We first hypothesised the concept of Disciplinary Intuitions in May 2011 as a lens through which to understand a 'missing link' in some instances of curriculum design.

As a working definition, we see intuition as the phenomenological bases which influence behaviour and decision-making.

Exactly a year later, in May 2012, we formed a reading group to discuss this nascent theory. We continued meeting regularly, every month or so. Six months' later, in November 2012, we were awarded a contract by Springer Education to publish a book :-) It has taken us nearly one-and-a-half years to write the manuscript, and it was published in the latter half of 2014!

The design of curriculum for formal learning environments often presumes upon (whether explicitly or implicitly) the intuitions that learners bring to the table. These intuitions - to the extent that they exist in the first place - may have been developed through personal experience and prior knowledge, often through non-formal learning such as play. Such intuitions are, however, tacit by definition, and their qualities would vary from learner to learner. Both this tacit nature and this heterogeneity work against the explicit recognition of the role that such intuitions play in the curriculum design of more formalised learning environments; yet they are of critical importance - at the very least in terms of shaping the pre- and misconceptions that learners have, and consequently the likelihood that what is learnt endures beyond the immediate formalised experience. It is also proposed that the nature of such intuitions varies by subject discipline - intuitions about geography are likely different from intuitions about physics, for instance - and that such variations across disciplines need to be recognised, investigated and elaborated upon if learning environments in particular - and curricular designs as a whole - are to be truly effective.

At its heart, Disciplinary Intuitions is fundamentally phenomenological (Husserl, 1936) in its orientation. The preceding paragraph should help clarify that the central problematic articulated by Disciplinary Intuitions is that between phenomenology's 'lived experiences' and curriculum design. A curriculum designed from the perspective of Disciplinary Intuitions recognises the diversity of such lived experiences and attempts to facilitate greater intersubjectivity among learners.

Conceptualised in this way, Disciplinary Intuitions may therefore be thought of as innate computational modules of mind (Pinker, 1997) which are in the process of being exercised and developed as the learner interacts with his or her external environment.

As such, Disciplinary Intuitions is distinct from both prior knowledge and misconceptions, in that such intuitions are often developed through non-formal learning (including play) and have not yet been formally codified (let alone verified) by the learner or significant others. Further, these intuitions are 'disciplinary' in the sense that cognitive scientists have been able to identify about ten faculties, corresponding to: (i) intuitive physics; (ii) intuitive biology; (iii) intuitive engineering; (iv) intuitive psychology; (v) spatial sense; (vi) number sense; (vii) probabilistic sense; (viii) intuitive economics; (ix) mental database and logic; and (x) language.