When is it advisable to introduce analogies to foster creativity in education? ( ¿Cuándo es aconsejable introducir analogías para fomentar la creatividad en la educación? )

Abstract

Spanish

Reasoning by analogy is a form of inductive reasoning that in humans has been linked to fluid intelligence. It is a powerful driver of creativity as it allows us to make inferences in unknown domains by drawing parallels to domains we are familiar with, thus offering safe ground for speculation. Given that some of the most ingenious minds in human history (e.g., Leonardo da Vinci) stand out in their capacity to apply analogies to new fields of knowledge, and because actual scientific breakthroughs have been made based on analogical reasoning, it is reasonable to assume that analogies could be used as a mind-opener which helps students to foster their creativity and innovativeness. The question remains when children are mature enough for analogies to be introduced and profitably used in the classroom. We review how analogical reasoning and working memory develop throughout ontogeny in order to predict when children are sufficiently cognitively mature to benefit from using analogies as a learning tool.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alexander

P. A.

(2016). Relational thinking and relational reasoning: Harnessing the power of patterning. NPJ Science of Learning, 1(1), 1–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/npjscilearn.2016.4

Alexander

P. A.

Jablansky

Singer

L. M.

Dumas

(2016). Relational reasoning: What we know and why it matters. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(1), 36–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2372732215622029

Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Clarendon Press.

Baddeley, A. D. (2012). Working memory: Theories, models, and controversies. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 129.

De Villiers

J. G

. (2005). Can language acquisition give children a point of view? In Astington

J. W.

Baird

J. A.

(Eds.), Why language matters for theory of mind (pp. 186–219). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195159912.003.0010

De Villiers

. (2000). Linguistic determinism and the understanding of false beliefs. In Mitchell

Riggs

(Eds.), Children’s reasoning and the mind (pp. 191–228). Psychology Press.

De Villiers

J. G.

Pyers

J. E

. (2002). Complements to cognition: A longitudinal study of the relationship between complex syntax and false-belief-understanding. Cognitive Development, 17(1), 1037–1060. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2014(02)00073-4

Diamond

Doar

. (1989). The performance of human infants on a measure of frontal cortex function, the delayed-response task. Developmental Psychobiology, 22(3), 271–294. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/dev.420220307

Dukette

Stiles

. (2001). The effects of stimulus density on children’s analysis of hierarchical patterns. Developmental Science, 4(2), 233–251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-7687.00168

10.

Fernald

Morikawa

. (1993). Common themes and cultural variations in Japanese and American mothers’ speech to infants. Child Development, 64(3), 637–656. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131208

11.

Flavell

J. H

. (2004). Theory-of-mind development: Retrospect and prospect. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50(3), 274–290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2004.0018

12.

Gathercole

S. E.

Pickering

S. J.

Ambridge

Wearing

. (2004). The structure of working memory from 4 to 15 years of age. Development Psychology, 40(2), 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.40.2.177

13.

Gentner

. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(83)80009-3

14.

Gentner

Christie

. (2010). Mutual bootstrapping between language and analogical processing. Language and Cognition, 2(2), 261–283. https://doi.org/10.1515/langcog.2010.011

15.

Gentner

. (1982). Why nouns are learned before verbs: Linguistic relativity versus natural partitioning. In Kuczaj

II (Ed.), Language development, Volume 2: Language, thought and culture (pp. 301–334). Erlbaum.

16.

Gentner

Rattermann

M. J

. (1991). Language and the career of similarity. In Gelman

S. A.

Byrnes

J. P.

(Eds.), Perspectives on language and thought: Interrelations in development (pp. 225–277). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511983689.008

17.

Goldstein

E. B

. (2011). Cognitive psychology: connecting mind, research, and everyday experience. Cengage Learning.

18.

Goswami

. (1992). Analogical reasoning in children. Erlbaum. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315804729

19.

Hochmann

J. R.

Tuerk

A. S.

Sanborn

Zhu

Long

Dempster

Carey

. (2017). Children’s representation of abstract relations in relational/array match-to-sample tasks. Cognitive Psychology, 99, 17–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2017.11.001

20.

Jablansky

Alexander

P. A.

Dumas

Compton

. (2016). Developmental differences in relational reasoning among primary and secondary school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(4), 592–608. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000070

21.

Kuwabara

Smith

L. B

. (2009). Cross-cultural differences in analogical reasoning. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 31(31), 1722–1727.https://escholarship.org/uc/item/89z144hd

22.

Kuwabara

Smith

L. B

. (2012). Cross-cultural differences in cognitive development: Attention to relations and objects. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 113(1), 20–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2012.04.009

23.

Kuwabara

Smith

L. B

. (2016). Cultural differences in visual object recognition in 3-year-old children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 147, 22–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2016.02.006

24.

Loewenstein

Gentner

. (2005). Relational language and the development of relational mapping. Cognitive Psychology, 50(4), 315–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2004.09.004

25.

Markman

A. B.

Gentner

. (1993). Structural alignment during similarity comparisons. Cognitive Psychology, 25(4), 431–467. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1993.1011

26.

Masuda

Nisbett

R. E

. (2001). Attending holistically versus analytically: Comparing the context sensitivity of Japanese and Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(5), 922–9234. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.5.922

27.

Miller

G. A

. (1955). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 101(2), 343–352. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158

28.

Miller

Smith

Zhu

Zhang

. (1995). Preschool origins of cross-national differences in mathematical competence: The role of number-naming systems. Psychological Science, 6(1), 56–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00305.x

29.

Morrison

R. G.

Doumas

L. A.

Richland

L. E

. (2011). A computational account of children’s analogical reasoning: Balancing inhibitory control in working memory and relational representation. Developmental Science, 14(3), 516–529. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.00999.x

30.

Nayar

Franchak

Adolph

Kiorpes

. (2015). From local to global processing: The development of illusory contour perception. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 131, 38–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2014.11.001

31.

Nisbett

R. E

. (2004). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently … and why. The Free Press.

32.

Poirel

Mellet

Houdé

Pineau

. (2008). First came the trees, then the forest: Developmental changes during childhood in the processing of visual local–global patterns according to the meaningfulness of the stimuli. Developmental Psychology, 44(1), 245–253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.44.1.245

33.

Premack, D. (1976). Intelligence in Ape and Man. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

34.

Premack

(1983). The codes of man and beast. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6(1), 125–137. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00015077

35.

Rattermann

M. J.

Gentner

. (1998). The effect of language on similarity: The use of relational labels improves young children’s performance in a mapping task. In Holyoak

Gentner

Kokinov

(Eds.), Advances in analogy research: Integration of theory and data from the cognitive, computational, and neural sciences (pp. 274–283). New Bulgarian University.

36.

Read

D. W

. (2008). Working memory: A cognitive limit to non-human Primate recursive thinking prior to hominid evolution. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(4), 676–714. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/147470490800600413

37.

Richland

L. E

. (2015). Linking gestures: Cross-cultural variation during instructional analogies. Cognition and Instruction, 33(4), 295–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2015.1091459

38.

Richland

L. E.

Chan

T. K.

Morrison

R. G.

T. K. F

. (2010). Young children’s analogical reasoning across cultures: Similarities and differences. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 105(1–2), 146–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2009.08.003

39.

Richland

L. E.

Zur

Holyoak

K. J

. (2007). Cognitive supports for analogies in the mathematics classroom. Science, 316(5828), 1128–1129. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1142103

40.

Senzaki

Masuda

Takada

Okada

Kendal

R. L

. (2016). The communication of culturally dominant modes of attention from parents to children: A comparison of Canadian and Japanese parent-child conversations during a joint scene description task. PLoS ONE, 11(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147199

41.

Simms

N. K.

Frausel

R. R.

Richland

L. E

. (2018). Working memory predicts children’s analogical reasoning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 166, 160–177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.08.005

42.

Smith

J. D.

Redford

J. S.

Haas

S. M.

Coutinho

M. V. C.

Couchman

J. J

. (2008). The comparative psychology of same-different judgments by humans (Homo sapiens) and monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Journal of Experimental Psychology. Animal Behavior Processes, 34(3), 361–374. https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.34.3.361

43.

Thompson

R. K. R.

Oden

D. L

. (2000). Categorical perception and conceptual judgments by nonhuman primates: The paleological monkey and the analogical ape. Cognitive Science, 24(3), 363–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(00)00029-X

44.

Vendetti

Matlan

Richland

L. E.

Bunge

. (2015). Analogical reasoning in the classroom: Insights from cognitive science. Mind, Brain, and Education, 9(2), 100–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12080

45.

Wasserman, E. A., & Young, M. E. (2010). Same-different discrimination: The keel and backbone of thought and reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology Animal Behavior Processes, 36(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016327

46.

Waxman

S. R.

Ferguson

Geraghty

Leddon

Liang

Zhao

M. F

. (2016). How early is infants’ attention to objects and actions shaped by culture? New evidence from 24-month-olds raised in the US and China. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 97. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00097

47.

Zentall

T. R.

Wasserman

E. A.

Lazareva

O. F.

Thompson

R. K. R.

Rattermann

M. J

. (2008). Concept learning in animals. Comparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews, 3, 13–45. https://doi.org/10.3819/ccbr.2008.30002