This article addresses two goals. First, it considers the nature and importance of relational reasoning, the ability to discern meaningful patterns within informational streams. Second, it examines four principles about relational reasoning derived from the empirical literature. Specifically, we argue that relational reasoning is foundational and pervasive; varies as a consequence of age, domain, and context; can be measured in diverse ways; and is malleable and teachable. Evidence supports each of these principles, and the implications for educational policies and practices are weighed.
AlexanderP. A. (2012). The Test of Relational Reasoning. College Park, MD: Disciplined Reading and Learning Research Laboratory.
2.
AlexanderP. A.BaggettaP. (2014). Percept-concept coupling and human error. In RappD. N.BraaschJ. L. G. (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 297-328). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3.
AlexanderP. A.Disciplined Reading and Learning Research Laboratory. (2012). Reading into the future: Competence for the 21st century. Educational Psychologist, 47, 259-280.
AlexanderP. A.PateP. E.KulikowichJ. M.FarrellD. M.WrightN. 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.
AlexanderP. A.SingerL. M.JablanskyS.HattanC. (2015). Relational reasoning in word and in figure. Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance online publication.
7.
AlexanderP. A.WhiteC. S.HaenslyP. A.Crimmins-JeanesM. (1987). Training in analogical reasoning. American Educational Research Journal, 24, 387-404.
8.
AlexanderP. A.WhiteC. S.ManganoN. (1983). Examining the effects of direct instruction in analogical reasoning on reading comprehension. In NilesJ. A.HarrisL. A. (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.
9.
BazarganiN.HillebrandtH.ChristoffK.DumontheilI. (2014). Developmental changes in effective connectivity associated with relational reasoning. Human Brain Mapping, 35, 3262-3276.
10.
BellocchiA.RitchieS. M. (2011). Investigating and theorizing discourse during analogy writing in chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 771-792.
11.
BensonD. F. (1993). Prefrontal abilities. Behavioural Neurology, 6(2), 75-81.
12.
BlackwellL. S.TrzesniewskiK. H.DweckC. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78, 246-263.
13.
BroughtonS. H.SinatraG. M.ReynoldsR. E. (2009). Attention allocation and the refutation text effect: A possible process mechanism for conceptual change. In SinatraG. M. (Chair), Mechanisms for facilitating conceptual change through text-based interventions. Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Researchers Association, San Diego, CA.
14.
BurkeL. A.WilliamsJ. M. (2012). Two thinking skills assessment approaches: “Assessment of pupils’ thinking skills” and “individual thinking skills assessments.”Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7(1), 62-68.
15.
CampitelliG.GobetF.WilliamsG.ParkerA. (2007). Integration of perceptual input and visual imagery in chess players: Evidence from eye movements. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 66, 201-213.
16.
ChanJ.SchunnC. (2015). The impact of analogies on creative concept generation: Lessons from an in vivo study in engineering design. Cognitive Science, 39, 126-155.
CornoldiC. (2010). Metacognition, intelligence, and academic performance. In WatersH. S.SchneiderW. (Eds.), Metacognition, strategy use, and instruction (pp. 257-277). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
19.
DefeyterM. A.HearingJ.GermanT. C. (2009). A developmental dissociation between category and function judgments about novel artifacts. Cognition, 110, 260-264.
20.
DiakidoyI. A. N.MouskountiT.IoannidesC. (2011). Comprehension and learning from refutation and expository texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 46, 22-38.
21.
diSessaA. A. (2002). Why “conceptual ecology” is a good idea. In LimónM.MasonL. (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice (pp. 29-60). Dortrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
22.
DuboisC. L. Z.SackettP. R.ZedeckS.FogliL. (1993). Further exploration of typical and maximum performance criteria: Definitional issues, prediction, and white-black differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 205-211.
23.
DumasD.AlexanderP. A. (in press). Calibration of the Test of Relational Reasoning. Psychological Assessment.
24.
DumasD.AlexanderP. A.BakerL. M.JablanskyS.DunbarK. N. (2014). Relational reasoning in medical education: Patterns in discourse and diagnosis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 1021-1035.
25.
DumasD.AlexanderP. A.GrossnickleE. M. (2013). Relational reasoning and its manifestations in the educational context: A systematic review of the literature. Educational Psychology Review, 25, 391-427.
26.
DumasD.SchmidtL. (2015). Relational reasoning as predictor for engineering ideation success using TRIZ. Journal of Engineering Design, 26(1-3), 74-88.
DweckC.BempechatJ. (1983). Children’s theories of intelligence. In ParisS.OlsenG.StevensonH. W. (Eds.), Learning and motivation in the classroom (pp. 239-256). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29.
EhriL. C.SatlowE.GaskinsI. (2009). Grapho-phonemic enrichment strengthens keyword analogy instruction for struggling young readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 25, 162-191.
30.
FischerR. S.NorbergA.LundmanB. (2008). Embracing opposites: Meanings of growing old as narrated by people aged 85. The International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 67, 259-271.
31.
FountainL. (2015). Relations among topic knowledge, individual interest, relational reasoning, and critical thinking in maternity nurses (Doctoral dissertation proposal). University of Maryland, College Park.
32.
GentnerD. (1977). Children’s performance on a spatial analogies task. Child Development, 48, 1034-1039.
33.
GentnerD.LoewensteinJ.HungB. (2007). Comparison facilitates children’s learning of names for parts. Journal of Cognition and Development, 8, 285-307.
34.
GoelV.GrafmanJ. (1995). Are the frontal lobes implicated in “planning” functions? Interpreting data from the Tower of Hanoi. Neuropsychologia, 33, 623-642.
35.
GoswamiU.BryantP. (1992). Rhyme, analogy, and children’s reading. In GoughP. B.EhriL. C.TreimanR. (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 49-63). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
36.
GreeneJ. A.MurphyP. K.ButlerA.FirettoC. M.AllenE.WangJ.. . . YuS. B. (2016, April). Fostering relational reasoning and scientific understanding through quality talk discourse. In DumasD. (Chair), The malleability of relational reasoning. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
37.
GrossnickleE.DumasD.AlexanderP. A.BaggettaP. (2015). The process of reasoning relationally. Manuscript under review.
38.
HyndC.AlvermannD. E. (1986). The role of refutation text in overcoming difficulty with science concepts. Journal of Reading, 29, 440-446.
39.
JablanskyS.AlexanderP. A.DumasD.ComptonV. (2015). Developmental differences in relational reasoning among primary and secondary school students. Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance online publication.
40.
JablanskyS.AlexanderP. A.SingerL. (2016, April). Examining the relational reasoning capabilities of elementary and middle-school students with learning needs. Paper accepted for presentation at the American Education Research Association conference, Washington, DC.
41.
JamesW. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York, NY: Henry Holt.
42.
KendeouP.O’BrienN. (2015, April). Antithetical reasoning with refutational texts. In SinatraG.M. (Chair), Relational reasoning in STEM domains: What empirical research can contribute to the national dialogue. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
43.
KlahrD.DunbarK. (1988). Dual search space during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12, 1-48.
44.
KöhlerW. (1929). Gestalt psychology. New York, NY: Horace Liveright.
45.
KrawczykD. C. (2012). The cognition and neuroscience of relational reasoning. Brain Research, 1428, 13-23.
46.
KrawczykD. C.McClellandM. M.DonovanC. M. (2011). A hierarchy for relational reasoning in the prefrontal cortex. Cortex, 47, 588-597.
47.
KrawczykD. C.MorrisonR. G.ViskontasI.HolyoakK. J.ChowT. W.MendezM. F.. . . KnowltonB. J. (2008). Distraction during relational reasoning: The role of prefrontal cortex in interference control. Neuropsychologia, 46, 2020-2032.
48.
LenhartA. B. (2005). Unstable texts: An ethnographic look at how bloggers and their audience negotiate self-presentation, authenticity and norm formation (Doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
49.
MaguireM. J.McClellandM. M.DonovanC. M.TillmanG. D.KrawczykD. C. (2012). Tracking cognitive phases in analogical reasoning with event-related potentials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 273-281.
50.
MangelsJ. A.ButterfieldB.LambJ.GoodC.DweckC. S. (2006). Why do beliefs about intelligence influence learning success? A social cognitive neuroscience model. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 1, 75-86.
51.
MieleD. B.SonL. K.MetcalfeJ. (2013). Children’s naive theories of intelligence influence their metacognitive judgments. Child Development, 84, 1879-1886.
52.
MontiM. M.OshersonD. N.MartinezM. J.ParsonsL. M. (2007). Functional neuroanatomy of deductive inference: A language-independent distributed network. NeuroImage, 37, 1005-1016.
53.
MurphyP. K.GreeneJ. A.FirettoC. M.MontalbanoC.MengyiL.WeiL.CroningerR. M. V. (2016, April). Promoting relational reasoning in elementary students’ writing. In DumasD. (Chair), The malleability of relational reasoning. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
54.
MurphyP. K.WilkinsonI. A. G.SoterA. O.HennesseyM. N.AlexanderJ. F. (2009). Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ high-level comprehension of text: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 740-764.
55.
NaglieriJ. A.InskoW. R. (1986). Construct validity of the Matrix Analogies Test-Expanded Form. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 4, 243-255.
56.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC: Author.
PaletzS. B. F.SchunnC. D.KimK. (2013). The interplay of conflict and analogy in multidisciplinary teams. Cognition, 126, 1-19.
59.
PiagetJ. (1928). Judgment and reasoning in the child. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
60.
PurcellB. A.WeigandP. K.SchallJ. D. (2012). Supplementary eye field during visual search: Salience, cognitive control, and performance monitoring. The Journal of Neuroscience, 32. 10273-10285.
61.
RappD. N.KendeouP. (2009). Noticing and revising discrepancies as texts unfold. Discourse Processes, 46, 1-24.
62.
RavenJ. C. (1941). Standardization of progressive matrices. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 19, 137-150.
63.
RichlandL. E.ChanT. K.MorrisonR. G.AuT. K. F. (2010). Young children’s analogical reasoning across cultures: Similarities and differences. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 105, 146-153.
64.
RichlandL. E.McDonoughI. M. (2010). Learning by analogy: Discriminating between potential analogs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 28-43.
65.
RichlandL. E.ZurO.HolyoakK. J. (2007). Cognitive supports for analogies in the mathematics classroom. Science, 316, 1128-1129.
66.
RobinN.HolyoakK. J. (1995). Relational complexity and the functions of prefrontal cortex. In GazzanigaM. S. (Ed.), The cognitive neurosciences (pp. 987-997). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
67.
RushC.RoyR. (2001). Expert judgment in cost estimating: Modelling the reasoning process. Concurrent Engineering, 9, 271-284.
68.
SchneiderM.HardyI. (2013). Profiles of inconsistent knowledge in children’s pathways of conceptual change. Developmental Psychology, 49, 1639-1649.
69.
SinatraG. M.BroughtonS. H. (2011). Bridging reading comprehension and conceptual change in science education: The promise of refutation text. Reading Research Quarterly, 46, 374-393.
70.
SlottaJ. D.ChiM. T. H. (2006). Helping students understand challenging topics in science through ontology training. Cognition and Instruction, 24, 261-289.
71.
SmithE. E.PatalanoA. L.JonidesJ. (1998). Alternative strategies of categorization. Cognition, 65, 167-196.
72.
SpearmanC. (1927). The abilities of man: Their nature and measurement. New York, NY: Macmillan.
73.
StanovichK. E.WestR. F.ToplakM. E. (2011). Intelligence and rationality. In SternbergR. J.KaufmanS. B. (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of intelligence (pp. 784-826). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
74.
SternbergR. J. (1977). Intelligence, information processing, and analogical reasoning: The componential analysis of human abilities. Oxford, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum.
75.
SternbergR. J. (1982). Handbook of human intelligence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
76.
SternbergR. J.KetronJ. L. (1982). Selection and implementation of strategies in reasoning by analogy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 399-413.
77.
TavernaA. S.PeraltaO. A. (2013). Young children category learning: A training study. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28, 599-617.
78.
TrickettS. B.TraftonJ. G.SchunnC. D. (2009). How do scientists respond to anomalies? Different strategies used in basic and applied science. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 711-729.
79.
TuntelerE.ResingW. C. M. (2010). The effects of self and other-scaffolding on progression and variation in children’s geometric analogy performance: A microgenetic research. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 9, 251-272.
80.
van den BroekP.KendeouP. (2008). Cognitive processes in comprehension of science texts: The role of co-activation in confronting misconceptions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 335-351.
81.
VosniadouS.MasonL. (2012). Conceptual change induced by instruction: A complex interplay of multiple factors. In HarrisK.GrahamS.UrdanT. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 221-246). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
82.
VygotskyL. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
83.
WardP.SussJ.BasevitchI. (2009). Expertise and expert performance-based training (ExPerT) in complex domains. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 7, 121-145.
84.
WertheimerM. (1900). Gestalt theory. Raleigh, NC: Hayes Barton Press.
85.
WhiteC. S.AlexanderP. A. (1986). Effects of training four-year-olds’ ability to solve geometric analogy problems. Cognition and Instruction, 3, 261-268.
86.
WhiteheadA. N. (1929). The aims of education. New York, NY: The Free Press.
