Differential relations between facets of complex problem solving and students' immigration background

Journal of Educational Psychology

Volumn 106, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 681-695

  Sonnleitner, Philipp ^a   Brunner, Martin ^b   Keller, Ulrich ^a   Martin, Romain ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LUXEMBOURG   (Luxembourg)

^b FREIE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Complex problem solving; Genetics Lab; Measurement invariance; Students with immigration background; Students' exploration behavior

Indexed keywords

EID: 84894277427     PISSN: 00220663     EISSN: 19392176     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0035506     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Abele, S., Greiff, S., Gschwendtner, T., Wüstenberg, S., Nickolaus, R., Nitzschke, A., & Funke, J. (2012). Dynamische Problemlösekompetenz [Dynamic problem solving]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 15, 363-391. doi:10.1007/s11618-012-0277-9
2. Amthauer, R., Brocke, B., Liepmann, D., & Beauducel, A. (2001). Intelligenz-Struktur-Test 2000 R [Intelligence Structure Test 2000 R]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
3. Bagozzi, R. P., & Edwards, J. R. (1998). A general approach for representing constructs in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 45-87. doi:10.1177/109442819800100104
4. Becker, M., Lüdtke, O., Trautwein, U., Köller, O., & Baumert, J. (2012). The differential effects of school tracking on psychometric intelligence: Do academic-track schools make students smarter? Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 682-699. doi:10.1037/a0027608
5. Blech, C., & Funke, J. (2005). Dynamis review: An overview about applications of the Dynamis approach in cognitive psychology. Retrieved from http://www.die-bonn.de/esprid/dokumente/doc-2005/ blech05_01.pdf
6. Brunner, M., Nagy, G., & Wilhelm, O. (2012). A tutorial on hierarchically structured constructs. Journal of Personality, 80, 796-846. doi:10.1111/ j.1467-6494.2011.00749.x
7. Buchner, A. (1995). Basic topics and approaches to the study of complex problem solving. In P. A. Frensch & J. Funke (Eds.), Complex problem solving: The European perspective (pp. 27-63). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
8. Bühner, M., Kröner, S., & Ziegler, M. (2008). Working memory, visualspatial- intelligence and their relationship to problem-solving. Intelligence, 36, 672-680. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2008.03.008
9. Burton, R., & Martin, R. (2008). L'orientation scolaire au Luxembourg: "Au-dela` de l'égalité des chances . . . le gâchis d'un potentiel humain" [Tracking decisions in Luxembourg: "Beyond equal opportunities . . . a waste of human capital"]. In R. Martin, C. Dierendonck, C. Meyers, & M. Noesen (Eds.), La place de l'école dans la société luxembourgeoise de demain (pp. 165-186). Bruxelles, Belgium: DeBoeck.
10. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
11. Cohen, P., Cohen, J., Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1999). The problem of units and the circumstance for POMP. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 34, 315-346. doi:10.1207/S15327906MBR3403_2
12. Elliot Bennett, R., Jenkins, F., Persky, H., & Weiss, A. (2003). Assessing complex problem solving performances. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 10, 347-359.
13. Fan, X., & Sivo, S. A. (2007). Sensitivity of fit indices to model misspecification and model types. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 509- 529. doi:10.1080/00273170701382864
14. Funke, J. (1992). Dealing with dynamic systems: Research strategy, diagnostic approach and experimental results. German Journal of Psychology, 16, 24-43.
15. Funke, J. (2003). Problemlösendes Denken [Problem solving thinking]. Stuttgart, Germany: Kohlhammer.
16. Funke, J. (2010). Complex problem solving: A case for complex cognition? Cognitive Processing, 11, 133-142. doi:10.1007/s10339-009-0345-0
17. Greiff, S., Kretzschmar, A., Müller, J., Spinath, B., & Martin, R. (2014). Computer-based assessment of complex problem solving in educational contexts and how it is influenced by students' level of information and communication technology literacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 666-680. doi:10.1037/a0035426
18. Greiff, S., Wüstenberg, S., & Funke, J. (2012). Dynamic problem solving: A new assessment perspective. Applied Psychological Measurement, 36, 189-213. doi:10.1177/0146621612439620
19. Greiff, S., Wüstenberg, S., Molnár, G., Fischer, A., Funke, J., & Csapó, B. (2013). Complex problem solving in educational contexts-something beyond g: Concept, assessment, measurement invariance, and construct validity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 364 -379. doi: 10.1037/a0031856
20. Güss, C. D., Tuason, M. T., & Gerhard, C. (2010). Cross-national comparisons of complex problem-solving strategies in two microworlds. Cognitive Science, 34, 489-520. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01087.x
21. Gustafsson, J.-E. (2008). Schooling and intelligence: Effects of track of study on level and profile of cognitive abilities. In P. Kyllonen, R. Roberts, & L. Stankov (Eds.), Extending intelligence: Enhancement and new constructs (pp. 37-59). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
22. Hadwin, A. F., Nesbit, J. C., Jamieson-Noel, D., Code, J., & Winne, P. H. (2007). Examining trace data to explore self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 2, 107-124. doi:10.1007/s11409-007-9016-7
23. Hall, R. J., Snell, A. F., & Singer Foust, M. (1999). Item parceling strategies in SEM: Investigating the subtle effects of unmodeled secondary constructs. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 233-256. doi: 10.1177/109442819923002
24. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
25. Iacobucci, D. (2010). Structural equations modeling: Fit Indices, sample size, and advanced topics. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 90-98. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2009.09.003
26. Jöreskog, K. G., & Goldberger, A. S. (1975). Estimation of a model with multiple indicators and multiple causes of a single latent variable. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 10, 631-639.
27. Keller, U., & Sonnleitner, P. (2012). Genetics Lab scoring algorithm. Luxembourg, Luxembourg: University of Luxembourg.
28. Kempert, S., Saalbach, H., & Hardy, I. (2011). Cognitive benefits and costs of bilingualism in elementary school students: The case of mathematical word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 547-561. doi:10.1037/a0023619
29. Klapproth, F., Glock, S., Krolak-Schwerdt, S., Martin, R., & Böhmer, M. (2013). Prädiktoren der Sekundarschulempfehlung in Luxemburg [Predictors of recommendations for secondary school type in Luxembourg]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 16, 355-379. doi:10.1007/s11618-013-0340-1
30. Kröner, S., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2005). Intelligence assessment with computer simulations. Intelligence, 33, 347-368. doi:10.1016/j.intell .2005.03.002
31. Kuhn, D. (2009). Do students need to be taught how to reason? Educational Research Review, 4, 1-6. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2008.11.001
32. Leutner, D., Fleischer, J., Wirth, J., Greiff, S., & Funke, J. (2012). Analytische und dynamische Problemlösekompetenz im Lichte internationaler Schulleistungsvergleichsstudien [Analytic and dynamic problem solving competence in the light of international student large scale assessment]. Psychologische Rundschau, 63, 34-42. doi:10.1026/0033- 3042/a000108
33. Levin, T., & Shohamy, E. (2008). Achievement of immigrant students in mathematics and academic Hebrew in Israeli school: A large-scale evaluation study. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 34, 1-14. doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2008.01.001
34. Little, T. D. (1997). Mean and covariance structures (MACS) analyses of cross-cultural data: Practical and theoretical issues. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32, 53-76. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3201_3
35. Little, T. D., Rhemtulla, M., & Gibson, K. (in press). Why the items versus parcels controversy needn't be one. Psychological Methods.
36. Lubke, G. H., Dolan, C. V., Kelderman, H., & Mellenbergh, G. J. (2003). On the relationship between sources of within- and between-group differences and measurement invariance in the common factor model. Intelligence, 31, 543-566. doi:10.1016/S0160-2896(03)00051-5
37. Martin, A. J., Liem, G. A. D., Mok, M. M. C., & Xu, J. (2012). Problem solving and immigrant student mathematics and science achievement: Multination findings from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 1054- 1073. doi:10.1037/a0029152
38. McDonald, R. P. (2010). Structural models and the art of approximation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 675- 686. doi:10.1177/ 1745691610388766
39. MENFP, SCRIPT, Université du Luxembourg, & EMACS. (2007). PISA 2006: Rapport national Luxembourg [PISA 2006: National report Luxembourg]. Luxembourg, Luxembourg: Ministère de l'éducation nationale et de la Formation professionnelle - Service de Coordination de la Recherche et de l'Innovation Pédagogiques et Technologiques and Université du Luxembourg.
40. Meunier, M. (2011). Immigration and student achievement: Evidence from Switzerland. Economics of Education Review, 30, 16-38. doi:10.1016/ j.econedurev.2010.06.017
41. Muthén, B. O. (1989). Latent variable modeling in heterogeneous populations. Psychometrika, 54, 557-585. doi:10.1007/BF02296397
42. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998). Mplus user's guide (5th ed). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
43. OECD. (2010). PISA 2012 problem solving framework (draft for field trial). Paris, France: OECD.
44. OECD. (2012). Untapped skills: Realising the potential of immigrant students. Paris, France: OECD.
45. Ridgway, J., & McCusker, S. (2003). Using computers to assess new educational goals. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 10, 309-328.
46. Rollett, W. (2008). Strategieeinsatz, erzeugte Information und Informationsnutzung bei der Exploration und Steuerung komplexer dynamischer Systeme [Strategy use, generated information and use of information in exploring and controlling compley, dynamic systems]. Berlin, Germany: Lit Verlag.
47. Saalbach, H., Eckstein, D., Andri, N., Hobi, R., & Grabner, R. H. (2013). When language of instruction and language of application differ: Cognitive costs of bilingual mathematics learning. Learning and Instruction, 26, 36-44. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.01.002
48. Schleicher, A. (2006). Where immigrant students succeed: A comparative review of performance and engagement in PISA 2003. Intercultural Education, 17, 507-516. doi:10.1080/14675980601063900
49. Schweizer, F., Wüstenberg, S., & Greiff, S. (2013). Validity of the Micro- DYN approach: Complex problem solving predicts school grades beyond working memory capacity. Learning and Individual Differences, 24, 42-52. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2012.12.011
50. Shewbridge, C., Tamassia, C., Santiago, P., & Ehren, M. (2012). OECD reviews of evaluation and assessment in education: Luxembourg 2012. Paris, France: OECD. doi:10.1787/9789264116801-en
51. Sonnleitner, P., Brunner, M., Greiff, S., Funke, J., Keller, U., Martin, R., . . . Latour, T. (2012). The Genetics Lab: Acceptance and psychometric characteristics of a computer-based microworld assessing complex problem solving. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 54, 54-72.
52. Sonnleitner, P., Keller, U., Martin, R., & Brunner, M. (2013). Students' complex problem-solving abilities: Their structure and relations to reasoning ability and educational success. Intelligence, 41, 289-305. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2013.05.002
53. Sonnleitner, P., Keller, U., Martin, R., Latour, T., & Brunner, M. (in press). Assessing complex problem solving in the classroom: Meeting challenges and opportunities. In B. Csapó & J. Funke (Eds.), The nature of problem solving (pp. xx-xx). Paris, France: OECD.
54. Stanat, P., Rauch, D., & Segeritz, M. (2010). Schülerinnen und Schüler mit Migrationshintergrund [Students with immigration background]. In E. Klieme, C. Artelt, J. Hartig, N. Jude, O. Köller, M. Prenzel, . . . P. Stanat (Eds.), PISA 2009. Bilanz nach einem Jahrzehnt (pp. 200-230). Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
55. Strohschneider, S., & Güss, D. (1999). The fate of the Moros: A crosscultural exploration of strategies in complex and dynamic decision making. International Journal of Psychology, 34, 235-252. doi:10.1080/ 002075999399873
56. van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2008). On the meaning of cross-cultural differences in simple cognitive measures. Educational Research and Evaluation, 14, 215-234. doi:10.1080/13803610802048833
57. Vollmeyer, R., Burns, B. D., & Holyoak, K. J. (1996). Impact of goal specificity on strategy use and acquisition of problem structure. Cognitive Science, 20, 75-100. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2001_3
58. Widaman, K. F., & Reise, S. P. (1997). Exploring the measurement invariance of psychological instruments: Applications in the substance use domain. In K. J. Bryant, M. Windle, & S. G. West (Eds.), The science of prevention: Methodological advances from alcohol and substance abuse research (pp. 281-324). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10222-009
59. Wüstenberg, S., Greiff, S., & Funke, J. (2012). Complex problem solving-More than reasoning? Intelligence, 40, 1-14. doi:10.1016/j.intell .2011.11.003
60. Wüstenberg, S., Greiff, S., Molnár, G., & Funke, J. (2014). Cross-national gender differences in complex problem solving and their determinants. Learning and Individual Differences, 29, 18-29. doi:10.1016/j.lindif .2013.10.006