Relationship between Students’ Understanding of Functions in Cartesian and Polar Coordinate Systems

References

• Asiala, M., Brown, A., DeVries, D., Dubinsky, E., Mathews, D. & Thomas, K. (1996). A framework for research and curriculum development in undergraduate mathematics education. Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education II, 6, Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences: Issues in Mathematics Education, 1-32.
   Google Scholar
• Bakar, M. & Tall, D. (1991). Students’ mental prototypes for functions and graphs. Proceedings of the 15th annual meeting of the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Assisi, 104-111.
   Google Scholar
• Baker, B., Cooley, L. & Trigueros, M. (2000). The schema triad-A calculus example. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31, 557-578.
   Google Scholar
• Breidenbach, D., Dubinsky, Hawks, J. & Nichols, D. (1992). Development of the process conception of function. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23, 247-285.
   Google Scholar
• Bower, J. & Lobato, J. (2000, April). Three perspectives in research on functions: Multi-representational, quantitative, and phenomenological. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
   Google Scholar
• Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics: Vol. 19. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Carlson, M. (1998). A cross-sectional development of the function concept. In E. Dubinsky, A.H. Schoenfeld & J. Kaput (Eds.), Research in collegiate mathematics education (pp. 14-162). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.
   Google Scholar
• Carlson, M. & Oehrtman, M. (2005). Key aspects of knowing and learning the concept of function. MAA Online, retrieved on January 5, 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Christou, C., Elia, I., & Gagatsis, A. (2004). The nature of multiple representations in developing mathematical relationships. Quaderni di Ricerca in Didattica, 14, 150-159.
   Google Scholar
• Clement, L. (2001). What do students really know about functions? Mathematics Teacher, 94, 745.
   Google Scholar
• Confrey, F. & Smith, E. (1991). A frame work for functions: Prototypes, multiple representations and transformations. In R.G. Underhill (Ed.), Proceedings of the 13th annual meeting of the North American chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 57-63). Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
   Google Scholar
• Connally, E. & Hughes-Hallet, D. (1999). Functions modeling change. New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Cornu, B. (1992). Limits. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking, (pp. 153-166). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• DiBiase, J. & Eisenberg, M. (1995). Mental imagery in the teaching of functions. Sixteenth National Educational Computing Conference, 129-134, Baltimore.
   Google Scholar
• Dubinsky, E. & McDonald, M. (2001). APOS: A constructivist theory of learning in undergraduate mathematics education research. In D. Holton, M. Artigue, U. Kirchgräber, J. Hillel, M. Niss & A. Schoenfeld et al. (Eds.), The teaching and learning of mathematics at university level: An ICMI study (pp. 273-280). Kluwer, Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Dubinsky, E. & Harel, G. (1992). The nature of the process concept of function. In e. Dubinsky & G. Harel (Eds), The Concept of Function: Aspects of Epistemology and Pedagogy (pp. 85-106). MAA Notes, 25, Mathematical Association of America.
   Google Scholar
• Ferrini-Mundy, J. & Graham, K. (1990). Functions and their representations. Mathematics Teacher, 83, 209-216.
   Google Scholar
• Goldin, R. (1998). Knowledge digraph contribution analysis of protocol data. Discourse Processes, 25, 179-210.
   Google Scholar
• Janvier, C. (1987). Representation and understanding: The notion of functions as an example. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 67-72). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Larson, R., Hostetler, B. & Edwards, B. (2001). Calculus of a single variable: Early transcendental functions. USA: Houghton Mifflin.
   Google Scholar
• Lial, M., Hornsby, J. & Schneider, D. (2005). Precalculus. Boston: Pearson & Addison-Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Salas, S., Hille, E. & Etgen, G. (2003). Calculus one and several variables. USA: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Schwarz, 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, 362-389.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sierpinska, A. (1992). On understanding the notion of function. In E. Dubinsky & G. Harel (Eds.), The concept of function: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy (pp. 25-58). USA: Mathematical Association of America.
   Google Scholar
• Stewart, J. (2004). Calculus. USA: Thomson/Cole.
   Google Scholar
• Tall, D. & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept images and concept definition in mathematics with particular references to limits and continuity, Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22(1), 1-36.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, P. (1994). Students, functions and the undergraduate curriculum. In E. Dubinsky, A.H. Schoenfeld & J. Kaput (Eds.), Research in collegiate mathematics education (pp. 14-162) Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.
   Google Scholar
• Vidakovic, D. (1996). Learning the concept of inverse function. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 15, 295-381.
   Google Scholar
• Vinner, S. (1983). Concept definition, concept image and the notion of function. The International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 14, 293-305.
   Google Scholar
• Yerushalmy, M. (1997). Designing representations; Reasoning about functions of two variables. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 431-466.
   Google Scholar