ABSTRACT
According to the intuitive rules theory, students are affected by a small number of intuitive rules when solving a wide variety of science and mathematics tasks. The current study considers the relationship between students’ Piagetian cognitive levels and their tendency to answer in line with intuitive rules when solving comparison tasks. The findings indicate that the tendency to answer according to the intuitive rules varies with cognitive level. Surprisingly, a higher rate of incorrect responses according to the rule same A–same B was found for the higher cognitive level. Further findings and implications for science and mathematics education are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Adey, P. (2005). Issues arising from the long-term evaluation of cognitive acceleration programs. Research in Science Education, 35, 3–22.
Adey, P., & Shayer, M. (1994). Really raising standards: Cognitive intervention and academic achievement. London: Routledge.
Adey, P., Shayer, M., & Yates, C. (2001). Thinking science third edition, the materials of the CASE project. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes.
Babai, R., & Levit-Dori, T. (in press). Several CASE lessons can improve students’ control of variables reasoning scheme ability. Journal of Science Education and Technology.
Babai, R., Brecher, T., Stavy, R., & Tirosh, D. (2006a). Intuitive interference in probabilistic reasoning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4, 627–639.
Babai, R., Levyadun, T., Stavy, R., & Tirosh, D. (2006b). Intuitive rules in science and mathematics: A reaction time study. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 37, 913–924.
Champagne, A. B., Klopfer, L. E., & Anderson, J. H. (1979). Factors influencing the learning of classical mechanics. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development Center.
Fischbein, E. (1987). Intuition in science and mathematics. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Fischbein, E. (1999). Intuitions and schemata in mathematical reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38, 11–50.
Fischbein, E., & Schnarch, D. (1997). The evolution with age of probabilistic, intuitively based misconceptions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 96–105.
Greca, I. M., & Moreira, M. A. (2000). Mental models, conceptual models, and modeling. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 1–11.
Iqbal, H. M., & Shayer, M. (2000). Accelerating the development of formal thinking in Pakistan secondary school students: Achievement effects and professional development issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 259–274.
Mbano, N. (2003). The effects of a cognitive acceleration intervention programme on the performance of secondary school pupils in Malawi. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 71–87.
Perkins, D. N., & Simmons, R. (1988). Patterns of misunderstanding: An integrative model for science, math, and programming. Review of Educational Research, 58, 303–326.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1974). The child’s construction of quantities. London: Routledge.
Shayer, M., & Adey, P. (1981). Towards a science of science teaching. London: Heinemann Educational Books.
Shayer, M., & Adey, P. (2002). Learning intelligence. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Shayer, M., Ginsburg, D., & Coe, R. (2007). Thirty years on a large anti-Flynn effect? The Piagetian test Volume & Heaviness norms. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 25–41.
Shayer, M., Kuchemann, D. E., & Wylam, H. (1976). The distribution of Piagetian stages of thinking in British middle and secondary school children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 164–173.
Shayer, M., & Wylam, H. (1978). The distribution of Piagetian stages of thinking in British middle and secondary school children II: 14–16 year-olds and sex differentials. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 48, 62–70.
Shemesh, M., & Lazarowitz, R. (1988). The interactional effects of students’ cognitive levels and test characteristics on the performance of formal reasoning tasks. Research in Science & Technological Education, 6, 79–89.
Shemesh, M., & Lazarowitz, R. (1989). Pupils’ reasoning skills and their mastery of biological concepts. Journal of Biological Education, 23, 59–63.
Stavy, R., & Babai, R. (2008). Complexity of shapes and quantitative reasoning in geometry. Mind, Brain, and Education, 2, 170–176.
Stavy, R., Babai, R., Tsamir, P., Tirosh, D., Lin, F. L., & McRobbie, C. (2006). Are intuitive rules universal? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4, 417–436.
Stavy, R., & Tirosh, D. (1996). Intuitive rules in science and mathematics: The case of ‘more of A–more of B’. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 653–667.
Stavy, R., & Tirosh, D. (2000). How students (mis-)understand science and mathematics: Intuitive rules. New York: Teachers College Press.
Tirosh, D., & Stavy, R. (1999). Intuitive rules: A way to explain and predict students’ reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38, 51–66.
Vosniadou, S., & Ioannides, C. (1998). From conceptual development to science education: A psychological point of view. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 1213–1230.
Zazkis, R. (1999). Intuitive rules in number theory: Example of ‘the more of A, the more of B’ rule implementation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 40, 197–209.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Babai, R. PIAGETIAN COGNITIVE LEVEL AND THE TENDENCY TO USE INTUITIVE RULES WHEN SOLVING COMPARISON TASKS. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 8, 203–221 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-009-9170-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-009-9170-2