This article was downloaded by: [Eindhoven Technical University]

On: 17 February 2015, At: 10:36

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Computers in the Schools:

Interdisciplinary Journal of Practice,
Theory, and Applied Research
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
[Link]

Challenging the Traditional Sequence of

Teaching Introductory Calculus
a
Sandra Herbert
a
Deakin University , Victoria , Australia
Published online: 14 Jun 2013.

To cite this article: Sandra Herbert (2013) Challenging the Traditional Sequence of Teaching
Introductory Calculus, Computers in the Schools: Interdisciplinary Journal of Practice, Theory, and
Applied Research, 30:1-2, 172-190, DOI: 10.1080/07380569.2013.771528

To link to this article: [Link]

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at [Link]
and-conditions
 Computers in the Schools, 30:172–190, 2013
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0738-0569 print / 1528-7033 online
DOI: 10.1080/07380569.2013.771528

Challenging the Traditional Sequence

of Teaching Introductory Calculus

SANDRA HERBERT
Deakin University, Victoria, Australia
Downloaded by [Eindhoven Technical University] at 10:36 17 February 2015

Despite considerable research with students of calculus, rate, and

hence derivative, remain difficult concepts to teach and learn. The
demonstrated lack of conceptual understanding of introductory
calculus limits its usefulness in related areas. Since rate is such a
troublesome concept, this study piloted reversing the usual presen-
tation of introductory calculus to begin with area and integration,
rather than rate and derivative. Two classes of first-year university
students taking introductory calculus were selected to pilot the effect
of changing the sequence; one class was a control group and the
other class followed the reversed sequence. Advances in technology,
especially computer algebra systems (CASs) may facilitate new ways
of studying mathematics. In this study, handheld CASs were used
to support students’ thinking as they grappled with the concepts of
introductory calculus. The use of CASs enabled consideration of
symbolic patterns and numerical integration leading to a deeper
conceptual understanding of integration. The easy access to the
multiple representations of functions provided by CASs facilitated
an exploration of rate where each representation highlighted dif-
ferent aspects of rate resulting in deeper conceptual understanding
of differentiation.

KEYWORDS calculus, CAS, multiple representations, rate,

differentiation, integration

This article addresses the question, “How do computers allow one to teach
undergraduate mathematics differently?” Technology makes available new
ways of teaching mathematics. The article reports on a study undertaken
with first-year university students to explore the ways in which a computer

Address correspondence to Sandra Herbert, Deakin University, P.O. Box 423, Warnam-
bool 3280 Victoria, Australia. E-mail: [Link]@[Link]

172
 Sequence of Teaching Introductory Calculus 173

algebra system (CAS) may be employed in investigating a change in the

usual order of presentation of topics in introductory calculus.
Previous research reported that rate, and hence derivative, continue
to be troublesome concepts for calculus students (see for example Orton,
1984; Ubuz, 2007). In response, this study piloted the effect of beginning
introductory calculus with area and integration, rather the usual sequence
that begins with limits and derivative. It explored ways in which CAS could
be employed to support this alternative sequence in teaching introductory
calculus. The aim was to show that instruction following the alternative se-
quence would not disadvantage students, with the intention of encouraging
secondary school mathematics teachers to be willing to trial this approach
Downloaded by [Eindhoven Technical University] at 10:36 17 February 2015

when calculus is first introduced.

Advances in technology, especially CASs, challenge much of what was
seen as essential mathematical knowledge and may result in different ap-
proaches to the study of mathematics (Coupland, 2000; Kendal, Stacey, &
Pierce, 2005; Stacey, Kendal, & Pierce, 2002), so the teaching experiment re-
ported in this paper utilized the affordances of handheld CASs to facilitate the
development of conceptual understanding of introductory calculus. The use
of CASs enabled a change of sequence by starting from integration through
treating integral as area under the curve; that is, numerical integration.
This approach reduces the importance of the theory of limits, which is often
a stumbling block (Parameswaran, 2007) for students who are already strug-
gling with inadequate understanding of rate. The theory of limits can be
treated informally (as will be seen in the Method section) when CAS fa-
cilitates a consideration of symbolic patterns leading to the discovery of
some of the rules for integration. The seamless retrieval of the multiple rep-
resentations of functions provided by CAS facilitates consideration of rate
in different ways, leading to deeper conceptual understanding of rate, and
hence differentiation.
This article provides some background on the difficulties with the con-
cept of rate shown by some students of calculus; importance of multiple
representations in supporting students’ thinking and the role played by tech-
nology. It outlines the conduct of the study, describing the critical role of
CASs in enabling this alternative approach to the sequence of delivering con-
cepts involved in introductory calculus, thus demonstrating, in this instance,
how technology allows one to teach undergraduate mathematics differently.

BACKGROUND

Rate is an important mathematical concept that is often poorly understood

by many people. It is a complicated concept comprising many interwoven
ideas (see Figure 1).
Rate involves the ideas of change in a quantity, co-ordination of two
quantities, and the simultaneous covariation of the quantities (Thompson,
 174 S. Herbert

FIGURE 1 Complexity of the mathematical concept of rate (color figure available online).
Downloaded by [Eindhoven Technical University] at 10:36 17 February 2015

1994). Rate is strongly connected to other mathematical concepts, such as

ratio, proportion, fraction, division, gradient, and derivative. Rate is consid-
ered constant if the way in which the quantities change in relation to each
other remains the same and variable if it differs.

Difficulties with Rate

Calculus students’ difficulties with the concepts of rate and derivative have
been reported over many years (Orton, 1984; Ubuz, 2007). One of the most
significant difficulties is the confusion between the rate and the extensive
quantities that constitute it (Thompson, 1994; Rowland & Jovanoski, 2004).
Rowland and Jovanoski suggested this confusion is often the result of a
reliance on the constant rate ideas that are not necessarily valid in calculus.
Their findings indicated that the confusion between amount and rate, noted
by Thompson (1994), still persists. Other difficulties reported about calculus
students’ understanding of rate include confusion relating to symbols and
their use as variables (White & Mitchelmore, 1996); lacking awareness of
the relationship between slope, rate and the first derivative (Porzio, 1997);
and misunderstandings related to average and instantaneous rate (Hassan &
Mitchelmore, 2006).
The demonstrated lack of conceptual understanding of introductory
calculus inhibits its usefulness in related science applications. Lopez-Gay,
Martinez-Torregrosa, Gras-Marti, and Torregrosa (2002) claimed that physics
students do not understand the use of calculus in simple real-world prob-
lems and have difficulty in applying it with autonomy. This suggests that the
value of calculus to other fields of study is undermined by students’ lack of
conceptual understanding of it.
Despite the implementation of many innovations, such as the use of
technology, designed to improve the outcomes of calculus courses, calculus
students’ lack of understanding of the fundamental ideas of change and rate
persist (Carlson, Jacobs, Coe, Larsen & Hsu, 2002; Coe, 2007; Rowland &
Jovanoski, 2004; Ubuz, 2007). Since these fundamental ideas of change and
rate provide an important underpinning of derivative, researchers continue
 Sequence of Teaching Introductory Calculus 175
Downloaded by [Eindhoven Technical University] at 10:36 17 February 2015

FIGURE 2 Rate diagrams.

to persevere to find effective innovations. One such innovation is reported

in this article.
Currently, the usual sequence (Anton, Bivens, & Davis, 2005—a recent
tertiary introductory calculus text used in Australia) of introducing calculus
involves limits, differentiation, then integration where students are presented
with a formal, abstract definition of limits and limit laws; a formal, abstract
definition and rule, f  (x) = lim f (x+h)−
h
f (x)
, for differentiation; and integra-
h→0
tion viewed as anti-differentiation, with applications to area. The unit rate
is emphasized by a diagram similar to Figure 2. Variable rate is introduced
through reference to the symbolic and graphic representations of the general
function y = f (x), again emphasizing a unit rate approach (see Figure 2).
This approach assumes a sound understanding of rate and illustrates
the derivative as the gradient of the tangent to the curve at a point, moving
quickly to emphasize symbolic manipulation, where the symbolic represen-
tations of a function are manipulated to establish a symbolic expression for
instantaneous rate by taking the limit of the average rate. Some students
become competent in this manipulation and can accurately produce the
symbolic representation of the derivative (delos Santos & Thomas, 2005)
but may not appreciate its meaning and connection to other mathematical
concepts studied in earlier years, such as linear functions.

Multiple Representations
Multiple representations may enable students to view and explore mathe-
matical concepts in a variety of ways, such as considering the concept of
rate in a graph or a table. Different representations clarify different aspects
of the concept by providing complementary roles where understandings in
one representation are reinforced in another; for example, seeing the pat-
tern in the numbers in a table may give greater meaning to the slope of the
curve in the corresponding graph. Interpretation of meaning is constrained
 176 S. Herbert
Downloaded by [Eindhoven Technical University] at 10:36 17 February 2015

FIGURE 3 (a) Graphic representations of f (x) = x 2 – 2x + 1 (left) and g(x) = –x 2 +2x +

1 (right). (b) Numeric representations of f (x) = x 2 – 2x + 1 and g(x) = –x 2 +2x + 1.

by comparisons of representations, and connections between representa-

tions facilitate the construction of deeper understanding. When researchers
use the term multiple representations in the context of functions and rate as-
sociated with particular functions, they are usually referring to the standard
mathematical representations: numeric, graphic, and symbolic (Amit & Fried,
2005).
Different features of functions are more apparent in graphic representa-
tions than they are in symbolic representations. The symbolic representations
of two different quadratic functions may appear very similar, but their graphic
representations appear very different (Kaput, 1992). For example, f (x) =
x 2 – 2x + 1 and g(x) = – x 2 +2x + 1 are such functions (Figure 3a).
In particular, the graphic representation better illustrates the zeroes
and turning points of these functions, while the numeric representation
(Figure 3b) may emphasize the relationship between the variables. The avail-
ability of multiple representations allows students to make their own choice
as to the suitability of a particular representation for solving a particular prob-
lem. Mallett (2007) suggested that teaching with a multiple representational
approach allows “students to construct bridges between different represen-
tations in order to provide a more complete understanding of the concepts
under investigation” (p. 16). Reed and Jazo (2002) claimed that multiple
representations provide complementary roles, and working with them fo-
cuses interpretation, assisting students to notice different aspects of concepts
and so construct deeper understanding of them. So teachers should provide
 Sequence of Teaching Introductory Calculus 177

students with the choice of representations instead of favoring a particular

representation (Kendal & Stacey, 2001), thus allowing students to choose the
representation most useful to them.
Some researchers (Abramovich & Norton, 2000; Dreyfus, 1994; Gagatsis,
Christou, & Elia, 2004; Thompson & Thompson, 1994) have emphasized the
importance of students transferring understandings between representations
to facilitate deeper learning of concepts. Porzio’s (1997) findings indicate that
experience with problems designed to emphasize the connections between
multiple representations when presenting concepts and solving problems,
resulted in better recognition of the relationship between first derivative,
slope, and rate.
Downloaded by [Eindhoven Technical University] at 10:36 17 February 2015

Multiple representations of functions afford the exploration of derivative

from different perspectives. Asiala, Cottrill, Dubinsky, and Schwingendorf
(1997) reported that some calculus students seemed unable to find the
derivative at a point from the graph. In addition, they suggested that an
understanding of derivative depends on the prerequisite understanding of
the graphic representations, the concept of slope, and the graphic interpreta-
tion of (x, f (x)), thus overcoming the need to have a symbolic representation
for a function. Their findings are consistent with Orton (1984), who observed
that some calculus students had difficulty with rate even in the context of
linear graphs. He maintained that using straight lines as an introduction to
rate causes confusion between average rate and rate at a point. The students
in his study displayed a limited understanding of rate on nonlinear graphs
and he expressed surprise at the difficulties these students had obtaining
average rate from graphs.
Advances in the availability of a range of technology-based tools have
enabled modification of the teaching of mathematics. Technology, such as
CASs, allows easy access to the standard multiple representations of func-
tions (Kaput, Noss & Hoyles, 2008; Zbiek & Heid, 2008) and so may be
used to assist students to develop a deeper understanding of mathematical
concepts, such as functions, derivative and integral, by providing numer-
ous experiences where a particular concept can be explored in a variety
of representations (Kaput, 1992; Zbiek & Heid, 2008). Kaput (1992, 1998)
explained that automatic translations between representations, afforded by
technology, allow for quick and easy comparisons between representations
so that common features may be more easily discerned and ideas generated
in one representation may be quickly checked in another.
The facility of CASs to perform procedures accurately and quickly, chal-
lenges a mathematics curricula that emphasizes procedures, especially if
many students only achieve procedural competence and are unable to apply
these procedures to novel problems (Pierce & Stacey, 2004). Kaput (1998)
asserted that technology may assist in shifting a study of algebra from skill-
building in symbolic manipulations to studying functions and their proper-
ties in a variety of representations, since off-loading of routine calculations
 178 S. Herbert

Your backyard pool is kidney shaped and its width

can be modelled as a function of its length (x) using
the rule
w( x) = − 324
1 25 2
x 4 + 19 x 3 − 18 x + 7 x,0 < x < 18
(a) Use a numerical method to the total area of the
pool by finding the area under this graph, for example,
divide the interval up into four subintervals and add
up the areas.
(b) Check your approximation using a theoretical
method.

FIGURE 4 Example of CAS-supported question.

Downloaded by [Eindhoven Technical University] at 10:36 17 February 2015

and procedures allows a stronger focus on the particular concept under in-
vestigation. The sharing of the representational burden and automation of
routine symbolic manipulations frees cognitive load for deeper conceptual
understanding of mathematical ideas unhampered by tedious, error-prone
calculations and procedures. For example, CASs may be used to support stu-
dent problem solving in circumstances where the symbolic representation of
the function is more complicated than is usual, perhaps resulting from some
authentic data collection. It can perform regression to provide the symbolic
representation of a function fitting the data and easily portray the function
in numeric, graphic, and symbolic representations.
Zbiek and Heid (2008) suggested a refocusing of attention from using
calculators to perform routine calculations and procedures to considering dif-
ferent ways of learning about algebra and allowing a variety of strategies for
problem solution. These authors stressed the importance of task design that
encourages learners to look for patterns and familiar shapes and fostered the
sense that these may be in some way connected to symbols to describe and
predict things about the shapes and patterns. Such tasks should encourage
students to use technology to connect graphic and symbolic representations
and foster deeper thinking, and to question misconceptions and appreciate
the power of symbols. Their advice informed the preparation of tasks for
this study (see Figures 4–8).
Since rate is such a troublesome concept that affects the conceptual
understanding of derivative, it is proposed that reversing the usual presenta-
tion of introductory calculus, to begin with area and integration rather than
rate and derivative, may improve students’ conceptual understanding of this
important area of mathematics. “In history we do not see the regular calcu-
lus textbook approach from limits to differential quotient, from methods for
differentiation to methods for integration, and finally the main theorem of
calculus” (Doorman & van Maanen, 2008, p. 10). However, Doorman and
van Maanen did not test their ideas with empirical evidence. In fact, no re-
search could be found where an alternative sequence of the presentation of
 Sequence of Teaching Introductory Calculus 179

