Intuitive vs analytical thinking: four perspectives

By Uri Leron, Orit Hazzan. The Best Writing on Mathematics 2010, 2009

84 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, General Decision Sciences, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/44e6b031ec2178ea2313a8700fe18e1aa385ac66

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

1. W. Van Dooren
2. Xenia Vamvakoussi
3. Lieven Verschaffel

In General Decision Sciences

1. Tristan Lijnen
2. W. Van Dooren
3. Lieven Verschaffel
4. Joris J. van Hoof

In Statistics and Probability

1. W. Van Dooren
2. Lieven Verschaffel
3. Joris J. van Hoof
4. Xenia Vamvakoussi
5. Stella Vosniadou
6. Dirk De Bock
7. Erno Lehtinen
8. Dirk Janssens

Citations in the corpus

• Naturally Biased? In Search for Reaction Time Evidence for a Natural Number Bias in Adults. (2012, background): “…argued that the dual-process theories in cognitive psychology and their accompanying methodologies could be a valuable tool in establishing the intuitive nature of erroneous reasoning in various mathematical domains (Gillard, Van Dooren, Schaeken, & Verschaffel, 2009a; Leron & Hazzan, 2006, 2009).”
• Are secondary school students still hampered by the natural number bias? A reaction time study on fraction comparison tasks (2013, background): “Dual process theory and its methodologies (particularly reaction time methods) have been shown to be useful in shedding light on the intuitive character of erroneous reasoning in several mathematics tasks (Leron and Hazzan 2009; Gillard et al. 2009).”