Agrillo, C., Piffer, L., Bisazza, A., & Butterworth, B. (2012). Evidence for two numerical systems that are similar in humans and guppies. PLoS ONE, 7, e31923.Google Scholar

Anagnostou, E., & Taylor, M. J. (2011). Review of neuroimaging in autism spectrum disorders: What have we learned and where we go from here. Molecular Autism, 2, 4.Google Scholar

Antell, S. E., & Keating, D. P. (1983). Perception of numerical invariance in neonates. Child Development, 54, 695–701.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Beran, M. J., Decker, S., Schwartz, A., & Schultz, N. (2011a). Monkeys (Macaca mulatta and Cebus apella) and human adults and children (Homo sapiens) compare subsets of moving stimuli based on numerosity. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 61.Google Scholar

Beran, M. J., Johnson-Pynn, J. S., & Ready, C. (2011b). Comparing children’s Homo sapiens and chimpanzees’ Pan troglodytes quantity judgments of sequentially presented sets of items. Current Zoology, 57, 419–428.Google Scholar

Blakemore, S.-J., & Frith, U. (2005). The Learning Brain: Lessons for Education. Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Publishing.Google ScholarPubMed

Bruer, J. T. (2016). Where is educational neuroscience? Educational Neuroscience, 1, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bugden, S., & Ansari, D. (2016). Probing the nature of deficits in the ‘approximate number system’ in children with persistent developmental dyscalculia. Developmental Science, 19, 817–833.Google Scholar

Butterworth, B. (2003). Dyscalculia Screener. Glasgow: NFER Nelson Publishing Company Ltd.Google Scholar

Butterworth, B. (2008). Developmental dyscalculia. In Reed, J., & Warner-Rogers, J. (eds.), Child Neuropsychology: Concepts, Theory, and Practice (pp. 357–374). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Cantlon, J. F., & Brannon, E. M. (2006). Shared system for ordering small and large numbers in monkeys and humans. Psychological Science, 17, 401–406.Google Scholar

Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., & Franke, M. L. (1996). Cognitively guided instruction: A knowledge base for reform in primary mathematics instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 97, 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carter, K. (1990). Teachers’ knowledge and learning to teach. Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, 2, 291–310.Google Scholar

Chen, Q., & Li, J. (2014). Association between individual differences in non-symbolic number acuity and math performance: A meta-analysis. Acta Psychologica, 148, 163–172.Google Scholar

Chesney, D. L., & Haladjian, H. H. (2011). Evidence for a shared mechanism used in multiple-object tracking and subitizing. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73, 2457–2480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

De Smedt, B., Verschaffel, L., & Ghesquière, P. (2009). The predictive value of numerical magnitude comparison for individual differences in mathematics achievement. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 103, 469–479.Google Scholar

Dehaene, S. (2005). Evolution of human cortical circuits for reading and arithmetic: The “neuronal recycling” hypothesis. In Dehaene, S., Duhamel, J. R., Hauser, M., & Rizzolatti, G. (eds.), From Monkey Brain to Human Brain (pp. 133–157). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Dehaene, S. (2007). Symbols and quantities in parietal cortex: Elements of a mathematical theory of number representation and manipulation. Sensorimotor Foundations of Higher Cognition, 22, 527–574.Google Scholar

Dehaene, S. (2008). Cerebral constraints in reading and arithmetic: Education as a “neuronal recycling” process. In Battro, A., Fischer, K., & Léna, P. (eds.), The Educated Brain: Essays in Neuroeducation (pp. 232–247). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dehaene, S., Piazza, M., Pinel, P., & Cohen, L. (2003). Three parietal circuits for number processing. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20, 487–506.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53, 159–199.Google Scholar

Dyson, N. I., Jordan, N. C., & Glutting, J. (2013). A number sense intervention for low-income kindergartners at risk for mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46, 166–181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Eden, G. F., Olulade, O. A., Evans, T. M., Krafnick, A. J., & Alkire, D. R. (2016). Developmental dyslexia. In Hickok, G., & Small, S. L. (eds.), Neurobiology of Language (pp. 815–826). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Eger, E., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Amadon, A., Dehaene, S., & Kleinschmidt, A. (2009). Deciphering cortical number coding from human brain activity patterns. Current Biology, 19, 1608–1615.Google Scholar

Feigenson, L., Carey, S., & Hauser, M. (2002). The representations underlying infants’ choice of more: Object files versus analog magnitudes. Psychological Science, 13, 150–156.Google Scholar

Feigenson, L., Dehaene, S., & Spelke, E. (2004). Core systems of number. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 307–314.Google Scholar

Geddis, A. N. (1993). Transforming subject‐matter knowledge: The role of pedagogical content knowledge in learning to reflect on teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 15, 673–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge: An introduction and orientation. In Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N. G. (eds.), Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge (pp. 3–17). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Gilmore, C. K., Attridge, N., Clayton, S., Cragg, L., Johnson, S., Marlow, N., Simms, V., & Inglis, M. (2013). Individual differences in inhibitory control, not non-verbal number acuity, correlate with mathematics achievement. PLoS ONE, 8, e67374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gilmore, C. K., McCarthy, S. E., & Spelke, E. S. (2010). Non-symbolic arithmetic abilities and mathematics achievement in the first year of formal schooling. Cognition, 115, 394–406.Google Scholar

Goswami, U. (2004). Neuroscience and education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 1–14.Google Scholar

Grossman, P. L. (1990). The Making of a Teacher: Teacher Knowledge and Teacher Education. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar

Gruber, O., Indefrey, P., Steinmetz, H., & Kleinschmidt, A. (2001). Dissociating neural correlates of cognitive components in mental calculation. Cerebral Cortex, 11, 350–359.Google Scholar

Halberda, J., & Feigenson, L. (2008). Developmental change in the acuity of the ‘number sense’: The approximate number system in 3-, 4-, 5-, 6-year-olds and adults. Developmental Psychology, 44, 1457–1465.Google Scholar

Halberda, J., Ly, R., Wilmer, J. B., Naiman, D. Q., & Germine, L. (2012). Number sense across the lifespan as revealed by a massive Internet-based sample. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), 109, 11116–11120.Google Scholar

Halberda, J., Mazzocco, M. M., & Feigenson, L. (2008). Individual differences in non-verbal number acuity correlate with maths achievement. Nature, 455, 665.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hashweh, M. Z. (2005). Teacher pedagogical constructions: A reconfiguration of pedagogical content knowledge. Teachers and Teaching, 11, 273–292.Google Scholar

Hawes, Z., Moss, J., Caswell, B., & Poliszczuk, D. (2015). Effects of mental rotation training on children’s spatial and mathematics performance: A randomized controlled study. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 4, 60–68.Google Scholar

Holloway, I. D., & Ansari, D. (2008). Domain‐specific and domain‐general changes in children’s development of number comparison. Developmental Science, 11, 644–649.Google Scholar

Holloway, I. D., Battista, C., Vogel, S. E., & Ansari, D. (2013). Semantic and perceptual processing of number symbols: Evidence from a cross-linguistic fMRI adaptation study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25, 388–400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Houde, O., Pineau, A., Leroux, G., Poirel, N., Perchey, G., Lanoë, C., Lubin, A., Turbelin, M. R., Rossi, S., Simon, G., Delcroix, N., Lamberton, F., Vigneau, M., Wisniewski, G., Vicet, J. R., & Mazoyer, B. (2012). Functional MRI study of Piaget’s conservation-of-number task in preschool and school-age children: A neo-Piagetian approach. International Journal of Psychology, 47, 332–346.Google Scholar

Hoyle, E., & John, P. D. (1995). Professional Knowledge and Professional Practice. London: Burns & Oates.Google Scholar

Inglis, M., Attridge, N., Batchelor, S., & Gilmore, C. K. (2011). Non-verbal number acuity correlates with symbolic mathematics achievement: But only in children. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 1222–1229.Google Scholar

Jang, S., & Cho, S. (2016). The acuity for numerosity (but not continuous magnitude) discrimination correlates with quantitative problem solving but not routinized arithmetic. Current Psychology, 35, 44–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kucian, K., Grond, U., Rotzer, S., Henzi, B., Schönmann, C., Plangger, F., Gälli, M., Martin, E., & von Aster, M. (2011). Mental number line training in children with developmental dyscalculia. Neuroimage, 57, 782–795.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Landerl, K., Fussenegger, B., Moll, K., & Willburger, E. (2009). Dyslexia and dyscalculia: Two learning disorders with different cognitive profiles. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 103, 309–324.Google Scholar

Libertus, M. E., Feigenson, L., & Halberda, J. (2011). Preschool acuity of the approximate number system correlates with school math ability. Developmental Science, 14, 1292–1300.Google Scholar

Lyons, I. M., & Beilock, S. L. (2011). Numerical ordering ability mediates the relation between number-sense and arithmetic competence. Cognition, 121, 256–261.Google Scholar

Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N. G. (eds.), Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge (pp. 95–132). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Mason, C. (1999). The TRIAD approach: A consensus for science teaching and learning. In In Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N. G. (eds.), Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge (pp. 277–292). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Mazzocco, M. M., Feigenson, L., & Halberda, J. (2011). Preschoolers’ precision of the approximate number system predicts later school mathematics performance. PLoS ONE, 6, e23749.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Mussolin, C., Nys, J., Content, A., & Leybaert, J. (2014). Symbolic number abilities predict later approximate number system acuity in preschool children. PLoS ONE, 9, e91839.Google Scholar

Nieder, A., & Dehaene, S. (2009). Representation of number in the brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 32, 185–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Nosworthy, N., Bugden, S., Archibald, L., Evans, B., & Ansari, D. (2013). A two-minute paper-and-pencil test of symbolic and nonsymbolic numerical magnitude processing explains variability in primary school children’s arithmetic competence. PLoS ONE, 8, e67918.Google Scholar

Nys, J., Ventura, P., Fernandes, T., Querido, L., Leybaert, J., & Content, A. (2013). Does math education modify the approximate number system? A comparison of schooled and unschooled adults. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 2, 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Park, J., & Brannon, E. M. (2014). Improving arithmetic performance with number sense training: An investigation of underlying mechanism. Cognition, 133, 188–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Peng, P., Yang, X., & Meng, X. (2017). The relation between approximate number system and early arithmetic: The mediation role of numerical knowledge. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 157, 111–124.Google Scholar

Petersen, S. E., Fox, P. T., Posner, M. I., Mintun, M., & Raichle, M. E. (1988). Positron emission tomographic studies of the cortical anatomy of single-word processing. Nature, 331, 585.Google Scholar

Piazza, M., Pinel, P., Le Bihan, D., & Dehaene, S. (2007). A magnitude code common to numerosities and number symbols in human intraparietal cortex. Neuron, 53, 293–305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Pickering, S. J., & Howard‐Jones, P. (2007). Educators’ views on the role of neuroscience in education: Findings from a study of UK and international perspectives. Mind, Brain, and Education, 1, 109–113.Google Scholar

Price, G. R., & Fuchs, L. S. (2016). The mediating relation between symbolic and nonsymbolic foundations of math competence. PLoS ONE, 11, e0148981.Google Scholar

Rugani, R., Fontanari, L., Simoni, E., Regolin, L., & Vallortigara, G. (2009). Arithmetic in newborn chicks. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276, 2451–2460.Google Scholar

Sasanguie, D., De Smedt, B., Defever, E., & Reynvoet, B. (2012). Association between basic numerical abilities and mathematics achievement. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 30, 344–357.Google Scholar

Sasanguie, D., Göbel, S., Moll, K., Smets, K., & Reynvoet, B. (2013). Acuity of the approximate number sense, symbolic number comparison or mapping numbers onto space: What underlies mathematics achievement? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114, 418–431.Google Scholar

Sasanguie, D., Lyons, I. M., De Smedt, B., & Reynvoet, B. (2017). Unpacking symbolic number comparison and its relation with arithmetic in adults. Cognition, 165, 26–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Schwab, J. J. (1982). Science, Curriculum, and Liberal Education: Selected Essays. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Sella, F., Tressoldi, P., Lucangeli, D., & Zorzi, M. (2016). Training numerical skills with the adaptive videogame “The Number Race”: A randomized controlled trial on preschoolers. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 5, 20–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shalev, R. S., Manor, O., & Gross-Tsur, V. (2005). Developmental dyscalculia: A prospective six-year follow-up. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 47, 121–125.Google Scholar

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.Google Scholar

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–23.Google Scholar

Siegler, R. S., Fazio, L. K., Bailey, D. H., & Zhou, X. (2013). Fractions: The new frontier for theories of numerical development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17, 13–19.Google Scholar

Soltanlou, M., Artemenko, C., Dresler, T., Haeussinger, F. B., Fallgatter, A. J., Ehlis, A.-C., & Nuerk, H.-C. (2017). Increased arithmetic complexity is associated with domain-general but not domain-specific magnitude processing in children: A simultaneous fNIRS-EEG study. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 17, 724–736.Google Scholar

Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 455–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Supekar, K., Swigart, A. G., Tenison, C., Jolles, D. D., Rosenberg-Lee, M., Fuchs, L., & Menon, V. (2013). Neural predictors of individual differences in response to math tutoring in primary-grade school children. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), 110, 8230–8235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Träff, U. (2013). The contribution of general cognitive abilities and number abilities to different aspects of mathematics in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116, 139–156.Google Scholar

van Marle, K., Chu, F. W., Li, Y., & Geary, D. C. (2014). Acuity of the approximate number system and preschoolers’ quantitative development. Developmental Science, 17, 492–505.Google Scholar

Vanbinst, K., Ansari, D., Ghesquière, P., & De Smedt, B. (2016). Symbolic numerical magnitude processing is as important to arithmetic as phonological awareness is to reading. PLoS ONE, 11, e0151045.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Xenidou-Dervou, I., Molenaar, D., Ansari, D., van der Schoot, M., & van Lieshout, E. C. (2017). Nonsymbolic and symbolic magnitude comparison skills as longitudinal predictors of mathematical achievement. Learning and Instruction, 50, 1–13.Google Scholar

Xu, F., & Spelke, E. S. (2000). Large number discrimination in 6-month-old infants. Cognition, 74, B1–B11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19, 5–51.Google Scholar

Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108, 204–256.Google Scholar

DfE (2013). (Department for Education) Statutory guidance: National curriculum in England: Framework for key stages 1 to 4. Available from www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-framework-for-key-stages-1-to-4. Last accessed 18 August 2021.Google Scholar

Di Bono, M., & Zorzi, M. (2013). Deep generative learning of location-invariant visual word recognition. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 635.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Frost, R. (2012). Towards a universal model of reading. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35, 263–279.Google Scholar

Gentaz, E., Sprenger-Charolles, L., Theurel, A., & Colé, P. (2013). Reading comprehension in a large cohort of French first graders from low socio-economic status families: A 7-month longitudinal study. PLoS ONE, 8, e78608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grainger, J. (1992). Orthographic neighborhoods and visual word recognition. In Frost, R., & Katz, L. (eds.), Orthography, Phonology, Morphology, and Meaning. Advances in Psychology (Vol. 94, pp. 131–146). Oxford: North-Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grainger, J., & Jacobs, A. M. (1994). A dual read-out model of word context effects in letter perception: Further investigations of the word superiority effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 20, 1158–1176.Google Scholar

Hannagan, T., Ziegler, J. C., Dufau, S., Fagot, J., & Grainger, J. (2014). Deep learning of orthographic representations in baboons. PLoS ONE, 9, e84843.Google Scholar

Harm, M. W., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1999). Phonology, reading acquisition, and dyslexia: Insights from connectionist models. Psychological Review, 106, 491–528.Google Scholar

Huey, E. B. (1908/1968). The Psychology and Pedagogy of Reading. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Hulme, C., Bowyer-Crane, C., Carroll, J. M., Duff, F. J., & Snowling, M. J. (2012). The causal role of phoneme awareness and letter-sound knowledge in learning to read: Combining intervention studies with mediation analyses. Psychological Science, 23(6), 572–577.Google Scholar

Jacobs, A. M., Rey, A., Ziegler, J. C., & Grainger, J. (1998). MROM-p: An interactive activation, multiple readout model of orthographic and phonological processes in visual word recognition. In Grainger, J., & Jacobs, A. M. (eds.), Localist Connectionist Approaches to Human Cognition (Scientific Psychology Series, pp. 147–188). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Kohnen, S., Nickels, L., Castles, A., Friedmann, N., & McArthur, G. (2012). When ‘slime’ becomes ‘smile’: Developmental letter position dyslexia in English. Neuropsychologia, 50, 3681–3692.Google Scholar

Landerl, K., Ramus, F., Moll, K., Lyytinen, H., Leppanen, P. H., Lohvansuu, K., et al., (2013). Predictors of developmental dyslexia in European orthographies with varying complexity. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54, 686–694.Google Scholar

McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: 1. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review 88, 375–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Menghini, D., Finzi, A., Benassi, M., Bolzani, R., Facoetti, A., Giovagnoli, S., et al. (2010). Different underlying neurocognitive deficits in developmental dyslexia: A comparative study. Neuropsychologia, 48, 863–872.Google Scholar

Paulesu, E., Danelli, L., & Berlingeri, M. (2014). Reading the dyslexic brain: Multiple dysfunctional routes revealed by a new meta-analysis of PET and fMRI activation studies. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 830.Google Scholar

Pennington, B. F. (2006). From single to multiple deficit models of developmental disorders. Cognition, 101, 385–413.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Perry, C., Ziegler, J. C., & Zorzi, M. (2007). Nested incremental modeling in the development of computational theories: The CDP+ model of reading aloud. Psychological Review, 114, 273–315.Google Scholar

Perry, C., Ziegler, J. C., & Zorzi, M. (2010). Beyond single syllables: Large-scale modeling of reading aloud with the Connectionist Dual Process (CDP++) model. Cognitive Psychology, 61, 106–151.Google Scholar

Perry, C., Zorzi, M., & Ziegler, J. C. (2019). Understanding dyslexia through personalized large-scale computational models. Psychological Science, 30, 386–395.Google Scholar

Peterson, R. L., Pennington, B. F., & Olson, R. K. (2012). Subtypes of developmental dyslexia: Testing the predictions of the dual-route and connectionist frameworks. Cognition, 126, 20–38.Google Scholar

Pinker, S. (1994). The Language Instinct. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics.Google Scholar

Pinker, S. (2009). Language Learnability and Language Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Plaut, D. C., McClelland, J. L., Seidenberg, M. S., & Patterson, K. (1996). Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychological Review, 103, 56–115.Google Scholar

Pritchard, S. C., Coltheart, M., Marinus, E., & Castles, A. (2018). A computational model of the self-teaching hypothesis based on the dual-route cascaded model of reading. Cognitive Science, 42, 722–770.Google Scholar

Seidenberg, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96, 523–568.Google Scholar

Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55, 151–218.Google Scholar

Share, D. L. (1999). Phonological recoding and orthographic learning: A direct test of the self-teaching hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 72, 95–129.Google Scholar

Testolin, A., Stoianov, I., & Zorzi, M. (2017). Letter perception emerges from unsupervised deep learning and recycling of natural image features. Nature Human Behaviour, 1, 657–664.Google Scholar

Woollams, A. M. (2014). Connectionist neuropsychology: Uncovering ultimate causes of acquired dyslexia. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 369, 20120398.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ziegler, J. C. (2006). Do differences in brain activation challenge universal theories of dyslexia? Brain & Language, 98, 341–343.Google Scholar

Ziegler, J. C. (2018). Différences inter-linguistiques dans l’apprentissage de la lecture. Langue Francaise, 119, 35–49.Google Scholar

Ziegler, J. C., Bertrand, D., Tóth, D., Csépe, V., Reis, A., Faísca, L., et al. (2010). Orthographic depth and its impact on universal predictors of reading: A cross-language investigation. Psychological Science, 21, 551–559.Google Scholar

Ziegler, J. C., Castel, C., Pech-Georgel, C., George, F., Alario, F. X., & Perry, C. (2008). Developmental dyslexia and the dual route model of reading: Simulating individual differences and subtypes. Cognition, 107, 151–178.Google Scholar

Ziegler, J. C., & Goswami, U. (2005). Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 3–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ziegler, J. C., & Goswami, U. (2006). Becoming literate in different languages: Similar problems, different solutions. Developmental Science, 9, 429–436.Google Scholar

Ziegler, J. C., Pech-Georgel, C., George, F., & Lorenzi, C. (2009). Speech-perception-in-noise deficits in dyslexia. Developmental Science, 12, 732–745.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ziegler, J. C., Perry, C., & Zorzi, M. (2014). Modelling reading development through phonological decoding and self-teaching: Implications for dyslexia. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 369, 20120397.Google Scholar

Ziegler, J. C., Perry, C., & Zorzi, M. (2019). Modeling the variability of developmental dyslexia. In Perfetti, C., Pugh, K., & Verhoeven, L. (eds.), Developmental Dyslexia across Languages and Writing Systems (pp. 350–371). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ziegler, J. C., Perry, C., & Zorzi, M. (2020). Learning to Read and Dyslexia: From Theory to Intervention Through Personalized Computational Models. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(3), 293–300.Google Scholar

Ziegler, J. C., Stone, G. O., & Jacobs, A. M. (1997). What is the pronunciation for -ough and the spelling for u/? A database for computing feedforward and feedback consistency in English. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 29, 600–618.Google Scholar

Zorzi, M., Houghton, G., & Butterworth, B. (1998). Two routes or one in reading aloud? A connectionist dual-process model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 1131–1161.Google Scholar

Zorzi, M., Testolin, A., & Stoianov, I. P. (2013). Modeling language and cognition with deep unsupervised learning: A tutorial overview. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 515.Google Scholar

Aldon, G., Durand-Guerrier, V., & Ray, B. (2017). Problems promoting the devolution of the process of mathematisation: An example in number theory and a realistic fiction. In Aldon, G., Hitt, F., Bazzini, L., & Gellert, U. (eds.), Mathematics and Technology (pp. 411–429). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ansari, D. (2008). Effects of development and enculturation on number representation in the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9, 278–291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Arsac, G., & Mante, M. (2007). Les pratiques du problème ouvert. SCEREN-CRDP de l’Académie de Lyon.Google Scholar

Artigue, M., & Houdement, C. (2007). Problem solving in France: Research and curricular perspectives. Zentral Blatt Für Didaktik Der Mathematik, 39, 365–382.Google Scholar

Balacheff, N. (1988). Aspects of proof in pupils’ practice of school mathematics. In Pimm, D. (ed.), Mathematics, Teachers and Children (pp. 216–235). London: Hodder and Stoughton.Google Scholar

Bartha, P. (2013). Analogy and analogical reasoning. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available from https://plato.stanford.edu/cite.html.Google Scholar

Brannon, E. M., & Terrace, H. S. (1998). Ordering of the numerosities 1 to 9 by monkeys. Science, 282, 746–749.Google Scholar

Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of Didactical Situations in Mathematics, trans by N. Balacheff, M. Cooper, R. Sutherland, & V. Warfield. Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Bryant, P. E., & Kopytynska, H. (1976). Spontaneous measurement by young children. Nature, 260, 773.Google Scholar

Bryant, P. E., & Trabasso, T. (1971). Transitive inferences and memory in young children. Nature, 232, 458–465.Google Scholar

Bunge, S., Helskog, E., & Wendelken, C. (2009). Left, but not right, rostrolateral prefrontal cortex meets a stringent test of the relational integration hypothesis. Neuroimage, 46, 338–342.Google Scholar

Bunge, S., & Wendelken, C. (2009). Comparing the bird in the hand with the ones in the bush. Neuron, 62, 609–611.Google Scholar

Bunge, S., Wendelken, C., Badre, D., & Wagner, A. (2005). Analogical reasoning and prefrontal cortex: Evidence for separable retrieval and integration mechanisms. Cerebral Cortex, 15, 239–249.Google Scholar

Burgoyne, K., Witteveen, K., Tolan, A., Malone, S., & Hulme, C. (2017). Pattern understanding: Relationships with arithmetic and reading development. Child Development Perspectives, 11, 239–244.Google Scholar

Crone, E., Wendelken, C., van Leijenhorst, L., Honomichl, R., Christoff, K., & Bunge, S. (2009). Neurocognitive development of relational reasoning. Developmental Science, 12, 55–66.Google Scholar

Delius, J. D., & Siemann, M. (1998). Transitive responding in animals and humans: exaption rather than adaption? Behavioural Processes, 42, 107–137.Google Scholar

Dias, T., & Durand-Guerrier, V. (2005). Expérimenter pour apprendre en mathématiques. Repères IREM, 60, 61–78.Google Scholar

Douek, N. (2010). Approaching proof in school: From guided conjecturing and proving to a story of proof construction. Proceedings of the Sixth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education, January 28–February 1, 2009. Lyon, France.Google Scholar

Dumontheil, I., Burgess, P. W., & Blakemore, S. J. (2008). Development of rostral prefrontal cortex and cognitive and behavioural disorders. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 50, 168–181.Google Scholar

Dumontheil, I., Houlton, R., Christoff, K., & Blakemore, S.-J. (2010). Development of relational reasoning during adolescence. Developmental Science, 13, 24.Google Scholar

English, L. D. (2004). Mathematical and Analogical Reasoning of Young Learners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumGoogle Scholar

Evans, J. S. (2003). In two minds: Dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7, 454–459.Google Scholar

Feigenson, L., Libertus, M. E., & Halberda, J. (2013). Links between the intuitive sense of number and formal mathematics ability. Child Development Perspectives, 7, 74–79.Google Scholar

Fias, W., Menon, V., & Szucs, D. (2013). Multiple components of developmental dyscalculia. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 2, 43–47.Google Scholar

Frank, M. J. (2005). Dynamic dopamine modulation in the basal ganglia: A neurocomputational account of cognitive deficits in medicated and nonmedicated Parkinsonism. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 51–72.Google Scholar

Frank, M. J., Rudy, J. W., & O’Reilly, R. C. (2003). Transitivity, flexibility, conjunctive representations, and the hippocampus. II. A computational analysis. Hippocampus, 13, 341–354.Google Scholar

Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Paulsen, K., Bryant, J. D., & Hamlett, C. L. (2005). The prevention, identification, and cognitive determinants of math difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 493–513.Google Scholar

Gardes, M. L. (2018). Démarches d’investigation et recherche de problèmes. In Aldon, G. (ed.), Le Rallye mathématique, un jeu très sérieux! (pp. 73–96). Poitiers: Canopée.Google Scholar

Gardes, M. L. & Durand-Guerrier, V. (2016). Designation at the core of the dialectic between experimentation and proving: A study in number theory. Paper presented at the First Conference of International Network for Didactic Research in University Mathematics. March 31–April 2, 2016, Montpellier, France.Google Scholar

Gibel, P. (2013). The presentation and setting up of a model of analysis of reasoning processes in mathematics lessons in primary schools. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Eighth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education. February 6–10, 2013, Manavgat-Side, Antalya, Turkey.Google Scholar

Goswami, U., & Brown, A. L. (1989). Melting chocolate and melting snowmen: Analogical reasoning and causal relations. Cognition, 35, 69–95.Google Scholar

Green, C. T., Bunge, S. A., Chiongbian, V. B., Barrow, M., & Ferrer, E. (2017). Fluid reasoning predicts future mathematical performance among children and adolescents. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 157, 125–143.Google Scholar

Grenier, D. (2013). Research situations to learn logic and various types of mathematical reasonings and proofs. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Eighth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education. February 6–10, 2013, Manavgat-Side, Antalya, Turkey.Google Scholar

Grosenick, L., Clement, T. S., & Fernald, R. D. (2007). Fish can infer social rank by observation alone. Nature, 445, 429–432.Google Scholar

Halford, G. (1992). Analogical reasoning and conceptual complexity in cognitive development. Human Development, 35, 193–217.Google Scholar

Halford, G., Wilson, W. H., & Phillips, S. (2010). Relational knowledge: The foundation of higher cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14, 497–505.Google Scholar

Handley, S., Capon, A., Beveridge, M., Dennis, I., & Evans, J. S. B. T. (2004). Working memory, inhibitory control, and the development of children’s reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 10, 175–195.Google Scholar

Hinton, E. C., Dymond, S., von Hecker, U., & Evans, C. J. (2010). Neural correlates of relational reasoning and the symbolic distance effect: Involvement of parietal cortex. Neuroscience, 168, 138–148.Google Scholar

Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1995). Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creative Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Houdé, O. (2000). Inhibition and cognitive development: Object, number, categorization, and reasoning. Cognitive Development, 15, 63–73.Google Scholar

Houdé, O. (2019). 3-System Theory of the Cognitive Brain: A Post-Piagetian Approach. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Houdé, O., Pineau, A., Leroux, G., Poirel, N., Perchey, G., Lanoë, C., … Mazoyer, B. (2011). Functional MRI study of Piaget’s conservation-of-number task in preschool and school-age children: A neo-Piagetian approach. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 110, 332–346.Google Scholar

Hubbard, E., Piazza, M., Pinel, P., & Dehaene, S. (2005). Interactions between number and space in parietal cortex. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6, 435–448.Google Scholar

Inglis, M., & Attridge, N. (2017). Does Mathematical Study Develop Logical Thinking?: Testing the Theory of Formal Discipline. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar

Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The Growth of Logical Thinking from Childhood to Adolescence: An Essay on the Construction of Formal Operational Structures. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Ischebeck, A., Schocke, M., & Delazer, M. (2009). The processing and representation of fractions within the brain: An fMRI investigation. Neuroimage, 47, 403–413.Google Scholar

Jacob, S. N., & Nieder, A. (2009). Notation-independent representation of fractions in the human parietal cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 29, 4652–4657.Google Scholar

Kallio, K. D. (1988). Developmental difference in the comprehension of simple and compound comparative relations. Child Development, 59, 397–410.Google Scholar

Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents’ thinking. Psychological Science, 22, 545–552.Google Scholar

Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and Refutations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lee, K., Ng, S. F., Bull, R., Pe, M. L., & Ho, R. (2011). Are patterns important? An investigation of the relationships between proficiencies in patterns, computation, executive functioning and algebraic word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 269–281.Google Scholar

Lyons, I. M., Vogel, S. E., & Ansari, D. (2016). On the ordinality of numbers: A review of neural and behavioral studies. Progress in Brain Research, 227, 187–221.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E., & Wittrock, M. C. (2006). Problem solving. In Alexander, P. A., & Winne, P. H. (eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 287–304). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Mercier, H., Boudry, M., Paglieri, F., & Trouche, E. (2017). Natural-born arguers: Teaching how to make the best of our reasoning abilities. Educational Psychologist, 52, 1–16.Google Scholar

Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 57–74.Google Scholar

Morsanyi, K., Devine, A., Nobes, A., & Szűcs, D. (2013). The link between logic, mathematics and imagination: Evidence from children with developmental dyscalculia and mathematically gifted children. Developmental Science, 16, 542–553.Google Scholar

Morsanyi, K., Kahl, T., & Rooney, R. (2017a). The link between math and logic in adolescence: The effect of argument form. In Toplak, M. E., & Weller, J. (eds.), Individual Differences in Judgment and Decision Making from a Developmental Context (pp. 166–185). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Morsanyi, K., McCormack, T., & O’Mahony, E. (2017b). The link between deductive reasoning and mathematics. Thinking & Reasoning, 24, 1–24.Google Scholar

Morsanyi, K., & Szücs, D. (2014). The link between mathematics and logical reasoning. In Chinn, S. (ed.), The Routledge International Handbook of Dyscalculia and Mathematical Learning Difficulties (pp. 101–114). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Moutier, S., Plagne, S., Melot, A.-M., & Houdé, O. (2006). Syllogistic reasoning and belief-bias inhibition in school children. Developmental Science, 9, 166–172.Google Scholar

Moyer, R. S., & Bayer, R. H. (1976). Mental comparison and the symbolic distance effect. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 228–246.Google Scholar

Newstead, S., Keeble, S., & Manktelow, K. (1985). Children’s performance on set inclusion and linear ordering relationships. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 23, 105–108.Google Scholar

Pasnak, R., Schmerold, K. L., Robinson, M. F., Gadzichowski, K. M., Bock, A. M., O’Brien, S. E., … Gallington, D. A. (2016). Understanding number sequences leads to understanding mathematics concepts. The Journal of Educational Research, 109, 640–646.Google Scholar

Paz, Y. M. C. G., Bond, A. B., Kamil, A. C., & Balda, R. P. (2004). Pinyon jays use transitive inference to predict social dominance. Nature, 430, 778–781.Google Scholar

Peters, L., & De Smedt, B. (2017). Arithmetic in the developing brain: A review of brain imaging studies. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 30, 265–279.Google Scholar

Piaget, J. (1952). The Child’s Conception of Number. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1967). The Child’s Conception of Space. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Polya, G. (1945). How to Solve It. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Polya, G. (1954). Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Potts, G. (1972). Information processing stragies used in the encoding of linear ordering. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 727–740.Google Scholar

Potts, G. (1974). Storing and retrieving information about ordered relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 103, 431–439.Google Scholar

Prado, J., Chadha, A., & Booth, J. (2011). The brain network for deductive reasoning: A quantitative meta-analysis of 28 neuroimaging studies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 3483–3497.Google Scholar

Prado, J., Noveck, I. A., & Van Der Henst, J.-B. (2010). Overlapping and distinct neural representations of numbers and verbal transitive series. Cerebral Cortex, 20, 720–729.Google Scholar

Prado, J., Van der Henst, J.-B., & Noveck, I. A. (2008). Spatial associations in relational reasoning: evidence for a SNARC-like effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (Colchester), 61, 1143–1150.Google Scholar

Primi, R., Ferrão, M. E., & Almeida, L. S. (2010). Fluid intelligence as a predictor of learning: A longitudinal multilevel approach applied to math. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 446–451.Google Scholar

Rabinowitz, F. M., & Howe, M. L. (1994). Development of the middle concept. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 57, 418–449.Google Scholar

Rattermann, M. J., & Gentner, D. (1998). More evidence for a relational shift in the development of analogy: Children’s performance on a causal-mapping task. Cognitive Development, 13, 453–478.Google Scholar

Richland, L. E., Holyoak, K. J., & Stigler, J. W. (2004). Analogy use in eighth-grade mathematics classrooms. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 37–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Richland, L. E., Morrison, R. G., & Holyoak, K. J. (2006). Children’s development of analogical reasoning: insights from scene analogy problems. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 94, 249–273.Google Scholar

Richland, L. E., & Simms, N. (2015). Analogy, higher order thinking, and education. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 6, 177–192.Google Scholar

Richland, L. E., Zur, O., & Holyoak, K. J. (2007). Mathematics. Cognitive supports for analogies in the mathematics classroom. Science, 316, 1128–1129.Google Scholar

Rittle-Johnson, B., Fyfe, E. R., Hofer, K. G., & Farran, D. C. (2016). Early math trajectories: Low-income children’s mathematics knowledge from age 4 to 11. Child Development, 88, 1727–1742.Google Scholar

Rittle-Johnson, B., Zippert, E. L., & Boice, K. L. (2018). The roles of patterning and spatial skills in early mathematics development. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 46, 166–178.Google Scholar

Russell, J., McCormack, T., Robinson, J., & Lillis, G. (1996). Logical (versus associative) performance on transitive inference tasks by children: Implications for the status of animals’ performance. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49B, 231–244.Google Scholar

Schoenfeld, A. (1985). Mathematical Problem Solving. Cambridge, MA: Academic press.Google Scholar

Schwartz, F., Epinat-Duclos, J., Léone, J., Poisson, A., & Prado, J. (2018). Impaired neural processing of transitive relations in children with math learning disability. NeuroImage: Clinical, 20, 1255–1265.Google Scholar

Schwartz, F., Epinat-Duclos, J., Léone, J., Poisson, A., & Prado, J. (2020). Neural representations of transitive relations predict current and future math calculation skills in children. Neuropsychologia, 141, 107410.Google Scholar

Singer-Freeman, K. E., & Goswami, U. (2001). Does half a pizza equal half a box of chocolates? Proportional matching in an analogy task. Cognitive Development, 16, 811–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Singley, A. T. M., & Bunge, S. A. (2014). Neurodevelopment of relational reasoning: Implications for mathematical pedagogy. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 3, 33–37.Google Scholar

Sriraman, B. (2005). Mathematical and analogical reasoning of young learners. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 37, 506–509.Google Scholar

Taub, G. E., Floyd, R. G., Keith, T. Z., & McGrew, K. S. (2008). Effects of general and broad cognitive abilities on mathematics achievement. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 187–198.Google Scholar

Törner, G., Schoenfeld, A. H., & Reiss, K. M. (2007). Problem solving around the world: Summing up the state of the art. Zentral Blatt Für Didaktik Der Mathematik, 39, 353.Google Scholar

Tunteler, E., & Resing, W. C. (2002). Spontaneous analogical transfer in 4-year-olds: A microgenetic study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 83, 149–166.Google Scholar

Vanderheyden, A. M., Broussard, C., Snyder, P., George, J., Meche Lafleur, S., & Williams, C. (2011). Measurement of kindergartners’ understanding of early mathematical concepts. School Psychology Review, 40, 296–306.Google Scholar

Vasconcelos, M. (2008). Transitive inference in non-human animals: An empirical and theoretical analysis. Behavioral Processes, 78, 313–334.Google Scholar

Vendetti, M. S., Matlen, B. J., Richland, L. E., & Bunge, S. A. (2015). Analogical reasoning in the classroom: Insights from cognitive science. Mind, Brain, and Education, 9, 100–106.Google Scholar

von Fersen, L., Wynne, C. D., Delius, J. D., & Staddon, J. (1991). Transitive inference formation in pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology Animal Behavior Processes, 17, 334–341.Google Scholar

Waltz, J. A., Lau, A., Grewal, S. K., & Holyoak, K. J. (2000). The role of working memory in analogical mapping. Memory & Cognition, 28, 1205–1212.Google Scholar

Wendelken, C. (2015). Meta-analysis: How does posterior parietal cortex contribute to reasoning? Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 1042.Google Scholar

Wendelken, C., Nakhabenko, D., Donohue, S., Carter, C., & Bunge, S. (2008). “Brain is to thought as stomach is to??”: Investigating the role of rostrolateral prefrontal cortex in relational reasoning. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 682–693.Google Scholar

Wendelken, C., O’Hare, E., Whitaker, K., Ferrer, E., & Bunge, S. (2011). Increased functional selectivity over development in rostrolateral prefrontal cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 31, 17260–17268.Google Scholar

Wright, B. C. (2001). Reconceptualizing the transitive inference ability: A framework for existing and future research. Developmental Review, 21, 375–422.Google Scholar

Wright, B. C. (2012). The case for a dual-process theory of transitive reasoning. Developmental Review, 32, 89–124.Google Scholar

Wright, S., Matlen, B., Baym, C., Ferrer, E., & Bunge, S. (2007). Neural correlates of fluid reasoning in children and adults. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 1, 8.Google Scholar

Arain, M., Haque, M., Johal, L., Mathur, P., Nel, W., Rais, A., … Sharma, S. (2013). Maturation of the adolescent brain. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 9, 449.Google Scholar

Barrouillet, P., & Lecas, J.-F. (1999). Mental models in conditional reasoning and working memory. Thinking & Reasoning, 5, 289–302.Google Scholar

Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J. J., & Austin, G. A. (1956). A Study of Thinking. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar

Bullock, M., & Ziegler, A. (2009). Scientific reasoning: Developmental and individual differences. In Weinert, F. E., & Schneider, W. (eds.), Individual Development from 13 to 22: Findings from the Munich Longitudinal Study (pp. 38–54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual Change in Childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar

Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: Acquisition and transfer of the control of variables strategy. Child Development, 70, 1098–1120.Google Scholar

Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 623–654.Google Scholar

Cohen, A. O., Breiner, K., Steinberg, L., Bonnie, R. J., Scott, E. S., Taylor-Thompson, K., … Silverman, M. R. (2016). When is an adolescent an adult? Assessing cognitive control in emotional and nonemotional contexts. Psychological Science, 27, 549–562.Google Scholar

Deary, I. J., Whalley, L. J., Lemmon, H., Crawford, J. R., & Starr, J. M. (2000). The stability of individual differences in mental ability from childhood to old age: Follow-up of the 1932 Scottish Mental Survey. Intelligence, 28, 49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Edelsbrunner, P. A., & Dablander, F. (2019). The psychometric modeling of scientific reasoning: A review and recommendations for future avenues. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 1–34.Google Scholar

Edelsbrunner, P. A., Schalk, L., Schumacher, R., & Stern, E. (2019). Variable control and conceptual change: A large-scale quantitative study in elementary school. Learning and Individual Differences, 66, 38–53.Google Scholar

Engelmann, K., Neuhaus, B. J., & Fischer, F. (2016). Fostering scientific reasoning in education – meta-analytic evidence from intervention studies. Educational Research and Evaluation, 22, 333–349.Google Scholar

Hedge, C., Powell, G., & Sumner, P. (2018). The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 1166–1186.Google Scholar

Hofer, B. K. (2004). Epistemological understanding as a metacognitive process: Thinking aloud during online searching. Educational Psychologist, 39, 43–55.Google Scholar

Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88–140.Google Scholar

Hofer, S. I., Schumacher, R., & Rubin, H. (2017). The test of basic mechanics conceptual understanding (bMCU): Using Rasch analysis to develop and evaluate an efficient multiple-choice test on Newton’s mechanics. International Journal of STEM Education, 4, 1–20.Google Scholar

Hofer, S. I., Schumacher, R., Rubin, H., & Stern, E. (2018). Enhancing physics learning with cognitively activating instruction: A quasi-experimental classroom intervention study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110, 1175–1191.Google Scholar

Houdé, O. (2000). Inhibition and cognitive development: Object, number, categorization, and reasoning. Cognitive Development, 15, 63–73.Google Scholar

Houdé, O. (2019). 3-System Theory of the Cognitive Brain: A Post-Piagetian Approach. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The Growth of Logical Thinking: From Childhood to Adolescence. Trans. A. Parsons, & S. Milgram. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Kitchner, K. S. (1983). Cognition, metacognition, and epistemic cognition. Human Development, 26, 222–232.Google Scholar

Klahr, D., & Chen, Z. (2003). Overcoming the positive‐capture strategy in young children: Learning about indeterminacy. Child Development, 74, 1275–1296.Google Scholar

Klahr, D. & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12, 1–48.Google Scholar

Koerber, S., Mayer, D., Osterhaus, C., Schwippert, K., & Sodian, B. (2014). The development of scientific thinking in elementary school: A comprehensive inventory. Child Development, 86, 327–336.Google Scholar

Koerber, S., Sodian, B., Thoermer, C., & Nett, U. (2005). Scientific reasoning in young children: Preschoolers’ ability to evaluate covariation evidence. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 64, 141–152.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. In Neurath, O., Carnap, R., & Morris, C. (eds.), International Encyclopedia of Unified Science. Foundations of the Unity of Science (vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 1–210). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96, 674–689.Google Scholar

Kuhn, D. (2000). Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 178–181.Google Scholar

Kuhn, D. (2006). Do cognitive changes accompany developments in the adolescent brain? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 59–67.Google Scholar

Kuhn, D. (2007). Reasoning about multiple variables: Control of variables is not the only challenge. Science Education, 91, 710–726.Google Scholar

Kuhn, D., Black, J., Keselman, A., & Kaplan, D. (2000). The development of cognitive skills to support inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 495–523.Google Scholar

Kuhn, D., Iordanou, K., Pease, M., & Wirkala, C. (2008). Beyond control of variables: What needs to develop to achieve skilled scientific thinking? Cognitive Development, 23, 435–451.Google Scholar

Kuhn, D. & Pease, M. (2008). What needs to develop in the development of inquiry skills? Cognition and Instruction, 26, 512–559.Google Scholar

Kuhn, D., Ramsey, S., & Arvidsson, T. S. (2015). Developing multivariable thinkers. Cognitive Development, 35, 92–110.Google Scholar

Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331–359.Google Scholar

Lin, X., & Lehman, J. D. (1999). Supporting learning of variable control in a computer-based biology environment: Effects of prompting college students to reflect on their own thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 837–858.Google Scholar

Lorch, R. F. Jr, Lorch, E. P., Calderhead, W. J., Dunlap, E. E., Hodell, E. C., & Freer, B. D. (2010). Learning the control of variables strategy in higher and lower achieving classrooms: Contributions of explicit instruction and experimentation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 90–101.Google Scholar

Lorch, R. F. Jr, Lorch, E. P., Freer, B. D., Dunlap, E. E., Hodell, E. C., & Calderhead, W. J. (2014). Using valid and invalid experimental designs to teach the control of variables strategy in higher and lower achieving classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 18–35.Google Scholar

Mayer, D., Sodian, B., Körber, S., & Schwippert, K. (2014). Scientific reasoning in elementary school children: Assessment and relations with cognitive abilities. Learning and Instruction, 29, 43–55.Google Scholar

Morris, B. J., Croker, S., M., A., & Zimmerman, C. (2012). The emergence of scientific reasoning. In Current Topics in Children’s Learning and Cognition. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech.Google Scholar

Neisser, U. (1979). The concept of intelligence. Intelligence, 3, 217–227.Google Scholar

Osterhaus, C., Koerber, S., & Sodian, B. (2017). Scientific thinking in elementary school: Children’s social cognition and their epistemological understanding promote experimentation skills. Developmental Psychology, 53, 450–462Google Scholar

Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1958). The Growth of Logical Thinking from Childhood to Adolescence: An Essay on the Construction of Formal Operational Structures. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar

Piekny, J., Grube, D., & Maehler, C. (2013). The relation between preschool children’s false-belief understanding and domain-general experimentation skills. Metacognition and Learning, 8, 103–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1, 515–526.Google Scholar

Rey-Mermet, A., Gade, M., & Oberauer, K. (2018). Should we stop thinking about inhibition? Searching for individual and age differences in inhibition ability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44, 501–526.Google ScholarPubMed

Ross, J. A. (1988). Controlling variables: A meta-analysis of training studies. Review of Educational Research, 58, 405–437.Google Scholar

Ruffman, T., Perner, J., Olson, D. R., & Doherty, M. (1993). Reflecting on scientific thinking: Children’s understanding of the hypothesis‐evidence relation. Child Development, 64, 1617–1636.Google Scholar

Schalk, L., Edelsbrunner, P. A., Deiglmayr, A., Schumacher, R., & Stern, E. (2019). Improved application of the control-of-variables strategy as a collateral benefit of inquiry-based physics education in elementary school. Learning and Instruction, 59, 34–45.Google Scholar

Schauble, L. (1990). Belief revision in children: The role of prior knowledge and strategies for generating evidence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 49, 31–57.Google Scholar

Schauble, L. (1996). The development of scientific reasoning in knowledge-rich contexts. Developmental Psychology, 32, 102.Google Scholar

Schauble, L., Klopfer, L. E., & Raghavan, K. (1991). Students’ transition from an engineering model to a science model of experimentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 859–882.Google Scholar

Schneider, W., & Bullock, M. (Hrsg.). (2009). Human Development from Early Childhood to Early Adulthood: Findings from a 20 year Longitudinal Study. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Schommer, M., Calvert, C., Gariglietti, G., & Bajaj, A. (1997). The development of epistemological beliefs among secondary students: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 37–40.Google Scholar

Schwichow, M., Croker, S., Zimmerman, C., Höffler, T., & Härtig, H. (2015). Teaching the control-of-variables strategy: A meta-analysis. Developmental Review, 39, 37–63.Google Scholar

Siler, S. A., & Klahr, D. (2012). Detecting, classifying, and remediating: Children’s explicit and implicit misconceptions about experimental design. In Proctor, R. W., & Capaldi, E. J. (eds.), Psychology of Science: Implicit and Explicit Processes (p. 137–180). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Siler, S. A., Klahr, D., Magaro, C., Willows, K., & Mowery, D. (2010). Predictors of transfer of experimental design skills in elementary and middle school children. In International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 198–208). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Sodian, B., Zaitchik, D., & Carey, S. (1991). Young children’s differentiation of hypothetical beliefs from evidence. Child Development, 62, 753–766.Google Scholar

Somerville, S. C. (1974). The pendulum problem: Patterns of performance defining developmental stages. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 44, 266–281.Google Scholar

Stern, E. (2005). Knowledge restructuring as a powerful mechanism of cognitive development: How to lay an early foundation for conceptual understanding in formal domains. BJEP Monograph Series II, Number 3-Pedagogy-Teaching for Learning, 155, 155–170.Google Scholar

Stern, E. (2017). Individual differences in the learning potential of human beings. NPJ Science of Learning, 2, 2.Google Scholar

Strand-Cary, M., & Klahr, D. (2008). Developing elementary science skills: Instructional effectiveness and path independence. Cognitive Development, 23, 488–511.Google Scholar

van der Graaf, J., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2015). Scientific reasoning abilities in kindergarten: Dynamic assessment of the control of variables strategy. Instructional Science, 43, 381–400.Google Scholar

van der Graaf, J., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2016). Scientific reasoning in kindergarten: Cognitive factors in experimentation and evidence evaluation. Learning and Individual Differences, 49, 190–200.Google Scholar

van der Graaf, J., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2018). Individual differences in the development of scientific thinking in kindergarten. Learning and Instruction, 56, 1–9.Google Scholar

Verschueren, N., Schaeken, W., & d’Ydewalle, G. (2005). A dual-process specification of causal conditional reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 11, 239–278.Google Scholar

Vosniadou, S. (2014). Examining cognitive development from a conceptual change point of view: The framework theory approach. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 11, 645–661.Google Scholar

Vosniadou, S. & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 535–585.Google Scholar

Wagensveld, B., Segers, E., Kleemans, T., & Verhoeven, L. (2015). Child predictors of learning to control variables via instruction or self-discovery. Instructional Science, 43, 365–379.Google Scholar

Zelazo, P., Müller, U., Frye, D., Marcovitch, S., Argitis, G., Boseovski, J., … Carlson, S. (2003). The development of executive function in early childhood. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 68, I–151.Google Scholar

Zimmerman, C. (2000). The development of scientific reasoning skills. Developmental Review, 20, 99–149.Google Scholar

Zimmerman, C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review, 27, 172–223.Google Scholar

Zohar, A. & Dori, Y. J. (eds.). (2012). Metacognition in Science Education. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar

Zohar, A., & Peled, B. (2008). The effects of explicit teaching of metastrategic knowledge on low- and high-achieving students. Learning and Instruction, 18, 337–353.Google Scholar

Álvarez-Bueno, C., Pesce, C., Cavero-Redondo, I., Sánchez-López, M., Martínez-Hortelano, J. A., & Martínez-Vizcaíno, V. (2017). The effect of physical activity interventions on children’s cognition and metacognition: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 56, 729–738.Google Scholar

Au, J., Sheehan, E., Tsai, N., Duncan, G. J., Buschkuehl, M., & Jaeggi, S. M. (2015). Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 22, 366–377.Google Scholar

Baddeley, A., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In Spence, K. W., & Spence, J. T. (eds.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation (pp. 47–87). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Baniqued, P. L., Lee, H., Voss, M. W., Basak, C., Cosman, J. D., DeSouza, S., … Kramer, A. F. (2013). Selling points: What cognitive abilities are tapped by casual video games? Acta Psychologica, 142, 74–86.Google Scholar

Barkley, R. A. (1997). Behavioral inhibition, sustained attention, and executive functions: Constructing a unifying theory of ADHD. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 65–94.Google Scholar

Berger, E. M., Fehr, E., Hermes, H., Schunk, D., & Winkel, K. (2020). The impact of working memory training on children’s cognitive and noncognitive skills. Working Papers Gutenberg School of Management and Economics. Available from https://ideas.repec.org/p/jgu/wpaper/2015.html. Last accessed August 18, 2021.Google Scholar

Bergman-Nutley, S., & Klingberg, T. (2014). Effect of working memory training on working memory, arithmetic and following instructions. Psychological Research, 78, 869–877.Google Scholar

Bergman Nutley, S., & Söderqvist, S. (2017). How is working memory training likely to influence academic performance? Current evidence and methodological considerations. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 69.Google Scholar

Bigorra, A., Garolera, M., Guijarro, S., & Hervás, A. (2016). Long-term far-transfer effects of working memory training in children with ADHD: A randomized controlled trial. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 25, 853–867.Google Scholar

