Search for: All records

Problem solving encompasses the broad domain of human, goal-directed behaviors. Though we may attempt to measure problem solving using tightly controlled and decontextualized tasks, it is inextricably embedded in both reasoners’ experiences and their contexts. Without situating problem solvers, problem contexts, and our own experiential partialities as researchers, we risk intertwining the research of information relevance with our own confirmatory biases about people, environments, and ourselves. We review each of these ecological facets of information relevance in problem solving, and we suggest a framework to guide its measurement. We ground this framework with concrete examples of ecologically valid, culturally relevant measurement of problem solving. 

Measurement of the building blocks of everyday thought must capture the range of different ways that humans may train, develop, and use their cognitive resources in real world tasks. Executive function as a construct has been enthusiastically adopted by cognitive and education sciences due to its theorized role as an underpinning of, and constraint on, humans’ accomplishment of complex cognitively demanding tasks in the world, such as identifying problems, reasoning about and executing multi-step solutions while inhibiting prepotent responses or competing desires. As EF measures have been continually refined for increased precision; however, they have also become increasingly dissociated from those everyday accomplishments. We posit three implications of this insight: (1) extant measures of EFs that reduce context actually add an implicit requirement that children reason using abstract rules that are not accomplishing a function in the world, meaning that EF scores may in part reflect experience with formal schooling and Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic (WEIRD) socialization norms, limiting their ability to predict success in everyday life across contexts, (2) measurement of relational attention and relational reasoning have not received adequate consideration in this context but are highly aligned with the key aims for measuring EFs, and may be more aligned with humans’ everyday cognitive practices, but (3) relational attention and reasoning should be considered alongside rather than as an additional EF as has been suggested, for measurement clarity.