Eye Fixation and Strategy Analyses of Individual Differences in Cognitive Aptitudes

  • Richard E. Snow
Part of the Nato Conference Series book series (NATOCS, volume 5)


A vast literature in educational psychology attests to the fact that individual differences in learner aptitudes predict learning outcomes. A substantial body of literature also now demonstrates that aptitude variables often interact with instructional treatment variables in these predictions (Cronbach & Snow, 1977). Aptitude main effects and aptitude-instructional treatment interactions (ATI), frequently account for a larger proportion of variation in learning outcome than do treatment main effects alone. ATI findings, in particular, have important implications for the development of instructional theory and research and for instructional improvement. They suggest how instruction can be made adaptive to student differences. But if practical and theoretical use is to be made of these ideas, then individual differences in aptitude for learning will need to be understood at a more analytic process level. Traditional research on aptitude sought mainly to improve the predictive power of measures, and to build a taxonomy of aptitude constructs based on correlational studies. With the growth of a cognitive experimental psychology of information processing, coupled with the development of ATI research on instruction, it now seems possible to pursue a process theory of aptitude. This paper notes some recent findings and reports one new study in a continuing program of research toward obtaining such a theory.


Response Alternative Ability Test Introspective Report Paper Folding Stimulus Part 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Chiang, A., & Atkinson, R. C. Individual differences and interrelationships among a select set of cognitive skills. Memory and Cognition, 1976, 4, 661–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook of research on interactions. New York: Irvington, 1977.Google Scholar
  3. Glaser, R. Components of a psychology of instruction: Toward a science of design. Review of Educational Research, 1976, 46, 1–24.Google Scholar
  4. Hunt, E., & Lansman, M. Cognitive theory applied to individual differences. In W. K. Estes (Ed.), Handbook of learning and cognitive processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1975.Google Scholar
  5. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. Eye fixations and cognitive processes. Cognitive Psychology, 1976, 8, 441–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Monty, R. A., & Senders, J. W. (Eds.) Eye movements and psychological processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1976.Google Scholar
  7. Snow, R. E. Research on aptitudes: A progress report. In L. S. Shulman (Ed.), Review of Research in Education, Volume 4, 1977.Google Scholar
  8. Snow, R. E. Theory and method for research on aptitude processes: A prospectus [Technical Report 2 ). Stanford, CA: Aptitude Research Project, School of Education, Stanford University, 1976.Google Scholar
  9. Snow, R. E., Marshalek, B., & Lohman, D. F. Correlation of selected cognitive abilites and cognitive processing parameters: An exploratory study (Technical Report 3 ). Stanford, CA: Aptitude Research Project, School of Education, Stanford University, 1976.Google Scholar
  10. Sternberg, R. Intelligence, information processing, and analogical reasoning: The componential analysis of human abilities. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1977.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard E. Snow
    • 1
  1. 1.Stanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations