.png)
Digibility is developed based on two branches of research on the role of cognitive abilities in learning. In part, Digibility assumes that school-related thinking abilities are woven into the knowledge and skills that students must develop at school. Pupils' learning can be both promoted and hindered depending on how these abilities develop during school time. Digibility also assumes that thinking abilities can be developed and that it is important to examine how the student's thinking abilities can be developed and supported with metacognitive and explicit strategies through so-called dynamic assessment. Previous research has shown that both special educators, special teachers, teachers and parents feel that investigations are time-consuming and that they do not contribute to a sufficient extent to an increased understanding of the student's needs in learning (1).
Two areas of thinking skills are particularly interesting in this context :
1) so-called analytical thinking, which involves perceiving patterns, drawing conclusions and solving problems,
2) self-regulation thinking, i.e. the ability to maintain a plan, implement and finish it.
In Digibility, matrix problem solving tasks are used to capture analytical thinking and working memory tasks to capture self-regulatory thinking. Both analytical thinking, self-regulation thinking including working memory skills are well-researched areas related to student learning. In addition, research shows that results from dynamic assessment where structured strategy support is used contribute to an increased degree of explanatory value for students' future learning (so-called predictive validity)(2).Digibility is based on research conducted by Dr. Petri Partanen regarding assessment and investigation methodology , students' working memory abilities, executive self-regulatory thinking abilities and metacognitive strategies (3,4).
References
School Psychology International, 33(1), 69-92.
Lebeer, J., Birta-Szekely, N., Demeter, K., Bohács, K., Candeias, A. A., Partanen, P... & Dawson, L. (2012). Re-assessing the current assessment practice of children with special education needs in Europe.
The Journal of Special Education, 41(4), 254-270.
Caffrey, E., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2008). The predictive validity of dynamic assessment: A review.
International Journal of Psychological Studies, 7(3), 130-140.
Partanen, P., Jansson, B., Lisspers, J., & Sundin, Ö. (2015). Metacognitive strategy training adds to the effects of working memory training in children with special educational needs.
Partanen, P. (2016). Assessment and Remediation for Children with Special Educational Needs: The role of working memory, complex executive function and metacognitive strategy training (Doctoral dissertation, MIttuniversitetet).Partanen, P., Jansson, B., & Sundin, Ö. (2020). Fluid reasoning, working memory and planning ability in assessment of risk for mathematical difficulties. Educational Psychology in Practice, 36(3), 229-240.
.png)
