The Effects of Self- and Other-Scaffolding on Progression and Variation in Children’s Geometric Analogy Performance: A Microgenetic Research

Abstract

The study investigated geometric analogical reasoning in 8-year-old children by microgenetically examining the (transfer) effects of self- and other-scaffolding and memory capacity on progression and variation in children’s analogy performance. Participants were 54 children, divided over three conditions, and followed for 5 weeks. Children’s initial performances showed a wide strategy repertoire. A number of children profited from repeated self-scaffolding and increased their strategy use considerably. A 20-minute graduated-prompts other-scaffolding procedure promoted strategy use beyond the effects of self-scaffolding, inducing either continuation of gradual change or a rapid change in analogical reasoning. Distinct change trajectories showed individual differences regarding timing and rate of change. There was evidence of transfer of analogy strategies between geometric and verbal tasks. Children with a larger memory capacity remained at higher levels of geometric analogical reasoning. Children with smaller memory capacities fully caught up with their peers with a larger memory capacity after other-scaffolding.

Progression paths in children’s problem solving: The influence of dynamic testing, initial variability, and working memory

“…It was not, however, related to the (change) in number of dimensions detected in the task material, or the number and progression of verbal explanations. These findings seem to differ from those of an earlier study by Tunteler and Resing (2010), in which children with a smaller memory span were able to catch 29 up with their peers after training. While the reasons for this discrepancy are unclear, it should be noted that the tasks in the present study were more demanding in terms of cognitive load and most participants, struggled, especially at the initial stage (Halford et al, 2010).…”

“…Our findings only partially confirm those reported by Tunteler et al (2008) and Tunteler and Resing (2010), who, in their microgenetic studies with classical geometric analogies, found differential progression paths for trained and unguided practice groups, but growth in verbal explanations over time for children in both groups. This may reflect the greater challenge of the items utilized in the present study.…”

“…The specific components measured were the children's accuracy on the task, the use of various task-solution components as a measure of the (in)completeness of children's performance on these tasks and their verbal explanations of their activity as a measure of the quality of their solving strategies (Tunteler & Resing, 2010). We hypothesized that a) repeated practice would lead children to independently adopt more advanced solution methods.…”

“…This might help these children to catch up with peers with superior working-memory capacity. Children with larger spatial working-memory capacity, on the other hand, were expected to show a more gradual pattern and rate of change over time when receiving repeated practice alone, but nevertheless gain additional benefit from the training procedure (Tunteler & Resing, 2010).…”

Dynamic testing and transfer: An examination of children's problem-solving strategies

“…Although children's performance in relation to the construction of transfer tasks was the primary focus of our research, we were also interested in examining if their responses improved as a consequence of repeated practice. Firstly, we examined whether young children, when given opportunities for repeated practice including or not including training, adopted more advanced solving strategies, measured in terms of their a) accuracy, b) use of task-solving components, and c) verbal explanations (e.g., Tunteler & Resing, 2010;Resing et al, 2015). Based on prior research, we hypothesised that performance on these measures would change as a consequence of practice alone and that children in the training condition would outperform children in the unguided practice condition on all measures; we also expected large individual differences (e.g., Resing & Elliott, 2011).…”