An Evaluative Calculus Project: Applying Bloom’s Taxonomy to the Calculus Classroom

Every so often, I’ll publicize through this blog an interesting article that I’ve found in the mathematics or mathematics education literature that can be freely distributed to the general public. Today, I’d like to highlight Gizem Karaali (2011) An Evaluative Calculus Project: Applying Bloom’s Taxonomy to the Calculus Classroom, PRIMUS: Problems, Resources, and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies, 21:8, 719-731, DOI: 10.1080/10511971003663971

Here’s the abstract:

In education theory, Bloom’s taxonomy is a well-known paradigm to describe domains of learning and levels of competency. In this article I propose a calculus capstone project that is meant to utilize the sixth and arguably the highest level in the cognitive domain, according to Bloom et al.: evaluation. Although one may assume that mathematics is a value-free discipline, and thus the mathematics classroom should be exempt from focusing on the evaluative aspect of higher-level cognitive processing, I surmise that we as mathematics instructors should consider incorporating such components into our courses. The article also includes a brief summary of my observations and a discussion of my experience during the Fall 2008 semester, when I used the project described here in my Calculus I course.

The full article can be found here: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10511971003663971

Calculators and Complex Numbers: Index

I’m using the Twelve Days of Christmas (and perhaps a few extra days besides) to do something that I should have done a long time ago: collect past series of posts into a single, easy-to-reference post. The following posts formed my series on how the trigonometric form of complex numbers, DeMoivre’s Theorem, and extending the definitions of exponentiation and logarithm to complex numbers.

Part 1: Introduction: using a calculator to find surprising answers for $\ln(-5)$ and $\sqrt[3]{-8}$ . See the video below.

Part 2: The trigonometric form of complex numbers.

Part 3: Proving the theorem

$\left[ r_1 (\cos \theta_1 + i \sin \theta_1) \right] \cdot \left[ r_2 (\cos \theta_2 + i \sin \theta_2) \right] = r_1 r_2 (\cos [\theta_1+\theta_2] + i \sin [\theta_1+\theta_2])$

Part 4: Proving the theorem

$\displaystyle \frac{ r_1 (\cos \theta_1 + i \sin \theta_1) }{ r_2 (\cos \theta_2 + i \sin \theta_2) } = \displaystyle \frac{r_1}{r_2} (\cos [\theta_1-\theta_2] + i \sin [\theta_1-\theta_2])$

Part 5: Application: numerical example of De Moivre’s Theorem.

Part 6: Proof of De Moivre’s Theorem for nonnegative exponents.

Part 7: Proof of De Moivre’s Theorem for negative exponents.

Part 8: Finding the three cube roots of -27 without De Moivre’s Theorem.

Part 9: Finding the three cube roots of -27 with De Moivre’s Theorem.

Part 10: Pedagogical thoughts on De Moivre’s Theorem.

Part 11: Defining $z^q$ for rational numbers $q$ .

Part 12: The Laws of Exponents for complex bases but rational exponents.

Part 13: Defining $e^z$ for complex numbers $z$

Part 14: Informal justification of the formula $e^z e^w = e^{z+w}$ .

Part 15: Simplification of $e^{i \theta}$ .

Part 16: Remembering DeMoivre’s Theorem using the notation $e^{i \theta}$ .

Part 17: Formal proof of the formula $e^z e^w = e^{z+w}$ .

Part 18: Practical computation of $e^z$ for complex $z$ .

Part 19: Solving equations of the form $e^z = w$ , where $z$ and $w$ may be complex.

Part 20: Defining $\log z$ for complex $z$ .

Part 21: The Laws of Logarithms for complex numbers.

Part 22: Defining $z^w$ for complex $z$ and $w$ .

Part 23: The Laws of Exponents for complex bases and exponents.

Part 24: The Laws of Exponents for complex bases and exponents.

Two ways of doing an integral: Index

I’m using the Twelve Days of Christmas (and perhaps a few extra days besides) to do something that I should have done a long time ago: collect past series of posts into a single, easy-to-reference post. The following posts formed my series on different ways of computing the integral $\displaystyle \int \frac{dx}{\sqrt{4x-x^2}}$ .

Part 1: The two “different” answers.

Part 2: Explaining why the two “different” answers are really equivalent.

Day One of My Calculus Class: Index

I’m using the Twelve Days of Christmas (and perhaps a few extra days besides) to do something that I should have done a long time ago: collect past series of posts into a single, easy-to-reference post. The following posts formed my series on what I teach my students on the first day of calculus in order to start the transition from Precalculus and to get them engaged for what we’ll be doing throughout the semester.

Part 1: The two themes of calculus: Approximating curved things by straight things and passing to limits.

Part 2: Using the distance-rate-time formula to estimate how fast an accelerating object lands when dropped from a tall building.

Part 3: Passing to limits to precisely calculate the above velocity.

Part 4: Using rectangles to estimate the area under a parabola.

Part 5: Passing to limits to precisely calculate the area under a parabola.

Part 6: Final comments: these two questions apparently have nothing to do with each other, but are in fact highly interrelated. The connection between these two topics, the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, is one of greatest discoveries in the history of mankind, which my students are now privileged to understand at the ripe old age of 18 or 19 years old.

Why Does 0.999… = 1? (Index)

I’m using the Twelve Days of Christmas (and perhaps a few extra days besides) to do something that I should have done a long time ago: collect past series of posts into a single, easy-to-reference post. The following posts formed my series on different techniques that I’ll use to try to convince students that $0.999\dots = 1$ .

Part 1: Converting the decimal expansion to a fraction, with algebra.

Part 2: Rewriting both sides of the equation $1 = 3 \times \displaystyle \frac{1}{3}$ .

Part 3: Converting the decimal expansion to a fraction, using infinite series.

Part 4: A proof by contradiction: what number can possibly be between $0.999\dots$ and $1$ ?

Part 5: Same as Part 4, except by direct reasoning.

Reminding students about Taylor series: Index

I’m doing something that I should have done a long time ago: collect past series of posts into a single, easy-to-reference post. The following posts formed my series on how I remind students about Taylor series. I often use this series in a class like Differential Equations, when Taylor series are needed but my class has simply forgotten about what a Taylor series is and why it’s important.

Part 1: Introduction – Why a Taylor series is important, and different applications of Taylor series.

Part 2: How I get students to understand the finite Taylor polynomial by solving a simple initial-value problem.

Part 3: Making the jump to an infinite series, and issues about tests of convergence.

Part 4: Application to $f(x) = e^x$ , and a numerical investigation of speed of convergence.

Part 5: Application to $f(x) = \displaystyle \frac{1}{1-x}$ and other related functions, including $f(x) = \ln(1+x)$ and $f(x) = \tan^{-1} x$ .

Part 6: Application to $f(x) = \sin x$ and $f(x) = \cos x$ , and Euler’s formula.

Area of a Circle: Index

I’m using the Twelve Days of Christmas (with a week-long head start) to do something that I should have done a long time ago: collect past series of posts into a single, easy-to-reference post. The following posts formed my series on the formula for the area of a circle.

Part 1: Why the circumference function $C(r) = 2 \pi r$ is the derivative of the area function $A(r) = \pi r^2$ .

Part 2: Finding the area of a circle via integration by trigonometric substitution.

Part 3: Finding the area of a circle via a double integral.

Part 4: Justifying the formula $A(r) = \pi r^2$ to geometry students by slicing a circle into pieces and rearranging the pieces as a parallelogram (approximately).

Inverse Functions: Arcsecant (Part 29)

We now turn to a little-taught and perhaps controversial inverse function: arcsecant. As we’ve seen throughout this series, the domain of this inverse function must be chosen so that the graph of $y = \sec x$ satisfies the horizontal line test. It turns out that the choice of domain has surprising consequences that are almost unforeseeable using only the tools of Precalculus.

The standard definition of $y = \sec^{-1} x$ uses the interval $[0,\pi]$ — or, more precisely, $[0,\pi/2) \cup (\pi/2, \pi]$ to avoid the vertical asymptote at $x = \pi/2$ — in order to approximately match the range of $\cos^{-1} x$ . However, when I was a student, I distinctly remember that my textbook chose $[0,\pi/2) \cup [\pi,3\pi/2)$ as the range for $\sec^{-1} x$ .

I believe that this definition has fallen out of favor today. However, for the purpose of today’s post, let’s just run with this definition and see what happens. This portion of the graph of $y = \sec x$ is perhaps unorthodox, but it satisfies the horizontal line test so that the inverse function can be defined.

Let’s fast-forward a couple of semesters and use implicit differentiation (see also https://meangreenmath.com/2014/08/08/different-definitions-of-logarithm-part-8/ for how this same logic is used for other inverse functions) to find the derivative of $y = \sec^{-1} x$ :

$x = \sec y$

$\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx} (x) = \displaystyle \frac{d}{dx} (\sec y)$

$1 = \sec y \tan y \displaystyle \frac{dy}{dx}$

$\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sec y \tan y} = \displaystyle \frac{dy}{dx}$

At this point, the object is to convert the left-hand side to something involving only $x$ . Clearly, we can replace $\sec y$ with $x$ . As it turns out, the replacement of $\tan y$ is a lot simpler than we saw in yesterday’s post. Once again, we begin with one of the Pythagorean identities:

$1 + \tan^2 y = \sec^2 y$

$\tan^2 y = \sec^2 y - 1$

$\tan^2 y = x^2 - 1$

$\tan y = \sqrt{x^2 - 1} \qquad \hbox{or} \tan y = -\sqrt{x^2 - 1}$

So which is it, the positive answer or the negative answer? In yesterday’s post, the answer depended on whether $x$ was positive or negative. However, with the current definition of $\sec^{-1} x$ , we know for certain that the answer is the positive one! How can we be certain? The angle $y$ must lie in either the interval $[0,\pi/2)$ or else the interval $[\pi,3\pi/2)$ . In either interval, $\tan y$ is positive. So, using this definition of $\sec^{-1} x$ , we can simply say that

$\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx} \sec^{-1} x = \displaystyle \frac{1}{x \sqrt{x^2-1}}$ ,

and we don’t have to worry about $|x|$ that appeared in yesterday’s post.

Turning to integration, we now have the simple formula

$\displaystyle \int \frac{dx}{x \sqrt{x^2 -1}} = \sec^{-1} x + C$

that works whether $x$ is positive or negative. For example, the orange area can now be calculated correctly:

$\displaystyle \int_{-2}^{-2\sqrt{3}/3} \frac{dx}{x \sqrt{x^2 -1}} = \sec^{-1} \left( - \displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{3}}{3} \right) - \sec^{-1} (-2)$

$= \displaystyle \frac{7\pi}{6} - \frac{4\pi}{3}$

$= \displaystyle -\frac{\pi}{6}$

So, unlike yesterday’s post, this definition of $\sec^{-1} x$ produces a simple integration formula.

So why isn’t this the standard definition for $\sec^{-1} x$ ? I’m afraid the answer is simple: with this definition, the equation

$\sec^{-1} x = \cos^{-1} \left( \displaystyle \frac{1}{x} \right)$

is no longer correct if $x < -1$ . Indeed, I distinctly remember thinking, back when I was a student taking trigonometry, that the definition of $\sec^{-1} x$ seemed really odd, and it seemed to me that it would be better if it matched that of $\cos^{-1} x$ . Of course, at that time in my mathematical development, it would have been almost hopeless to explain that the range $[0,\pi/2) \cup [\pi,3\pi/2)$ had been chosen to simplify certain integrals from calculus.

So I suppose that The Powers That Be have decided that it’s more important for this identity to hold than to have a simple integration formula for $\displaystyle \int \frac{dx}{x \sqrt{x^2 -1}}$

Inverse Functions: Arcsecant (Part 28)

The standard definition of $y = \sec^{-1} x$ uses the interval $[0,\pi]$ , so that

$\sec^{-1} x = \cos^{-1} \left( \displaystyle \frac{1}{x} \right)$

Why would this be controversial? Yesterday, we saw that $\tan x$ is both positive and negative on the interval $[0,\pi]$ , and so great care has to be used to calculate the integral:

$\displaystyle \int \frac{dx}{x \sqrt{x^2 -1}}$

Here’s another example: let’s use trigonometric substitution to calculate

$\displaystyle \int_{-6}^{-3} \frac{ \sqrt{x^2-9} }{x} dx$

The standard trick is to use the substitution $x = 3 \sec \theta$ . With this substitution:

$x^2 - 9 = 9 \sec^2 \theta - 9 = 9 \tan^2 \theta$ , and
$dx = 3 \sec \theta \tan \theta \, d\theta$
$x = -3 \quad \Longrightarrow \quad \sec \theta = -1 \quad \Longrightarrow \quad \theta = \sec^{-1} (-1) = \pi$
$x = -6 \quad \Longrightarrow \quad \sec \theta = -2 \quad \Longrightarrow \quad \theta = \sec^{-1} (-2) = \displaystyle \frac{2\pi}{3}$

Therefore,

$\displaystyle \int_{-6}^{-3} \frac{ \sqrt{x^2-9} }{x} dx = \displaystyle \int_{2\pi/3}^{\pi} \frac{ \sqrt{9 \tan^2 \theta}} { 3 \sec \theta} 3 \sec \theta \tan \theta \, d\theta$

At this point, the common mistake would be to replace $\sqrt{9 \tan^2 \theta}$ with $3 \tan \theta$ . This is a mistake because

$\sqrt{9 \tan^2 \theta} = |3 \tan \theta|$

Furthermore, for this particular problem, $\tan \theta$ is negative on the interval $[2\pi/3,\pi]$ . Therefore, for this problem, we should replace $\sqrt{9 \tan^2 \theta}$ with $-3 \tan \theta$ .

Continuing the calculation,

$\displaystyle \int_{-6}^{-3} \frac{ \sqrt{x^2-9} }{x} dx = \displaystyle \int_{2\pi/3}^{\pi} \frac{ -3 \tan \theta} { 3 \sec \theta} 3 \sec \theta \tan \theta$

$= \displaystyle \int_{2\pi/3}^{\pi} -3\tan^2 \theta \, d\theta$

$= \displaystyle \int_{2\pi/3}^{\pi} -3(\sec^2 \theta-1) \, d\theta$

$= \displaystyle \int_{2\pi/3}^{\pi} (3-3 \sec^2 \theta) \, d\theta$

$= \displaystyle \bigg[ 3 \theta - 3 \tan \theta \bigg]_{2\pi/3}^{\pi}$

$= \displaystyle \left[ 3 \pi - 3 \tan \pi \right] - \left[ 3 \left( \frac{2\pi}{3} \right) - 3 \tan \left( \frac{2\pi}{3} \right) \right]$

$= \displaystyle 3\pi - 0 - 2\pi + 3(-\sqrt{3})$

$= \pi - 3\sqrt{3}$

So if great care wasn’t used to correctly simplify $\sqrt{9 \tan^2 \theta}$ , one would instead obtain the incorrect answer $3\sqrt{3} - \pi$ .

Inverse Functions: Arcsecant (Part 27)

The standard definition of $y = \sec^{-1} x$ uses the interval $[0,\pi]$ , so that

$\sec^{-1} x = \cos^{-1} \left( \displaystyle \frac{1}{x} \right)$

Why would this be controversial? Let’s fast-forward a couple of semesters and use implicit differentiation (see also https://meangreenmath.com/2014/08/08/different-definitions-of-logarithm-part-8/ for how this same logic is used for other inverse functions) to find the derivative of $y = \sec^{-1} x$ :

$x = \sec y$

$\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx} (x) = \displaystyle \frac{d}{dx} (\sec y)$

$1 = \sec y \tan y \displaystyle \frac{dy}{dx}$

$\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sec y \tan y} = \displaystyle \frac{dy}{dx}$

At this point, the object is to convert the left-hand side to something involving only $x$ . Clearly, we can replace $\sec y$ with $x$ . However, doing the same with $\tan y$ is trickier. We begin with one of the Pythagorean identities:

$1 + \tan^2 y = \sec^2 y$

$\tan^2 y = \sec^2 y - 1$

$\tan^2 y = x^2 - 1$

$\tan y = \sqrt{x^2 - 1} \qquad \hbox{or} \tan y = -\sqrt{x^2 - 1}$

So which is it, the positive answer or the negative answer? The answer is, without additional information, we don’t know!

If $0 \le y < \pi/2$ (so that $x = \sec y \ge 1$ ), then $\tan y$ is positive, and so $\tan y = \sqrt{\sec^2 y - 1}$ .
If $\pi/2 < y \le \pi$ (so that $x = \sec y \le 1$ ), then $\tan y$ is negative, and so $\tan y = -\sqrt{\sec^2 y - 1}$ .

We therefore have two formulas for the derivative of $y = \sec^{-1} x$ :

$\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx} sec^{-1} x = \displaystyle \frac{1}{x \sqrt{x^2-1}} \qquad \hbox{if} \qquad x > 1$

$\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx} sec^{-1} x = \displaystyle -\frac{1}{x \sqrt{x^2-1}} \qquad \hbox{if} \qquad x < 1$

These may then be combined into the single formula

$\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx} sec^{-1} x = \displaystyle \frac{1}{|x| \sqrt{x^2-1}}$

It gets better. Let’s now find the integral

$\displaystyle \int \frac{dx}{x \sqrt{x^2 -1}}$

Several calculus textbooks that I’ve seen will lazily give the answer

$\displaystyle \int \frac{dx}{x \sqrt{x^2 -1}} = \sec^{-1} x + C$

This answer works as long as $x > 1$ , so that $|x|$ reduces to simply $x$ . For example, the red signed area in the above picture on the interval $[2\sqrt{3}/3,2]$ may be correctly computed as

$\displaystyle \int_{2\sqrt{3}/3}^2 \frac{dx}{x \sqrt{x^2 -1}} = \sec^{-1} 2 - \sec^{-1} \displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{3}}{3}$

$= \cos^{-1} \left( \displaystyle \frac{1}{2} \right) - \cos^{-1} \left( \displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} \right)$

$= \displaystyle \frac{\pi}{3} - \frac{\pi}{6}$

$= \displaystyle \frac{\pi}{6}$

However, the orange signed area on the interval $[-2,-2\sqrt{3}/3]$ is incorrectly computed using this formula!

$\displaystyle \int_{-2}^{-2\sqrt{3}/3} \frac{dx}{x \sqrt{x^2 -1}} = \sec^{-1} \left( - \displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{3}}{3} \right) - \sec^{-1} (-2)$

$= \cos^{-1} \left( -\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} \right) -\cos^{-1} \left( \displaystyle \frac{1}{2} \right)$

$= \displaystyle \frac{5\pi}{6} - \frac{2\pi}{3}$

$= \displaystyle \frac{\pi}{6}$

This is patently false, as the picture clearly indicates that the above integral has to be negative. For this reason, careful calculus textbooks will often ask students to solve a problem like

$\displaystyle \int \frac{dx}{x \sqrt{x^2 -1}}, \qquad x > 1$

and the caveat $x > 1$ is needed to ensure that the correct antiderivative is used. Indeed, a calculus textbook that doesn’t include such caveats are worthy of any scorn that an instructor cares to heap upon it.