STUDENTS CONCEPTIONS OF FUNCTIONS

AT THE TRANSITION BETWEEN SECONDARY

SCHOOL AND UNIVERSITY
Fabrice Vandebrouck
Universit Paris-Diderot, Laboratoire de Didactique Andr Revuz
In this paper, we would like to stress the importance for students entering at
university to deal with points of view on functions. We hope that this distinction
enriches the process / object duality and the way of thinking the passage from the
conceptual embodied world to the formal axiomatic one. Through a typical task of
the transition between secondary school and university, we pointed out the difficulties
for students to solve tasks when algebraic techniques are not sufficient.
Key words: mathematics, functions, university students, concept image, point of view
In this article we want to investigate one problem that arises in the transition between
secondary school and university concerning the field of functions. This area has been
extensively studied for several decades but the context of the teaching situation,
always changing, justifies that the interest is continuously renewed.

SPECIFICITIES OF THE TRANSITION BETWEEN SECONDARY SCHOOL

AND UNIVERSITY
Many studies have already indicated the characteristics of this transition (Artigue
1991, 2007), (Gueudet, 2008). From an institutional perspective, many macro breaks
can be identified: a shift from a course with one teacher to lectures in amphitheatre
and tutorials, acceleration of teaching time with a rapid turnover of objects and
lessons with faster time of assimilation, shorter presence of teachers, lake of classical
problems from secondary school, wider range of tasks that makes their internalization
much more difficult than in secondary school, the latter being delegated to personal
work of students, who must therefore be more autonomous in their learning.
Robert (1998) also noted a distribution between the types of mathematical notions
which is different from secondary school to university, especially the emergence at
university level of new mathematical notions carrying a high level of formalism and
generalization. She also pointed out the differences in the level and the nature of tasks
(necessity of available knowledge, necessity of flexibility in this knowledge, for
instance use of different settings and representation systems, new requirements in
term of proofs at the university level).

THE COMPLEX NOTION OF FUNCTION

The notion of function is at the intersection of several mathematical fields (real
numbers, limits, algebra, etc), appears in many frames (Douady 1986) and requires
the consideration of several representation systems (graphical, algebraic, symbolic
etc) (Duval 1991). Functions are therefore complex objects which are still being
learnt when students enter university.
The teaching and learning of functions has been studied through many different
theories: Tall and Vinner (1981) introduce the distinction between concept image and
concept definition, the concept image being generally at variance with the concept
definition, especially for functions. According to Bachelard (1938), Sierpinska (1992)
use the notion of epistemological obstacles regarding some properties of functions
and especially the concept of limit. Another approach is based on the processes /
object duality (Dubinsky 1991): the conceptualization begins with actions on
previously constructed mental or physical objects, then actions are interiorized to
form processes that are then encapsulated to form objects. Sfard (1991) also claims
that the abstract concepts can be conceived of two different forms: structurally, as
objects and operationally, as processes, the two views being complementary. Tall
(1996) also add the perspective of procept, an amalgam of two components: a process
that produces an mathematical object and a symbol that represents at the same time
the process and the object. With respect to functions, algebraic or graphical
representations are procepts which can both be handled as processes and as objects.
Finally, Tall (2004) characterizes the evolution of three worlds of mathematics under
a perspective that shows the cognitive growth of the mathematical thinking, from a
conceptual-embodied world to a proceptual-symbolic world and then to a formal-
axiomatic world.
As regard the teaching of functions, we claim that the transition between secondary
school and university can be interpreted, in some sense, as a way to move from the
conceptual-embodied world to the formal axiomatic one, embedding a higher level of
conceptualization of the notions related to the domain of analysis: indeed, the
beginning of the teaching at the university level corresponds to a displacement from
functional thinking to set-theoretical thinking, a balancing from most of functions
utilizations as processes to utilizations as objects, a high degree of formalisation and a
balancing in the utilization of procepts, especially the use of graphical representations
moves from an objects role to a tool for supporting formalizations and proofs.
On the other hand, Balacheff and Gaudin (2002) find two types of concept image
(they speak about conceptions) among pairs of students who finish secondary school:
a concept image curve algebraic for which functions are primarily special cases
of plane curves, those having a specific algebraic form and a concept image
algebraic graphic for which a function is first an algebraic formula, the associated
graph coming after. It seems that average students fall into the second categorization.
They are unable to exploit functions which are not given in algebraic forms.
Moreover, these students cannot easily shift from the algebraic representation system
to another and Copp et al. (2007) stress that the current practice of teaching in
secondary schools (in France) seems to reinforce the idea that a function is only an
object belonging to the algebraic frame.
THREE POINTS OF VIEW ON THE OBJECT FUNCTION
To complete and to investigate more students concepts image about functions, we
consider the notion of points of view (Rogalski, 2008). More precisely, we claim that,
in the case of function, different points of view can be adopted on the objects: a
point-wise point of view, a global point of view and a local point of view. This
distinction enriches the different levels of conceptualization introduced above.
Indeed, the balance form conceptual embodied world to the formal axiomatic one is
accompanied by the development of local properties about functions: limit,
continuity, derivability, equivalent expressions, Taylor s local expansions near some
points which are the basic notions of calculus. We claim that working at university
level on functions implies that students can adopt a local point of view on functions
whereas only the point-wise and global points of view are constructed at the
secondary school. In this paper, we would like to explain difficulties of students
entered at university by their difficulties to adopt point-wise and global points of
view on functions. These difficulties appear when they are asked to solve tasks where
techniques of the algebraic frame are not sufficient. Let us recall what we understand
with this notion of point of view.
In the first point of view, functions are considered as correspondences between two
sets of numbers, an element of the first set being associated with a unique element of
the second set. This point-wise point of view is in accordance with the definition of
functions given in textbooks at grade 9 in France, four years before the beginning of
university. At this level, functions are represented by arithmetic formulas that operate
as a program for calculation, such as calculus programming. A table of values is also
a good representation of a function from this point of view, especially for pupils who
consider only integers on the real line.
The second point of view is the global one, necessary to understand the notion of
variation and to interpret properties such as parity or periodicity. As pointed out by
Copp et al. (2007), the table of variation is a good representation of a function from
this global point of view whereas the algebraic expression or the graphical
representation of a function can exploit and can be exploited with a point-wise point
of view as well as a global point of view.
While the point-wise point of view seems relatively closed to the process level on
functions, we assume that reaching the object level is not the only challenge of the
secondary school. In fact, we assume that students must be able to adopt different
points of view on functions and have to articulate point-wise and global points of
view on functions to overcome all the obstacles which come with local notions at the
beginning of the university: structure of the real line, notion of equality between two
real numbers... For instance, the use of procepts should allow easy connections
between points of view. However, a large algebraisation of tasks at the end of the
secondary school tends to erase the point-wise and global point of view which can be
adopted on functions and it doesnt permit to reach the local point of view, even if the
notions of limit, continuity and derivability are introduced in an algebraic way at the
end of secondary school.

A TEST TO TRACK ABILITIES FOR ADOPTING POINTS OF VIEW

As we would like to stress the difficulties for students to adopt point-wise and global
points of view on functions, we designed a task for which techniques of the algebraic
frame were not sufficient to solve the task. More precisely, this task was dealing with
the function G below, defined by an integral:

In secondary school, as well as in the beginning of the university, integrals are

defined by areas under curves of functions, that is to say the approach via definite
integrals. However, in the two institutions, the link between integrals of continuous
functions and primitive is made quickly and students work mostly in the algebraic
frame. For this link, the so called fundamental theorem of calculus is usually proved
by the teacher, when the function to integrate is continuous, positive and strictly
growing.
We decided to investigate this function G because in the two institutions its study is
very close to well known tasks and its level of difficulty is accessible for both
students of secondary school and students of university. Indeed, even if this kind of
function G is not usual in their previous curriculum, students of the both institutions
have already made tasks concerning indefinite integrals over intervals of the form [a,
x] or [a, (x)] ( being a linear function) at the moment of the experimentation.
Moreover, questions about global and point-wise properties of G according to
properties of f are more interesting with this kind of integral (between x-1 and x+1),
as we will see below.
The experimentation was dealing with one group of students from secondary school
(15 students) and one group of students form university level (109 students from
University Paris Diderot). The precise statements proposed to students were chosen
by their own teachers (from one side in a secondary school and on the other side in
the university) with instructions for treating questions concerning global or/and point-
wise properties of G.
The beginning of the statement given by the teacher at the university level was the
following one (a fifth question concerns a local property of limit) :
Let f be a continuous function over R and G the function defined over R by

1) Show that if f is a constant function, G is also a constant function.

2) Show that if f is even (respectively odd), the function G is even (respectively even).
 3) Show that the function G is derivable and computer G.
4) Explicit the function G when f is the function defined by f(t)=|t|.
The function f is assumed to be continuous. Students have to show global properties
on G. They must also prove that G is derivable and compute G. Questions 1) and 3)
can be treated only in the algebraic frame without any point of view on functions f
and G. Problems with points of view can appear with question 2) if f even then also
G is even and for question 4) find G when f is the absolute value. We will see this
below with examples of productions.
The statement given by the teacher at the secondary school level was the following:
In the problem, D means the set of derivable functions on R. For each function f in D,
one define the function G such that for all x in R,

1a) Show that for each primitive F of f over R, G(x)= [ F(x+1) F(x-1)].
1b) Computer G when f is defined by f(t)=tn, n integer greater than 1. Show that if f is a
polynomial function, than G is a polynomial function with the same degree.
1c) Computer G when f is defined by f(t)=cos(t).
2a) Show that for all f in D, G is also derivable over R, and that for all x in R,
G(x) = [ f(x+1) f(x-1)].
2b) Show that the following properties are equivalent: (1) G is constant and (2) f is
periodic with period 2.
3a) Suppose f is growing over R. Show that G is growing and that for all x in R,
f(x-1) G(x) f(x+1).
3b) Suppose f is defined by f(t)= 4 exp(t) / [ t2+4]. Study the variations of f over R.
Deduce the variations of G over R.
In this statement, students can work inside the algebraic frame from questions 1) to
question 2a) and also for question 3b). Thats mean the conception of functions as
objects belonging to a functional frame (with all its complexity) seems to be not
useful. Problems we want to study can appear with question 2b) G is constant if and
only if f is 2 periodic - and 3a) if f grows than G grows and for all x, f(x-1) G(x)
f(x+1). We will also see this below.
Let us note some specificities of the translation between secondary school and
university level through these two statements: first of all, there exists some examples
question 1b) f is a monomial, f is a polynomial, question 1c) f(t)=cos(t) at
secondary school whereas university students are supposed to treat the general case
directly (formal register). Secondly, the task of computation for G is cut into two
subtasks for secondary school students: question 1a) and question 2a) whereas
university students are supposed to compute G directly.
RESULT OF SOME STUDENTS AND EXAMPLE OF PRODUCTIONS
As we were interested by the transition between secondary school and university
level, we have chosen to analyze only productions of secondary school students who
were expected to enter university. Only five productions were analyzed. On the other
hand, as we were interested only about qualitative results, the analysis of students
productions at university level was done in a second time, in order to find the
characteristics which have been identified in the five productions of school students.
As it was expected, most of secondary school students difficulties were about
question 2b) and question 3a). Only one student succeeded on these two questions
whereas, except some minor errors and the second part of the question 1b) (which is
more difficult), all of them succeeded the other questions. We suppose that algebraic
techniques are not sufficient to succeed these tasks. There is a necessity to surpass the
algebraic frame and to adopt global and point-wise points of view on f and on G.
For instance, in question 2b), students have to establish global properties on f and G
f is 2 periodic and G is constant - through a point-wise property for f for all x,
f(x-1) = f(x+1). Here is a typical production:
(1) G is constant G (x)=0
(2) f is 2 periodic f (x)=f (x+2)
We start from one member to go to the
other:
G (x) = [f(x+1)-f(x-1)] and G(x)=0
...
f(x+1) = f(x-1)
f(x+1) + f(1) = f(x-1) + f(1)
f(x+2) = f(x) (2) so (1) (2).

Figure 1: example of production for question 2b) secondary school student

This student explicates his procedure: on part dun membre pour arriver lautre
membre ( we start from one member to go to the other ). There is no
quantification, useful to translate the global properties for f and G in the formal
language. Moreover, equivalences are wrong. The student cant recognize the
property of periodicity with the statement f(x-1) = f(x+1). It is necessary for him to
formulate f(x) = f(x+2). Then, all algebraic techniques seem to be good: here he adds
+ f(1) in each member. We suppose that this student is unable to reach a global point
of view on f and G. His reasoning seems to be in the algebraic frame only.
On the first part of question 3a), students have to establish a global property on G G
is growing from a global property on f f is growing through point-wise
properties for all x, f(x-1) < f(x+1) and for all x, G(x) > 0. But in four of the five
students productions, these translations are again done formally without any
quantification, in a formal and algebraic way. Students seem unable to see the
necessity of two variables x and y in order to write the property of growth. They use
equivalences which are wrong. Again, we think that the reasoning is only at an
algebraic level, not at all in the functional frame.

3a) We know that f is growing. 3a) G is derivable over R (2a)

So f(x+1) > f(x) > f(x-1) x+1 > x-1
f(x+1) > f(x-1) f(x+1) > f(x-1) because f is growing
f(x+1) - f(x-1) > 0 f(x+1) f(x-1) > 0
[f(x+1) - f(x-1)] > 0 [f(x+1) - f(x-1)] > 0
G (x) > 0 G (x) > 0
So G is growing. G (x) > 0 over R, so G is growing over R.

Figure 3: examples of productions for question 3a) secondary school students

The second part of the question 3a) to prove f(x-1) G(x) f(x+1) - corresponds to
the most difficult task. No student really succeeded this question. The difficulty
seems to be linked to the necessity to adopt a point-wise point of view on G - the
computation of G(x) for a fixed x together with a global point of view on f for all t
in [x-1,x+1], f(x-1) < f(t) < f(x+1).
This difficulty with point of view appears also in many productions of students from
the university level, concerning questions 2) and question 4) of the university
statement, as it was expected.
In question 4) (university statement), there is a necessity to treat several cases
according to the fact that 0 belongs or not to [x-1, x+1], that is to say x < -1, x in
[-1, 1] or x > 1. Students must adopt a point-wise point of view on G computation
of G(x) for x fixed and a global point of view on f over [x-1, x+1]. However, many
students treat the task at an algebraic level, thinking for instance that the absolute
value can be integrated without adopt these points of view. Figure 4 represents a
typical example of this mode of reasoning in the algebraic frame:
 4) For f(t)=| t |

We have | t | = | t2 / 2 | =>
x-1 x+1 f(t) dt = | (x+1)2 / 2 |-| (x-1)2 / 2 |
So G(x)= [ | (x+1)2 / 2 |-| (x-1)2 / 2 | ]

Figure 4: examples of production for question 4) university student

In students responses for question 2) (university statement), the same kind of
observations can be made. Most of students translate the global property - f even -
without quantification - f(t) = f(-t). Again, the reasoning seems to be in the
algebraic/formal frame in many productions as in figure 5:

In the case f even: If f even then f(t)=f(-t)

f(t)=f(-t) so x-1 x+1 f(t) dt = x-1 x+1 f(-t) dt G(-x)=
x-1 x+1 f(t) dt = x-1 x+1 f(-t) dt If f odd then f(-t)=-f(t)
so G(x)= [F(x+1) - F(x-1)] = G(-x)= x-1 x+1 f(-t) dt
[F(-(x+1)) - F(-(x-1))] = x-1 x+1 - f(t) dt = - x-1 x+1 f(t) dt
= [F(-x-1) F(-x+1)] = G(-x) G(-x) = - G(x)
So G is also even.

Figure 5: examples of productions for question 2) university students

Few productions (about 25%) show the ability for students to adopt point wise as
well as global point of view on the manipulated objects. Because of the brevity of this
paper, it is impossible to report about them.
CONCLUSION
In this paper, we wanted to stress the importance for students entering at university to
deal with point wise and global points of view on functions. We have claimed that
this distinction enriches the process / objet duality and the way of thinking the
passage from the conceptual embodied world to the formal axiomatic one. Through a
typical task of the transition between secondary school and university the study of
the function G - we have pointed the difficulties for students to solve tasks when
algebraic techniques are not sufficient. On one hand, we think that these difficulties
are linked to the non ability for students to consider functions as complex objects
with point-wise as well as global properties. On the other hand, we can think that
these difficulties are increased by the current practice of teaching in secondary
schools in France, which reinforces tasks belonging to the algebraic frame only
(computations of limits, derivative, tracing graphs as objects, not as tool for
reflections on tasks...) and which erases the relief which can be adopted on these
objects.
We have claim in this paper that these difficulties with point-wise and global points
of view on functions can be relied with difficulties for students to enter on one hand
in the formal axiomatic world and on the other hand to develop the local abilities
which are necessary at the beginning of the university. We will continue to
investigate these ideas in the future by designing a questionnaire for university
students making in relation questions relied to the points of view and questions relied
to local and formal properties (the utilization of the formal definition of limit for
instance).

REFERENCES
Artigue, M. (1991). Analysis. In D. Tall (Ed.) Advanced mathematical thinking (pp.
167-198). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.
Artigue, M, Batanero, Carmen, & Kent, Philippe. (2007). Mathematics thinking and
learning at post-secondary level. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research
on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 1011-1049). Greenwich, Connecticut:
Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Bachelard, G. (Ed.) 1938. La formation de l'esprit scientifique Paris: Vrin.
Balacheff, N., & Gaudin, N. (2002). Students conceptions: An introduction to a
formal characterization Cahier Liebnitz (No. 65). Grenoble: Universit Joseph
Fourrier.
Copp, Sylvie, Dorier, J-L., & Yavuz, I. (2007). De l'usage des tableaux de valeurs et
des tableaux de variations dans l'enseignement de la notion de fonction en France
en seconde. Recherche en Didactique des Mathmatiques, 27 (2), 151-186.
Douady, Rgine. (1986). Jeux de cadre et dialectique outil-objet. Recherches en
Didactique des Mathmatiques, 7 (2), 5-31.
Dubinsky, E. (1991). Reflective abstraction in advanced mathematical thinking
Trans.). In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 95-123). Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Press.
Duval, Raymond. (1991). Registres de reprsentation smiotique et fonctionnement
cognitif de la pense. Annales de didactique et de sciences cognitives, 5, 37-65.
Gueudet, G. (2008). Investigating the secondary-tertiary transition. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 67, 237-254.
Robert, A. (1998). Outil d'analyse des contenus mathmatiques enseigner au lyce
et l'universit. Recherches en Didactique des Mathmatiques, 18 (2), 139-190.
Rogalski, M. (2008). Les rapports entre local et global : Mathmatiques, rle en
physique lmentaire, questions didactiques. In L. Viennot (Ed.), Didactique,
pistmologie et histoire des sciences (pp. 61-87). Paris: PUF.
Sfard, A. (1991). On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: On processes and
objects as different sides of the same coin. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
22, 1-36.
Sierpinska, Anna. (1992). On understanding the notion of function. In G. Harel & E.
Dubinsky (Ed.), The concept of function: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy,
Mathematical Association of America Notes, volume 25.
Tall, D. (1996). Functions and calculus. In A. J. Bishop, M. A. Clements, C. Keitel,
J. Kilpatrick & C. Laborde (Ed.), International handbook of mathematics
education (pp. 289-325). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Tall, D. (2004). Thinking through three worlds of mathematics. Paper presented at
the 28th conference of the international group for psychology of mathematics
education, Bergen, Norway.
Tall, D., & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept definition in mathematics,
with special reference to limits and continuity. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 12, 151-169.