Abstract
Many mathematical concepts may have prototypical images associated with them. While prototypes can be beneficial for efficient thinking or reasoning, they may also have self-attributes that may impact reasoning about the concept. It is essential that mathematics educators understand these prototype images in order to fully recognize their benefits and limitations. In this paper, I examine prototypes in a context in which they seem to play an important role: graphical representations of the calculus concept of the definite integral. I use student data to empirically describe the makeup of the definite integral prototype image, and I report on the frequency of its appearance among student, instructor, and textbook image data. I end by discussing the possible benefits and drawbacks of this particular prototype, as well as what the results of this study may say about prototypes more generally.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alcock, L., & Simpson, A. (2002). Definitions: Dealing with categories mathematically. For the Learning of Mathematics, 22(2), 28–34.
Aspinwall, L., Shaw, K. L., & Presmeg, N. C. (1997). Uncontrollable mental imagery: Graphical connections between a function and its derivative. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 33(3), 301–317.
Bezuidenhout, J., & Olivier, A. (2000). Students' conceptions of the integral. In T. Nakahara & M. Koyama (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of mathematics education. IGPME: Hiroshima.
Briggs, W., Cochran, L., & Gillett, B. (2015). Calculus: Early transcendentals (2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Carlson, M. P. (1999). The mathematical behavior of six successful mathematics graduate students: Influences leading to mathematical success. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 40(3), 237–258.
Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., & DiBiase, A. M. (Eds.). (2004). Engaging young children in mathematics: Standards for early childhood mathematics education. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cuoco, A., & Curcio, F. (Eds.). (2001). The roles of representation in school mathematics: 2001 NCTM yearbook. Reston: NCTM.
Haciomeroglu, E. S., Aspinwall, L., & Presmeg, N. C. (2010). Contrasting cases of calculus students' understanding of derivative graphs. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 12(2), 152–176.
Hershkowitz, R. (1989). Visualization in geometry -- two sides of the coin. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 11(1–2), 61–76.
Jones, S. R. (2013). Understanding the integral: Students' symbolic forms. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32(2), 122–141.
Jones, S. R. (2015a). Areas, anti-derivatives, and adding up pieces: Integrals in pure mathematics and applied contexts. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 38, 9–28.
Jones, S. R. (2015b). The prevalence of area-under-a-curve and anti-derivative conceptions over Riemann-sum based conceptions in students' explanations of definite integrals. International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science and Technology, 46(5), 721–736.
Jones, S. R., & Dorko, A. (2015). Students' understandings of multivariate integrals and how they may be generalized from single integral conceptions. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 40(B), 154–170.
Jones, S. R., Lim, Y., & Chandler, K. R. (2017). Teaching integration: How certain instructional moves may undermine the potential conceptual value of the Riemann sum and the Riemann integral. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(6), 1075–1095.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1999). Cognitive models and prototype theory. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), Concepts: Core readings (pp. 391–421). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Robitaille, D. F., & Foy, P. (2009). TIMSS advanced 2008 international report: Findings from IEA's study of achievement in advanced mathematics and physics in the final year of secondary school. Chestnut Hill: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
Presmeg, N. C. (1986). Visualisation in high school mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 6(3), 42–46.
Presmeg, N. C. (1992). Prototypes, metaphors, metonymies and imaginative rationality in high school mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23(6), 595–610.
Romberg, T. A., Fennema, E., & Carpenter, T. P. (Eds.). (1993). Integrating research on the graphical representation of functions. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rosch, E. H. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 328–350.
Rosch, E. H. (1978/1999). Principles of categorization. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), Concepts: Core readings (pp. 189–206). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Rosch, E. H., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblance: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605.
Schwarz, B. B., & Hershkowitz, R. (1999). Prototypes: Brakes or levers in learning the function concept? The role of computer tools. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(4), 362–389.
Sealey, V. (2014). A framework for characterizing student understanding of Riemann sums and definite integrals. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 33(1), 230–245.
Simmons, C., & Oehrtman, M. (2017). Beyond the product structure for definite integrals Proceedings of the 20th special interest group of the Mathematical Association of America on research in undergraduate mathematics education. San Diego: SIGMAA on RUME.
Stewart, J. (2015). Calculus: Early transcendentals (8th ed.). Boston: Cengage Learning.
Tall, D. O. (1991). Intuition and rigor: The role of visualization in the calculus. In W. Zimmermann & S. Cunningham (Eds.), Visualization in teaching and learning mathematics (pp. 105–120). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
Tall, D. O., & Bakar, M. (1992). Students' mental prototypes for functions and graphs. International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science and Technology, 23(1), 39–50.
Thomas, G. B., Weir, M. D., & Hass, J. (2009). Thomas' calculus (12th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Weber, K. (2008). How mathematicians determine if an argument is a valid proof. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4), 431–459.
Yerushalmy, M., & Shternberg, B. (2001). Charting a visual course to the concept of function. In A. Cuoco & F. Curcio (Eds.), The roles of representations in school mathematics: 2001 NCTM yearbook (pp. 251–268). Reston: NCTM.
Zill, D. G., & Wright, W. S. (2011). Calculus: Early transcendentals (4th ed.). Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Zimmermann, W., & Cunningham, S. (Eds.). (1991). Visualization in teaching and learning mathematics. Washington DC: Mathematical Association of America.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1: Interview items
The interview data used for this study came from two sets of interviews and the following are the prompts used as sources of the image data for this report.
Interview 1: Ten students received all of the following prompts, and three students received only prompts #4, 5, and 6.
-
1.
Let’s look at this general expression, \( {\int}_a^bf(x) dx \), without any specific numbers or functions. What does this mean? What does it represent? Please explain as much as you can.
-
2.
Let’s say you had a friend in your calculus class who had been sick for the last week or so and missed everything your class learned about integrals. Now they really need you to help them understand what they are. How would you explain integrals to them? What would you say an integral means?
-
3.
Let’s say you enrolled in a physics class next semester and your professor wanted to test everybody to see if you understood what integrals are. Suppose your professor gave you a short quiz that asked, “Write down everything you can think of about what an integral is and what it does.” What would you write for your response?
-
4.
In class you’ve probably seen both ∫f(x)dx and \( {\int}_a^bf(x) dx \). Is there any difference between these two? If so, are they basically the same thing, or are they totally different from each other?
-
5.
What do you think is the most important way to understand the integral \( {\int}_a^bf(x) dx \)?
-
6.
You’ve learned about “Riemann sums” in your calculus class. Could you explain what a Riemann sum is? In your opinion, are they useful, or just something you do in a math class?
-
7.
From physics, Mass = Density × Volume. If a box has varying density (that is, it’s not the same throughout the box), we would use an integral to calculate it: M = ∫ Box D dV. Why does this integral end up calculating the total mass of the box?
-
8.
From physics, we have Force = Pressure × Area. If the pressure exerted on a surface, S, is not the same at every point, we usually use an integral to calculate it: F = ∫ S P dA. Why does this integral end up calculating the total force on the surface?
Interview 2: Ten students received all prompts, with no overlap with “Interview 1” students.
-
1.
What does \( {\int}_a^bf(x) dx \) mean?
-
2.
Are there other way you can interpret it or think about?
-
3.
What does dx mean? What does it have to do with the integral?
-
4.
[This interview also examined other types of integrals, including multivariate and line integrals. If a student, in the course of these prompts, returned to discuss single-variable integrals, that particular portion of the interview was also included.]
Appendix 2: Survey items
This survey was administered to 205 students.
-
1.
Explain in detail what \( {\int}_a^bf(x) dx \) means. If you think of more than one way to describe it, please describe it in multiple ways. Please use words, or draw pictures, or write formulas, or anything else you want to explain what it means.
-
2.
From physics, Force = Pressure × Area. If the pressure on a surface, S, is not the same at every point, we use an integral to calculate it: F = ∫ S P dA. Why does this integral actually calculate the total force on the surface?
-
3.
Why does an integral need a “dx” on it? For example, why can’t it just be \( {\int}_0^1{x}^3 \) instead of \( {\int}_0^1{x}^3 dx \)? Explain in as much detail as you can.
-
4.
From physics, Mass = Density × Volume. If an object, S, has varying density (i.e. it’s not constant throughout the object), we use an integral to calculate it: M = ∫ S D dV. Why does this integral actually calculate the total mass of the object?
Appendix 3: Definitions of each code within the coding scheme
This table provides complete definitions for each code used in the coding scheme (see Table 1).
Codes | Definition of code |
1a. Linear function | A graph consisting of a single straight line. |
1b. Conic function (parabola or circle section) | A graph that visually appears to be a parabola or portion of a circle, even if no explicit function expression is provided. |
1c. Other type of function | Any graph not coded into linear or conic. |
2a. Continuous and smooth | A graph that appears continuous, with no apparent cusps. |
2b. Continuous with cusp | A graph that appears continuous, but with at least one cusp. |
2c. Discontinuous | A graph that has any one of a hole, jump, or asymptote. |
3a. Positive only | A graph that is only strictly above the horizontal axis. |
3b. Positive and 0 | A graph that is above AND touching the horizontal axis. |
3c. Negative only | A graph that is strictly below the horizontal axis. |
3d. Negative and 0 | A graph that is below AND touching the horizontal axis. |
3e. Positive and negative | A graph that is both above AND below the horizontal axis. |
4a. No steep slopes | A graph such that for all slopes, |slope| < 2. |
4b. Steep slopes only | A graph such that for all slopes, |slope| ≥ 2. |
4c. Both steep and non-steep | A graph with slopes, in magnitude, both above and below 2. |
5a. Increasing | A non-decreasing graph with at least some portion that is strictly increasing. |
5b. Decreasing | A non-increasing graph with at least some portion that is strictly decreasing. |
5c. Pure horizontal | The graph of a horizontal line, with no increase or decrease. |
5d. Both increasing and decreasing | A graph with at least one strictly increasing portion and one strictly decreasing portion. |
6a. Straight lines only | A graph containing no curvature, but that is a straight line, or collection of line segments. |
6b. Concave up only | A graph containing curvature, which is only concave up. |
6c. Concave down only | A graph containing curvature, which is only concave down. |
6d. Both concave up and down | A graph containing both a concave up portion and a concave down portion. |
7a. 0 < a < b | The domain is completely to the right of the vertical axis. |
7b. 0 = a < b | The domain begins at the vertical axis. |
7c. a < b < 0 | The domain is completely to the left of the vertical axis. |
7d. a < b = 0 | The domain ends at the vertical axis. |
7e. a < 0 < b | The domain begins to the left and ends to the right of the vertical axis. |
7 f. a = b | The domain consists only of a single point. |
7 g. b < a | Any case in which the upper limit is less than the lower limit. |
8a. Little variation from average | The graph has no large peaks or valleys, nor long inclines nor declines. |
8b. Significant deviation from average | The graph contains at least one large peak, large valley, long incline, or long decline. |
9a. Closed boundary | Vertical lines (solid or dashed) are used at a and b to create a closed shape with the graph and horizontal axis. |
9b. Open boundary | No vertical lines are used at a and b, making the shape implied, but not physically closed. |
Appendix 4: Textbook image counts
The following table lists each of the 126 textbook images, by page number, that were matches for all nine characteristics of the prototype.
Book | “Prototype” images | Images NOT counted as prototype | Images not included in data set |
Stewart (2015) | 366, 369, 370, 370, 370, 370, 370, 371, 379, 379, 387, 392, 393, 394 | 366, 366, 366, 367, 367, 367, 368, 369, 369, 369, 369, 369, 369, 371, 373, 373, 374, 379, 379, 382, 382, 383, 383, 384, 384, 385, 385, 386, 386, 387, 388, 392, 393, 393, 393, 393, 393, 398, 405, 407, 408, 417, 418, 418 | 366, 366, 366, 393, 395, 395, 404, 415 |
Briggs et al. (2015) | 336, 337, 337, 337, 337, 352, 352, 352, 355, 355, 356, 356, 356, 362, 365, 365, 365, 371, 371, 371 | 334, 335, 335, 335, 335, 338, 338, 339, 341, 348, 349, 349, 349, 349, 350, 350, 350, 350, 352, 353, 353, 353, 354, 354, 356, 356, 362, 362, 362, 363, 363, 364, 367, 367, 368, 368, 369, 370, 370, 370, 370, 370, 377, 377, 379, 380, 390, 390 | 334, 353, 362, 364, 364, 370, 370, 379, 381 |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jones, S.R. Prototype images in mathematics education: the case of the graphical representation of the definite integral. Educ Stud Math 97, 215–234 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-017-9794-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-017-9794-z