Linking ideas, concepts, and disciplinary content is an underused yet effective educational strategy for fostering students’ higher order thinking. A body of psychological research on analogical reasoning can inform the challenge of encouraging higher order thinking in schools. We focus in particular on the teaching of mathematics and highlight alignments between a psychologically based definition of higher order thinking and educational goals as described within U.S. mathematical practice standards. Finally, this analysis implicates policies for supporting students’ higher order thinking including requiring assessments that capture these skills; disseminating assessment data meaningfully to help improve teachers, schools, or curricula; and designing professional development that draws explicit attention to these skills.
AlfieriL.Nokes-MalachT. J.SchunnC. D. (2013). Learning through case comparisons: a meta-analytic review. Educational Psychologist, 48(2), 87-113.
2.
AlibaliM. W.NathanM. J. (2007). Teachers’ gestures as a means of scaffolding students’ understanding: Evidence from an early algebra lesson. In GoldmanR.PeaR.BarronB. J.DerryS. (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 349-365). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
3.
AlibaliM. W.NathanM. J.WolfgramM. S.ChurchR. B.JacobsS. A.Johnson MartinezC.KnuthE. J. (2014). How teachers link ideas in mathematics instruction using speech and gesture: A corpus analysis. Cognition and Instruction, 32, 65-100.
4.
AshcraftM. H.KirkE. P. (2001). The relationships among working memory, math anxiety, and performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(2), 224.
5.
AubussonP. J.HarrisonA. G.RitchieS. M.FogwillS. M. (2005). In AubussonP. J.HarrisonA. G.FogwillS. M. (Eds.), Metaphor and analogy in science education (Vol. 30). Springer Science & Business Media.
6.
BallD. L. (1993). Halves, pieces, and twoths: Constructing and using representational contexts in teaching fractions. In CarpenterT. P.FennemaE.RombergT. A. (Eds.), Rational numbers: An integration of research (pp. 157-195). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
7.
BegolliK. N.RichlandL. E. (2015). Teaching mathematics by comparison: Analog visibility as a double-edged sword. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(2), 194-213.
8.
BeilockS. L.CarrT. H. (2005). When high-powered people fail: Working memory and “choking under pressure” in math. Psychological Science, 16(2), 101-105.
9.
BeilockS. L.DeCaroM. S. (2007). From poor performance to success under stress: working memory, strategy selection, and mathematical problem solving under pressure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(6), 983.
10.
BlackP.HarrisonC.LeeC.MarshallB.WiliamD. (2004). Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. The Phi Delta Kappan, 86(September), 8-21.
11.
BransfordJ. D.BrownA. L.CockingR. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
12.
BrownS.SalterS. (2010). Analogies in science and science teaching. Advances in Physiology Education, 34, 167-169. doi:10.1152/advan.00022.2010
13.
ChoS.HolyoakK. J.CannonT. D. (2007). Analogical reasoning in working memory: Resources shared among relational integration, interference resolution, and maintenance. Memory & Cognition, 35(6), 1445-1455.
14.
ClementJ. (1982). Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50(1), 66-71.
15.
ClementJ. (1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students’ preconceptions in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1241-1257.
16.
ClementJ. J.BrownD. E. (2008). Using analogies and models in instruction to deal with students’ preconceptions. In ClementJ. (Ed.), Creative model construction in scientists and students (pp. 139-155). Springer Netherlands.
17.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers.
18.
CrosnoeR.MorrisonF.BurchinalM.PiantaR.KeatingD.FriedmanS. L.NetworkE. C. C. R. (2010). Instruction, teacher–student relations, and math achievement trajectories in elementary school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 407-417.
19.
DeCaroM. S.Rittle-JohnsonB. (2012). Exploring mathematics problems prepares children to learn from instruction. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 113, 552-568. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2012.06.009
20.
DiamondA.KirkhamN.AmsoD. (2002). Conditions under which young children can hold two rules in mind and inhibit a prepotent response. Developmental Psychology, 38(3), 352-362.
21.
DurkinK.Rittle-JohnsonB. (2012). The effectiveness of using incorrect examples to support learning about decimal magnitude. Learning and Instruction, 22, 206-214. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.11.001
22.
EngleR. W.KaneM. J. (2004). Executive attention, working memory capacity, and a two-factor theory of cognitive control. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 44, 145-200.
23.
ElseM. J.ClementJ. (2003, March23-26). Should different types of analogies be treated differently in instruction? Observations from a middle school life science curriculum. Proceedings of the National Association for Research in Science teaching, Philadelphia, PA.
24.
GentnerD.HolyoakK. J.KokinovB. N. (2001). The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25.
GentnerD.RattermannM. J. (1991). Language and the career of similarity. In GelmanS. A.ByrnesJ. P. (Eds.), Perspectives on language and thought: Interrelations in development (pp. 225-276). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
26.
GickM. L.HolyoakK. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12(3), 306-355.
27.
GickM. L.HolyoakK. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15(1), 1-38.
28.
GuoJ.PangM. (2011). Learning a mathematical concept from comparing examples: The importance of variation and prior knowledge. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 26, 495-525. doi:10.1007/s10212-011-0060-y
29.
HattikudurS.AlibaliM. W. (2010). Learning about the equal sign: Does comparing with inequality symbols help?Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 107, 15-30. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2010.03.004
30.
HiebertJ.StiglerJ. W.JacobsJ. K.GivvinK. B.GarnierH.SmithM.…GallimoreR. (2005). Mathematics teaching in the United States today (and tomorrow): Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(2), 111-132.
31.
HouseW. (2009). A strategy for American innovation: Driving towards sustainable growth and quality jobs. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, National Economic Council, Office of Science and Technology Policy, The White House.
32.
HolyoakK. J.ThagardP. (1996). Mental leaps: Analogy in creative thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
KaponS.diSessaA. A. (2012). Reasoning through instructional analogies. Cognition and Instruction, 30, 261-310. doi:10.1080/07370008.2012.689385
35.
LindenD. E.BittnerR. A.MuckliL.WaltzJ. A.KriegeskorteN.GoebelR.…MunkM. H. (2003). Cortical capacity constraints for visual working memory: Dissociation of fMRI load effects in a fronto-parietal network. Neuroimage, 20(3), 1518-1530.
36.
LynchK.StarJ. R. (2013). Teachers’ views about multiple strategies in middle and high school mathematics: Perceived advantages, disadvantages, and reported instructional practices. Mathematical Thinking and Learning. 16(2), 85-108.
37.
MorrisonR. G.DoumasL. A.RichlandL. 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.
38.
MiyakeA.FriedmanN. P.EmersonM. J.WitzkiA. H.HowerterA.WagerT. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “Frontal Lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 49-100. doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0734
39.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
40.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
41.
PashlerH.McDanielM.RohrerD.BjorkR. (2008). Learning styles concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9, 105-119.
42.
NokesT. J.SchunnC. D.ChiM. T. H. (2010). Problem solving and human expertise. In PetersonP.BakerE.McGrawB. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (vol. 5, pp. 265-272). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
43.
RichlandL. E. (2015). Linking gestures: Cross-cultural variation during instructional analogies. Cognition and Instruction, 33, 295-321.
44.
RichlandL. E.HansenJ. (2013). Reducing cognitive load in learning by analogy. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 5(4), 69-80. doi:10.5539/ijps.v5n4p69
45.
RichlandL. E.HolyoakK. J.StiglerJ. W. (2004). Analogy generation in eighth-grade mathematics classrooms. Cognition and Instruction, 22(1), 37-60.
46.
RichlandL. E.MorrisonR. G.HolyoakK. J. (2006). Children’s development of analogical reasoning: Insights from scene analogy problems. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 94(3), 249-273.
47.
RichlandL. E.McDonoughI. M. (2010). Learning by analogy: Discriminating between potential analogs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(1), 28-43.
48.
RichlandL. E.SimmsN. (2015). Analogy, higher order thinking, and education. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 6(2), 177-192.
49.
RichlandL. E.ZurO.HolyoakK. J. (2007). Cognitive supports for analogies in the mathematics classroom. Science, 316(5828), 1128-1129.
50.
Rittle-JohnsonB.StarJ. R. (2007). Does comparing solution methods facilitate conceptual and procedural knowledge? An experimental study on learning to solve equations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 561.
51.
Rittle-JohnsonB.StarJ. R. (2009). Compared with what? The effects of different comparisons on conceptual knowledge and procedural flexibility for equation solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 529-544. doi:10.1037/a0014224
52.
Rittle-JohnsonB.StarJ. R. (2011). The power of comparison in learning and instruction: Learning outcomes supported by different types of comparisons. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 55, 199-225. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00007-7
53.
Rittle-JohnsonB.StarJ. R.DurkinK. (2009). The importance of prior knowledge when comparing examples: Influences on conceptual and procedural knowledge of equation solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 836-852. doi:10.1037/a0016026
54.
SchwartzD. L.ChaseC. C.OppezzoM. A.ChinD. B. (2011). Practicing versus inventing with contrasting cases: The effects of telling first on learning and transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 759-775. doi:10.1037/a0025140
55.
SchwartzD. L.MartinT. (2004). Inventing to prepare for future learning: The hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 129-184. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci2202_1
56.
StarJ. R.Rittle-JohnsonB. (2009). It pays to compare: An experimental study on computational estimation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 102, 408-426.
57.
SteinM. K.EngleR. A.SmithM. S.HughesE. K. (2008). Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: Five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10, 313-340. doi:10.1080/10986060802229675
58.
ThompsonC. A.OpferJ. E. (2010). How 15 hundred is like 15 cherries: Effect of progressive alignment on representational changes in numerical cognition. Child Development, 81, 1768-1786. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01509.x
59.
VamvakoussiX.VosniadouS. (2012). Bridging the gap between the dense and the discrete: The number line and the “rubber line” bridging analogy. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 14, 265-284. doi:10.1080/10986065.2012.717378
60.
WaltzJ. A.LauA.GrewalS. K.HolyoakK. J. (2000). The role of working memory in analogical mapping. Memory & Cognition, 28(7), 1205-1212.