Sketch one graph which satisfies all of the following

conditions;
f(0) = 0 ,
f ‘ (−2) = f ‘(1) = f ‘ (9) = 0 ,
f ‘‛ (x
f ‘‛ (x) < 0 on (0, 6) and (6, 12)
lim f ( x) = −∞ lim f ( x) = 0
x →6 x →∞

FIGURE 5 Example of question requiring conceptual understanding.

Downloaded by [Eindhoven Technical University] at 10:36 17 February 2015

(a) Catering Costs How do we work out the rate from a

guests cost graph?
5 260 What’s another (graph) name for rate?
10 370 Catering Cost
15 480
1500
20 590
1000
cost

25 700
500
30 810
0
35 920
0 20 40 60
40 1030
# people
45 1140 What is the rate in the rule?
50 1250 y = 22x + 150
What do you notice about the rate in the
Is the rate table, graph and rule?
constant or In the table, the rate is ………….
variable? In the graph the rate is ………….
In the rule, the rate is ………….

(b)

angle distance 300

A ball is thrown
Distance

10 99.419 into the air 200

20 173.49 100
30 227.97 2 0
y = -0.133x + 11.929x - 8.787 0 20 40 60 80
40 256.88
Angle
50 256.88
What do the table, graph, & rule tell you about the rate?
60 227.97

70 173.49

FIGURE 6 (a) Example of rate discussion for constant rate. (b) Example of rate discussion
for variable rate.
 180 S. Herbert

If a colony of bacteria is growing at a rate of

50% per hour, what is the approximate
population of the colony after one day if the
initial population was 500?
What is the average rate over first day?
Which is the dependent variable?
What is its value at the start of the day? At
end of the day?
What values does the independent variable
take?
841706 - 500
Average rate =
Downloaded by [Eindhoven Technical University] at 10:36 17 February 2015

24 - 0

FIGURE 7 Example of real-world connection to average rate.

introductory calculus had been evaluated. In response to Doorman and van

Maanen’s proposal, this article reports on the empirical evidence collected
to test the implementation of the alternative sequence.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Hiebert and Carpenter (1992) extended the notion of schema, formulated

by Piaget (Wadsworth, 1984) and used in a similar fashion by a number of
mathematics education researchers (Sfard, 1991; Skemp, 1962). Hiebert and
Carpenter emphasized connections between schemata with depth of under-
standing related to strength and number of connections. They suggested that
new concepts are best internalized when attached to existing schema(ta) and
that each student’s interpretation of new ideas differs according to his/her
existing schemata. They warned that new learning, disconnected from ex-
isting schema, may soon be forgotten. They stressed the importance of the

Find the average rate of change for the

function with rule f(x) = x2 between the
following values:
x = 3 and x = 3.1
x = 3 and x = 3.05
x = 3 and x = 3.001
HINT: First type DEFINE f(x) then evaluate
by typing (f (3.1) – f (3))/0.1
What do you notice??
Now try x = 3 and x = 3 + h

FIGURE 8 Example of limiting average rate to instantaneous rate.

 Sequence of Teaching Introductory Calculus 181

teacher’s role in facilitating the attachment of new knowledge to existing

cognitive structures. It is therefore important that the design of instructional
material takes into account students’ current conceptions. These conceptions
may be incomplete or incorrect; for example, procedural competence in gen-
erating the symbolic representation of derivative may not be supported by
other aspects of the concept such as a graphical interpretation. Attention to
students’ prior conceptions of rate established in earlier years of secondary
school guided the development of the tasks for the students in this study
since explicit connections help students to link current learning to estab-
lished networks of schemata. In this study, the design of the instructional
material was therefore built on the knowledge that difficulties with rate may
Downloaded by [Eindhoven Technical University] at 10:36 17 February 2015

hamper students’ understanding of derivative, and that existing schemata re-

lating to area and graphs may provide a better starting point for introductory
calculus.
Sfard (1991) suggested that in mathematics, once a schema is estab-
lished, it is used without conscious thought to the individual components
of the schema. It becomes a single unit that can be used as a whole in
problem solving. For example, a line graph on the Cartesian plane consists
of many aspects, such as the vertical axis, the horizontal axis, the origin,
the scaling on the axes, co-ordinate points, and the line itself. All of these
aspects are brought together in the schema for graphs, and the graph is in-
terpreted by taking all the aspects as a whole while focusing on the position
and shape of the line. The schema for a particular mathematical concept has
been constructed through an individual’s entire life experience related to the
concept, possibly acquired outside the classroom, and may be different from
the generally accepted mathematical definition.

METHOD

Many mathematics students are introduced to calculus in senior secondary

school, but high-stakes examinations are undertaken at this time so schools
and teachers may be reluctant to participate in this experimental approach.
It was decided to first pilot the alternate sequence with university students.
Two classes of first-year university students taking an introductory calculus
unit were selected for the pilot. All students taking that unit received the
normal delivery of the unit and were supplied with a handheld CAS for the
semester, but one class (24 students) followed the traditional sequence and
the other class (29 students) followed a sequence beginning with integration.
Only a few students declined to give approval for their exam results to be
used in this research and their results were removed from the sample before
the statistical calculations reported hereafter were completed. Two students
volunteered to be interviewed about their experiences with this alternative
approach. Both of these classes consisted of mathematics majors—human
 182 S. Herbert

movement students intending to teach physical education and mathematics

and education students intending to teach mathematics. While many students
had been introduced to calculus at school, about one-third of students had
no previous experience with calculus.
The results of the end-of-semester exam were compared using a
two sample t test. The exam included a mix of CAS-supported questions
(Figure 4) and questions which required conceptual understanding of the
concepts of integration and differentiation (Figure 5). This summative assess-
ment represented 50% of the total assessment for the unit and was considered
appropriate for this evaluation of the learning that had taken place by the
end of the semester, since the other assessment for the unit was formative
Downloaded by [Eindhoven Technical University] at 10:36 17 February 2015

and therefore not indicative of the entire learning for the unit.

Teaching Approach
Both classes were taught by the author ensuring, as far as possible, a com-
parative delivery of the material. The learning experiences for both classes
emphasized the support of a handheld CAS and real-world connections.
Delivery of content involved careful treatment of rate and extensive nu-
merical integration stressing conceptual understanding rather than the usual
formulae, such as Simpson’s Rule (see Figures 6–10). In accordance with
the theoretical framework outlined by Hiebert and Carpenter (1992), strong,
explicit connection to students’ prior knowledge was attempted at all stages
of the delivery. The concept of rate was explored in numeric, graphic, and
symbolic representations with instances of both constant and variable rate
(Figure 6). The notion of average rate that built on students’ understanding
of linear functions, and hence constant rate, was employed to demonstrate
a way of quantifying variable rate.
The notion of instantaneous rate was developed by considering the av-
erage rate over a fixed interval of the independent variable. For example,
in Figure 7, a real-world example was used to set a familiar context and
calculate average rate, leading to discussions of the similarity of this calcula-
tion with the calculations students had used in middle secondary school to
calculate the gradient of a linear function.
In Figure 8, the average rate was calculated for f (x) = x2 , the symbolic
representation of a familiar function, for intervals of 0.1, 0.05 and 0.001,
thus approaching the instantaneous rate of f (x) at x = 3, that is, an infor-
mal treatment of the limit of average rate. The term instantaneous rate was
eventually renamed derivative and symbolic manipulations undertaken to
find the derivative from first principles, f  (x) = lim f (x+h)−
h
f (x)
, but partic-
h→0
ular attention was drawn to the relationship between this formula and the
exploration seen in Figure 8.
Technology was also used to explore derivative in the graphic rep-
resentation. A Web-based animation was shown (Talman, 2012), and then
 Sequence of Teaching Introductory Calculus 183

(a)
Downloaded by [Eindhoven Technical University] at 10:36 17 February 2015

(b)
No. of Angle at Total area
triangles center

8 π/4 2.82843r2

16 π/8 3.06147r2

32 π/16 3.12145r2
64

128

(c)

y = f(x)

A( x + h) − A( x)
As h → 0, f ( x) ≤ lim ≤ f ( x)
h→0 h
A( x + h) − A( x)
⇒ f ( x) = lim
h→0 h
x
h

FIGURE 9 (a) Introduction to numerical integration. (b) Demonstration of limiting process

leading to formula. (c) Development of FTC.

the students completed a CAS-based construction (Texas Instruments, 2006,

pp. 15–19) and showed the tangents to the graph of the function f (x) =
x 3 – 5x + 2 as a point on the x-axis was dragged across at the restricted
domain [– 6, 6]. This construction also calculated and plotted the gradients
 184 S. Herbert

∫ x dx ∫ x dx ∫ x
3 4 10
dx ∫x
−3
dx ∫x
−7
dx ∫ sin xdx ∫ sin 2 xdx ∫ sin 5 xdx ∫ sin udu
3 3 1
∫ 4 x dx ∫ 2 x dx ∫ 3 x dx ∫ − 2 x dx
3 3
∫ cos xdx ∫ cos 2 xdx ∫ cos 5 xdx ∫ cos udu
∫ u du ∫ ∫
3 5
u du u du

∫ e dx ∫ e ∫e ∫e
x 2x 5x −3 x
dx dx dx

FIGURE 10 Introduction to indefinite integral.

