Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 102, Issue 2, pp 221–238 | Cite as

“Tending to the midpoint”: an intuitive rule in mathematical thinking

  • Ali BarahmandEmail author


This study introduces an effective intuitive rule focusing on “tending to the midpoint” in individuals’ mathematical thinking. The rule concerns the intuitive tendency towards choosing the midpoint of a change, as a salient point among all the points. To test the proposed rule, 120 students in grade 9 were interviewed. We analyzed the data using premises from the dual-process theory. Our findings revealed that “tending to the midpoint” is conceivable as an intuitive rule in individuals’ mathematical thinking, and that the answers given to the relevant questions were much affected by the rule consisting of a salient variable as midpoint.


Dual-process theory Intuitive rules Judgment Salient variable Tending to the midpoint 



  1. Babai, R., Brecher, T., Stavy, R., & Tirosh, D. (2006). Intuitive interference in probabilistic reasoning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4, 627–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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(8), 913–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Babai, R., Nattiv, L., & Stavy, R. (2016). Comparison of perimeters: Improving students’ performance by increasing the salience of the relevant variable. ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 48, 367–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bagni, G.T. (2007). Didactics and history of numerical series, 100 years after Ernesto Cesaro’s death (1906): Guido Grandi, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz and Jacobo Riccati. Retrieved from
  5. Barahmand, A. (2017). The boundary between finite and infinite states through the concept of limits of sequences. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(3), 569–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ben-Zeev, T. (1998). Rational errors and the mathematical mind. Review of General Psychology, 2(4), 366–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borodin, A. (2016). The need for an application of dual-process theory to mathematics education. CORERJ: Cambridge Open-Review Educational Research e-Journal, 3, 1–31.Google Scholar
  8. De Neys, W., Moyens, E., & Vansteenwegen, D. (2010). Feeling we’re biased: Autonomic arousal and reasoning conflict. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 10, 208–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Evans, J. S. B. T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Theory and metatheory in the study of dual processing: Reply to comments. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 263–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fischbein, E., Tirosh, D., & Melamed, U. (1981). Is it possible to measure the intuitive acceptance of mathematical statements? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12, 491–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: A perspective on intuitive judgment and choice. In T. Frangsmyr (Ed.), Les prix Nobel: The Nobel prizes 2002 (pp. 449–489). Stockholm, Sweden: The Nobel Foundation.Google Scholar
  13. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Leron, U., & Hazzan, O. (2006). The rationality debate: Application of cognitive psychology to mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62, 105–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Leron, U., & Hazzan, O. (2009). Intuitive vs analytical thinking: Four perspectives. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71, 263–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pearn, C., & Stephens, M. (2007). Whole number knowledge and number lines help develop fraction concepts. In J. Watson & K. Beswick (Eds.), Mathematics: Essential research, essential practice. Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (MERGA), Hobart (Vol. 2, pp. 601–610) Sydney, Australia: MERGA.Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Stavy, R., Goel, V., Critchley, H., & Dolan, R. (2006). Intuitive interference in quantitative reasoning. Brain Research, 1073-1074(1), 383–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Stavy, R., & Tirosh, D. (1996). Intuitive rules in science and mathematics: The case of ‘more of A -- more of B’. International Journal of Science Education, 18(6), 653–667.Google Scholar
  20. Tirosh, D., & Stavy, R. (1996). Intuitive rules in science and mathematics: The case of ‘Everything can be divided by two’. International Journal of Science Education, 18(6), 669–683.Google Scholar
  21. Tirosh, D., & Stavy, R. (1999). Intuitive rules: A way to explain and predict students’ reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38, 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tirosh, D., Stavy, R., & Aboulafia, M. (1998). Is it possible to confine the application of the intuitive rule: ‘Subdivision processes can always be repeated’? International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 29(6), 813–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tirosh, D., Stavy, R., & Cohen, S. (1998). Cognitive conflict and intuitive rules. International Journal of Science Education, 20(10), 1257–1269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tsamir, P. (2002). The intuitive rule ‘same A-same B’: The case of triangles and quadrilaterals. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 24(4), 54–70.Google Scholar
  25. Tsamir, P., Tirosh, D., Stavy, R., & Ronen, I. (2001). Intuitive rules: A theory and its implications to mathematics and science teacher education. In H. Behrendt, H. Dahncke, R. Duit, W. Graeber, M. Komorek, & A. Kross (Eds.), Research in science education – past, present, and future (pp. 167–175). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  26. Vamvakoussi, X., Van Dooren, W., & Verschaffel, L. (2013). Educated adults are still affected by intuitions about the effect of arithmetical operations: Evidence from a reaction- time study. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 82, 323–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Van Dooren, W., De Bock, D., Weyers, D., & Verschaffel, L. (2004). The predictive power of intuitive rules: A critical analysis of the impact of ‘more A–more B’ and ‘same A–same B’. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 56, 179–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zazkis, R. (1999). Intuitive rules in number theory: Example of ‘the more of A, the more of B’ rule implementation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 40, 197–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics, Hamedan BranchIslamic Azad UniversityHamedanIran

Personalised recommendations