Relational Reasoning in Science, Medicine, and Engineering

Educational Psychology Review

Volumn 29, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 73-95

  Dumas, Denis ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

Engineering; Medicine; Relational reasoning; Science; STEM

Indexed keywords

EID: 84966710388     PISSN: 1040726X     EISSN: 1573336X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10648-016-9370-6     Document Type: Review

References (121)

1. Alexander, P. A. (2003). The development of expertise: the journey from acclimation to proficiency. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 10–14. doi:10.3102/0013189X032008010.
2. Alexander, P. A., & The Disciplined Reading and Learning Research Laboratory. (2012). Reading into the future: competence for the 21st century. Educational Psychologist, 47(4), 259–280. doi:10.1080/00461520.2012.722511.
3. Alexander, P. A., White, C. S., & Mangano, N. (1983). Examining the effects of direct instruction in analogical reasoning on reading comprehension. In J. A. Niles & L. A. Harris (Eds.), Searches in meaning in reading/language processing and instruction: thirty-second yearbook of the national reading conference (pp. 36–41). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference.
4. Alexander, P. A., White, C. S., Haensly, P. A., & Crimmins-Jeanes, M. (1987). Training in analogical reasoning. American Educational Research Journal, 24(3), 387–404. doi:10.3102/00028312024003387.
5. Alexander, P. A., Pate, P. E., Kulikowich, J. M., Farrell, D. M., & Wright, N. L. (1989). Domain-specific and strategic knowledge: effects of training on students of differing ages or competence levels. Learning and Individual Differences, 1, 283–325.
6. Alexander, P. A., Dumas, D., Grossnickle, E. M., List, A., & Firetto, C. (2015). Measuring relational reasoning. Journal of Experimental Education, 83, 1–33.
7. Alfieri, L., Nokes-Malach, T. J., & Schunn, C. D. (2013). Learning through case comparisons: a meta-analytic review. Educational Psychologist, 48(2), 87–113. doi:10.1080/00461520.2013.775712.
8. Baker, S. T., Friedman, O., & Leslie, A. M. (2010). The opposites task: Using general rules to test cognitive flexibility in preschoolers. Journal of Cognition and Development, 11(2), 240–254. doi:10.1080/15248371003699944.
9. Baldo, J. V., Bunge, S. A., Wilson, S. M., & Dronkers, N. F. (2010). Is relational reasoning dependent on language? A voxel-based lesion symptom mapping study. Brain and Language, 113(2), 59–64. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2010.01.004.
10. Bassok, M., Dunbar, K. N., & Holyoak, K. J. (2012). Introduction to the special section on the neural substrate of analogical reasoning and metaphor comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(2), 261–263.
11. Bianchi, I., Savardi, U., & Kubovy, M. (2011). Dimensions and their poles: a metric and topological approach to opposites. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 1232–1265. doi:10.1080/01690965.2010.520943.
12. Bradshaw, G. F. (1992). The airplane and the logic of invention. In R. N. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive models of science (pp. 239–250). St. Paul: Univ. of Minnesota Press.
13. Broughton, S. H., Sinatra, G. M., & Reynolds, R. E. (2010). The nature of the refutation text effect: an investigation of attention allocation. The Journal of Educational Research, 103(6), 407–423. doi:10.1080/00220670903383101.
14. Burton, R. V. (1970). Validity of retrospective reports assessed by the multitrait-multimethod analysis. Developmental Psychology, 3(3, Pt.2), 1–15. doi:10.1037/h0029930.
15. Cattell, R. B. (1987). Intelligence: its structure, growth and action. New York: Elsevier.
16. Chan, J., & Schunn, C. (2015). The impact of analogies on creative concept generation: lessons from an in vivo study in engineering design. Cognitive Science, 39(1), 126–155. doi:10.1111/cogs.12127.
17. Chan, J., Fu, K., Schunn, C., Cagan, J., Wood, K., & Kotovsky, K. (2011). On the benefits and pitfalls of analogies for innovative design: Ideation performance based on analogical distance, commonness, and modality of examples. Journal of Mechanical Design, 133(8), 081004. doi:10.1115/1.4004396.
18. Chi, M. T. H., & Roscoe, R. D. (2002). The processes and challenges of conceptual change. In M. Limon & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: issues in theory and practice (pp. 3–27). Amsterdam: Kluwer.
19. Chi, M. T. H., & Slotta, J. D. (1993). The ontological coherence of intuitive physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2-3), 249–260. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1002&3_5.
20. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: a theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 1–49. doi:10.2307/1170558.
21. Cho, S., Holyoak, K. J., & Cannon, T. D. (2007). Analogical reasoning in working memory: resources shared among relational integration, interference resolution, and maintenance. Memory & Cognition, 35(6), 1445–1455. doi:10.3758/BF03193614.
22. Christensen, B. T., & Schunn, C. D. (2007). The relationship of analogical distance to analogical function and preinventive structure: the case of engineering design. Memory & Cognition, 35(1), 29–38. doi:10.3758/BF03195939.
23. Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. V. (1996). Beyond the individual-social antinomy in discussions of Piaget and Vygotsky. Human Development, 39(5), 250–256. doi:10.1159/000278475.
24. Crone, E. A., Wendelken, C., van Leijenhorst, L., Honomichl, R. D., Christoff, K., & Bunge, S. A. (2009). Neurocognitive development of relational reasoning. Developmental Science, 12(1), 55–66. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00743.x.
25. Cucina, J. M., Peyton, S. T., Su, C., & Byle, K. A. (2016). Role of mental abilities and mental tests in explaining high-school grades. Intelligence, 54, 90–104. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2015.11.007.
26. Dahl, D. W., & Moreau, P. (2002). The influence and value of analogical thinking during new product ideation. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(1), 47–60. doi:10.1509/jmkr.39.1.47.18930.
27. Darden, L. (2006). Reasoning in biological discoveries: essays on mechanisms, interfield relations, and anomaly resolution. Cambridge University Press.
28. Derry, S. J., Schunn, C. D., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (2014). Interdisciplinary collaboration: an emerging cognitive science. Psychology Press.
29. Devlin, B., Fienberg, S. E., Resnick, D. P., & Roeder, K. (2013). Intelligence, genes, and success: scientists respond to the bell curve. Springer Science & Business Media.
30. Doumas, L. A. A., Hummel, J. E., & Sandhofer, C. M. (2008). A theory of the discovery and predication of relational concepts. Psychological Review, 115, 1–43.
31. Dumas, D., & Schmidt, L. (2015). Relational reasoning as predictor for engineering ideation success using analogies in TRIZ. Journal of Engineering Design.
32. Dumas, D., & Alexander, P. A. (2016). Calibration of the test of relational reasoning. Psychological Assessment. http://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000267.
33. Dumas, D., & Dunbar, K. N. (2016). The creative stereotype effect. PLOS ONE, 11(2), e0142567. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142567.
34. Dumas, D., Alexander, P. A., & Grossnickle, E. M. (2013). Relational reasoning and its manifestations in the educational context: a systematic review of the literature. Educational Psychology Review, 25, 391–427. doi:10.1007/s10648-013-9224-4.
35. Dumas, D., Alexander, P. A., Baker, L. M., Jablansky, S., & Dunbar, K. N. (2014). Relational reasoning in medical education: patterns in discourse and diagnosis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 1021–1035. doi:10.1037/a003677.
36. Dumas, D., Alexander, P. A., & Schmidt, L. (2016). Predicting creative problem-solving in mechanical engineering. Thinking Skills and Creativity, in press.
37. Dunbar, K. (1993). Concept discovery in a scientific domain. Cognitive Science, 17(3), 397–434. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1703_3.
38. Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 365–396). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
39. 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. 85–99). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
40. Dunbar, K., & Blanchette, I. (2001). The in vivo/in vitro approach to cognition: the case of analogy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(8), 334–339. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01698-3.
41. Dunbar, K. N., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2005). Causal thinking in science: how science and students interpret the unexpected. In M. E. Gorman, R. D. Tweney, D. C. Gooding, & A. Kincannon (Eds.), Scientific and technological thinking (pp. 57–80). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
42. Dunbar, K. N., & Klahr, D. (2012). Scientific thinking and reasoning. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 736–754). New York: Oxford University Press.
43. Dunbar, K. N., Fugelsang, J. A., & Stein, C. (2007). Do naïve theories ever go away? Using brain and behavior to understand changes in concepts. In M. C. Lovett & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with data (pp. 193–205). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
44. Ehri, L. C., Satlow, E., & Gaskins, I. (2009). Grapho-phonemic enrichment strengthens keyword analogy instruction for struggling young readers. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 25(2-3), 162–191. doi:10.1080/10573560802683549.
45. Fales, C. L., Knowlton, B. J., Holyoak, K. J., Geschwind, D. H., Swerdloff, R. S., & Gonzalo, I. G. (2003). Working memory and relational reasoning in Klinefelter syndrome. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 9(06), 839–846. doi:10.1017/S1355617703960036.
46. Fugelsang, J. A., & Dunbar, K. N. (2005). Brain-based mechanisms underlying complex causal thinking. Neuropsychologia, 43(8), 1204–1213. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.10.012.
47. Gardner, H. (1995). Perennial antinomies and perpetual redrawings: is there progress in the study of mind? In R. Solso & D. Massaro (Eds.), The science of the mind: 2001 and beyond (pp. 65–78). New York: Oxford University Press.
48. Gentner, D., & Grudin, J. (1985). The evolution of mental metaphors in psychology: a 90-year retrospective. American Psychologist, 40(2), 181–192. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.40.2.181.
49. Gentner, D., & Jeziorski, M. (1989). Historical shifts in the use of analogy in science. In B. Gholson, W. R. J. Shadish, R. A. Neimeyer, & A. C. Houts (Eds.), Psychology of science: contributions to metascience (pp. 296–325). New York: Cambridge University Press.
50. Goswami, U. (2013). The development of reasoning by analogy. In P. Barrouillet & C. Gauffroy (Eds.), The development of thinking and reasoning (pp. 49–70). New York: Psychology Press.
51. Goswami, U., & Bryant, P. (1992). Rhyme, analogy, and children’s reading. In P. B. Gough, L. C. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 49–63). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
52. Green, A. E., Fugelsang, J. A., Kraemer, D. J. M., Shamosh, N. A., & Dunbar, K. N. (2006). Frontopolar cortex mediates abstract integration in analogy. Brain Research, 1096(1), 125–137. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2006.04.024.
53. Green, A. E., Kraemer, D. J. M., Fugelsang, J. A., Gray, J. R., & Dunbar, K. N. (2012). Neural correlates of creativity in analogical reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(2), 264–272. doi:10.1037/a0025764.
54. Greene, J. A., Murphy, P. K., Butler, A., Firetto, C. M., Allen, E., Wang, J., Oeder, C., Wei, L., & Yu, S. B. (2016). Fostering relational reasoning and scientific understanding through quality talk discourse. In D. Dumas (Ed.), The malleability of relational reasoning. Washington, DC: Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
55. Grossnickle, E. M., Dumas, D., Alexander, P. A., & Baggetta, P. (2016). Individual differences in the process of relational reasoning. Learning and Instruction, 42, 141–159. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.013.
56. Hesse, M. B. (1966). Models and analogies in science (Vol. 7). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
57. Holmes, F. L. (1987). Lavoisier and the chemistry of life: an exploration of scientific creativity. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
58. Holyoak, K. J. (2012). Analogy and relational reasoning. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 234–259). New York: Oxford University Press.
59. Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1995). Mental leaps: analogy in creative thought. Cambridge, MA, US: The MIT Press.
60. Hummel, J. E., & Holyoak, K. J. (1997). Distributed representations of structure: a theory of analogical access and mapping. Psychological Review, 104(3), 427–466. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.104.3.427.
61. Iding, M. K. (1997). How analogies foster learning from science texts. Instructional Science, 25(4), 233–253.
62. Jablansky, S., Alexander, P. A., Dumas, D., & Compton, V. (2015). Developmental differences in relational reasoning among primary and secondary school students. Journal of Educational Psychology. doi:10.1037/edu0000070.
63. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1989). Analogy and the exercise of creativity. Similarity and Analogical Reasoning, 313–331.
64. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2005). Flying bicycles: how the wright brothers invented the airplane. Mind & Society, 4(1), 27–48. doi:10.1007/s11299-005-0005-8.
65. Kendeou, P., & O’Brien, N. (2015). Antithetical reasoning with refutational texts. In G. M. Sinatra (Ed.), Relational reasoning in STEM domains: what empirical research can contribute to the national dialogue. Chicago: Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
66. Klaczynski, P. A., Gordon, D. H., & Fauth, J. (1997). Goal-oriented critical reasoning and individual differences in critical reasoning biases. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 470–485. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.89.3.470.
67. Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). The psychology of scientific discovery: search in two problem spaces. Cognitive Science, 12, 1–48.
68. Klahr, D., & Simon, H. A. (1999). Studies of scientific discovery: complementary approaches and convergent findings. Psychological Bulletin, 125(5), 524–543. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.5.524.
69. Knowlton, B. J., Morrison, R. G., Hummel, J. E., & Holyoak, K. J. (2012). A neurocomputational system for relational reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(7), 373–381. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2012.06.002.
70. Kokinov, B. N., & Petrov, A. A. (2001). Integration of memory and reasoning in analogy-making: the AMBR model. In D. Gentner, K. J. Holyoak, & B. N. Kokinov (Eds.), The analogical mind: perspectives from cognitive science (pp. 59–124). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
71. Krawczyk, D. C. (2012). The cognition and neuroscience of relational reasoning. Brain Research, 1428, 13–23. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2010.11.080.
72. Krawczyk, D. C., McClelland, M. M., & Donovan, C. M. (2011). A hierarchy for relational reasoning in the prefrontal cortex. Cortex: A Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior, 47(5), 588–597. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2010.04.008.
73. Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions: 50th anniversary edition. University of Chicago Press.
74. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2007). Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument. Thinking and Reasoning, 13(2), 90–104. doi:10.1080/13546780600625447.
75. Kulkarni, D., & Simon, H. A. (1988). The processes of scientific discovery: the strategy of experimentation. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 139–175. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1202_1.
76. Kurz-Milcke, E., Nersessian, N. J., & Newstetter, W. C. (2004). What has history to do with cognition? Interactive methods for studying research laboratories. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 4(3-4), 663–700. doi:10.1163/1568537042484959.
77. Langley, P., Simon, H. A., Bradshaw, G. L., & Zytkow, J. M. (1987). Scientific discovery: computational explorations of the creative processes. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
78. Mason, L., & Sorzio, P. (1996). Analogical reasoning in restructuring scientific knowledge. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 11(1), 3–23. doi:10.1007/BF03172933.
79. Melby-Lervåg, M., & Hulme, C. (2013). Is working memory training effective? A meta-analytic review. Developmental Psychology, 49(2), 270–291. doi:10.1037/a0028228.
80. Mesirov, J. P. (2010). Computer science: Accessible reproducible research. Science, 327 (5964). http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1179653
81. Michalski, R. S., Carbonell, J. G., & Mitchell, T. M. (2013). Machine learning: an artificial intelligence approach. Springer Science & Business Media.
82. Michelson, A. A., & Morley, E. (1887). On the relative motion of the Earth and the luminiferous ether. American Journal of Science, 34(203), 333–345.
83. Miller, A. I. (1975). Albert Einstein and Max Wertheimer: a Gestalt psychologist’s view of the genesis of special relativity theory. History of Science, 13(2), 75–103.
84. Murphy, P. K., Greene, J. A., Firetto, C. M., Montalbano, C., Mengyi, L., Wei, L., & Croninger, R. M. V. (2016). Promoting relational reasoning in elementary students’ writing. In D. Dumas (Ed.), The malleability of relational reasoning. Washington, DC: Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
85. Nersessian, N. (1984). Faraday to Einstein: constructing meaning in scientific theories. Springer Science & Business Media.
86. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
87. Okada, T., & Simon, H. A. (1997). Collaborative discovery in a scientific domain. Cognitive Science, 21(2), 109–146. doi:10.1016/S0364-0213(99)80020-2.
88. Otero, J. (2009). Question generation and anomaly detection in texts. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 47–59). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
89. Ozkan, O., & Dogan, F. (2013). Cognitive strategies of analogical reasoning in design: differences between expert and novice designers. Design Studies, 34(2), 161–192. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2012.11.006.
90. Patel, V. L., Arocha, J. F., & Zhang, J. (2012). Medical reasoning and thinking. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 736–754). New York: Oxford University Press.
91. Popper, K. (2005). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Routledge.
92. Pridham, K. F., & Hansen, M. F. (1980). An observation methodology for the study of interactive clinical problem-solving behavior in primary care settings. Medical Care, 18(4), 360–375.
93. Resnick, I., & Shipley, T. F. (2013). Breaking new ground in the mind: an initial study of mental brittle transformation and mental rigid rotation in science experts. Cognitive Processing, 14(2), 143–152. doi:10.1007/s10339-013-0548-2.
94. Richey, J. E., Phillips, J. S., Schunn, C. D., & Schneider, W. (2014). Is the link from working memory to analogy causal? No analogy improvements following working memory training gains. PLOS ONE, 9(9), e106616. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106616.
95. Richland, L. E., & McDonough, I. M. (2010). Learning by analogy: discriminating between potential analogs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(1), 28–43. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.09.001.
96. Richland, L. E., & Simms, N. (2015). Analogy, higher order thinking, and education. WIREs Cognitive Science, 6(2), 177–192. doi:10.1002/wcs.1336.
97. Richland, L. E., Zur, O., & Holyoak, K. J. (2007). Cognitive supports for analogies in the mathematics classroom. Science, 316(5828), 1128–1129. doi:10.1126/science.1142103.
98. Richland, L. E., Chan, T. K., Morrison, R. G., & Au, T. K. F. (2010). Young children’s analogical reasoning across cultures: similarities and differences. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 105(1–2), 146–153. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2009.08.003.
99. Shrager, J., & Langley, P. (1990). Computational models of scientific discovery and theory formation. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
100. Siegler, R., & Araya, R. (2005). A computational model of conscious and unconscious strategy discovery. In R. V. Kail & R. V. Kail (Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 33, pp. 1–42). San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press.
101. Sinatra, G. M., & Broughton, S. H. (2011). Bridging reading comprehension and conceptual change in science education: the promise of refutation text. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(4), 374–393.
102. Smith, L. B. (1984). Young children’s understanding of attributes and dimensions: a comparison of conceptual and linguistic measures. Child Development, 55(2), 363–380. doi:10.2307/1129949.
103. Sorensen, R. A. (2003). A brief history of the paradox: philosophy and the labyrinths of the mind. New York: Oxford University Press.
104. Sprenger, A. M., Atkins, S. M., Bolger, D. J., Harbison, J. I., Novick, J. M., Chrabaszcz, J. S., & Dougherty, M. R. (2013). Training working memory: limits of transfer. Intelligence, 41(5), 638–663. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2013.07.013.
105. Sternberg, R. J. (1977). Intelligence, information processing, and analogical reasoning: the componential analysis of human abilities. Oxford, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Stevenson.
106. Sternberg, R. J. (2000). Handbook of intelligence. Cambridge University Press.
107. Sternberg, R. J., & Ketron, J. L. (1982). Selection and implementation of strategies in reasoning by analogy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(3), 399–413.
108. Thagard, P., & Croft, D. (1999). Scientific discovery and technological innovation: ulcers, dinosaur extinction, and the programming language Java. In L. Magnani, N. J. Nersessian, & P. Thagard (Eds.), Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery (pp. 125–137). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
109. Thibaut, J. P., & French, R. M. (2016). Analogical reasoning, control and executive functions: a developmental investigation with eye-tracking. Cognitive Development, 38, 10–26. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2015.12.002.
110. Thiry, H., Laursen, S. L., & Hunter, A. B. (2011). What experiences help students become scientists? A comparative study of research and other sources of personal and professional gains for STEM undergraduates. The Journal of Higher Education, 82(4), 357–388.
111. Trey, L., & Khan, S. (2008). How science students can learn about unobservable phenomena using computer-based analogies. Computers and Education, 51(2), 519–529. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.019.
112. Trickett, S. B., Trafton, J. G., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). How do scientists respond to anomalies? Different strategies used in basic and applied science. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 711–729. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01036.x.
113. Tweney, R. D., Doherty, M. E., & Mynatt, C. R. (1981). On scientific thinking. New York: Columbia University Press.
114. Vendetti, M. S., Wu, A., Rowshanshad, E., Knowlton, B. J., & Holyoak, K. J. (2014). When reasoning modifies memory: schematic assimilation triggered by analogical mapping. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(4), 1172–1180. doi:10.1037/a0036350.
115. Vendetti, M. S., Matlen, B. J., Richland, L. E., & Bunge, S. A. (2015). Analogical reasoning in the classroom: insights from cognitive science. Mind, Brain, and Education, 9(2), 100–106. doi:10.1111/mbe.12080.
116. Waltz, J. A., Knowlton, B. J., Holyoak, K. J., Boone, K. B., Mishkin, F. S., de Menezes Santos, M., Thomas, C. R., & Miller, B. L. (1999). A system for relational reasoning in human pre-frontal cortex. Psychological Science, 10, 119–125.
117. Waltz, J. A., Lau, A., Grewal, S. K., & Holyoak, K. J. (2000). The role of working memory in analogical mapping. Memory & Cognition, 28, 1205–1212.
118. Wason, P. C. (1968). Reasoning about a rule. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20(3), 273–281. doi:10.1080/14640746808400161.
119. Wertheimer, M. (1945). Productive thinking. Oxford, England: Harper.
120. Wharton, C. M., Grafman, J., Flitman, S. S., Hansen, E. K., Brauner, J., Marks, A., & Honda, M. (2000). Toward neuroanatomical models of analogy: a positron emission tomography study of analogical mapping. Cognitive Psychology, 40, 173–197.
121. White, C. S., & Alexander, P. A. (1984). Teaching analogical reasoning processes. Reading Research and Instruction, 24(1), 38–42.