Boot, W. R., Kramer, A. F., Simons, D. J., Fabiani, M., & Gratton, G. (2008). The effects of video game playing on attention, memory, and executive control. Acta Psychologica, 129, 387–398.Google Scholar

Chall., J. S. (1983). Stages of Reading Development. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Chein, J. M., & Morrison, A. B. (2010). Expanding the mind’s workspace: Training and transfer effects with a complex working memory span task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 193–199.Google Scholar

Clark, D. B., Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Killingsworth, S. S. (2016). Digital games, design, and learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 86, 79–122.Google Scholar

Coghill, D. R., Seth, S., Pedroso, S., Usala, T., Currie, J., & Gagliano, A. (2014). Effects of methylphenidate on cognitive functions in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Evidence from a systematic review and a meta-analysis. Biological Psychiatry, 76, 603–615.Google Scholar

Colom, R., Chuderski, A., & Santarnecchi, E. (2016). Bridge over troubled water: Commenting on Kovacs and Conway’s process overlap theory. Psychological Inquiry, 27, 181–189.Google Scholar

Compte, A. (2000). Synaptic mechanisms and network dynamics underlying spatial working memory in a cortical network model. Cerebral Cortex, 10, 910–923.Google Scholar

Conklin, H. M., Ogg, R. J., Ashford, J. M., Scoggins, M. A., Zou, P., Clark, K. N., … Zhang, H. (2015). Computerized cognitive training for amelioration of cognitive late effects among childhood cancer survivors: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 33, 3894–3902.Google Scholar

Constantinidis, C., & Klingberg, T. (2016). The neuroscience of working memory capacity and training. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 17, 438–449.Google Scholar

Conway, A. R., Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2003). Working memory capacity and its relation to general intelligence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 547–552.Google Scholar

D’Esposito, M., & Postle, B. R. (2015). The cognitive neuroscience of working memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 115–142.Google Scholar

Dahlin, E., Nyberg, L., Bäckman, L., & Neely, A. S. (2008). Plasticity of executive functioning in young and older adults: Immediate training gains, transfer, and long-term maintenance. Psychology and Aging, 23, 720–730.Google Scholar

Dahlin, K. I. E. (2011). Effects of working memory training on reading in children with special needs. Reading and Writing, 24, 479–491.Google Scholar

Dahlin, K. I. E. (2013). Working memory training and the effect on mathematical achievement in children with attention deficits and special needs. Journal of Education and Learning, 2, 118–133.Google Scholar

De Smedt, B., Janssen, R., Bouwens, K., Verschaffel, L., Boets, B., & Ghesquière, P. (2009). Working memory and individual differences in mathematics achievement: A longitudinal study from first grade to second grade. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 103, 186–201.Google Scholar

Deveau, J., Jaeggi, S. M., Zordan, V., Phung, C., & Seitz, A. R. (2015). How to build better memory training games. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 8, 243.Google Scholar

Egeland, J., Aarlien, A. K., & Saunes, B. K. (2013). Few effects of far transfer of working memory training in ADHD: A randomized controlled trial. PLoS ONE, 8, e75660.Google Scholar

Engle, R. W. (2018). Working memory and executive attention: A revisit. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13, 190–193.Google Scholar

Fälth, L., Jaensson, L., & Johansson, K. (2015). Working memory training – A Cogmed intervention. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 14, 28–35.Google Scholar

Foy, J. G. (2014). Adaptive cognitive training enhances executive control and visuospatial and verbal working memory in beginning readers. International Education Research, 2, 19–43.Google Scholar

Friedman, N. P., Miyake, A., Corley, R. P., Young, S. E., DeFries, J. C., & Hewitt, J. K. (2006). Not all executive functions are related to intelligence. Psychological Science, 17, 172–179.Google Scholar

Fuster, J. M., & Alexander, G. E. (1971). Neuron activity related to short-term memory. Science, 173, 652–654.Google Scholar

Gathercole, S. E., Dunning, D. L., Holmes, J., & Norris, D. (2019). Working memory training involves learning new skills. Journal of Memory and Language, 105, 19–42.Google Scholar

Gobet, F., Johnston, S. J., Ferrufino, G., Johnston, M., Jones, M. B., Molyneux, A., … Weeden, L. (2014). “No level up!”: No effects of video game specialization and expertise on cognitive performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–9.Google Scholar

Goldman-Rakic, P. S. (1987). Circuitry of primate prefrontal cortex and regulation of behavior by representational memory. In Plum, F. (ed.), Handbook of Physiology (pp. 373–417). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gong, D., He, H., Liu, D., Ma, W., Dong, L., Luo, C., & Yao, D. (2015). Enhanced functional connectivity and increased gray matter volume of insula related to action video game playing. Scientific Reports, 5, 9763.Google Scholar

Green, C. T., Long, D. L., Green, D., Iosif, A.-M., Dixon, J. F., Miller, M. R., … Schweitzer, J. B. (2012). Will working memory training generalize to improve off-task behavior in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder? Neurotherapeutics, 9, 639–648.Google Scholar

Greenfield, P. M., DeWinstanley, P., Kilpatrick, H., & Kaye, D. (1994). Action video games and informal education: Effects on strategies for dividing visual attention. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 15, 105–123.Google Scholar

Halford, G. S., Cowan, N., & Andrews, G. (2007). Separating cognitive capacity from knowledge: A new hypothesis. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 236–242.Google Scholar

Holmes, J., & Gathercole, S. E. (2014). Taking working memory training from the laboratory into schools. Educational Psychology, 34, 440–450.Google Scholar

Howard-Jones, P. A. (2014). Neuroscience and education: Myths and messages. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15, 817–824.Google Scholar

Jaeggi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M., Jonides, J., & Perrig, W. J. (2008). Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), 105, 6829–6833.Google Scholar

Jerde, T. A., Merriam, E. P., Riggall, A. C., Hedges, J. H., & Curtis, C. E. (2012). Prioritized maps of space in human frontoparietal cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 32, 17382–17390.Google Scholar

Jonides, J., Lewis, R. L., Nee, D. E., Lustig, C. A., Berman, M. G., & Moore, K. S. (2008). The mind and brain of short-term memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 193–224.Google Scholar

Kibby, M. Y., Lee, S. E., & Dyer, S. M. (2014). Reading performance is predicted by more than phonological processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–7.Google Scholar

Kirsch, I. (2008). Antidepressant drugs ‘work’, but they are not clinically effective. British Journal of Hospital Medicine, 69, 359.Google Scholar

Klingberg, T. (2014). Childhood cognitive development as a skill. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 573–579.Google Scholar

Klingberg, T., Fernell, E., Olesen, P. J., Johnson, M., Gustafsson, P., Dahlström, K., … Westerberg, H. (2005). Computerized training of working memory in children with ADHD – A randomized, controlled trial. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 44, 177–186.Google Scholar

Klingberg, T., Forssberg, H., & Westerberg, H. (2002). Training of working memory in children with ADHD. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 24, 781–791.Google Scholar

Kubota, K., & Niki, H. (1971). Prefrontal cortical unit activity and delayed alternation performance in monkeys. Journal of Neurophysiology, 34, 337–347.Google Scholar

Latham, A. J., Patston, L. L. M., & Tippett, L. J. (2013). The virtual brain: 30 years of video-game play and cognitive abilities. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–10.Google Scholar

Leather, C. V., & Henry, L. A. (1994). Working memory span and phonological awareness tasks as predictors of early reading ability. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 58, 88–111.Google Scholar

Martínez, K., Burgaleta, M., Román, F. J., Escorial, S., Shih, P. C., Quiroga, M. Á., & Colom, R. (2011). Can fluid intelligence be reduced to ‘simple’ short-term storage? Intelligence, 39, 473–480.Google Scholar