Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 69, Issue 2, pp 81–95 | Cite as

Intuitive nonexamples: the case of triangles

  • Pessia Tsamir
  • Dina Tirosh
  • Esther Levenson


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.


Concept formation Intuition Kindergarten children Nonexamples Triangles 


  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. Fischbein, E. (1987). Intuition in science and mathematics. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Reidel.Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Hannibal, M. (1999). Young children’s developing understanding of geometric shapes. Teaching Children Mathematics, 5(6), 353–357.Google Scholar
  11. Hasegawa, J. (1997). Concept formation of triangles and quadrilaterals in the second grade. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 32, 157–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hershkowitz, R. (1989). Visualization in geometry – two sides of the coin. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 11(1), 61–76.Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. Kellogg, R. (1980). Feature frequency and hypothesis testing in the acquisition of rule-governed concepts. Memory & Cognition, 8, 297–303.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Klausmeier, H., & Sipple, T. (1980). Learning and teaching concepts. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Markman, E. (1989). Categorization and naming in children. Massachusetts: MIT.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. Posner, M. I., & Keele, S. W. (1968). On the genesis of abstract ideas. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 77, 353–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Reed, S. K. (1972). Pattern recognition and categorization. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 382–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rosch, E. (1973). Natural Categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 328–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. (1975). Family resemblances: studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 773–605.Google Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Shaughnessy, J., & Burger, W. (1985). Spadework prior to deduction in geometry. Mathematics Teacher, 78(6), 419–427.Google Scholar
  29. Smith, E., & Medin, D. (1981). Categories and concepts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. Watson, A., & Mason, J. (2005). Mathematics as a Constructive Activity: Learners generating examples. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. 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
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. 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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations