1 / 15

Reasoning Abilities

Reasoning Abilities. David F. Lohman Psychological & Quantitative Foundations College of Education University of Iowa. 김 민 경 2008. 9. 25. Complex human behavior as indicants of intelligence Two main facts for the theory of intelligence (1) Understanding how individuals solve complex tasks

murguia
Download Presentation

Reasoning Abilities

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Reasoning Abilities David F. LohmanPsychological & Quantitative FoundationsCollege of EducationUniversity of Iowa 김 민 경 2008. 9. 25

  2. 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 Not Appropriate Appropriate • 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 Human Intelligence

  3. 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) Verbal Nonverbal g Quantitative Then, which tasks should we study? (ex) sentence completion tests, sentence comprehension tests (ex) form boards tests (ex) making relational judgments (greater than or less than)

  4. 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

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

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

  7. 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. Reasoning Abilities are…

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

  9. 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 patterns Easier to retain and manipulate in working memory ** Experts: more abstract formation of problem representation than novices Important synergy between good knowledge and good reasoning The role of knowledge in reasoning

  10. 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 (1/2)

  11. 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 Processes in Reasoning Tasks (2/2)

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

  13. Individual differences in reasoning processes may primarily reflect individual differences inworking 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 Working Memory Capacity

  14. (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. Limitations of the information-processing paradigm

  15. 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 Conclusion

More Related