THE TALL VINNER PROBLEM:

An Operational Reformulation Concerning the Concept of Function1

Jairo Alvarez & Cesar Delgado

Department of Mathematics
Center for Advanced Studies in Psychology, Cognition and Culture
Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia
OVERVIEW
In several papers (refer to [2] and [3], in particular) Tall and Vinner introduce the notion of
concept image, and outline differences between formal or institutional definition, and
personal definition of a mathematical concept. Tall and Vinner establish, first of all, the
enormous difference that exists between a mathematical concept, such as it is expressed and
concretized in the existing mathematical discourse, and the very same mathematical
concept, such as it is appropriated by an individual, and which, we may refer to as the
personal or psychological version of the concept, or simply, the concept image. Secondly,
Tall and Vinner identify various fundamental problems in the comprehension of
mathematical concepts, which appear to be common to students from all countries. These
comprehension problems are revealed as inconsistencies between the meanings associated
with the concept, as they are activated by the subject when facing cognitive demands in
relation to different problem situations (evoked concept image), or when the meanings
associated with the name of the concept do not coincide with its institutional definition
This type of problems, which we will identify as the TallVinner Problem, is very common
among first semester students at the Universidad del Valle, with regards to the concept of
function, and play an important role in the high rate of student failure during the first
courses of university calculus and linear algebra. This rate of failure, which approximates
50%, constitutes an endemic problem, not only at the Universidad del Valle, but also, all
throughout the Colombian university system [5]. From this perspective, the understanding
of these kinds of deficiencies in the mathematical formation of students, along with the
development of theoretically-founded curricular and didactic approaches that would allow
students to overcome such problems, are of great importance towards improving the
teaching of mathematics at the university and , as well as at the high school level in our
country.
In our project entitled: Symbolic Computation Systems in the Teaching and Learning of
Basic University Mathematics2 [6], we researched, among other problems, the potential
contribution that a symbolic computation system, such as Mathematica, could provide in
th
Short Communication in: Proceedings of 26 Annual Conference of the International Group for
the Psychology of Mathematics Education, , Vol 1, pp. 261, 2002 University of East Anglia,
Norwuich, United Kindow.

With financial support from COLCIENCIAS ( Bogot, Colombia). Code 1106-11-202-96

2
the elaboration of a didactic proposal for teaching the concept of function, at the universityhigh school juncture, which would enable students to overcome commonly recognized
problems in the process of learning the concept of function, particularly, the TallVinner
Problem. This research has prompted the methodological necessity of developing an
operational definition of basic comprehension of function, appropriate to the indicated
curricular level, and suitable for practical purposes to determine if a student entering
college has a sufficient comprehension of function to successfully overcome the Tall
Vinner Problem. This definition is the objective that we seek to address in this paper.
In the following pages we will develop 1) a glossary of terms that will help us understand
the stated problem properly, 2) an approach to the problem, and 3) the theoretical
considerations underlying this approach.

THE TALL VINNER PROBLEM

Basic concepts
Tall and Vinner [2] establish a distinction between the ideas associated with a specific
mathematical concept, as they are evoked in the subjects mind upon hearing the concepts
name, and the actual words used to define (or at least try to define) the concept. The authors
introduce the following notions: concept image, formal concept definition, and personal
definition

Concept Image:
We shall use the term concept image to describe the total cognitive structure that is associated with
the concept, which includes all mental pictures and associated properties and processes. It is built
up over the years through experiences of all kinds, changing as the individual meets new stimuli and
matures ([2], p. 152).

Vinner complements it further [3].

A concept name when seen or heard is a stimulus to our memory. Something is evoked by the
concept name in our memory. Usually, it is not the concept definition, even in the case that concept
does have a definition. The concept image is something non-verbal associated in our mind with the
concept name. It can be a visual representation of the concept in case the concept has a visual
representation; it can also be a collection of impressions or experiences. The visual representations,
the mental pictures, the impressions and the experiences associated with the concept name can be
translated into verbal forms. But it is important to remember that these verbal forms were not the
first thing evoked in our memory. They came into being only at a later stage. ([3] p.pp. 68).

The authors also introduce the notion of personal concept definition, differentiating it from
the institutional or formal definition of the concept:

Personal concept definition versus formal concept definition

3
The definition of a concept (if it has one) is quite a different matter. We shall regard the concept
definition to be a form of words used to specify that concept. It may be learnt by an individual in a
rote fashion or more meaningfully learnt and related to a greater or lesser degree to the concept as a
whole. It may also be a personal reconstruction by the student of the definition. It is then the form of
words that the student uses for his own explanation of his evoked concept image. In this way a
personal concept image can differ from a formal concept definition ([2], p. 152).

According to Tall and Vinner, an individuals concept image determines the way he or she
understands a concept.
We assume that to acquire a concept means to form a concept image for it. To know by heart a
concept definition does not guarantee understanding the concept. To understand, we believe, means
to have a concept image [3].

According to this, one of the main concerns we have to address when teaching a concept,
particularly the concept of function, is the kind of concept image that we want the student
to have as the foundation for the psychological construction of the concept. It will not be
possible to understand a concept unless there is an appropriate concept image associated
with the concept itself We would like to emphasize, as a supplement to Vinners quote
stated above, that the concept image must be appropriate for there to be understanding To
ensure understanding, the concept image must keep, in one way or another, some coherence
with the formal mathematical definition of the concept, as it is possible too that the concept
image itself exhibits different types of discrepancies with respect to said definition. Later in
the paper, we will elaborate further on this point.
The concept image is not actuated as a whole. When the subject is confronted with a
problem situation that requires an appropriate application of the, associated mathematical
concept, the portion of the individuals concept image that seems most suitable for the
given situation is set into action . Consequently, it is essential to differentiate between
concept image, as a total structure, existing in a given developmental stage and the portion
of this structure that is actuated by the cognitive system in a particular instant . As a
result, the authors proceed to define:
Evoked Concept Image:
We shall call the portion of the concept image which is activated at a particular time the evoked
concept image ([2], p. 152)

The problem
Taking into account all of the considerations presented here so far, in addition to some
observations taken from practical experience, brings us to identify several key problems
manifest in the process of acquiring mathematical concepts. These problems consist of
incoherencies or ruptures in the triad
concept image
(personal concept)

> institutional/formal definition

(mathematical concept)

> personal definition

(which is a part of concept image).

4
all of which is revealed in the action of the subject. Some of these problems are already
identifiable in Tall and Vinners articles cited above
A. The concept image as a whole may exhibit inconsistencies when it is actuated or
set into action in different situations.
As the concept image develops, it need not be coherent at all times.. ([2], p. 152, idem).

These inconsistencies may be found by looking carefully at the evoked concept image
thats used by the subject while dealing with problem situations that require the effective
use of the associated mathematical concept. It is important to point out that the evoked
concept image is both subject to the limitations of its developmental stage at a given time,
and unequivocally linked to the particular context in which the concept is expressed. The
meaning that a student associates with a concept in a given context may be inconsistent
with the meaning he or she assigns to the same concept in another context without being
aware of it (these type of inconsistencies are potential causes of cognitive conflicts).
Tall and Vinner ([2], p. 152) illustrate this point:
different processes according to the context. For instance adding + may be performed correctly
but when confronted with + 1/3, an erroneous method may be used. Such a child need see no conflict
in the different methods, he simply utilizes the method he considers appropriate on each occasion.

Similar cases have been recorded [4] among students at the Universidad del Valle,
concerning the acquisition of the concept of function. For example, it is common for many
students entering college to be able to calculate f(a), f(f(a)) when operating with a function
f defined by a variable mathematical expression, but not to handle functions defined by
tables, sets of ordered pairs or by equations with the same amount of success. Similarly,
they are successful at identifying functions in a sagital context, but are unable to do so
correctly in a graphic context.
B. The concept image, or personal concept developed by the subject, may present
discrepancies with the institutional mathematical concept. These discrepancies are
determined by the subjects interpretation of the socially-shared meaning of the
mathematical concept.
A first type of discrepancy arises when the meaning that the subject assigns to the concept
turns out to be very restricted in contrast with the more general scope of the mathematical
concept.
But a teacher may give the formal definition (of function) and work with the general notion for a short
while before spending long periods in which all examples are given by formulae. In such a case the
concept image may develop into a more restricted notion, only involving formulae [2].

This type of discrepancy between personal concept of function and institutional concept of
function is not rare among first semester students at the Universidad del Valle ([4])

5
When a student identifies function with formulae, or with algebraic expressions in one
variable, it not only means that he identifies the concept with very restricted interpretations
of it, but also that he has a limited vision of the variety of contexts in which a function can
be represented . The same would be true when the student thinks that a function can only
be defined by a homogeneous rule of association (the same criteria of assignment for all of
the elements of the domain) that has to be represented with a mathematical expression.
The conclusion inferred from Tall and Vinners article cited above, which we support, is
that this type of restrictions are, above all, the result of explicit or implicit instructional
trends and approaches, which have molded the students acquisition of a given concept, and
not only due to the difficulties inherent to the nature of the concept.
These are obstacles that originate in didactics . In the case of function, students do not
normally have the opportunity to work with the concept in sufficiently diverse situations,
where functions of different types are expressed according to the nature of their domains
and co-domains, which may help them grasp the generality of the concept; similarly,
students do not often work with functions using different forms of representation. It is
worthy of attention that these instructional approaches are dominant in our school practices,
and that it would be possible to document them by reviewing classroom materials, such as
textbooks, and surveying teachers conceptions. Even though, functions, such as scale
fields, vector fields, and linear transformations, should be consolidated throughout calculus
and linear algebra courses, it is our opinion, that during the last years of high school, a
student should develop an ample concept image of function, beyond the conception of
function as a formula, or as a correspondence between numbers regulated by mathematical
expressions.
A more serious type of mathematical maladaptation occurs when the meaning that a subject
associates with a concept conflicts with the socially shared meaning of that concept. We
have recorded cases (see [4]), in which students were asked to identify functions and could
only identify one-to-one functions.
C. It is common for students not to have a personal definition of the mathematical
concepts they have studied; however, if they do, even if the definition they verbalize
is congruent with the institutional definition of the concept, it is possible that their
definition is disarticulated from the corresponding concept image, and that said
definition it is of no consequence in the students action.
When a subject is asked to verbalize the definition of a concept, he may produce a
definition that attempts to describe the concept image evoked at that particular time, or, in
general, starting from such an evoked concept image, try to reconstruct some definition that
he was taught at one time. Despite its link to the individuals concept image, this
verbalization occurs as something that is worked out at that given instant, and, as such , it is
more the result of an action, than the cause of the action itself; consequently, it does not
play an active role when the subject is working with the concept; unless the verbalized
definition it is eventually appropriated or internalized, and connected to the other elements
of the subjects personal version of the concept. In these cases, one may say that the
subject does not have a stable definition; therefore the subject will produce different

6
versions of said definition according to the moment and situation with which he is
confronted.
Moreover, the subject may systematically verbalized a definition that was learnt by rote,
and which happens to coincide with the institutional definition of the concept, but which,
practically, does not have any significance in the subjects actions when working with the
concept. Even if this definition is identifiable as an entity, and the subject is capable of
recalling it at will, the definition is not articulated with the rest of the elements that are
grouped in the concept image. This situation is recorded by Vinner ([3], p. 74):
Many students who defined function correctly were not using their definition when replying to
questions 1 3. In fact only one third of the students who gave the correct definition of function also
answered questions 1 3 correctly.
(Question 1: Is there a function in which each number different from 0 corresponds to its square and 0
corresponds to 1?. )
(Question 2: Is there a function in which each positive number corresponds to 1, each negative number
corresponds to 1, and 0 corresponds to 0?)

The students mentioned in Vinners report, verbalize a definition of function that coincides
with the institutional definition used, but do not identify as such, a function when it is
defined by sections or by parts. Here too, we find discrepancies as we previously
characterized them (Refer to B). It is worthwhile mentioning that these disarticulations
between the definition of function verbalized by the subject, and the subjects action, are
frequent among first semester students at the Universidad del Valle.([4]).
This phenomenon (together with the inconsistencies described in A) seems to give
empirical support and pertinence to Tall and Vinners affirmation ([2])
During the mental processes of recalling and manipulating a concept, many associated processes are
brought into play; consciously and unconsciously affecting the meaning and usage. ( [2], pg. 152)

It is our opinion, that this fact stresses the importance of the articulation that needs to be
present between personal definition and concept image as a whole, as an awareness that
sets down the personal definition as an element providing coherency to the distinct parts
of the concept image, which are evoked in different contexts. This is particularly true in the
case of function, as we will explain in more detail later.
Vinner provides some interesting insights on this problem ([3] pgs. 70-73). Indeed, this
disarticulation that is often present between concept image and personal definition is one
of the fundamental problems students encounter in acquiring the technical method of
reasoning that is used in mathematics and scientific disciplines. Vinner also brings into
light the misapprehensions of many teachers who believe that learning a mathematical
concept is a linear and simple process that can be satisfied simply by providing an
explanation of said concept. In the practical day to day, this learning process is complex,
and it requires didactic intervention in order for students to build stable personal definitions
that are not only congruent with the institutional definition of the concept, but also
articulated with the concept image that each student constructs.

We have been able to identify among first semester students at the Universidad del Valle
two phenomena that fall within the context of the triad: concept image (personal concept) > institutional or formal definition (mathematical concept) - > personal definition, which
are different from other phenomena reported by Tall and Vinner, and which may be
considered as part of the same group of problems.
The first phenomenon has to do with the identification of stable personal definitions of
function that are in conflict with the institutional definition of function, but articulated with
the students concept image of function. This is to say that the subjects personal definition
takes an active role in the actions of the subject . When this phenomenon occurs, the subject
has a tendency to make consistent and systematic errors identifying functions. For the
subject, this implies a cognitive obstacle that is particularly difficult to overcome when
trying to learn the mathematical concept of function.
The second phenomenon has to do with students who use the definition of function to
define the concept of injective function, that is, they verbalize a definition of injective
function that is incongruent with the institutional definition of that concept. However, the
students were successful at identifying functions, as well as injective functions. This case
may be explained also as a disarticulation between personal definition and concept image
as a whole. However, this does not appear to be the case. The meaning that students
attached to the concept of injective function, based on their given definition, seems to be
congruent with the socially shared meaning of the concept. If this is true, the personal
definition of any such students would be taking be an active role in the students
corresponding concept image
The problem seems to be one of interpretation when students are faced with the following
phrase, which is part of the definition of function:
To each element in the domain corresponds one and only one element in the co-domain.
The subject interprets the phrase as describing a one to one relation. That is, the problem
seems to lie in the conversion that the subject makes between the representation of the
concept, conveyed in the evoked concept image, and its semiotic verbal representation.
The subject does not associate the meaning of function to the phrase, but instead the
meaning of injective function, consequently, the concept image generated by said definition
is congruent with the mathematical concept of injective function. In other words, despite
the fact that there is incongruity between the personal definition and the institutional
definition of the concept, there are none present between the concept image linked to the
personal definition of the subject, and the institutional definition that comprises the socially
shared meaning of the concept. The subject then would be using also the same wording to
convey the concept image of function, which would be congruent with the mathematical
concept of function (without the subject being aware of it). It is feasible to categorize this
phenomenon as a form of inconsistency , since the subject is using the same definition to
refer to different concepts in different situations, but this would be a different type of
inconsistency from the ones reported in A.

8
The latter form of inconsistency would be associated with problems in the translation or
conversion of an internal representation of the subject (evoked concept image), and an
external semiotic representation, which the subject himself produces. A similar
phenomenon, which substantiates this assertion, can be found in [4]. Some students, when
faced with and f(f(a)) type calculation, which in some of the proposed situations did not
make sense, interpreted and executed an f(f(a))=a type calculation, that is, as a composicin
of f and its inverse. In other situations, the calculation f(g(a)), with f and g being inverse,
was also calculated as f(g(a))=a. This case does not have to do with two portions of the
concept image being associated with the same definition, but more with a portion of the
concept image that is associated, or, can be actuated, by two semiotic records that have
totally different mathematical meanings.

Stable Personal Definition, Mathematically Well-Adapted Personal Definition and

Global Coherence
According to the previous considerations, the definition that a person verbalizes regarding a
mathematical concept may respond to very diverse interpretations, depending on its
articulation with the conceptual image, and its potential conflict or equivalence with the
formal definition of the concept. Taking this last statement into account, it would seem
appropriate to make some distinctions, and introduce the concepts of stable personal
definition, mathematically well-adapted personal definition, and local and global
coherence of a stable personal definition.
We will say that a personal definition, relative to a mathematical concept, is stable insofar
as the subject is capable of verbalizing said definition in a consistent and systematic way in
different situations.
A stable personal definition will be mathematically well-adapted or well-adjusted, if it is
in agreement with the institutionalized definition.
The coherence of a definition refers to the degree of articulation present between the
personal definition and the action of the subject, that is, the concept image evoked by the
subject when he or she deliberates and deals with the concept. In other words, the
definition directs in one way or another the action of the subject in the pertinent situations.
The coherence of a definition may be defined as global when it refers to different contexts.
Similarly, it may be defined as local when it is limited to only one context or situation.
Coherence supposes stability.
Stability does not necessarily imply mathematical well-adjustment. It is not rare for a
person to have a stable definition of a concept that is in turn mathematically maladjusted.
Likewise, a stable personal definition, regardless of whether it is mathematically welladjusted or maladjusted, does not necessarily have to be coherent. It may be, however,
that a stable personal definition that is mathematically maladjusted is coherent, according
to our definition

9
Using the terminology we have defined, we may be able to rephrase the Tall and Vinner
Problem in general terms:
A. The concept image that a subject constructs in relation to a mathematical concept is
not necessarily coherent in action when the subject confronts problem situations,
and it may present different problems of mathematical adaptation as well, with the
institutional definition of the concept. For example, the concept image may be very
restricted compared to the more general scope of the mathematical definition of the
concept. In other cases, the meaning that the subject associates with the concept
image, which is put into action in certain situations may be conflictive with the
meaning of the socially- accepted concept (mathematical meaning).
B. The subject may have a stable definition that is either mathematically well-adjusted
or maladjusted, and which remains isolated in relation to the concept image as a
whole. There are cases of stable definitions that are mathematically maladjusted
and yet coherent. It is common for university students not to have a stable personal
definition that is both mathematically well-adjusted and coherent with the concept
image that is evoked in different problem situations where they are confronted with
concepts studied at school.
The latter problem is particularly true concerning the concept of function among students
who are just starting their university studies, as it is the case at the Universidad del Valle.
Understanding Concepts From the Perspective of the Tall Vinner Problem
Conceptual comprehension from the perspective of the Tall Vinner Problem
The Tall Vinner Problem outlines key problems inherent to the process of conceptual
learning. The successful comprehension of a concept is contingent on the individuals
ability to overcome these problems.
Following Tall and Vinner we will say that understanding a concept implies the
construction of a concept image that is associated with the concept; and further add
that this understanding becomes a personal concept, valid mathematically, insofar as
the subject possesses a stable definition of the concept that is not only coherent, but
also well adjusted with the mathematical definition of the concept. Following this idea
further, it would seem apparent that a student who has achieved such level of
comprehension would be able to overcome the Tall Vinner Problem. Additionally, we
propose, perhaps contradicting Vinner, that this level of comprehension should become
the main goal of any didactic process dealling with mathematical concepts at the
university level

THE TALL AND VINNER PROBLEM AND VERGANUDS NOTION OF

CONCEPT
The question we need to answer at this point is how, in regards to a mathematical concept,
we are going to determine in practice whether or not a student has overcome the Tall Vinner problem. That is, how can we monitor, in a somewhat systematical manner, the

10
stability, well adjustment, and coherence of a personal definition. Even though some clues
may be identifiable in Tall and Vinners statements, some of which are cited here, these
statements are not very operational. Vergnauds psychological definition of concept opens
up a viable alternative to answer our question.
First, Vergnaud establishes a fundamental relationship between personal concepts and
schemes.
A scheme is an invariant organization of the conduct for a given set of situations ([7] p. 89)
A scheme is a dynamic totality of means that organizes the action of the subject for a given set of
situations. ([7] p. . 93)
Schemes are composed of four kinds of elements:
a) Invariants of different levels (concepts in action, theorems-in-action).
b) Inferences, which are indispensable to put a scheme into action.
c) Rules of action
d) Expectations and predictions
The efficiency of a scheme depends on the adequateness (adequacy) of the invariants, that is, on the
truth of the implicit analysis of the reality underlying the scheme. Inefficiency may come either from
wrong invariants or from lack of analysis. Although invariants are only implicit in schemes, they can be
described as objects, properties, relationships and propositions. A description of the scheme in terms of
rules is radically insufficient, since rules presuppose categories, objects and relationships. Invariants
are essential cognitive components of schemes. They are the link to conceptions, and therefore can be
expressed by words, and other means of symbolic representation. The efficiency of schemes may be
improved by the use in parallel of such symbolic representations. (Vygotsky, 1962)
A psychological and didactic approach to the formation of mathematical concepts leads to the
consideration of a concept as a set of invariants, which are usable in action. The pragmatic definition of
a concept draws from the set of situations that constitutes the reference for its different properties, and
from the set of schemes that are put into action by the subjects in those conditions.
Nonetheless, the operational action is not the entire conceptualization of the reality. Without the help of
words, expressions, symbols and signs, the truth or falseness of a totally implicit statement is inarguable,
and the aspects of the reality whereto attention should be drawn are unidentifiable . The use of explicit
signifiers is essential in the process of conceptualization (idem)
These considerations lead to a definition of concept as a group of three sets:
C=(S, I, L)
S: The set of situations by which the concept makes sense (reference).
I:

The set of invariants upon which the operability of the schemes rests (the signified).

L: The set of language and non-language forms with which the symbolical representation of the
concept, its properties, the situations and the handling procedures (signifier) is made.
Studying the development and functioning of a concept, during the course of the learning process, or at
the time it is put into use requires taking these three sets into account simultaneously. In general, there is
no bijection between signifiers and signified, nor between invariants and situations. Thus meaning
cannot be reduced to signifiers or situations. ([7] pp 96)

11

When comparing this definition of concept, viewed from a psychological perspective, with
Talls definition of concept image, we see that both definitions aim at describing,
seemingly from different perspectives, the same psychological entity, which we call
personal concept. The use of one or the other would be determined by whatever it is we
would be interested in observing.
It is possible to provide an interpretation of the Tall - Vinner Problem within the context of
Vergnauds definition. For example, one may connect the notion of evoked concept image
of the former with the notion of the invariant in Vergnauds definition. The evoked concept
image of a concept in a problem-solving situation would not be anything else but the
evocation of an invariant associated with the concept in the given situation. When a
subject is confronted with a specific task that involves a particular concept, in a specific
context, a scheme supported by an invariant that is linked to the concept at hand is
activated or generated. The evocation of this invariant is the evoked concept image.
Concept image inconsistencies, and mathematical adaptation issues of the concept image,
may be explained in terms of inconsistencies among invariants associated with the concept,
and as mathematical misadaptations of these same invariants. Assuming that the personal
definition corresponds to Vergnauds set of L in the definition cited earlier, any
disarticulations between the personal definition and the concept image, as were mentioned
previously, may be similarly expressed as disarticulations among expressions of the L set,
and invariants of the I set.
Understanding the concept of function: An applicable definition at the university level
We will try to reformulate the definition of understanding or comprehension of a concept,
meaning, a mathematically well-constructed personal concept (at the university level), as
we defined it earlier following Tall and Vinners notion of concept image, but this time
introducing some elements of Vergnauds terminology, applied to the concept of function:
We consider that, at the university level, a student understands the concept of function,
if he or she possesses a set of invariants (knowledge in action, according to Vergnauds
definition), linked to different contexts, in which the concept is represented, that are
consciously and coherently articulated in a global invariant that is determined by a
stable and mathematically well-adapted personal definition of function, which allows
the student, in such contexts, to put into action schemes that successfully organize
processes for identifying functions, and carry out basic calculations with those
functions. These calculations are formulated in the proper institutional symbolism of
the functions, and reinterpreted in the representational systems with which the different
contexts are identified.
It may be worthwhile adding that neither Vergnauds, nor Tall and Vinners definition
address the problem of duality present in many mathematical concepts, such as, number
and function [8].
We hold that the definition of comprehension we have prescribed above for use at the
university level, ensures a comprehension level of function as a process.

