Memory & Cognition

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 395–412 | Cite as

Characterizing the intuitive representation in problem solving: Evidence from evaluating mathematical strategies

Article
  • 241 Downloads

Abstract

Two experiments were conducted to investigate the nature of the intuitive problem representation used in evaluating mathematical strategies. The first experiment tested between two representations: a representation composed of principles and an integrated representation. Subjects judged the correctness of unseen math strategies based only on the answers they produced for a set of temperature mixture problems. The distance of the given answers from the correct answers and whether the answers violated one of the principles of temperature mixture were manipulated. The results supported the principle representation hypothesis. In the second experiment we manipulated subjects’ understanding of an acid mixture task with a brief paragraph of instruction on one of the principles. Subjects then completed an estimation task intended to measure their understanding of the problem domain. The evaluation task from the first experiment was then presented, but with acid mixture instead of temperature mixture. The results showed that intuitive understanding of the domain mediates the effect of instruction on evaluating problems. Additionally, the results supported the hypothesis that subjects perform a mapping process between their intuitive understanding and math strategies.

References

  1. Ahl, V., Moore, C. F., &Dixon, J. A. (1992). Development of intuitive and numerical proportional reasoning.Cognitive Development,7, 81–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, N. H. (1974). Cognitive algebra: Integration theory applied to social attribution. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 1–101). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, N. H. (1987). Function knowledge: Comment on Reed and Evans.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,116, 297–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, N. H. (1991). Functional memory in person cognition. In N. H. Anderson (Ed.),Contributions to information integration theory (Vol. 1, pp. 1–55). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Ashcraft, M. H., &Battaglia, J. (1978). Cognitive arithmetic: Evidence for retrieval and decision processes in mental addition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,4, 527–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ashcraft, M. H., &Stazyk, E. H. (1981). Mental addition: A test of three verification models.Memory & Cognition,9, 185–196.Google Scholar
  7. Asher, H. B. (1983).Causal modeling. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Briars, D. J., &Larkin, J. H. (1984). An integrated model of skill in solving elementary word problems.Cognition & Instruction,3, 245–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Briars, D. [J.], &Siegler, R. S. (1984). A featural analysis of preschoolers’ counting knowledge.Developmental Psychology,20, 607–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., &Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 1, pp. 7–75). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. de Kleer, J. (1975).Qualitative and quantitative knowledge in classical mechanics. Unpublished master’s thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  12. de Kleer, J. (1977). Multiple representations of knowledge in a mechanics problem solver.International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence,5, 299–304.Google Scholar
  13. Dixon, J. A., &Moore, C. F. (1996). The developmental role of intuitive principles in choosing mathematical strategies.Developmental Psychology,32, 241–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gaines, B. R. (1977). Foundations of fuzzy reasoning. In M. M. Gupta, G. N. Saridis, & B. R. Gaines (Eds.),Fuzzy automata and decision processes (pp. 19–75). New York: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  15. Greeno, J. G., Riley, M. S., &Gelman, R. (1984). Conceptual competence and children’s counting.Cognitive Psychology,16, 94–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haines, B. A., Dixon, J. A., & Moore, C. F.(1996).Dimensions of task structure influence the development of probability understanding. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  17. Hammond, K. R., Hamm, R. M., Grassia, J., &Pearson, T. (1987). Direct comparison of the efficacy of intuitive and analytical cognition in expert judgment.IEEE Transactions,SMC-17, 753–770.Google Scholar
  18. Hardiman, P. T., Dufresne, R., &Mestre, J. P. (1989). The relation between problem categorization and problem solving among experts and novices.Memory & Cognition,17, 627–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kintsch, W., &Greeno, J. G. (1985). Understanding and solving word arithmetic problems.Psychological Review,92, 109–129.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Krueger, L. E. (1986). Why 2 × 2 = 5 looks so wrong: On the odd—even rule in product verification.Memory & Cognition,14, 141–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Krueger, L. E., &Hallford, E. W. (1984). Why 2 + 2 = 5 looks so wrong: On the odd—even rule in sum verification.Memory & Cognition,12, 171–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Larkin, J. (1983). The role of problem representation in physics. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.),Mental models (pp. 75–98). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Larkin, J., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., &Simon, H. A. (1980). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems.Science,208, 1335–1342.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Lemaire, P., &Fayol, M. (1995). When plausibility judgments supersede fact retrieval: The example of the odd—even effect on product verification.Memory & Cognition,23, 34–48.Google Scholar
  25. Maki, R. H. (1981). Categorization and distance effects with spatial linear orders.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,7, 15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Massaro, D. W. (1994). A pattern recognition account of decision making.Memory & Cognition,22, 616–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mellers, B. H., Chang, S., Birnbaum, M. H., &Ordonez, L. D. (1992). Preferences, prices, and ratings in risky decision making.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,18, 347–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Miller, K., Perlmutter, M., &Keating, D. (1984). Cognitive arithmetic: Comparison of operations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,10, 46–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moore, C. F., Dixon, J. A., &Haines, B. A. (1991). Components of understanding in proportional reasoning: A fuzzy set representation of developmental progression.Child Development,62, 441–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Newstead, S. E., &Collis, J. (1987). Context and interpretation of quantifiers of frequence.Ergonomics,30, 1447–1462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Newstead, S. E., &Griggs, R. A. (1984). Fuzzy quantifiers as an explanation of set inclusion performance.Psychological Research,46, 377–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Oden, G. C. (1984). Dependence, independence, and the emergence of word features.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,10, 394–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Oden, G. C. (1988). FuzzyProp: A symbolic superstrate for connectionist models.Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks,1, 293–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Oden, G. C., &Massaro, D. W. (1978). Integration of featural information in speech and perception.Psychological Review,85, 172–191.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Ragade, R. K., &Gupta, M. M. (1977). Fuzzy set theory: Introduction. In M. M. Gupta, G. N. Saridis, & B. R. Gaines (Eds.),Fuzzy automata and decision processes (pp. 105–131). New York: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  36. Reed, S. K. (1988). A structure-mapping model for word problems.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,13, 124–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Reed, S. K., &Evans, A. C. (1987). Learning functional relations: A theoretical and instructional analysis.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,116, 106–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Restle, F. (1970). Speed of adding and comparing numbers.Journal of Experimental Psychology,83, 274–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Siegel, S., &Castellan, N. J., Jr. (1988).Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  40. Siegler, R. S. (1976). Three aspects of cognitive development.Cognitive Psychology,8, 481–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Siegler, R. S., &Crowley, K. (1994). Constraints on learning in nonprivileged domains.Cognitive Psychology,27, 194–226.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Siegler, R. S., &Jenkins, E. (1989).How children discover new strategies. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  43. Soloway, E., Adelson, B., &Ehrlich, K. (1988). Knowledge and processes in the comprehension of computer programs. In M. T. H. Chi, R. Glaser, & M. J. Farr (Eds.),The nature of expertise (pp. 129–152). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  44. Strauss, S., &Stavy, R. (1982). U-shaped behavioral growth: Implications for theories of development. In W. W. Hartup (Ed.),Review of child development research (Vol. 6, pp. 547–599). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  45. Wallsten, T. S., Budescu, D. V., Rapoport, A., Zwick, R., &Forsyth, B. (1986). Measuring the vague meaning of probability terms.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,115, 348–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets.Information & Control,8, 338–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zadeh, L. A. (1983). A computational approach to fuzzy quantifiers in natural languages.Computers & Mathematics,9, 149–184.Google Scholar
  48. Zimmer, A. C. (1988). A common framework for colloquial quantifiers and probability terms. In T. Zetenyi (Ed.),Fuzzy sets in psychology (pp. 73–89). New York: North-Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of WisconsinMadison

Personalised recommendations