{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016415868673050615, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.3652173913043475, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Different aspects of the monotonicity of a function

In this paper, we investigate which aspects are overriding in the concept images of monotonicity of Finnish tertiary mathematics students, i.e., on which aspects of monotonicity they base their argument in different types of exercises related to that concept. Further, we examine the relationship between the quality of principal aspects and the success in solving monotonicity exercises and a few other standard problems in calculus. Our findings indicate that a mathematics student's conception about monotone functions is often restricted to continuous or differentiable functions and the algebraic aspect – the nearest one to the formal definition of monotonicity – is rare.