12
IMPLEMENTING THE DEFINITION OF BASIC COMPREHENSION OF FUNCTION
Drawing on the definition prescribed above, we may develop a compound indicator to help
us assess the basic comprehension level of function achieved by university students, and
evaluate this comprehension in terms of a students ability to overcome the Tall Vinner
Problem.
Defining the Indicators
Defining the indicators that will be used to make this definition operational will require the
selection of a basic set of contexts, relevant to the mathematical handling of the concept, in
which the different problems for identifying and calculating functions will be formulated.
Contexts
The following contexts were selected for their use in different mathematical situations:
S:

Sagital Contest: Refers to the sagital diagrams frequently used in

teaching functions, especially to illustrate the definition of function3.

T:

Tabular Context: Refers to the tables that are used to represent

functions, generally of a finite domain

EP,CP:

Context of Ordered Pair Sets. Refers to ordered pair sets, defined

explicitly (EP), as well as by comprehension (CP), which are used to
represent functions in a strictly set theory language.

AE:

Context of Variable Algebraic Expressions.

Those symbolic
expressions that relate constants and variables, which are regularly
used in calculus courses to define functions in a simple or compound
way.

G:

Graphic Context. Refers to Cartesian graphs of numerical functions.

EQ:

Equation Context. Refers primarily to equations in two real

variables, which can be used to define numerical functions.

AS:

Abstract Symbolic Context. Refers to the set of symbols and

symbolic expressions (f, f (f (x), f o g, etc.), normally associated with
the mathematical definition of function, and generally used to refer
to a function or to indicate mathematical operations between
functions.

Why use the Abstract Symbolic System?

A function from a set X to a set Y is an association or correspondence between elements from X and
elements from Y, meaning that each element from X corresponds with one and only one element of Y.

13
As stated in its definition, this system is relevant when the mathematical definition of
function is introduced. Insofar as the subject is able to interpret the meaning of symbols,
such as, f(a), f(f(a)), b = f(x), in any context, we will say that the subject has appropriated
the abstract symbolic system, This is intimately related to the L set (language and nonlanguage forms), which is the basis of the processes of conversion between the mental
representations of the subject and the semiotic representations that the subject uses to
communicate with other individuals; a key factor in the learning process of a student, and
which is often overlooked in traditional teaching.
Another context (mathematization) could have been included along with the other contexts
for the purpose of referring to situations where identifying and handling functions is linked
to non-mathematical contexts. However, there is an important difference between
identifying functions in the other contexts, and in a non-mathematical context. The former
responds to a process of identification that may be described as formal, and linked to a
semiotic register, with identification criteria which are rules for handling said register,
while the latter supposes a process of identification of variables that leads to a
representation of the function in one of the already mentioned representational systems.
This is why we chose to study the problem of identifying functions in non-mathematical
contexts separately.
What we want to observe
We are interested in analyzing, in the selected contexts, the results of the actions of the
students (written solutions) when they respond to a questionnaire about functions
(instrument). In the different contexts the structure of the task is basically the same. The
aspects to be considered in the analysis are the following:
1. Success of the student at identifying functions (SIF) in different selected
contexts, and at selecting functions that have an inverse (SII)
2. Success of the student at constructing functions subject to various
conditions, between given sets. (CONS)
3. The type of evoked concept images (ECI) directing the action of the student
when identifying and constructing functions in different selected contexts,
and when selecting functions that have an inverse.
4. The type of personal definitions of function (PD) that the students produce to
explain their actions in 1 and 2, and the local coherence (COH), that the
definitions present with respect to the action of the students.
5. Success of the student at carrying out basic calculations (SBC) in said
contexts when they are indicated in the abstract symbolism of functions
(f(x), f(f(x), d=f (x), f (g(x))). These different types of calculations described
separately create indicators: SC(f(a)), SC(f(f(a)), etc, whose average
produces the indicator SBC.
6. Availability of the abstract symbolic system (AAS) (See next pages)
7. The type of operational schemes (OS) that the student sets in motion while
organizing his action to perform 5
8. Whether or not the student has appropriated a stable personal definition of
function (SPD) that is globally coherent (GCOH), and well-adapted (PD*)
to the mathematical concept of function.

14

Indicators
The acronyms SIF, SSI, CONS, SBC, AAS, COH, GCOH, SPD and PD* are used to
define quantifiable indicators, while ECI, PD, OS are used as qualitative indicators.
Naturally, the measurements assessed in these indicators will be based on the written
solutions provided by the students to the tasks proposed in the questionnaire. We will not
include a description of the questionnaire used in order to be brief. We are only interested
in describing how we can make the definition of basic comprehension of function
operational.
Success is measured from 1 to 10, grading the action of the student. The values for SIF,
SSI, CONS, and SBC are grade averages (degrees of success) assigned to the
corresponding tasks presented to the student in the different contexts. The grade takes into
account the students success or failure in achieving the objective appointed to the
corresponding task. The grade is not relative to the students awareness of the means
required for achieving the objective, but in some way it refers to the efficiency of the
scheme that is put into action to identify a function or a function with inverse, to build a
function, or carry out a calculation.
The indicators ECI, PD, and OS are qualitative, and are assessed with the aid of prototypes
that may be identified by means of a priori analysis, and consolidated through practical
observations.
The types of evoked concept images (ECI values) are inferred from the observables of the
students action. The students action is the external observable from which inferences can
be made regarding the internal organization (scheme) in the subjects cognitive structure,
which is activated by the cognitive demands of the situation in relation to the objective that
needs to be achieved. The ECI, which is inferred from the subjects action, is the invariant
that directs the construction of the scheme, the result of the mental coordination required by
the subject to organize the means (internal and external) in relation to the objective, and the
results he or she anticipates.
The types of personal definitions (PD values) are determined from what the student writes
to justify his actions in the different contexts, and from the personal definition, which,
according to the students criteria, corresponds with the mathematical definition of the
concept (the institutionalized definition of function). PD values do not always agree with
ECI values in a given context, making it necessary to use another indicator we called the
local coherence (COH) indicator, which indicates whether or not there is correspondence
between what the student does, and what he believes he is doing. On the other hand, PD
values may vary from one context to another (the personal definition is not stable) and also,
disagree with the institutional definition of function (the personal definition is
mathematically maladapted).

15
The types of operational schemes (OS values), as in the case of concept images, are
inferred from the observables of the students action when he or she calculates f(a), f(f(a)),
etc. in particular, how the student interprets and organizes the calculation process.
The SPD and PD* indicators have a value of 1 or 0 depending on whether a stable
prototype of personal definition of function is observed for the first indicator, or a stable
and mathematically well-adapted definition is observed for the second. For the sake of
brevity, we will not elaborate here on the criteria that is used to determine whether or not
the student has a stable personal definition; however, it would be equivalent to saying that
in at least 70% of all valid responses given by the student to justify his or her actions in the
different contexts, PD values remain equal.. As for the definition of a mathematically welladapted personal definition of function please refer to Page 9. It is also important to keep in
mind that a stable personal definition does not necessary imply that it is well-adapted
mathematically.
The local coherence (COH) indicator (this means, coherence regarding a particular context)
may have a value of 0 or 1 depending on whether or not the evoked concept image (ECI) is
coherent with the type of personal definition (PD) used to justify the action performed in
resolving the task for the context in question.
On the other hand, the global coherence (GCOH) indicator, meaning, coherence with
regards to the totality of the contexts used, is nothing more than a ratio of the times the
student uses an invariant (evoked concept image) equivalent to the stable definition of
function he or she uses. The application of the GCOH indicator, assumes the existence of
a stable definition, which may not be necessarily well-adapted mathematically. As we
pointed out earlier, a stable definition that is mathematically maladjusted, and has a high
level of coherence, indicates a firm personal misconception, which may be difficult to
overcome.
As for the AAS (availability of the abstract symbolic system) indicator, it aims at
determining how well the student has constructed the meaning of the symbols f(a), f(f(a)),
f(x)=b, h (g(a)), in general, by evaluating the students success in performing such
calculations in specific contexts. The student is said to have acquired the abstract meaning
of the symbol f(a) when he or she has successfully completed this calculation in at least two
different contexts. If the student is successful, he gets a score of 1. If unsuccessful 0. The
AAS score is the arithmetic average taken from the 4 calculations represented with the
acronyms listed above.
Vectorial Indicator of the Basic Comprehension of Function (IBCF)
Using the indicators above we can define a vector-valued compound indicator, which
we will refer to as the indicator of basic comprehension of function IBCF.
IBCF = (PD*, GCOH, SIF, SII, SBC, AAS)
It is not difficult to infer the connections between the different components of the indicator,
and the elements used in the definition of basic comprehension of function that we are
trying to make operational; these relationships make the indicator usable in evaluating, at

16
the university level, a students comprehension of the concept of function in relation to the
Tall- Vinner Problem. This indicator may be used to characterize different situations. These
characterizations will vary depending on the conditions defined for the component
indicators. We have defined a minimum level of comprehension by setting the following
bounds.
(PD*=1, GCOH 0.60, SIF 6.0, SII 6.0, SBC 6.0, AAS 0.75)
It is evident that as the lower bounds of the indicators are raised, the operational criteria for
measuring a students comprehension level gets stricter. We have defined a second level of
comprehension by setting the lower bound of all action indicators at 7.5, GCOH at 0.75,
and leaving the lower bound for AAS unchanged. We are proposing that if a student has
achieved a minimum comprehension level (level 1) of function, and furthermore if the
student has achieved the second level of comprehension, such student may be considered to
have successfully overcome the Tall Vinner Problem regarding the concept of function.
The same would be true reciprocally; a student who has successfully overcome the Tall Vinner Problem would necessarily have to have a minimum level of comprehension (level
1) of the concept of function evidenced in his IBCF score.
Final Comments
Our main objective in this paper was to lay down the theoretical foundation, and
development of an operational definition of basic comprehension of function that may be
used to determine whether or not a student has successfully overcome the Tall - Vinner
Problem regarding the concept of function. We believe that such a definition would be a
very useful tool for any teacher, working in the last years o high school o first semester at
the university, in evaluating the results of his or her teaching regarding the subject of
function, or in doing diagnostic studies. Moreover, we believe that this approach can be
generalized and applied to assess a students comprehension of other concepts.
It is pertinent to add that we used this definition during the Symbolic Computation Systems
Project for Teaching and Learning Basic University Mathematics, for the purposes of
studying the Tall - Vinner Problem in different student populations at the Universidad del
Valle, particularly, engineering and science students. The study was conducted both at the
beginning (diagnostic), and at the end of the semester, after the students had taken their
regular mathematics courses (teaching impact).
Only 17.1% of new students at the university showed a basic comprehension level of 1 for
the concept of function, and none showed a comprehension level of 2. By the end of the
semester 27.3% of the students achieved level 1, and 9.1% level 2. These and other results
from the project indicate that the comprehension problems associated with the Tall - Vinner
problem are present in the context of first semester mathematics courses, evolving very
slowly, or not evolving at all, and it is not difficult to see that putting these problems aside
is of major consequence in the high rate of student failure in calculus and linear algebra
courses at the university level.

17
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] Sierpinska, A. (1992). On Understanding The Notion of Function. MAA Notes,
Vol. 25, pp. 25-58. Mathematical Association of America, Washington, DC.
[2] Tall, D. & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept Images and Concept Definition in
Mathematics with Particular Reference to Limits and Continuity.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, Vol 12, pp. 151-169.
[3] Vinner S (1991).The role of definitions in the teaching and learning of mathematics.
Advanced Mathematical thinking. Edited by David Tall. Kluwer Academic
Publishers
[4] Grupo de Educacin Matemtica, Departamento de Matemticas. Univalle.(2001) El
problema de la imagen conceptual en el aprendizaje de funcin. Doc. 3 Informe
final proyecto Los sistemas de computacin simblica en la enseanza y
aprendizaje de las matemticas bsicas universitarias.
[5] Grupo de Educacin matemtica de la Escuela Regional de Matemticas (1990). El
problema del bajo aprovechamiento estudiantil en los primeros cursos
universitarios de matemticas. Revista Matemticas Enseanza Universitaria. Vol
1, No 1, Mayo,1990
[6] Grupo de Educacin Matemtica, Departamento de Matemticas. Univalle.(2001)
Documento central del informe final proyecto los sistemas de computacin
simblica en la enseanza y aprendizaje de las matemticas bsicas universitarias.

[7] Gerard Vergnaud.(1993). La Teoria de los Campos Conceptuales.Didctica de la

Matemticas. Escuela Francesa. Compilacin realizada por Ernesto Sanchez
y Gonzalo Zubieta. Dpto de Matemtica Educativa.CINVESTAV-IPN
Mxico.
[5] Dubinski, E. & .Harel, G. (eds.). (1992). The Concept of function: Some Aspects of
Epistemology and Pedagogy, MAA Notes, Vol. 25, Mathematical
Association of America, Washington, DC.
[6] Carlson, M. (1998). A Cross-Sectional Investigation Of The Development Of The
Function Concept. CBMS Issues in Mathematics Education. 7, 114-162,
AMS&MAA
[7] Grupo Educacin Matemtica. (2001). Enseando Una Unidad De Funciones En
La Interfase Universidad Bachillerato Con La Ayuda Del S.C.S.
Mathematica Anexo N2. Depto. De Matemticas. Univalle. Colombia.
[8] 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. Vol 22, N 4, pp. 1-32.