DEVELOPING THE NOTION OF FUNCTION: THE DIDACTIC

POTENTIALS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE TOOL

ALGEBRAARROWS
Lasse Damgaard Christensen
University of Copenhagen, Denmark, dml299@alumni.ku.dk
The notion of function is in many places a part of mathematics curriculum in
secondary school. Unfortunately many students get stuck with an understanding of
functions as a calculation machine instead of seeing them as objects that can
themselves be calculated with. Researchers at The Freudenthal Institute have
developed an applet, AlgebraArrows, in an attempt to help alleviate this problem.
This paper will investigate their results and analyse a task design of theirs.
Furthermore another task design that uses the applet will be suggested and an a
priori analysis of the task will help determine if it can change students
understanding of functions.
Keywords: function concept, ATD, Instrumented techniques, mathematics education,
technology.

THE PROBLEM

In lower secondary grades functions are mainly considered in a rule-based manner.

Functions are seen as a machine that given some input value will perform
calculations and provide an output value (Doorman, Drijvers, Gravemeijer, Boon &
Reed, 2012). Functions are thus seen merely as processes and this view prevents
students from seeing functions as mathematical objects that can be manipulated with.
Functions can be represented in many ways giving rise to different views on them
but students must be able to understand the relation between these representations to
get a handle at the concept of functions (Doorman et al., 2012). In higher grades
more structure is added to the concept and functions are treated as objects that can
themselves be manipulated mathematically e.g. by differentiation or integration. This
comprehension of the function concept is necessary for understanding things like
function composition or differential equations (Doorman et al., 2012). A group of
researchers from The Freudenthal Institute argues that the transition from
functions as calculation operations to functions as objects is fundamental for
conceptual understanding in this domain.(Doorman et al., 2012).
Research has shown that a significant amount of students do not experience this
transition satisfactorily. Vinner and Dreyfus have performed a study among first-year
college students in Israel. When asked about what functions were to them several
students replied that it was something that performed an operation or that it was
something that could be drawn on a graph (Dreyfus & Vinner, 1989; Vinner, 1983).
That is these students definitions fitted a process view of functions. It is therefore
this didactical challenge of a transition in the way students see functions that is at the
center of this paper.
Researchers from The Freudenthal Institute have developed an applet called
AlgebraArrows and together with it a teaching arrangement in order to investigate
whether this could help students in the transition of their understanding of functions.
Largely based on their work this paper will investigate the research question:
How can the applet AlgebraArrows be used to create teaching situations which
favor students work with (and appreciation of) functions as objects and not just
processes?
The work and the results by The Freudenthal Institute will be presented and a single
task will be analyzed. Based on this a new simple task design using the applet will
also be presented together with an a priori analysis of it.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
In order to both design tasks that support the mentioned transition and to perform an
a priori analysis of them a theoretical framework is needed. In this paper the
anthropological theory of didactics will be this framework and since there is a heavy
focus on the value of the applet in the tasks also theories about instrumented
techniques are necessary. First we will discuss the concept of functions.
The concept of functions
A modern day view of the concept of function is called the Dirichlet-Bourbaki
concept. Here a function is a correspondence between two nonempty sets that
assigns to every element in the first set (the domain) exactly one element in the
second set (the codomain).(Dreyfus & Vinner, 1989). When it comes to the
transition from an operational to a structural way of thinking of functions The
Freudenthal Institute let their design be guided by three aspects of the function
concept: The function as an input-output assignment, the function as a dynamic
process of co-variation and the function as a mathematical object (Doorman et al.,
2012).
Anthropological theory of didactics
In the framework of The Anthropological theory of Didactics (ATD) learning,
teaching and transposing knowledge of e.g. mathematics are considered as human
activities that takes place only in an institutional setting (Bosch & Gascn, 2014). In
the epistemology of this theory, which is based on work by Yves Chevallard,
mathematical knowledge is to be seen as a human activity of study of types of
problems. (Barb, Bosch, Espinoza & Gascn, 2005). So mathematics is studying a
given type of problem or task so that it can be solved. In the case of functions this
can for example be a task of evaluating a function at a point, finding when two
functions are equal, find roots or to find the conditions of monotony of the function.
In order to solve the task the student must apply a technique such as finding the roots
of the differentiated function and consider its value between roots. Tasks together
with their corresponding techniques are called the practical block or know-how. The
theory also assumes that there is a knowledge-block, a discursive environment,
which is needed to justify the practical block. This knowledge-block contains
technology which is knowledge about why the technique works and it contains the
mathematical theory behind the technology (Barb et al., 2005). Technology could
then be the knowledge about the sign of the derivative and its meaning for the
original function and the theory could be proofs of why this is so.
Such types of tasks, techniques, technologies and theories will be denoted with the
symbols T, , and , respectively. Together they represent a praxeology or a
mathematical organization (MO). An MO based on one type of problem is called
punctual MO and several punctual MO can integrate to a local or a regional MO
(Barb et al., 2005). A praxeology can be applied to any form of human activity and
as such this epistemology also applies to teaching and learning where we can
consider a didactical praxeology (Barb et al., 2005).
In ATD the creation of an MO happens through a didactic process that consists of six
moments: the moment of the first encounter, the exploratory moment, the technical
moment and the evaluation moment. Possibilities for these moments to appear can
therefore be considered when designing tasks for achieving an MO concerning the
notion of functions (Barb et al., 2005).
Instrumented techniques
Techniques as presented in ATD can have more than just a pragmatic value for
finding a solution to the given task. They can also have an epistemic value because
they can give a better understanding of the involved mathematical objects (Lagrange,
2005). When using an applet to solve a given problem about functions this applet
becomes a part of the technique used and we call it an instrumented technique. So
when introducing an instrument such as an applet many new techniques appear and
therefore the pragmatic and epistemic value of traditional paper-and-pencil
techniques must be evaluated along with the new ones (Lagrange, 2005). One must
also consider what influence these techniques have on the technology and theory.
The aim is therefore to design a task that will need the mentioned applet in its
corresponding instrumented technique such that it gets an epistemic value that can
help the students in transitioning their understanding of the concept of function. It
will also be important to consider if these instrumented techniques can enhance the
focus on the mathematical objects. This is called a lever-potential. Also the
materialization-potential, where the instrumented technique leads to better access to
mathematical objects can be considered (Gyngysi, Solovej & Winslv, 2011).
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DESIGNS AND RESULTS FROM
THE FREUDENTHAL INSTITUTE
Researchers from The Freudenthal Institute has designed and tested a teaching
arrangement which included the applet AlgebraArrows. The aim was to foster the
development of students conceptual development of functions. The following
presentation is based on this work (Doorman, 2012).
The arrangement was designed to last eight lessons and consisted of four parts: An
applet (AlgebraArrows), a student textbook, a teacher guide and a set of tests
consisting of both computer- and written tests.
The applet AlgebraArrows is a computer tool with which chains of operations can be
constructed in arrow chains. (An arrow chain is a way of representing a sequence
of operations performed on an input (Figure 1). The applet can also deal with tables
formula and graphs and it thus has many ways of representing functions (Figure 1).
In the first three lessons tasks that demanded a series of calculations were explored
and arrow chains were introduced. This was followed by two computer lessons, then
a reflective lesson, a computer lesson and a closing lesson.

Figure 1: AlgebraArrows applet

Students first explored open-ended tasks about the prices of a mobile subscriptions
with a monthly fee and a cost per call minute. This led to different solution strategies
and representations of repeated calculations. This reflected the students initial
operational view. From this the teacher could evoke a need for determining variables,
dependency relationships and efficient notation. The open problems in the beginning
evoked a need for better tools and the arrow chain was introduced and in the PC-
lessons students used the arrow chains as a means to organize calculation
procedures. Analysis of students work in the applet showed that they were able to
use arrow chains as a model for reasoning about dependency relationships.
Later students were asked to construct a reverse calculation chain for a task. They
had to reverse the operations using their contextual understanding and this led them
to understand the structure and aim of the chain. Before the second computer lesson
the teacher demonstrated tool techniques such as a graph window, tracing a graph
and zooming in and out. Aspects of dependency relationships and how tables and
graphs could be used to analyse them were discussed. So the teacher used the tool to
create a consensus on how to investigate the input-output relationships.
In the third PC-lesson similar tasks were put forth but solution strategies had
changed from case-by-case calculations to using the tools to investigate the dynamics
of relationships. Students now identified and labelled boxes for input and output
variables and then connected them with operations showing that they understood the
problem as consisting of two dependency relationships. They used zooming in the
tables to solve the task. This shift suggests that a change from a procedural view of
functions to a more structural view had occurred.
Not all students managed to transition their understanding of functions during the
eight lessons but the researchers did conclude some points on what seemed to work.
The applet aided the development of students notion of a chain of operations and by
easily calculating the output for many input values they gained understanding of a
function as something that seizes input values and produces output values. By
generating tables and letting students scroll and zoom in the tables, students
developed a dynamic notion of a variable that can move in some set of values. The
applet offers many representations of functions and this allowed students to treat
functions as objects before they actually became objects to the students.

PRESENTATION OF SIMPLE TASK DESIGNS AND PRAXEOLOGICAL

ANALYSIS OF THEM.
To see how the applet can be used to create situations that favor students structural
understanding of functions I will now use the previously introduced theoretical
framework to analyze one of the tasks that The Freudenthal Institute tested and one
that I have designed.
Task from The Freudenthal Institute
The chosen task is one of finding points of intersection for linear functions. The task
along with work on a solution is shown in figure 2.
Figure 2: Task by Freudenthal Institute
To solve the task students must create three arrow chains. But to do this they must
first identify the variables and use the given information to determine the necessary
operations for each chain. When the three chains are made it is appropriate to link
them to a graph to get an overview of how the functions compare to each other. This
lets students see how many intersection points they need to consider. From here
students can use the trace tool to approximate the points of intersection and
ultimately they must zoom in the tables to find them. As they have found these
intersection points students must interpret them in the context of what they have
modelled and formulate an answer to the question
The praxeology at play is concerned with comparison of linear functions to
determine, for all x, which function has the highest value. This is the main task, T1,
but this task can be subdivided. The technique, 1, used involves a task, T2, of finding
the intersections of the functions but the technique, 2, for this involves the task, T3
of using the applet to explore the functions by using different representations. At the
bottom we have a task, T4, of converting the formulations of the functions to arrow
chains. So we have a sequence of tasks, T1, T2, T3, T4 whose corresponding
techniques, 1, 2, 3, 4 contain the following part of the sequence.
Considering the main task and its technique we find that the corresponding
technology is the knowledge that when a function for some x has the highest value it
will continue to have so for the next input-values until it is intersected by another
function. The theory or justification for this is not presented to the students in a
mathematically rigorous way but it is represented visually on the graphs.
When using 4, the applet allows the students to first present the functions in a visual
and simple way by using AlgebraArrows that take an input, perform operations and
give an output. When in 3 the students make graphs and tables the functions will be
presented in different ways. This allows for students to not only see the functions as
a machine. When students zoom and scroll to find intersections points students
experience how a variable can move in some space of values and how the dynamics
of dependency varies for each of the functions. They therefore experience some of
the transition from seeing functions as an input-output assignment to a dynamic
process of co-variation which is a step on the way to seeing them as mathematical
objects. This technique using the applet therefore has a great epistemic value. The
aim of this exercise was to get students to realize these properties of functions. The
task could also have been solved using paper-and-pencil techniques but this wouldnt
have the same epistemic value. Either students are not on a level yet to do so or they
would have to spend time and energy on algebraically solving equations to find the
solution to the task. The applet therefore offered a lever potential when taking these
calculations away an enhancing the focus on the different representations of
functions. These different representations would not all appear with paper-and-pencil
techniques which shows a materialization potential of using the applet.
Task of function composition
I will now present my own design and a priori analysis of a task that will use the
applet to further students understanding of functions.
Students are presented with the arrow chain arrangement with questions as shown in
figure 3.

Figure 3: Task design

When solving the task different arrow chains will appear and the most important
chains that are expected to appear can be seen in figure 4.
Figure 4: Arrow chains
The purpose of this task is for the students to use an experimental approach to learn
about function composition and through this to give them an understanding of
functions as mathematical objects.
The task design contains a combination of instructions and tasks. One task T1
concerns whether they could subdivide the functions further. Inspired by the
previous instructions the technique they should use is to see that input and output
boxes could have appeared between and and thus subdivided the top
function into two. The applet and the construction of arrow chains have earlier
offered a way of seeing functions as a chain of operations. By decomposing these
chains the applet offers a very direct and visual presentation of decomposing
functions.
Next students compose the two functions into a new function. They are set the task,
T2, of finding the domains of the composite functions. The applet works only with
real numbers which is suitable for this level. To solve the question the stronger
students can use a technique of looking at the formula and use their knowledge of the
square root. But many students may first apply an instrumented technique using the
applet. They can have the applet draw the graphs and see the domains from that or
they can use tables and see for which values the functions work. This way the applet
offers different ways of seeing what values the functions work for. This can put
students on the right track to argue about the domain of the square root and the sign
of squaring a real number. So theres a materialization potential that lets students
know what to look for and since the technique lets students see different
representations of functions it could have a high epistemic value. Students here see
both the arrow chains that represent an operational view and they create tables and
see the dynamic process of covariation. In extension of this by manipulating the
arrow chains they compose or decompose the functions into new functions and could
therefore start to see functions as mathematical objects.
The technology for the task design is the knowledge of what composing functions
means and in what order each function should be applied. The theory that contains
this is about function composition and proofs of the domains and ranges of
composed functions.

CONLUSION AND DISCUSSION

From the research performed by The Freudenthal Institute we saw different ways in
which a transition from an operational view of functions to an object view could be
helped. The arrow chain notation could develop the operational view and through
handling graphs and tables the aspects of dependency relationships appeared. The
work with different representations allowed students to treat functions as objects.
The analyses of one task design showed that the techniques the applet offered fitted
well with this. The techniques had both a lever-potential and a materialization-
potential that allowed students to gain a more structured view of functions.
Using some of these results a task about function composition was designed. An a
priori analysis showed that this could possibly also help students transition their
understanding of functions. It took advantage of the applets arrow chain notation in
composing and decomposing functions as well as its different ways of representing
functions.
The task about function composition could be experimented with in an arrangement
similar to the one used by The Freudenthal Institute. It does not necessarily fit into
the curricular of grade 8 which is what Freudenthal Institute used for experimenting
but nevertheless it could be made as an extension of their arrangement or a similar
one (Doorman et al., 2012). In the students work with the tasks and lessons of the
teaching arrangement they will likely have gotten familiar with the applet and many
of them will already have to some extension a structured view of functions. As such
they should be able to grasp the content of the task design and to use it to further
their understanding of functions.

REFERENCES
Barb, J., Bosch, M., Espinoza, L. & Gascn, J. (2005). Didactic restrictions on the
teachers practice: The case of limits of functions in Spanish high schools.
Educational Studies in Mathematics 59, 235-268. doi:10.1007/s10649-005-5889-z
Bosch, M. & Gascn, J. (2014). Introduction to the Anthropological Theory of the
Didactic (ATD). In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs & S. Prediger (Eds.), Networking or
Theories as a Research Practice in Mathematics Education (67-83). Hamburg,
Germany: Springer
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. doi:10.1007/s10763-012-9329-0
Dreyfus, T. & Vinner, S. (1989). Images and definitions for the concept of function.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(4), 356-366.
doi:10.2307/749441
Gyngysi, E., Solovej, J.P. & Winslv, C. (2011). Using CAS based work to ease
the transition from calculus to real analysis. In M. Pytlak, E. Swoboda, & T.
Rowland (Eds.), Proceedings of the seventh congress of the European society for
research in mathematics education. (pp. 2002-2011). Rzeszow: European Society
for Research in Mathematics Education. (Proceedings: Conference for European
Research in Mathematics Education)
Lagrange, J.B. (2005). Using symbolic calculators to study mathematics. In D. Guin,
K. Ruthven, L. Trouche (Eds.), The Didactical Challenge of Symbolic Calculators
(pp. 113-136). New York: Springer
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. doi:10.1080/0020739830140305