Is Analogical Reasoning just Another Measure of Executive Functioning?

A commentary on: Deficits in analogical reasoning in adolescents with traumatic brain injury

Individual differences in relational learning and analogical reasoning:A computational model of longitudinal change

Children’s cognitive control and knowledge at school entry predict growth rates in analogical reasoning skill over time; however, the mechanisms by which these factors interact and impact learning are unclear. We propose that inhibitory control (IC) is critical for developing both the relational representations necessary to reason and the ability to use these representations in complex problem solving. We evaluate this hypothesis using computational simulations in a model of analogical thinking, Discovery of Relations by Analogy/Learning and Inference with Schemas and Analogy (DORA/LISA; Doumas et al., 2008). Longitudinal data from children who solved geometric analogy problems repeatedly over 6 months show three distinct learning trajectories though all gained somewhat: analogical reasoners throughout, non-analogical reasoners throughout, and transitional – those who start non-analogical and grew to be analogical. Varying the base level of top-down lateral inhibition in DORA affected the model’s ability to learn relational representations, which, in conjunction with inhibition levels used in LISA during reasoning, simulated accuracy rates and error types seen in the three different learning trajectories. These simulations suggest that IC may not only impact reasoning ability but may also shape the ability to acquire relational knowledge given reasoning opportunities

Young children's analogical reasoning across cultures: Similarities and differences

A cross-cultural comparison between U.S. and Hong Kong preschoolers examined factors responsible for young children's analogical reasoning errors. On a scene analogy task, both groups had adequate prerequisite knowledge of the key relations, were the same age, and showed similar baseline performance, yet Chinese children outperformed U.S. children on more relationally complex problems. Children from both groups were highly susceptible to choosing a perceptual or semantic distractor during reasoning when one was present. Taken together, these similarities and differences suggest that (a) cultural differences can facilitate better knowledge representations by allowing more efficient processing of relationally complex problems and (b) inhibitory control is an important factor in explaining the development of children's analogical reasoning. © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.postprin

05/25/1948 Letter from the Law Department of the City of New York

Letter from W. Bernard Richland, Assistant Corporation Counsel In Charge of Opinions and Legislation Division of the Law Department of the City of New York, New York, to Louis-Philippe Gagné.https://digitalcommons.usm.maine.edu/fac-lpg-letters-1948-01-06/1050/thumbnail.jp

The Effects of Gender Stereotypes for Structure Mapping in Mathematics

Fear of a negative stereotype about one’s performance canlead to temporary underperformance on tests; e.g. womenmay underperform on a math test when prompted to thinkabout gender. The current study extends this literature toexamine whether stereotype threat not only leads tounderperformance on tests, but also may impact reasoningand learning more broadly. We focus in particular on theeffects of stereotype threat on analogical learning, a complexreasoning process that imposes a high working memory load.In this study, we examined the effects of gender stereotypeswhen females were asked to learn by comparing themathematical concepts of combinations and permutations.Overall, participants given a threat before learning gained lessfrom the instruction, as reflected by assessments administeredimmediately after the lesson and after a 1-week delay. Thiscould lead to systematic differences in the quality of abstractrepresentational knowledge for individuals from negativelystereotyped groups

Children’s spontaneous comparisons from 26 to 58 months predict performance in verbal and non-verbal analogy tests in 6th grade

Comparison supports the development of children’s analogical reasoning. The evidence for this claim comes from laboratory studies. We describe spontaneous comparisons produced by 24 typically developing children from 26 to 58 months. Children tend to express similarity before expressing difference. They compare objects from the same category before objects from different categories, make global comparisons before specific comparisons, and specify perceptual features of similarity/difference before non-perceptual features. We then investigate how a theoretically interesting subset of children’s comparisons – those expressing a specific feature of similarity or difference – relates to analogical reasoning as measured by verbal and non-verbal tests in 6th grade. The number of specific comparisons children produce before 58 months predicts their scores on both tests, controlling for vocabulary at 54 months. The results provide naturalistic support for experimental findings on comparison development, and demonstrate a strong relationship between children’s early comparisons and their later analogical reasoning