Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 49, Issue 3, pp 323–338 | Cite as

Emotions and heuristics: the state of perplexity in mathematics

  • Inés M. Gómez-Chacón
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

Using data provided by an empirical exploratory study with mathematics undergraduates, this paper discusses some key variables in the interaction between affective and cognitive dimensions in the perplexity state in problem solving. These variables are as follows: heuristics, mathematical processes, appraisal processes [pleasantness, attentional activity, control (self-other responsibility/control, situational control), certainty, goal-path obstacle, anticipated effort and mental flexibility], as well as the relationships these variables have with different emotions that make up perplexity. Fuzzy sets were introduced as a tool to capture and accurately reflect the diversity and subjectivity in the interplay between cognition and emotion. The descriptive analysis of the responses to a fuzzy rating scale-based questionnaire shows the interaction between variables linked to the dimensions of control and certainty and students’ ability to cope with perplexity in performance in mathematics. The study also adds novel considerations related to the function and interaction of mathematics cognitive processes that are linked to appraisal processes, namely, the perception of goal-path obstacle, attentional activity and mental flexibility that contributes to the ability to solve simpler problem components involved in mathematical performance.

Keywords

Emotions Heuristics Fuzzy set Cognition and emotion Mathematics Fuzzy rating method 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the research grant Visiting Scholar Fellowship, University of California in Berkeley, Scholarship “Becas Complutense del Amo” 2015–16, Spain and by the Spanish Ministry of the Economy and Competitive Affairs under project EDU2013-44047-P.

References

  1. Blanco-Fernández, A., M.R. Casals, M. R., Colubi, A., Corral, N., García-Bárzana, M., Gil, M. A., González-Rodríguez, G., López, M. T., Montenegro, M., Lubiano, M. A., Ramos-Guajardo, A. B., de la Rosa de Sáa, S., & Sinova, B. (2014). A distance-based statistical analysis of fuzzy number-valued data. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 55, 1487–1501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Breiman, L., Friedman, J. H., Olshen, R., & Stone, C. J. (1984). Classification and regression trees. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth International Group.Google Scholar
  3. Byers, W. (2007). How mathematicians think. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. D’Mello, S., Lehman, B., Pekrun, R., & Graesser, A. (2014). Confusion can be beneficial for learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, 153–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: D.C. Heath.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Diamond, P., & Kloeden, P. (1990). Metric spaces of fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Systems, 35, 241–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goldin, G. A. (2000). Affective pathways and representations in mathematical problem solving. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 17(2), 209–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goldin, G. A. (2004). Problem solving heuristics, affect and discrete mathematics. ZDM- Mathematics Education, 36(2), 56–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gómez-Chacón, I. M. (2000). Affective influences in the knowledge of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 43, 149–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gómez-Chacón, I. M. (2012). Affective pathways and interactive visualization in the context of technological and professional mathematical knowledge. Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education, 17(3–4), 57–74.Google Scholar
  11. Gómez-Chacón, I. M. (2015). Meta-emotion and mathematical modeling processes in computerized environments. In B. Pepin & B. Rösken-Winter (Eds.), From beliefs and affect to dynamic systems in mathematics education. Exploring a mosaic of relationships and interactions (pp. 201–226). Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Gómez-Chacón, I. M., Romero, I. M., del Mar García López, M. (2016) Zig-zagging in geometrical reasoning in technological collaborative environments: a Mathematical Working Space-framed study concerning cognition and affect. ZDM Mathematics Education, 48(6), 909–924. doi: 10.1007/s11858-016-0755-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hesketh, T., Pryor, R., & Hesketh, B. (1988). An application of a computerized fuzzy graphic rating scale to the psychological measurement of individual differences. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 29, 21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lazarus, R. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Lubiano, M. A., de la Rosa de Sáa, S., Montenegro, M., Sinova, B., & Gil, M. A. (2016). Descriptive analysis of responses to ítems in questionnaies. Why not using a fuzzy rating scale? Information Sciences, 360, 131–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Muis, K. R. (2007). The role of epistemic beliefs in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 42, 173–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Muis, K. R., Psaradellis, C., Lajoie, S. P., Di Leo, I., & Chevrier, M. (2015). The role of epistemic emotions in mathematics problem solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 42, 172–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pekrun, R., & Stephens, E. J. (2012). Academic emotions. In K. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, S. Graham, J. Royer & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Individual differences and cultural and contextual factors. APA educational psychology handbook (Vol. 2, pp. 3–31). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Polya, G. (1957). How to solve it? New York: Doubleday Anchor Books Edition.Google Scholar
  21. Scherer, K. R. (2000). Emotions as episodes of subsystem synchronization driven by nonlinear appraisal processes. In M. D. Lewis & I. Granic (Eds.), Emotion, development, and self-organization: Dynamic systems approaches to emotional development (pp. 70–99). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1994). Reflections on doing and teaching mathematics. In A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Mathematical thinking and problem solving (pp. 53–75). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Schukajlow, S. (2015). Is Boredom important for students performance? In K. Krainer & N. Vondrová (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 1273–1279). Prague: Charles University in Prague.Google Scholar
  24. Schukajlow, S., & Krug, A. (2014). Are interest and enjoyment important for students’ performance? In C. Nicol, S. Oesterle, P. Liljedahl & D. Allan (Eds.), Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of PME 38 and PME-NA 36 (Vol. 5, pp. 129–136). Vancouver: PME.Google Scholar
  25. Seco, M., Ramos, G., Andrés, O. (1999). Diccionario del Español Actual. Madrid: Aguilar.Google Scholar
  26. Silvia, P. J. (2010). Confusion and interest: The role of knowledge emotions in aesthetic experience. Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts, 4, 75–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotions. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 84(4), 813–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual revolutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Trutschnig, W., & Lubiano, A. (2013). Package SAFD, CRAN R-project.org.Google Scholar
  30. Zadeh, L. A. (1975). The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning. Information Sciences, 8, 199–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Facultad de Ciencias Matemáticas e Instituto de Matemática InterdisciplinarUniversidad Complutense de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options