Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 47, Issue 5, pp 735–745 | Cite as

A warning intervention improves students’ ability to overcome intuitive interference

  • Reuven BabaiEmail author
  • Enav Shalev
  • Ruth Stavy
Original Article

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

  1. Alter, A. (2003) Using the intuitive rule:More A-More Bin judging images presented in optical instruments. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel (In Hebrew).Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 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
  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. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8, 185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Bar, D. (2001). The influence of theEqual A equal Bintuitive 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
  7. 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
  8. Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. Denes, G., & Pizzamiglio, L. (1999). Handbook of clinical and experimental neuropsychology (pp. 28–30). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. Driver, R. (1994). Making sense of secondary science. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Evans, J. B. T., & Over, D. E. (1996). Rationality and reasoning. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. Fischbein, E. (1987). Intuition in science and mathematics. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  23. Flavell, J. H. (1963). The developmental psychology of Jean Piaget. New York: Van Nostrand.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gazit-Grinboum, R. (2000). Using the intuitive ruleMore of A, more of Bamong ninth grade students in biology: Genetics and the cell. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel (In Hebrew).Google Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Goel, V., & Dolan, R. (2003). Explaining modulation of reasoning by belief. Cognition, 87, B11–B22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. Hakham-Aharon, A. (1997). The influence of the intuitive ruleMore of A, more of Bon children’s concept of time. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel (In Hebrew).Google Scholar
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. Lavie, N. (2005). Distracted and confused? Selective attention under load. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 75–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. Lawson, A. E. (1995). Science teaching and the development of thinking. Belmont: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  38. 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
  39. 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
  40. Lleras, A., & Von Mühlenen, A. (2004). Spatial context and top-down strategies in visual search. Spatial Vision, 17, 465–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. Mendel, N. (1998). The intuitive ruleSame 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
  44. Morabia, D. (1990). Difficulties in applying the principle of theindependence of motionsamong high school students. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel (In Hebrew).Google Scholar
  45. 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
  46. Moutier, S., & Houdé, O. (2003). Judgement under uncertainty and conjunction fallacy inhibition training. Thinking & Reasoning, 9, 185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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
  48. 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
  49. Myers, S. (1998). Effects of conceptual conflicts on using the intuitive ruleMore of A, more of Bin 8th grade students. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel (In Hebrew).Google Scholar
  50. 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
  51. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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.
  53. Osborne, R., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science. Auckland: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  54. 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
  55. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1974). The child’s construction of quantities: Conservation and atomism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  56. 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
  57. Rapaport, A. (1998). Use of the intuitive ruleMore of A, more of Bin comparing algebraic expressions. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel (In Hebrew).Google Scholar
  58. 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
  59. 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
  60. Rojhany, L. (1997). The use of the intuitive ruleMore 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
  61. Shayer, M., & Adey, P. (1981). Towards a science of science teaching: Cognitive development and curriculum demand. Oxford: Heinemann Educational.Google Scholar
  62. 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
  63. Sloman, S. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 30–32.Google Scholar
  64. 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
  65. Stavy, R., & Babai, R. (2008). Complexity of shapes and quantitative reasoning in geometry. Mind, Brain, and Education, 2, 170–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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
  67. 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
  68. Stavy, R., Goel, V., Critchley, H., & Dolan, R. (2006b). Intuitive interference in quantitative reasoning. Brain Research, 1073–1074, 383–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Stavy, R., & Tirosh, D. (2000). How students (mis-)understand science and mathematics. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  70. 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
  71. 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
  72. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90, 293–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 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
  74. Welford, A. T. (1980). Reaction times. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  75. 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
  76. 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

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Science Education, The Constantiner School of EducationTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael
  2. 2.The Sagol School of NeuroscienceTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations