The Use of Digital Tools to Confront Errors During Advanced Calculus Learning: The Case of the Inflection Point

  • Regina Ovodenko
  • Anatoli KouropatovEmail author


In this paper we will show ways of confronting typical errors related to the concept of the inflection point using digital tools (e.g., video, Geogebra applets, interactive questionnaires, etc.). We will demonstrate how a specific digital tool can be used to design a teaching unit that allows teachers to confront errors. The teaching unit includes the tool itself, the investigative assignment based on the tool, and a variety of other assignments. In addition, we will discuss how this approach can be useful for confronting errors related to other concepts.


Digital tool Confronting errors Calculus Inflection point 

Mathematics Subject Classification

97D40 97D70 97D80 97I40 97U99 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Lagrange, J.B., Artigue, M., Laborde, C., Trouche, L.: Technology and mathematics education: a multidimensional study of the evolution of research and innovation. In: Bishop, A.J., Clements, M.A., Keitel, C., Kilpatrick, J., Leung, F.K.S. (eds.) Second International Handbook of Mathematics Education, pp. 239–271. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Borasi, R.: Exploring mathematics through the analysis of errors. Learn. Math. 7, 1–8 (1987)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Drijvers, P., Doorman, M., Boon, P., Reed, H., Gravemeijer, K.: The teacher and the tool: instrumental orchestrations in the technology-rich mathematics classroom. Educ. Stud. Math. 75, 213–234 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hoyles, C.: Solid findings in mathematics education: the influence of the use of digital technology on the teaching and learned of mathematics in schools. Newsletter of the European Mathematics Society. 91, 49–52. EMS, Zurich, Switzerland (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Naftaliev, E., Yerushalmy, M.: Solving algebra problems with interactive diagrams: demonstration and construction of examples. J. Math. Behav. 30(1), 48–61 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yerushalmy, M.: Functions of interactive visual representations in interactive mathematical textbooks. Int. J. Comput. Math. Learn. 10(3), 217–249 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    National Council of Teachers of Mathematics: Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. NCTM, Reston, Virginia (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Naftaliev, E.: Interactive Diagrams: Mathematical Engagement with Interactive Text. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Haifa, Israel (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Samovol, P., Applebaum, M.: Find the mistake. J. Math. Teach. 30, 45–48 (2003). (In Hebrew)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shulman, L.S.: Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educ. Res. 15, 4–14 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tsamir, P., Barkai, R.: The use of errors in teaching mathematics: theory and practice. Ramot, Tel Aviv (2005). (In Hebrew)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Borasi, R.: Using errors as springboards for the learning of mathematics. Focus Learn. Probl. Math. 7(3–4), 1–14 (1985)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Borasi, R.: Capitalizing on errors as springboards for inquiry: a teaching experiment. J. Res. Math. Educ. 25, 166–208 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Akkoç, H., Tall, D.O.: The simplicity, complexity and complication of the function concept. In: Cockburn, A.D., Nardi, E.(eds.) Proceedings of the 26th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 2, 25–32. PME, Norwich, UK (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Carlson, M.: A cross-sectional investigation of the development of the function concept. In: Dubinsky, E., Shoenfeld, A.H., Kaput, J.J. (eds.), Issues in Mathematics Education, 7, 115–162. CBMS (1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vinner, S.: Concept definition, concept image and the notion of function. Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol. 14, 293–305 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Juter, K.: Limits of functions—university students’ concept development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Luleå University of Technology, Sweden (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Przenioslo, M.: Images of the limit of function formed in the course of mathematical studies at the university. Educ. Stud. Math. 55, 103–132 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bezuidenhout, J.: Limits and continuity: some conceptions of first-year students. Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol. 32, 487–500 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Raman, M.: Coordinating informal and formal aspects of mathematics: student behavior and textbook messages. J. Math. Behav. 21, 135–150 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Viholainen, A.: Incoherence of a concept image and erroneous conclusions in the case of differentiability. Mont. Math. Enthus. 5(2/3), 31–248 (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Biza, I., Zachariades, T.: First year mathematics undergraduates’ settled images of tangent line. J. Math. Behav. 29, 218–229 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tall, D.: Constructing the concept image of a tangent. In: Bergeron, J., Herscovics, N., Kieran, C. (eds.) Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 3, 69–75. PME, Montreal, Canada (1987)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vinner, S.: Conflicts between definitions and intuitions—the case of the tangent. In: Vermandel, A. (ed.) Proceedings of the 6th International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematical Education, pp. 24–29. PME, Antwerp, Belgium (1982)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tsamir, P., Ovodenko, R.: Prospective teachers’ images and definitions: The case of inflection points. In: Hoines, M.J., Fuglestad, A.B. (eds.) Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematical Education, 4, 337–344. PME, Bergen, Norway (2004)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tall, D., Vinner, S.: Concept image and concept definition in mathematics with particular reference to limits and continuity. Educ. Stud. Math. 12, 151–169 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Moore, R.C.: Making the transition to formal proof. Educ. Stud. Math. 27, 249–266 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Orhun, N.: Graphical understanding in mathematics education: derivative functions and students’ difficulties. Proc.-Soc. Behav. Sci. 55, 679–684 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ovodenko, R., Tsamir, P.: Possible causes of failure when handling the notion of inflection point. In: Proceedings of the 4th Colloquium on the Didactics of Mathematics, pp. 77–89. Crete, Greece (2005)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tsamir, P., Ovodenko, R.: University students’ grasp of inflection points. Educ. Stud. Math. 83, 409–427 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ovodenko, R.: Students’ Images and Definitions of Extrema and Inflection Points. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Tel-Aviv University (2016)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Eisenberg, T., Dreyfus, T.: On the reluctance to visualize in mathematics. In: Zimmermann, W., Cunningham, S. (eds.) Visualization in Teaching and Learning Mathematics. 19, 25–37. MAA Notes Series, Providence, RI (1991)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ovodenko, R., Tsamir, P.: To be or not to be an inflection point. In: Dooley, T., Guedet, G. (eds.) Proceedings of the 10th Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education, in preparations. DCU Institute of Education and ERME, Dublin, Ireland (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Educational TechnologyTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations