Developmental Differences in Concept Acquisition Strategies

Kossan, Nancy E.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1981.tb03044.x

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Concept formation. The concept formation task used in this study was adapted from the one used by Kossan (1981) in her developmental study of children's concept acquisition strategies. There were two parts to this task, one involving a one-feature rule and the other involving a two-feature rule.…”

Section: General Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this way, a concept formation task can also be considered to provide a measure of children's hypothesistesting abilities. Research with nondisordered children (Clark, 1973;Kossan, 1981;Rosch & Mervis, 1975) suggests that children use both a common feature abstraction strategy and an exemplar strategy to formulate concepts. This is another way to say that children make hypotheses about intensional and extensional aspects of a concept.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is another way to say that children make hypotheses about intensional and extensional aspects of a concept. Kossan (1981), for example, found that the most effective concept-learning strategy was a function of age and the structure of the concept to be learned. Second graders learned rule-defined concepts successfully using a common feature abstraction strategy but learned more complex concepts with sufficient but not defining features most effectively with an exemplar strategy.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Hypothesis-Testing and Nonlinguistic Symbolic Abilities in Language-Impaired Children

Kamhi

Catts

Koenig

et al. 1984

J Speech Hear Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study sought to clarify further the cognitive abilities of language-impaired children by examining their hypothesis-testing and nonlinguistic symbolic abilities. A discrimination learning task and a concept formation task were used to measure hypothesis-testing abilities, and a haptic (touch) recognition task was used to assess nonlinguistic symbolic abilities. Subjects were 10 language-impaired and 10 language-normal children matched for performance Mental Age. Measures of expressive and receptive language were also obtained from each child. The language-impaired children were found to perform significantly poorer than their MA controls on the haptic recognition task and on a portion of the discrimination learning task. No differences were found between the two groups' concept formation abilities. Correlational analyses revealed a particularly strong positive relationship between performance on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test and the haptic recognition tasks. It was speculated that this relationship was motivated by the symbolic demands of these tasks. One implication of this speculation is that a symbolic representational deficit might better explain the receptive language deficit than the expressive one.

show abstract

Section: General Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation