# A warning intervention improves students’ ability to overcome intuitive interference

- 784 Downloads
- 17 Citations

## Abstract

Students’ difficulties in mathematics and science may stem from interference of the task’s salient irrelevant variables. Here, we focus on a comparison of perimeters task, in which the area is the irrelevant salient variable. In congruent trials (no interference), accuracy is higher and reaction time is shorter than in incongruent trials (area variable interference). A brain-imaging study related to this task indicated that correctly answering the incongruent condition is associated with activation in prefrontal brain regions known for their executive inhibitory control. These findings suggested that intervention aimed at activating inhibitory control mechanisms could improve students’ success. In this paper, we explore the effect of an intervention that explicitly warns about the possible interference of the variable *area*. Eighty-four sixth graders performed the same comparison of perimeters reaction time test, with warning intervention (warning group) or without it (control group). Accuracy in the warning group was significantly higher in incongruent conditions and reaction time was significantly longer in all conditions than in the control group. The results suggest that the explicit warning activates inhibitory control mechanisms and thus helps students overcome the interference. The findings point to the possibility of improving students’ problem-solving abilities through simple and focused interventions that explicitly warn them about the trap in the task. Such research-based simple interventions appear to require only teachers’ knowledge and awareness and could complement the traditional educational technique of supporting relevant content knowledge.

## Keywords

Comparison of perimeters Congruity Inhibitory control mechanisms Intuitive interference Reaction time Warning intervention## References

- 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 Unpublished Master’s thesis, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel (In Hebrew).Google Scholar - Aron, A. R., Robbins, T. W., & Poldrack, R. A. (2004). Inhibition and the right inferior frontal cortex.
*Trends in Cognitive Sciences,**8*, 170–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Babai, R., Levyadun, T., Stavy, R., & Tirosh, D. (2006). Intuitive rules in science and mathematics: a reaction time study.
*International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology,**37*, 913–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Babai, R., Zilber, H., Stavy, R., & Tirosh, D. (2010). The effect of intervention on accuracy of students’ responses and reaction times to geometry problems.
*International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,**8*, 185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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 - 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 - Brebner, J. T., & Welford, A. T. (1980). Introduction: an historical background sketch. In A. T. Welford (Ed.),
*Reaction times*(pp. 1–23). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar - Carey, S. (1985).
*Conceptual change in childhood*. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar - Champagne, A. B., Klopfer, L. E., & Anderson, J. H. (1979).
*Factors influencing the learning of classical mechanics*. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development Center.Google Scholar - 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 - Confrey, J. (1990). A review of the research on student conceptions in mathematics, science, and programming.
*Review of Research in Education,**16*, 3–56. doi: 10.3102/0091732X016001003.Google Scholar - de Fockert, J. W., Rees, G., Frith, C. D., & Lavie, N. (2001). The role of working memory in visual selective attention.
*Science,**291*, 1803–1906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Dehaene, S., Kerszberg, M., & Changeux, J. P. (1998). A neuronal model of a global workspace in effortful cognitive tasks.
*Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,**95*, 14529–14534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Dempster, F. N., & Corkill, A. J. (1999). Interference and inhibition in cognition and behavior: unifying themes for educational psychology.
*Educational Psychology Review,**11*, 1–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Denes, G., & Pizzamiglio, L. (1999).
*Handbook of clinical and experimental neuropsychology*(pp. 28–30). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar - Dewolf, T., Van Dooren, W., Ev Cimen, E., & Verschaffel, L. (2014). The impact of illustrations and warnings on solving mathematical word problems realistically.
*The Journal of Experimental Education,**82*, 103–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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 - Driver, R. (1994).
*Making sense of secondary science*. London: Routledge.Google Scholar - Evans, J. B. T., & Over, D. E. (1996).
*Rationality and reasoning*. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar - Faw, B. (2003). Pre-frontal executive committee for perception, working memory, attention, long-term memory, motion control, and thinking: a tutorial review.
*Consciousness and Cognition,**12*, 83–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Fias, W., Lammertyn, J., Reynvoet, B., Dupont, P., & Orban, G. A. (2003). Parietal representation of symbolic and nonsymbolic magnitude.
*Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,**15*, 47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Fischbein, E. (1987).
*Intuition in science and mathematics*. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar - Flavell, J. H. (1963).
*The developmental psychology of Jean Piaget*. New York: Van Nostrand.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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 - Gillard, E., Van Dooren, W., Schaeken, W., & Verschaffel, L. (2009). Dual-processes in the psychology of mathematics education and cognitive psychology.
*Human Development,**52*, 95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Goel, V., & Dolan, R. (2003). Explaining modulation of reasoning by belief.
*Cognition,**87*, B11–B22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Goel, V., Makale, M., & Grafman, J. (2004). The hippocampal system mediates logical reasoning about familiar spatial environments.
*Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,**16*, 654–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Grabner, R. H., & Ansari, D. (2010). Promises and potential pitfalls of a ‘cognitive neuroscience of mathematics learning’.
*ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education,**42*, 655–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Green, D. R. (1983). A survey of probabilistic concepts in 3000 students aged 11–16 years. In D. R. Grey, P. Holmes, V. Barnett, & G. M. Constable (Eds.),
*Proceedings of the First International Conference on Teaching Statistics*(pp. 766–783). Sheffield: Teaching Statistics Trust.Google Scholar - 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 - Houdé, O., & Guichart, E. (2001). Negative priming effect after inhibition of number/length interference in a Piaget-like task.
*Developmental Science,**4*, 119–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Houdé, 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.
*Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,**12*, 721–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Lamy, D., Leber, A., & Egeth, H. E. (2004). Effects of task relevance and stimulus-driven salience in feature-search mode.
*Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,**30*, 1019–1031.Google Scholar - Lavie, N. (2005). Distracted and confused? Selective attention under load.
*Trends in Cognitive Sciences,**9*, 75–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Lavie, N., Hirst, A., de Fockert, J. W., & Viding, E. (2004). Load theory of selective attention and cognitive control.
*Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,**133*, 339–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Lawson, A. E. (1995).
*Science teaching and the development of thinking*. Belmont: Wadsworth.Google Scholar - 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 - 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 - Lleras, A., & Von Mühlenen, A. (2004). Spatial context and top-down strategies in visual search.
*Spatial Vision,**17*, 465–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V., Foy, P., & Stanco, G. M. (2012).
*TIMSS 2011 international results in Science*. Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.Google Scholar - Masson, S., Potvin, P., Riopel, M., & Foisy, L. M. B. (2014). Differences in brain activation between novices and experts in science during a task involving a common misconception in electricity.
*Mind, Brain, and Education,**8*, 44–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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 - 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 - Moutier, S., Angeard, N., & Houdé, O. (2002). Deductive reasoning and matching-bias inhibition training: evidence from a debiasing paradigm.
*Thinking & Reasoning,**8*, 205–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Moutier, S., & Houdé, O. (2003). Judgement under uncertainty and conjunction fallacy inhibition training.
*Thinking & Reasoning,**9*, 185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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 - Mullis, I. V., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Arora, A. (2012).
*TIMSS 2011 international results in Mathematics*. Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.Google Scholar - 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 - Norenzayan, A., Smith, E. E., Kim, B., & Nisbett, R. E. (2002). Cultural preferences for formal versus intuitive reasoning.
*Cognitive Science,**26*, 653–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984).
*Learning how to learn*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - OECD (2014).
*PISA 2012 Results: What students know and can do: Student performance in Mathematics, Reading and Science (Volume I, Revised Edition, February 2014)*. OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264208780-en. - Osborne, R., & Freyberg, P. (1985).
*Learning in science*. Auckland: Heinemann.Google Scholar - Osman, M., & Stavy, R. (2006). Development of intuitive rules: evaluating the application of the dual-system framework to understanding children’s intuitive reasoning.
*Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,**13*, 935–953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1974).
*The child’s construction of quantities: Conservation and atomism*. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar - 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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 - 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 - Rogers, R. D., Owen, A. M., Middleton, H. C., Williams, E. J., Pickard, J. D., Sahakian, B. J., & Robbins, T. W. (1999). Choosing between small, likely rewards and large, unlikely rewards activates inferior and orbital prefrontal cortex.
*The Journal of Neuroscience,**19*, 9029–9038.Google Scholar - Rojhany, L. (1997).
*The use of the intuitive rule*“*More of A, more of B*”*: The case of comparison of angles*. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel (In Hebrew).Google Scholar - Shayer, M., & Adey, P. (1981).
*Towards a science of science teaching: Cognitive development and curriculum demand*. Oxford: Heinemann Educational.Google Scholar - Sigman, M., Pena, M., Goldin, A. P., & Ribeiro, S. (2014). Neuroscience and education: prime time to build the bridge.
*Nature Neuroscience,**17*, 497–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Sloman, S. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning.
*Psychological Bulletin,**119*, 30–32.Google Scholar - Sobel, K. V., & Cave, K. R. (2002). Roles of salience and strategy in conjunction search.
*Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,**28*, 1055–1070.Google Scholar - Stavy, R., & Babai, R. (2008). Complexity of shapes and quantitative reasoning in geometry.
*Mind, Brain, and Education,**2*, 170–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Stavy, R., & Babai, R. (2010). Overcoming intuitive interference in mathematics: insights from behavioral, brain imaging and intervention studies.
*ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education,**42*, 621–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Stavy, R., Babai, R., Tsamir, P., Tirosh, D., Lin, F. L., & McRobbie, C. (2006a). Are intuitive rules universal?
*International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,**4*, 417–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Stavy, R., Goel, V., Critchley, H., & Dolan, R. (2006b). Intuitive interference in quantitative reasoning.
*Brain Research,**1073–1074*, 383–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Stavy, R., & Tirosh, D. (2000).
*How students (mis-)understand science and mathematics*. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar - Tall, D., & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept definition in mathematics with particular reference to limits and continuity.
*Educational Studies in Mathematics,**12*, 151–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Tang, J., Critchley, H. D., Glaser, D. E., Dolan, R. J., & Butterworth, B. (2006). Imaging informational conflict: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of numerical Stroop.
*Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,**18*, 2049–2062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment.
*Psychological Review,**90*, 293–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Vosniadou, S., & Ioannides, C. (1998). From conceptual development to science education: a psychological point of view.
*International Journal of Science Education,**20*, 1213–1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Welford, A. T. (1980).
*Reaction times*. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar - Yoshida, H., Verschaffel, L., & De Corte, E. (1997). Realistic considerations in solving problematic word problems: do Japanese and Belgian children have the same difficulties?
*Learning and Instruction,**7*, 329–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Zink, C. F., Pagnoni, G., Martin-Skurski, M. E., Chappelow, J. C., & Berns, G. S. (2004). Human striatal responses to monetary reward depend on saliency.
*Neuron,**42*, 509–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar