Advertisement

Are Intuitive Rules Universal?

  • Ruth StavyEmail author
  • Reuven Babai
  • Pessia Tsamir
  • Dina Tirosh
  • Fou-Lai Lin
  • Campbell McRobbie
Article

Abstract

This paper presents a cross-cultural study on the intuitive rules theory. The study was conducted in Australia (with aboriginal children) in Taiwan and in Israel. Our findings indicate that Taiwanese and Australian Aboriginal students, much like Israeli ones, provided incorrect responses, most of which were in line with the intuitive rules. Also, developmental trends were found to be similar yet differences were found with regard to the rate of developmental change.

Key Words

alternative conceptions comparison tasks cross-cultural study intuitive rules 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alter, A. (2003). Using the intuitive rule: “More A – More B” in judging images presented in optical instruments. Unpublished Master's thesis, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
  2. Badair, N. (2002). The use of intuitive rules in solving chemical equilibrium problems. Unpublished Master's thesis, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
  3. Bar, D. (2001). The influence of the “Equal A equal B” intuitive rule on students' answers in the field of ionic and molecular solubility. Unpublished Master's thesis, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
  4. Chaiken, S. & Trope, Y. (Eds.). (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  5. Champagne, A.B., Klopfer, L.E. & Anderson, J.H. (1979). Factors influencing the learning of classical mechanics. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development Center.Google Scholar
  6. Cohen, R. (1998). Processes of repeated division of biological and mathematical objects. Unpublished Master's thesis, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
  7. Dotan, L. (1997). The effects of studying basic probability concepts on the handling of solutions to genetics problems. Unpublished Master's thesis, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
  8. Evans, J.B.T. & Over, D.E. (1996). Rationality and reasoning. Hove: Psychology.Google Scholar
  9. Fischbein, E. (1987). Intuition in science and mathematics. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.Google Scholar
  10. Fischbein, E., Tirosh, D. & Melamed, U. (1981). Is it possible to measure the intuitive acceptance of mathematical statements? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12, 491–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gazit-Grinboum, R. (2000). Using the intuitive rule “ More of A, more of B” among ninth grade students in biology: Genetics and the cell. Unpublished Master's thesis, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
  12. Gentner, D. & Medina, J. (1998). Similarity and the development of rules. Cognition, 65, 263–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gilbert, D.T. (1991). How mental systems believe. American Psychologist, 46, 107–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hakham-Aharon, A. (1997). The influence of the intuitive rule “More of A – more of B” on children's concept of time. Unpublished Master's thesis, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
  15. Levy, S. (1998). The use of intuitive rules in solving problems dealing with simple electronic circuits. Unpublished Master's thesis, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
  16. Livne, T. (1996). Examination of high school students' difficulties in understanding the change in surface area, volume and surface area/volume ratio with the change in size and/or shape of a body. Unpublished Master's thesis, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
  17. Mendel, N. (1998). The intuitive rule “Same of A, same of B”: The case of comparison of rectangles. Unpublished Master's thesis, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
  18. Morabia, D. (1990). Difficulties in applying the principle of the “independence of motions” among high school students. Unpublished Master's thesis, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
  19. Mudrik, E. (2003). The perception of physics pupils at high school on the relation between two variables as direct proportional relationship or inverse proportional relationship. Unpublished Master's thesis, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
  20. Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Gonzalez, E.J. & Chrostowski, S.J. (2004). Findings from IEA's trends in international mathematics and science study at the fourth and eighth grades. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.Google Scholar
  21. Myers, S. (1998). Effects of conceptual conflicts on using the intuitive rule “More of A – more of B” in 8th grade students. Unpublished Master's thesis, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
  22. Norenzayan, A., Smith, E.E., Kim, B.J. & Nisbett, R.E. (2002). Cultural preferences for formal versus intuitive reasoning. Cognitive Science, 26, 653–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Piaget, J. (1968). On the development of memory and identity. Barre, Ma: Clark University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Piaget, J., Inhelder, B. & Szeminska, A. (1960). The child's conception of geometry. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  25. Rapaport, A. (1998). Use of the intuitive rule: “More of A – more of B” in comparing algebraic expressions. Unpublished Master's thesis, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
  26. Ravia, N. (1992). Inconsistencies in the perception of the concepts heat and temperature (9th grade). Unpublished Master's thesis, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
  27. Rips, L.J. (1989). Similarity, typicality, and categorization. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 21–59). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Rojhany, L. (1997). The use of the intuitive rule “The more of A, the more of B”: The case of comparison of Angles. Unpublished Master's thesis, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
  29. Ronen, E. (1999). The intuitive rule “same A – same B”: The case of overgeneralization of the conservation schema. Unpublished Master's thesis, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
  30. Smith, E.E., Patalano, A.L. & Jonides, J. (1998). Alternative strategies of categorization. Cognition, 65, 167–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stavy, R. & Tirosh, D. (1996). Intuitive rules in science and mathematics: The case of “more of A – more of B.” International Journal of Science Education, 18, 653–667.Google Scholar
  32. Stavy, R. & Tirosh, D. (2000). How students (mis-)understand science and mathematics: Intuitive rules. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  33. Strauss, S., Stavy, R. & Orpaz, N. (1977). The development of the concept of temperature. Unpublished manuscript, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.Google Scholar
  34. Tirosh, D. & Stavy, R. (1996). Intuitive rules in science and mathematics: The case of “Everything can be divided by two.” International Journal of Science Education, 18, 669–683.Google Scholar
  35. Tirosh, D. & Stavy, R. (1999). Intuitive rules: A way to explain and predict students' reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38, 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tsamir, P., Tirosh, D. & Stavy, R. (1997). Intuitive rules and comparison tasks: The grasp of vertical angles. In G.A. Makrides (Ed.), Proceedings of the first Mediterranean conference: Mathematics Education and Applications. Nicosia, Cyprus: Cyprus Pedagogical Institute and Cyprus Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
  37. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90, 293–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Van Dooren, W., De Bock, D., Weyers, D. & Verschaffel, L. (2004). The predictive power of intuitive rules: A critical analysis of the impact of ‘more A – more B’ and ‘same A – same B’. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 56, 179–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ruth Stavy
    • 1
    Email author
  • Reuven Babai
    • 1
  • Pessia Tsamir
    • 1
  • Dina Tirosh
    • 1
  • Fou-Lai Lin
    • 1
  • Campbell McRobbie
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Science EducationSchool of Education, Tel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations