# Intuitive nonexamples: the case of triangles

Article

First Online:

Received:

Accepted:

- 732 Downloads
- 18 Citations

## Abstract

In this paper we examine the possibility of differentiating between two types of nonexamples. The first type, *intuitive nonexamples*, consists of nonexamples which are intuitively accepted as such. That is, children immediately identify them as nonexamples. The second type, *non-intuitive nonexamples*, consists of nonexamples that bear a significant similarity to valid examples of the concept, and consequently are more often mistakenly identified as examples. We describe and discuss these notions and present a study regarding kindergarten children’s grasp of nonexamples of triangles.

## Keywords

Concept formation Intuition Kindergarten children Nonexamples Triangles## References

- Attneave, F. (1957). Transfer of experience with a class schema to identification of patterns and shapes.
*Journal of Experimental Psychology*,*54*, 81–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Battista, M. T. (2007). The development of geometric and spatial thinking. In F. Lester (Ed.),
*Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning*(pp. 843–908). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar - Bills, L., Dreyfus, T., Mason, J., Tsamir, P., Watson, A., & Zaslavsky, O. (2006). Exemplification in mathematics education. In J. Novotna, H. Moraova, M. Kratka, & N. Stehlikova (Eds.),
*Proceedings of the 30th PME International Conference*(vol. 1, pp. 126–154). Czech Republic: PME.Google Scholar - Burger, W., & Shaughnessy, J. (1986). Characterizing the van Hiele levels of development in geometry.
*Journal for Research in Mathematics Education*,*17*(1), 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Clements, D. H. (2003). Teaching and learning geometry. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.),
*A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics*(pp. 151–178). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar - Clements, D., Swaminathan, S., Hannibal, M., & Sarama, J. (1999). Young children’s concepts of shape.
*Journal for Research in Mathematics Education*,*30*(2), 192–212. doi: 10.2307/749610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Cohen, M., & Carpenter, J. (1980). The effects of non-examples in geometrical concept acquisition.
*International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology*,*11*(2), 259–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Fischbein, E. (1987).
*Intuition in science and mathematics*. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Reidel.Google Scholar - Fischbein, E. (1993). The interaction between the formal, the algorithmic and the intuitive components in a mathematical activity. In R. Biehler, R. Scholz, R. Strässer, & B. Winkelmann (Eds.),
*Didactics of Mathematics as a Scientific Discipline*(pp. 231–245). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar - Hannibal, M. (1999). Young children’s developing understanding of geometric shapes.
*Teaching Children Mathematics*,*5*(6), 353–357.Google Scholar - Hasegawa, J. (1997). Concept formation of triangles and quadrilaterals in the second grade.
*Educational Studies in Mathematics*,*32*, 157–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Hershkowitz, R. (1989). Visualization in geometry – two sides of the coin.
*Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics*,*11*(1), 61–76.Google Scholar - Hershkowitz, R. (1990). Psychological aspects of learning geometry. In P. Nesher & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.),
*Mathematics and cognition*(pp. 70–95). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar - Hershkowitz, R., & Vinner, S. (1983). The role of critical and non-critical attributes in the concept image of geometrical concepts. In R. Hershkowitz (Ed.),
*Proceedings of the 7th PME International Conference*(pp. 223–228). Rehovot, Israel: Weizmann Institute of Science.Google Scholar - Kellogg, R. (1980). Feature frequency and hypothesis testing in the acquisition of rule-governed concepts.
*Memory & Cognition*,*8*, 297–303.Google Scholar - Klausmeier, H., & Feldman, K. (1975). Effects of a definition and a varying number of examples and nonexamples on concept attainment.
*Journal of Educational Psychology*,*67*, 174–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Klausmeier, H., & Sipple, T. (1980).
*Learning and teaching concepts*. New York: Academic.Google Scholar - Linchevsky, L., Vinner, S., & Karsenty, R. (1992). To be or not to be minimal? Student teachers’ views about definitions in geometry. In W. Geeslin, & K. Graham (Eds.),
*Proceedings of the 16th PME International Conference*(vol. 2, pp. 48–55). New Hampshire, MA: University of New Hampshire.Google Scholar - Markman, E. (1989).
*Categorization and naming in children*. Massachusetts: MIT.Google Scholar - Markman, E., & Watchtel, G. (1988). Children’s use of mutual exclusivity to constrain the meaning of words.
*Cognitive Psychology*,*20*(2), 121–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - McKinney, C., Larkins, A., Ford, M., & Davis III, J. (1983). The effectiveness of three methods of teaching social studies concepts to fourth-grade students: an aptitude-treatment interaction study.
*American Educational Research Journal*,*20*, 663–670.Google Scholar - Petty, O., & Jansson, L. (1987). Sequencing examples and non-examples to facilitate concept attainment.
*Journal for Research in Mathematics Education*,*18*(2), 112–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Posner, M. I., & Keele, S. W. (1968). On the genesis of abstract ideas.
*Journal of Experimental Psychology*,*77*, 353–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Reed, S. K. (1972). Pattern recognition and categorization.
*Cognitive Psychology*,*3*, 382–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. (1975). Family resemblances: studies in the internal structure of categories.
*Cognitive Psychology*,*7*, 773–605.Google Scholar - Schwarz, B., & Hershkowitz, R. (1999). Prototypes: brakes or levers in learning the function concept?
*Journal for Research in Mathematics Education*,*30*, 362–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Shaughnessy, J., & Burger, W. (1985). Spadework prior to deduction in geometry.
*Mathematics Teacher*,*78*(6), 419–427.Google Scholar - Smith, E., & Medin, D. (1981).
*Categories and concepts*. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar - Smith, E., Shoben, E., & Rips, L. (1974). Structure and process in semantic memory: a featural model for semantic decisions.
*Psychological Review*,*81*, 214–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - van Hiele, P. M., & van Hiele, D. (1958). A method of initiation into geometry. In H. Freudenthal (Ed.),
*Report on methods of initiation into geometry*. Groningen: Walters.Google Scholar - Vinner, S. (1991). The role of definitions in the teaching and learning of mathematics. In D. Tall (Ed.),
*Advanced mathematical thinking*(pp. 65–81). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar - Vinner, S., & Hershkowitz, R. (1980). Concept images and common cognitive paths in the development of some simple geometric concepts. In R. Karplus (Ed.),
*Proceedings of the 4th PME International Conference*, 177–184.Google Scholar - Watson, A., & Mason, J. (2005).
*Mathematics as a Constructive Activity: Learners generating examples*. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar - Waxman, S. (1999). The dubbin ceremony revisited: Object naming and categorization in infancy and early childhood. In D. Medin, & S. Atran (Eds.),
*Folkbiology*. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar - Waxman, S., & Braun, I. (2005). Consistent (but not variable) names as invitations to form object categories: new evidence from 12-month-old infants.
*Cognition*,*95*(3), B59–B68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Wilson, S. (1986). Feature frequency and the use of negative instances in a geometric task.
*Journal for Research in Mathematics Education*,*17*, 130–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Wilson, S. (1990). Inconsistent ideas related to definitions and examples.
*Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics*,*12*, 31–47.Google Scholar

## Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008