The Relationship Between General Intelligence and Reasoning Types of Early Childhood Education Students: Pedagogical Implications

The goal of the research was to assess the relationship between the intelligence and logical reasoning of early childhood education students who have completed the first year in the primary school. To assess the intelligence, the Raven Standard Matrix Test and a test for the assessment of logical reasoning were used, examining analytical-mathematical, practical, systemic, and spatial reasoning types. A statistically significant correlation was found between intelligence and spatial reasoning, also between analytical and mathematical as well as systemic and practical reasoning types. Students who reflectively analysed a given problem better understood the relationships between individual elements and used the acquired knowledge.

REFERENCES:

• Benedek, M., Jauk, E., Sommer, M., Arendasy, M., & Neubauer, A. C. (2014). Intelligence, creativity, and cognitive control: The common and differential involvement of executive functions in intelligence and creativity, Intelligence, 46, 73–83. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2014.05.007.
• Bronkhorst, H., Roorda, G., Suhre, C., & Goedhart, M. (2021). Student Development in Logical Reasoning: Results of an Intervention Guiding Students Through Different Modes of Visual and Formal Representation. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 21(2), 378-399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42330-021-00148-4.
• Bronkhorst, H., Roorda, G., Suhre, C., Goedhart, M. (2019). Logical reasoning in formal and everyday reasoning tasks. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-10039-8.
• Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities. A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Carroll, J. B. (2003). The higher-stratum structure of cognitive abilities: current evidence supports g and about ten broad factors. In: The Scientific Study of General Intelligence: Tribute to Arthur R. Jensen. Ed. H. Nyborg. Oxford: Elsevier Science/ Pergamon Press, 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-008043793-4/50036-2.
• Cattell, R. B., & Horn, J. L. (1978). A check on the theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence with description of new subset designs. Journal of Educational Measurement, 15, 139–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1978.tb00065.x.
• Colom, R., Karama, Sh., Jung, R. E., & Haier, R. J. (2010). Human intelligence and brain networks. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 12(4), 489–501. https://doi.org/10.31887/DCNS.2010.12.4/rcolom.
• Cresswell, C., & Speelman, C. P. (2020). Does mathematics training lead to better logical thinking and reasoning? A cross-sectional assessment from students to professors. PLOS ONE, 15(7), e0236153. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236153
• Dündar-Coecke, S. (2022). To what extent is general intelligence relevant to causal reasoning? A developmental study. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 692552. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.692552.
• Gottfredson, L. (1997). Mainstream science on intelligence: an editorial with 52 signatories, history, and bibliography. Intelligence, 24, 13–23.
• Gruszczyk-Kolczyńska, E. (2019). Inclination for mathematical giftedness in children: Research results, analysis, conclusions and pedagogical implications. International Journal of Pedagogy Innovation and New Technologies, 6(2), 2–10. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0013.6820.
• Guilford, J. P., & Pandey, R. E. (1974). Abilities for divergent production of symbolic and semantic systems. Journal of General Psychology, 91, 209–220.
• Jaeggi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M., Jonides, J., & Perrig, W. J. (2008). Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(19), 6829–6833. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0801268105.
• Jaworowska, A., & Aleksandra, T. (2000). Test Matryc Ravena w wersji Standard. TMSK. [Raven Matrices Test in the version of Standard. SMT-K]. Warszawa: Pracownia Testów Psychologicznych Polskiego Towarzystwa Psychologicznego.
• Juszczyk, S. (2022). Some reflections on the methodology of multidisciplinary empirical research conducted within the paradigms: “Education 4.0”, “Industry 4.0” and “Society 5.0”. Edukacja Międzykulturowa, 4(19), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.15804/em.2022.04.01.
• Karwowski, M., & Gralewski, J. (2013). Threshold hypothesis: Fact or artifact? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8, 25–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2012.05.003.
• Karwowski, M., Dul, J., Gralewski, J., Jauk, E., & Jankowska, D. M. (2016). Is creativity without intelligence possible? A necessary condition analysis. Intelligence, 57, 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2016.04.006
• Karwowski, M., Kaufman, J. C., Lebuda, I., Szumski, G., & Firkowska-Mankiewicz, A. (2017). Intelligence in childhood and creative achievements in middle-age: The necessary condition approach. Intelligence, 64, 36–44. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2017.07.001.
• Klauer, K.J., & Willmes, K. (2002). Inducing inductive reasoning: does it transfer to fluid intelligence? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.2001.1079.
• Michałek-Piernik B. (2023). Doświadczenia i eksperymenty naukowe w pracy z uczniami edukacji wczesnoszkolnej a nabywanie przez nich kompetencji naukowo-społecznych. Praca doktorska – niepublikowana.
• Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T., Boykin, A., Brody, N., Ceci, S., Halpern, D., Loehlin, J., Perloff, R., Sternberg, R., & Urbina, S. (1996). Intelligence: knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51, 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.77.
• Nickerson, R. S. (2020). Developing intelligence through instruction. In: The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Ed. R. Sternberg. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 205–237.
• Nutley, S., Söderqvist, S., Thorell, L., Humphreys, K., & Klingberg, T. (2011). Gains in fluid intelligence after training non-verbal reasoning in 4-year-old children: a controlled, randomized study, Developmental Science, 14(3), 591–601. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.01022.x.
• Raven, J. C. (1938-65). Progressive Matrices. New York: The Psychological Corporation, & London: H. K. Lewis & Co.
• Raven, J. C. (1951). Guide to Using Progressive Matrices (1947). London: H. K. Lewis & Co.
• Revelle, W., Wilt, J., & Condon, D. (2011). Individual Differences and Differential Psychology: A brief history and prospect. In: Handbook of Individual Differences. Eds. T. Chamorro-Premuzic, A. Furnham & S. von Stumm. Wiley-Blackwell, 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444343120.ch1.
• Shi, B., Wang, L., Yang, J., Zhang, M., & Xu, L. (2017). Relationship between Divergent Thinking and Intelligence: An Empirical Study of the Threshold Hypothesis with Chinese Children. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 254. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpsyg.2017.00254.
• Stanovich, K., & West, R. (2014). The Assessment of Rational Thinking: IQ ≠ RQ, Teaching of Psychology, 41(3), 265–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628314537988
• Stańdo, J. (2017). Jak wykorzystać technologię w zbieraniu, analizie i wizualizacji danych? [How to use technology in collecting, analysis, and visualization of data]. Warszawa: Ośrodek Rozwoju Edukacji.
• Sternberg, R., Kaufman, S., eds. (2011). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence, Cambridge University Press.
• Terman, L., & Merrill, M. (1960). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Manual for the Third Revision Form L–M. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
• Wechsler, D. (1949). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. Manual. New York: The Psychological Corporation.