Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The effects of concept acquisition components AI (attribute identification) and RL (rule learning) on.. 1972

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1972_A4_7 S83.pdf [ 3.91MB ]
UBC_1972_A4_7 S83.pdf
Metadata
JSON: 1.0054417.json
JSON-LD: 1.0054417+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0054417.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0054417+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0054417+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0054417+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0054417.ris

Full Text

THE EFFECTS OF CONCEPT ACQUISITION COMPONENTS Al ( ATTRIBUTE IDENTIFICATION ) AND RL ( RULE LEARNING ) ON THE ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF COMPLEX CONCEPTS by John Brian Stainton A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF EDUCATION Department of Educational Psychology We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Apr i l , 1972 In present ing th is thes is in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the requirements for an advanced degree at the Un ive rs i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L i b r a r y sha l l make i t f r ee ly a v a i l a b l e for reference and study. I fu r ther agree that permission for extensive copying o f t h i s t h e s i s for s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h is representa t ives . It is understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s thes is fo r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my wr i t ten permiss ion . J» Brian Stainton Department of Educational Psychology The Un ive rs i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada May % 1972 ABSTRACT The present study considered a concept as the sum of two components: a t t r i b u t e s and a r u l e . Extension of t h i s model t o the process of concept a c q u i s i t i o n l e d to the notion of two component processes: a t t r i b u t e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and r u l e l e a r n i n g . A subject provided with the relevant a t t r i b u t e s i n a task has only to acquire the c o r r e c t conceptual r u l e . This process was c a l l e d r u l e l e a r n i n g (RL). I n i t i a l p r o v i s i o n of the appropriate r u l e requires only the a c q u i s i t i o n of the relevant a t t r i b u t e s , a process c a l l e d a t t r i b u t e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n ( A l ) . P r o v i s i o n of no i n i t i a l information requires the l e a r n e r to acquire both conceptual components. This process i s c a l l e d complete l e a r n i n g (CL). Seventy-two subjects were d i v i d e d i n t o s i x t r a i n i n g groups. Fi v e of these groups were assigned t o l e a r n i n g paradigms that provided t r a i n i n g on two complex concepts under varying amounts of i n i t i a l information (CL-CL; AI-AI; AI-RL; RL-AI; and RL-RL). The s i x t h group acted as a c o n t r o l and performed f i l l e r tasks i n place of the t r a i n i n g t a s k s . The r e s u l t s showed that f i r s t - t a s k l e a r n i n g i n the paradigms had a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on t r a n s f e r performance. R L - f i r s t learners manifested the best t r a n s f e r performance. An analysis i i i of acquisition performance on the f i r s t learning task showed superior performance on the RL task followed by A l and CL tasks in that order. Implications of these results to practical classroom activity were discussed and illus t r a t e d with the use of an example from science education. Dr. S. S. Blank, Thesis Committee Chair- man i v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am indebted to my thesis supervisor Dr. S.S. Blank and committee members Dr. S.S. Lee, Dr. R. Conry, and Dr. S. Foster for their continued guidance, criticisms, and encouragement i n the conduct of this research. In particular, I wish to thank Dr. S.S. Lee who kindly permitted me to make a copy of his stimulus-presentation device and materials. His assistance with a l l aspects of this research i s most appreciated. Finally, I would l i k e to express my sincere gratitude to my wife Sharon and three sons whose willingness to f o r f e i t many aspects of a normal family l i f e throughout the conduct of this work made i t s completion possible. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT i i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v TABLE OF CONTENTS v i LIST OF TABLES v i i LIST OF FIGURES v i i i Chapter I. INTRODUCTION 1 a) L i t e r a t u r e Review b) Purposes o f Study c) Pre d i c t i o n s and Hypotheses I I . METHOD 10 a) Design b) Subjects c) Stimulus Materials d) Apparatus e) Procedure I I I . RESULTS 22 a) Transfer b) Within - Transfer c) A c q u i s i t i o n IV. DISCUSSION 30 V. IMPLICATIONS 32 REFERENCES 36 APPENDICES 38 v i L i s t of Tables Table Page 1 Observed C e l l Means of Seven Response Measures on the Transfer Task ( N = 72 ) 2ka 2 Observed C e l l Means of Seven Transformed Response Measures on Within - Transfer ( N = 6o ) 27a 3 Observed C e l l Means of Seven Response Measures on A c q u i s i t i o n Task 1 ( N = 60 ) 28a v i i L i s t of Figures Figure Page 1 Diagrammatic Representation of the F u l l Experimental Drsign. 11a 2 Diagrammatic Representation of the Experimental Design as Considered for Analysis of Training Effect on Transfer l i b v i i i The E f f e c t s of Concept A c q u i s i t i o n Components AI ( A t t r i b u t e I d e n t i f i c a t i o n ) and RL (Rule Learning) on the A c q u i s i t i o n and Transfer of Complex Concepts John Brian Stainton I . Introduction; Many recent studies considering v a r i a b l e s r e l a t e d t o concept a c q u i s i t i o n tasks have considered concept a c q u i s i t i o n t o be a combination of two separable components, v i z . a t t r i b u t e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n ( A l) and r u l e l e a r n i n g (RL) (e.g., Haygood & Bourne, 1965; Lee & Gagne, 1970; and Lee, 1968). Others, such as Guthrie (19&7) r e f e r t o these components as example l e a r n i n g and r u l e l e a r n i n g . Haygood & Bourne (19^5) n a & subjects (Ss) engage i n a c q u i s i t i o n tasks under varying amounts of i n i t i a l information. Those Ss i n the AI c o n d i t i o n were provided with the r u l e r equired t o solve the a c q u i s i t i o n task whereas Ss under the RL c o n d i t i o n were provided with information on the s p e c i f i c relevant a t t r i b u t e s . Hence, i n each c o n d i t i o n S was required t o acquire the missing component of the concept before s o l u t i o n of the task could occur. Haygood & Bourne included a complete l e a r n i n g (CL) task i n which Ss were provided with no information on e i t h e r the r u l e component or the a t t r i b u t e component, b a r r i n g the 2 p r e s e n t a t i o n o f the name o f the r e l e v a n t and i r r e l e v a n t dimensions t h a t were i n c l u d e d i n the t a s k . These same i n v e s t i g a t o r s found t h a t i n terms of e r r o r s t o c r i t e r i o n , the CL t a s k was the most d i f f i c u l t f o l l o w e d by the A l and BL ta s k s i n t h a t o r d e r . G u t h r i e (1967) used cryptograms and two types o f r u l e s ( s u b s t i t u t i o n a l and t r a n s p o s i t i o n a l ) t o i n v e s t i g a t e the e f f e c t of example l e a r n i n g (Example) and r u l e l e a r n i n g (Rule) on both r e t e n t i o n and t r a n s f e r . He found t h a t the Example and Example-Rule groups surpassed the Rule-Example and the C o n t r o l groups on the t r a n s f e r t a s k but not on the r e t e n t i o n t a s k s . More r e c e n t l y , Lee & Gagne (1970) i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e e f f e c t s o f degree o f l e a r n i n g o f the component t a s k s on t h e a c q u i s i t i o n of a complex conceptual r u l e . T h e i r f i n d i n g s support a m e d i a t i o n a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the c o g n i t i v e i n t e g r a t i o n of conceptual components i n the a c q u i s i t i o n process s i n c e o v e r l e a r n i n g and symmetrical l e a r n i n g o f the two components was found t o be more f a c i l i t a t i v e than a symmetrical l e a r n i n g or simple c r i t e r i o n l e a r n i n g o f the components. The e f f e c t o f o v e r - l e a r n i n g of a concept on the r e l e a r n i n g o f the same concept has been s t u d i e d by Ludvigson (1966). He found t h a t w i t h an i n t e r p o l a t e d s e r i e s o f c o n f u s i o n t r i a l s , o v e r l e a r n i n g f a c i l i t a t e d the r e l e a r n i n g o f the o r i g i n a l concept. Richardson (I956), u s i n g both d i f f e r e n t m a t e r i a l s and a d i f f e r e n t t e c h n i q u e , 3 found t h a t i n t e r p o l a t e d l e a r n i n g was not an e f f e c t i v e v a r i a b l e on the r e t e n t i o n o f a concept. When these l a t t e r f i n d i n g s are considered i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h the former r e s u l t s r e p o r t e d on the AI and RL a c q u i s i t i o n components, i n t e r e s t i n g problems a r i s e . Purposes o f study: A g e n e r a l q u e s t i o n a r i s e s r e g a r d i n g the e f f e c t , o f concept a c q u i s i t i o n under v a r y i n g amounts o f i n i t i a l i n f o r m a t i o n on t r a n s f e r t o a new complex concept. That i s , do RL l e a r n e r s and A I l e a r n e r s perform e q u a l l y v e i l on a t r a n s f e r t a s k having been t r a i n e d under these d i f f e r e n t c o n d i t i o n s ? One of t h e purposes of the present study i s t o determine not o n l y i f RL l e a r n e r s and A I l e a r n e r s perform d i f f e r e n t i a l l y on a t r a n s f e r t a s k but i f a combination o f these l e a r n i n g methods produces s u p e r i o r t r a n s f e r t o , say, t r a i n i n g under the CL method. That i s , do l e a r n e r s who have t r a i n i n g on a RL t a s k f o l l o w e d by an A I t a s k (RL-Al) perform s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r on a t r a n s f e r t a s k than l e a r n e r s i n the r e v e r s e sequence (AI-RL)? I f the balanced or symmetric a c q u i s i t i o n o f the two components o f a complex conceptual r u l e as considered by Lee and Gagne (1970) i s extended t o the two components AI and RL of concept a c q u i s i t i o n i t s e l f , then t h i s s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n a r i s e s : i f the components of k two concepts axe l e a r n e d r e l a t i v e l y s y m m e t r i c a l l y (under l e a r n i n g paradigms AI-RL, RL-AI, and CL-CL), w i l l performance on the t r a n s f e r t a s k be f a c i l i t a t e d compared t o l e a r n i n g or i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f the conceptual components under asymmetrical paradigms ( i . e . , AI-AI and RL-RL)? On two t r a i n i n g t a s k s , i t would be reasonable t o expect a within-group t r a n s f e r e f f e c t . The magnitude and d i r e c t i o n of such an e f f e c t as detected by the d i f f e r e n c e s of response measures on the two t a s k s should a s s i s t i n i l l u m i n a t i n g the dynamics of each t r a i n i n g paradigm. Such an a n a l y s i s would p r o v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t i n g t o v a r i a t i o n s between g r o u p - s p e c i f i c s t r a t e g i e s presumably employed by Ss on the t r a i n i n g phase o f the experiment. The d i f f e r e n t s t r a t e g i e s a v a i l a b l e t o Ss i n d i f f e r e n t treatment c o n d i t i o n s p r i o r t o attempting the t r a n s f e r t a s k are c e r t a i n l y of i n t e r e s t and p e r t i n e n t t o the t o t a l t r a n s f e r e f f e c t as measured on the t r a n s f e r t a s k . A purpose of t h i s study w i l l t h e r e f o r e be t o determine the e f f e c t of t r a i n i n g as r e l a t e d t o a c q u i s i t i o n s t r a t e g y and the r e l a t i o n s h i p o f a c q u i s i t i o n s t r a t e g y t o concept t r a n s f e r . An a n a l y s i s o f concept a c q u i s i t i o n under the t h r e e a c q u i s i t i o n paradigms (CL, A l , and RL) w i l l be e s s e n t i a l t o t e s t i n g the p r e d i c t i v e t heory r e l a t i n g t o a c q u i s i t i o n s t r a t e g i e s and t r a n s f e r . 5 P r e d i c t i o n s and Hypotheses: The t o t a l amount of information required by S to acquire a concept comes from two sources. F i r s t , on a l l component paradigms c o n s i s t i n g of two tasks ( i . e . , AI-AI, AI-RL, RL-AI, and RL-RL), a d e f i n i t i v e statement on one of the conceptual components i s provided by the experimentor ( E ) . Secondly, S can acquire the remaining necessary information f o r himself by considering the combined v i s u a l s t i m u l i and v e r b a l feedback from E. With regards t o the information pro- vided by E, the question must be asked whether S understands equally w e l l a d e f i n i t i o n of a complex r u l e (be i t v e r b a l , w r i t t e n , or i n Venn diagram form) under A l and a statement t h a t c e r t a i n a t t r i b u t e s (e.g., shape and s i z e ) are important, under RL. The b e t t e r performance under the RL paradigm reported by Haygood & Bourne could be explained by the greater ease of understanding the "given" component ( v i z . a t t r i b u t e s ) compared to understanding the "given" r u l e under the A l c o n d i t i o n . With no a t t r i b u t e or r u l e information provided i n i t i a l l y under the CL c o n d i t i o n , i t i s r e a d i l y understandable why t h i s l e a r n i n g c o n d i t i o n would be the most d i f f i c u l t . I t can be argued that the content of the given i n f o r - mation i s c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to the s t r a t e g i e s employed by _S during a c q u i s i t i o n . Since the t r a n s f e r task i s i t s e l f under 6 the CL condition i n t h i s study, i t would seem that s i m i l a r i t y of i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r the t r a n s f e r task with those under the CL-CL t r a i n i n g paradigm would cue S t o continue using a strategy which would be most b e n e f i c i a l to a c q u i s i t i o n on the t r a n s f e r task. Further, i t would seem that the d i s s i m i l a r i t y i n t r a n s f e r task i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r Ss under component paradigms would require a s h i f t i n s t r a t e g i e s producing l e s s e f f i c i e n t t r a n s f e r and subsequent poorer performance on the CL t r a n s f e r task. However, f a c t o r s such as ease of a c q u i s i t i o n on the t r a i n i n g tasks, separation of conceptual components during t r a i n i n g and d i s t i n c t i o n of these components must play a part i n the development of an a c q u i s i t i o n strategy. Perhaps too the symmetric a c q u i s i t i o n of the components during t r a i n i n g a f f e c t s the a c q u i s i t i o n strategy a v a i l a b l e t o S as he begins the t r a n s f e r t ask. Surely concept a c q u i s i t i o n on the component paradigms would provide much greater separation and d i s t i n c t i o n of the conceptual components than would t r a i n i n g under the CL method. This lack-of-component-separation e f f e c t f o r CL learners could very w e l l outweigh the s i m i l a r i t y - o f - s t r a t e g y e f f e c t . I t i s hypothesized that t r a n s f e r performance and e f f i c i e n c y f o r jSs t r a i n e d under the CL-CL paradigm w i l l be s u b s t a n t i a l l y poorer than the t r a n s f e r performance and e f f i c i e n c y observed f o r Ss t r a i n e d under the component paradigms. S i m i l a r l y , a d i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t of t r a i n i n g under mixed paradigms on t r a n s f e r performance can be p r e d i c t e d . From the argument dealing with a v a i l a b i l i t y of information to S r e s u l t i n g from i n s t r u c t i o n s on the AI and RL paradigms, i t i s hypothesized that Ss under the RL-AI c o n d i t i o n w i l l perform b e t t e r on the t r a n s f e r task than Ss under the AI-RL paradigm. Under the RL-AI sequence, the Ss w i l l be provided with the a t t r i b u t e s on task 1 . According t o the r e s u l t s of the Haygood & Bourne (1965) study, these Ss should have minimal d i f f i c u l t y a c q u i r i n g the appropriate r u l e . Now, having j u s t learned the complex r u l e , E w i l l proceed t o provide a c l e a r l y - worded d e f i n i t i v e statement of t h i s i d e n t i c a l r u l e as part of the i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r the second t r a i n i n g task under the AI c o n d i t i o n . (T r a i n i n g tasks 1 and 2 have i d e n t i c a l r u l e s . ) C l e a r l y , the l i k l i h o o d of these Ss understanding the given r u l e having j u s t learned i t should be very good compared t o Ss under the reversed sequence AI-RL. In the AI-RL c o n d i t i o n , the r u l e i s f i r s t provided on task 1 . Understanding of the complex r u l e and a p p l i c a t i o n of that r u l e t o the a c q u i s i t i o n task w i l l not be as e f f i c i e n t as understanding the a t t r i b u t e s given on task 1 i n the RL-AI sequence. Hence, some r u l e l e a r n i n g may take place i n the AI task. I f t h i s i s the case, the f i r s t AI task a c q u i s i t i o n requirements are approaching the CL task requirements. Having come t o c r i t e r i o n on task 1 8 i n the AI-RL sequence, S i s then provided w i t h the e a s i l y - understood a t t r i b u t e s and must a r r i v e a t the r u l e h i m s e l f on t a s k 2. For him, d i s t i n c t i o n and c o g n i t i v e s e p a r a t i o n o f the conceptual components a t the end of the two t r a i n i n g t a s k s i s not n e a r l y as complete as i t i s f o r Ss under the RL-AI paradigm. Hence, i t i s argued t h a t the o p p o r t u n i t y f o r S t o develop a s t r a t e g y t h a t takes i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n the two- component nature o f the t a s k a t hand i s not as g r e a t under the AI-RL sequence as i t i s under the RL-AI c o n d i t i o n . I t i s hypothesized t h a t t r a i n i n g under the sequence RL-AI w i l l produce s u p e r i o r t r a n s f e r as detected by performance and e f f i c i e n c y measures on the t r a n s f e r t a s k . Extending the above argument t o the unmixed paradigms (RL-RL and A I - A I ) , i t would seem t h a t Ss under the RL-RL method would experience not only g r e a t e r ease of a c q u i s i t i o n on t r a i n i n g compared t o Ss under the AI-AI sequence but a l s o would have g r e a t e r s e p a r a t i o n and d i s t i n c t i o n o f the c o n c e p t u a l components due t o i n c r e a s e d understanding and a v a i l a b i l i t y of the "given" component. Again, t h i s c l e a r e r a p p r e c i a t i o n of the nature of the t a s k s should produce minimal d i f f i c u l t y on the t r a n s f e r t a s k . A hypothesis would have t o p r e d i c t s u p e r i o r p o s i t i v e t r a n s f e r f o r RL-RL t r a i n e d l e a r n e r s compared t o AI-AI t r a i n e d Ss. F u r t h e r , i f the Lee & Gagne ( 1 9 7 0 ) r e s u l t c l a i m i n g g r e a t e r t r a n s f e r f a c i l i t a t i o n when components of t h e i r complex r u l e were le a r n e d s y m m e t r i c a l l y can be a p p l i e d here, the i n t e g r a t i o n o f the conceptual components should be f u r t h e r f a c i l i t a t e d when these components are a c q u i r e d s y m m e t r i c a l l y . As has been po i n t e d out, the components w i l l be most d i s t i n c t under those paradigms where Ss are g i v e n the e a s i l y - u n d e r s t o o d a t t r i b u t e r a t h e r than the complex r u l e . Hence, even though Ss under the CL-CL paradigm may w e l l have the c o n d i t i o n s most f a v o r a b l e f o r symmetric a c q u i s i t i o n o f the a t t r i b u t e and r u l e components, t h i s e f f e c t i s most l i k e l y overshadowed by the l a c k of component s e p a r a t i o n . The s i m i l a r i t y o f the l e a r n i n g t a s k s and the t r a n s f e r t a s k provides an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r Ss under the CL-CL method t o t r a n s f e r t h e i r a c q u i s i t i o n s t r a t e g y . But, these s t r a t e g i e s are most l i k e l y s u r f a c e s t r a t e g i e s based on incomplete comprehension of the two-component nature o f the t a s k t o be s o l v e d . An a p p r e c i a t i o n o f t h i s two-component nature of the concept t a s k s would provide an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r S t o develop a CL s t r a t e g y on the t r a n s f e r t a s k which would be more power f u l than t h a t used by _Ss who have achieved c r i t e r i o n on two CL l e a r n i n g t a s k s w i t h d i f f i c u l t y and remain unsure as t o how they d i d i t . The ease of understanding the g i v e n a t t r i b u t e s 10 coupled w i t h the g r e a t e r ease of a c q u i r i n g the r u l e should p r o v i d e Ss under the RL-RL c o n d i t i o n w i t h both good component s e p a r a t i o n and r e l a t i v e symmetry of l e a r n i n g . As p r e v i o u s l y noted, Ss under the RL-AI f i r s t l e a r n the r u l e and then have i t c l e a r l y s t a t e d f o r them i n i n s t r u c t i o n s on the second t a s k ( A l ) . Component s e p a r a t i o n and symmetry of l e a r n i n g should be good i n t h i s c o n d i t i o n t o o . I t i s hypothesized t h e r e f o r e t h a t t r a i n i n g under the RL-RL and RL-AI paradigms w i l l p r o v i d e an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r development of a c l e a r e r , more e f f i c i e n t s t r a t e g y f o r a c q u i s i t i o n on the t r a n s f e r t a s k than those Ss under the other l e a r n i n g c o n d i t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g CL-CL. The common t r a n s f e r t a s k i s d i f f e r e n t from a l l the t r a i n i n g t a s k s y e t employs f a m i l i a r s t i m u l u s m a t e r i a l s . This i s e a s i l y accomplished by u s i n g the same s t i m u l i but u s i n g a new combination o f r e l e v a n t a t t r i b u t e s , a new number o f r e l e v a n t a t t r i b u t e s , and a new r u l e . I I . Method; Design; The experimental design -Has a 5 (repeated-measures) x 6 f a c t o r i a l . A l l Ss r e c e i v e d two warm-up t a s k s . Except f o r Ss assigned t o the empty or b a s e - l i n e c o n d i t i o n , a l l Ss came t o c r i t e r i o n on two t r a i n i n g t a s k s . The empty c o n d i t i o n contained two f i l l e r t asks i n p l a c e o f the t r a i n i n g t a s k s . A l l Ss under a l l c o n d i t i o n s then-performed on a common t r a n s f e r t a s k under the CL paradigm. However, the a n a l y s i s o f t r a i n i n g I n s e r t F i g u r e 1 about here e f f e c t s on t r a n s f e r was c a r r i e d out c o n s i d e r i n g the two t r a i n i n g t a s k s as l e v e l s o f two f a c t o r s i n a m o d i f i e d 2 x 2 f a c t o r i a l d e s i g n . One b i - l e v e l l e d f a c t o r i n t h i s m o d i f i e d d e s i g n i s a c q u i s i t i o n method on t r a i n i n g t a s k 1 (AI or RL) and the second f a c t o r i s a c q u i s i t i o n method on t r a i n i n g t a s k 2 (AI o r RL). A l l p o s s i b l e combinations o f f i r s t - l e a r n i n g method and second*, l e a r n i n g method on the components c o u l d thus be t e s t e d f o r e f f e c t s on the common t r a n s f e r t a s k . A d d i t i o n a l c e l l s r e p r e s e n t i n g the CL-CL and empty or b a s e - l i n e c o n d i t i o n s were, o f course, i n c l u d e d . I n s e r t F i g u r e 2 about here The s t r u c t u r e s o f a l l t a s k s used i n the study are presented i n Appendix A. Both o f the l e a r n i n g t a s k s employed T r a i n i n g Paradigm Warm - Up 1 Warm - Up 2 T r a i n i n g Task 1 T r a i n i n g Task 2 T r a n s f e r Task CL - CL A I - A I A I - R L R L - A I R L - R L Empty F i l l e r F i l l e r F i g u re 1. Diagrammatic r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f the f u l l experimental design M e Method on Training Task 2 Transfer Task t h o d 0 n T r CL Al RL Fil l e r CL A l F i 1 1 e r a i n i n g RL T a I 1 Figure 2, Diagrammatic representation of the experimental design as considered for analysis of training effect on transfer 12 a simple b i c o n d i t i o n a l r u l e (the j o i n t presence or the j o i n t absence o f the two r e l e v a n t a t t r i b u t e s c o n s t i t u t e d a p o s i t i v e i n s t a n c e o f the concept) but used d i f f e r e n t dimensions and r e l e v a n t values of those dimensions. For example, i f the a t t r i b u t e s shape and c o l o u r were r e l e v a n t , i n t r a i n i n g t a s k 1 the presence of r e d t r i a n g l e s and the absence of r e d t r i a n g l e s would c o n s t i t u t e a p o s i t i v e i n s t a n c e o f the concept. Other-coloured t r i a n g l e s and r e d shapes other than t r i a n g l e s c o n s t i t u t e d a negative i n s t a n c e o f the concept. S i n c e the r u l e was i d e n t i c a l f o r b oth t r a i n i n g t a s k s l c a n d 2, a l l Ss were g i v e n i n s t r u c t i o n s suggesting t h a t the second of these t a s k s was another new t a s k r e q u i r i n g another unique s o l u t i o n . Such i n s t r u c t i o n s were considered t o a s s i s t i n p r e v e n t i n g t h e f o r m a t i o n o f a s e t o r s u s p i c i o n t h a t a p p l i c a t i o n o f the f i r s t l e a r n i n g t a s k r o l e t o the second t a s k would a u t o m a t i c a l l y be s u c c e s s f u l . These i n s t r u c t i o n s a p p l i e d t o Ss under the AI c o n d i t i o n on t a s k 2 even though i t should have been obvious t o them t h a t the r u l e was i d e n t i c a l (by i n s t r u c t i o n ) f o r both t r a i n i n g t a s k s . Ss i n a l l c o n d i t i o n s were g i v e n two warm-up t a s k s , one common t o a l l paradigms and the second p a r a d i g m - s p e c i f i c . Those Ss i n the empty or b a s e - l i n e c o n d i t i o n were g i v e n the warm-up task s and the t r a n s f e r t a s k . They were g i v e n two 13 f i l l e r tasks i n an attempt t o provide some degree of stimulus f a m i l i a r i z a t i o n and varm-up comparable to that experienced by the Ss on the t r a i n i n g tasks. A p i l o t p r o j e c t (N = 30) was c a r r i e d out. The average length of time spent on the mate r i a l s used on t r a i n i n g tasks 1 and 2 was found to be 95U seconds. I t was decided that f i l l e r tasks 1 and 2 would each be l 6 minutes (9°0 seconds) i n duration. The f i l l e r tasks c o n s i s t e d of v e r b a l l y d e s c r i b i n g the values of f i v e of the eight b i - l e v e l l e d dimensions on the stimulus cards, announcing only values not shown on the card presented. For example, i f the stimulus card should contain two l a r g e red o u t l i n e d t r i a n g l e s on a white background with a s o l i d border, a response by S "one small blue c i r c l e on a grey background" would be s a t i s f a c t o r y . I t i s argued that t h i s task not only provides approximately the same amount of experience and f a m i l i a r i z a t i o n with the stimulus materials but a l s o requires approximately the same degree of concentration on those materials that Ss under the t r a i n i n g conditions would be expected t o put i n t o t h e i r t a s k s . The t r a n s f e r task consisted of three r e l e v a n t dimensions and a contingent b i c o n d i t i o n a l r u l e . The j o i n t presence or the j o i n t absence of two a t t r i b u t e s contingent upon the presence of a t h i r d a t t r i b u t e c o n s t i t u t e d a p o s i t i v e instance of the concept (see Appendix A). The t r a n s f e r task Kas c a r r i e d out under the CL co n d i t i o n f o r a l l Ss i n a l l paradigms. In each task, three random orders of the l6 s t i m u l i were prepared to prevent s e r i a l l e a r n i n g from taking p l a c e . The number of p o s i t i v e and negative instances of the concept were balanced i n the warm-up and t r a i n i n g tasks by the very nature of the r u l e s used. However, because of the nature of the contingent b i c o n d i t i o n a l r u l e used i n the t r a n s f e r task, only 6 p o s i t i v e instances of the 16 s t i m u l i occurred n a t u r a l l y . The number of p o s i t i v e and negative instances per t r i a l were balanced on the t r a n s f e r task by the random d e l e t i o n of two negative s t i m u l i and t h e i r replacement with two a d d i t i o n a l , redundant, p o s i t i v e s t i m u l i selected at random from the 6 p o s i t i v e instances. This process was c a r r i e d out independently on the three random orders prepared. The dependent v a r i a b l e s measured were the number of t r i a l s to c r i t e r i o n (n), the number of errors t o c r i t e r i o n ( e ) , and the time taken t o reach c r i t e r i o n ( t ) . Since each of the n t r i a l s contained l6 cards, a t o t a l of Ion cards were viewed by each S. The r a t i o e/l6n thus provides a measure of the e r r o r r a t e (ER). The measures n, e, t and ER w i l l be used as i n d i c a t o r s of a c q u i s i t i o n performance. The a c t u a l time taken compared to the t o t a l time a v a i l a b l e to reach c r i t e r i o n produces a time rate (TR) measure. Since 15 seconds was the es t a b l i s h e d i n t e r v a l per stimulus card (by i n s t r u c t i o n s t o S - see Appendix B), then the t o t a l a v a i l a b l e time t o reach c r i t e r i o n i s determined by the product of l6n cards and 15 seconds per card. The time r a t e measure TR i s therefore t/l6n x 15. This measure should r e f l e c t time-related strategy s t y l e s employed by S during a c q u i s i t i o n . I t i s argued that i f S made f u l l use of the information provided by E and the stimulus card presented ( i n d i c a t i n g a p o s i t i v e instance of the concept), TR would approach 1. I f , however, S's strategy was t o proceed through the s t i m u l i r a p i d l y , viewing as many as p o s s i b l e and making minimal, use of the a v a i l a b l e information, h i s TR measure would n e c e s s a r i l y be very small. While TR i s no doubt r e l a t e d to c o g n i t i v e s t y l e , i t i s considered here t o r e f l e c t only the time aspects of strategy rather than provide a measure of h o l i s t i c v s . a n a l y t i c strategy, f o r example. F i n a l l y , two transformations on the three dependent v a r i a b l e s were performed to a r r i v e at measures that are t o be i n t e r p r e t e d i n terms of a c q u i s i t i o n e f f i c i e n c y . The product of ER and t y i e l d s a measure of the estimated average time spent making errors (ET) during a c q u i s i t i o n t a s k s . This i s a comprehensive measure i n s o f a r as i t simultaneously considers n, e, and t . I f e and t become l a r g e , so does the measure ET (since n must n e c e s s a r i l y get pro p o r t i o n a t e l y l a r g e i f e becomes l a r g e ) . The quotient r e s u l t i n g from the d i v i s i o n of ET by the t o t a l a v a i l a b l e time (l6n cards x 15 seconds/card) y i e l d s an estimate of the proportion of t o t a l a v a i l a b l e time spent making e r r o r s . This measure was analyzed as an e f f i c i e n c y measure to i n d i c a t e how Ss under various conditions p a r t i t i o n e d t h e i r a v a i l a b l e time during a c q u i s i t i o n . Subjects; The Ss were 72 grade 9 and 10 students drawn from a subpopulation of 397 senior students i n a l o c a l metropolitan Junior Secondary School. Students were asked t o volunteer. From the population o f p o s i t i v e responses t o t h i s i n v i t a t i o n , a sample of 36 male and 36 female Ss was composed by random s e l e c t i o n . These Ss were then assigned randomly t o the s i x treatment conditions, the only r e s t r i c t i o n being an equal number of male and female Ss w i t h i n each treatment group. Stimulus M a t e r i a l s : The s t i m u l i were 2f x 3̂- i n . 37-point paperboard cards on which geometric f i g u r e s varying along eight b i - l e v e l l e d dimensions had been hand p r i n t e d using the s i l k s c r e e n process. The dimensions and t h e i r values are: number of f i g u r e s (one - two), shape of f i g u r e s ( t r i a n g l e - c i r c l e ) , c o l o r of f i g u r e s (blue - red ), o u t l i n e of f i g u r e s ( o u t l i n e - no o u t l i n e ) , background c o l o r ( white - grey ), border type ( s o l i d - broken), texture of f i g u r e s ( s o l i d - slashed), and s i z e of f i g u r e s ( l a r g e - s m a l l ) . Since each of these dimensions co n s i s t s of two values, a t o t a l of 2^ = 16 cards c o n s t i t u t e s the stimulus population i f four dimensions are held constant i n any given task. The number of cards presented per t r i a l was therefore 16, a number of s t i m u l i w e l l i n excess of the immediate memory span. Three orders of each t r i a l of 16 stimulus cards were prepared to prevent s e r i a l l e a r n i n g from taking p l a c e . The number of p o s i t i v e instances were equated with the number of negative instances f o r each t r i a l i n each task. On the t r a n s f e r task, t h i s was accomplished by randomly d e l e t i n g two negative s t i m u l i per t r i a l and s u b s t i t u t i n g two randomly- sel e c t e d , redundant p o s i t i v e stimuli,, This was c a r r i e d out independently f o r the three orders prepared on the t r a n s f e r task. Apparatus; A b l a c k box measuring 9^ x 9§- x 34 i n . was p l a c e d between E and S on a desk. An opening measuring the s i z e o f a stimulus card was a t e y e - l e v e l f o r each S. The box contained an e l e c t r i c motor o p e r a t i n g a t 60 rpm which when s t a r t e d passed through a c y c l e b e f o r e s h u t t i n g i t s e l f o f f . The c y c l e i n c l u d e d the displacement of the c a r d appearing i n the window and i t s replacement w i t h the next c a r d h e l d i n a wooden supply box measuring ^ x 3g x 8 i n . The motor i n s i d e the box c o u l d be a c t i v a t e d by a push-button mounted on a s m a l l p o r t a b l e wooden box c o n v e n i e n t l y p l a c e d f o r S. Procedure; W r i t t e n i n s t r u c t i o n s were g i v e n t o each S two days b e f o r e the appointed time when p o s s i b l e (see Appendix B). Those Ss who had Monday appointments r e c e i v e d t h e i r w r i t t e n i n s t r u c t i o n s on the previous F r i d a y whereas Ss having Tuesday appointments r e c e i v e d t h e i r w r i t t e n i n s t r u c t i o n s o n l y the day b e f o r e . Each S was i n s t r u c t e d on the d e f i n i t i o n o f dimension and value and was asked t o g i v e w r i t t e n examples ( f i l l i n g i n b l a n k s ) f o l l o w i n g t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n by observing two c o n t r a s t i n g sample "cards" (diagrams) c o n t a i n i n g between them a l l e i g h t dimensions and s i x t e e n values p o s s i b l e . J u s t p r i o r t o the s t a r t o f the experiment, a box-type diagram i l l u s t r a t i n g t h e b i l e v e l nature of the e i g h t n o n - l a b e l l e d dimensions was presented t o S i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h a subsequent b r i e f v e r b a l l e s s o n by E on the meaning o f terms. E then read aloud t h e e i g h t dimensions and S was r e q u i r e d t o provide v e r b a l l y t h e two v a l u e s per dimension w h i l e observing two c o n t r a s t i n g sample c a r d s . This procedure was designed t o ensure a c o n s i d e r a b l e degree of f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h the a t t r i b u t e s o f the v a r i o u s l e a r n i n g t a s k s . S was then i n s t r u c t e d t h a t i n each o f the l e a r n i n g t a s k s he would c o n s i d e r , he was t o c l a s s i f y each card appearing i n the window b e f o r e him i n t o two c a t e g o r i e s by u s i n g v e r b a l responses. To ensure minimal i n t e r f e r e n c e between t a s k s r e s u l t i n g from response l a b e l s , s p e c i f i c names f o r the two c l a s s i f i c a t i o n c a t e g o r i e s were d i f f e r e n t f o r each t a s k and S was informed of the v e r b a l l a b e l s i n the s p e c i f i c i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r each t a s k . A sample c a r d c o n s t i t u t i n g a p o s i t i v e i n s t a n c e o f the r e q u i r e d concept was pr o v i d e d f o r each S i n a l l t a s k s and c o n d i t i o n s . He was informed t h a t the car d belonged t o the category whose l a b e l s p e c i f i e d the p o s i t i v e i n s t a n c e o f the concept o n l y . I n each t a s k under a l l c o n d i t i o n s , S a l s o was provided w i t h the names o f the t o t a l number o f varying dimensions (both relevant and i r r e l e v a n t ) . In the AI c o n d i t i o n , S was informed by E of the exact nature of the r u l e that would permit s o l u t i o n of the problem. In the RL co n d i t i o n , S was informed of the names of the relevant a t t r i b u t e s (dimensions) as w e l l as the names of the four varying dimensions. In the combined AI-RL c o n d i t i o n , S was given the AI i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r t r a i n i n g task 1 and the RL i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r t r a i n i n g task 2. Ss i n the CL condi t i o n were given only the names of the four varying dimensions. In each treatment c o n d i t i o n , the stimulus materials (set B and set D - see Appendix A) were counterbalanced across the two t r a i n i n g tasks and across sex. A f t e r each response made by S, E provided v e r b a l feedback by saying " r i g h t " or "wrong" under a l l tasks and con d i t i o n s . S had a maximum of 15 seconds to observe each stimulus card and could present the next card by pressing the advance button himself. Accuracy and speed were considered of equal importance i n the i n s t r u c t i o n s t o S. The concept was considered to be learned when S could perform p e r f e c t l y on a given t r i a l of 16 s t i m u l i . On the two l e a r n i n g tasks, three random orders of each le a r n i n g t r i a l of l 6 s t i m u l i were prepared to prevent s e r i a l l e a r n i n g from taking p l a c e . For Ss assigned t o the empty c o n d i t i o n , no i n s t r u c t i o n s r e g a r d i n g dimensions or r u l e l i n k i n g values of dimensions on the f i l l e r t a s k s were p r o v i d e d . The amount of time p e r m i t t e d on the f i l l e r t a s k s was l6 minutes each on the m a t e r i a l s o f s e t B and D (the s t i m u l i used i n the t r a i n i n g t a s k s ) . As p r e v i o u s l y mentioned, t h i s was e s t a b l i s h e d as the r e s u l t o f a p i l o t study. The average time spent on t r a i n i n g t a s k 1 was lk62 seconds and 668 seconds on t r a i n i n g t a s k 2 i n t h i s study. The average time spent on the m a t e r i a l s o f s e t B and s e t D was t h e r e f o r e IO65 seconds, 105 seconds more than the 960 seconds allowed the Sjs f o r f a m i l i a r i z a t i o n w i t h the m a t e r i a l s o f sets B and D. F i n a l l y , each S under each treatment c o n d i t i o n was r e q u i r e d t o come t o c r i t e r i o n on the t r a n s f e r t a s k . The same i n s t r u c t i o n s were read t o a l l Ss on t h i s t a s k . A l l Ss under a l l c o n d i t i o n s l e a r n e d the t r a n s f e r t a s k under the CL paradigm. Hence, the same i n s t r u c t i o n s were read t o a l l Ss on t h i s t a s k i n f o r m i n g them only o f the f o u r v a r y i n g dimensions by name and these names were again l e f t i n view f o r S. A sample ca r d r e p r e s e n t i n g a p o s i t i v e i n s t a n c e o f the concept was presented t o each S and l e f t i n view throughout the l e a r n i n g t r i a l s . I I I . Results; A u n i v a r i a t e and m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s of variance were performed on the seven dependent measures of the t r a n s f e r task, f i r s t a c q u i s i t i o n task, and a transformation of the t r a i n i n g task 1 and 2 scores. A t o t a l of 75 Ss attempted the experiment but 3 of these were r e j e c t e d because of i n a b i l i t y t o complete e i t h e r a t r a i n i n g task or the t r a n s f e r task w i t h i n one hour. Two of those r e j e c t e d were on the CL-CL co n d i t i o n and the t h i r d was under the AI-AI paradigm. The a c q u i s i t i o n measures of the remaining 72 Ss, 12 i n each con- d i t i o n , were then considered i n the a n a l y s i s . In the sample c o r r e l a t i o n matrix of the seven dependent v a r i a b l e measures on the t r a n s f e r task (see Appendix D), the time r a t i o (TR) measure had the lowest c o r r e l a t i o n with performance measures n and e £in the order of .23 and .38 r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . This lends support t o the contention that TR r e f l e c t s an aspect of a c q u i s i t i o n behavior d i f f e r e n t from n and e. TR i s considered an i n d i c a t o r of time-related strategy. Tne proportion of t o t a l time a v a i l a b l e spent making er r o r s (ETPR) had a c o r r e l a t i o n i n the order of .37 with n and .58 with e over a l l Ss on the t r a n s f e r task. However, a c o r r e l a t i o n of ETPR with TR of . 9 3 5 i n d i c a t e s that both TR and ETPR r e f l e c t strategy and the r e s u l t a n t e f f i c i e n c y . Even though the e f f i c i e n c y measures ET and ETPR are h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d with the strategy measure TR as would be expected, strategy e f f e c t s and e f f i c i e n c y e f f e c t s w i l l be discussed separately i n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of r e s u l t s . I t must be noted that measure ET i s an estimated measure of the average time spent making e r r o r s . This measure could be improved by measuring automatically the a c t u a l time spent by S on each stimulus from which the time spent making errors could be found. Such pre c i s e measurement might w e l l provide a more enlightened p i c t u r e of comprehensive a c q u i s i t i o n performance. A s e r i e s of planned orthogonal contrasts were used to t e s t the research hypotheses. The f i r s t s e r i e s of contrasts (see Appendix E f o r the o p t i o n a l contrast matrix) were designed to t e s t hypotheses r e l a t i n g t o the e f f e c t s of l e a r n i n g paradigm on t r a n s f e r performance, strategy, and e f f i c i e n c y . A contrast comparing the e f f e c t s on t r a n s f e r of previous t r a i n i n g and minimal p r i o r t r a i n i n g showed a b e n e f i c i a l performance e f f e c t on measure e (Stepdovn F i ^ 6 6 = 13.162, p l e s s than .0006 ) f o r previous t r a i n i n g (see Appendix F ) . A s i m i l a r b e n e f i c i a l e f f e c t on measure n ju s t f a i l e d to reach s i g n i f i c a n c e = . 0 5 ) . This comparison d i d not i n d i c a t e any b e n e f i c i a l t r a n s f e r e f f e c t s i n terms of strategy or e f f i c i e n c y r e s u l t i n g from p r i o r t r a i n i n g i n concept a c q u i s i t i o n g e n e r a l l y . However, when t r a n s f e r performance r e s u l t i n g from CL-CL t r a i n i n g was orthogonally contrasted with the t r a n s f e r performance r e s u l t i n g from component«paradigm l e a r n i n g , the ETPR measure was found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (Stepdown F-j^gg = lk.09, p l e s s than . 0 0 0 ^ ) , i n d i c a t i n g i n f e r i o r e f f i c i e n c y on the t r a n s f e r task f o r the CL-CL t r a i n e d Ss compared t o component-paradigm learners (see Appendix F ) . This r e s u l t lends some support to the p r e d i c t i o n made that due t o a l a c k of component sep- a r a t i o n the performance and e f f i c i e n c y of Ss t r a i n e d under the CL-CL paradigm would be s u b s t a n t i a l l y poorer than the t r a n s f e r performance and e f f i c i e n c y observed f o r Ss t r a i n e d under the component paradigms. Neither the strategy measure TR nor any of the performance measures reached s i g n i f i c a n c e but some trends i n the pred i c t e d d i r e c t i o n can be observed i n the c e l l means (see t a b l e l ) . Insert t a b l e 1 about here 2k& Table 1 Observed Cel l Means of Seven Response Measures on the Transfer Task ( N = 72 ) Training Paradigm n e ER TB | ET ETPR CL - CL 10.7 1*2.0 1215 .21 M \ 327 .09 A I - A I 11.3 1+7.0 922 .24 .32 j 259 .08 AI-RL 9.0 32.6 1075 .21 .32 1 272 .10 EL - Al 10.3 33.3 6oo .19 • 2 5 j 130 .05 RL-RL 8.5 27.9 589 1 .18 . .31 120 .06 Empty 13.2 35.7 841 .18 .27 | 147 . 0 5 Performance measures are n ( trials to criterion ), e ( errors to criterion ), t ( tiae to criterion ) and ER ( error rate ) Strategy measure i s TR ( tine rate * t/240n ) Efficiency xneasurea a r e ES* ( estimated mean time spent making errors ) and EEPR ( proportion of total available time spent making errors ). The hypothesized "beneficial e f f e c t of symmetric a c q u i s i t i o n of the conceptual components on t r a n s f e r was not supported by the a n a l y s i s . Transfer performance, strategy, and e f f i c i e n c y measures r e s u l t i n g from Ss whose previous experience had been on the symmetric AI-RL, RL-AI, and CL-CL paradigms war not d i f f e r e n t from t r a n s f e r performance of Ss whose p r i o r experience was under the asymmetrical AI-AI and RL-RL c o n d i t i o n s . However, d i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t s on t r a n s f e r r e s u l t i n g from le a r n i n g under the sequences AI-RL and RL-AI were observed on measures TR and ETPR i n d i c a t i n g d i f f e r i n g t r a n s f e r s t r a t e g i e s employed r e s u l t i n g from the t r a i n i n g sequence on these paradigms. The RL-AI t r a i n e d Ss presumably used a more e f f i c i e n t strategy than d i d the AI-RL t r a i n e d Ss on the t r a n s f e r task (see Appendix F ) . The e f f i c i e n c y measure ETPR on the contrast j u s t mentioned was s i g n i f i c a n t ( F-j^gg = 4.005, P l e s s than .0495 ) as was performance measure ( Stepdown ^^.,66 ~ 5 •804, p l e s s than .0189 ) with <X = .05. These r e s u l t s lend strong support t o the hypothesis and p r e d i c t i o n made r e l a t i n g t o the e f f e c t s of component order i n these paradigms on t r a n s f e r . With regards t o the unmixed paradigms AI-AI and RL-RL, the predicted b e n e f i c i a l e f f e c t of RL-RL t r a i n i n g on t r a n s f e r was supported by the comprehensive measure ER ( F 1 g^ = 3»997> p l e s s than .0497) but the performance measure e f a i l e d t o reach s i g n i f i c a n c e ( F ^ 6 6 = 2.91, p l e s s than .0926 ) with oc= . 0 5 . An a d d i t i o n a l s e r i e s of three planned orthogonal contrasts was used t o analyze the component-paradigm l e a r n i n g e f f e c t on t r a n s f e r (see Appendix G). One such contrast on t r a n s f e r measures of RL-AI and RL-RL t r a i n e d Ss with AI-AI and AI-RL t r a i n e d Ss showed very c l e a r l y the b e n e f i c i a l e f f e c t on t r a n s f e r of the R L - f i r s t c o n d i t i o n i n t r a i n i n g . The performance measures (except n) reached s i g n i f i c a n c e ( OC = .05 ) (see Appendix H). This r e s u l t provides very strong support f o r the contention made that i n R L - f i r s t paradigms, S would more e a s i l y understand the given component ( a t t r i b u t e s ) than i n the A l - f i r s t paradigms. This hypothesis i s f u r t h e r supported by the r e s u l t s as the two e f f i c i e n c y measures ET and ETPR were both s i g n i f i c a n t i n the d i r e c t i o n p r e d i c t e d . In a d d i t i o n , the strategy measure TR j u s t f a i l e d to reach s i g - n i f i c a n c e with 0C= .05 ( F j i ^ = 3 .001, p l e s s than .0903 ) (see Appendix H). A contrast designed t o t e s t the e f f e c t of the second-training task a c q u i s i t i o n method on t r a n s f e r i n d i c a t e d no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s or e f f e c t on t r a n s f e r performance, strategy, or e f f i c i e n c y r e s u l t i n g from second-task method i n the t r a i n i n g sequences. S i m i l a r l y , vhen t r a n s f e r performance r e s u l t i n g from t r a i n i n g on the mixed paradigms (AI-RL and RL-AI) was contrasted with t r a n s f e r performance on the non- mixed sequences (AI-AI and RL-RL), no d i f f e r e n c e s could be detected on any of the measures of t r a n s f e r (see Appendix H). In the an a l y s i s o f t r a n s f e r w i t h i n treatment groups from the f i r s t t o second t r a i n i n g task under component paradigms (see Appendix K f o r the o p t i o n a l contrast matrix), Ss who learned under the AI condi t i o n on task 1 experienced g r e a t e s t p o s i t i v e t r a n s f e r t o task 2 ( e i t h e r AI or RL on task 2). T h i s e f f e c t was i n d i c a t e d on measures e and ET (see Appendix L ) . A minimal within-treatment t r a n s f e r e f f e c t was detected on t r a i n i n g paradigms that had RL f i r s t . This i s not s u r p r i s i n g since the greater d i f f i c u l t y experienced under the task 1 AI co n d i t i o n would produce an opportunity f o r greater change ( i . e . , improvement) i n performance on t r a i n i n g task 2 than would the reverse sequence (RL-AI or RL-RL). The negative means shown i n ta b l e 2 (RL-AI) f o r the w i t h i n - t r a n s f e r e f f e c t r e f l e c t the increased d i f f i c u l t y experienced by &s when undertaking an AI task f o l l o w i n g a RL task. This i s not unexpected. Table 2 Observed C e l l Means of Seven Transformed Response Measures on Within-Transfer (N = 60) Training Paradigm n e t ER TR ET ETPR CL - CL 14.9 97.0 143U .12 .007 595 .05 AI-AI 8.? 51.5 716 .08 .002 271 .03 AI-RL 12.4 87.1 10009 .14 -.003 462 .05 RL-AI 1.6 1.3 63 -.02 -.024 •11.9 -.02 RL-RL 8.2 45.8 584 .10 .013 201.3 .03 Performance measures are n ( trials to criterion ), e ( errors to criterion ), t ( time to criterion ) and ER ( error rate ) Strategy measure i s TR ( time rate - t/240n ) Efficiency measures are ET { estimated mean time spent making errors ) end E2PR ( proportion of total available time spent making errors ). * The transformation of response measures consisted of taking the d i f f e r e n c e on each measure between Task 1 and Task 2. Insert Table 2 about here In absolute terms, the minimal t r a n s f e r from task 1 to task 2 under the RL-AI and RL-RL paradigms r e f l e c t s o v e r a l l superior performance on both tasks 1 and 2 with the r e s u l t a n t minimal improvement from task 1 t o task 2. For example, the mean number of errors to c r i t e r i o n on task 1 under the RL-RL and RL-AI conditions were 60 and 66 r e s p e c t i v e l y compared t o 12k and 107 under the AI-RL and AI-AI paradigms r e s p e c t i v e l y (see Table 3). Insert Table 3 about here The within-group t r a n s f e r e f f e c t was compared across the RL-AI and RL-RL paradigms. As shown i n Appendix L, the greater p o s i t i v e t r a n s f e r here was observed i n the RL-RL sequence on the ER measure ( 55 = 5.I89, p l e s s than .027). Measure e j u s t f a i l e d t o reach s i g n i f i c a n c e with pC = .05 ( F, = 3.198, p l e s s than .079). This too i s not unexpected since the task s i m i l a r i t y ( i n c l u d i n g the use of i d e n t i c a l r u l e s ) would enable S t o t r a n s f e r the r u l e acquired under task 1 d i r e c t l y t o task 2 i n the RL-RL paradigm. The s l i g h t l y negative t r a n s f e r t o task 2 i n the RL-AI sequence (see Table Table 3 Observed C e l l Means of Seven Response Measures on Acquisition Task 1 (N - 60) Training Paradigm j n e t i ER TR ET BTPR CL-CL ] 25.6 137.8 2464 .35 .*3 847 .15 AI - AI 19.9 106.8 1412 .33 .30 479 .10 AI-RL J 20.3 123.7 1656 .39 .33 654 .14 RL - AI 12.8 66.3 933 .31 .31 313 .10 RL - BL j 11.9 59.9 842 .30 .29 266 .09 Performance measures are n ( trials to criterion ), e ( errors to criterion ), t ( tlae to criterion ) end ER ( error rate ) Strategy measure is TR ( time rate » t/240n ) Efficiency measures are ET ( estimated scan tJbse spent making errors ) and EJPR { proportion of total available tine spent making errors ). 2) i n d i c a t e s a balanced or symmetric a c q u i s i t i o n of components, the tasks being of greater e q u a l i t y of d i f f i c u l t y when presented i n t h i s order. In t r a n s f e r t o task 2, the e f f e c t of l e a r n i n g task 1 under CL was contrasted to the e f f e c t of l e a r n i n g task 1 under an a c q u i s i t i o n component ( A l or RL)«, The l a r g e r t r a n s f e r e f f e c t was observed on performance measures n, e, t , and ET where f i r s t - t a s k l e a r n i n g was under a component (see Appendix L ) . The minimal improvement on task 2 under the CL-CL c o n d i t i o n was expected since component separation and d i s t i n c t i o n i n t h i s paradigm was hypothesized t o be small compared t o component separation and d i s t i n c t i o n i n the component paradigms. Measures of a c q u i s i t i o n performance on t r a i n i n g t a s k 1 were analyzed using a u n i v a r i a t e and m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s o f variance. Again, planned orthogonal contrasts were used t o t e s t the research hypotheses (see Appendix I ) . As expected, performance under single-component a c q u i s i t i o n was very superior t o a c q u i s i t i o n performance under the CL c o n d i t i o n . For example, both measure e and t were h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t ( ^^55 * 9»53> p l e s s than .0032 and ^ = 25.560, p l e s s than .0001 r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . The e f f i c i e n c y and strategy i n d i c e s a l s o e x h i b i t e d s i g n i f i c a n t s u p e r i o r i t y of performance f o r Ss under a component condi t i o n rather than the CL condition ( see Appendix J ). The measure ETPR reached s i g n i f i c a n c e ( Fj_ 55 = 5 . 6 3 , p l e s s than . 0 2 1 2 ) whereas TR ana l y s i s i n d i c a t e d that TR also was hig h l y s i g n i f i c a n t ( F-̂  ̂  = 1 2 . 9 2 5 , P l e s s than . 0007 ). Further, comparison of a c q u i s i t i o n performance between the A l and RL conditions on t r a i n i n g task 1 showed the marked s u p e r i o r i t y of performance and e f f i c i e n c y expected: on the RL cond i t i o n . The measure e i n t h i s orthogonal contrast achieved F^ ^ = I3 . 6U8 with p l e s s than . 0 0 0 6 . Measures n, t , ET, and ER also reached s i g n i f i c a n c e with CC s . 0 5 ( see Appendix J ). These r e s u l t s provide the support required to substantiate the basic t h e o r e t i c a l structure from which the pre d i c t i o n s and hypotheses r e s u l t e d . IV. Discussion; Complete discovery l e a r n i n g of a concept as modelled on a complete-learning paradigm ( CL ) was found to be an i n f e r i o r method of concept a c q u i s i t i o n compared to "guided discovery" concept learning as modelled on component paradigms using a t t r i b u t e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n ( Al) or r u l e learning (RL). T r a i n i n g on the whole-method of concept a c q u i s i t i o n (CL) was a l s o found to provide the poorest t r a n s f e r to a new complex concept task compared t o t r a i n i n g where a component of the required concept was i n i t i a l l y provided (AI or RL). An a n a l y s i s of the e f f e c t of various component t r a i n i n g paradigms on t r a n s f e r demonstrated the s u p e r i o r i t y of R L - f i r s t paradigms over AI- f i r s t sequences. These r e s u l t s l e n t strong support to the p r e d i c t i v e theory that i n R L - f i r s t t r a i n i n g sequences, S would understand the given a t t r i b u t e component b e t t e r than he would i n A l - f i r s t t r a i n i n g paradigms. Providing S with the relevant conceptual a t t r i b u t e s at the outset of a concept l e a r n i n g task not only provides f o r greater ease of concept a c q u i s i t i o n ( i . e . , a c q u i r i n g the necessary r u l e ) but a l s o provides f o r a b e n e f i c i a l t r a n s f e r e f f e c t t o a new complex concept. These r e s u l t s tend t o c o n t r a d i c t the Guthrie (1967) conclusions. Guthrie concluded tha t Example l e a r n i n g and Example-Rule l e a r n i n g produced a superior t r a n s f e r e f f e c t on a t r a n s f e r task compared t o no t r a i n i n g or a Rule-Example t r a i n i n g sequence. While the r e s u l t s of the present study would appear d i a m e t r i c a l l y opposed t o Guthrie's conclusions, i t must be noted that the r u l e s used by Guthrie were r e l a t i v e l y simple compared to the complex rules used here. Guthrie used rules calling for the replacement of two letters or the transposition of two letters in a cryptogram. Also, the stimuli he used varied only along the size-of-word dimension. This raises the question of rule complexity as a determinant of transferability of acquired concepts to new concepts. The effect of the number of varying attributes in originally-learned concepts on transferability of those concepts to new complex concepts remains unanswered as well. In addition, the present study demonstrated minimal within-group transfer from one training task to another under the CL-CL sequence. Training sequences employing component paradigms produced superior within-group transfer. These results supported a prediction based on a theory that component- paradigm learning would produce superior acquisition strategies that would, in turn, enhance acquisition performance on a new concept task. V. Implications: There are several implications of these results for the practical world of human instruction. If acquisition e f f i c i e n c y and high t r a n s f e r a b i l i t y t o other concepts are to be maximized, the teacher must engineer the l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n i n order that the majority of concept a c q u i s i t i o n takes place under the optimal a c q u i s i t i o n and t r a n s f e r conditions inherent i n the RL-AI sequence. The conclusions reached here regarding the RL-AI l e a r n i n g sequence support the "discovery" method of l e a r n i n g , most e a s i l y adapted t o the l e a r n i n g of s c i e n t i f i c concepts i n the l a b o r a t o r y . The c l e a r presentation of relevant a t t r i b u t e s i n a s k i l l f u l fashion by the teacher should enhance the i n i t i a l a c q u i s i t i o n of concepts by the students who must then go about "discovering" the r u l e f o r themselves. To complete the RL-AI sequence i n a p r a c t i c a l s e t t i n g , i t would both be f e a s i b l e and advisable f o r the teacher to provide a d d i t i o n a l examples of the concept but i n the reverse component order, subsequent t o the students* a c q u i s i t i o n under the RL c o n d i t i o n . To give an example from the science area, concepts r e l a t e d to metric measurement could be taught under the optimal a c q u i s i t i o n and t r a n s f e r conditions by: 1. f i r s t presenting and v e r b a l l y coding the relevant a t t r i b u t e s - presenting each student with a metre s t i c k , d i r e c t i n g h i s a t t e n t i o n to the marks and spaces between marks on the s t i c k . As w e l l as providing l a b e l s f o r camiiunication, the v e r b a l coding o f the r e l e v a n t a t t r i b u t e s w i t h standard names such as m i l l i m e t r e and centimetre w i l l enhance S's a b i l i t y t o d i s t i n g u i s h and separate the r e l e v a n t a t t r i b u t e s . 2. p e r m i t t i n g each student t o then " d i s c o v e r " the r u l e r e l a t i n g the a t t r i b u t e s ( mm t o cm , cm t o dm , flm t o m , e t c . ) . T i e teacher's r o l e becomes one of p r o v i d i n g feedback and provoking the d e s i r e d responses from the students by q u e s t i o n i n g . 3. next p r e s e n t i n g the student w i t h the r u l e ( j u s t a c q u i r e d ) i n a c l e a r , d e f i n i t i v e statement and p e r m i t t i n g the student t o engage i n some i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f a t t r i b u t e s . A simple example o f t h i s k i n d of a c t i v i t y would be the f i l l - i n - t h e - b lank type o f t a s k : 1 = 10 mm; 1 cm = ________ 111111 * e t c . h. p r o v i d i n g an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r each S t o p r a c t i s e u s i n g h i s new concept as a conceptual u n i t . F or example, perhaps S c o u l d next be encouraged t o devi s e h i s own " m e t r i c " system u s i n g as the standard o f l e n g t h a "XAT" s t i c k p r ovided by the t e a c h e r . U n i t s o f l e n g t h known as m i l l i x a t s , c e n t i x a t s , d e c i x a t s , and xa t s c o u l d be used t o measure lengths o f v a r i o u s o b j e c t s . The a n a l y s i s of concept a c q u i s i t i o n i n terms o f components A l and RL provides a framework w i t h i n which not only concept research can be c a r r i e d out but a l s o w i t h i n which the practical inter-relationship of the learner's and teacher's role i n the acquisition of concepts can be considered. 36 References Bourne, L.E. J r . Human Conceptual Behavior. A l l y n and Bacon, Inc., Boston, 1966 Guthrie, J.T. Expository I n s t r u c t i o n Versus a Discovery Method. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1967, V o l . 58, 45 - 4-9. Haygood, R.C. & Bourne, L.E. J r . A t t r i b u t e - and Rule- Learning Aspects of Conceptual Behavior. Ps y c h o l o g i c a l Review f 1965> V o l * 72, 175 - 195. Johnson, P.J. Factors A f f e c t i n g Transfer i n C o n c e p t - I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1966, V o l . 72, 655-660. Kendler, H.H. & Vineberg, R. The A c q u i s i t i o n of Compound Concepts as a Function of Previous T r a i n i n g . J ournal o f Experimental Psychology. 1954, V o l . 48, 252-258. Lee, S.S. Transfer from Lower-Level t o Higher-Level Concept. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 1968, V o l . 7, 930 - 937. Lee, S.S. & Gagne, R.M. E f f e c t s of Degree of Component Learnings on the A c q u i s i t i o n of a Complex Conceptual Rule. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1970, V o l . 83, 13 - 18. Ludvigson, H.W. The E f f e c t of Overlearning on Relearning Following a Confusion Phase. Psychonomic Science. 1966, V o l . 4, 161 - 162. Montague, W.E. & Wearing, A.J. The Retention of Responses to Individual Stimuli and Stimulus Classes. Psychonomic Science r 1967, Vol. 9, 8l - 82. Oseas, L. & Underwood, B.J. Studies of Distributed Practice: V Learning and Retention-of Concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1952, Vol. 42, 143 - lk8. Richardson, J . Retention of Concepts as a Function of the Degree of Original and Interpolated Learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 51, 5, 1956. Trabasso, T. & Bower, G . Memory i n Concept Identification. Psychonomic Science. 1964, Vol. 1, 133 - 132*. Wells, H. Effects of Transfer and Problem Structure i n Disjunctive Concept Formation. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1965, Vol. 1, 63 - 69. 38 APPENDICES A. Structure of the training and transfer tasks. B. Eyperimental instructions. C. Response Protocol sheets. D. Sample Correlation and Intercorrelation Matrix of Seven Response Measures on the Transfer Task ( N = 72 ) E. Optional Contrast Matrix I Showing the Contrast Coefficients Used in Testing Five Contrasts of Response Measures on the Transfer Task Page 39 hi h9 5h 55 F. Univariate and Multivariate ANOVA on Seven Response Measures of the Transfer Task Testing Five Contrasts 56 G. Optional Contrast Matrix II Showing Orthogonal Contrast Coefficients Used in Testing Three Additional Contrasts of Response Measures on the Transfer Task 62 H. Univariate and Multivariate ANOVA of Seven Response Measures on the TransfeU Trsk Testing Three Contrasts 63 I. Ootional Contrast Matrix III Showing Orthogonal Contrast Coefficients Used in Testing Two Contrasts of Response Measures on Training Task 1 Under Five Learning Paradigms 67 J. Univariate snd Multivariate ANOVA of Seven Response Measures on Training Task 1 Testing Two Contrasts 68 K. Optional Contrast Matrix IV Showing Orthogonal Contrast Coefficients Used in Testing Four Contrasts on Within-Transfer ( Training Task 1 - Training Task 2 ) Under Five Learning Paradigms 71 L. Univariate snd Multivariate ANOVA on Seven Response Measures of Within - Transfer: Training Task 1 - Training Task 2 Testing Four Contrasts 72 Appendix A Structure of Warm - Up, T r a i n i n g , and Transfer Tasks Legend: Color — R f o r red Border — — B f o r broken Shape -- T f o r t r i a n g l e Texture ---- S f o r smooth Number - D f o r double Background - W f o r white Si z e — L f o r large Outline — — 0 f o r o u t l i n e d Warm - Up and Tr a i n i n g Tasks Transfer Task Set: A B C D E R T D L + + B S W 0 + + D L W 0 + R I D L + + B S W 0 + + D L W 0 - R T D L - + B S W 0 - + D L W 0 + R I D L - + B S W 0 - + D L W 0 am R I D L + - B S W 0 + - D L W 0 + R I D L + - 3 S W 0 + •a D L W 0 + R I D L - - B S W 0 - mm D L WO + R I D L mm m B S W 0 *m - D U O + R I D L + - B S W 0 + - D L W 0 - R I D L + - B S WO + - D L W 0 - R I D L - - B S W 0 - - D L W O - R I D L - B S W 0 - mm D L W 0 mm R I D L + + I s W 0 + + D L W O mm R I D L + + B S W 0 + + D L W O mm R I D L - + B S W 0 - + D L W O - R I D L - + B S W 0 + D L W O - Rule No. 1 3 2 5 Warm - Up t a s k s : Rule No. 1 ( A f f i r m a t i o n ): The presence of two f i g u r e s ( D ) c o n s t i t u t e s a p o s i t i v e i n s t a n c e o f the concept. Rule No. 2 ( A f f i r m a t i o n ): The presence of white back- ground ( W ) c o n s t i t u t e s a p o s i t i v e i n s t a n c e of t he concept. T r a i n i n g t a s k s : Rule No. 3 ( Simple b i c o n d i t i o n a l ): The j o i n t presence or the j o i n t absence of r e d t r i a n g l e s c o n s t i t u t e s a p o s i t i v e i n s t a n c e o f the concept. Rule No. h ( Simple b i c o n d i t i o n a l ): The j o i n t presence or t he j o i n t absence o f a broken border and smooth-textured f i g u r e s c o n s t i t u t e s a p o s i t i v e i n s t a n c e o f the concept. T r a n s f e r t a s k : Rule No. 5 ( Contingent b i c o n d i t i o n a l ): The presence o f s m a l l f i g u r e s or o u t l i n e d f i g u r e s , c o n t i n g e n t upon the presence of two f i g u r e s c o n s t i t u t e s a p o s i t i v e i n s t a n c e o f the concept. APPENDIX B Instructions to Subjects General i n s t r u c t i o n s ( v e r b a l l y presented by E_): Before we s t a r t , thanks again f o r coming and taking part in' t h i s experiment. Have you cleared with your regular teachers f o r the next two hours? Please do not discuss t h i s experience with your classmates as we would l i k e each of them to appear here " f r e s h " and without any b i a s . O.K.? Please look at the two sample cards i n f r o n t of you. They look f a m i l i a r t o you because they are the same as the diagrams you saw on the appointment sheet. When I read out the name of each of the dimensions, please t e l l me the values of that dimension. For example, when I say shape, you r e p l y t r i a n g l e s and c i r c l e s . Got that? Here we go. (£ - check against the appointment sheet that & brought with him.) Good. Now that we have that nice and c l e a r , you are ready to play one of the f i v e games we have prepared. In each game you are to c l a s s i f y cards i n t o two categories by g i v i n g them v e r b a l l a b e l s such as yes and no, p o s i t i v e and negative, and so on. I ' l l t e l l you what l a b e l s to use f o r each game. The cards you are going to categorize w i l l appear i n the window of the black box i n f r o n t of you. To see the next card, simply push the button on the black wooden block. When a card i s i n the window, study i t with the other information you w i l l have and t r y to decide what category i t belongs t o . You may respond as soon as you wish a f t e r the card appears up to a maximum of 15 seconds. I w i l l t e l l you whether your answer i s r i g h t or wrong. Once you know the c o r r e c t category f o r the card, study i t with the other a v a i l a b l e information you have before you advance the next card. Your accuracy i s as important as your speed i n a l l games. In a l l games, you w i l l be presented with the same deck of cards but i n d i f f e r e n t orders u n t i l you are able t o c l a s s i f y l6 cards c o r r e c t l y i n one t r i a l . When one sequence or t r i a l of 16 cards has been presented, there w i l l be a 20 second pause and then another sequence or t r i a l begins. When you see an "end" card, press the advance button t o c l e a r i t and wait f o r me t o give you a go-ahead f o r the next t r i a l . Here are the s p e c i f i c r u l e s f o r the f i r s t game. Before I give them to you, do you have any questions on t h i s i n f o r - mation? (to card # l ) : - Card # 1 Set A ( A f f i r m a t i o n — warm-up #1, common t o a l l treatments.) ...only one dimension out of the four dimensions number, colour, shape, and s i z e i s important. Here i s an example of a card which i s a member of the "A" ("A" f o r a f f i r m a t i v e ) category. Say "A" f o r those cards you think belong i n the same category as the example card and "N" ("N" f o r negative) f o r those you thi n k belong i n the other category. Use the sample card t o help you f i g u r e out which category response t o make to each card. Again, only one dimension out of these four i s important. (Back of Card # l ) : ( L e f t i n view f o r S) NUMBER COLOUR SHAPE SIZE O.K. Here*s game number (2, 3, 4, or 5). Again, i n t h i s game the cards w i l l be presented one at a time and your task i s to c l a s s i f y them i n t o two separate c a t e g o r i e s . Here i s an example of a card which i s a member o f the (see code)* category. Say f o r those cards you think belong i n the same category as the sample card and f o r those you think belong i n the other category. Use the example card to help you f i g u r e out which category response to make to each card. Again, I w i l l t e l l you each time whether your answer i s r i g h t or wrong. Speed i s as important as accuracy i n each game. Now, i n t h i s game, ... (to appropriate c a r d ) : * Responses: Warm-up # 1 : "A" and "N" ( a f f i r m a t i v e and negative) hk Warm-up # 2 : "C" and " i " ( c o r r e c t and i n c o r r e c t ) Learning Task # 1 : "plus"and "minus" Learning Task # 2 : "yes" and "no" Transfer Task : " p o s i t i v e " and "negative" I I . S p e c i f i c i n s t r u c t i o n s ( v e r b a l l y presented by E ) : Card # 2 : i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r CL on a f f i r m a t i o n task ( Warm-up # 2 - paradigm-specific ) Card # 3 : i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r RL on a f f i r m a t i o n task ( Warm-up $ 2 - paradigm-specific ) Card # h : i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r AI on a f f i r m a t i o n task ( Warm-up # 2 - paradigm-specific ) Card # 5 : i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r CL on simple b i c o n d i t i o n a l task (Learning task # l ) Card # 6 : i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r CL on simple b i c o n d i t i o n a l task (Learning task # 2 ) Card # 7 : i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r RL on simple b i c o n d i t i o n a l task (Learning task # l ) Card # ii : i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r RL on simple b i c o n d i t i o n a l task (Learning task # 2 ) Card # 9 : i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r AI on simple b i c o n d i t i o n a l task (Learning task # l ) Card # 1 0 : i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r AI on simple b i c o n d i t i o n a l task ( Learning task # 2 ) Card # 1 1 : i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r CL on modified contingent b i c o n d i t i o n a l task (Transfer task) Examples" Card # hi ( F r o n t ) Set C ( A l on a f f i r m a t i o n ) ...one dimension o f the f o u r dimensions background, o u t l i n e , border, and t e x t u r e i s important. A l s o , the r u l e i s : the ca r d w i t h a p a r t i c u l a r value o f the important dimension belongs I n category "C". (Back of Card # k ): ( L e f t i n view f o r S) OUTLINE BACKGROUND BORDER TEXTURE Card # 7: ( F r o n t ) Set B (RL on simple b i c o n d i t i o n a l ) ...the " c o l o u r " and "shape" dimensions out of the f o u r dimensions c o l o u r , shape, number, and s i z e are important. (Back o f Card # 7): ( L e f t i n view f o r S) COLOUR SHAPE NUMBER SIZE Card # 10: ( F r o n t ) Set D ( A l on simple b i c o n d i t i o n a l ) ...two dimensions out o f f o u r dimensions (border, background, t e x t u r e , and o u t l i n e ) are important. A l s o , the r u l e i s : the ca r d w i t h both a p a r t i c u l a r v alue o f one dimension and a p a r t i c u l a r value o f another dimension belongs i n category "Yes". The 2|6 c a r d w i t h the j o i n t absence o f both values a l s o belongs i n category "Yes". A l l other cards belong i n category "No". Use t h i s r u l e w i t h two out o f f o u r of these dimensions. (Back o f Card # 10): ( L e f t i n view f o r S) BACKGROUND BORDER TEXTURE OUTLINE Card # 11: ( F r o n t ) Set E (CL on m o d i f i e d contingent b i c o n d i t i o n a l r u l e : T r a n s f e r t a s k ) ...three dimensions out of f o u r dimensions number, s i z e , background, and o u t l i n e are important. A g a i n , three of these dimensions are important. (Back o f Card # l l ) ( L e f t i n view f o r S) SIZE NUMBER BACKGROUND OUTLINE I I I . General i n s t r u c t i o n s ( w r i t t e n , presented t o S two days p r i o r t o the experimental t r i a l s ) . Copies o f the a c t u a l w r i t t e n i n s t r u c t i o n s are presented f o r the next two pages J»9 APPENDIX C Response Protocol Sheets I . Response Pr o t o c o l Sheet used f o r Warm-up tasks 1 and 2 IIw Response Pr o t o c o l Sheet used f o r Learning task # 1 I I I . Response Pr o t o c o l Sheet used f o r Learning task # 2 IV. Response Pr o t o c o l Sheet used f o r Transfer task 50 51 ile s e a r c h P r o j j s e t 5>$9 r .ub jec t Numbers 71 • P r o t o c o l 3 Dates r.et n D s s S r e s p a a d s s Y e s / N o nuns* sees© 53 Appendix D Sample C o r r e l a t i o n and I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n Matrix of Seven Response Measures on the Transfer Task ( N = 72 ) n e t ER TR ET ETPR n 1.000 e 0.884 1.000 v t 0.695 0.765 1.000 ER 0.462 0.764 0.580 1.000 TR 0.226 0.382 0.811 0.445 1.000 ET 0.637 0.791 0.978 0.674 0.805 1.000 ETPR < O.366 0.576 0.873 0.689 0.935 0.907 1.000 Performance measures are n ( t r i a l s t o c r i t e r i o n ), e ( e r r o r s to c r i t e r i o n ) , t ( time t o c r i t e r i o n ) and ER ( e r r o r r a t e ) Strategy measure i s TR ( time rate = t/240n ) e E f f i c i e n c y measures are ET ( estimated mean time spent making errors ) and ETPR ( proportion of t o t a l a v a i l a b l e time spent making er r o r s ). Appendix E Optional Contrast Matrix I Showing the Contrast C o e f f i c i e n t s Used i n Testing F i v e Contrasts of Response Measures on the Transfer Task Contrast CL-CL AI-AI AI-RL RL-AI RL-RL Empty 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 -5.0 2 h.o -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 0.0 3 1/3 -1/2 V3 1/3 -1/2 0.0 k 0.0 0.0 1.0 -1.0 0.0 0.0 5 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 -1.0 0.0 Appendix F U n i v a r i a t e and M u l t i v a r i a t e ANOVA on Seven Response Measures f o r T r a n s f e r Task T e s t i n g : C o n t r a s t 1: T r a i n i n g v s . no t r a i n i n g . C o n t rast 2: CL v s . component l e a r n i n g . C o n trast 3: Symmetric v s . asymetric a c q u i s i t i o n o f components. Contrast k: AI-RL vs.RL-AI. Contrast 5: AI-AI vs.RL-RL. Univariate and Multivariate ANOVA on Seven Response Measures of the Transfer Task (Contrast 1: Training vs. No Training) Variable Hypoth. MS MSE Univ. f p< Stpdn. P *< n 104.544 30.088 3-475 0.0668 3.^75 0.668 e 7.803 750.164 0.010 0.9191 13.162 0.0006 t 15119.375 6032I4O.OOO 0.025 0.8747 0.112 0.7387 ER .011 0.005 2.190 0.1437 0.985 0.3247 TR .060 0.031 1.9'to 0.1684 O.O65 0.7995 ET 55576.988 6l644.250 0.902 0.3459 0.651 0.4230 ETPR .009 0.004 2.366 0.1288 -0.00 1.000 Degreea of freedom for hypothesis « 1 Degrceo of freedom for error * "• 66 Univariate and Multivariate ANOVA on Seven Response Measures of the Transfer Tes! (Contrast 2: CL vs. component learning) Variable Hypoth. MS MSE Univ. P P< Stpdn. P P< n 8.681 30.088 O.2885 0.5930 O.2885 0.59.P e 660.061 750.1.64 0.880 0.351.7 O.9651 0.3296 t 1142826.000 603240.000 I.8945 0.1734 1.0759 0.3035 ER 0.000 0.005 0.0586 0.8095 2.7285 O.IO36 TR 0.04i6 0.031 1.355 0.2486 0.1073 * 0.7444 ET 126505.063 61644.250 2.052 O.1567 0.2112 0.6475 ETPR .002 0.004 0.456 0.5018 14.0943 0.0004 Degrees of freedom for hypothesis » 1 Degrees of freedom for error » 66 Univariate and Multivariate ANOVA on Seven Response Measures o f the Trans (Contrast 3: Symmetric ve. Asymmetric A c q u i s i t i o n of Components) Variable Hypoth. MS M8E Univ. F P < Stpdn. F p< n .136 • 30.088 0.005 0.9466 0.0045 0.9467 e 33.000 750.164 0.044 0.8346 0.3278 0.5690 t 619677.938 603240.000 1.027 0.3145 3.1006 0.0831 ER 0.001 0.005 0.114 0.7367 0.0044 0.9476 TR 0.037 0.031 1.211 0.2752 0.2174 0.6427 ET 40768.129 6l644.250 0.661 0.4J.91 0.0567 0.8126 ETPR 0.002 0.004 O.654 0.4218 0.2574 0.6139 Degrees of freedom for hypothesis * - l Degrees of freedom for error = 66 Univariate end Multivariate ANOVA on Seven Response Measures of the Transfer Task (Contrast 4: AI-RL vs. RL-AI) Variable Rypoth. MS MBS Univ. F P< Stpdn. F P< n 9.375 30.088 0.312 0.5787 0.3116 0.5787 e 2.667 750.164 0.004 0.9527 0.8477 0.3607 t 135'i222.000 603240.000 2.245 0.1389 5.8o4i 0.0189 ER 0.003 0.005 0.581 0.4489 0.2772 0.6005 TR 0.179 0.031 . 5.821 0.01.87 0.0930 0.7614 ET 120699.750 61744.250 1.958 0.1664 1.7485 0.1910 ETPR 0.01.5 0.004 It. 005 0.0495 -0 .000 1.000 Degrees o.f freedom f o r hypothesis « 1 Degrees o f freedom f o r e r r o r «* , 66 Univariate end Mult i v a r i a t e ANOVA on Seven Response Measures of the Tran (Contrast 5: AI-AI vs. RL-RL) Variable Eypoth, MS MSE Univ. P p < Stpdn. F P< n 45 .375 ' 30 .088 1 .508 0 . 2 2 3 8 1 .508 O .223O e 2185.044 750.164 2 . 9 1 3 0 . 0 9 2 6 1 .702 O .1966 t 664668.750 603240.000 1 .102 0 . 2 9 7 7 0 . 1 2 0 0 . 7 2 9 9 ER 0 . 0 1 9 0 . 0 0 5 3-997 0.0497 0 . 8 0 3 0 . 3 7 3 3 TR 0 . 0 0 2 0 . 0 3 1 0 .048 0 . 8 2 7 3 0 .842 0 .3624 ET 116343.063 6l644 .250 1 .887 0 . 1 7 4 2 1 .579 0 . 2 1 3 7 ETPR 0.005 0 . 0 0 4 1 .392 0 . 2 4 2 3 O .651 0 . 4 2 3 2 Degrees of freedom f o r hypothesis = 1 Degrees of freedom f o r erro r » 66 62 Appendix G Optional Contrast Matrix I I Showing Orthogonal Contrast C o e f f i c i e n t s Used i n Te s t i n g Three A d d i t i o n a l Contrasts of Response Measures on the Transfer Task (W = 48) Contrast AI-AI AI-RL RL-AI RL-RL 1 1.0 1.0 -1.0 -1.0 2 1.0 -1.0 1.0 -1.0 3 1.0 -1.0 -1.0 1.0 Appendix H Univariate and i'lultivariate ANOVA on Seven Response Measures of the Transfer Task testing: Contrast 1: Contrast 2: Contrast 3: AI - f i r s t vs. RL - f i r s t AI - second vs. RL - second. Unmixed paradigms (AI-AI; RL-RL) YS.mixed paradigms (AI-RL; RL-AI). Univariate and Multivariate ANOVA on Seven Response Measures of the Transfer Task (Contrast 1: A l - f i r s t vs. R L - f i r s t ) Variable Hypoth. MS MSE Univ. P P < Stpdn. P P< n 6.750 • 2U.U89 .276 0.6023 O.2763 0.6023 e 1017.520 675.185 1.507 0.2261 4.344 0.0432 t 1958186.000 468199.375 4.182 0.0469 1.499 0.2277 ER 0.018 0.004 4.396 0.0419 0.21.1 0.6482 TR 0.106 0.035 .. 3.001 0.0903 2.844 0.0996 ET 237023.000 48550.724 4.882 0.0324 0.093 0.761.7 ETPR 0.019 0.004 4.652 O.0366 0.600 0.4433 Degreea of freedom f o r hypothesis «s 1 Degrees o f freedom f o r e r r o r - 44 Univariate and Multivariate ANOVA on Seven Response Measures o f the Transfer Task (Contrast 2; AI-second vs. RL-second) Variable Hypoth. MS MSE Univ. F p< Stpdn. F p< n 48.000 ' 24.489 I.9601 0.1655 1.960 0.1685 e 11.70.191 675.185 1.733 0.19^9 0.000 0.9965 t 60704.602 468199.375 0.130 0.7206 2.983 0.0916 ER 0.004 0.004 O.883 0.3527 0.289 0.5936 TR 0.074 0.035 .. 2.085 0.1559 0.876 0.3550 ET 20.019 1)8550.742 0.000 0.9839 3.582 0.0659 ETPR 0.001 0.004 0.31.0 0.5805 o.oo4 0.9501 Degrees of freedom for hypothesis a 1 Degrees of £reedO)H for error » kk ON U n i v a r i a t e and M u l t i v a r i a t e ANOVA on Seven Response Measures of the Tra n s f e r Task (Contrast 3: Unmixed paradigms AI-AI and RL-RL v s . Mixed paradigms AI-RL and RL-AI) Variable Hypoth. MS MBE Univ. P P < Stpdn. P P< n 0.750 24.489 0.031 O.8619 O.03I 0.8620 e 247.521 675.185 O.367 0.5480 1.574 0.2164 t 79625.375 ^68199.375 0.170 0.6821 2.029 O.1617 ER 0.001 0.004 0.191 0.6641 1.600 0.2130 TR 0.009 0.035 0.243 0.032 0.6248 0.8600 0.262 0.6114 ET 1530.009 48550.7^2 0.005 0.9439 ETPR 0.001 0.004 O.196 0.6599 0.626 0.4337 Degrees of freedom f o r hypothesis a l Degrees c f freedoa f o r e r r o r =* ^ Appendix I Optional Contrast Matrix I I I Showing Orthogonal Contrast C o e f f i c i e n t s Used i n Testing Two Contrasts of Response Measures on T r a i n i n g Task 1 Under F i v e Learning Paradigms Contrast CL-CL AI-AI AI-RL RL-AI RL-RL 1 4.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 2 0.0 1.0 1.0 -1.0 -1.0 Appendix J Univariate and Multivariate ANOVA on Seven Response Measures for Training Task 1 testing: Contrast 1: CL vs. Component Learning. Contrast 2; A l vs. RL. U n i v a r i a t e and M u l t i v a r i a t e ANOVA on Seven Response Measures of T r a i n i n g (Contrast 1: CL v s . Component Learning) Variable Hypoth. MS MSE Univ. F P < Stpdn. P P< n 840.002 ' 83.558 10.053 .0025 10.053 .0025 • e 22737.090 2385.IOI 9.533 .0032 .235 .6302 t L5078606.000 589940.250 25.560 .0001 15.851 .0003 ER .001 .006 0.214 .6458 0.129 .7213 TR .130 .010 12.925 .0007 0.138 .7121 ET 1685720.000 88054.750 19.144 .0001 0.499 .4832 ETPR .017 .003 5.635 .0212 1.029 .3154 Degrees of freedom f o r hypothesis « l Degrees o f freedom f o r e r r o r - 55 Univariate and Multivariate ANOVA on Seven Response Measures of Training (Contrast 2: Al vs. RL) Variable Hypoth. MS MSE Univ. P P < Stpdn. P p< n 728.519 • 83.558 8.719 .0047 8.7187 .0047 a 32552.078 2385.IOI 13.648 .0006 4.8147 .0326 t 5013609.000 589940.250 8.499 .0052 0.0020 .9641 ER T031 .006 4.902 .P310 O.IO89 .7428 TR .003 .010 0.280 .5990 0.0028 .9582 ET 921854.063 88054.750 10.470 .0021 0.0445 .8339 ETPR .006 .003 2.138 .1494 0.0614 .8053 Degrees of freedom for hypothesis w 1 Deprees of fr«edo_t for error « 55 Appendix K Optional Contrast Matrix 17 Showing Orthogonal Contrast Coefficients Used i n Testing Four Contrasts on Within-Transfer ( Training Task 1 - Training Task 2 ) Under Five Learning Paradigms Contrast CL-CL AI-AI AI-RL RL-AI RL-RL 1 -4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 0.0 1.0 1.0 -1.0 -1.0 3 0.0 1.0 -1.0 0.0 0.0 h 0.0 0.0 0.0 -1.0 1.0 Appendix L Univariate and M u l t i v a r i a t e ANOVA on Seven Response Measures of Within - Transfer: T r a i n i n g Task 1 - T r a i n i n g Task 2 t e s t i n g : Contrast 1: CL vs. component le a r n i n g . Contrast 2: A I - f i r s t vs. R L - f i r s t . Contrast 3: AI-AI v s . AI-RL. Contrast k: RL-AI vs. RL-RL. U n i v a r i a t e and M u l t i v a r i a t e ANOVA on Seven Response Measures of Wi t h i n - T r a n s f e r ( T r a i n i n g Task (Contrast 1: CL v s . component l e a r n i n g ) T r a i n i n g Task 2) V a r i a b l e Hypoth. MS MSE Univ. F P < Stpdn. F P< n 510.417 " 117.183 4.356 .0416 4.356 .0416 e 245^3.059 3715.205 6.606 .0130 2.354 .1309 t 6791243.000 901076.438 7.537 .0082 1.935 .1701 ER .015 .017 0.922 .3413 2.069 .1563 TR .001 .010 0.091 .7641 I.025 .3161 ET 1270940.000 134041.250 9.482 .0033 O.256 .6151 ETPR .008 .005 1.588 .2130 2.56I .1160 Degrees of freedom f o r hypothesis w 1 Degrees of freedom for error = 55 UJ I Univariate and Multivariate ANOVA on Seven Response Measures of Within-Transfer (Training Task 1 - Training Task 2) (Contrast 2: A l - f i r s t vs. RL-first) Variable Hypoth. MS MSE Univ. P P< Stpdn. P p< n 362.999 • II7.I83 3.098 .085 3.098 .084 e 25071.008 3715.205 6.748 .012 5.258 .026 t 3488404.000 901076.438 3.871 .054 0.016 .899 ER .058 .017 3.480 .068 O.362 .550 TR .090 .010 0.026 .873 O.856 .359 ET 888622.438 134041.250 6.630 .013 0.062 .805 ETPR .010 .005 1.999 .163 0.410 .525 ^agrees of ti.-eadoia for hypothesis « 1 Dagreeu of fr-.'xC'rxi for a^yo..- ». 55 U n i v a r i a t e and M u l t i v a r i a t e ANOVA on Seven Response Measures of Wit h i n - T r a n s f e r ( T r a i n i n g Task 1 - T r a i n i n g (Contrast 3: AI-AI v s . AI-RL) V a r i a b l e Hypoth. MS MSE Univ. F P < Stpdn. F P < n 100.0U2 117.183 0.854 0.3596 0.8537 0.3596 e 7597.027 3715.205 2.045 0.1584 1.9112 0.1726 t 513336.875 901076.438 0.570 0.4537 0.7255 0.3982 ER 0.022 0.000 r i - * a a * a a * a * * t t » c a - m * ^ ^ ^ 219076.063 .017 .010 „. •rtnufWffrt««>,«ii3'»iKit.H"jin« " " H I ' 1 i f " ' - * 134041.250 1.306 0.020 0.2580 0.0198 0.8886 TR 0.8883 0.1801 O.6731 ET 1.634 0.2065 1.9499 0.1688 i | ETPR 0.003 .005 0.628 0.4317 0.5387 0,4665 U n i v a r i a t e and M u l t i v a r i a t e ANOVA on Seven Response Measures o f Within- T r a n s f e r ( T r a i n i n g Task 1 - T r a i n i n g (Contrast 4: RL-AI v s . RL-RL) Variable Hypoth. MS MSE Univ. F P< Stpdn. F P < n 260.04l 117.183 2.219 0.1421 2.219 0.1421 e 11881.481 3715.205 3.198 0.0793 1.017 0.3177 t 1628642.000 .087 .008 272640.000 901076.438 1.807 0.1844 0.244 0.6232 EH TR ET: .017 .010 .... 134o4l,250 5.190 0.798 2.034 0.0267 0.3755 0.1595 3.512 0.001 0.395 0.0667 0.9730 0.5324 ETPR .012 .005 2.492 j 0.1202 | 0.872 j 0.3550 Degrees of freedom for hypothesis = 1 Degrees of freedom for error = 55

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 3 0
China 3 12
Germany 1 3
Japan 1 0
City Views Downloads
Beijing 3 0
Mountain View 2 0
Unknown 1 3
Tokyo 1 0
Ashburn 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items