About a year ago I promised my friend Fischbein a preface to his book of which I knew the French manuscript. Now with the printer's proofs under my eyes I like the book even better than I did then, because of, and influenced by, new experiences in the meantime, and fresh thoughts that crossed my mind. Have I been influenced by what I remembered from the manuscript? If so, it must have happened unconsciously. But of course, what struck me in this work a year ago, struck a responsive chord in my own mind. In the past, mathematics teaching theory has strongly been influenced by a view on mathematics as a heap of concepts, and on learning mathematics as concepts attainment. Mathematics teaching practice has been jeopardised by this theoretical approach, which in its most dangerous form expresses itself as a radical atomism. To concepts attainment Fischbein opposes acquisition of intuitions. In my own publications I avoided the word "intuition" because of the variety of its meanings across languages. For some time I have used the term "constitution of mathematical objects," which I think means the same as Fischbein's "acquisition of intuitions" - indeed as I view it, constituting a mental object precedes its conceptualising, and under this viewpoint I tried to observe mathematical activities of young children.

In writing the present book I have had in mind the following objectives: - To propose a theoretical, comprehensive view of the domain of intuition. - To identify and organize the experimental findings related to intuition scattered in a wide variety of research contexts. - To reveal the educational implications of the idea, developed for science and mathematics education. Most of the existing monographs in the field of intuition are mainly concerned with theoretical debates - definitions, philosophical attitudes, historical considerations. (See, especially the works of Wild (1938), of Bunge (1 962) and of Noddings and Shore (1 984).) A notable exception is the book by Westcott (1968), which combines theoretical analyses with the author's own experimental studies. But, so far, no attempt has been made to identify systematically those findings, spread throughout the research literature, which could contribute to the deciphering of the mechanisms of intuition. Very often the relevant studies do not refer explicitly to intuition. Even when this term is used it occurs, usually, as a self-evident, common sense term.

About a year ago I promised my friend Fischbein a preface to his book of which I knew the French manuscript. Now with the printer's proofs under my eyes I like the book even better than I did then, because of, and influenced by, new experiences in the meantime, and fresh thoughts that crossed my mind. Have I been influenced by what I remembered from the manuscript? If so, it must have happened unconsciously. But of course, what struck me in this work a year ago, struck a responsive chord in my own mind. In the past, mathematics teaching theory has strongly been influenced by a view on mathematics as a heap of concepts, and on learning mathematics as concepts attainment. Mathematics teaching practice has been jeopardised by this theoretical approach, which in its most dangerous form expresses itself as a radical atomism. To concepts attainment Fischbein opposes acquisition of intuitions. In my own publications I avoided the word "intuition" because of the variety of its meanings across languages. For some time I have used the term "constitution of mathematical objects," which I think means the same as Fischbein's "acquisition of intuitions" - indeed as I view it, constituting a mental object precedes its conceptualising, and under this viewpoint I tried to observe mathematical activities of young children.

In writing the present book I have had in mind the following objectives: - To propose a theoretical, comprehensive view of the domain of intuition. - To identify and organize the experimental findings related to intuition scattered in a wide variety of research contexts. - To reveal the educational implications of the idea, developed for science and mathematics education. Most of the existing monographs in the field of intuition are mainly concerned with theoretical debates - definitions, philosophical attitudes, historical considerations. (See, especially the works of Wild (1938), of Bunge (1 962) and of Noddings and Shore (1 984).) A notable exception is the book by Westcott (1968), which combines theoretical analyses with the author's own experimental studies. But, so far, no attempt has been made to identify systematically those findings, spread throughout the research literature, which could contribute to the deciphering of the mechanisms of intuition. Very often the relevant studies do not refer explicitly to intuition. Even when this term is used it occurs, usually, as a self-evident, common sense term.