reasoning abilities slide #1 김 민 경 2008. 9. 25 reasoning abilities david f. lohman...

Reasoning Abilities Slide #1

김 민 경

2008. 9. 25

Reasoning Abilities

David F. LohmanPsychological & Quantitative Foundations

College of EducationUniversity of Iowa


• Complex human behavior as indicants of intelligence

• Two main facts for the theory of intelligence(1) Understanding how individuals solve complex tasks(2) Why individuals differ in their abilities

Human Intelligence

• Faster or more efficient processing of elementary tasks• The efficiency of biological process

• The writing of novels• The solving of complex math. Problems• The designing of skyscrapers & microchips

Not Appropriate Appropriate


• There are unlimited numbers of complex tasks • Cognitive Tests as Cognitive Tasks (complex human behavior)

• Three important features (Snow, Kyllonen, & Marshalek, 1984) • Test cluster by content (Verbal, Spatial, Quantitative)• Test cluster defining broad factors tend to fall near the center (G)• Test complexity is roughly related to distance from the center (G)

Then, which tasks should we study?

Verbal

Quantitative

Nonverbalg(ex) sentence completion tests,

sentence comprehension tests(ex) form boards tests

(ex) making relational judgments (greater than or less than)


Measures of reasoning

• Many different tests have been used to measure reasoning• ex) Analogy, Series Completion, Classification most commonly used

• Position of Reasoning• Sternberg (1986)

• Intelligence The amount of reasoning involved in a given task

• Gustaffson (1988)• General mental ability (G) ≈ Fluid ability (Gf) ≈ Inductive Reasoning (I)

• Inductive reasoning – primary ability most commonly associated with G


Measures of Reasoning:Fluid-Crystallized Continuum (1/2)

Fluid Crystallized

Cognitive abilities

Physical skills

General fluid ability (Gf)

Science achievement

Math achievement

Social studies achievement

Knowledge of literature

Specific factual

knowledge

General physical fitness

Basketball

Swimming

Football

Field hockey

Volleyball

Wrestling Cycling

• Cognitive and Physical skills develop munch in the same way• Test of general fluid abilities are akin to measures of general physical fitness• Measures of crystallized achievements are like observed proficiencies in sports

• Individuals with high level of fitness easier to learn physically demanding activities• Individuals with reason well learn more quickly and perform at higher levels


Fluid Crystallized

Cognitive abilities

Physical skills

General fluid ability (Gf)

Science achievement

Math achievement

Social studies achievement

Knowledge of literature

Specific factual

knowledge

General physical fitness

Basketball

Swimming

Football

Field hockey

Volleyball

Wrestling Cycling

• Physical fitness is an outcome of participation in physically demanding activities• Students who participate in competitive swimming not only become better swimmers, but also improve their overall levels of physical fitness

• Fluid abilities are also outcome of crystallized achievement• Students who learn how to prove theorems in a class also learn how to reason in more sophisticated ways.

• All abilities (physical & cognitive) are developed through exercise and experience.

Measures of Reasoning:Fluid-Crystallized Continuum (2/2)


Reasoning Abilities are…

• Reasoning abilities are• Critical aptitudes for learning difficult material • Important outcomes of such learning

• Common Misunderstanding• Ability 와 Knowledge 는 별개의 것 • A ability test measures (or ought to measure) the innate potential or capacity of the learner, whereas a achievement test measures (or ought to measure) only knowledge and skill acquired through formal schooling.


•Two main facts for the theory of intelligence(1) Understanding how individuals solve complex tasks

(2) Why individuals differ in their abilities


The role of knowledge in reasoning

• Reasoning well in domains of non-trivial complexity depends importantly on knowledge.

• An sophisticated knowledge base supports sophisticated forms of reasoning

• Formation of moderately abstract conceptual relations Detect coherent patternsEasier to retain and manipulate in working memory ** Experts: more abstract formation of problem representation than novices

• Important synergy between good knowledge and good reasoning


Processes in Reasoning Tasks (1/2)

• Inductive Reasoning Tasks – 4 Types of processes(1) Encoding Process (Attribute Discovery)(2) Inference Process (Attribute Comparison)(3) Relation Process (Rule Evaluation)(4) Decision Process (Response Process)

• Representatively, Analogy, Series Completion, Classification • Ex1) Analogy [A is to B as C is to B]

• Encoding Process: Create mental representation of stimuli (terms)• Inference Process: Determine the relationship between two terms

• Ex2) Series Problems [(Given 3,4,6,9,13. What comes next?]• Inference Process: Identify the pattern in a sequence of letters or numbers

• Ex3) Classification Problems [apple pear, banana belongs: Orange or Pea]• Inference Process: Identify a category


Processes in Reasoning Tasks (2/2)

• Pellegrino (1985)• One of the most important aspects of inductive reasoning is the ability to create complex relationship structure in memory and to determine their consistency.

• Errors occur when working memory resources are exceeded.• Sternberg (1986), 3 Types in Reasoning Process

(1) Selective Encoding: Distinguishing relevant from irrelevant information(2) Selective Comparison: Deciding what mentally stored information is relevant for solving a problem

(3) Selective Combination: Combining selective encoded or compared information in working memory

• Inductive vs. Deductive• Inductive - Selective encoding & comparison processes• Deductive – Selective combination process


•Two main facts for the theory of intelligence(1) Understanding how individuals solve complex tasks(2) Why individuals differ in their abilities


Working Memory Capacity

• Individual differences in reasoning processes may primarily reflect individual differences in working memory resources.

• Hunt & Lansman (1982)• Higher correlations with G require more attentional resources

• A major source of individual differences on reasoning tasks lies in • How much information one must maintain in working memory, especially while effecting some transformation of that information


Limitations of the information-processing paradigm

(a) The neglect of affect and conation

(b) The failure to understand the contextual specificity of abilities• A theory of G must explain individual differences in problem solving not only on tests, but in school and other everyday contexts.


Conclusion

• Reasoning abilities are not static but developed through experience.

• Prior knowledge and skill are critical to determine the level of reasoning.

• Individual differences in reasoning are correlated with the amount of information individuals can hold in working memory while performing some transformation on it.

• Important usage of reasoning ability test an indicator of readiness to discover what to do in situations

• Good reasoning tests shows smaller differences between majority and minority students than good achievement tests

reasoning abilities slide #1 김 민 경 2008. 9. 25 reasoning abilities david f. lohman...

Documents