Rapid Learning in a Children's Museum via Analogical Comparison

Cognitive Science

Volumn 40, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 224-240

  Gentner, Dedre ^a   Levine, Susan C ^b   Ping, Raedy ^c   Isaia, Ashley ^d   Dhillon, Sonica ^e   Bradley, Claire ^f   Honke, Garrett ^g  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

^c LOYOLA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

^e AMERICAN INSTITUTES FOR RESEARCH   (United States)

^f Children's Museum of Manhattan   (United States)

^g BINGHAMTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Analogical learning; Spatial learning; STEM learning in museums

Indexed keywords

CHILD; CONTROLLED STUDY; EDUCATION; ENGINEERING; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMATION CENTER; LEARNING; MALE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL;

CHILD; ENGINEERING; FEMALE; HUMANS; LEARNING; MALE; MUSEUMS;

EID: 84956803347     PISSN: 03640213     EISSN: 15516709     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12248     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Alfieri, L., Nokes-Malach, T. J., & Schunn, C. D. (2013). Learning through case comparisons: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychologist, 48(2), 87-113.
2. Baenninger, M., & Newcombe, N. (1989). The role of experience in spatial test performance: A meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 20, 327-344.
3. Bassok, M., & Holyoak, K. J. (1989). Interdomain transfer between isomorphic topics in algebra and physics. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(1), 153-166.
4. Benjamin, N., Haden, C. A., & Wilkerson, E. (2010). Enhancing building, conversation, and learning through caregiver-child interactions in a children's museum. Developmental Psychology, 46(2), 502-515.
5. Callanan, M. (2012). Conducting cognitive developmental research in museums: Theoretical issues and practical considerations. Journal of Cognition and Development, 13(2), 137-151.
6. Cannon, J., Levine, S., & Huttenlocher, J. (2007). A system for analyzing children and caregivers' language about space in structured and unstructured contexts. Spatial Intelligence and Learning Center (SILC) technical report.
7. Casey, M. B., Nuttall, R., & Pezaris, E. (2001). Spatial-mechanical reasoning skills versus mathematical self-conficence as mediators of sex differences on mathematics subtests using cross-national sex-based items. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32, 28-57.
8. Catrambone, R., & Holyoak, K. J. (1989). Overcoming contextual limitations on problem-solving transfer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 15(6), 1147-1156.
9. Cheng, Y. L., & Mix, K. S. (2014) Spatial training improves children's mathematics ability. Journal of Cognition and Development, 15(1), 2-11.
10. Christie, S., & Gentner, D. (2010). Where hypotheses come from: Learning new relations by structural alignment. Journal of Cognition and Development, 11(3), 356-373.
11. Christie, S., & Gentner, D. (2014). Language helps children succeed on a classic analogy task. Cognitive Science, 38, 383-397.
12. Connor, J. M., & Serbin, L. A. (1977). Behaviorally based masculine and feminine preference scales for preschoolers: Correlates with other classroom behaviors and cognitive tests. Child Development, 48, 1411-1416.
13. Dunbar, K. (1999). How scientists build models in vivo science as a window on the scientific mind. In L. Magnani, N. J. Nersessian, & P. Thagard (Eds.), Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery (pp. 85-89). New York: Springer.
14. Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K. D., & Gentner, D. (1989). The structure-mapping engine: Algorithm and examples. Artificial Intelligence, 41, 1-63.
15. Frye, D., Clark, A., Watt, D., & Watkins, C. (1986). Children's construction of horizontals, verticals, and diagonals: An operational explanation of the "oblique effect". Developmental Psychology, 22(2), 213-217.
16. Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155-170.
17. Gentner, D. (2002). Analogy in scientific discovery: The case of Johannes Kepler. In L. Magnani & N. J. Nersessian (Eds.), Model-based reasoning: Science, technology, values (pp. 21-39). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publisher.
18. Gentner, D. (2010). Bootstrapping the mind: Analogical processes and symbol systems. Cognitive Science, 34(5), 752-775.
19. Gentner, D., Anggoro, F. K., & Klibanoff, R. S. (2011). Structure-mapping and relational language support children's learning of relational categories. Child Development, 82(4), 1173-1188.
20. Gentner, D., & Gunn, V. (2001). Structural alignment facilitates the noticing of differences. Memory and cognition, 29(4), 565-577.
21. Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J., & Hung, B. (2007). Comparison facilitates children's learning of names for parts. Journal of Cognition and Development, 8, 285-307.
22. Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J., & Thompson, L. (2003). Learning and transfer: A general role for analogical encoding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 393-405.
23. Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1994). Structural alignment in comparison: No difference without similarity. Psychological Science, 5(3), 152-158.
24. Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52, 45-56.
25. Gentner, D., & Namy, L. (1999). Comparison in the development of categories. Cognitive Development, 14, 487-513.
26. Gentner, D., Özyürek, A., Gürcanli, Ö., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2013). Spatial language facilitates spatial cognition: Evidence from children who lack language input. Cognition, 127(3), 318-330.
27. Gentner, D., & Toupin, C. (1986). Systematicity and surface similarity in the development of analogy. Tech. Rep., Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.
28. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1-38.
29. Goldstone, R. L., & Son, J. Y. (2005). The transfer of scientific principles using concrete and idealized simulations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(1), 69-110.
30. Gonzales, P., Calsyn, C., Jocelyn, L., Mak, K., Kastberg, D., Arafeh, S., Williams, T., & Tsen, W. (2000). Pursuing excellence: Comparisons of international eighth-grade mathematics and science achievement from a U.S. perspective, 1995 and 1999. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
31. Graham, S. A., Namy, L. L., Gentner, D., & Meagher, K. (2010) The role of comparison in preschoolers' novel object categorization. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 107, 280-290.
32. Gunderson, E. A., Ramirez, G., Beilock, S. L., & Levine, S. C. (2012). The relation between spatial skill and early number knowledge: The role of the linear number line. Developmental Psychology, 48, 1229-1241.
33. Haden, C. A., Ornstein, P. A., Eckerman, C. O., & Didow, S. M. (2001). Mother-Child conversational interactions as events unfold: Linkages to subsequent remembering. Child Development, 72, 1016-1031.
34. Hermer-Vasquez, L., Moffet, A., & Munkholm, P. (2001). Language, space, and the development of cognitive flexibility in humans: The case of two spatial memory tasks. Cognition, 79, 263-299.
35. Jee, B., Uttal, D., Gentner, D., Manduca, C., Shipley, T., & Sageman, B. (2013). Finding faults: Analogical comparison supports spatial concept learning in geoscience. Cognitive Processing, 14(2), 175-187.
36. Jee, B. D., Uttal, D. H., Gentner, D., Manduca, C., Shipley, T., Sageman, B., Ormand, C. J., & Tikoff, B. (2010). Analogical thinking in geoscience education. Journal of Geoscience Education, 58(1), 2-13.
37. Kotovsky, L., & Gentner, D. (1996). Comparison and categorization in the development of relational similarity. Child Development, 67, 2797-2822.
38. Loewenstein, J., & Gentner, D. (2001). Spatial mapping in preschoolers: Close comparisons facilitate far mappings. Journal of Cognition and Development, 2(2), 189-219.
39. Loewenstein, J., & Gentner, D. (2005). Relational language and the development of relational mapping. Cognitive Psychology, 50, 315-353.
40. Markman, A. B., & Gentner, D. (1993). Splitting the differences: A structural alignment view of similarity. Journal of Memory and Language, 32(4), 517-535.
41. Markman, A. B., & Gentner, D. (1996). Commonalities and differences in similarity comparisons. Memory & Cognition, 24(2), 235-249.
42. Nersessian, N. J. (1984). Faraday to Einstein: Constructing meaning in scientific theories. New York: Springer.
43. Newcombe, N. S., Ambady, N., Eccles, J., Gomez, L., Klahr, D., Linn, M., Miller, K., & Mix, K. (2009). Psychology's role in mathematics and science education. American Psychologist, 64(6), 538-550.
44. Olson, D. R. (1970). Cognitive development: The child's acquisition of diagonality. New York: Psychology Press.
