, Volume 48, Issue 3, pp 367–378 | Cite as

Comparison of perimeters: improving students’ performance by increasing the salience of the relevant variable

  • Reuven BabaiEmail author
  • Laura Nattiv
  • Ruth Stavy
Original Article


Students’ difficulties in mathematics and science may stem from interference of irrelevant salient variables. We focus on the comparison of perimeters task, in which area is the irrelevant salient variable. A previous fMRI brain-imaging study related to the comparison of perimeters task suggested that increasing the level of salience of the relevant variable, perimeter, would increase participants’ performance. The brain imaging results support and enrich previous behavioral data, and thus contribute to the development of our research rationale and intervention design. In the present study we increased the level of salience of the relevant variable by drawing the perimeters of the shapes as built from separate units, matchsticks (discrete mode of presentation), rather than drawing them continuously. Such increase in salience draws participants’ attention to the perimeter. Thus strategies (such as moving of segments and/or counting them, or applying formal geometrical knowledge), that are regularly used when solving the comparison of perimeters task become more available. We explored whether the discrete mode would yield a higher success rate than the continuous mode and whether an intervention of first performing the discrete mode would improve students’ success in a subsequent continuous mode. Findings show that success in the discrete mode was higher than in the continuous mode. Moreover, success in the continuous mode increased as a result of the intervention (i.e., when performed after discrete mode). The current study suggests that altering the mode or order of presentation can serve as an educational tool that may improve students’ performance.


Comparison of perimeters Congruity Continuous Discrete Intuitive interference Mode of presentation Salience 


  1. 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
  2. Babai, R., Levyadun, T., Stavy, R., & Tirosh, D. (2006). Intuitive rules in mathematics and science: A reaction time study. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 37, 913–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Babai, R., Sekal, R., & Stavy, R. (2010a). Persistence of the intuitive conception of living things in adolescence. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19, 20–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Babai, R., Shalev, E., & Stavy, R. (2015). A warning intervention improves students’ ability to overcome intuitive interference. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47, 735–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Babai, R., Zilber, H., Stavy, R., & Tirosh, D. (2010b). The effect of intervention on accuracy of students’ responses and reaction times to geometry problems. International Journal of Mathematics and Science Education, 8, 185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Clement, J. (1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students’ preconceptions about physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1241–1257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. D’Amore, B., & Fandiño Pinilla, M. I. (2006). Relationships between area and perimeter: Beliefs of teachers and students. Mediterranean Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 5, 1–29.Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Dembo, Y., Levin, I., & Siegler, R. S. (1997). A comparison of the geometric reasoning of students attending Israeli ultraorthodox and mainstream schools. Developmental Psychology, 33, 92–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Denes, G., & Pizzamiglio, L. (1999). Handbook of clinical and experimental neuropsychology (pp. 28–30). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Hoffer, A. R., & Hoffer, S. A. K. (1992). Geometry and visual thinking. In T. R. Post (Ed.), Teaching Mathematics in Grades K–8: Research-based Methods (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Lavie, N. (2005). Distracted and confused? Selective attention under load. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 75–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Leikin, R., Leikin, M., Waisman, I., & Shaul, S. (2013). Effect of the presence of external representations on accuracy and reaction time in solving mathematical double-choice problems by students of different levels of instruction. International Journal of Mathematics and Science Education, 11, 1049–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lleras, A., & Von Mühlenen, A. (2004). Spatial context and top-down strategies in visual search. Spatial Vision, 17, 465–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Maglio, P. P., Matlock, T., Raphaely, D., Chernicky, B., & Kirsh, D. (1999). Interactive skill in Scrabble. Proceedings of the Twenty-first Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 326–330). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  20. Marchett, P., Medici, D., Vighi, P., & Zaccomer, E. (2005). Comparing perimeters and area children’s pre-conceptions and spontaneous procedures. Proceedings CERME, 4, 766–776.Google Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Martin, T., & Schwartz, D. L. (2005). Physically distributed learning: Adapting and reinterpreting physical environments in the development of fraction concepts. Cognitive Science, 29, 587–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Martin, L., & Schwartz, D. L. (2014). A pragmatic perspective on visual representation and creative thinking. Visual Studies, 29, 80–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Minsky, M. (1985). The Society of Mind. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  25. 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
  26. 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, Paris. doi:  10.1787/9789264208780-en.
  27. Palatnik, A. (2009). The effect of presentation mode on students’ responses in comparison of perimeters task. Unpublished seminar work, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. (In Hebrew).Google Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Shultz, T., Dover, A., & Amsel, E. (1979). The logical and empirical bases of conservation judgments. Cognition, 7, 99–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Stavy, R. (1991). Using analogy to overcome misconceptions about conservation of matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 305–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stavy, R., & Babai, R. (2008). Complexity of shapes and quantitative reasoning in geometry. Mind, Brain, and Education, 2, 170–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Stavy, R., & Berkovitz, B. (1980). Cognitive conflict as a basis for teaching quantitative aspects of the concept of temperature. Science Education, 64, 679–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stavy, R., Goel, V., Critchley, H., & Dolan, R. (2006). Intuitive interference in quantitative reasoning. Brain Research, 1073–1074, 383–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stavy, R., & Tirosh, D. (2000). How Students (Mis-)understand Mathematics and Science. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  37. Tamsut, E. (2014). The effect of a preliminary task which strengthens the conservation of perimeter on accuracy and reaction time of comparing perimeters. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. (In Hebrew).Google Scholar
  38. Tirosh, D., & Tsamir, P. (1996). The role of representations in students’ intuitive thinking about infinity. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 27, 33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tsamir, P. (2003). From “easy” to “difficult” or vice versa: The case of infinite sets. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 25, 1–17.Google Scholar
  40. Walter, N. (1970). A common misconception about area. Arithmetic Teacher, 17, 286–289.Google Scholar
  41. Woodward, E., & Byrd, F. (1983). Area: Included topic, neglected concept. School Mathematics and Science, 83, 343–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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 2016

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations