Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The development of relational reasoning in primary and secondary school students: a longitudinal investigation in technology education

  • Published:
International Journal of Technology and Design Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

For several decades, there has been a push to advance students’ knowledge and abilities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). One capacity that has been linked positively to STEM achievement is relational reasoning, which involves identifying associations between objects, ideas, and situations. Yet, few studies have examined relational reasoning and its component forms (i.e., analogy, anomaly, antinomy, antithesis) within the domain of technology or how these abilities might change over time. The present study explored the development of primary and secondary school students’ relational reasoning over a period of 2 years as they interacted with technological objects. Participants (n = 59) were a subset of a nationally representative random sample between 5 and 18 years old. Students met with a researcher to discuss the form and function of a familiar and unfamiliar technological object at two time points. Results demonstrated that students of all ages used relational reasoning to identify associations between objects’ functionality and form, but that the types and amounts of relational reasoning varied by grade group, time, and object familiarity. This study has implications for researchers and practitioners interested in the development of relational reasoning and technological literacy, and suggests possible ways of enhancing both.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexander, P. A. (2017). Relational reasoning in STEM domains: A foundation for academic development. Educational Psychology Review, 29(1), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, P. A., & Baggetta, P. (2014). Percept-concept coupling and human error. In D. N. Rapp & J. L. G. Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 297–328). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, P. A., Dumas, D., Grossnickle, E. M., List, A., & Firetto, C. (2016a). Measuring relational reasoning. The Journal of Experimental Education, 84, 119–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2014.963216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, P. A., Jablansky, S., Singer, L. M., & Dumas, D. (2016b). Relational reasoning: What we know and why it matters [Special Issue on Education]. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(1), 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732215622029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, P. A., & The Disciplined Reading and Learning Research Laboratory. (2012). Reading into the future: Competence for the 21st century. Educational Psychologist, 47, 259–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.722511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alfieri, L., Nokes-Malach, T. J., & Schunn, C. D. (2013). Learning through case comparisons: a meta-analytic review. Educational Psychologist, 48(2), 87–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angier, N. (2010). Stem education has little to do with flowers. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/science/05angier.html?.

  • Becker, K., & Park, K. (2011). Effects of integrative approaches among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects on students’ learning: A preliminary meta-analysis. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations & Research, 12(5/6), 23–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berzonsky, M. D. (1971). Interdependence of Inhelder and Piaget’s model of logical thinking. Developmental Psychology, 4, 469–476. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030961.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.520943.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broughton, S. H., Sinatra, G. M., & Nussbaum, E. M. (2013). “Pluto has been a planet my whole life!” emotions, attitudes, and conceptual change in elementary students’ learning about Pluto’s reclassification. Research in Science Education, 43(2), 529–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. Arlington: NSTA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 623–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, B. T., & Schunn, C. D. (2007). The relationship of analogical distance to analogical function and preinventive structure: the case of engineering design. Memory and Cognition, 35(1), 29–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Compton, V., Compton, A., & Patterson, M. (2012). Reading technological artifacts: Does technology education help? In Proceedings from the 26th pupils attitudes toward technology (PATT 26) conference on technology education in the 21st century (pp. 126–134). Stockholm: LiU Electronic Press.

  • Compton, V. J., Compton, A., & Patterson, M. (2011). Exploring the transformational potential of technological literacy. In Proceedings of the joint 25th pupils attitude toward technology (PATT 25) and 8th centre for research in primary technology (CRIPT 8) conference (pp. 128–136). London: Goldsmiths.

  • Cromley, J. G., Snyder-Hogan, L. E., & Luciw-Dubas, U. A. (2010). Cognitive activities in complex science text and diagrams. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(1), 59–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danielson, R. W., & Sinatra, G. M. (2017). A relational reasoning approach to text-graphic processing. Educational Psychology Review, 29(1), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9374-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dumas, D. (2016). Relational reasoning in science, medicine, and engineering. Educational Psychology Review, 29, 73–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9370-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dumas, D., & Schmidt, L. (2015). Relational reasoning as predictor for engineering ideation success. Journal of Engineering Design, 26, 74–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dumontheil, I., Houlton, R., Christoff, K., & Blakemore, S. J. (2010). Development of relational reasoning during adolescence. Developmental Science, 13, F15–F24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.01014.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 365–395). Cambridge, MA: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunbar, K., & Klahr, D. (2012). Scientific thinking and reasoning. In K. Holyoak (Ed.), Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Midgley, C., Reuman, D. Mac, Iver, D., & Feldlaufer, H. (1993). Effects of traditional middle schools on students’ motivation. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 553–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eslinger, P. J., Blair, C., Wang, J., Lipovsky, B., Realmuto, J., Baker, D., et al. (2009). Developmental shifts in fMRI activations during visuospatial relational reasoning. Brain and Cognition, 69, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2008.04.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, D. (2008). Development of technology education in New Zealand schools 1985–2008. Wellington: Ministry of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gadgil, S., Nokes-Malach, T. J., & Chi, M. (2012). Effectiveness of holistic mental model confrontation in driving conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 22(1), 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.06.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garmire, E., & Pearson, G. (2006). Tech tally: Approaches to assessing technological literacy. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, D., & Rattermann, M. J. (1991). Language and the career of similarity. In S. A. Gelman & J. P. Byrnes (Eds.), Perspectives on thought and language: Interrelations in development (pp. 225–277). New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511983689.008.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Granshaw, B. (2015). Perspectives on technology education in New Zealand: Twenty years of progress? Australasian Journal of Technology Education, 2(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattan, C., & Alexander, P. A. (2018). Prompting rural students’ use of personal knowledge and experience to support comprehension of unfamiliar content. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York City.

  • Indicators of progression. (2010). Retrieved December 11, 2016, from http://technology.tki.org.nz/Technology-in-the-NZC/Indicators-of-progression.

  • IBM Corp. Released 2016. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 24.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.

  • Introducing Technology to Juniors. (2016). Retrieved December 11, 2016, from http://technology.tki.org.nz/Resources/Teaching-snapshots/Junior-Years-1-6/Introducing-technology-to-juniors.

  • Jablansky, S., Alexander, P. A., Dumas, D., & Compton, V. (2016). Developmental differences in relational reasoning among primary and secondary school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, 592–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York, NY: H. Holt and Company. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/11059-000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jee, B. D., Uttal, D. H., Gentner, D., Manduca, C. J., Shipley, T. F., & Sageman, B. (2013). Finding faults: Analogical comparison supports spatial concept learning in geoscience. Cognitive Process, 14, 175–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, T. (2010). Staking the claim for the ‘T’ in STEM. The Journal of Technology Studies, 36(1), 2–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendeou, P., Butterfuss, R., Van Boekel, M., & O’Brien, E. J. (2017). Integrating relational reasoning and knowledge revision during reading. Educational Psychology Review, 29(1), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9381-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J. S. (2011). New national curriculum of technology education in Korea. Paper presented at the 2011 international conference on technology education in the Pacific-Rim Countries, Nagoya, Japan.

  • Kimbell, R. (2011). Handle with care, design and technology education; An International Journal; Special edition: STEM—underpinned by research? (Vol 16, No. 1). http://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/ojs/index.php/DATE/article/view/1586. Accessed 4 Feb.

  • Klahr, D., & Simon, H. A. (1999). Studies of scientific discovery: Complementary approaches and convergent findings. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 524–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, T. (2006). Creativity: A framework for the design/problem solving discourse in technology education. Journal of Technology Education, 17, 36–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marginson, S., Tytler, R., Freeman, B., & Roberts, K. (2013). STEM: Country comparisons: Final report. Melbourne: Australian Council of Learned Academies.

  • McGivern, R. F., Andersen, J., Byrd, D., Mutter, K. L., & Reilly, J. (2002). Cognitive efficiency on a match to sample task decreases at the onset of puberty in children. Brain and Cognition, 50, 73–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery, D. C. (1991). Design and analysis of experiments (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, P. K., Firetto, C. M., & Greene, J. A. (2017). Enriching students’ scientific thinking through relational reasoning: seeking evidence in texts, tasks, and talk. Educational Psychology Review, 29(1), 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9387-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, P. K., & Mason, L. (2006). Changing knowledge and beliefs. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 305–324). New York: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paletz, S. B. F., Schunn, C. D., & Kim, K. (2013). The interplay of conflict and analogy in multidisciplinary teams. Cognition, 126, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.07.020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raven, J. C. (1938). Progressive matrices: A perceptual test of intelligence. London: Lewis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richland, L. E., Begolli, K. N., Simms, N., Frausel, R. R., & Lyons, E. A. (2017). Supporting mathematical discussions: The roles of comparison and cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 29(1), 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9382-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richland, L. E., & McDonough, I. M. (2010). Learning by analogy: Discriminating between potential analogs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(1), 28–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.09.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richland, L. E., Zur, O., & Holyoak, K. J. (2007). Cognitive supports for analogies in the mathematics classroom. Science, 316, 1128–1129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritz, J. M., & Fan, S. C. (2015). STEM and technology education: international state-of-the-art. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25, 429–451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-014-9290-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmider, E., Ziegler, M., Danay, E., Beyer, L., & Bühner, M. (2010). Is it really robust? Methodology, 6(4), 147–151. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Science and Engineering Education Advisory Group. (2012). Supporting Scotland’s STEM education and culture. Retrieved from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0038/00388616.pdf. Accessed 4 Feb.

  • Slotta, J. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (2006). Helping students understand challenging topics in science through ontology training. Cognition and Instruction, 24, 261–289. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2402_3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slotta, J. D., Chi, M. T. H., & Joram, E. (1995). Assessing students’ misclassifications of physics concepts: An ontological basis for conceptual change. Cognition and Instruction, 13, 373–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Statistics New Zealand Tatauranga Aotearoa (2015). Ethnic group (total responses) by age group and sex, for the census usually resident population count, 2001, 2006, and 2013 Censuses (RC, TA). Retrieved from http://www.stats.govt.nz. Accessed 4 Feb.

  • Sternberg, R. J. (1977). Intelligence, information processing, and analogical reasoning: The componential analysis of human abilities. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teaching Strategies: Engaging with Technological Products (2016). Retrieved December 11, 2016, from http://technology.tki.org.nz/Resources/Teaching-strategies.

  • Technology in the NZC (2016). Retrieved December 11, 2016, from http://technology.tki.org.nz/Technology-in-the-NZC.

  • Trickett, S. B., & Trafton, J. G. (2007). “What if…”: The use of conceptual simulations in scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 31, 843–875. https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210701530771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turiman, P., Omar, J., Daud, A. M., & Osman, K. (2012). Fostering the 21st century skills through scientific literacy and science process skills. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 59, 110–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vendetti, M. S., Bryan, J., Matlen, B. J., Richland, L. E., & Bunge, S. A. (2015). Analogical Reasoning in the classroom: Insights from cognitive science. Mind, Brain, and Education, 9, 100–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12080.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Mac Iver, D., Reuman, D. A., & Midgley, C. (1991). Transitions during early adolescence: Changes in children’s domain-specific self-perceptions and general self-esteem across the transition to junior high school. Developmental Psychology, 27, 552–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, H., Sun, Y., & Alexander, P. A. (2017). Getting students to use relational reasoning: Sequential analysis of eighth-grade science classroom discourse. Paper accepted for presentation at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Antonio, TX.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Maryland, College Park, USA

    Sophie Jablansky & Patricia A. Alexander

  2. University of Denver, Denver, USA

    Denis Dumas

  3. Ministry for Business, Innovation, and Employment, Wellington, New Zealand

    Vicki Compton

Authors
  1. Sophie Jablansky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patricia A. Alexander
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Denis Dumas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Vicki Compton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sophie Jablansky.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jablansky, S., Alexander, P.A., Dumas, D. et al. The development of relational reasoning in primary and secondary school students: a longitudinal investigation in technology education. Int J Technol Des Educ 30, 973–993 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09529-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09529-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation