept of function. Paper presented at the Third International Conference ASI-Analyse Statistique Implicative. 17. Elia, I., & Gagatsis, A. (2008). A comparison between the hierarchical clustering of variables, implicative statistical analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. In R. Gras, E. Suzuki, F. Guillet, & F. Spagnolo (Eds.), Studies in computational intelligence 127: Statistical implicative analysis (pp. 131-162). Heidelberg: Springer. 18. Elia, I., Panaoura, A., Eracleous, A., & Gagatsis, A. (2007). Relations between secondary pupils’ conceptions about functions and problem solving in different representations. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(3), 533-556. 19. Even, R. (1998). Factors involved in linking representations of functions. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17(1), 105-121. 20. Gerson, H. H. (2001). Making connections: Compartmentalization in pre-calculus students' understanding of functions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of New Hampshire. 21. Goerdt, S. L. (2007). The effect of emphasizing multiple representations on calculus students’ understanding of the derivative concept. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Minnesota. 22. Goldin, G. A., & Shteingold, N. (2001). Systems of representation and the development of mathematical concepts. In A. A. Cuoco & F. R. Curcio (Eds.), The roles of representation in school mathematics (pp. 1-23). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. 23. Grabiner, J. V. (1978). The origins of Cauchy's theory of the derivative. Historia Mathematica, 5(4), 379-409. 24. Grabiner, J. V. (1983). The changing concept of change: The derivative from Fermat to Weierstrass. Mathematics Magazine, 56(4), 195-206. 25. Grattan-Guinness, I., & Bos, H. J. (2000). From the calculus to set theory, 1630-1910: An introductory history. Princeton University Press. 26. Fredlund, T., Airey, J., &Linder, C. (2012). Exploring the role of physics representations: an illustrative example from students sharing knowledge about refraction. European Journal of Physics, 33(3), 657-666. 27. Janvier, C. (1987). Translation processes in mathematics education. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in mathematics learning and problem solving (pp. 27-31). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 28. Jones, S. R. (2017). An exploratory study on student understandings of derivatives in real-world, non-kinematics contexts. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 45, 95-110. 29. Jones, S. R. (2018). Students’ Application of Concavity and Inflection Points to Real-World Contexts. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(3), 523-544 30. Jones, S. R., & Watson, K. L. (2017). Recommendations for a “Target Understanding” of the Derivative Concept for First-Semester Calculus Teaching and Learning. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 4(2), 199-227 31. Kendal, M., & Stacey, K. (2003). Tracing learning of three representations with the differentiation competency framework. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 15(1), 22-41. 32. Knuth, E. J. (2000). Student understanding of the Cartesian connection: An exploratory study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(4), 500-507. 33. Lee, J.(2018). An Analysis of University Students’ Representational Fluency About the Derivative Concept. Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics, 28(4), 573-598. 34. Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. (2003). Foundations of a models and modeling perspective on mathematics teaching, learning, and problem solving. In R. Lesh & H. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism (pp. 3-34). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 35. Likwambe, B., & Christiansen, I. M. (2008). A case study of the development of in-service teachers’ concept images of the derivative. Pythagoras, 68, 22-31. 36. Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. United States of America: Sage Publication. 37. Newton, I. (1999). The Principia: Mathematical principles of natural philosophy (I. B. Cohen & A. Whitman, Trans.). Berkeley: University of California Press. 38. Santos, D., Gil, A., & Thomas, M. O. J. (2003). Representational ability and understanding of derivative. Paper presented at the PME Conference. 39. Schreier, M. (2014). Qualitative content analysis In U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 170-183). Great Britain: Sage Publication. 40. Sfard, A. (1991). On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: Reflections on processes and objects as different sides of the same coin. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22, 1-36. 41. Sfard, A., & Linchevski, L. (1994). The gains and the pitfalls of reification-the case of algebra. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26, 191-228. 42. Stacey, K., & Turner, R. (2014). Assessing mathematical literacy: The PISA experience. Heidelberg: Springer. 43. Sullivan, P. E. (1995). The effect of visual, numerical and algebraic representations on student's conceptual understanding of differential calculus. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Columbia University. 44. Superfine, A. C., Canty, R. S., & Marshall, A. M. (2009). Translation between external representation systems in mathematics: All-or-none or skill conglomerate? The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 28(4), 217-236. 45. Tyne, J. G. (2016). Calculus students' reasoning about slope and derivative as rates of change. Master thesis. University of Maine. 46. Romero, C. (2012). They must be mediocre: Representations, cognitive complexity, and problem solving in secondary calculus textbooks. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Texas A&M University. 47. Zandieh, M. (1997). The evolution of student understanding of the concept. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Oregon State University. 48. Zandieh, M. (2000). A theoretical framework for analyzing student understanding of the concept of derivative. CBMS Issues in Mathematics Education, 8, 103-127. 49. Zbiek, R. M., Heid, M. K., Blume, G. W., & Dick, T. P. (2007). Research on technology in mathematics education: A perspective of constructs. In J. F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 1169-1207). Charlotte, NC: NCTM and Information Age Publishing. 50. Zhang, J. (1997). The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cognitive Science, 21(2), 179-217. 