Student Teaching Inquiry Project

SED 498
Safi
Julio Carino
Spring 2014
Monroe Township High School





Introduction
One of the most primitive and perhaps the most useful concepts in the universe of
mathematics is the concept of function. Like other mathematical primitives, the function concept
has its origins in the real world of human experience (Michelow 1978). Throughout human
history mathematics has played a pivotal role in the advancement of societies, providing a means
for people to gain an understanding of the world around them. Whether it was the use of sticks
and pebbles by prehistoric man to denote counting and operations, the contributions of ancient
civilizations, such as the Sumerians, Greeks, and Egyptians, in geometry and trigonometry, or the
continual work and refinement of earlier mathematical work, by mathematicians of the
Enlightenment, the Renaissance, and more modern times, mathematics has always been a
process by which to express real-world phenomena and an overall symbol of progress. Even in
recent times, while the body of mathematical works has not seen dramatic changes or alterations,
there have been periodic shifts in terms of the types of mathematics emphasized and the ways it
has been represented and taught, especially in the area of mathematics education. While the idea
of what constitutes mathematics and what it means for someone to have mathematical
understanding have differed throughout history, the concept of function has continually been at
the forefront of this discussion.
Hartter (2009) has illustrated that since the early 1900s educators, having noticed the
importance of the function concept in mathematics, have advocated its teaching in the
mathematics curriculum. In 1923, the Mathematical Association of Americas, The
Reorganization of Mathematics in Secondary Education stressed that the function concept is the
one great idea which is best adapted to unify mathematics in secondary education (p.201). The
Growth of Mathematical Ideas, Grades K-12, a 1959 National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics publication, suggested relations and functions to be one of seven major topics
studied in school mathematics. By 1975, the Comprehensive School Mathematics Program
prescribed using functions as the main method of introducing variables and algebra, while in
1992, Schwartz and Yerushalmy regarded functions as the fundamental concept of algebra
(p.201).
While many educators have exalted functions as the building blocks of algebra, to be
taught to every student in every classroom, other educators have become aware of the apparent
difficulty students are having with the concept and the occasional challenges it poses to teaching.
Common aspects of functions that cause students difficulty center on the different roles symbols
play (unknowns, constants, parameters, and variables), inability to notice the relationships and
differences between discrete and continuous number sets, and the difficulty in using graphs for
beginning algebra students. From a mathematical and educational standpoint a functions
multiple definitions and representations provide a fascinating and widely applicable math topic,
yet for students it is often a daunting task for them to master and utilize each, often in
conjunction and in varied contexts. This often leads to, on the part of the teacher, to limiting
exposure of the various ways of studying functions or emphasizing certain aspects over the
others. Likewise, in an effort to make the various characteristics of functions manageable,
students will often overgeneralize information or restrict usage of information learned to only
that which they feel is most prevalent or frequently used. In light of the numerous factors
influencing student comprehension of functions, the topic to be investigated in the inquiry
project focuses on gaining insight on students mathematical understanding of domain and range,
one of the many features of functions. The inquiry project consisted of a pre-assessment, to
gauge students prior knowledge of domain and range, and the implementation of two strategies
in an effort to understand the root cause of difficulty with this concept. The first strategy dealt
with an algebraic analysis of functions and relations to assist in finding domain and range. The
second strategy offered a more visual approach to finding domain and range through the
functions graph. This document will serve to provide a more in-depth discussion on the
strategies, assessments, and any conclusions or suggestions that arose from the research
conducted.
Community Context Analysis
Monroe Township High School, part of the Monroe Township School District, is located
in Monroe Township, in Middlesex County, New Jersey and serves about 2,000 students from
Monroe Township and Jamesburg Borough (MTHS Profile). The school has received
accreditation from the Middle States Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools and the
New Jersey Department of Education (MTHS Profile). The school was ranked number 124
among the best public high schools in New Jersey in 2012 (NJ.com) and number 39 in 2013
(usnews.com). Members of the community have placed a high value on education as 57% of tax
dollars go towards the Monroe Township Board of Education (Monroe Facts) which have served
to build a relatively new high school facility and allowed the implementation of state-of-the-art
technology in the classrooms, such as an overhead projector, document camera, iPads, and Wi-Fi
connectivity in every classroom. Parents are encouraged to participate in the high schools
Parent Teacher Organization which aims to partner the parents with the school administration,
provide scholarships for students, and to sponsor the Senior Scholastic Achievement Dinner
through membership donations, scholarship fund drives, and fundraisers (PTO Newsletter).
Monroe Township High School equips students to succeed academically through the
numerous resources it provides. The high school employs a tracking system designed to place
students within classes that will provide a sufficient challenge yet, at the same time, will be
accessible to them and meet their needs. Students are able to choose from among 240 different
courses within the areas of Business Education, Family and Consumer Science, Practical/Fine
Arts, Music, World Languages, Physical Education, Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and
History (MTHS Profile). There are 15 different Advanced Placement courses being offered in
the school to accommodate the most motivated students as well as HSPA and SAT preparatory
classes for students who may need the additional assistance (MTHS Profile). The instructional
staff make themselves available to students by either arriving before the start of school or staying
after to address student concerns and to parents through the online educational service, Genesis,
and via email communication. Students are also able to seek out extra help after school through
tutoring offered for their mathematics, science, language arts, history, and world languages
classes. In terms of extracurricular activities, the school offers 25 different sports, such as
soccer, field hockey, cross country, tennis, basketball, track, bowling, softball, volleyball,
lacrosse, and golf, along with various clubs and activities students can partake in (MTHS
Profile).
The predominant socioeconomic status of the Monroe Township School District would
generally be seen as upper middle class. The school district has a designation of FG which is
between F and G, the fourth and fifth highest socioeconomic groups (NJs Top Performing
Public High Schools). The median home value of Monroe Township is $337,500 and $294,800
while the median household income is $71,436 and $54,139 for Jamesburg Borough (American
FactFinder). In Monroe Township the percentage of people living below the poverty line is 4.2%
while Jamesburg Borough has 9.1% of its residents living in poverty (American FactFinder). In
Monroe Township High School about 7% of students are eligible for free or reduced lunches, a
rather low figure, compared to the state average of 33% (GreatSchools). Talking with other
teachers in the school there seem to be differences in SES which are primarily based on whether
parents work blue or white collar jobs and whether they live in Monroe or Jamesburg.
Housing options surrounding the high school area are mainly single family homes, several
retirement communities, and a few apartments along a certain section of town. Something worth
noting about the difference in demographics is the recent influx of immigrant Hispanic
populations settling in Jamesburg and their children beginning to attend the Monroe Township
School District which will undoubtedly change the makeup of the student body in years to come.
The population surrounding Monroe Township High School is about 70% White, 16%
Asian, with a large portion being comprised of students of Indian descent, 8% Hispanic, and 6%
African American (GreatSchools). English is spoken as the primary language at home of 94.4%
of the students attending the high school. The next largest languages spoken at home are Spanish
(1.3%) and Gujarati (1.1%) with very marginal amounts of students who speak Arabic, Turkish,
and Telugu (Report Card).
The median age for Monroe Township is about 53 years old (American FactFinder). The
town is considered as a mature community, by many residents, as more than 50% of the
population are 55 years or older however there are numerous young families living in the area
and who continue to move into the town (NJ.com) which may not necessarily be reflected by the
median age.
The local library in Monroe Township is within walking distance of the school and will
roughly take five minutes while other libraries such as the Jamesburg Public Library and the
Spotswood Library are located within five miles of the school. Several services such as open
borrowing from libraries in other counties, home delivery services, and a bookmobile that makes
routine stops at designated locations around town have been created to make the library easily
accessible to all the residents of Monroe (Services). There are not many art or cultural centers
within the town but any events or performances that can be brought are showcased in the high
schools state-of-the-art auditorium or students are taken elsewhere as part of school field trips.
The local newspapers in Monroe are The Cranbury Press and The Home News Tribune. There
are no local radio stations but given the fact Monroe Township is centrally-located in New
Jersey, about 50 miles away from both New York and Philadelphia many of the radio stations
from both areas can be accessed.
The Monroe Township Department of Parks and Recreation offers several youth and
adult programs. Thompson Park, the county park in Monroe, offers trails for running and biking
along with an area for dogs to roam and play with their owners. Other parks such as the
Veterans Park Playground and Spray Park, James Monroe Memorial Park, the Softball Complex,
Ryan Field, and the Monroe Township Soccer Complex provide areas for residents to play
football, baseball, and soccer (Featured Programs). Additional activities provided by the Parks
and Recreation Department are arts and crafts, indoor basketball and soccer, aerobics, yoga, table
tennis, and hockey in the Community Center (Featured Programs), a common hang out location
for many of the Monroe High School students as well as a local skate park in Jamesburg.
There are a few interesting characteristics and features about Monroe Township and the
high school. The most notable characteristic of the town is the heavy concentration of senior
citizens. There are seven retirement communities located in Monroe and many of the teachers
have discussed how difficult it is to pass initiatives that do not seem beneficial to the senior
population as they are avid voters and not shy to voice their opinions. The strong presence of
senior citizens has created what several residents see as a tension between the older residents and
the younger families that are continuing to move in. According to a SafeWise, a security
organization, report it ranked Monroe Township as the 14
th
safest community in New Jersey
(NJ.com). In terms of the high school one of the most interesting characteristics, and one that
was heavily debated, was the location of where it would be built. The new Monroe Township
High School was built in 2011 on land that was once part of Thompson Park. The school was
originally set to be built on another plot of land but the township proposed a land swap to which
many residents were opposed to and caused significant construction delays. Lastly, one feature
of the high school I found significantly important was not only the amount of diversity within the
school but the amount of intermingling between students of different backgrounds. While
students of a certain type of race or ethnicity enjoy the company of others who share similar life
experiences and backgrounds there is no apparent tension between the groups and all seem to get
along well with each other.
Student Statement
Data collection for the inquiry project took place during the Spring 2014 semester,
conducted at Monroe Township High School in Monroe Township, New Jersey where I would be
teaching as part of the student teaching experience. Monroe Township High School operates
under an alternating block schedule whereby students take the same four 84-minute block
periods every other day. My teaching experience consisted of teaching one section of Algebra II,
two sections of Algebra II Honors, and two sections of Fundamentals of Mathematics. Algebra
II is part of the traditional college preparatory sequence while Algebra II Honors is the second
course offered within the honors college preparatory sequence aimed at preparing students who
want to study Calculus in high school. Algebra II is designed to be a third year course, extending
the processes of algebra introduced in Algebra I and using the geometrical concepts learned in
Geometry to produce a more in-depth approach to new algebra topics. Topics covered in
Algebra II include irrational and complex numbers, polynomial equations and functions,
equations and numerical methods, exponential and logarithmic functions, rational expressions,
conic sections, and matrices and determinants (Program of Studies). While covering the same
material as Algebra II, the Honors course offers a more rigorous, challenging, and thorough
analysis of the topics covered.
Fundamentals of Mathematics is a course designed for rising juniors who have been
identified with scoring below the passing cutoff on the mathematics portion of the District
Secondary Assessment (Program of Studies) and who are anticipated to score Partially Proficient
on the mathematics section of the High School Proficiency Assessment (HSPA). Aside from
performing below the passing level on the District Secondary Assessment, students are placed
into the course based on their prior academic history and teacher recommendation. The course is
not part of the college preparatory sequence but rather a mathematics elective that is to be taken
in conjunction with Dynamics of Algebra II, a lower level Algebra II course for struggling
students. The aim of the course is twofold; to offer opportunities for students to develop their
mathematics skills, to provide additional support in the form of HSPA preparation and through
the pre-teaching and re-teaching of the Dynamics of Algebra II curriculum.
In terms of the student makeup of the classes there are few 504s and IEPs which
generally designate for extra time to complete work, limiting the amount of information on the
board or on handouts, and omitting usage of certain colors and combinations of colors (for
students who exhibit colorblindness). The two sections of Algebra II Honors are comprised of
18 and 14 students, respectively with a majority of students being sophomores and a handful of
freshman and juniors. Within these two classes the culture is quite different whereby one class
needs more time to understand the concepts than the other class yet they are more inquisitive
about the mathematics, the relationships within and across the curriculum, and applications. The
Algebra II class is comprised of 25 students, with a majority of them being juniors and a few
sophomores and seniors. Lastly, the Fundamentals classes are made up of 10 and 11 juniors.
While both of these classes have students who struggle with the mathematics there is an apparent
difference in terms of the skill sets they are bringing into the classroom. The class that struggles
the most is generally quiet, less willing to participate, and hesitant to ask questions.
Having the opportunity to teach three different classes, with three different levels of
mathematics ability, made it difficult on deciding which class to base the research for the inquiry
project on. The inquiry project stipulated that the two students to be assessed should be average
or below average students who are underachieving. This requirement removed the honors
classes from consideration yet left the Algebra II and the Fundamentals classes as viable options.
Upon review it was decided that the Fundamentals class presented a unique opportunity for the
inquiry project on account of the course structure, the greater proportion of students meeting the
assessment criteria, and, having completed the research, the students in this class would stand to
benefit the most from the resulting recommendations and strategies.
The design of the course, as an additional mathematics class to strengthen and revisit
material learned in their Dynamics of Algebra II class, allowed for more freedom in terms of
topics I could research and strategies to implement. This allowed me to go back to an earlier
point in time where they may have learned domain and range, by reviewing the concept, and
possibly detecting their original source of difficulty. While both the Algebra II and the
Fundamentals class have students who are below average and underachieving the Fundamentals
class, by nature of the course requirements, situates the struggling and unmotivated students
within one classroom. This provides a unique and challenging opportunity to teach students who
do not have strong foundations in mathematics, sufficient motivation, or effective work habits.
Lastly, the intent of the inquiry project is ultimately to provide useful feedback that may better
serve students and teacher instruction. Focusing the inquiry project on student groups who have
historically faced difficulty in mathematics will undoubtedly provide useful feedback that will
not only serve to assist the struggling learner but everyone as well.
The two students chosen for the inquiry project are STUDENT 1 and STUDENT 2 from the
Fundamentals of Mathematics 3B class. These two students are two of the stronger students in
the Fundamentals class yet would be categorized as either average or below average in their
other mathematics class. The decision to utilize both of these students for the inquiry project was
a result of the work they did during the lessons, their unique sets of skills and weaknesses, as
wells as the differing factors that have impacted their classroom performance in the past.
STUDENT 1 is a capable student yet like many other underachieving students has fallen
short in terms of finding academic success. In the past, STUDENT 1 was deemed lazy and, if
asked about his work ethic, he will admit that he could have worked much harder in school.
Speaking with my cooperating teacher, STUDENT 1 had entered the class with prominent gaps
in his learning but has adapted and learned despite this initial disadvantage. STUDENT 1s
situation as home has been a difficult one, with very little to no support in his academic
endeavors, which undoubtedly played some role in his lack of foundational knowledge. Despite
all these obstacles, STUDENT 1 is always willing to put in his best effort and helps others who
are stuck on problems or who do not understand certain parts of the lesson during class.
Interestingly enough, STUDENT 1 enjoys helping others and would like to be able to coach
children in the future. While STUDENT 1 may have underperformed in previous years there has
been an apparent shift in his goals as he is striving to do well in school and has recently taken up
spring track.
Unlike STUDENT 1, STUDENT 2 shows a different perspective on the types of factors that
influence a students academic success in the classroom. STUDENT 2 is currently taking
Algebra II but his classification is what is resulting in him being in Fundamentals. Although
STUDENT 2 is a very hard worker, he is methodical and needs a sufficient amount of time to
process and learn material. This creates a situation whereby STUDENT 2 will generally not be
able to learn topics the first time around and struggles with tasks that have multiple methods of
approach and not just one procedure to follow. As a way of obtaining the sufficient amount of
time needed to better understand material, STUDENT 2 has received tutoring in his math classes
since fifth grade.
Topic Rationale
From prekindergarten through grade 12, the school mathematics curriculum includes
important topics that are pivotal in students development. Students who understand
these ideas cross smoothly into new mathematical terrain and continue moving forward
with assurance. However, many of these topics have traditionally been challenging to
teach as well as learn, and they often prove to be barriers rather than gateways to
students progress. (Cooney, Beckmann, Lloyd, & Wilson, 2010, p.vii)
The concept of functions is one of these fundamentally important, yet particularly difficult,
topics within the mathematics K-12 curriculum. The importance of the function concept lies in
the broad and versatile definition allowing for applications across numerous different contexts.
Davidenko (1997) argues that, given the flexibility and applicability of the function definition,
information from a persons day-to-day activities is regularly being analyzed and processed
algebraically either formally or informally. Cooney, Beckmann, Lloyd, and Wilsons (2010)
Developing Essential Understanding of Functions, Grade 9-12, a NCTM publication, focuses on
ideas about functions and provides a very detailed insight on the uses of functions throughout the
K-12 curriculum and in the collegiate level. As early as elementary school, students begin
developing informal notions of variable when studying patterns and continue in middle school by
analyzing relationships through the use of tables and looking at covariation between two
variables. By high school, students have begun a more formal study of different types of
functions, noting special characteristics of each type, and generalizing the functions so they may
be grouped into families which share those unique features. At the collegiate level, the work
student have done up to that point will be used as the foundation by which they will continue
expanding their notions of functions in integral calculus, differential calculus, and differential
equations. Ultimately, functions serve to provide a means for thinking quantitatively about real-
world phenomena and a context for studying relationships and change (p.7).
Given the numerous and overarching concepts that constitute functions, the inquiry
project focused on one particular aspect of the function concept, in particular the notion of
domain and range. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Mathematics Standards
and Expectations for Algebra state that by high school all students should analyze functions of
one variable by investigating rates of change, intercepts, zeros, asymptotes and local and global
behavior (nctm.org). Domain and range play an important role in determining the behavior of
the function through its delineation of the possible x-values (inputs) accepted by the function and
the resulting y-values (outputs) returned by the function given the initial input. Domain and
range are also important when it comes to function transformations, compositions, and
application problems relating to real-world phenomena which often necessitate restrictions on
the domain and/or range or differentiating between discrete and continuous number sets.
Description of Learning Goals
The goal of the inquiry project was to gain insight on the factors influencing students
mathematical understanding of the domain and range of functions and providing methods for
improvement. Discussions with several of the mathematics teachers and the K-12 mathematics
supervisor revealed that domain and range was a consistently difficult topic for students to grasp
and a recurring theme throughout the chapters, as all functions have a domain and range which
can be found using different representations (tabular, algebraic, or graphical). This difficulty
would be compounded when students were tasked to find domain and ranges of function
transformations and compositions. Consideration of domain and range as the topic of the inquiry
project resulted from student errors noticed on their work and by taking into account the
curriculum material to be taught during student teaching.
During student teaching, students would be learning radical functions, exponential and
logarithmic functions, rational functions, and conic sections at varying points in time. Each
chapter focused on the parent function, its graph, geometric transformations, general
characteristics, and applications such as function operations and solving equations. In the first
two weeks prior to student teaching, taking part as an observer of the classes, it became apparent
that students did, in fact, have trouble with finding domain and range. Looking over tests and
quizzes from the Algebra II and Algebra II Honors classes there was an apparent discrepancy
with their notions of domain and range creating a challenge for the students. The most common
errors committed dealt with either graphing a function correctly, and incorrectly stating the
domain and range, or being able to find the domain and range, through the equation of the
function, but incorrectly graphing the function. There seemed to be a disconnection in terms of
the relationship of a functions equation, graph, and domain and range. Students were treating
these concepts as disjointed ideas rather than overarching ones meant to provide different
methods of describing a functions behavior. This segmented understanding made students
unable to utilize one characteristic of the function, such as the equation or graph, to verify other
characteristics, such as the domain and range or vice versa.
The preliminary data obtained highlighted the need for methods or strategies that may
offer assistance to students in helping them understand and use domain and range effectively.
The intended outcome of the inquiry project, after finding research, implementing strategies, and
assessing them, is to have an indication of what is causing students to have the difficulties
witnessed, in order to provide remediation or possibly a more effective instructional strategy. As
for the students the intended outcome would be for them to have a better understanding of the
concept than they had originally. After the first strategy, emphasizing the algebraic and tabular
representation of functions to determine domain and range, students would hopefully become
better equipped at using their notions of domain and range, as inputs and outputs, to make sense
of an equation. After the second strategy, highlighting a visual approach to determining domain
and range from a graph, students would hopefully be able to use graphs as opposed to equations,
which may have a cumbersome or non-traditional formula, and for students to see the usefulness
of utilizing multiple representations.
Description of Instruction
The inquiry project was broken down into three components: a pre-assessment
questionnaire and the implementation of the two strategies in an effort to understand the root
cause of the difficulty surrounding this concept. The pre-assessment questionnaire was designed
to gauge students prior knowledge of functions, domain, and range prior to any instruction.
Questions 1 and 2 asked students to provide their interpretation of what domain and range meant.
Question 3 introduced a mapping/correspondence scenario within the context of naming people
in a picture and asked for the domain and range. Questions 4, 5, and 6 assessed whether students
were able to find the domain and range from a table of values, mapping diagram, and from a set
of coordinate points.
After having done the questionnaire the first strategy implemented consisted of a
traditional teacher instructed lesson reviewing the concepts of domain, range, sets,
mappings/correspondences, and different function families learned throughout the Algebra II
curriculum, such as linear functions, absolute value functions, polynomial functions, radical
functions, exponential functions, and rational functions. The functions were introduced by
presenting the equation, creating a table of values, and graphing the function, using the Desmos
iPad app. While there were three representations being illustrated the emphasis of the lesson was
on algebraically analyzing the domain and range of the function. This was accomplished by
phrasing questions to students on determining a functions domain and range with the ideas of x
and y values, acceptable inputs and resulting outputs, and, to some extent, the table of values.
After the lesson, students were to complete the first Domain and Range Worksheet which asked
students to find the domain and range using tables, mapping diagrams, sets of coordinate points,
and equations.
The second strategy implemented offered a more visual approach to finding domain and
range through the functions graph. To begin this lesson each student paired up and completed a
sketching activity. The activity called for one person to be the drawer and the other holding a
card with an illustration (shapes, assortment of points, figures, lines, graphs, etc.). The objective
of the activity was for the drawer to sketch whatever illustration their partner had only by the
verbal descriptions given by their partner and switching after a few rounds. This task was quite
challenging to accomplish and was mainly used to get students to think about graphical
representations and getting some practice at verbalizing what they saw visually.
The actual lesson was based of Nial Negers (2005) Visualizing the Domain and Range of
the Composition of Functions which offered graphical method of visualizing the domain and
range of a composition of functions using the graphical iteration or graphical analysis method.
While the topic and the mathematics behind the method were outside the scope of what was
being observed in the inquiry project, the method provided a very useful way of determining the
domain and range for not only compositions but for individual functions as well. In the case of
single functions the domain and range can be obtained by projecting all the functions x values
along the x-axis and the y values along the y-axis. From the projections on each of the axis your
domain and range show up as sets of numbers along a number line. The rationale behind this
strategy is that unlike the first, which is more or less the norm when it comes to teaching
functions, this approach emphasizes the graphical representation for the students who may be
more visual learners. Second, the fact that we are dealing with the graphical representation
allows for the usage of the graphs of relations, shapes, or abstract figures that may have
situations where there is no orderly formula or any formula at all. Lastly, Piez (1997) states
that some of the difficulties students have with functions, seem to be in understanding the
meaning of the coordinates of points and the ability to read a one-dimensional solution set from a
two-dimensional coordinate system (p.165) and using this method may alleviate this difficulty.
Work Sample Assessment
Before implementing instructional strategies to help students with their understanding of
domain and range it was necessary to assess their prior knowledge. Having students complete
the pre-assessment questionnaire gave an indication of the notions they are associating with
functions, the strength of their foundation, whether they see connections between topics, and any
possible misconceptions. Collectively, the Fundamentals class' performance was homogeneous,
as they had similar responses throughout the questionnaire. The students generally referred to
domain as input or possible x-values and output or possible y-values for range, often
writing both in conjunction, such as the response of x-values/inputs for domain. Two students
took a different approach and decided to interpret domain and range using specific
representations. One student utilized tables to obtain responses for domain and range such as
all the numbers on the left [column] are x in the table and all values on the right [column] are
y in the table, respectively. The other student responded with the numbers on the x-axisand
the numbers on the y-axis, hinting at the fact they may have had graphs in mind when thinking
about domain and range. The class had much more difficulty extending their knowledge towards
a contextualized problem as a majority of the students left Question 2 unanswered or expressed
that they were unable to identify the domain and range in the given situation. Lastly, all the
students were able to successfully identify the domain and range of tables, mapping diagrams,
and sets of coordinate points.
The results of the questionnaire are indicative of some formal introduction to the ideas of
domain and range and a rudimentary understanding of what domain and range are as well as how
to identify them given certain representations. The difficulty the students faced with applying
domain and range to other contexts may suggest that their notions are limited in nature or have
been internalized as ideas to be used strictly in mathematical situations. Considering that the
domain and range from equations and graphs are generally not taught alongside the tabular,
mapping, or numerical set representations, but rather as extensions, taught after more formal
work with functions, may explain why students are unable to relate the concept with these two
types of representations as easily as the other representations with which they originally learned
domain and range.
Having baseline data for the entire class it was time to begin taking a closer look at the
work of the two students to be used in the inquiry project. For Questions 1 and 2 STUDENT 2
answered inputs (x) and outputs (y) as his explanation of domain and range while
STUDENT 1 answered D:{All Reals} and R:{All Reals} respectively. STUDENT 2 and
STUDENT 1s response to domain and range illustrates their interpretation of functions as
taking inputs to outputs, as a rule taking x to f(x), or as a mapping, correspondence, or
association from one set to another (Cooney, Beckmann, Lloyd, and Wilson, 2010, p.14). In
STUDENT 1s case, his answer may be an overgeneralization of the types of answers he has
obtain from finding domain and range in the past and a common misconception given students
early experiences with functions which are often limited to easily recognizable patterns that
involve linearity or symmetry and working with the single-valued criterion for functions
(Cooney, Beckmann, Lloyd, and Wilson, 2010, p.93). In Question 3, both students were able to
understand that in the context of having someone name people in a picture the peoples faces
would constitute the domain while their names would be the output generated, or the range.
STUDENT 2s response was faces and names and STUDENT 1s was D:{faces} and
R:{names} possibly as a way to show that even though the context may have changed, into
something outside of equations and functions, that the domain and range would continue to be a
set of values. Questions 4-6 asked students to state the domain and range using a table of values,
a mapping diagram, and a set of coordinate points which both students were able to complete
successfully. One minor error both students had in the last question was adding the number 4
twice in the domain.
After the first teaching strategy, the traditional teacher instructed lesson emphasizing the
algebraic analysis of functions to determine domain and range, students were tasked with
completing the Domain and Range Worksheet 1. Similar to the pre-assessment, students were
asked to find domain and range values from tables, mapping diagrams, and sets of coordinates,
as well as extending this work to function equations. One subtle difference between both of the
students work this time around deals with the notation they used for the domain and range.
STUDENT 1 continued to use braces to denote the elements of the set for the domain and range.
STUDENT 2 had altered his way of denoting the elements form his work on the pre-assessment
questionnaire. This time around STUDENT 2 was using square brackets, usually reserved for
denoting intervals with inclusive points (Question 1-5 and 10) or not using any type of brackets
(Question 6-9).
A more striking difference between the two students is highlighted with their answer for
the domain and range of the equations. STUDENT 1 was able to correctly identify the domain
and range of the linear and cubed root functions as being All Real Numbers yet was unable to
correctly identify the domain and range of the square root function, rational function, and the
quadratic function. STUDENT 1 answered nearly all the equation problems with All Real
Numbers for the domain and range, with the exception of the rational function, , which was
stated as D:{x > 0}. The student was able to notice that the radical function cannot have an x-
value of zero as it causes the fraction to be undefined but does not take into account that you can
have negative x-values and that the y-value cannot have a value of zero since the numerator is
always equal to one. Overall STUDENT 1 was unable to use his knowledge of radicals,
fractions, and quadratics to solve for the domain and range. His frequent use of All Real
Numbers as solutions recalls his original definition of domain and range. STUDENT 1, being
unable to solve for the domain and range of the equations, may have supplied this answer as
some sort of default rule from his original misconception. This also raises questions on
whether the student correctly answered the linear equation and cubed root function or simply
guessed correctly.
STUDENT 2, on the other hand, found more success at finding the domain and range for
the equations. The student was able to correctly identify the domain and range of a majority of
the questions with the exception of the square root function, = 5, (Domain:
, 5 and Range: , 5") and the quadratic
function, ( 3)
2
+4, (Domain: , 3 and Range:
, 4"). The first error is most likely caused by the role -5 plays in the
functions transformation as transformations to the input tend to give students more difficulty
conceptually, most likely because the effects of transformations on the input seem to be
counterintuitive (Durand Faulkenberry and Faulkenberry, 2010, p.30). The fact the student was
able to correctly identify the range of the quadratic hints that they understood the usefulness of
the vertex form of the function. It is possible that the student may have misused the three, which
was necessary to find the vertex, or misread the equation to be the radical function.
Lastly, after having completed the second strategy, the graphical method of finding domain
and range, students were tasked with completing the Domain and Range Worksheet 2. This
worksheet supplied equations of functions along with their graphs or graphs of letters, shapes,
and figures without equations. The emphasis this time around was on using the graphs to find
the domain and range and, in the case of the functions with their equations and graph shown, to
use the two representations together or as a method of verification. Students were also asked to
take a post-assessment questionnaire asking them for feedback on which method was most
helpful in learning domain and range, their preference of algebraic or graphical representations,
and their perceptions on using representations together. This second method seemed to be easier
for STUDENT 1 to understand as they only had one questions done incorrectly and three others
with minor errors. Question 2 had the domain as {All Real Numbers > 1} and the range as
{All Real Numbers > -3}. The error most likely came about from what I noticed has been a
real difficulty by all students, regardless of math ability, to notice that horizontal lines are of the
form y = c and vertical lines of the form x = c, for some constant c. Questions 2 and 3 also
illustrated another common student error when it came to notation. Student 1 ended up writing x
for both the domain and range as well as reversing his inequality signs for the range. The
reversing of the inequality signs is corrected on the second half of the worksheet as one student
had asked if the correct way to use the inequality signs could be shown on the board. In
STUDENT 1s case, Question 2 and 3 may have been completed before we had reached this
point in class. Lastly, on Question 8 the range was off since the arrow shows the function
continuing to the right and leveling off at y = 3, making the range {All Real Numbers, and not
{All Real Numbers y-2}. On the questionnaire STUDENT 1 felt that the graphical method
made it easier to find domain and range as he was able to see what I am doing and saw the
usefulness of having both representations as a way of checking my work.
Considering STUDENT 2s performance on the first assessment it came as a surprise to see
the difficulty he had on the second worksheet. The student was able to answer half of the
questions correctly (Question 1, 2, 5, 6, and 9) which generally had an accompanying equation.
STUDENT 2 had a hard time with many of the shapes and illustrations that did not have an
equation and was unable to see they had bounded intervals for the domain and range. The
difficulty STUDENT 2 had with the second strategy is most likely tied to his mode of learning
and his limitations on learning new material. His responses to the questionnaire seems to support
this as he notices the novelty of the graphical method but states he is more comfortable with
learning math through equations as he has had more exposure and practice with this medium. It
is also interesting to note that the student notices multiple representations are applicable in these
types of questions and has actually been asked to use both representations in his Algebra II class
but most likely opts to use equations as his foundation is strongest in that area.
Reflection
The results that arose from the inquiry project, in regards to understanding the challenges
students face with domain and range, have been perceptive not only in discerning the root cause
of the difficulty but by offering modes of remediation and possible prevention that may be
explored in future teaching settings. One of the first things that became apparent throughout the
whole process was that there was an amalgam of factors influencing students understanding of
this topic. It was not simply the case that students did not understand domain and range but
rather students were in positions that did not allow them to make meaningful interpretations of
the given concepts based on difficulties expressed in other mathematical areas. The students I
observed exhibited a wide array of foundational gaps ranging from a weak or limited concept of
functions, inability to use set notation and inequalities effectively, difficulty interpreting and
utilizing graphs, and most importantly, as was the case of some students, a complete disconnect
between the ideas of discrete and continuous sets which had not been anticipated while going
through the instructional lessons. This is most likely the reason why a majority of the students
were able to effectively find the domain and range from tables, two sets of values, coordinate
points, and mapping diagrams yet faltered when it came to extending it to other functions and
relations.
The research component of the inquiry project was very beneficial as it forced one to tap
into an often unused resource in search of answers to questions that are of immediate concern in
the classroom. Scouring through data bases, websites, and scholarly publications revealed the
extensive work done in the field of mathematics and mathematics education, albeit often difficult
to find useful information if not well-versed with the mathematical terminology used, the ideas
or topics that have already been explored, or researching data. Assessing students after each
instructional strategy offered valuable feedback that either worked in accordance with
information presented in the scholarly works or that served to create new questions to be further
researched.
In relation to finding information about domain and range, there were numerous articles
detailing different ways students can become more competent at understanding this concept. The
research done has revealed that students misunderstandings with domain and range stem with
difficulties with fundamental mathematical concepts that were outside the scope of the inquiry
project. Several of the articles utilized in this inquiry project, written as early as the late 1970s,
such as Michelows (1978) The New World of Calculator Functions, and as recently as Steketee
and Sehers (2012), Using Multiple Representations to Teach Composition of Functions, have
expressed the need for teachers to provide students with technology in order to see mathematics
through multiple representations and for the students to become versatile in using each one as
changing the way that a function is represented, (e.g., algebraically, with a graph, in words, or
with a table) does not change the function, although different representations highlight
characteristics, and some may show only part of the function (Cooney, Beckmann, Lloyd, and
Wilson, p.10). Hartter (2009) recommends teachers provide a variety of activities to help
students attain a more robust concept image of functions (p. 204). Many of the students
observed expressed trouble when dealing with constant functions, piecewise and step functions,
and other functions not expressed with an easily recognizable equation. Lastly, an interesting
recommendation was offered by Keller and Hirsch (1998) who felt that aside from showing the
usefulness of multiple representations students must be required to work with these different
mediums as students have preferences when it comes to representations. The authors argue that
several factors including, but not limited to, students comfort level with algebraic manipulation,
complexity of symbolic information, exposure of student with each representation, problem
contexts, language of questions, level of task, and students perception of the validity of each
representation all played a significant role in whether students feel comfortable using multiple
representations. This is undoubtedly the reason why the two students observed found success
with one of the methods implemented and not the other. The authors warn teachers to be mindful
that they too have preferences when learning which may be hindering their students as they often
develop a bias towards a symbolic proof not because of improved understanding, but because of
habits, routines, and convenience (p. 2).
Looking at the inquiry project in its entirety there is a level of dissonance in regards to
the goals that I would have liked to accomplish. Having the ability to work with students,
implement two different strategies, and assess their work allowed for a greater understanding of
the pitfalls they were encountering when dealing with domain and range. The information
gathered in this respect will serve to better improve the teaching of students by focusing on the
other areas of difficulty not just domain and range. In terms of the effectiveness of improving
students understanding of domain and range it was a mixed reaction. Most students stayed
consistent throughout both the strategies while, in the case of the two students observed, one
student improved and the other underperformed. Part of the problem was being unable to cater
time and resources to filling each students foundational gaps as they were often varied and dealt
with topics outside the realm of Algebra II. It seemed most of their problems arose from material
learned in Algebra I or prior classes. This is a very-real dilemma teachers face on a day-to-day
basis and one can only wonder how much can really be done for students to assure their success
if they are all starting in different places in terms of prior knowledge and are expected to learn
the same material, at the same time, all the while getting through the intended mathematics
curriculum. Overall the inquiry project has shown the necessity to take a formal look into the
way students are learning mathematics, making sense of the difficulties they face, and providing
better instruction in the hopes of creating equity and better understandings. I have gained a
tremendous appreciation towards researching problems encountered in the classroom and will
continue to use this approach during my own teaching.

Works Cited
Algebra Standards for Grades 9-12. (n.d.). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Retrieved April 26, 2014, from <http://nctm.org/standards/content.aspx?id=12620>
American FactFinder - Community Facts. (n.d.). American FactFinder - Community Facts.
Retrieved February 15, 2014, from
<http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml#none>
Charles, R. I., & Education, I. (2012). Algebra 2: common core (Common core ed.). Boston,
Mass.: Pearson.
Cooney, T. J., Beckmann, S., Lloyd, G. M., & Wilson, P. S. (2010). Developing Essential
Understanding of Functions for Teaching Mathematics in Grades 9-12. Reston, VA: National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Davidenko, S. (1997). Building the concept of function from students' everyday activities. The
Mathematics Teacher, 90, 144-149.
Faulkenberry, E. D., & Faulkenberry, T. J. (2010). Transforming the Way We Teach Function
Transformations. The Mathematics Teacher, 104(1), 29-33.
"Featured Programs." Monroe Township. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Feb. 2014.
<http://www.monroerec.com/>.
Gosse, P. (2001). Using TABLE and an understanding of domain to establish range and graph
functions. The Mathematics Teacher, 94(6), 508-510.
Hartter, B. J. (2009). A Function or Not a Function? That is the Question. The Mathematics
Teacher, 103(3), 200-205.
Keller, B. A., & Hirsch, C. R. (1998). Student preferences for representations of functions.
International Journal of Mathematics Education and Science Technology, 29(1), 1-17.
Michelow, J. (1978). The New World of Calculator Functions. School Science and Mathematics,
78(3), 248-254.
Monroe Facts. (n.d.). Monroe Township NJ ::. Retrieved February 16, 2014, from
<http://www.monroetwp.com/monroe_facts.cfm>
Monroe Township High School. (n.d.). GreatSchools. Retrieved February 17, 2014, from
http://www.greatschools.org/new-jersey/monroe-township/1208-Monroe-Township-High-
School/?tab=demographics
Monroe Township High School 2013-14 Profile. (n.d.). Monroe Township High School.
Retrieved February 16, 2014, from
http://monroenj.schoolwires.com/cms/lib07/NJ01000268/Centricity/Domain/1059/13-
14%20Profile%20%20FINAL.pdf
Neger, N. (2005). Visualizing the Domain and Range of the Composition of Functions. The
Mathematics Teacher, 98(5), 306-311.
New Jersey High Schools. (n.d.). US News. Retrieved April 26, 2014, from
<http://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/new-
jersey/rankings?schooltypepublic=y&int=c0b4c1&schooltypemagnet=y&state=NJ&schooltypec
harter=y&page=2>
New Jersey's Top Performing Public High Schools. (NJs Top Performing PHS). Monroe
Township High School. Retrieved February 17, 2014, from
<http://www.monroe.k12.nj.us/cms/lib07/NJ01000268/Centricity/Domain/1/Announcements/20
12-2013/TopPerformingPublicHighSchools.pdf>
NJ.com. (n.d.). Four Middlesex towns named as NJ's top 50 safest communities, according to
report. Retrieved February 16, 2014, from
<http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2014/01/four_middlesex_towns_named_in_njs_top_50
_safest_communities_according_to_report.html>
Piez, C. (1997). Multiple representations - using different perspectives to form a clearer picture.
The Mathematics Teacher, 90, 164-166.
Program of Studies 2014-15. monroenj.schoolwires.com. Retrieved April 20,2014, from
<http://monroenj.schoolwires.com/cms14-15%20FINAL.pdf>.
PTO / PTO Newsletter. (n.d.). PTO / PTO Newsletter. Retrieved February 17, 2014, from
<http://monroenj.schoolwires.com/page/1138>
"Report Card." State of New Jersey Department of Education. State of New Jersey Department
of Education, 2010. Web. 16 Feb. 2014.
<http://education.state.nj.us/rc/rc10/dataselect.php?c=19;d=3660;s=050;lt=N;st=A>.
Trinter, C. P., & Garofalo, J. (2011). Exploring Nonroutine Functions Algebraically &
Graphically. The Mathematics Teacher, 104(7), 508-513.
"Services." Monroe Township Library. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Feb. 2014.
<http://www.monroetwplibrary.org/content/services>.
Steketee, S., & Seher, D. (2012). Using Multiple Representations to Teach Composition of
Functions. The Mathematics Teacher, 106(4), 260-268.
Watson, A. (2010). Key Understandings in School Mathematics 2. Mathematics Teaching, 219,
12-14.
Sample of Student 1s Work






Sample of Student 2s Work