An analysis of concept learning: Simple conceptual control and definition-based conceptual control

Abstract

Concept learning can involve either contingency shaping of stimulus-class discriminations or the application of definitions of the concepts. Experimental behavior analysts have studied contingency shaping, whereas educational psychologists have studied definitional concept training.In this paper, we analyze definition-based concept learning in terms of stimulusresponse chains. Then we apply this chaining analysis to principles of instruction proposed by educational psychologists. These principles include (a) stating the definition in terms of critical and variable attributes, (b) using examples and nonexamples, (c) using a rational set of examples and nonexamples, (d) presenting coordinate concepts simultaneously, and (e) presenting the next instance based on the learner's previous error.There have been several behavior-analytic based theoretical analyses of "cognitive" behavior. For example, Hayes proposed a relational control theory relevant to semantics (Hayes, 1991(Hayes, , 1994; Palmer (1991) presented a behavior-analytic model of memory; and many researchers have discussed how descriptions of contingencies (i.e., rules) control behavior (e.g., Cerutti, 1989;Malott, 1989;Schlinger, 1993;Skinner, 1957). Most of these analyses suggest that we can interpret cognitive behavior in terms of the basic principles without using hypothetical constructs such as meanings and memory.In keeping with these analyses, the preThis paper is based on a review paper submitted by the first author to Western Michigan University in partial fulfillment of the requirement of a doctoral degree. The authors gratefully acknowledge the Associate Editor and three reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions. Requests for reprints should be sent to Satoru Shimamune, now affiliated with the

Evaluating the Efficacy, Preference, and Cultural Responsiveness of Student-Generated Content in an Undergraduate Behavioral Course

“…Knowledge assessments The undergraduate students (hereafter referred to as "participants") completed a knowledge assessment on four behavioral topics (i.e., respondent conditioning, reinforcement, antecedent control, extinction and punishment) at six separate points in the semester: once prior to any instruction (baseline probe), once immediately following instruction on each of the four topics (postteaching probe for the topic taught, additional baseline probes for topics not yet taught, maintenance probes for topics previously taught), and once 8 weeks following instruction on the final topic (follow-up probe). These knowledge assessments were constructed to measure concept identification, defined as selecting the correct concept when given an example (e.g., Shimamune & Malott, 1994).…”

“…Each question had three answer alternatives in which the participants had to (a) discriminate between a correct concept and an incorrect concept and (b) discriminate between an example and a nonexample (Rodriguez, 2005). We programmed for two possible errors for each topic: overgeneralization, or identifying nonexamples as examples, and undergeneralization, or identifying examples as nonexamples (e.g., Shimamune & Malott, 1994). The first and fourth authors independently scored the assessments and entered them into a spreadsheet.…”

Promoting Synthesis in the Analysis of Verbal Relations

“…Hall (1993) provided a behavioral explanation of facilitated communication by integrating Skinner's analysis of automatic verbal behavior with descriptions of ouija, automatic writing, and channeling found in occult and metaphysical writings. Shimamune andMalott (1994-1995) provided a behavioral account of complex concept learning procedures that had previously been described in cognitive terms.…”