See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/259749807

Understanding the Derivative through the Calculus Triangle

Article  in  Mathematics Teacher · January 2012

DOI: 10.5951/mathteacher.106.4.0274

CITATIONS READS
4 446

4 authors, including:

Michael Tallman Cameron Byerley

Oklahoma State University - Stillwater Arizona State University
20 PUBLICATIONS   67 CITATIONS    15 PUBLICATIONS   121 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Patrick W. Thompson
Arizona State University
146 PUBLICATIONS   4,396 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Investigating Student Learning and Sense-Making from Calculus Video Lessons (National Science Foundation, DUE 1710337) View project

Project Aspire: Defining and Assessing Mathematical Meanings for teaching secondary mathematics" View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Patrick W. Thompson on 30 September 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Weber, E., Tallman, M., Byerley, C., & Thompson, P. W. (2012). Introducing derivative
via the calculus triangle. Mathematics Teacher, 104(4), 274-278.

Introducing Derivative via the Calculus Triangle

Typical treatments of derivative do not clearly convey that the derivative function

represents the original function’s rate of change. We argue that revealing the relationship

between a function and its rate of change function for static values of x does not facilitate

productive ways of thinking about generating the rate of change function or allow

students to anticipate the graphical behavior of the rate of change function through

examining a graph of the original function. Accordingly, we propose an approach that

builds upon Thompson’s (1994, 2008) calculus research that introduces derivative in a

way that maintains the centrality of rate of change as a conceptual underpinning of

derivative. In this section we explain the calculus triangle approach and illustrate how the

approach facilitates mature understandings of derivative by providing examples of the

approach’s utility in novel and routine settings.

Our group of teacher-researchers designed and taught two university calculus

courses that emphasized rate of change and quantitative reasoning. Our approach

proposed the concept of a calculus triangle to support students in attending explicitly to

quantities, and constructing a method for creating and tracking the ratio of changes in

quantities to produce a rate of change function. We have found that the calculus triangle

allows students to reason flexibly across mathematical domains such as differentiation,

accumulation, as well as across graphical representations.

Observations and Research about Students’ Understanding of Derivatives

Historically, the derivative was constructed as a way to represent and measure the

rate at which one quantity changes with respect to another quantity. However, many

students are taught in a way that enables them to solve calculus problems without
Weber, Tallman, Byerley, Thompson Calculus Triangles-2.

attending to rates of change. Carlson and colleagues (Carlson, Jacobs, Coe, Larsen, &

Hsu, 2002) found that second semester calculus students were unable to produce a

qualitative graph that expressed the height of water in a bottle as a function of the water’s

volume. The students used memorized properties of second derivatives but could not

relate inflection points in the graph of the function to changes in width of the bottle.

Additionally, a number of authors reported students’ difficulties in creating graphical

representations of a function’s rate of change function (Tall, 1986; Ubuz, 2007). These

researchers found that students often focused on computing derivatives without

connecting the derivatives they computed and evaluated to a function’s rate of change at

specific points in its domain (Ubuz, 2007).

We Know Derivatives Are About Rates. Why Don’t Our Students?

Calculus books’ attention to velocity and development of the limit definition of

the derivative suggest textbook authors intend to develop the idea of derivative as a rate

of change. We have focused heavily on how students think about derivatives to

understand the disconnect between what the textbooks present and what students

understand. In our survey of best selling calculus books in the United States, we found

the textbooks qualitatively generated the derivative function in different ways. In most

books, the secant does not slide through the function’s domain. Rather, one intersection

of the secant line slides toward the other intersection, creating successively better

approximations of the tangent line. The tangent line, however, slides through the

function’s domain. Ferrini-Mundy and Graham (1991) found that students often struggled

to envision and make sense of a sliding secant line and its relationship to rate of change
Weber, Tallman, Byerley, Thompson Calculus Triangles-3.

on a small interval and believed the secant line collapsed into a single point to create the

sliding tangent. Our observations suggest that this problem persists today.

Even if students were successful in envisioning the tangent line as representing

the rate of change at a point they commonly confounded the notion of derivative at a

point with the derivative function (Ubuz, 2007). Many calculus books do not explicitly

describe how to think about rate of change on one small interval to support constructing a

function that gives the original function’s rate of change over its domain. We did not

locate any textbooks that helped students think about rate of change over small intervals

as generalizing to rate of change over the function’s domain.

We not only observed the difficulties documented by Ubuz and Ferrini-Mundy,

but also found that it was non-trivial for students who primarily remembered slope as

“rise-over-run” to think of difference quotient as a rate. After discussing the ratio

f (x + h) − f (x)
with our students it was apparent that many of them did not see f(x+h)
h

and f(x) representing amounts of a quantity associated with particular inputs. Without an

understanding of f(x) as giving the value of a quantity they did not see the f(x+h)-f(x) as

how much the quantity changed in relation to a given change in input.

We conjecture that students’ difficulties with function notation, their struggle to

connect algebraic and graphical representations of functions, and understandings of rate

of change may explain their struggle to think about derivative as a function. We believe

that thinking about derivative as an object of calculation may be attributed in part to the

students’ lack of attention to and construction of quantities in a way that would allow

them to track the ratio of the quantities’ changes. Given this hypothesis, we have attempt

to facilitate productive mental images of the derivative as a function whose values give
Weber, Tallman, Byerley, Thompson Calculus Triangles-4.

the rate of change of another function f by continuously tracking the average rate of

change of Quantity A (f(x)) with respect to Quantity B (x) over a continuum of values for

Quantity B (x to x+h). We use the mathematical construct of a “calculus triangle” to

achieve this coordination.

The Calculus Triangle

The intent of the calculus triangle approach is to allow students to envision

change in a function due to change in its argument. However, there is a distinct danger

that (1) students will see a calculus triangle as a geometric object, and (2) students will

see only one calculus triangle at a time. Regarding the first possibility, we want to

students to see the “legs” of the triangle as changes in input and output of a function and

the “hypotenuse” as the graph of a linear function (see Figure 1). Regarding the second

concern, we want students to look at the graph of any function and envision many

possible calculus triangles. That is, we want them to see that there is a calculus triangle at

every point on a function’s graph and that these triangles can be as small as one desires

(see Figure 2). To envision this possibility, we introduce the idea of a “sliding” calculus

triangle. “Sliding” is produced by fixing the change in the input and allowing the input to

vary through the domain of the function in a systematic way (e.g. left to right). The

mental image that “sliding” is intended to promote is that of a calculus triangle traversing

along the function.

Weber, Tallman, Byerley, Thompson Calculus Triangles-5.

Graph of the function that has a constant

rate of change over this interval and that
produces this net change
3

Change in the
2 function's value

1 Change in the
function's argument

Figure 1. A calculus triangle in rectangular coordinates.

Figure 2. There is a calculus triangle at every point on a function’s graph and that these

triangles can be as small as one desires.

The definition of derivative, as it was found in the contemporary calculus books

we surveyed, failed to convey mental imagery that would support students in constructing

the derivative function. Recall the typical definition of derivative:

Weber, Tallman, Byerley, Thompson Calculus Triangles-6.

Definition: Let f be a function. We define the derivative of f at x, f’, by

f (x + h) − f (x)
f '(x) = lim , provided the limit exists.
h→0 h

In this definition, h varies while x remains fixed. Hence, f '(x) represents a scalar

quantity for a specific value of x. Students are expected to understand that f '(x)

represents a function by imagining h approaching zero in the difference quotient for all

values of x in the domain of f. Imagining varying h while x remains fixed does not allow

one to visualize the derivative function being generated for a continuum of input values.

In addition, by letting h approach zero, thus producing a difference quotient that

represents the slope of a tangent line, and visualizing the tangent line sliding along the

surface of the graph, it appeared to our calculus students that we were focused on the

properties of this sliding tangent, when we were actually focused on the ratio of two

quantities which we represented by the sliding tangent.

By attending to the sliding tangent as an object without reference to the change in

quantities it represents, students often did not understand that derivative represented a

rate of change because their conception of rate of change was associated with steepness

of the tangent line, not comparison of changes in quantities. As an alternative to the

typical definition of derivative, we avoid allowing the value of h in the difference

quotient approach zero. Instead, we define the rate of change function rf as,

f (x + h) − f (x)
rf (x) =
h

for a small, but fixed, value of h. Making h fixed but sufficiently small allows one to let x

vary, and coordinate the corresponding variation in rf . This simultaneous variation of x

and rf is illustrated in what we term the sliding calculus triangle. We emphasize that the
Weber, Tallman, Byerley, Thompson Calculus Triangles-7.

calculus triangle is not a geometric object. Instead, it is a way to help students focus

explicitly on changes in quantities represented by the “legs” of the triangle, the ratio of

which is represented by the slope of the hypotenuse. Though we found that recognizing

rf as a function was non-trivial, that alone is often not sufficient to imagine how the rate

of change function is generated. For this, we turn to the graphical representation of the

rate of change function (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. The interval of fixed length h represented on the x-axis slides through the

domain of the function, tracking the quantities h and f(x+h) – f(x).

In order to generate outputs for the rate of change function, we measure the

quantity f(x+h) – f(x) in units of h and systematically associate this output value with x,

the left endpoint of the interval [x, x + h]. Accordingly, a point on the rate of change

function can be interpreted as (x, f(x+h) – f(x) units of h) (see Figure 3). Then, as x varies

throughout the domain of the function, this point traces out the rate of change function

rf (x) (see Figure 3).

Weber, Tallman, Byerley, Thompson Calculus Triangles-8.

Figure 4. The calculus triangle slides as the fixed interval h slides through the domain of

the function, generating the rate of change function.

It is important to note that one can slide the calculus triangle through the domain

of f while coordinating the outputs being generated by measuring f(x+h) – f(x) in units of

h, which allows the student to think about the rate of change function being generated as

the calculus triangle moves along the original function f. The mental coordination of

imagining the rate of change function being generated as one traces along the function is

not possible when trying to attend to two varying both h and x.

We recognize that it is arguably unsuitable to compare the calculus triangle

approach with the traditional approach because the objective of the traditional approach is

to make sense of the graphical representation of the exact derivative function (at a point)

whereas the calculus triangle approach merely produces an approximation to the

derivative function. We believe, however, that generating an approximation to the

derivative function is unproblematic if an instructional effort is made to discuss the

convergence (uniformly) of the approximation to the exact derivative function as h

Weber, Tallman, Byerley, Thompson Calculus Triangles-9.

approaches zero. The important feature distinguishing the calculus triangle approach

from the traditional approach is that generating the derivative function precedes letting h

approach zero in the calculus triangle approach whereas in the traditional approach, the

limiting process comes first. We believe that when focusing on the calculus triangle,

students are better suited to think about infinitesimal rate of change near a point. This

approach contrasts with thinking about rate of change at a point, where quantities are not

changing, and thus, discussing rate of change becomes problematic. A classroom

discussion about the relative accuracy of the approximation for sufficiently small values

of h can be framed so that students’ reasoning relative to generating approximations of

the actual derivative functions can be isomorphic to more formal definitions of uniform

convergence.

Implications and Conclusion

The traditional approach to developing the derivative function can accomplish one

of the following two aims, but not both: (1) derivative functions are fundamentally about

rates of change, and (2) the derivative function can be generated by developing a ratio of

the changes in the output quantity measured in units of the input quantity through the

domain of the function f. The calculus triangle approach supports students in establishing

connections between average rate of change and the derivative function while not

compromising the potential for the derivative function to be generated by explicitly

measuring the rate of change of f(x) with respect to x.

Traditional treatments of calculus use the definition of derivative in an axiomatic

approach to develop further rules of differentiation. This process emphasizes derivative

as an operator on functions instead of emphasizing the centrality of rate of change. We

Weber, Tallman, Byerley, Thompson Calculus Triangles-10.

believe that the calculus triangle approach allows students to understand the derivative

function as tracking the ratio between changes in two quantities. If students are able to

attend to derivative as a rate of change, we believe this supports them in understanding

the process of differentiation as an operator that measures a rate of change.

Single and multivariable calculus, and differential equations necessitate that one

perform symbolic computations as well as interpret the meaning of those computations.

The calculus triangle approach supports the student in developing both computational

fluency and interpreting the results of those computations meaningfully. As students

approach novel problem solving situations, they are equipped with ways of thinking,

particularly thinking about the derivative function as a rate of change, which are

necessary to reason through these situations. By thinking about the meaning of the

computations, students are able to draw connections between ideas in calculus that are

typically presented as disparate because they require different techniques for

differentiation.

References

Carlson, M. P., Jacobs, S., Coe, E., Larsen, S., & Hsu, E. (2002). Applying covariational
reasoning while modeling dynamic events: A framework and a study. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 33(5), 352-378.
Ferrini Mundy, J., & Graham, K. G. (1991). An overview of the calculus curriculum
reform effort: Issues for learning, teaching, and curriculum development. The
American Mathematical Monthly, 98(7), 627-635.
Tall, D. (1986). Building and testing a cognitive approach to the calculus using
interactive computer graphics. Unpublished Dissertation. University of Warwick.
Thompson, P. W. (1994). Images of rate and operational understanding of the Fundamental
Theorem of Calculus. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26(2-3), 229–274.
Thompson, P. W., & Silverman, J. (2008). The concept of accumulation in calculus. In M. P.
Carlson & C. Rasmussen (Eds.), Making the connection: Research and teaching in
undergraduate mathematics (pp. 43-52). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of
America.
 Weber, Tallman, Byerley, Thompson Calculus Triangles-11.

Ubuz, B. (2007). Interpreting a graph and constructing its derivative graph: Stability and
change in students' conceptions. International Journal of Mathematical Education
in Science and Technology, 38(5), 609-637.

View publication stats