Advertisement

Interventions aimed at overcoming intuitive interference: insights from brain-imaging and behavioral studies

  • Geneviève Allaire-Duquette
  • Reuven Babai
  • Ruth Stavy
Review

Abstract

Students experience difficulties in comparison tasks that may stem from interference of the tasks’ salient irrelevant variables. Here, we focus on the comparison of perimeters task, in which the area is the irrelevant salient variable. Studies have shown that in congruent trials (when there is no interference), accuracy is higher and reaction time is shorter than in incongruent trials (when the area variable interferes). Brain-imaging and behavioral studies suggested that interventions of either activating inhibitory control mechanisms or increasing the level of salience of the relevant perimeter variable could improve students’ success. In this review, we discuss several studies that empirically explored these possibilities and their findings show that both types of interventions improved students’ performance. Theoretical considerations and practical educational implications are discussed.

Keywords

Intuitive interference Comparison of perimeters Educational interventions Inhibitory control mechanisms fMRI 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Arcavi A (2003) The role of visual representations in the learning of mathematics. Educ Stud Math 52:215–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aron AR, Robbins TW, Poldrack RA (2004) Inhibition and the right inferior frontal cortex. Trends Cogn Sci 8:170–177.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.02.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Babai R, Levyadun T, Stavy R, Tirosh D (2006) Intuitive rules in science and mathematics: a reaction time study. Int J Math Educ Sci Technol 37:913–924.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00207390600794958 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Babai R, Zilber H, Stavy R, Tirosh D (2010) The effect of intervention on accuracy of students’ responses and reaction times to geometry problems. Int J Sci Math Educ 8:185–201.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-009-9169-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Babai R, Shalev E, Stavy R (2015) A warning intervention improves students’ ability to overcome intuitive interference. ZDM 47:735–745.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0670-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Babai R, Nattiv L, Stavy R (2016) Comparison of perimeters: improving students’ performance by increasing the salience of the relevant variable. ZDM 48:367–378.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-016-0766-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bronowski J (1947) Mathematics. In: Thompson D, Reeves J (eds) The quality of education: methods and purposes in the secondary curriculum. Frederick Muller, London, pp 179–195Google Scholar
  8. Deliyianni E, Michael E, Pitta-Pantazi D (2006) The effect of different teaching tools in overcoming the impact of the intuitive rules. In: Proceedings of the 30th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education, vol 2, pp 409–416Google Scholar
  9. Dempster FN, Corkill AJ (1999) Interference and inhibition in cognition and behavior: unifying themes for educational psychology. Educ Psychol Rev 11:1–88.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021992632168 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dewolf T, van Dooren W, Ev Cimen E, Verschaffel L (2014) The impact of illustrations and warnings on solving mathematical word problems realistically. J Exp Educ 82:103–120.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2012.745468 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dreyfus A, Jungwirth E, Eliovitch R (1990) Applying the “cognitive conflict” strategy for conceptual change—some implications, difficulties, and problems. Sci Educ 74:555–569.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730740506 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duit R (2007) Science education research internationally: conceptions, research methods, domains of research. Eurasia J Math Sci Technol Educ 3:3–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eshach H (2014) The use of intuitive rules in interpreting students’ difficulties in reading and creating kinematic graphs. Can J Phys 92(1):1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1139/cjp-2013-0369 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fias W, Lammertyn J, Reynvoet B, Dupont P, Orban GA (2003) Parietal representation of symbolic and nonsymbolic magnitude. J Cogn Neurosci 15:47–56.  https://doi.org/10.1162/089892903321107819 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Fischbein H (1987) Intuition in science and mathematics: an educational approach. Reidel, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  16. Goel V, Makale M, Grafman J (2004) The hippocampal system mediates logical reasoning about familiar spatial environments. J Cogn Neurosci 16:654–664.  https://doi.org/10.1162/089892904323057362 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Goldenberg M (2016) The effect of conflict teaching intervention on the accuracy and reaction time of comparing perimeters. Master’s dissertation, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel (in Hebrew) Google Scholar
  18. Houde O, Guichart E (2001) Negative priming effect after inhibition of number/length interference in a Piaget-like task. Dev Sci 4:119–123.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7687.00156 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Houde O, Zago L, Mellet E, Moutier S, Pineau A, Mazoyer B, Tzourio-Mazoyer N (2000) Shifting from the perceptual brain to the logical brain: the neural impact of cognitive inhibition training. J Cogn Neurosci 12:721–728.  https://doi.org/10.1162/089892900562525 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Konishi S, Nakajima K, Uchida I, Kikyo H, Kameyama M, Miyashita Y (1999) Common inhibitory mechanism in human inferior prefrontal cortex revealed by event-related functional MRI. Brain 122:981–991.  https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/122.5.981 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Limón M, Carretero M (1997) Conceptual change and anomalous data: a case study in the domain of natural sciences. Eur J Psychol Educ 12:213–230.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173085 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Martin T, Schwartz DL (2005) Physically distributed learning: adapting and reinterpreting physical environments in the development of fraction concepts. Cogn Sci 29:587–625.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_15 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Martin MO, Mullis IV, Foy P, Stanco GM (2012) TIMSS 2011 International Results in Science. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  24. Mason L (2000) Role of anomalous data and epistemological beliefs in middle school students’ theory change about two controversial topics. Eur J Psychol Educ 15:329–346.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173183 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moutier S, Houde O (2003) Judgement under uncertainty and conjunction fallacy inhibition training. Think Reason 9:185–201.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780343000213 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moutier S, Angeard N, Houde O (2002) Deductive reasoning and matching-bias inhibition training: evidence from a debiasing paradigm. Think Reason 8:205–224.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780244000033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mullis IV, Martin MO, Foy P, Arora A (2012) TIMSS 2011 international results in mathematics. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  28. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2014) PISA 2012 results: what students know and can do: student performance in mathematics, reading and science (volume I). OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  29. Osman M, Stavy R (2006) Development of intuitive rules: evaluating the application of the dual-system framework to understanding children’s intuitive reasoning. Psychon Bull Rev 13:935–953.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213907 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Pinel P, Piazza M, Le Bihan D, Dehaene S (2004) Distributed and overlapping cerebral representations of number, size, and luminance during comparative judgments. Neuron 41:983–993.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(04)00107-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Stavy R, Babai R (2008) Complexity of shapes and quantitative reasoning in geometry. Mind Brain Educ 2:170–176.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228X.2008.00051.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stavy R, Berkovitz B (1980) Cognitive conflict as a basis for teaching quantitative aspects of the concept of temperature. Sci Educ 64:679–692.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730640514 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stavy R, Tirosh D (1996) Intuitive rules in science and mathematics: the case of ‘more of A–more of B’. Int J Sci Educ 18:653–667.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069960180602 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stavy R, Tirosh D (2000) How students (mis-)understand science and mathematics. Teachers College Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Stavy R, Goel V, Critchley H, Dolan R (2006) Intuitive interference in quantitative reasoning. Brain Res 1073–1074:383–388.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2005.12.011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Tamsut E (2014) The effect of a preliminary task which strengthens the preservation of perimeter on the accuracy and reaction time of comparing perimeters. Master’s dissertation, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel (in Hebrew) Google Scholar
  37. Tsamir P (2005) Enhancing prospective teachers’ knowledge of learners’ intuitive conceptions: the case of same A–same B. J Math Teach Educ 8:469–497.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-005-5119-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yair Y, Yair Y (2004) “Everything comes to an end”: an intuitive rule in physics and mathematics. Sci Educ 88:594–609.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10142 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yoshida H, Verschaffel L, De Corte E (1997) Realistic considerations in solving problematic word problems: do Japanese and Belgian children have the same difficulties? Learn Instr 7:329–338.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(97)00007-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zazkis R (1999) Intuitive rules in number theory: example of ‘the more of A, the more of B’ rule implementation. Educ Stud Math 40:197–209.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003711828805 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Marta Olivetti Belardinelli and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Geneviève Allaire-Duquette
    • 1
  • Reuven Babai
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ruth Stavy
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, The Constantiner School of EducationTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael
  2. 2.The Sagol School of NeuroscienceTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations