Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 266 Download : 172

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

This research aims to determine the thinking activity types dominated by a mental process in producing answers characterized by automatic, unconscious, and subjective-empirical processes (system 1) in solving problems so that the default-interventionist interaction occurs. This research novelty is the formulation of the contents and thinking activity arrangement adapted to students' thinking when solving problems. The problem used in this research is a mathematical problem that triggers students to produce answers quickly with confidence that the answers are correct at a high level. Another problem is about probability because the mode of occurrence of students' learning difficulties at the secondary school level occurs when learning the concept of probability. This is qualitative research with a case study approach. The research subjects were students of Mathematics Education in semester 1. The results showed that thinking activity one could condition the occurrence of type 1 default-interventionist interaction. Thinking activity two could condition the occurrence of type 2 default-interventionist interaction. Thinking activity three could condition the occurrence of type 3 default-interventionist interaction. This research concluded that the default-interventionist interaction occurred because the content and arrangement of the thinking activity conditioned the subjects to pay attention to information gradually and change the subjects’ beliefs. Lecturers were recommended to produce, develop, and research thinking activities on topics other than probability at various levels of education. The default-interventionist interaction was essential to be conditioned when system one dominated students' thinking, causing difficulties.

Keywords

Default-Interventionist Interaction Dual-Process Theory Probability Problem-Solving Thinking Activity Types

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Susiswo, Darmawan, P., Murtafiah, W., & Osman, S. (2024). Exploring default-interventionist interaction of thinking activity types on probability problem-solving. Journal on Mathematics Education, 15(1), 295–316. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v15i1.pp295-316
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Ackerman, R., & Morsanyi, K. (2023). We know what stops you from thinking forever: A metacognitive perspective. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 46(July), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X22003065
  2. Ackerman, R., & Thompson, V. (2017). Meta-Reasoning: Monitoring and control of thinking and reasoning acknowledgments. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(8), 607–617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.05.004
  3. Alós-Ferrer, C., & Strack, F. (2014). From dual processes to multiple selves: Implications for economic behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology, 41, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2013.12.005
  4. Bago, B., & De Neys, W. (2017). Fast logic ?: Examining the time course assumption of dual process theory. Cognition, 158, 90–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.10.014
  5. Boissin, E., Caparos, S., & De Neys, W. (2023). No easy fix for belief bias during syllogistic reasoning? Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 35(4), 401–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2023.2181734
  6. Boissin, E., Caparos, S., Voudouri, A., & De Neys, W. (2022). Debiasing System 1: Training favours logical over stereotypical intuiting. Judgment and Decision Making, 17(4), 646–690. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500008895
  7. Borodin, A. (2016). The need for an application of dual-process theory to mathematics education. Cambridge Open-Review Educational Research, 3, 1–31. https://api.repository.cam.ac.uk/server/api/core/bitstreams/0b23bda3-ca09-452a-8767-c4aeb4f6258b/content
  8. Brocas, I., & Carrillo, J. D. (2016). Dual-Process theories of decision-making: A selective survey. Journal of Economic Psychology, 41, 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2013.01.004
  9. Darmawan, P., Purwanto, P., Parta, I. N., & Susiswo, S. (2020). The levels of students’ feeling of rightness (for) in solving polygon perimeter problems. International Journal of Instruction, 13(2), 549–566. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13238a
  10. Darmawan, P, Purwanto, P., Parta, I. N., & Susiswo, S. (2021). Teacher interventions to induce students’ awareness in controlling their intuition. Bolema, 35, 745–765. https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-4415v35n70a10
  11. Dautov, D. F. (2021). The ratio of verbal and nonverbal components of individual cognitive maps as a reflection of the collaborative thinking activity of its participants. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education, 12(1), 51–62.
  12. De Neys, W. (2015). Heuristic bias and conflict detection during thinking. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 62, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.plm.2014.09.001
  13. De Neys, W. (2018). Dual Process Theory 2.0. Routledge.
  14. Derous, E., Buijsrogge, A., Roulin, N., & Duyck, W. (2015). Human resource management review why your stigma isn’t hired: A dual-process framework of interview bias. Human Resource Management Review, 26(2), 90–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2015.09.006
  15. Dewolf, T., Dooren, W. V, Cimen, E. E., & Verschaffel, L. (2014). The impact of illustrations and warnings on solving mathematical word problems realistically. The Journal of Experimental Education, 82(1), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2012.745468
  16. Douven, I., Elqayam, S., & Mirabile, P. (2022). Inference strength predicts the probability of conditionals better than conditional probability does. Journal of Memory and Language, 123, 104–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2021.104302
  17. Durning, S. J., Dong, T., Artino, A. R., & Schuwirth, L. (2015). Dual processing. Perspectives on Medical Education, 4, 168–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-015-0196-6
  18. Handley, S. J., & Trippas, D. (2015). Dual processes and the interplay between knowledge and structure: A new parallel processing model. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 62, 33-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.plm.2014.09.002
  19. Jang, H., Joo, E., & Reeve, J. (2016). Why students become more engaged or more disengaged during the semester: A self-determination theory dual-process model. Learning and Instruction, 43, 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.002
  20. Janssen, E. M., Velinga, S. B., de Neys, W., & van Gog, T. (2021). Recognizing biased reasoning: Conflict detection during decision-making and decision-evaluation. Acta Psychologica, 217(June), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2021.103322
  21. Kahneman, D. (2012). Thinking, fast and slow. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33, 921–923. http://www.math.chalmers.se/~ulfp/Review/fastslow.pdf
  22. Keren, G. A. (2013). A tale of two systems: A scientific advance or a theoretical stone soup? Commentary on Evans & Stanovich. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 257–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613483474
  23. Kruglanski, A. W. (2013). Only one? The default interventionist perspective as a unimodel — Commentary on Evans & Stanovich. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 242–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613483477
  24. Lem, S. (2015). The intuitiveness of the law of large numbers. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47, 783–792. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0676-5
  25. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis, A Methods Sourcebook (3rd Ed.). Sage
  26. Musser, G. L., Burger, W. F., & Peterson, B. E. (2011). Mathematics For Elementary Teachers A Contemporary Approach (9th Edition). Wiley
  27. Newman, I. R., & Thompson, V. A. (2023). Not feeling right about uncertainty monitoring. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 46(July), 2–69. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X22003089
  28. Papa, F. J. (2016). A dual processing theory based approach to instruction and assessment of diagnostic competencies. Medical Science Educator, 26, 787-795. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-016-0326-8
  29. Pennycook, G., Ross, R. M., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2017). Dunning – Kruger effects In reasoning: Theoretical implications of the failure to recognize incompetence. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24, 1774–1784. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1242-7
  30. Pennycook, G., & Thompson, V. A. (2012). Reasoning with base rates is routine, relatively effortless, and context dependent. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 528–534. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0249-3
  31. Reyna, V. F. (2015). How people make decisions that involve risk. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(2), 60–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00275.x
  32. Stanovich, K. E., & Evans, J. S. B. T. (2014). Theory and metatheory in the study of dual processing: Reply to comments. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 263-271. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613483774
  33. Stanovich, K. E., & Toplak, M. E. (2023). A good architecture for fast and slow thinking, but exclusivity is exclusively in the past. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 46(July), 8–10. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X22002904
  34. Susiswo, S. (2017). Pengantar Statistika Matematis [Introduction of Mathematical Statistics] (1st Ed.). UM PRESS.
  35. Talat, U., Chang, K., & Nguyen, B. (2017). Decision and intuition during organizational change: Evolutionary critique of dual process theory. The Bottom Line, 30(3), 236–254. https://doi.org/10.1108/BL-08-2017-0016
  36. Thaneerananon, T Wannapong, T., & Nokkaew, A. (2016). Development of a test to evaluate students’ analytical thinking based on fact versus opinion differentiation. International Journal of Instruction, 9(2), 1–16. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1106357.pdf
  37. Thompson, V. A., & Johnson, S. C. (2014). Conflict, metacognition, and analytic thinking. Thinking & Reasoning, 20(2), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2013.869763
  38. Trippas, D., Thompson, V. A., & Handley, S. J. (2016). When fast logic meets slow belief: Evidence for a parallel-processing model of belief bias. Memory & Cognition, 45, 539–552. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016-0680-1