45. Paik, J. H., & Mix, K. S. (2006). Preschoolers' use of surface similarity in object comparisons: Taking context into account. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 95, 194-214.
46. Pruden, S. M., Levine, S. C., & Huttenlocher, J. (2011). Children's spatial thinking: Does talk about the spatial world matter? Developmental Science, 14(6), 1417-1430.
47. Pyers, J. E., Shusterman, A., Senghas, A., Spelke, E. S., & Emmorey, K. (2010). Evidence from an emerging sign language reveals that language supports spatial cognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(27), 12116-12120.
48. R Development Core Team (2012). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
49. Reed, S. K., Dempster, A., & Ettinger, M. (1985). Usefulness of analogous solutions for solving algebra word problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 106-125.
50. Richland, L. E., Holyoak, K. J., & Stigler, J. W. (2004). Analogy generation in eighth-grade mathematics classrooms. Cognition and Instruction, 22(1), 37-60.
51. Richland, L. E., Zur, O., & Holyoak, K. J. (2007). Cognitive supports for analogies in the mathematics classroom. Science, 316(5828), 1128.
52. Rittle-Johnson, B., & Star, J. R. (2007). Does comparing solution methods facilitate conceptual and procedural knowledge? An experimental study on learning to solve equations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 561-574.
53. Rittle-Johnson, B., & Star, J. R. (2009). Compared to what? The effects of different comparisons on conceptual knowledge and procedural flexibility for equation solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 529-544.
54. Rivet, A., & Kastens, K. (2013). Measurement of analogical reasoning around earth science models. Presented at the Annual Meeting of NARST, Rio Grande, Puerto Rico.
55. Rivet, A., Lyons, C., Miller, A., Schmalstig, M., & Kastens, K. (2013). Exploring students' reasoning around models in earth science. Presented at the Annual Meeting of NARST, Rio Grande, Puerto Rico.
56. Ross, B. H., & Kilbane, M. C. (1997). Effects of principle explanation and superficial similarity on analogical mapping in problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(2), 427-440.
57. Sagi, E., Gentner, D., & Lovett, A. (2012). What difference reveals about similarity. Cognitive Science, 36(6), 1019-1050.
58. Saracho, O. N. (1994). The relationship of preschool children's cognitive style to their play preferences. Early Child Development and Care, 97, 21-33.
59. Saracho, O. N. (1995). Preschool children's cognitive style and their selection of academic areas in their play. Early Child Development and Care, 112, 27-42.
60. Schunn, C. D., Richey, J. E., & Alfieri, L. (2011). Contrasting cases can facilitate hands-on middle school science learning at scale. Symposium presented at the Association for Psychological Science 23rd Annual Convention, Washington, DC.
61. Schwartz, D. L., Chase, C. C., Oppezzo, M. A., & Chin, D. B. (2011). Practicing versus inventing with contrasting cases: The effects of telling first on learning and transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(4), 759-775.
62. Shea, D. L., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2001). Importance of assessing spatial ability in intellectually talented young adolescents: A 20-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 604-614.
63. Spencer, J. P., Perone, S., Smith, L. B., & Samuelson, L. K. (2011). Learning words in space and time: Probing the mechanisms behind the suspicious-coincidence effect. Psychological Science, 22(8), 1049-1105. doi:10.1177/0956797611413934.
64. Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual revolutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
65. Tracy, D. M. (1987). Toys, spatial ability, and science and mathematics achievement: Are they related? Sex Roles, 17, 115-138.
66. Vosniadou, S. (1989). Analogical reasoning as a mechanism in knowledge acquisition: A developmental perspective. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 413-437). New York: Cambridge University Press.
67. Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009). Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 817-835.
68. Wilkerson, E., Benjamin, N. J., & Haden, C. A. (2007). Building understanding in under construction: Can preparatory activities support collaborative learning? Paper presented at the Meeting of the Cognitive Development Society.