Predicting Complex Problem Solving and school grades with working memory and ability self-concept

The Impact of Symmetry: Explaining Contradictory Results Concerning Working Memory, Reasoning, and Complex Problem Solving

“…We aimed at investigating the impact of symmetry both within and between studies on the issue of the relation between working memory, reasoning, and complex problem solving. While there may be other studies on the relationship of the three constructs under scrutiny (e.g., [14,15]), especially regarding their construct validity (see [16]), we focused on the studies of Witmann and Süss [1] who applied several older scenarios with known psychometric issues for measuring complex problem solving, Bühner et al [5] who applied MultiFlux, a scenario that aimed at overcoming the most severe reliability and validity issues, and Greiff et al [7] who applied MicroDYN, which is one of the most recent developments in the realm of complex dynamic systems, featuring multiple exploration trials and rational item construction. Thus, we selected studies that dealt with the relationship of working memory, reasoning, and complex problem solving in quite different ways and came to quite different conclusions.…”

Complex Problem Solving: What It Is and What It Is Not

“…Numerous articles on the subject have been published in recent years, documenting the increasing research activity relating to this field. In the following collection of papers we list only those published in 2010 and later: theoretical papers (Blech and Funke, 2010; Funke, 2010; Knauff and Wolf, 2010; Leutner et al, 2012; Selten et al, 2012; Wüstenberg et al, 2012; Greiff et al, 2013b; Fischer and Neubert, 2015; Schoppek and Fischer, 2015), papers about measurement issues (Danner et al, 2011a; Greiff et al, 2012, 2015a; Alison et al, 2013; Gobert et al, 2015; Greiff and Fischer, 2013; Herde et al, 2016; Stadler et al, 2016), papers about applications (Fischer and Neubert, 2015; Ederer et al, 2016; Tremblay et al, 2017), papers about differential effects (Barth and Funke, 2010; Danner et al, 2011b; Beckmann and Goode, 2014; Greiff and Neubert, 2014; Scherer et al, 2015; Meißner et al, 2016; Wüstenberg et al, 2016), one paper about developmental effects (Frischkorn et al, 2014), one paper with a neuroscience background (Osman, 2012) 1 , papers about cultural differences (Güss and Dörner, 2011; Sonnleitner et al, 2014; Güss et al, 2015), papers about validity issues (Goode and Beckmann, 2010; Greiff et al, 2013c; Schweizer et al, 2013; Mainert et al, 2015; Funke et al, 2017; Greiff et al, 2017, 2015b; Kretzschmar et al, 2016; Kretzschmar, 2017), review papers and meta-analyses (Osman, 2010; Stadler et al, 2015), and finally books (Qudrat-Ullah, 2015; Csapó and Funke, 2017b) and book chapters (Funke, 2012; Hotaling et al, 2015; Funke and Greiff, 2017; Greiff and Funke, 2017; Csapó and Funke, 2017a; Fischer et al, 2017; Molnàr et al, 2017; Tobinski and Fritz, 2017; Viehrig et al, 2017). In addition, a new “Journal of Dynamic Decision Making” (JDDM) has been launched (Fischer et al, 2015, 2016) to give the field an open-access outlet for research and discussion.…”

Ortaokul Öğrencilerinin Araştırma-Sorgulamaya Yönelik Tutumları

“…Işık ve Yenice (2012) ortaokul öğrencilerinin öğrenme stilleri ile sorgulayıcı öğrenme becerilerine yönelik çalışmasında sınıf düzeyinin öğrencilerin sorgulama becerisinde anlamlı bir fark oluşturmadığı görülmüştür. Meißner, Greiff, Frischkorn ve Steinmayr (2016) problem çözme becerilerine yönelik araştırmasında sınıf düzeyinin öğrencilerin bilişsel süreçlerinin ve motivasyonlarının önemli yordayıcıları olduğu sonucuna ulaşmıştır.…”