Title: Factors Affecting the Development of Analogical Reasoning in Young Children: A Review of Literature
Abstract: reasoning has been of special interest to philosophers and scientists since Aristotle (Pauen & Wilkening, 1997, p. 90). It is considered to be a hallmark of human intelligence (Holyoak, Junn, & Billman, 1984) and a critical component of human knowledge (Goswami, 1992). Furthermore, analogical reasoning may be crucial for cognitive development since it the goal-directed transfer of information from a domain that is well to a novel domain that is not yet understood (Holyoak, Junn, & Billman, 1984, p. 2052). The literature in the field of analogical reasoning has been concerned with two types of analogies (Alexander & et al, 1989; Levinson & Carpenter, 1974; Piaget, 2001; Holyoak, Junn, & Billman, 1984; Sternberg & Downing, 1982; Sternberg & Nigro, 1980). The first type is the classical analogy, which takes the form A:B::C:D, such as Dog:Fur::Bird:Feathers. Classical analogy problems appear in the format,A:B::C:--, the solution to which requires solving for the D term. The second type is the problem solving analogy in which a respondent first is given a problem to solve and receives training in how to solve the problem (the base domain). The individual then must use the information provided in the base domain to solve a new, more difficult problem that requires the same solution as the first (target domain) (Goswami, 1992). In this type of analogy, information is transferred from the base domain to the target domain (Brown & Kane, 1988; Chen, et al. 1997; Gentner & Toupin, 1984). For example, Crisafi and Brown (1986) instructed children as young as 2- and 3-years of age to solve a problem requiring two different solutions. First, the children were asked to find a penny or a dime in a piggy bank or purse (the first solution) and then were trained to insert the coin into a gumball machine (the second solution) and thereby obtain a gumball. After training, children could transfer what they had learned in the gumball machine task (the base domain) to a more difficult task that shared the same solution. In this task, children were required to insert a marble into a certain hole in an automatic-box to obtain a toy charm. However, the task differed in the surface aspects in that the base task involved a gumball machine and the transfer task involved an automatic-box (the target situation). Traditionally, analogical reasoning has been considered as accessible only to older children and adults (Lunzer, 1965; Levinson & Carpenter, 1974; Sternberg & Nigro, 1980; Piaget, 2001). Thus, only a few studies have investigated analogical reasoning in younger children (Goswami, 1992). Recently, however, there is some acceptance of the idea that analogical competence may occur earlier in life than previously thought possible (Singer-Freeman, 2005). Early Research on Analogical Reasoning Early research related to analogical reasoning focused on classical analogies. This research identified several factors that restricted children's ability to solve such analogies. For example, Piaget (2001) considered analogical reasoning a higher-order cognitive ability that is not fully acquired until children enter formal operations, around 11- or 12-years of age (cited in Goswami, 1992). Another explanation is that young children's poor performance on tests of analogical reasoning is due to their lack of verbal understanding of the terms of analogies. Therefore, children's failure to solve classical analogies may occur because of verbal limitations rather than because of a lack of analogical reasoning processes (Sternberg & Nigro, 1980). Finally, Singer-Freeman (2005) suggests three elements that may limit analogical reasoning in young children: (a) an inability to make relational inferences, which requires the child to realize that the link between A and B can be applied to C and D to solve the analogy; (b) lack of relational knowledge, which requires that the child have information about higher-order relations upon which the analogy solution depends (c) lack of task clarity, which allows the child to understand the aim of the task. …
Publication Year: 2008
Publication Date: 2008-12-22
Language: en
Type: review
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 7
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot