Advertisement

Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 27–47 | Cite as

Schemata and Intuitions in Combinatorial Reasoning

  • Efraim Fischbein
  • Aline Grossman
Article

Abstract

The problem that inspired the present research refers to the relationships between schemata and intuitions. These two mental categories share a number of common properties: ontogenetic stability, adaptive flexibility, internal consistency, coerciveness and generality. Schemata are defined following the Piagetian line of thought, either as programs for processing and interpreting information or as programs for designing and performing adaptive reactions. Intuitions are defined in the present article as global, immediate cognitions. On the basis of previous findings (Fischbein et al., 1996; Siegler, 1979; Wilkening, 1980; Wilkening & Anderson, 1982), our main hypothesis was that intuitions are always based on certain structural schemata. In the present research this hypothesis was checked with regard to combinatorial problems (permutations, arrangements with and without replacement, combinations). It was found that intuitions, even when expressed as instantaneous guesses, are; in fact, manipulated'behind the scenes' (correctly or incorrectly) by schemata. This implies that, in order to influence, didactically, students' intuitions, those schemata on which these intuitions are based should be identified and acted upon.

Keywords

Internal Consistency Present Article Common Property Main Hypothesis Combinatorial Problem 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Anderson, R. C.: 1977, ‘The notion of schemata and the educational enterprise’, in R.C. Anderson, R. T. Spiro and W. E. Montagne (eds.), Schooling and the Acquisition of Knowledge, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  2. Attneave, F.: 1957, ‘Transfer of experience with a class schema to identification of patterns and shapes’, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 81–88.Google Scholar
  3. Batanero, C., Godino, J. D. and Navarro-Pelayo, V.: 1994, Razonamiento Combinatorio, Editorial Sintesis, Madrid.Google Scholar
  4. Deguire, L.: 1991, ‘Permutations and combinations: A problem-solving approach for middle school students’, in M. J. Kenney and C. R. Hirsch (eds.), Discrete Mathematics Across the Curriculum, K-12 Yearbook, Reston, VA: NCT19.Google Scholar
  5. English, L. D.: 1994, ‘Young children's combinatorial strategies’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 22, 451–474.Google Scholar
  6. Fischbein, E.: 1975, The Intuitive Sources of Probabilistic Thinking in Children (pp. 176–188). Reidel, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  7. Fischbein, E.: 1978, ‘Schèmes virtuels et schèmes actifs dans l'apprentissage des sciences’, In Revue Française de Pédagogie (pp. 119–125).Google Scholar
  8. Fischbein, E.: 1987, Intuition in Science and Mathematics. An Educational Approach Reidel, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  9. Fischbein, E., Gazit, A.: 1988, ‘The combinatorial solving capacity in children and adolescents’, Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 5, 193–197.Google Scholar
  10. Fischbein, E., Pampu, J., Minzat, I.: 1970, ‘Effect of age and instruction on combinatory ability in children’, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 40, 261–270.Google Scholar
  11. Fischbein, E., Pampu, J., Minzat, I.: 1970, ‘Comparison of ratios and the chance concept in children’, Child Development, 41(3), 377–389.Google Scholar
  12. Fischbein, E., Schnarch, D.: 1997, ‘The evolution with age of probabilistic, intuitively based misconceptions’, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 28(1), 96–105.Google Scholar
  13. Flavell, J.: 1963, The Development Psychology of Jean Piaget, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Hadamard: 1949, An Essay on the Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field, Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  15. Hastie, R.: 1981, ‘Schematic principles in human memory’, in E. T. Higgins, C. D. Herman and M. P. Zanna (eds.), Social Cognition: The Ontario Symposium, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  16. Howard, R. V.: 1987, Concepts and Schemata. An Introduction, Cassel, London.Google Scholar
  17. Inhelder, B., Piaget, J.: 1958, The Growth of Logical Thinking from Childhood to Adolescence, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
  18. Piaget, J.: 1967, La psychologie de l'intelligence, Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
  19. Piaget, J.: 1976, ‘Le possible, l'impossible et la nécessaire’, Archives de psychologie, XLIV, 172, 281–299.Google Scholar
  20. Piaget, J., Inhelder, B.: 1975, The Origin of the Idea of Chance in Children, Norton, New York.Google Scholar
  21. Rumelhart, D. E.: 1980, Schemata: ‘The building blocks of cognition’, In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce & W. F. Brewer (eds.), Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  22. Siegler, R. S.: 1979, ‘Children's thinking: The search for limits’, in G. S. Whilehurst, B. J. Zimmermann (eds.), The Functions of Language and Cognition, Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  23. Tall, D.: 1995, ‘Cognitive growth in elementary and advanced mathematical thinking’, Plenary lecture at the Annual Conference of PME, Recife, Brazil.Google Scholar
  24. Thurston, V. P.: 1990, ‘Mathematical education’, Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 37(71), 844–850.Google Scholar
  25. Vergnaud, G. 1994, ‘Multiplicative conceptual field: What and why?’, in G. Harel and J. Confrey, The Development of Multiplicative Reasoning in the Learning of Mathematics, State University of New York Press, New York.Google Scholar
  26. Wilkening, F.: 1980, ‘Development of dimensional integration in children's perceptual judgement: Experiments with area, volume and velocity’, in F. Wilkening, J. Becker, and T. Trabasso (eds.), Information Integration by Children, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  27. Wilkening, F., Anderson, H. N.: 1982, ‘Comparison of two rule-assessment methodologies for studying cognitive development and knowledge structure’, Psychological Bulletin 92(1), 215–237.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Efraim Fischbein
    • 1
  • Aline Grossman
    • 1
  1. 1.School of EducationTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations