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.
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.
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.
Bartle, R., & Sherbert, D. (2000). Introduction to real analysis (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
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.
Breidenbach, D., Dubinsky, E., Hawkes, J., & Nichols, D. (1992). Development of the process conception of function. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23, 247–285.
Burden, R., & Faires, J. (2005). Numerical analysis. Belmont: Thomson Books/Cole.
Carlson, M., & Bloom, I. (2005). The cyclic nature of problem solving: An emergent multidimensional problem-solving framework. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 58, 45–75.
Chi, M., Feltovich, P., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121–152.
Davis, R., & Vinner, S. (1986). The notion of limit: Some seemingly unavoidable misconception stages. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 5(3), 281–303.
diSessa, A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman & P. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age (pp. 49–70). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
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.
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.
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.
Hass, J., Weir, M., & Thomas, G. (2007). University calculus. Cambridge: MIT Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lester, F. K., Jr. (1994). Musings about mathematical problem-solving research: 1970–1994. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(6), 660–675.
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.
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.
Oehrtman, M. (2009). Collapsing dimensions, physical limitations, and other student metaphors for limit concepts. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40(4), 396–426.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Stewart, J. (2008). Calculus (6th ed.). Belmont: Brooks/Cole.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
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.
Williams, S. (1991). Models of limit held by college calculus students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(3), 219–236.
Zandieh, M. (2000). A theoretical framework for analyzing student understanding of the concept of derivative. Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education IV, 8, 103–126.
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
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
ESM 1
(DOCX 120 kb)
Rights 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
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9425-7