=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1419/paper0069
|storemode=property
|title=The Effect of a Warning Intervention on the Ability to Overcome Intuitive Interference
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1419/paper0069.pdf
|volume=Vol-1419
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/eapcogsci/BabaiSS15
}}
==The Effect of a Warning Intervention on the Ability to Overcome Intuitive Interference==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1419/paper0069.pdf
The effect of a warning intervention on the ability to overcome intuitive interference
Reuven Babai (reuvenb@post.tau.ac.il)
Department of Science Education, Constantiner School of Education and Sagol School of Neuroscience,
Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, 69978 Israel
Enav Shalev (enav71@012.net.il)
Department of Science Education, Constantiner School of Education,
Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, 69978 Israel
Ruth Stavy (ruth@post.tau.ac.il)
Department of Science Education, Constantiner School of Education and Sagol School of Neuroscience,
Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, 69978 Israel
Abstract Here we will focus on the comparison of perimeters of
geometrical shapes task. It was shown that many students
Students’ difficulties in mathematics and science may stem
from interference of the task’s salient irrelevant variables. intuit that shapes with a larger area must have a larger
Here, we focus on a comparison of perimeters task, in which perimeter (e.g., Stavy & Babai, 2008).
the area is the irrelevant salient variable. In congruent trials In several reaction time studies students were asked to
(no interference), accuracy is higher and reaction time is compare the perimeters of two geometrical shapes (i.e., to
shorter than in incongruent trials (area variable interference). decide whether the perimeter of the left/right shape was
A brain-imaging study related to this task indicated that larger or if both perimeters were equal) in congruent and
correctly answering the incongruent condition is associated
with activation in prefrontal brain regions known for their
incongruent conditions (see Fig. 1).
executive inhibitory control. These findings suggested that The two conditions can be characterized as follows:
intervention aimed at activating inhibitory control 1. Congruent—in which there is no interference of the
mechanisms could improve students’ success. In this paper, irrelevant salient variable area with the relevant variable
we explore the effect of an intervention that explicitly warns perimeter, as one shape has a larger area and a longer
about the possible interference of the variable area. Eighty- perimeter than the other shape.
four sixth graders performed the same comparison of 2. Incongruent—in which there is interference of the
perimeters reaction time test, with warning intervention
(warning group) or without it (control group). Accuracy in the irrelevant salient variable area with the relevant variable
warning group was significantly higher in incongruent perimeter, as one shape has a larger area, but not a longer
conditions and reaction time was significantly longer in all perimeter, than the other shape. In the incongruent inverse
conditions than in the control group. The results suggest that condition one shape has a larger area but a shorter perimeter
the explicit warning activates inhibitory control mechanisms than the other shape, while in the incongruent equal
and thus helps students overcome the interference. The condition, one shape has a larger area but an equal perimeter
findings point to the possibility of improving students’
compared with the other one. There were two types of trials
problem-solving abilities through simple and focused
interventions that explicitly warn them about the trap in the in each condition, simple and complex.
task. Such research-based simple interventions appear to
require only teachers’ knowledge and awareness and could
complement the traditional educational technique of
supporting relevant content knowledge. Congruent
Keywords: comparison of perimeters; congruity; inhibitory
control mechanisms; intuitive interference; reaction time;
warning intervention Incongruent
inverse
Introduction
It is well known that many students encounter difficulties in Incongruent
solving a wide range of problems in science and equal
mathematics (e.g., OECD, 2014). We suggest that students’ Simple Complex
difficulties may stem from the interference of an irrelevant
variable which is automatically processed with Figure 1: Examples of simple and complex congruent,
formal/logical reasoning about the relevant variable (Stavy incongruent inverse and incongruent equal task conditions.
& Tirosh, 2000). This interference is reflected in students’
erroneous responses to numerous tasks in science and Among schoolchildren, adolescents, and adults, findings
mathematics, even when students have the knowledge and have consistently shown higher accuracy and shorter
skills to solve these tasks correctly. reaction time in the congruent condition than in the
incongruent conditions. These findings indicate that
430
participants have difficulty in overcoming the intuitive congruent and incongruent conditions, corroborate and
interference of the salient (automatically processed) extend previous studies related to interference between
irrelevant variable area and in inhibiting it. Apparently they intuitive and logical reasoning in other domains (e.g., Goel
cannot avoid comparing this salient variable while & Dolan, 2003; Houdé et al., 2000). It has been shown that
comparing perimeters. Moreover, when participants were inhibitory training related to conditional reasoning resulted
asked to compare the areas of the shapes, almost all of the in improvement in participants’ logical responses and in a
responses were correct and relatively fast (significantly shift in brain activation from posterior to frontal (Houdé et
faster than for perimeters comparison) in all conditions (e.g., al., 2000). Inhibitory training in Houdé et al. (2000)
Babai et al., 2006; Babai et al., 2010). These findings consisted of warning the participants about the trap in their
support our conjecture that area is indeed the salient variable conditional reasoning task.
in this task and that participants have difficulty in ignoring it Here we explored, through a control/experimental design
when comparing perimeters. whether a problem-specific warning intervention aimed at
Level of complexity of the presented shapes was also activating students’ inhibitory control mechanisms would
shown to affect participants’ performance in the comparison improve sixth graders’ accuracy of responses in incongruent
of perimeters task. It was suggested that in the case of the conditions of the comparison of perimeters task and whether
comparison of perimeters incongruent trials, complex trials it would affect their reaction times. The intervention
are associated with higher cognitive load on working explicitly cautioned students in the warning group about the
memory than simple trials (e.g., Babai et al., 2015; Stavy & trap in the comparison of perimeters task—the possible
Babai, 2008). interference of the area variable when comparing
An event-related fMRI study involving the comparison of perimeters. Students in the control group received no
perimeters task that included both conditions (congruent and intervention.
incongruent equal) indicated that different brain regions are
activated during reasoning in the congruent and incongruent
conditions (Stavy & Babai, 2010; Stavy et al., 2006). It was Methodology
found that reasoning in the congruent condition activated
parietal brain regions known to be involved in perceptual Participants
and spatial processing, including processing related to
Eighty-four sixth graders (ages 11–12) were randomly
comparison of continuous quantities, such as found in the
assigned to the warning (n=44) and control (n=40) groups.
comparison of perimeters task. This activation is likely to
They performed the same computerized comparison of
reflect both the automatic processing of the salient irrelevant
perimeters reaction time test, with or without warning
variable area and the processing of the relevant variable
intervention.
perimeter. We have suggested that when the processing of
area and perimeter result in the same conclusion (congruent
condition), this is the end of the processing (Stavy et al.,
2006).
Reaction time test
Reasoning in the incongruent condition activated regions Each student was individually presented with a
in the prefrontal cortex, suggesting that inhibition was computerized comparison of perimeters test with/without
required as these brain regions are known for their executive warning intervention. In each test trial, two shapes were
inhibitory control over posterior and subcortical brain presented and the students were asked to compare the
regions during processing of different cognitive functions. perimeters of the two shapes, that is, to judge whether the
These regions are also known to be activated during tasks right shape had a larger perimeter, the left shape had a larger
which require overcoming interference (e.g., Houdé et al., perimeter, or the two shapes had an equal perimeter. Each
2000). In the incongruent condition the processing of area trial was presented on the screen until the participant
and perimeter result in conflicting conclusions, one based on responded by pressing an appropriate key. The students
the area comparison and the other on perimeter comparison. were asked to answer correctly and as quickly as they could.
This conflict has to be resolved. It was suggested that when The test included 16 congruent, 16 incongruent inverse,
answering correctly, the prefrontal brain regions inhibit the and 16 incongruent equal trials presented in pseudorandom
automatic unavoidable processing of the interfering order. The test session started with instructions, which
irrelevant salient variable area in the parietal brain regions. included the warning intervention (see below) only in the
Overcoming this conflict is a demanding and time- experimental group, followed by 10 training trials (different
consuming process and is probably affected by the from the ones presented in the test) for practice with the task
efficiency of inhibitory control mechanisms (Stavy et al., and the experimental setting.
2006). It is therefore possible that intervention aimed at
activating inhibitory control mechanisms could improve
participants’ ability to overcome the intuitive interference. Warning intervention
The findings of our brain-imaging study, that different The intervention consisted of an explicit warning on the
brain regions are activated during reasoning in the possible interference of the area feature when comparing
431
perimeters, emphasizing the tendency to compare areas 81, p < 0.001, partial eta squared = 0.796). The success rate
instead of perimeters, which can lead to errors. During the in the warning group was higher than in the control group
instructions and before the 10 training trials participants in and higher in congruent than in incongruent trials. A
the experimental group were presented with the following significant interaction of Group x Congruity (F = 5.65, df =
warning intervention on the computer screen: 81, p = 0.005, partial eta squared = 0.122) was found. The
warning intervention resulted in a higher success rate in
incongruent (p = 0.006 for the incongruent inverse and p =
Pay attention: you are requested to compare the 0.035 for the incongruent equal) but not in congruent trials.
perimeters and not the areas of the two shapes. A significant interaction of Congruity x Complexity (F =
There is a tendency to compare the areas of the shapes 12.99, df = 81, p < 0.001, partial eta squared = 0.243) was
instead of their perimeters. found. In the incongruent equal condition a higher success
This tendency may lead to errors. rate was found for the simple than the complex trials (p <
Try to overcome this tendency. 0.001), while in the incongruent inverse condition a higher
rate of success was observed for the complex trials (p =
0.008). Most errors in incongruent trials were found to be
intuitive ones (i.e., larger area – longer perimeter).
Data analysis Table 2 shows reaction times and their SEM for the
Accuracy of correct responses was calculated for each comparison of perimeters task in each group (control and
participant for each condition and level of complexity. Since warning) for the three task conditions (congruent,
there were too few correct responses in incongruent incongruent inverse, and incongruent equal) and the two
conditions, median reaction time was calculated for each levels of complexity (simple and complex).
participant for all the responses for each condition and level
of complexity. Repeated measure GLM and Bonferroni post Table 2: Reaction time of responses (in msec) for the
hoc tests were carried out in order to detect significant comparison of perimeters task in control (n=40) and
differences between conditions, levels of complexity, and warning (n=44) groups.
the two experimental groups (control and warning).
Congruity Reaction time (SEM)
Control Warning
Findings Congruent 1695 (96) 1895 (117)
Table 1 shows rates of success and their SEM for the Simple 1746 (110) 1967 (138)
comparison of perimeters task in each group (control and Complex 1644 (114) 1824 (118)
warning) for the three task conditions (congruent,
incongruent inverse, and incongruent equal) and the two Incongruent inverse 1860 (110) 2269 (174)
levels of complexity (simple and complex). Simple 1799 (123) 2367 (212)
Complex 1922 (119) 2172 (189)
Table 1: Rate of correct responses for the comparison of
Incongruent equal 1913 (112) 2399 (192)
perimeters task in control (n=40) and warning (n=44)
groups. Simple 1562 (97) 1867 (150)
Complex 2264 (158) 2932 (284)
Congruity % Correct (SEM)
Control Warning
Congruent 89.7 (2.2) 86.4 (2.9) Analysis of variance of reaction time revealed significant
main effects of intervention (F = 4.07, df = 82, p = 0.047,
Simple 88.1 (2.9) 83.5 (3.7) partial eta squared = 0.047), congruity (F = 10.23, df = 81, p
Complex 91.3 (3.2) 89.2 (3.2) < 0.001, partial eta squared = 0.202), and complexity (F =
Incongruent inverse 35.2 (6.3) 59.4 (5.8) 10.54, df = 82, p = 0.002, partial eta squared = 0.114).
Simple 31.6 (6.5) 54.0 (6.3) Reaction time was longer in the warning intervention group
Complex 38.8 (7.0) 64.8 (6.0) than in the control group, in incongruent trials than in
congruent ones and in complex trials than in simple ones. In
Incongruent equal 18.8 (3.9) 32.5 (5.0) addition a significant interaction of Congruity x Complexity
Simple 30.0 (6.9) 44.6 (6.6) (F = 19.98, df = 81, p < 0.001, partial eta squared = 0.330)
Complex 7.5 (3.0) 20.5 (5.0) was found. In the incongruent equal condition, longer
reaction time was found for the complex trials than for the
simple ones (p < 0.001), while in the other two conditions
Analysis of variance of success rate revealed significant no differences between complex and simple trials were
main effects of intervention (F = 5.40, df = 82, p = 0.023, found.
partial eta squared = 0.062), and congruity (F = 158.13, df =
432
Discussion and Conclusions ineffective in helping students overcome difficulties
(Dewolf et al., 2014), the findings of the current study point
Students’ difficulties in science and mathematics may stem
to the possibility of improving students’ problem-solving
from an interference of a salient irrelevant variable in the
abilities through simple, focused, task-specific interventions
task. Our earlier brain-imaging study on the comparison of
that explicitly warn them about the trap in the task, that is,
perimeters task revealed that overcoming these difficulties is
the possible interference of the irrelevant salient variable.
related to activation in prefrontal brain regions known to be
Such research-based simple interventions appear to require
associated with inhibitory control mechanisms. It seems that
only teachers’ knowledge and awareness and could replace
failure to overcome the salient irrelevant variable area in
or complement the traditional educational technique of
incongruent task conditions is related to inefficiency of
supporting relevant content knowledge. It is possible that, in
participants’ inhibitory control mechanisms. This led us to
other tasks, task-specific warning interventions would
the idea that activating inhibitory control mechanisms could
activate inhibitory control mechanisms that would help
improve students’ performance in the task.
students overcome intuitive interference in each task. It
Inspired by the work of Houdé and his colleagues (e.g.,
would be very interesting to explore whether a repeated use
Houdé et al., 2000) we used a task-specific warning
of such interventions (with different tasks) would eventually
intervention of one slide that was shown to schoolchildren
lead students to take a more generally critical attitude
prior to the comparison of perimeters computerized test. The
toward reasoning. It would also be very interesting to
warning intervention explicitly warned students about the
explore why for some tasks a warning is effective while for
trap in the task. It reminded them that they were to compare
other tasks it is not (e.g., Dewolf et al., 2014). This question
the perimeters and not the areas and that comparing the
deserves further research.
areas might lead to errors. They were then encouraged to
The current study demonstrates that applying cognitive
avoid the comparison of areas.
psychology and neuroscience methodologies in science and
The findings show that this short, focused, and task-
mathematics education research can contribute to science
specific warning intervention significantly improved
and mathematics education and to cognitive psychology and
students’ accuracy of responses to both incongruent
neuroscience both theoretically and practically. We believe
conditions. This suggests that the warning intervention
that construction of direct links between behavioral and
indeed activated inhibitory control mechanisms and thus
brain data and pedagogical interventions is a particularly
helped students overcome the intuitive interference.
important field of research for future cognitive psychology
It would be very interesting to know how long the effects
and neuroscience (e.g., Sigman et al., 2014), as well as for
of the intervention last, and if a more general warning would
science and mathematics education. This requires
have a positive effect as well. It would also be very
collaboration among educators and educational researchers
interesting to explore whether such a warning intervention
and cognitive psychologists and neuroscientists (Grabner &
would improve adolescents’ and adults’ performance in the
Ansari, 2010).
comparison of perimeters task and whether it would affect
the pattern of brain activation. It could be that improvement
in performance would be accompanied by a shift in brain References
activation from posterior to frontal, for example, in Babai, R., Levyadun, T., Stavy, R., & Tirosh, D. (2006).
accordance with our earlier brain-imaging study (Stavy et Intuitive rules in science and mathematics: A reaction
al., 2006) and as was found by Houdé and his colleagues time study. International Journal of Mathematical
with regard to the conditional reasoning task (Houdé et al., Education in Science and Technology, 37, 913–924.
2000). Future studies will shed light on these issues. Babai, R., Shalev, E., & Stavy, R. (2015). A warning
The intervention effect was also expressed in a significant intervention improves students’ ability to overcome
increase in reaction time for all conditions. It seems that the intuitive interference. ZDM—The International Journal
explicit warning regarding the trap in the task leads students on Mathematics Education, in press.
to inhibit it and to focus their attention on the relevant Babai, R., Zilber, H., Stavy, R., & Tirosh, D. (2010). The
variable, perimeter, leading to an increase in accuracy in the effect of intervention on accuracy of students’ responses
incongruent conditions and an increase in reaction time in and reaction times to geometry problems. International
all conditions. The effect of this inhibition is general and Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8, 185–
robust and increases reaction time in all conditions, even 201.
when it is not needed (i.e., in the congruent condition). The Dewolf, T., Van Dooren, W., Ev Cimen, E., & Verschaffel,
increase in reaction time for both conditions is interpreted as L. (2014). The impact of illustrations and warnings on
a result of activating students’ inhibitory control solving mathematical word problems realistically. The
mechanisms. Journal of Experimental Education, 82, 103–120.
Our results have several educational implications. They Goel, V., & Dolan, R. (2003). Explaining modulation of
indicate the importance of inhibitory control mechanisms in reasoning by belief. Cognition, 87, B11–B22.
reasoning processes associated with overcoming Grabner, R. H., & Ansari, D. (2010). Promises and potential
interference in science and mathematics. While a recent pitfalls of a ‘cognitive neuroscience of mathematics
study suggested that a general warning was largely
433
learning’. ZDM—The International Journal on
Mathematics Education, 42, 655–660.
Houdé, O., Zago, L., Mellet, E., Moutier, S., Pineau, A.,
Mazoyer, B., & Tzourio-Mazoyer, N. (2000). Shifting
from the perceptual brain to the logical brain: The neural
impact of cognitive inhibition training. Journal of
Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 721–728.
OECD (2014). PISA 2012 Results: What students know and
can do: Student performance in Mathematics, Reading
and Science (Volume I, Revised Edition, February 2014).
OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264208780-en.
Sigman, M., Pena, M., Goldin, A. P., & Ribeiro, S. (2014).
Neuroscience and education: Prime time to build the
bridge. Nature Neuroscience, 17, 497–502.
Stavy, R., & Babai, R. (2008). Complexity of shapes and
quantitative reasoning in geometry. Mind, Brain, and
Education, 2, 170–176.
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.
Stavy, R., & Tirosh, D. (2000). How students (mis-
)understand science and mathematics. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Stavy, R., Goel, V., Critchley, H., & Dolan, R. (2006).
Intuitive interference in quantitative reasoning. Brain
Research, 1073–1074, 383–388.
434