Computer or paper analogy puzzles: Does assessment mode influence young children's strategy progression

Educational and Child Psychology

Volumn 28, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 67-84

  Stevenson, Claire E ^a   Touw, Kirsten W J ^b   Resing, Wilma C M ^b  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b NONE

Author keywords

Analogical reasoning; Computerised testing; Strategy development

Indexed keywords

EID: 84871416249     PISSN: 02671611     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Akdemir, O. & Oguz, A. (2008). Computer-based testing: An alternative for the assessment of Turkish undergraduate students. Computers & Education, 51, 1198-1204.
2. Alkhadher, O., Anderson, N. & Clarke, D. (1994). Computer-based testing: A review of recent developments in research and practice. European Work and Organisational Psychologist, 4(2), 169-187.
3. Alibali, M.W. (1999). How children change their minds: Strategy change can be gradual or abrupt. Developmental Psychology, 35(1), 127-145.
4. Applegate, B. (1993). Construction of geometric analogy problems by young children in a computer-based test. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 9(1), 61-77.
5. Bisanz, J., Bisanz, G.L. & LeFevre, J. (1984). Interpretation of instructions: A source of individual differences in analogical reasoning. Intelligence, 8, 161-177.
6. Bleichrodt, N., Drenth, P.J.D., Zaal, J.N. & Resing, W.C.M. (1987). Handleiding bij de Revisie Amsterdamse Kinder Intelligentie Test [Instructions for the Revised Amsterdam Child Intelligence Test]. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
7. Bugbee Jr., A.C. (1996). The equivalence of paperand-pencil and computer-based testing. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(3), 282-289.
8. Chen, Z. & Siegler, R.S. (2000). Across the great divide: Bridging the gap between understanding of toddlers' and older children's thinking. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 65(2) (Serial No. 261
9. Cheshire, A., Ball, L.J. & Lewis, C. (2005). Self-explanation, feedback and the development of analogical reasoning skill: Microgenetic evidence for a metacognitive processing account. In B.G. Bara, L. Barsalou & M. Bucciarelli (Eds.), Perspectives on thought and language: Inter-relations in development (pp.435-440). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
10. Csapó, B. (1997). The development of inductive reasoning: Cross-sectional assessments in an educational context. International Journal of Behavioural Development, 20(4), 609-626. (Pubitemid 127700156)
11. Donker, A. & Reitsma, P. (2007). Young children's ability to use a computer mouse. Computers & Education, 48, 602-617. (Pubitemid 44821550)
12. Goswami, U. (1991). Analogical reasoning: What develops? A review of research and theory. Child Development, 62, 1-22.
13. Goswami, U. (1992). Analogical reasoning in children. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
14. Goswami, U. & Brown, A.L. (1989). Melting chocolate and melting snowmen: Analogical reasoning and causal relations. Cognition, 35, 69-95.
15. Hadwin, A.F., Winne, P.H. & Nesbit, J.C. (2005). Roles for software technologies in advancing research and theory in educational psychology. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 1-24. (Pubitemid 40465814)
16. Hosenfeld, B., Boom, D.C. van den & Resing, W.C.M. (1997). New instrument: Constructing geometric analogies for the longitudinal testing of elementary school children. Journal of Educational Measurement, 34(4), 367-372.
17. Joiner, R., Messer, D., Light, P. & Littleton, K. (1998). It is best to point for young children: A comparison of children's pointing and dragging. Computers in Human Behaviour, 14(3), 513-529. (Pubitemid 128424210)
18. MacKenzie, S., Sellen, A. & Buxton, W. (1991). A comparison of input devices in elemental pointing and dragging tasks. In S.P. Robertson, G.M. Olson & J.S. Olsen (Eds.), Proceedings of CHI '91 Human Factors in Computing Systems: Reaching Through Technology (pp.161-166). New York: ACM.
19. Mazzeo, J. & Harvey, A.L. (1988). The equivalence of scores from automated and conventional educational and psychological tests: A review of the literature. College Board Report No. 88-8 (ETS RR-88-21). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
20. Mead, A.D. & Drasgow, F. (1993). Equivalence of computerised and paper-and-pencil cognitive ability tests: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 449-458.
21. Mills, C.N., Potenza, M.T., Fremer, J.J. & Ward, W.C (Eds.). (2002). Computer-based testing: Building foundation for future assessments. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
22. Millsap, C.M. (2000). Comparison of computer testing versus traditional paper-and-pencil testing. Dissertation prepared for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. University of North Texas.
23. Mulholland, T.M., Pellegrino, J.W. & Glaser, R. (1980). Components of geometric analogy solution. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 252-284.
24. Parshall, C.G., Spray, J.A., Kalohn, J.C. & Davey, T. (2002). Practical considerations in computer-based testing. New York: Springer-Verlag.
25. Pellegrino, J.W., Chudowsky, N. & Glaser, R. (Eds.) (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
26. Pellegrino, J.W. & Glaser, R. (1982). Analysing aptitudes for learning: Inductive reasoning. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 2). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
27. Primi, R. (2001). Complexity of geometric inductive reasoning tasks-Contribution to the understanding of fluid intelligence. Intelligence, 30, 41-70.
28. Rattermann, M.J. & Gentner, D. (1998). More evidence for a relational shift in the development of analogy: Children's performance on a causalmapping task. Cognitive Development, 13, 453-478. (Pubitemid 128340992)
29. Raven, J.C. (1958). Standard progressive matrices. London: H.K. Lewis.
30. Resing, W.C.M. & Drenth, P. (2007). Intelligence: Knowing and measuring. [Intelligentie: Weten en Meten.] Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Nieuwzijds.
31. Richland, L.E., Morrison, R.G. & Holyoak, K.J. (2006). Children's development of analogical reasoning: Insights from scene analogy problems. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 94, 249-273. (Pubitemid 43758131)
32. Russell, M., Goldberg, A. & O'Connor, K. (2003). Computer-based testing and validity: A look back and into the future. Technology and Assessment Study Collaborative, Boston College.
33. Segal, J.W., Chipman, S.F. & Glaser, R. (1985). Thinking and learning skills (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
34. Siegler, R.S. (1995). How does change occur: A microgenetic study of number conservation. Cognitive Psychology, 28, 225-273.
35. Siegler, R. S. (1999). Strategic development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(11), 430-435. (Pubitemid 29499811)
36. Siegler, R.S. & Svetina, M. (2002). A microgenetic/cross-sectional study of matrix completion: Comparing short-term and long-term change. Child Development, 73(3), 793-809. (Pubitemid 41692439)
37. Singleton, C. (2001). Computer-based assessment in education. Educational and Child Psychology, 18(3), 58-74. (Pubitemid 33355286)
38. Sternberg, R.J. (1977). Component processes in analogical reasoning. Psychological Review, 84(4), 353-378.
39. Stevenson, C.E., Resing, W.C.M. & Froma, M.N. (2009). Analogical reasoning skill acquisition with self-explanation in 7-to 8-year-olds: Does feedback help? Educational & Child Psychology, 26(3), 6-17.
40. Tunteler, E., Pronk, C.M.E. & Resing, W.C.M. (2008). Inter-and intra-individual variability in the process of change in the use of analogical strategies to solve geometric tasks in children: A microgenetic analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 44-60.
41. Tunteler, E. & Resing, W.C.M. (2002). Spontaneous analogical transfer in 4-year-olds: A microgenetic study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 83, 149-166. (Pubitemid 39659804)
42. Tunteler, E. & Resing, W.C.M. (2004). Age differences in patterns of spontaneous production of strategies for analogy problems among 5-to 8-year-old children. Educational and Child Psychology, 21(1), 74-88. (Pubitemid 38629033)
43. Tzuriel, D. & Shamir A. (2002) The effects of mediation in computer-assisted dynamic assessment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 21-32. (Pubitemid 36836967)
44. White, D.M., Clements, C.B. & Fowler, R.D. (1985). A comparison of computer administration with standard administration of the MMPI. Computers in Human Behaviour, 1, 153-162.
45. Williams, J.E. & McCord, D.M. (2006). Equivalence of standard and computerised versions of the Raven Progressive Matrices Test. Computers in Human Behaviour, 22, 791-800.