Causal Understanding as a Developmental Primitive

Corrigan, Roberta; Denton, Peggy

doi:10.1006/drev.1996.0007

Cited by 46 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The second finding suggested that non brain-damaged speakers pay particular attention to the entity in the role of agent, and therefore adds to the evidence that agency may be a key concept in our thinking about events (see also Fisher, Hall, Rakowitz and Gleitman, 1994;Chiat, 2000, 2003;Corrigan and Denton, 1996;Clark, 2001). The data confirm that agency, rather than animacy, was the crucial factor, given that agents were named first even when there were two animate entities in the picture.…”

Section: Discussion Of the Control Datasupporting

confidence: 59%

Event processing through naming: Investigating event focus in two people with aphasia

Cairns

Marshall

Cairns

et al. 2007

Language and Cognitive Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the unspecified version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link AbstractSome people with aphasia may have trouble with verbs because of fundamental difficulties in processing situations in a way that maps readily onto language. The present paper describes a novel assessment, the Order of Naming Test, that offers an insight into the conceptual processing of events through the order in which people name the entities involved. The performance of non-brain damaged control participants is described. The responses of two people with non-fluent aphasia are then discussed. Both 'Helen' and 'Ron' showed significant difficulty with verbs and sentences. Ron in addition had trouble on a range of tasks that tapped aspects of event processing, despite intact non-verbal cognition. While Helen's performance on the Order of Naming Test was very similar to the controls, Ron's differed in a number of respects, suggesting that he was less focused on the main entities involved in the events. However, certain aspects of his response pointed at covert event processing abilities that might be fruitfully exploited in therapy.3

show abstract

Section: Discussion Of the Control Datasupporting

confidence: 59%

Event processing through naming: Investigating event focus in two people with aphasia

Cairns

Marshall

Cairns

et al. 2007

Language and Cognitive Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We will call this type of reasoning causal powers reasoning (the term 'causal power' is used loosely here without implying any commitment to any particular theory of causal learning or knowledge). Much of the debate over the nature and development of causal reasoning has been concerned with establishing the principles and underlying mechanisms that guide causal powers reasoning (Corrigan & Denton, 1996;Gopnik et al, 2004;White, 1995).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Young children’s reasoning about the order of past events

McCormack

Hoerl

2007

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Conceptual change entails the reorganization of the propositions that learners construct to describe that domain, that is, ''an understanding of the essential parts and cause-and-effect relationships that exist within a system'' (Guenther, 1998, p. 289). Being able to reason causally is an essential cognitive skill that is central to conceptualizing the physical world (Carey, 1995;Corrigan & Denton, 1996;Wellman & Gelman, 1998;Brewer, Chinn, & Samarapungavan, 2000;Thagard, 2000a;Schlottmann, 2001).…”

Section: Conceptual Changementioning

confidence: 99%

Designing effective supports for causal reasoning

Jonassen

Ionas

2006

Education Tech Research Dev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Causal reasoning represents one of the most basic and important cognitive processes that underpin all higher-order activities, such as conceptual understanding and problem solving. Hume called causality the ''cement of the universe'' [Hume (1739[Hume ( /2000. Causal reasoning is required for making predictions, drawing implications and inferences, and explaining phenomena. Causal relations are usually more complex than learners understand. In order to be able to understand and apply causal relationships, learners must be able to articulate numerous covariational attributes of causal relationships, including direction, valency, probability, duration, responsiveness, as well as mechanistic attributes, including process, conjunctions/disjunctions, and necessity/sufficiency. We describe different methods for supporting causal learning, including influence diagrams, simulations, questions, and different causal modeling tools, including expert systems, systems dynamics tools, and causal modeling tools. Extensive research is needed to validate and contrast these methods for supporting causal reasoning.

show abstract

Causal Understanding as a Developmental Primitive

Cited by 46 publications

References 0 publications

Event processing through naming: Investigating event focus in two people with aphasia

Event processing through naming: Investigating event focus in two people with aphasia

Young children’s reasoning about the order of past events

Designing effective supports for causal reasoning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About