Low-performing students struggle more with working memory demands at the inferring and mapping stages of relational reasoning¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? In Bayesian network analyses of TORR items, the component processes of encoding, inferring, mapping, and applying were evident across all four relational reasoning forms, and low-performing students struggled more with working memory demands at inferring and mapping. → Patricia A Alexander 2016

Evidence¶

Patricia A Alexander 2016¶

Patricia A Alexander. (2016). Relational thinking and relational reasoning: harnessing the power of patterning. npj Science of Learning. https://doi.org/10.1038/npjscilearn.2016.4

q2 · i? · review · r2

Bayesian network analysis by Grossnickle et al. using TORR items to explore componential processes underlying the four forms of relational reasoning. The analysis found Sternberg's encode, infer, map, and apply processes evident across anomalies, antitheses, and antinomies; no effect size is printed.

"These researchers also determined that low-performing students struggled more with working memory demands at the point of inferring and mapping."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Working Memory — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• Relational reasoning appears malleable and trainable, but may stabilize in adulthood without relevant experience — related
• Automatic word recognition frees resources for comprehension — related
• Higher TORR scores, especially antinomy, predict more creative engineering design solutions — related