There is no substance in the posted article: no experiments beyond psych-babble thought experiments.

...says the empty barrel who can't even quote the material she reads in the check out lanes in Chinese grocery stores!

There is no substance in the posted article: no experiments beyond psych-babble thought experiments.

Memory and reasoning: quo vadis? [from the checkout lanes in the Chinese grocery stores]


http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00529/full

Test-prep, task-prep and training (whether you know you are doing it or not) affects performance and outcomes:

Background: The present study is rooted in a cognitive-metacognitive approach. The study examines two ways to structure group interaction: one is based on worked-out examples (WE) and the other on metacognitive training (MT). Both methods were implemented in cooperative settings, and both guided students to focus on the problem's essential parts and on appropriate problem-solving strategies.

Aims: The aim of the present study is twofold: (a) to investigate the effects of metacognitive training versus worked-out examples on students' mathematical reasoning and mathematical communication; and (b) to compare the long-term effects of the two methods on students' mathematical achievement.

Sample: The study was conducted in two academic years. Participants for the first year of the study were 122 eighth-grade Israeli students who studied algebra in five heterogeneous classrooms with no tracking. In addition, problem-solving behaviours of eight groups (N = 32) were videotaped and analysed. A year later, when these participants were ninth graders, they were re-examined using the same test as the one administered in eighth grade.

Method: Three measures were used to assess students' mathematical achievement: a pretest, an immediate post-test, and a delayed post-test. ANOVA was carried out on the post-test scores with respect to the following criteria: verbal explanations, algebraic representations and algebraic solution. In addition, chi-square and Mann-Whitney procedures were used to analyse cooperative, cognitive, and metacognitive behaviours.

Results: Within cooperative settings, students who were exposed to metacognitive training outperformed students who were exposed to worked-out examples on both the immediate and delayed post-tests. In particular, the differences between the two conditions were observed on students' ability to explain their mathematical reasoning during the discourse and in writing. Lower achievers gained more under the MT than under WE condition.

Conclusions: The findings indicate that the kind of task and the way group interaction is structured are two important variables in implementing cooperative learning, each of which is likely to have different effects on mathematical communication and achievement outcomes.

You shouldn't look for the answers in the grocery store checkout lines. No wonder you are admittedly clueless and ignorant

http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v4/n10/full/nrn1201.html

You shouldn't look for the answers in the grocery store checkout lines. No wonder you are admittedly clueless and ignorant.

Let us help you:

http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00056/full

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25705189

You shouldn't look for the answers in the grocery store checkout lines. No wonder you are admittedly clueless and ignorant.

Anonymous wrote:Good problem solvers have good memories.

Poor problem solvers have poor memories.

Problem solving and memory are positively correlated (and not negatively correlated).

Can you prove this with a citation? I have never heard this claim made in literature.

Good problem solvers have good memories.

Poor problem solvers have poor memories.

Problem solving and memory are positively correlated (and not negatively correlated).

If kids were supposed to take these tests "cold," the teachers wouldn't show a sample question at the start of the test.

Even when instructed HOW to answer -- "find the pattern of dots when the paper is unfolded" -- some kids just can't do it well. Same for analogies, etc.

CogAT prep is crucial only for kids who have trouble solving problems for themselves. Some kids can't solve a problem without someone showing them how in advance and would benefit from test prep. If I have noticed that my child has trouble answering questions that he has never seen before, or takes a long time to answer new problems, I would worry that that child could only get a good score on the test if he were shown in advance the problems we might expect on the test.

So, sure, if someone thinks his or her child can memorize but is not really a good problem solver, test prep could help make a child look more advanced than he actually is.

Without capacity for memory, preparation (prep), and hardwork it is impossible to be a good problem solver. Test-prep is crucial.

Anonymous wrote:If the questions being studied in advance are so similar that only a few words have been changed, it is essentially the same as seeing the test itself.

Someone who has studied the questions on several practice tests is exhibiting a different kind of intelligence than someone who can look at a puzzle or problem for the first time and solve it quickly. It illustrates one area of intelligence to be able to study and memorize how to solve a type of problem; the person who looks at problem s/he has never seen before and solves it quickly and easily is exhibiting a different area of intelligence.

Memorizing the work of another is different from doing working out one's own answers. A person can be trained to remember long lists of unrelated items, but that is different than working out a solution when presented with a problem. In adult life, we sometimes have to deal with problems that have never been dealt with before. Those who can think for themselves and provide answers in complex situations can lead the way for others. One can't always fall back on a solution that worked in the past; we need people who think on their feet and innovate.