of the tangents, hence demonstrating that the graph of the gradients of the
tangents resulted in the graph of the derivative, f  (x) = 3x2 − 5. These ex-
Downloaded by [Eindhoven Technical University] at 10:36 17 February 2015

amples demonstrate the manner in which the concept of derivative was

explicitly connected to the concept of rate.
An informal consideration of limits was also employed in the introduc-
tion to numerical integration. The concept of area was explored by consid-
ering a circle divided up into sectors (see Figure 9a) and finding the sum of
the areas of the triangles bounded by two radii and a chord (the area of one
such triangle is shaded in Figure 9a). The number of sectors was repeatedly
doubled, the area of one triangle calculated and multiplied by the number
of triangles. The students completed the table seen in Figure 9b, leading to a
discussion of the relationship of result of this limiting process to the familiar
formula for the area of a circle. This exercise provided the link to numerical
integration with students’ prior knowledge about area and the formula for
area of a circle. A feature of the introduction to the Fundamental Theorem
of Calculus (FTC) was the explicit connection between numerical integration
and differentiation from first principles (Figure 9c).
Considerable emphasis was given to numerical integration, just being
referred to as the area under the curve. The integral sign was introduced
as meaning “the area under the curve.” This introduction enabled students
to use the CAS to explore some indefinite integrals (Figure 10), where they
were asked to describe the patterns they saw. These descriptions of patterns
were used to formulate generalizations for the integrals of polynomials, ex-
ponential functions, and trigonometric functions.
These examples (Figures 6–10) provide an indication of the approach
used and the manner in which the CAS was employed to support the alter-
native sequence.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Two-sample t tests were undertaken in Minitab on the examination results of

the two classes. The mean scores out of 50 were 32.09 for the class following
the traditional sequence (n1 = 24) and 31.38 for the class following the
alternative sequence (n2 = 29). The p-value of 0.809 (Cohen’s d = 0.069)
 Sequence of Teaching Introductory Calculus 185

indicates that there is no significant difference between the examination

results of the two classes (see Appendix, Figure 11).
However, the students were allowed to use CAS calculators in the exam-
ination, so it may be that this influenced the results. A second two-sample
t test was undertaken in Minitab on the examination results of the two
classes but only considering questions where conceptual understanding was
required and not influenced by the support provided by the CAS calcula-
tor. The total of the conceptual questions was 38, but students’ results were
converted to marks out of 50 so that the means are comparable. The mean
scores out of 50 were 27.98 for the class following the traditional sequence
and 30.35 for the class following the alternative sequence. So, the resulting
Downloaded by [Eindhoven Technical University] at 10:36 17 February 2015

p-value of 0.404 (Cohen’s d = −0.240) still indicates that there is no signif-

icant difference between the examination results of the two classes on the
conceptual exam questions (see Appendix, Figure 12). This suggests that
the change of sequence did not disadvantage the class undertaking the al-
ternative delivery. Indeed the two students interviewed indicated that this
alternative approach assisted in their learning. This is demonstrated in the
following comments:

I played with the graph and I could see what was happening on the
[calculator] screen. It was more interactive . . . .I altered the symbolic
form.
I can check my answers [with the calculator] . . . [and] having a play with
it by shifting the graph.

The aim of this pilot was to show that a CAS-supported delivery of

the introduction to calculus, starting with integration instead of derivative,
would not disadvantage students. It was expected that, although many of the
participants had already studied introductory calculus at secondary school,
they would have experienced similar difficulties to those reported in the
research literature and so would also benefit from an approach which em-
phasized conceptual understanding rather than the usual formal manipu-
lation of the symbolic definition of derivative with integration viewed as
anti-differentiation. While these results are not conclusive, they do suggest
the feasibility of a larger scale study with pre-calculus secondary school
participants that would not disadvantage these students in their high-stakes
exam.

Limitations
Many of the students in both classes had previously been introduced to
calculus at school, so it is unclear how much this school-based introduc-
tion influenced their level of conceptual understanding. It may be that the
CAS-supported approach, with its emphasis on conceptual understanding,
 186 S. Herbert

contributed to students’ success in the exam, rather than the alternative se-
quence. The exam use of the CAS is another blocking variable. Competence
in CAS use may have varied across individuals in the two classes. Although
all students were supplied with a handheld CAS to keep with them for the
entire semester, both in class and at home, it may be that individuals re-
sponded to that opportunity in different ways. Perhaps some students were
so accustomed to their graphing calculator, they were unwilling to embrace
a new technology (Pierce, Herbert & Giri, 2004).

CONCLUSION
Downloaded by [Eindhoven Technical University] at 10:36 17 February 2015

Since rate, and hence derivative, continue to be a source of difficulty for

introductory calculus students, this study examined the effects of the reversal
of the usual sequence in teaching introductory calculus, beginning with area
and integration, rather than rate and derivative.
CAS enables different approaches to teaching mathematics. This article
demonstrated, in one setting, the use of CAS to explore mathematical concep-
tions where the affordances of handheld CASs supported the development
of conceptual understanding of introductory calculus. This article described
the manner in which CAS was employed to provide rich learning experi-
ences for these tertiary students. The use of CAS supported the alternative
sequence starting from numerical integration with an informal treatment of
limits and discovery of symbolic rules, followed by an exploration of rate and
derivative through accurate and timely access to the multiple representations
of functions and their tangents.
Although the participants of this study were not all new to calculus, thus
possibly influencing the results, these results are sufficiently encouraging to
indicate that this sequence may be safely trialed in senior secondary school
where many students are introduced to calculus. Further research will be
necessary to explore the effectiveness of the alternate sequence for intro-
ductory calculus at the school level. An interesting aspect not investigated in
this study is the effect of the CAS-supported delivery of the unit. This article
described an approach that could be replicated to provide a suitable focus
for further research in the teaching of introductory calculus.
This article has discussed the rationale for piloting an alternate sequence
and has described the critical role of CASs in enabling this alternative ap-
proach to introductory calculus, thus demonstrating the manner in which
CASs may be employed in teaching undergraduate mathematics differently.

REFERENCES

Abramovich, S., & Norton, A. (2000). Technology-enabled pedagogy as an infor-

mal link between finite and infinite concepts in secondary mathematics. The
Mathematics Educator, 10(2), 36–41.
 Sequence of Teaching Introductory Calculus 187

Amit, M., & Fried, M. N. (2005). Multiple representations in 8th grade algebra lessons:
Are learners really getting it? In H. L. Chick & J. L. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of
the 29th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics
Education (Vol. 2, pp. 57–63). Melbourne, Australia: Psychology of Mathematics
Education.
Anton, H., Bivens, I., & Davis, S. (2005). Calculus: Single variable. Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley.
Asiala, M., Cottrill, J., Dubinsky, E., & Schwingendorf, K. E. (1997). The development
of students’ graphical understanding of the derivative. Journal of Mathematical
Behavior, 16(4), 399–431.
Carlson, M., Jacobs, S., Coe, E., Larsen, S., & Hsu, E. (2002). Applying covariational
reasoning while modeling dynamic events: A framework and a study. Journal
Downloaded by [Eindhoven Technical University] at 10:36 17 February 2015

for Research in Mathematics Education, 33(5), 352–378.

Coe, E. (2007). Modeling teachers’ ways of thinking about rate of change (Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation). Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ. Retrieved
from [Link]
Coupland, M. (2000). First experiences with a computer algebra system. In J. Bana,
& A. Chapman (Eds.), Mathematics education beyond 2000: Proceedings of
the 23rd Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group
of Australasia (MERGA-23) (pp. 204–211). Fremantle, Australia: Mathematics
Education Research Group of Australasia
delos Santos, A., & Thomas, M. (2005). The growth of schematic thinking about
derivative. In P. Clarkson, A. Downton, D. Gronn, M. Horne, A. McDonough, R.
Pierce, & A. Roche (Eds.), Building connections: Research, theory and practice:
Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Re-
search Group of Australasia. (pp. 377–384). Melbourne, Australia: Mathematics
Education Research Group of Australasia.
Doorman, M., & van Maanen, J. (2008). A historical perspective on teaching and
learning calculus. Australian Senior Mathematics Journal, 22(2), 4–14.
Dreyfus, T. (1994). The role of cognitive tools in mathematics education. In R.
Biehler, R. Scholz, R. Straber, & B. Winkelmann (Eds.), Didactics of mathe-
matics as a scientific discipline (pp. 201–211). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Kluwer.
Gagatsis, A., Christou, C., & Elia, I. (2004). The nature of multiple representations in
developing mathematical relationships. Quaderni Di Ricerca in Didattica, 14,
150–159.
Hassan, I., & Mitchelmore, M. (2006). The role of abstraction in learning about rates of
change. In P. Grootenboer, R. Zevnbergen, & M. Chinnappan (Eds.), Identities,
cultures and learning spaces: Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the
Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (Vol. 1, pp. 278–285).
Canberra, Australia: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.
Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In
D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning
(pp. 65–97). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Kaput, J. (1992). Technology and mathematics education. In D. Grouws (Ed.),
Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 515–556).
New York: Macmillan.
 188 S. Herbert

Kaput, J. (1998). Representations, inscriptions, descriptions and learning: A kalei-

doscope of windows. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17(2), 265–
281.
Kaput, J., Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (2008). Developing new notations for a learn-
able mathematics in the computational era. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook
of international research in mathematics education (2nd ed., pp. 693–715).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Kendal, M., & Stacey, K. (2001). The impact of teacher privileging on learning differ-
entiation with technology. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical
Learning, 6, 143–165.
Kendal, M., Stacey, K., & Pierce, R. (2005). The influence of a computer alge-
bra environment on teachers’ practice. In D. Guin, K. Ruthven, & L. Trouche
Downloaded by [Eindhoven Technical University] at 10:36 17 February 2015

(Eds.), The didactical challenge of symbolic calculators (Vol. 36, pp. 83–112).
New York, NY: Springer.
Lopez-Gay, R., Martinez-Torregrosa, J., Gras-Marti, A., & Torregrosa, G. (2002). On
how to best introduce the concept of differential in physics. In M. Michelini
& M. Cobal (Eds.), Developing formal thinking in physics: First international
(GIREP) seminar (pp. 329–333). Udine, Italy: University of Udine.
Mallet, D. (2007). Multiple representations for systems of linear equations via the
computer algebra system Maple. International Electronic Journal of Mathemat-
ics Education, 2(1), 16–31.
Orton, A. (1984, November). Understanding rate of change. Mathematics in School,
pp. 23–26.
Parameswaran, R. (2007). On understanding the notion of limits and infinitesimal
quantities. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(2),
193–216.
Pierce, R., Herbert, S., & Giri, J. (2004). CAS: Student engagement requires unam-
biguous advantages. In I. Putt, R. Faragher, & M. McLean (Eds.), Mathematics
education for the third millennium: Towards 2010: Proceedings of the 27th An-
nual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia,
Townsville (Vol. 2, pp. 462–469). Townsville, Australia: MERGA.
Pierce, R., & Stacey, K. (2004). A framework for monitoring progress and planning
teaching towards the effective use of computer algebra systems. International
Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9(1), 59–93.
Porzio, D. (1997). Effects of different instructional approaches on calculus students’
understanding of the relationship between slope, rate of change, and the first
derivative. In J. A. Dossey, J. O. Swafford, O. Jane, M. Parmantie, & A. E. Dossey,
(Eds.), (Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of
International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 37–44).
Bloomington-Normal, IL: North American Chapter of the International Group
for the Psychology of Mathematics Education International.
Reed, S. K., & Jazo, L. (2002). Using multiple representations to improve concep-
tions of average speed. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 27(1–2),
147–166.
Rowland, D., & Jovanoski, Z. (2004). Student interpretations of the terms in first-order
ordinary differential equations in modelling contexts. International Journal of
Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 35(4), 503–516.
 Sequence of Teaching Introductory Calculus 189

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), 1–36.
Skemp, R. R. (1962). The need for a schematic learning theory. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 32(P2), 133–142.
Stacey, K., Kendal, M., & Pierce, R. (2002). Teaching with CAS in a time of transition.
International Journal of Computer Algebra in Mathematics Education, 9(2),
113–127
Talman, L. (2012) Plotting a derivative. Retrieved from [Link]
∼talmanl/HTML/[Link]
Texas Instruments. (2006). Getting started TI-nspire CAS. Retrieved from http://
[Link] / downloads / guidebooks / ti - nspire2/ TI - NSpireCAS _Getting
Downloaded by [Eindhoven Technical University] at 10:36 17 February 2015

Started_EN.pdf
Thompson, P. (1994). Images of rate and operational understanding of the fun-
damental theorem of calculus. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26(2),
229–274.
Thompson, P., & Thompson, A. (1994). Talking about rates conceptually, part I:
A teacher’s struggle. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(3),
279–303.
Ubuz, B. (2007). Interpreting a graph and constructing its derivative graph: Stabil-
ity and change in students’ conceptions. International Journal of Mathematics
Education in Science and Technology, 38(5), 609–637.
Wadsworth, B. J. (1984). Piaget’s theory of cognitive and affective development (3rd
ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
White, P., & Mitchelmore, M. (1996). Conceptual knowledge in introductory calculus.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(1), 79–95.
Zbiek, R. M., & Heid, M. K. (2008). Digging deeply into intermediate algebra: Us-
ing symbols to reason and technology to connect symbols and graphs. In C.
Greenes & R. N. Rubenstein (Eds.), Algebra and algebraic thinking in school
mathematics: 2008 yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
(pp. 247–261). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
 190 S. Herbert

APPENDIX

Descriptive Statistics: Class 1 - trad, Class 2 - alt

Variable Mean StDev Minimum Q1 Median Q3 Maximum
Class 1 - trad 32.09 11.42 7.14 25.45 34.23 39.88 49.40
Class 2 - alt 31.38 9.56 10.33 23.17 30.00 39.83 48.00
Two-Sample T-Test and CI: Class 1 - trad, Class 2 - alt
Difference = mu (Class 1 - trad) - mu (Class 2 - alt)
Estimate for difference: 0.71
95% CI for difference: (-5.19, 6.62)
T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 0.24 P-Value = 0.809 DF = 44

FIGURE 11 Minitab printout of two sample t test on examination results.

Downloaded by [Eindhoven Technical University] at 10:36 17 February 2015

Descriptive Statistics: Class 1 - trad-concept, Class 2 - alt-concept

Variable Mean StDev Minimum Q1 Median Q3 Maximum
Class 1 - trad-concept 27.98 10.86 8.62 18.97 29.31 35.78 49.14
Class 2 - alt-concept 30.35 9.35 11.18 22.37 32.89 36.51 47.37
Two-Sample T-Test and CI: Class 1 - trad-concept, Class 2 - alt-concept
Difference = mu (Class 1 - trad-concept) - mu (Class 2 - alt-concept)
Estimate for difference: -2.37
95% CI for difference: (-8.05, 3.30)
T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = -0.84 P-Value = 0.404 DF = 45

FIGURE 12 Minitab printout of two sample t test on examination results from conceptual
questions.