Lecture 2: Toward a Theory of Cognitive Aptitude for Learning from Instruction

TLDR: In this paper, the authors focus on cognitive aptitude for learning from formal instruction and show that cognitive aptitudes correlate positively with complex cognitive outcomes of learning, in treatments described as "conventional" instruction.

Abstract: As an example of how work toward a particular aptitude theory progresses within the framework for aptitude theory previously given, this lecture concentrates on cognitive aptitude for learning from formal instruction. Call this aptitude construct “general ability”, or “academic intelligence”, or G for short. Since this is an aptitude construct that has been studied extensively, the first step is to consider what the facts in hand already imply for theory. A first fact is that G routinely correlates positively with complex cognitive outcomes of learning, in treatments described as “conventional” instruction. The obtained correlations typically range from. 30 to. 80. The aptitude measures that yield these correlations are those that typically show high loadings on a G factor in a factor analysis and go into defining higher-order factors such as crystallised intelligence (Gc), fluid intelligence (Gf) and to a lesser extent visualisation (Gv). A second fact is that variation in the G-cognitive outcome correlation is associated with variation in instructional treatments — an aptitude-treatment-interaction. As the instructional treatment appears to be less structured, less complete, and less controlling of step-by-step learning activities, it places a heavier information-processing burden on learners, and the G-outcome regression slope is thus made steeper. As the instructional treatment appears to be more structured, more complete, and more controlling of learning activities, it removes information-processing burden from learners, and the G-outcome regression slope is thus made shallower. There is both a cognitive and motivational interpretation. High G students do best when challenged and motivated with processing burdens and allowed to use their own learning strategies; they do worse when the treatment structures learning from them, due to cognitive interference with their own learning strategies, or motivational turn-off, or both. Lower G students are unable to cope cognitively with the burden of low-structure treatments and tune out motivationally; they are both guided and reinforced by structured treatments.