Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 72, Issue 2, pp 185–198 | Cite as

Conditional inference and advanced mathematical study: further evidence

  • Matthew InglisEmail author
  • Adrian Simpson


In this paper, we examine the support given for the ‘theory of formal discipline’ by Inglis and Simpson (Educational Studies Mathematics 67:187–204, 2008). This theory, which is widely accepted by mathematicians and curriculum bodies, suggests that the study of advanced mathematics develops general thinking skills and, in particular, conditional reasoning skills. We further examine the idea that the differences between the conditional reasoning behaviour of mathematics and arts undergraduates reported by Inglis and Simpson may be put down to different levels of general intelligence in the two groups. The studies reported in this paper call into question this suggestion, but they also cast doubt on a straightforward version of the theory of formal discipline itself (at least with respect to university study). The paper concludes by suggesting that either a pre-university formal discipline effect or a filtering effect on ‘thinking dispositions’ may give a better account for the findings.


Advanced mathematical thinking Conditional inference Logic Reasoning Theory of formal discipline Thinking dispositions 


  1. Baron, J. (1988). Thinking and deciding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bramall, S., & White, J. (Eds.) (2000). Why learn maths? London: Institute of Education, University of London.Google Scholar
  3. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. London: Learning & Skills Research Centre.Google Scholar
  5. Drysdale, M. T. B., Ross, J. L., & Schulz, R. A. (2001). Cognitive learning styles and academic performance in 19 first-year university courses: Successful students versus students at risk. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 6, 271–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Evans, J. St. B. T. (2007). Hypothetical thinking: Dual processes in reasoning and judgement. Hove: Psychology.Google Scholar
  7. Evans, J. St. B. T., Clibbens, J., & Rood, B. (1995). Bias in conditional inference: Implications for mental models and mental logic. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48(A), 644–670.Google Scholar
  8. Evans, J. St. B. T., & Handley, S. J. (1999). The role of negation in conditional inference. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52A, 739–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gill, P. (2003). Mathematics. In J. White (Ed.), Rethinking the school curriculum (pp. 104–116). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Gregorc, A. F. (1979). Learning/teaching styles: Potent forces behind them. Educational Leadership, 36, 234–237.Google Scholar
  11. Heim, A. W. (1968). AH5 group test of intelligence. London: National Foundation for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  12. Inglis, M., & Simpson, A. (2008). Conditional inference and advanced mathematical study. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67, 187–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  14. Mason, J., Burton, L., & Stacey, K. (1982). Thinking mathematically. London: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  15. Moutsios-Rentzos, A., & Simpson, A. (2005). The transition to postgraduate study in mathematics: A thinking styles perspective. In H. L. Chick & J. L. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th international c onference on the psychology of m athematics education (Vol. 3, pp. 329–336). Melbourne, Australia: IGPME.Google Scholar
  16. Newstead, S. E., Handley, S. J., Harley, C., Wright, H., & Farrelly, D. (2004). Individual differences in deductive reasoning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A, 33–60.Google Scholar
  17. Riding, R. (1991). Cognitive styles analysis. Birmingham: Learning and Training Technology.Google Scholar
  18. Riding, R., & Agrell, T. (1997). The effect of cognitive style and cognitive skills on school subject performance. Educational Studies, 23, 311–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schroyens, W., Schaeken, W., & d’Ydewalle, G. (2001). The processing on negations in conditional reasoning: A meta-analytical case study in mental model and/or mental logic theory. Thinking and Reasoning, 7, 121–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schroyens, W., Schaeken, W., Fias, W., & d’Ydewalle, G. (2000). Heuristic and analytic processes in propositional reasoning with negatives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 26, 1713–1734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sfard, A. (1998). A mathematician’s view of research in mathematics education: An interview with Shimson A. Amitsur. In A. Sierpinska & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), Mathematics education as a research domain: A search for identity (Vol. 2, pp. 445–458). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  22. Smith, A. (2004). Making mathematics count: The report of Professor A drian Smith’s inquiry into post-14 mathematics education. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  23. Stanic, G. M. A. (1986). The growing crisis in mathematics education in the early twentieth century. Journal for Research in Mathematlcs Education, 17, 190–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stanovich, K. E. (1999). Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1998). Individual differences in rational thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 161–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 23, 645–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thorndike, E. L. (1924). Mental discipline in high school studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 15, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zazkis, R., & Gadowsky, K. (2001). Attending to transparent features of opaque representations of natural numbers. In: A. Cuoco (Ed.), The roles of representation in school mathematics (pp. 146–165). Reston: NCTM.Google Scholar
  29. Zazkis, R., & Liljedahl, P. (2004). Understanding primes: The role of representation. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35, 164–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mathematics Education CentreLoughborough UniversityLoughboroughUK
  2. 2.School of EducationUniversity of DurhamDurhamUK

Personalised recommendations