Investigating the paths between working memory, intelligence, knowledge, and complex problem-solving performances via Brunswik symmetry.

2004 ◽  
pp. 77-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Werner W. Wittmann ◽  
Heinz-Martin Süß
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Complex Problem ◽  
Complex Problem Solving

The Prediction of Problem-Solving Assessed Via Microworlds

2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 298-306 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel Greiff ◽  
Katarina Krkovic ◽  
Jarkko Hautamäki
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Complex Problem ◽  
Two Dimensions ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Complex Problem Solving ◽  
Visual Spatial ◽  
Rule Knowledge ◽  
Rule Application ◽  
Fluid Reasoning

Abstract. In this study, we explored the network of relations between fluid reasoning, working memory, and the two dimensions of complex problem solving, rule knowledge and rule application. In doing so, we replicated the recent study by Bühner, Kröner, and Ziegler (2008) and the structural relations investigated therein [ Bühner, Kröner, & Ziegler, (2008) . Working memory, visual-spatial intelligence and their relationship to problem-solving. Intelligence, 36, 672–680]. However, in the present study, we used different assessment instruments by employing assessments of figural, numerical, and verbal fluid reasoning, an assessment of numerical working memory, and a complex problem solving assessment using the MicroDYN approach. In a sample of N = 2,029 Finnish sixth-grade students of which 328 students took the numerical working memory assessment, the findings diverged substantially from the results reported by Bühner et al. Importantly, in the present study, fluid reasoning was the main source of variation for rule knowledge and rule application, and working memory contributed only a little added value. Albeit generally in line with previously conducted research on the relation between complex problem solving and other cognitive abilities, these findings directly contrast the results of Bühner et al. (2008) who reported that only working memory was a source of variation in complex problem solving, whereas fluid reasoning was not. Explanations for the different patterns of results are sought, and implications for the use of assessment instruments and for research on interindividual differences in complex problem solving are discussed.

scholarly journals Working Memory, Fluid Reasoning, and Complex Problem Solving: Different Results Explained by the Brunswik Symmetry

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 5
Author(s):  
André Kretzschmar ◽  
Stephan Nebe
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Cognitive Abilities ◽  
Latent Variables ◽  
Complex Problem ◽  
Equation Modeling ◽  
Complex Problem Solving ◽  
Symmetry Principle ◽  
Fluid Reasoning ◽  
The Impact

In order to investigate the nature of complex problem solving (CPS) within the nomological network of cognitive abilities, few studies have simultantiously considered working memory and intelligence, and results are inconsistent. The Brunswik symmetry principle was recently discussed as a possible explanation for the inconsistent findings because the operationalizations differed greatly between the studies. Following this assumption, 16 different combinations of operationalizations of working memory and fluid reasoning were examined in the present study (N = 152). Based on structural equation modeling with single-indicator latent variables (i.e., corrected for measurement error), it was found that working memory incrementally explained CPS variance above and beyond fluid reasoning in only 2 of 16 conditions. However, according to the Brunswik symmetry principle, both conditions can be interpreted as an asymmetrical (unfair) comparison, in which working memory was artificially favored over fluid reasoning. We conclude that there is little evidence that working memory plays a unique role in solving complex problems independent of fluid reasoning. Furthermore, the impact of the Brunswik symmetry principle was clearly demonstrated as the explained variance in CPS varied between 4 and 31%, depending on which operationalizations of working memory and fluid reasoning were considered. We argue that future studies investigating the interplay of cognitive abilities will benefit if the Brunswik principle is taken into account.

scholarly journals The Impact of Symmetry: Explaining Contradictory Results Concerning Working Memory, Reasoning, and Complex Problem Solving

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandra Zech ◽  
Markus Bühner ◽  
Stephan Kröner ◽  
Moritz Heene ◽  
Sven Hilbert
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Complex Problem ◽  
Complex Problem Solving ◽  
The Impact

scholarly journals Working Memory, Fluid Reasoning, and Complex Problem Solving: Different Results Explained by the Brunswik Symmetry

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andre Kretzschmar ◽  
Stephan Nebe
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Cognitive Abilities ◽  
Latent Variables ◽  
Structural Equation ◽  
Complex Problem ◽  
Complex Problem Solving ◽  
Symmetry Principle ◽  
Fluid Reasoning ◽  
The Impact

In order to investigate the nature of Complex Problem Solving (CPS) within the nomological network of cognitive abilities, few studies have simultantiously considered working memory and intelligence, and results are inconsistent. The Brunswik symmetry principle was recently discussed as a possible explanation for the inconsistent findings, because the operationalizations differed greatly between the studies. Following this assumption, 16 different combinations of operationalizations of working memory and fluid reasoning were examined in the present study (N = 152). Based on structural equation modelling with single-indicator latent variables (i.e., corrected for measurement error), it was found that working memory incrementally explained CPS variance above and beyond fluid reasoning in only two of 16 conditions. However, according to the Brunswik symmetry principle, both conditions can be interpreted as an asymmetrical (unfair) comparison, in which working memory was artificially favored over fluid reasoning. We conclude that there is little evidence that working memory plays a unique role in solving complex problems independent of fluid reasoning. Furthermore, the impact of the Brunswik symmetry principle was clearly demonstrated as the explained variance in CPS varied between 4 and 31% depending on which operationalizations of working memory and fluid reasoning were considered. We argue that future studies investigating the interplay of cognitive abilities will benefit if the Brunswik principle is taken into account.

scholarly journals Co-thought gesturing supports more complex problem solving in subjects with lower visual working-memory capacity

2018 ◽  
Vol 84 (2) ◽  
pp. 502-513 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charly Eielts ◽  
Wim Pouw ◽  
Kim Ouwehand ◽  
Tamara van Gog ◽  
Rolf A. Zwaan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Visual Working Memory ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
Memory Capacity ◽  
Complex Problem ◽  
Complex Problem Solving

Predicting Complex Problem Solving and school grades with working memory and ability self-concept

2016 ◽  
Vol 49 ◽  
pp. 323-331 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anja Meißner ◽  
Samuel Greiff ◽  
Gidon T. Frischkorn ◽  
Ricarda Steinmayr
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Complex Problem ◽  
Self Concept ◽  
Complex Problem Solving ◽  
School Grades

Complex Problem Solving and Worked Examples

2009 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 129-138 ◽  
Author(s):  
Florian Schmidt-Weigand ◽  
Martin Hänze ◽  
Rita Wodzinski
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
Cognitive Load ◽  
Learning Experience ◽  
Worked Examples ◽  
Complex Problem ◽  
Complex Problem Solving ◽  
Strategic Learning ◽  
Learning Behavior ◽  
Worked Example ◽  
8Th Grade

How can worked examples be enhanced to promote complex problem solving? N = 92 students of the 8th grade attended in pairs to a physics problem. Problem solving was supported by (a) a worked example given as a whole, (b) a worked example presented incrementally (i.e. only one solution step at a time), or (c) a worked example presented incrementally and accompanied by strategic prompts. In groups (b) and (c) students self-regulated when to attend to the next solution step. In group (c) each solution step was preceded by a prompt that suggested strategic learning behavior (e.g. note taking, sketching, communicating with the learning partner, etc.). Prompts and solution steps were given on separate sheets. The study revealed that incremental presentation lead to a better learning experience (higher feeling of competence, lower cognitive load) compared to a conventional presentation of the worked example. However, only if additional strategic learning behavior was prompted, students remembered the solution more correctly and reproduced more solution steps.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document