The Misconception Fallacy, the Pseudo-conceptual and the Pseudo-analytical Behaviors in Mathematical Contexts

  • Shlomo Vinner
Part of the Mathematics in Mind book series (MATHMIN)


In this chapter I examine the commonly accepted claim that each mistake people make is a result of a misconception. My claim is that there are other modes of thinking that form mistakes. The names I give them are the pseudo-conceptual and the pseudo-analytical modes of thinking. People who are involved with these modes of thinking in certain situations pick up some notions that look relevant to the context in question, and use these notions in their responses in a meaningless way.


  1. Backhouse, J. K. (1978). Understanding school mathematics: A comment. Mathematics Teaching, 82, 39–41.Google Scholar
  2. Brousseau, G. (1988). Basic theory and methods in the didactics of mathematics. In P. F. L. Verstappen (Ed.), Proceedings of the Second Conference on Systematic Co-operation Between Theory and Practice in Mathematics Education (pp. 109–161). Enschede, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  3. Carnap, R. (1932/1959). The elimination of metaphysics through logical analysis of language. In A. J. Ayer (Ed.), Logical positivism (pp. 60–81). Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  4. Driver, R. (1983). The pupil as scientist? Milton Keynes: Open University.Google Scholar
  5. Ginsburg, H. (1977). Children arithmetic: The learning process. New York: Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
  6. Ionesco, E. (1951). The lesson. In Plays, vol. I, Translated by D. Watson Trans., 1958). John Calder, London, 1958.Google Scholar
  7. Matz, M. (1982). Towards a process model for high school algebra errors. In D. Sleeman & J. S. Brown (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 25–50). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  8. Molière. (1670). The would-be gentleman. In Five plays, Translated by John Wood. Penguin Classics, 1953. (p. 2 and later).Google Scholar
  9. NCTM. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Virginia: Reston.Google Scholar
  10. Nesher, P., & Teubal, E. (1975). Verbal cues as an interfering factor in verbal problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 6, 41–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Peressini, A., & Morris, A. (1983). Illinois Universities Test of College Preparatory Mathematics. Math Tattler News Letter (The Department of Mathematics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign), pp. 7–9.Google Scholar
  12. Pólya, G. (1945). How to solve it? Doubleday anchor books. New York: Doubleday & Company.Google Scholar
  13. Schoenfeld, A. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. New York: Academic Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Skemp, R. (1976). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Mathematics Teaching, 77, 20–26.Google Scholar
  15. Skemp, R. (1979). Goals for learning and quality of understanding. Mathematics Teaching, 88, 44–49.Google Scholar
  16. Skemp, R. (1982). Symbolic understanding. Mathematics Teaching, 99, 59–61.Google Scholar
  17. Verschaffel, L. (1999). Realistic mathematical modeling and problem solving in the upper elementary school. In J. H. M. Hammers, J. E. H. Van Luit, & B. Csabo (Eds.), Teaching and learning thinking skills (pp. 214–240). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  18. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shlomo Vinner
    • 1
  1. 1.The Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations