Exemplar and nonexampler variables which produce correct concept classification behavior and specified classification errors.

Tennyson, Robert D.; Woolley, F. Ross; Merrill, Margaret

doi:10.1037/h0032368

Cited by 97 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The tutorial defines and exemplifies the concept with a series of six example-nonexample pairs designed to highlight the critical features of the concept. in an examplenonexample pair, the concept is illustrated in an example and presented along with a nonexample that lacks a single critical feature of the concept (Carnine, 1980;Tennyson, Woolley, & Merrill, 1972).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Fixed-Item and Response-Sensitive Versions of an Online Tutorial

Grant

Courtoreille

2007

Psychol Rec

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study is a comparison of 2 versions of an internet-based tutorial that teaches the behavior-analysis concept of positive reinforcement. A fixed-item group of students studied a version of the tutorial that included 14 interactive examples and nonexamples of the concept. A response-sensitive group of students studied a different version of the tutorial in which, after an initial round of 10 example and nonexample items, the computer readministered item types the students had answered incorrectly until the students responded correctly to each of 5 example and 5 nonexample item subtypes. A control group studied an online tutorial in biological psychology. Students in all 3 groups took a 10-item pretest and posttest over positive reinforcement. An analysis of the students' change scores indicated that the students learned more using the response-sensitive tutorial than the fixed-item tutorial. Scores of students using both versions of the tutorial were superior to those of the control group. Students using the response-sensitive and fixed-item tutorials required the same amount of study time. Students rated both versions of the positive reinforcement tutorial favorably on several dimensions.Online tutorials and demonstrations have become widely available to educators as a source of computer-based instructional materials (e.g., Davidson, 2004;Krantz, 2004; National institutes of Health, 2004). These resources provide the advantages of computer-based instruction (Alessi & Trollip, 2001;Kulik, 1986;Kulik & Kulik, 1991) to online users at no cost beyond internet access charges. Many of these online tutorials are not interactive because there is no opportunity to respond to the content and receive guidance or feedback (Alessi & Trollip, 2001). When opportunities for interaction are provided, tutorial exercises often consist of a fixed number of items or problems that the students answer. This use of a fixed number of items does not give students an opportunity for Please address correspondence concerning this manuscript to Lyle K. Grant, Psychology Centre, Athabasca University, 1 University Drive, Athabasca, Alberta, Canada, T9S 3A3. (E-mail: lyle@athabascau.ca). We thank Dean Mah for his assistance with the computer programming for this study.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Fixed-Item and Response-Sensitive Versions of an Online Tutorial

Grant

Courtoreille

2007

Psychol Rec

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In their study, one group of subjects read the definitions of concepts before discrimination training. Galizio, 1979 (Carnine, 1980a(Carnine, , 1980bDi Vesta & Peverly, 1984;Granzin & Camine, 1977;Merrill & Tennyson, 1978; Woolley, & Merrill, 1972;Tennyson, Steve, & Boiutwell, 1975;Williams & Camine, 1981 (Merrill & Tennyson, 1978;Tennyson & Park, 1980;Tiemann & Markle, 1990 (Tiemann & Markle, 1990, p. 120 Figure 1). Because a rational set includes all critical attributes, the learner must identify all of them when engaging in discrimination tasks.…”

Section: How Can Definition-based Conceptual Control Be Established?mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Shimamune

Malott

1995

Analysis Verbal Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

show abstract

“…Merrill and his associates had learned through much research (Tennyson et al, 1972) that learning concept classification behavior was facilitated not only by the presentation of concept exemplars, but by the simultaneous presentation of very similar non-exemplars as well. This is called the matching principle.…”

Section: The Strategy Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The language in this case was made up of terms that had meaning to the designer in the context of a coherent instructional plan. The solution of the strategy problem began with intense and sustained discussions, led by Dave Merrill, centered on research into concept instruction strategies that he had conducted beginning with his dissertation study and extending through the period of the TICCIT project and beyond (see Tennyson et al, 1972;Merrill, et al, 1992).…”

Section: The Strategy Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

TICCIT: Building Theory for Practical Purposes

Gibbons

O'Neal²

2014

IJDL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 1971 the National Science Foundation contracted with the MITRE Corporation (MIT Research Corporation) for the production of an experimental system to test the computer-assisted delivery of information and instruction to homes: the TICCIT system-an acronym for "Time-shared, Interactive, Computer-Controlled Information/Instructional Television". The networking concept of TICCIT linked minicomputers through coaxial cables to color television sets. The theoretical design challenge was that the agreement with NSF specified that the instructional component of TICCIT would be learner-controlled. TICCIT system specifications produced a type of instruction that adapted moment-by-moment to the choices of the learner. THE LANDSCAPE AND THE CHALLENGEIn 1970, one of the most pressing educational questions was, "Can the newly invented computer (barely 25 years old) carry out major instructional functions in a sustainable commercial-grade way?" In 1957 Sputnik had created a new urgency for exploring educational applications of technology. The goal was to improve instruction, distribute it to a wider audience, and at the same time lower the costs of doing it. Though today we take the instructional computer for granted, in 1970 this was a big question, and there were a lot of doubters. Several problems had to be solved: computer cost, delivery cost, instructional development cost, and instructional quality. In the process theory was born unexpectedly. COSTSComputers of the day were large and expensive. A mainframe computer required special air conditioned facilities and a team of trained technicians, programmers, and operators. Input-output systems were primitive-a teletype terminal, a deck of Hollerith punched cards producing a paper print-out, or a monochrome text display with keyboard. Vector graphics were a new technology requiring programming skills. Automated graphic and logic authoring interfaces were just being developed and not ready for general use. Connecting the computer to multiple users required the use of expensive high-quality telephone lines.The costs of computerized instruction did not reside alone in equipment and delivery. The creation of instruction was expensive because each lesson was hand crafted. A lesson design team normally consisted of either a highly gifted individual with a special combination of skills and training, or a team of specialists, consisting of a writer/editor, a programmer, and perhaps an artist. A subject-matter expert was also needed to supply content knowledge. Specialized programming languages were tailored expressly for instructional purposes, but as expectations of lesson quality grew, new features had to be added to the languages, and they became quite large, detailed and difficult to learn.

show abstract

Exemplar and nonexampler variables which produce correct concept classification behavior and specified classification errors.

Cited by 97 publications

References 8 publications

Comparison of Fixed-Item and Response-Sensitive Versions of an Online Tutorial

Comparison of Fixed-Item and Response-Sensitive Versions of an Online Tutorial

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

TICCIT: Building Theory for Practical Purposes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About