Componential modeling of alternative strategies for performing spatial tasks.

Abstract

Relations among aptitude, spatial task solution strategy, and task performance were explored through mathematical models of performance latency. Single-strategy and strategy-shifting models were tested individually for a stratified random sample of 30 male high school and college subjects. Different models fit different subjects on each of three task steps (encoding, synthesis, and comparison), suggesting that different subjects used different strategies for solving the same items. Some of the best fitting models specified that subjects frequently and flexibly switched strategies in keeping with variations in item demands. This was considered a form of adaptive, within-task learning. For the encoding and synthesis steps, significant performance differences were found among subjects using different strategies. Inspection of aptitude profiles suggested that aptitude may have affected strategy choice. The importance of strategy-shift models for understanding complex problemsolving processes and for representing adaptation and flexibility in intelligent performance is discussed. Do individuals solve cognitive tasks in different ways? Or are individual differences primarily a function of how effectively subjects execute a common solution strategy?Current research on aptitude uses information processing models to identify components of cognitive performance. Such models have suggested that individuals dif-

Integrating Assessment and Instruction: A Research and Development Agenda

“…Learners not only use different strategies for different problems but also shift strategies within a problem as a function of the difficulty characteristics of the task. These findings are consistent with other demonstrations of multiple strategies and strategy shifting in high school and college students (Kyllonen, Lohman, & Woltz, 1984;Ohlsson, 1984aOhlsson, , 1984bSnow, 1978Snow, , 1981. As Siegler and Campbell (1990) note:…”

Three Chronometric Indices of Relational Responding as Predictors of Performance on a Brief Intelligence Test: The Importance of Relational Flexibility

“…In other words, the faster an individual can produce responses that contradict previously well-established verbal relations (by the wider community), the more flexible the behavior. Assessing relational flexibility may be particularly advantageous because flexibility is widely regarded as an important component of human cognitive abilities (e.g., Cattell, 1971;Kyllonen, Lohman, & Woltz, 1984;Premack, 2004).…”

“…In other words, the faster an individual can produce responses that contradict previously well-established verbal relations (by the wider community), the more flexible the behavior. Assessing relational flexibility may be particularly advantageous because flexibility is widely regarded as an important component of human cognitive abilities (e.g., Cattell, 1971;Kyllonen, Lohman, & Woltz, 1984;Premack, 2004).On balance, the response latencies data obtained on inconsistent trials may provide a measure of not just relational flexibility but also the other variables mentioned above (e.g., processing speed). To obtain a relatively "pure" measure of relational flexibility, the effects of these extraneous variables need to be controlled.…”

Individual Differences in Spatial Ability: Developing Technologies to Increase Strategy Awareness and Skills

“…A process-analytic approach has been used to examine quantitative differences in observed performance as well as qualitative differences with regard to the strategies used by individuals on spatial processing tasks (Bethell-Fox, Cooper, 1975;Kyllonen, Lohman, & Snow, 1984;Kyllonen, Lohman, & Woltz, 1985;Lohman & Kyllonen, 1983;Pellegrino & Kail, 1981;Shepard & Feng, 1972;Shepard & Metzler, 1971;Sternberg & Weil, 1980). Snow (1978) found that performance could be accounted for by three types of strategy differences: the sequence in which processing steps are executed, the steps taken to solve problems, or summation differences where the organization of processing can vary within and between persons as well as across items on a task.…”