Working Memory and Dynamic Measures of Analogical Reasoning as Predictors of Children's Math and Reading Achievement

Abstract

Working memory and inductive reasoning ability each appear related to children's achievement in math and reading. Dynamic measures of reasoning, based on an assessment procedure including feedback, may provide additional predictive value. The aim of this study was to investigate whether working memory and dynamic measures of analogical reasoning are unique predictors of children's concurrent and subsequent reading and math achievement. School children (N = 188, M = 7.1 years, SD = 11 months) were administered a dynamic test of analogical reasoning comprising a pretesttraining-posttest design. Pretest performance measures static reasoning ability, whereas posttest performance and feedback-needs during training are considered dynamic measures. Verbal and visuo-spatial working memories were assessed prior to dynamic testing. Performance on national reading and math achievement tests were gathered at two time points within one school year. A multilevel mixed-effects model indicated that verbal (but not visuo-spatial) working memory and dynamic reasoning measures formed unique predictors of concurrent and subsequent achievement in math and reading. Verbal working memory efficiency and performance on a dynamic test of analogical reasoning were both positively related to math and reading achievement in children in kindergarten, first grade and second grade. Dynamic assessment, in addition to working memory assessment, may be useful for educational psychologists when attempting to gauge children's future school performance.

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

“…Our design makes it difficult to answer the question whether children receiving unguided repeated practice (with verbal explanations) have shown greater progression in performance than would be achieved under strict control conditions. Other studies, however, that have used similar figural open-ended 17 analogies (Animalogica) with children of comparable age, have reported significant differences between these two groups of children (e.g., Stevenson et al, 2009Stevenson et al, , 2014Stevenson et al, , 2016.…”

“…Children and refer less frequently to the more complex task-solving components -orientation and positions. However, we expected that children who had received training would mention all the components, more frequently than those in the unguided practice condition (Stevenson, Bergwerff, Heiser, & Resing, 2014). We also took into account children's overall quality and progression of their solution strategies during the unguided practice sessions.…”

Explaining the Ability to Learn Analogies: The Role of Executive Functions and Fluid Intelligence

“…A fully computerized dynamic test measuring the ability to learn in the domain of figural analogies. The measure employs a pretest-intervention-posttest design, in which pretest and posttest (20 items each) were designed as isomorphic measures with no help provided (Stevenson, Bergwerff, Heiser, & Resing, 2014). The intervention (teaching) phase followed the graduated-prompt procedure (Campione & Brown, 1987) that was based on a series of five hints (from metacognitive through cognitive to solution constructing prompts), progressively revealing the solution in each of the ten analogy items.…”

Can Intelligence Testing Inform Educational Intervention for Children with Reading Disability?

“…Thus, laboratory-based researchers have often sought to build a superior intelligence test (for the purposes of classification and prediction), or sought to examine the nature of thinking and reasoning processes, rather than seek to develop measures that can help teachers operate more powerful classroom practices that can cater for struggling learners. While it is fair to conclude that dynamic approaches have proven capable of improving prediction, particularly for those who have not grown up under optimal learning conditions [123,124] and have yielded valuable insights into differences in complex problem-solving [118] the current value of dynamic measures for informing classroom practice for identified individuals with learning difficulties remains minimal [115,125]. Although proponents have produced interesting case studies (e.g., [94,96]) these have not proven sufficiently persuasive to justify to the field the adoption of comparatively complex, time-consuming and costly approaches.…”