Tracing teachers’ engagement in counterintuitive mathematics from intuition to reasoning, calculation, and peer discussion

Arkhat Baimukhanov 1 * , Sara D. Sony 2, Gulash Коchshanova 3, Yessengali Smagulov 1, Nuri Balta 4, Raquel Fernández Cézar 5
More Detail
1 Faculty of Physics and Mathematics, Zhetysu University named after I. Zhansugurov, Taldykorgan, KAZAKHSTAN
2 School of Mathematics and Statistics, Northwest Missouri State University, Maryville, MO, USA
3 Department of Basic Sciences, Yessenov University, Aktau, KAZAKHSTAN
4 SDU University, Almaty, KAZAKHSTAN
5 University of Castilla-La Mancha, Ciudad Real, SPAIN
* Corresponding Author
EUR J SCI MATH ED, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp. 251-269. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/18146
Published: 17 March 2026
OPEN ACCESS   22 Views   16 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

This study examines mathematics teachers’ engagement with counterintuitive problems through a structured four-stage process: intuitive responses, reasoning, calculation, and peer discussion. Using convenience sampling method, 60 mathematics teachers from Kazakhstan’s Zhetysu Region were selected for the study. Data were collected using an adapted set of four counterintuitive mathematics tasks. Results revealed that initial intuitive responses frequently led to systematic errors. Reasoning explanations were often only partially correct, indicating that intuitive responses were grounded in incomplete conceptual models. Formal calculations improved accuracy across most tasks, though the average speed problem remained especially resistant to resolution. Peer discussion proved to be the most effective intervention, leading to substantial gains in correctness, particularly for the most counterintuitive tasks. Comparative analysis across the four stages revealed distinct learning trajectories, with collaborative reasoning consistently yielding the largest improvements. Regression analysis demonstrated a moderate positive relationship between reasoning quality and solution accuracy. These findings show the pedagogical value of counterintuitive problems for improving reasoning, conceptual understanding, and collaborative learning in mathematics education.
Keywords: counterintuitive problems, mathematics education, reasoning, problem-solving, peer discussion, teacher learning

CITATION

Baimukhanov, A., Sony, S. D., Коchshanova, G., Smagulov, Y., Balta, N., & Cézar, R. F. (2026). Tracing teachers’ engagement in counterintuitive mathematics from intuition to reasoning, calculation, and peer discussion. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(2), 251-269. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/18146

REFERENCES

  • Balta, N., & Asikainen, M. A. (2019). A comparison of Olympians’ and regular students’ approaches and successes in solving counterintuitive dynamics problems. International Journal of Science Education, 41(12), 1644-1666. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1624990
  • Balta, N., & Eryılmaz, A. (2017). Counterintuitive dynamics test. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15, 411-431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9694-6
  • Benacerraf, P., & Putnam, H. (Eds.). (1983). Philosophy of mathematics: Selected readings. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1086/289270
  • Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. McGraw Hill Book Company. https://doi.org/10.1037/11164-000
  • Boaler, J. (2022). Mathematical mindsets: Unleashing student’ potential through creative mathematics, inspiring messages and innovative teaching. John Wiley & Sons.
  • Borovcnik, M., & Kapadia, R. (2009). Research and developments in probability education. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 4(3), 111-130. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/233
  • Brookman-Byrne, A., Mareschal, D., Tolmie, A. K., & Dumontheil, I. (2018). Inhibitory control and counterintuitive science and maths reasoning in adolescence. PLoS ONE, 13(6), Article e0198973. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198973
  • Brousseau, G. (2011). La théorie des situations didactiques en mathématiques [The theory of didactic situations in mathematics]. Presses Universitaires de Rennes. https://doi.org/10.4000/educationdidactique.1005
  • Burton, W. G. (1978). The physics and physiology of storage. In P. M. Harris (Ed.), The potato crop (pp. 545-606). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7210-115
  • Campanario, J. M. (1998). Using counterintuitive problems in teaching physics. The Physics Teacher, 36(7), 439-441. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.879917
  • Chen, X., Wang, S., You, C., Magaña-Loaiza, O. S., & Jin, R. B. (2022). Experimental implementation of the fractional-vortex Hilbert hotel. Physical Review A, 106(3), Article 033521. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.106.033521
  • Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 161-199. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1402_1
  • Clements, D. H., & Battista, M. T. (1992). Geometry and spatial reasoning. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 420-464). Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-60752-874-620251022
  • Clements, P., Buffington, P., & Tobey, C. (2013). Middle-grade students’ misconceptions about the graphical representation of simple fractions: An assessment from the eliciting mathematical misconceptions project (EM 2). Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness.
  • D’Mello, S., & Graesser, A. (2012). Dynamics of affective states during complex learning. Learning and Instruction, 22(2), 145-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.10.001
  • Daniel, A., & DiNapoli, J. (2024). Investigating pedagogies in undergraduate precalculus and their relationships to students’ attitudes towards mathematics and perseverance in problem-solving. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 7(SI), 61-83. https://doi.org/10.31756/jrsmte.314si
  • Dumontheil, I., Brookman-Byrne, A., Tolmie, A. K., & Mareschal, D. (2022). Neural and cognitive underpinnings of counterintuitive science and math reasoning in adolescence. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 34(7), 1205-1229. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01854
  • Dumontheil, I., Wilkinson, H. R., Farran, E. K., Smid, C., Modhvadia, R., Mareschal, D., & UnLocke Team. (2023). How do executive functions influence children’s reasoning about counterintuitive concepts in mathematics and science? Journal of Cognitive Enhancement, 7, 257-275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41465-023-00271-0
  • Everett, L., & Pennathur, A. (2007, June). A design process for conceptually based, counterintuitive problems. In 2007 Annual Conference & Exposition (pp. 12-37). https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--1586
  • Fischbein, E. (1987). Intuition in science and mathematics: An educational approach. Springer. https://doi.org/10.2307/3619981
  • Foisy, L. M. B., Potvin, P., Riopel, M., & Masson, S. (2015). Is inhibition involved in overcoming a common physics misconception in mechanics?. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 4(1-2), 26-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2015.03.001
  • Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25-42. https://doi.org/10.1257/089533005775196732
  • Gennari, A. S., & Valentini, M. (2024). The effects of physical activity on cognitive and learning abilities in childhood. European Educational Researcher, 7(1), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.31757/euer.711
  • Gill, R. D. (2025). Monty hall problem: Solution. In M. Lovric (Ed.), International encyclopedia of statistical science (pp. 1547-1553). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-69359-9_380
  • GMAT Club Forum (2026, February 23). Distance, speed, & time word problems made easy. GMAT Club. https://gmatclub.com/forum/distance-speed-time-word-problems-made-easy-87481.html
  • Hamza, K. M., & Wickman, P. O. (2008). Describing and analyzing learning in action: An empirical study of the importance of misconceptions in learning science. Science Education, 92(1), 141-164. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20233
  • Hershkowitz, R., &Vinner, S. (1980). Concept images and some common cognitive paths in the development of some simple geometric concepts. In R. Karplus (Ed.), Proceedings of the 4th International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 177-184). University of California.
  • Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’ learning. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 371-404). Information Age. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-28141-200-320251013
  • Illustrative Mathematics. (2026, February 23). Lake algae. Illustrative Mathematics. https://tasks.illustrativemathematics.org/content-standards/tasks/533
  • Immordino-Yang, M. H., & Damasio, A. (2007). We feel, therefore we learn: The relevance of affective and social neuroscience to education. Mind, Brain, and Education, 1(1), 3-10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228X.2007.00004.x
  • Kapur, M. (2016). Examining productive failure, productive success, unproductive failure, and unproductive success in learning. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 289-299. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1155457
  • Kaufman, R. (2023). Gabriel’s horn and the painter’s paradox in perspective. Ohio Journal of School Mathematics, 94, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.18061/ojsm.4192
  • Lanting, L. S. (2025). Fostering the development of young students’ analytical thinking by use of a problem-solving method. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 8(SI), 377-401. https://doi.org/10.31756/jrsmte.4117si
  • Liljedahl, P. (2020). Building thinking classrooms in mathematics, grades K-12: 14 teaching practices for enhancing learning. Corwin Press.
  • Maylone, N. J. (2000). Using counterintuitive problems to promote student discussion. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 5(8), 542-546. https://doi.org/10.5951/mtms.5.8.0542
  • National Foundation for Educational Research. (2019). Learning counterintuitive concepts evaluation report. NFER.https://www.nfer.ac.uk/media/uqapkjif/learning_counterintuitive_concepts_evaluation_report_-final.pdf
  • OBrien, A., & NíRíordáin, M. (2025). Irish 14-year-old students’ knowledge of initial algebra. The European Educational Researcher, 8(2), 7-29. https://doi.org/10.31757/euer.822
  • Palmer, L. R., Sumanapala, D. K., Mareschal, D., Dumontheil, I., & UnLocke Team. (2025). Neural associations between inhibitory control and counterintuitive reasoning in science and maths in primary school children. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 37(5), 915-940. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_02303
  • Parsons, C. D. (2018). Mathematics in philosophy: Selected essays. Cornell University Press. https://doi.org/10.1086/524822
  • Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 315-341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9
  • Pruner, M. (2016, February 23). BCAMT weekly math tasks. https://peterliljedahl.com. https://peterliljedahl.com/wp-content/uploads/Pruners-Math-Tasks.pdf
  • Ran, H. (2022). Making struggle productive: The effects of cognitively guided instruction (CGI) professional development on struggling students’ problem-solving [PhD thesis, University of Miami].
  • Reyes, K. (2025). A systematic review of culturally relevant pedagogy in mathematics teacher education: Methods, successes, and room for improvement. International Educational Review, 3(1), 21-40. https://doi.org/10.58693/ier.312
  • Russell, Y. I., & Gobet, F. (2013). What is counterintuitive? Religious cognition and natural expectation. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 4(4), 715-749. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-013-0160-5
  • Santos-Trigo, M. (2024). Problem solving in mathematics education: Tracing its foundations and current research-practice trends. ZDM Mathematics Education, 56, 211-222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-024-01578-8
  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (2020). Mathematical practices, in theory and practice. ZDM Mathematics Education, 52, 1163-1175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01162-w
  • Shahbari, J. A. (2021). Cognitive conflict in technological environments: Cognitive process and emotions through intuitive errors in area, perimeter, and volume. Mathematics, 9(14), Article 1672. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9141672
  • Smith III, J. P., DiSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1994). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115-163. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0302_1
  • Sony, S. D. (2025). Preservice teachers’ perspectives on connections within mathematical concepts: A qualitative study. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 27(2), Article 2. https://mted.merga.net.au/index.php/mted/article/view/1240
  • Stavy, R., & Tirosh, D. (2000). How students (mis-) understand science and mathematics: Intuitive rules. Teachers College Press.
  • Stylianides, A. J., & Stylianides, G. J. (2007). Learning mathematics with understanding: A critical consideration of the learning principle in the principles and standards for school mathematics. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 4(1), 103-114. https://doi.org/10.54870/1551-3440.1063
  • Stylianides, A. J., & Stylianides, G. J. (2008). Proof in school mathematics: Insights from psychological research into students’ ability for deductive reasoning. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(2), 103-133. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986060701854425
  • Sun, Q. (2021). The probability principle of the birthday paradox and extended applications. The Frontiers of Society, Science and Technology, 3(3), 110-112. https://doi.org/10.25236/fsst.2021.030320
  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
  • Vosniadou, S. (2013). International handbook of research on conceptual change (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203154472
  • Wessel, J. R. (2018). A neural mechanism for surprise-related interruptions of visuospatial working memory. Cerebral Cortex, 28(1), 199-212.https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhw367