Changes over time and transfer of analogy-problem solving of gifted and non-gifted children in a dynamic testing setting

Abstract

This study examined differences in transfer of analogical reasoning after analogy-problem solving between 40 gifted and 95 average-ability children (aged 9–10 years old), utilising dynamic testing principles. This approach was used in order to examine potential differences between gifted and average-ability children in relation to progression after training, and with regard to the question whether training children in analogy problem-solving elicits transfer of analogical reasoning skills to an analogy construction-task. Children were allocated to one of two experimental conditions: either children received unguided practice in analogy problem-solving, or they were provided with this in addition to training incorporating graduated prompting techniques. The results showed that gifted and average-ability children who were trained made more progress in analogy problem-solving than their peers who received unguided practice experiences only. Gifted and average-ability children were found to show similar progression in analogy problem-solving, and gifted children did not appear to have an advantage in the analogy-construction transfer task. The dynamic training seemed to bring about no additional improvement on the transfer task over that of unguided practice experiences only.