Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article
Original Article

The Prediction of Problem-Solving Assessed Via Microworlds

A Study on the Relative Relevance of Fluid Reasoning and Working Memory

Published Online:June 26, 2015https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000263

Abstract

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.

References

  • Bühner, M., Kröner, S. & Ziegler, M. (2008). Working memory, visual-spatial intelligence and their relationship to problem-solving. Intelligence, 36, 672–680. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Dörner, D. (1981). Über die Schwierigkeiten menschlichen Umgangs mit Komplexität [On the difficulties humans have in dealing with complexity]. Psychologische Rundschau, 32, 163–179. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Fischer, A., Greiff, S. & Funke, J. (2012). The process of solving complex problems. Journal of Problem Solving, 4, 19–42. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Funke, J. (2001). Dynamic systems as tools for analysing human judgement. Thinking and Reasoning, 7, 69–89. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Greiff, S., Fischer, A., Wüstenberg, S., Sonnleitner, P., Brunner, M. & Martin, R. (2013). A multitrait-multimethod study of assessment instruments for Complex Problem Solving. Intelligence, 41, 579–596. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Greiff, S. & Martin, R. (2014). What you see is what you (don’t) get. A comment on Funke’s (2014) opinion paper. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1120. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Greiff, S. & Wüstenberg, S. (2014). Assessment with microworlds: Factor structure, invariance, and latent mean comparison of the MicroDYN test. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 30, 304–314. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000194 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Krkovic, K., Greiff, S., Kupiainen, S., Vainikainen, M.-P. & Hautamäki, J (2014). Teacher evaluation of student ability. What roles do teacher gender, student gender, and their interaction play? Educational Research, 56, 243–256. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kröner, S., Plass, J. L. & Leutner, D. (2005). Intelligence assessment with computer simulations. Intelligence, 33, 347–368. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G. & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151–173. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • McGrew, K. S. (2009). CHC theory and the Human Cognitive Abilities Project. Standing on the shoulders of the giants of psychometric intelligence research. Intelligence, 37, 1–10. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Oberauer, K., Süß, H.-M., Schulze, R., Wilhelm, O. & Wittmann, W. W. (2000). Working memory capacity. Facets of a cognitive ability construct. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 1017–1045. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • OECD. (2014). PISA 2012 Results. Creative Problem Solving. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Raven, J. (2000). Psychometrics, cognitive ability, and occupational performance. Review of Psychology, 7, 51–74. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Schweizer, F., Wüstenberg, S. & Greiff, S. (2013). Validity of the MicroDYN approach: Complex problem solving predicts school grades beyond working memory capacity. Learning and Individual Differences, 24, 42–52. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Sternberg, R. J. & Berg, C. A. (1986). Quantitative integration: Definitions of intelligence: A comparison of the 1921 and 1986 symposia. In R. J. SternbergD. K. DettermanEds., What is intelligence? Contemporary viewpoints on its nature and definition (pp. 155–162). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Vainikainen, M.-P. (2014). Finnish primary school pupils’ performance in learning to learn assessments: A longitudinal perspective on educational equity. University of Helsinki, Department of Teacher Education Research Reports, 360. Helsinki: Picaset. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Wiley, J., Jarosz, A. F., Cushen, P. J. & Colflesh, G. J. H. (2011). New rule use drives the relation between working memory capacity and Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 256–263. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Wittmann, W. & Süß, H.-M. (1999). Investigating the paths between working memory, intelligence, knowledge, and complex problem-solving performances via Brunswik symmetry. In P. L. AckermanP. C. KyllonenR. D. RobertsEds., Learning and individual differences: Process, traits, and content determinants (pp. 77–108). Washington, DC: APA. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Wüstenberg, S., Greiff, S. & Funke, J. (2012). Complex problem solving – More than reasoning? Intelligence, 40, 1–14. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Wüstenberg, S., Greiff, S., Vainikainen, M. P. & Murphy, K. (2015). Individual differences in Complex Problem Solving Skills. How they evolve and what they imply. Manuscript submitted for publication. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Wüstenberg, S., Stadler, M., Hautamäki, J. & Greiff, S. (2014). The role of strategy knowledge for the application of strategies in complex problem solving tasks. Technology, Knowledge, and Learning, 19, 127–146. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar