Skip to main content
Log in

Differences between experts’ and students’ conceptual images of the mathematical structure of Taylor series convergence

  • Published:
Educational Studies in Mathematics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Taylor series convergence is a complicated mathematical structure which incorporates multiple concepts. Therefore, it can be very difficult for students to initially comprehend. How might students make sense of this structure? How might experts make sense of this structure? To answer these questions, an exploratory study was conducted using experts and students who responded to a variety of interview tasks related to Taylor series convergence. An initial analysis revealed that many patterns of their reasoning were based upon certain elements and actions performed on elements from the underlying mathematical structure of Taylor series. A corresponding framework was created to better identify these elements and how they were being used. Some of the elements included using particular values for the independent variable, working with terms, partial sums, sequences, and remainders. Experts and students both focused on particular elements of Taylor series, but the experts demonstrated the efficiency and effectiveness of their reasoning by evoking more conceptual images and more readily moving between images of different elements to best respond to the current task. Instead of moving between images as dictated by tasks, students might fixate on “surface level” features of Taylor series and fail to focus on more relevant features that would allow them to more appropriately engage the task. Furthermore, how experts used their images, supports the idea that they were guided by formal theory, whereas students were still attempting to construct their understanding.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alcock, L., & Simpson, A. (2004). Convergence of sequences and series: Interactions between visual reasoning and the learner’s beliefs about their own role. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 57(1), 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alcock, L., & Simpson, A. (2005). Convergence of sequences and series 2: Interactions between nonvisual reasoning and the learners beliefs about their own role. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 58(1), 77–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartle, R., & Sherbert, D. (2000). Introduction to real analysis (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bezuidenhout, J. (2001). Limits and continuity: Some conceptions of first-year students. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 32(4), 487–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breidenbach, D., Dubinsky, E., Hawkes, J., & Nichols, D. (1992). Development of the process conception of function. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23, 247–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burden, R., & Faires, J. (2005). Numerical analysis. Belmont: Thomson Books/Cole.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, M., & Bloom, I. (2005). The cyclic nature of problem solving: An emergent multidimensional problem-solving framework. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 58, 45–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M., Feltovich, P., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, R., & Vinner, S. (1986). The notion of limit: Some seemingly unavoidable misconception stages. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 5(3), 281–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman & P. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age (pp. 49–70). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrini-Mundy, J., & Graham, K. (1994). Research in calculus learning: Understanding of limits, derivatives, and integrals. In J. Kaput & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), Research issues in undergraduate mathematics learning: Preliminary analyses and results (pp. 29–45). Washington, DC: The Mathematical Association of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldin, G. (2000). A scientific perspective on structured, task-based interviews in mathematics education research. In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 517–545). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, E., & Tall, D. (1994). Duality, ambiguity, and flexibility: A “proceptual” view of simple arithmetic. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(2), 116–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hass, J., Weir, M., & Thomas, G. (2007). University calculus. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 65–97). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kidron, I. (2002). Concept definition, concept image, and the notion of infinite sum in old and new environments. In A. D. Cockburn & E. Nardi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 3 (pp. 209–216). Norwich, UK: University of East Anglia.

  • Kidron, I. (2004). Polynomial approximation of functions: Historical perspective and new tools. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 8, 299–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kidron, I., & Zehavi, N. (2002). The role of animation in teaching the limit concept. International Journal of Computer Algebra in Mathematics Education, 9(3), 205–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(9), 949–968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kung, D., & Speer, N. (2010). Do they really get it? Evaluating evidence of student understanding of power series. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University.

  • Larkin, J., McDermott, J., Simon, D., & Simon, H. (1980). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science, 208(4450), 1335–1342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lester, F. K., Jr. (1994). Musings about mathematical problem-solving research: 1970–1994. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(6), 660–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mamona-Downs, J. (2001). Letting the intuitive bear on the formal: A didactical approach for the understanding of the limit of a sequence. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 48(2/3), 259–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J., & Oehrtman, M. (2010). Strong metaphors for the concept of convergence of Taylor series. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University.

  • Monaghan, J. (1991). Problems with the language of limits. For the Learning of Mathematics, 11(3), 20–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oehrtman, M. (2009). Collapsing dimensions, physical limitations, and other student metaphors for limit concepts. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40(4), 396–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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), 1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sfard, A. (1992). Operational origins of mathematical objects and the quandary of reification-The case of function. In G. Harel & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), The concept of function: Aspects of Epistemology and Pedagogy MAA Notes (Vol. 25, pp. 59–84). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sfard, A. (2001). There is more to discourse than meets the ears: Looking at thinking as communicating to learn more about mathematical learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 46, 13–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sfard, A., & Linchevski, L. (1994). The gains and the pitfalls of reification: The case of algebra. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26(2/3), 191–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, J. (2008). Calculus (6th ed.). Belmont: Brooks/Cole.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tall, D., & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept definition in mathematics with particular reference to limits and continuity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12(2), 151–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, S. (1991). Models of limit held by college calculus students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(3), 219–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zandieh, M. (2000). A theoretical framework for analyzing student understanding of the concept of derivative. Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education IV, 8, 103–126.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank those who had valuable input during the data collection, analysis, and/or production of this article. Including Teri Jo Murphy, Michael Oehrtman, Donna Foss, Craig Swinyard, and everyone in the Calculus Research Group.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jason Martin.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOCX 120 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Martin, J. Differences between experts’ and students’ conceptual images of the mathematical structure of Taylor series convergence. Educ Stud Math 82, 267–283 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9425-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9425-7

Keywords

Navigation