A study of common student practices for determining the domain and range of graphs

References

• Akkoç, H., & Tall, D. (2002). The simplicity, complexity and complication of the function concept. In A. D. Cockburn & E. Nardi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 25–32). Norwich, UK: PME.
   Google Scholar
• Blair, R. (2006). Beyond crossroads: Implementing mathematics standards in the first two years of college. Memphis, TN: American Mathematical Association of Two-Year Colleges.
   Google Scholar
• Breidenbach, D., Dubinsky, E., Hawks, J., & Nichols, D. (1992). Development of the process conception of function. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23, 247–285.
   Google Scholar
• Carlson, M., Jacobs, S., Coe, E., Larsen, S., & Hsu, E. (2002). Applying covariational reasoning while modeling dynamic events: A framework and a study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33, 278–352.
   Google Scholar
• Carlson, M., Persson, J., & Smith, N. (2003). Developing and connecting calculus students’ notions of rate-of-change and accumulation: The fundamental theorem of calculus. In N. Patemen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2003 Meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education—North America (Vol. 2, pp. 165–172). Honolulu, HI: PME-NA.
   Google Scholar
• Carlson, M. P. (1998). A cross-sectional investigation of the development of the function concept. Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education, III. Issues in Mathematics Education, 7, 115–162.
   Google Scholar
• Chiu, M., Kessel, C., Moschkovich, J., & Muñoz-Nuñez, A. (2001). Learning to graph linear functions: A case study of conceptual change. Cognition and Instruction, 19(2), 215–252.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho, P., & Moore-Russo, D. (2014). How students come to understand the domain and range for the graphs of functions. Mathamatyc Educator, 5(3), 32–37.
   Google Scholar
• Clement, L. (2001). What do students really know about functions. Mathematics Teacher, 94(9), 745–748.
   Google Scholar
• Confrey, J., & Smith, E. (1995). Splitting, covariation, and their role in the development of exponential functions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(1), 66–86.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooney, T., & Wilson, P. (1995). On the notion of secondary preservice teachers’ ways of knowing mathematics. In D. Owens, M. Reed, & G. Millsaps (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 91–96). Columbus, OH: PME-NA.
   Google Scholar
• Doorman, M., Drijvers, P., Gravemeijer, K., Boon, P., & Reed, H. (2012). Tool use and the development of the function concept: From repeated calculations to functional thinking. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(6), 1243–1267.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dorko, A., & Weber, E. (2014). Generalizing calculus ideas from two dimensions to three: How multivariable calculus students think about domain and range. Research in Mathematics Education, 16(3), 269–287.
   Google Scholar
• Dubinsky, E., & Wilson, R. (2013). High school students’ understanding of the function concept. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32, 83–101.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, B. (2007). A taxonomy for categorizing generalizations: Generalizing actions and reflection generalizations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(2), 221–262.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Falcade, R., Laborde, C., & Mariotti, A. (2007). Approaching functions: Cabri tools as instruments of semiotic mediation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66(3), 317–333.
   Google Scholar
• Kleiner, I. (2012). A brief history of the function concept. In I. Kleiner (Ed.), Excursions in the history of mathematics (pp. 103–124). New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, K. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60(1), 1–64.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lobato, J. (2003). How design experiments can inform a rethinking of transfer and vice versa. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 17–20.
   Google Scholar
• Markovits, Z., Eylon, S., & Bruckheimer, M. (1986). Functions today and yesterday. For the Learning of Mathematics, 6(2), 18–28.
   Google Scholar
• Meel, E. (1998). Honors students’ calculus understandings: Comparing calculus & mathematical and traditional calculus students. CBMS Issues in Mathematics Education, 7, 163–215.
   Google Scholar
• Monk, S. (1992). Students’ understanding of a function given by a physical model. In G. Harel & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), The concept of function: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy (pp. 175–193). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
   Google Scholar
• Moschkovich, N. (1999). Students’ use of the x-intercept as an instance of a transitional conception. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 37, 169–197.
   Google Scholar
• Nagle, C., Moore-Russo, D., Viglietti, J., & Martin, K. (2013). Calculus students’ and instructors’ conceptualizations of slope: A comparison across academic levels. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(6), 1491–1515.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
   Google Scholar
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
   Google Scholar
• Oehrtman, M., Carlson, M., & Thompson, P. (2008). Foundational reasoning abilities that promote coherence in students’ understandings of function. In M. Carlson & C. Rasmussen (Eds.), Making the connection: Research and practice in undergraduate mathematics (pp. 27–42). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
   Google Scholar
• Schwarz, B., Dreyfus, T., & Bruckheimer, M. (1990). A model of the function concept in a three-fold representation. Computers & Education, 14(3), 249–262.
   Web of Science ®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, 1–36.
   Google Scholar
• Sierpinska, A. (1992). On understanding the notion of function. In G. Harel & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), The concept of function: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy (pp. 25–28). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, J., diSessa, A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 115–163.
   Google Scholar
• Stevens, J. (2009). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (5th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Tall, D., & Bakar, M. (1992). Students’ mental prototypes for functions and graphs. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 23(1), 39–50.
   Google Scholar
• Tall, D., & DeMarois, P. (1996). Facets and layers of the function concept. In L. Puig & A. Guiterrez (Eds.), Proceedings of 20th Conference for the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 297–304). Valencia, Spain: PME.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, P. (1994). Students, functions, and the undergraduate curriculum. Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education, 1, 21–44.
   Google Scholar
• Vinner, S. (1983). Concept definition, concept image and the notion of function. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 14(3), 293–305.
   Google Scholar
• Vinner, S., & Dreyfus, T. (1989). Images and definitions for the concept of function. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(4), 356–366.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson, M. (1994). One pre-service secondary teacher’s understanding of function: The impact of a course integrating mathematical content and pedagogy. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(4), 346–370.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zandieh, M. (2000). A theoretical framework for analyzing student understanding of the concept of derivative. In E. Dubinsky, A. Schoenfeld, & J. Kaput (Eds.), Research in collegiate mathematics education IV (Vol. 8, pp. 103–126). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.
   Google Scholar