Advertisement

Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 102, Issue 2, pp 239–256 | Cite as

When the use of cognitive conflict is ineffective—problematic learning situations in geometry

  • Hagar GalEmail author
Article
  • 274 Downloads

Abstract

Problematic learning situations (PLS) arise when students encounter learning difficulties and their teacher encounters difficulties assisting them. The current study looks at student and teacher difficulties revealed during PLS, in the course of instruction of basic geometrical concepts for average and below-average junior high school students, when teachers apply the strategy of cognitive conflict spontaneously and inefficiently. Re-analyzing three PLS detected while observing three student teachers (Gal in Educational Studies in Mathematics, 78 (2), 183–203, 2011), I found that the teachers intuitively attempted to create a cognitive conflict but were mostly unaware of the inefficiency of this approach when students were not cognitively prepared. The findings point to the importance of enhancing teachers’ awareness of how their students think, helping them interpret their students’ understanding and encouraging them to seek the origins of student difficulties, so that teachers may be better prepared to reach a rational decision about an appropriate way to handle PLS. It is recommended to include these issues in teacher preparation and development programs.

Keywords

Cognitive conflict Noticing Conceptual change Teaching geometry Problematic learning situation Pedagogical content knowledge Teacher development programs 

Notes

References

  1. Balacheff, N. (1985). Experimental study of pupils’ treatment of refutations in a geometrical context. In L. Streefland (Ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 223–229). Utrecht, the Netherlands: State University of Utrecht: PME.Google Scholar
  2. Ball, D. (2000). Bridging practices: Intertwining content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 241–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Battista, M. T. (2007). The development of geometric and spatial thinking. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 843–908). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
  4. Behr, M., & Harel, G. (1990). Students’ errors, misconceptions, and cognitive conflict in application of procedures. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 12(3–4), 75–84.Google Scholar
  5. Dreyfus, A., Jungwirth, E., & Eliovitch, R. (1990). Applying the “cognitive conflict” strategy for conceptual change: Some implications, difficulties and problems. Science Education, 74(5), 555–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Duval, R. (2006). A cognitive analysis of problems of comprehension in a learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61(1–2), 103–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ericsson, K. A. (2006). Protocol analysis and expert thought: Concurrent verbalizations of thinking during experts’ performance on representative task. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 223–242). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Fischbein, E. (1993). The theory of figural concepts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24(2), 139–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fujii, T. (2003). Probing students’ understanding of variables through cognitive conflict problems: Is the concept of variable so difficult for students to understand? In N. Pateman, B. Dougherty, & J. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27 thInternational Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 49–65). Honolulu, HI: PME.Google Scholar
  10. Gal, H. (1998). What do they really think? What students think about the median and bisector of an angle in the triangle, what they say and what their teachers know about it. In A. Olivier & K. Newstead (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22 ndInternational Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 321–328). Stellenbosch, South Africa: PME.Google Scholar
  11. Gal, H. (2005). Identifying problematic learning situations in geometry instruction, and handling them within the framework of teacher training. Thesis submitted for a Doctor of Philosophy degree. Jerusalem, Israel: Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Hebrew).Google Scholar
  12. Gal, H. (2011). From another perspective: Training teachers to cope with problematic learning situations in geometry. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 78(2), 183–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gal, H., Lin, F. L., & Ying, J. M. (2009). Listen to the silence: The left-behind phenomenon as seen through classroom videos and teachers’ reflections. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(2), 405–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gal, H., & Linchevski, L. (2000). When a learning situation becomes a problematic learning situation: The case of diagonals in the quadrangle. In T. Nakahara & M. Koyama (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24 thInternational Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 297–304). Hiroshima, Japan: PME.Google Scholar
  15. Gal, H., & Linchevski, L. (2010). To see or not to see: Analyzing difficulties in geometry from the perspective of visual perception. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 74(2), 163–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ginsburg, H., & Opper, S. (1969). Piaget’s theory of intellectual development. An introduction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  17. Gómez-Chacón, I. M. (2000). Affective influences in the knowledge of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 43(2), 149–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harel, G. (2008). DNR perspective on mathematics curriculum and instruction. Part 1, focus on proving. Zentralblatt fuer Didaktik der Mathematik, 40(3), 487–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harel, G., & Sowder, L. (1998). Students’ proof schemes: Results from exploratory studies. In A. H. Schoenfeld, J. Kaput, & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), Research in collegiate mathematics education (Vol. III, pp. 234–283). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Henderson, D. W. (2001). Experiencing geometry: In Euclidean, spherical and hyperbolic spaces (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  21. Houdement, C., & Kuzniak, A. (2003). Elementary geometry split into different geometrical paradigms. In M. Mariotti (Ed.), Proceedings of of the 3rd Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 1–10). Bellaria, Italy: European Research in Mathematics Education.Google Scholar
  22. Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jacobs, V. R., Lamb, L. L., & Philipp, R. A. (2010). Professional noticing of children’s mathematical thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(2), 169–202.Google Scholar
  24. Kang, S., Scharmann, L., & Noh, T. (2004). Reexamining the role of cognitive conflict in science concept learning. Research in Science Education, 34, 71–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Koedinger, K. (1998). Conjecturing and argumentation in high-school geometry students. In R. Lehrer & D. Chazan (Eds.), Designing learning environments for developing understanding of geometry and space (pp. 319–347). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Kuzniak, A., & Rauscher, J.-C. (2011). How do teachers’ approaches to geometric work relate to geometry students’ learning difficulties? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 77(1), 129–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Laursen, P. F. (2007). Student teachers’ conceptions of theory and practice in teacher education. Paper presented at the biannual ISATT conference, Brock University, Canada.Google Scholar
  28. Leatham, K. R., Peterson, B. E., Stockero, S. L., & Van Zoest, L. R. (2015). Conceptualizing mathematically significant pedagogical opportunities to build on student thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 46(1), 88–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lee, G., & Yi, J. (2013). Where cognitive conflict arises from? The structure of creating cognitive conflict. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(3), 601–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Limon, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: A critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11, 357–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mitchelmore, M., & White, P. (2000). Development of angle concepts by progressive abstraction and generalization. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 41(3), 209–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Noss, R. (1987). Children’s learning of geometrical concepts through logo. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 18(5), 343–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Parzysz, B. (1988). “Knowing” vs “seeing”: Problems of the plane representation of space geometry figures. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 19(1), 79–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Skemp, R. R. (1979). Intelligence, learning and action. London, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  35. Star, J. R., & Strickland, S. K. (2008). Learning to observe: Using video to improve preservice mathematics teachers’ ability to notice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(2), 107–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tall, D. O. (1991). The psychology of advanced mathematical thinking. In D. O. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 3–21). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tall, D. O., & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept definition in mathematics with particular reference to limits and continuity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12(2), 151–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tirosh, D., Stavy, R., & Cohen, S. (1998). Cognitive conflict and intuitive rules. International Journal of Science Education, 20(10), 1257–1269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Van Hiele, P. M. (1986). Structure and insight. A theory of mathematics education. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  40. Vinner, S. (1997). The pseudo-conceptual and pseudo-analytical thought processes in mathematics learning. Educaccs, 34, 97–129.Google Scholar
  41. Wadsworth, B. J. (1984). Piaget’s theory of cognitive and affective development (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  42. Wertheimer, M. (1958). Principles of perceptual organization. In D. Beardslee & M. Wertheimer (Eds.), Readings in perception (pp. 115–135). Princeton, NJ: Nostrand.Google Scholar
  43. Zazkis, R., & Chernoff, E. (2008). What makes a counterexample exemplary? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 68, 195–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zhang, D., Wang, Q., Ding, Y., & Liu, J. J. (2014). Testing accommodation or modification? The effects of integrated object representation on enhancing geometry performance in children with and without geometry difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(6), 569–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.David Yellin Academic College of EducationJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations