Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 47, Issue 5, pp 713–721 | Cite as

Inhibitory control in mathematical thinking, learning and problem solving: a survey

  • Wim Van Dooren
  • Matthew Inglis
Survey Paper
First Online:

Abstract

Inhibitory control—the ability to ignore salient but unhelpful stimuli and responses—seems to be important for learning mathematics. For instance there is now robust evidence that performance on classic measures of inhibition, such as the Stroop Task, correlate with school-level mathematics achievement. At the same time, a great deal of theoretical work in mathematics education research seems to reference the notion of inhibitory control, albeit not always explicitly. Our goal in this survey paper is to review the notion of inhibition from three perspectives. First we review evidence for the importance of inhibitory control in general cognition. Second, we discuss the relationship between inhibition skills and mathematics performance. Finally, we discuss how inhibitory control fits into a number of well established theoretical frameworks used in the mathematics education literature.

Keywords

Inhibitory Control Conceptual Change Negative Priming Mathematics Achievement Dual Process Theory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Baddeley, A. (1996). Exploring the central executive. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baddeley, A., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), Recent advances in learning and motivation (Vol. 8). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  3. Barkley, R. A. (1997). ADHD and the nature of self-control. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  4. Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M., & Frith, U. (1985). Does the autistic child have a "theory of mind"? Cognition, 21, 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blair, C., & Razza, R. P. (2007). Relating effortful control, executive function, and false belief understanding to emerging math and literacy ability in kindergarten. Child Development, 78, 647–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bull, R., Espy, K. A., & Wiebe, S. A. (2008a). Short-term memory, working memory, and executive functioning in preschoolers: Longitudinal predictors of mathematical achievement at age 7 years. Developmental Neuropsychology, 33, 205–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bull, R., Espy, K. A., & Wiebe, S. A. (2008b). Short-term memory, working memory, and executive functioning in preschoolers: Longitudinal predictors of mathematical achievement at age 7 years. Developmental Neuropsychology, 33, 205–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bull, R., & Scerif, G. (2001a). Executive functioning as a predictor of children’s mathematics ability: Inhibition, switching, and working memory. Developmental Neuropsychology, 19, 273–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bull, R., & Scerif, G. (2001b). Executive functioning as a predictor of children’s mathematics ability: Inhibition, switching and working memory. Developmental Neuropsychology, 19, 273–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Campbell, J. I. D., & Thompson, V. A. T. (2012). Retrieval-induced forgetting of arithmetic facts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 118–129.Google Scholar
  12. Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Clement, J., Lockhead, J., & Monk, G. (1981). Translation difficulties in learning mathematics. American Mathematical Monthly, 88, 286–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. D’Amico, A., & Passolunghi, M. C. (2009). Naming speed and effortful and automatic inhibition in children with arithmetic learning disabilities. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 170–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. De Smedt, B., Noël, M.-P., Gilmore, C., & Ansari, D. (2013). How do symbolic and non-symbolic numerical magnitude processing skills relate to individual differences in children’s mathematical skills? A review of evidence from brain and behavior. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 2, 48–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dehaene, S. (1997). The number sense: How the mind creates mathematics. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  17. Espy, K. A., McDiarmid, M. M., Cwik, M. F., Stalets, M. M., Hamby, A., & Senn, T. E. (2004). The contribution of executive functions to emergent mathematic skills in preschool children. Developmental Neuropsychology, 26, 465–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Evans, J. St. B. T., & Curtis-Holmes, J. (2005). Rapid responding increases belief bias: Evidence for the dual process theory of reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning, 11, 382–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Evans, J. St. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 223–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fischbein, E. (1987). Intuition in science and mathematics: An educational approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  21. Fischbein, E. (1999). Intuitions and schemata in mathematical reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38, 11–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fischbein, E., & Schnarch, D. (1997). The evolution with age of probabilistic, intuitively based misconceptions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 96–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Friso-van den Bos, I., van der Ven, S. H. G., Kroesbergen, E. H., & van Luit, J. E. H. (2013). Working memory and mathematics in primary school children: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 10, 29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fuchs, L. S., Geary, D. C., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Seethaler, P. M., et al. (2010). Do different types of school mathematics development depend on different constellations of numerical versus general cognitive abilities? Developmental Psychology, 46, 1731–1746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fuhs, M. W., & McNeil, N. M. (2013). ANS acuity and mathematics ability in preschoolers from low-income homes: Contributions of inhibitory control. Developmental Science, 16, 136–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gifford, S., & Rockcliffe, F. (2012). Mathematics difficulties: Does one approach fit all? Research in Mathematics Education, 14, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gillard, E., Van Dooren, W., Schaeken, W., & Verschaffel, L. (2009). Proportional reasoning as a heuristic-based process: Time pressure and dual-task considerations. Experimental Psychology, 56, 92–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gilmore, C., Attridge, N., Clayton, S., Cragg, L., Johnson, S., Marlow, N., et al. (2013). Individual differences in inhibitory control, not non-verbal number acuity, correlate with mathematics achievement. PLoS ONE, 8, e67374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Halberda, J., Mazzocco, M. M. M., & Feigenson, L. (2008). Individual differences in non-verbal number acuity correlate with maths achievement. Nature, 455, 665–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Halberda, J., & Odic, D. (2014). The precision and internal confidence of our approximate number thoughts. In D. C. Geary, D. B. Berch, & K. M. Koepke (Eds.), Evolutionary origins and early development of basic number processing (pp. 305–333). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  31. Hyde, D. C., Khanum, S., & Spelke, E. S. (2014). Brief non-symbolic, approximate number practice enhances subsequent exact symbolic arithmetic in children. Cognition, 131, 92–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Inglis, M., Attridge, N., Batchelor, S., & Gilmore, C. (2011). Non-verbal number acuity correlates with symbolic mathematics achievement: But only in children. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 18, 1222–1229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  34. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  35. Kunda, Z., & Spencer, S. J. (2003). When do stereotypes come to mind and when do they color judgment? A goal-based theoretical framework for understanding stereotype activation and application. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 522–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. LeFevre, J. A., Fast, L., Skwarchuk, S. L., Smith Chant, B. L., Bisanz, J., Kamawar, D., & Penner Wilger, M. (2010). Pathways to mathematics: Longitudinal predictors of performance. Child Development, 81, 1753–1767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Leron, U., & Hazzan, O. (2006). The rationality debate: Application of cognitive psychology to mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62, 105–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Leron, U., & Hazzan, O. (2009). Intuitive vs analytical thinking: Four perspectives. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71, 263–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. MacLeod, C. M. (2007). The concept of inhibition in cognition. In D. S. Gorfein & C. M. MacLeod (Eds.), Inhibition in cognition (pp. 3–23). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Merenluoto, K., & Lehtinen, E. (2004). Number concept and conceptual change: towards a systemic model of the processes of change. Learning and Instruction, 14, 519–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. P. (2012). The nature and organization of individual differences in executive functions: four general conclusions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 8–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 49–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Passolunghi, M. C., & Siegel, L. S. (2001). Short-term memory, working memory, and inhibitory control in children with difficulties in arithmetic problem solving. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 80, 44–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shallice, T. and Burgess, P. W. (1991) Higher-order cognitive impairments and frontal lobe lesions in man. In: H. S. Levin, H. M. Eisenberg, and A. L. Benton (Eds.) Frontal Lobe Function and Dysfunction (pp. 125–138). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Stanovich, K. E. (2009). Distinguishing the reflective, algorithmic, and autonomous minds: Is it time for a triprocess theory? In: J. Evans & K. Frankish (Eds.), In two minds: Dual processes and beyond (pp. 55–88). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. St Clair-Thompson, H. L., & Gathercole, S. E. (2006). Executive functions and achievements in school: Shifting, updating, inhibition, and working memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 745–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stavy, R., & Tirosh, D. (2000). How students (mis-)understand science and mathematics: Intuitive rules. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  50. Thompson, V. A., & Morsanyi, K. (2012). Analytic thinking: Do you feel like it? Mind and Society, 11, 93–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tipper, S. P. (1985). The negative priming effect: Inhibitory priming with to be ignored objects. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37A, 571–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Torbeyns, J., De Smedt, B., Stassens, N., Ghesquière, P., & Verschaffel, L. (2009). Solving subtraction problems by means of indirect addition. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 11, 79–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vamvakoussi, X., Christou, K. P., Mertens, L., & Van Dooren, W. (2011). What fills the gap between discrete and dense? Greek and Flemish students' understanding of density. Learning and Instruction, 21, 676–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vamvakoussi, X., Van Dooren, W., & Verschaffel, L. (2013). Educated adults are still affected by intuitive beliefs about the effect of arithmetical operations: Evidence from a reaction-time study. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 82, 323–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vamvakoussi, X., & Vosniadou, S. (2010) How many decimals are there between two fractions? Aspects of secondary school students’ understanding of rational numbers and their notation. Cognition & Instruction, 28, 181–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vamvakoussi, X., & Vosniadou, S. (2010). Understanding the structure of the set of rational numbers: A conceptual change approach. Learning and Instruction, 14, 453–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modelling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4, 45–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Vosniadou, S. (2013). Conceptual change in learning and instruction: The framework theory approach. In: S. Vosniadou, ed. International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change. (pp. 11–30, 2nd ed.). New York, USA: Routledge.Google Scholar
  59. Vosniadou, S., Vamvakoussi, X., & Skopeliti, I. (2008). The Framework Theory Approach to the Problem of Conceptual Change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.). International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  60. Vosniadou, S., & Verschaffel, L. (2004). Extending the conceptual change approach to mathematics learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 14, 445–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wood, J., Mathews, A., & Dalgleish, T. (2001). Anxiety and cognitive inhibition. Emotion, 1, 166–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Psychology and Educational SciencesKU LeuvenLouvainBelgium
  2. 2.Mathematics Education CentreLoughborough UniversityLoughboroughEngland, UK

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options