Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
2.5
3.5
Journals
J. Intell.
Special Issues
Skill Acquisition, Expertise, and Achievement
share announcement

Special Issue "Skill Acquisition, Expertise, and Achievement"

A special issue of Journal of Intelligence (ISSN 2079-3200).

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (30 November 2022) | Viewed by 7066

Special Issue Editor

Dr. Alexander P. Burgoyne
E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
School of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA
Interests: individual differences; cognitive psychology; skill acquisition and expertise; intelligence; attention control; adverse impact; mindset

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

The Journal of Intelligence is pleased to offer a Special Issue on skill acquisition, expertise, and achievement. Researchers who study intelligence and its intersection with educational achievement, occupational success, sports, music, games, or other domains of skill are encouraged to submit manuscripts to this collection.

Research examining individual difference characteristics that are predictive of performance are welcome, as are experimental approaches aimed at uncovering the cognitive processes that support skill acquisition and expertise. Although we will consider literature reviews and theoretical position papers, priority will be given to reports containing original, empirical data. Contributions should attempt to address the multifactorial nature of expertise.

Possible topics for articles to be submitted to the Special Issue include:

  • Cognitive and non-cognitive predictors of individual differences in skill acquisition
  • The role of general intelligence vs. specific abilities
  • The relative contributions of cognitive ability, experience, and their interaction
  • Cognitive models of performance
  • Training and transfer of training

Please note that the “Planned Papers” Section on the webpage does not imply that these papers will eventually be accepted; all manuscripts will be subject to the journal’s normal and rigorous peer review process.

Dr. Alexander P. Burgoyne
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a double-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Journal of Intelligence is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2600 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Published Papers (4 papers)

Download All Papers
Order results
Result details
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

get_app
Article
Individual Responses versus Aggregate Group-Level Results: Examining the Strength of Evidence for Growth Mindset Interventions on Academic Performance
by
Mariel K. Barnett
and
Brooke N. Macnamara
J. Intell. 2023, 11(6), 104; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11060104 - 30 May 2023
Viewed by 1070
Abstract
Mindset theory assumes that students’ beliefs about their intelligence—whether these are fixed or can grow—affects students’ academic performance. Based on this assumption, mindset theorists have developed growth mindset interventions to teach students that their intelligence or another attribute can be developed, with the [...] Read more.
Mindset theory assumes that students’ beliefs about their intelligence—whether these are fixed or can grow—affects students’ academic performance. Based on this assumption, mindset theorists have developed growth mindset interventions to teach students that their intelligence or another attribute can be developed, with the goal of improving academic outcomes. Though many papers have reported benefits from growth mindset interventions, others have reported no effects or even detrimental effects. Recently, proponents of mindset theory have called for a “heterogeneity revolution” to understand when growth mindset interventions are effective and when—and for whom—they are not. We sought to examine the whole picture of heterogeneity of treatment effects, including benefits, lack of impacts, and potential detriments of growth mindset interventions on academic performance. We used a recently proposed approach that considers persons as effect sizes; this approach can reveal individual-level heterogeneity often lost in aggregate data analyses. Across three papers, we find that this approach reveals substantial individual-level heterogeneity unobservable at the group level, with many students and teachers exhibiting mindset and performance outcomes that run counter to the authors’ claims. Understanding and reporting heterogeneity, including benefits, null effects, and detriments, will lead to better guidance for educators and policymakers considering the role of growth mindset interventions in schools. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Skill Acquisition, Expertise, and Achievement)
get_app
Article
Ability and Nonability Predictors of Real-World Skill Acquisition: The Case of Rubik’s Cube Solving
by
Elizabeth J. Meinz
,
David Z. Hambrick
,
James J. Leach
and
Prairie J. Boschulte
J. Intell. 2023, 11(1), 18; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11010018 - 16 Jan 2023
Viewed by 1994
Abstract
Most research on skilled performance is correlational, with skill and predictors measured at a single point in time, making it difficult to draw conclusions about the acquisition of skill. By contrast, in this study, we trained novice participants (N = 79) to [...] Read more.
Most research on skilled performance is correlational, with skill and predictors measured at a single point in time, making it difficult to draw conclusions about the acquisition of skill. By contrast, in this study, we trained novice participants (N = 79) to solve Rubik’s Cubes using a 7-step solution method. Participants also completed measures of fluid intelligence (Gf), working memory capacity (WMC), and nonability factors (grit, growth mindset, NFC, and the “big five”). Overall, higher Gf (but not WMC) was predictive of efficient and accurate Rubik’s cube skill. No nonability variables were associated with skill. Our results provide compelling evidence for the importance of intellectual talent (cognitive ability) in developing expertise in a complex task. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Skill Acquisition, Expertise, and Achievement)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

get_app
Article
The ACT Predicts Academic Performance—But Why?
by
Alexander P. Burgoyne
,
Kelly M. Stec
,
Kimberly M. Fenn
and
David Z. Hambrick
J. Intell. 2023, 11(1), 9; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11010009 - 03 Jan 2023
Viewed by 1480
Abstract
Scores on the ACT college entrance exam predict college grades to a statistically and practically significant degree, but what explains this predictive validity? The most obvious possibility is general intelligence—or psychometric “g”. However, inconsistent with this hypothesis, even when independent measures [...] Read more.
Scores on the ACT college entrance exam predict college grades to a statistically and practically significant degree, but what explains this predictive validity? The most obvious possibility is general intelligence—or psychometric “g”. However, inconsistent with this hypothesis, even when independent measures of g are statistically controlled, ACT scores still positively predict college grades. Here, in a study of 182 students enrolled in two Introductory Psychology courses, we tested whether pre-course knowledge, motivation, interest, and/or personality characteristics such as grit and self-control could explain the relationship between ACT and course performance after controlling for g. Surprisingly, none could. We speculate about what other factors might explain the robust relationship between ACT scores and academic performance. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Skill Acquisition, Expertise, and Achievement)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

get_app
Article
Learning and Transfer in Problem Solving Progressions
by
Jonathan S. Daniels
,
David Moreau
and
Brooke N. Macnamara
J. Intell. 2022, 10(4), 85; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10040085 - 12 Oct 2022
Viewed by 1811
Abstract
Do individuals learn more effectively when given progressive or variable problem-solving experience, relative to consistent problem-solving experience? We investigated this question using a Rubik’s Cube paradigm. Participants were randomly assigned to a progression-order condition, where they practiced solving three progressively more difficult Rubik’s [...] Read more.
Do individuals learn more effectively when given progressive or variable problem-solving experience, relative to consistent problem-solving experience? We investigated this question using a Rubik’s Cube paradigm. Participants were randomly assigned to a progression-order condition, where they practiced solving three progressively more difficult Rubik’s Cubes (i.e., 2 × 2 × 2 to 3 × 3 × 3 to 4 × 4 × 4), a variable-order condition, where they practiced solving three Rubik’s Cubes of varying difficulty (e.g., 3 × 3 × 3 to 2 × 2 × 2 to 4 × 4 × 4), or a consistent-order condition, where they consistently practiced on three 5 × 5 × 5 Rubik’s Cubes. All the participants then attempted a 5 × 5 × 5 Rubik’s Cube test. We tested whether variable training is as effective as progressive training for near transfer of spatial skills and whether progressive training is superior to consistent training. We found no significant differences in performance across conditions. Participants’ fluid reasoning predicted 5 × 5 × 5 Rubik’s Cube test performance regardless of training condition. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Skill Acquisition, Expertise, and Achievement)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
 
Displaying articles 1-4
Back to TopTop