Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Regulation of behaviour by speech in pre-school children. McCracken, Merle Diane 1968

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1968_A8 M35.pdf [ 3.93MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0104383.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0104383-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0104383-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0104383-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0104383-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0104383-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0104383-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0104383-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0104383.ris

Full Text

THE REGULATION OF BEHAVIOUR BY SPEECH IN PRE-SCHOOL CHILDREN MERLE DIANE MCCRACKEN B.A., University of British Columbia, 1965 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of Psychology We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY'OP BRITISH COLUMBIA April, 1968 In p resent ing t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference and study . I f u r t h e r agree that permiss ion f o r ex tens i ve copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s represen -t a t i v e s . It i s understood that copying o r p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l ga in s h a l l not be a l lowed without my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department of Psychology  The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date A p r i l 28, 1968 i i ABSTRACT The role of the regulation of "behaviour by speech was studied to determine whether i t proceeded in the developmental progression suggested "by A. R. Luria, the Russian psychologist. The Sa were 26 male and 28 female children between the ages of iKL and 73 months. The proce-dure involved the formation of a simple motor response to the onset of a coloured light. Luria 1s hypothesis that the ability to verbally regulate behaviour is a function of age was substantiated. However, the transition period from external regulation of speech occurred approximately at age four in Canadian children, a year earlier than Russian children. In contradiction to Luria, the child's own verbalization of "press" and "don't •press" while perform-ing the task did not facilitate performance. Also, no support was obtained for Luria' s theory that verbal regula-? tion proceeds from the inability to inhibit impulsivity to . the ability to inhibit impulsivity. Finally, i t was found that the child's ability to repeat instructions does.not necessarily precede his ability to perform the task. Three factors which may have been responsible for the difference in results were discussed. . TABLE OP CONTENTS CHAPTER . PAGE I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND . . . . . . . 1 The General Problem . . . . . . . . . 1 Theoretical Framework . . . . . . . . 1 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . 5 History of the Present Study . . . . . . 5 Related. Studies 9 III. METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 .Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . - * • I 2 Apparatus . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 Scoring . . . • • • • • « • • « • 21 IV. RESULTS . 3 0 1 . Age Effects • 3 0 2. Effects of Verbalization Other Findings . . . . . . . . . 3 1 3 . Impulsivity . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 4. Instructions 3 5 5 . Magnitude of Response . - . < , . . . 3 7 6 . Latency of Response . < > . « • . • • 3 7 7 . Consistency of Responses . . . . . . 3 8 V. DISCUSSIQU . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 9 General Findings . . . . . . . . . . ^ 0 VI. SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 XV CHAPTER PAGE BIBLIOGRAPHY ^ APPENDIX A Description of Equipment 56 APPENDIX B Summary of Pilot Study . . . . . . 58 APPENDIX C Instructions . . . . . . . . . 66 APPENDIX D Further Tables . . . . . . . . . 7? LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE L. Distribution of Subjects and Mean Age for Age Groups , 9 8 o o 19 I I . Mean Number of Correct Responses to the White Light (Task 5) • . . • • ". . 2^ III. Mean Number of Correct Responses i n T r i a l Blocks for Task (6) . . . . . . . . 25 IV. Mean Number of Correct Responses i n T r i a l Blocks for Task (7) . . . . • . . . 26 V. Mean Number of Correct Responses in T r i a l Blocks for Task (8) . . . . . . . . 27 VI^ Mean Number of Correct Responses i n T r i a l Blocks for Task (9) . • . . . . . 28 VII. Mean Number of Correct Responses for Discrim-. ination Tasks ( 6 ) , ( 7 ) , (8), and (9) . . . 29 VIII. Mean Number of Correct Responses on Tasks (6) , ( 7 ) , (8), and (9) for Age Groups . . 30 IX'. Mean Number of Correct Responses on Tasks (7) and (8) over Six T r i a l Blocks . * • • 33 X» Mean Number of Correct Responses for Discrim-ination Tasks ( 6 ) , ( 7 ) , ( 8 ) , and (9) . . . 3I4-XII Analysis of Variance of Number of Correct Responses to White Light as a Function of Age . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 TABLE XII. Analysis of Variance of Number of Correct Responses as a Function of the Verbal or Non Verbal Factor, Age, and Trial Block for Task (6) . . . . 0 , . . . . XIII. Analysis of Variance of Number of Correct Responses as a Function of the Verbal or Non Verbal Factor, Age, and Trial Block for Task (7) '. . . . . . . . '. . XIV,. Analysis of Variance of Number of Correct Responses as a Function of the Verbal or Non Verbal Factor, Age, and Trial Block for Task (8) . . . . . . . . . . XV. Analysis of Variance of Number of Correct Responses as a Function of the Verbal or Non Verbal Factor, Age, and Trial Block for Task (9) . . . . . . . . . . XVI. Analysis of Variance of Number of Correct Responses as a Function of the Verbal or Non Verbal Factor, Age, and Task . . XVII. Contingency Table for Comparison of the Number of Responses Made During Operant Period With Age Group . . . . . . . XVIII. Contingency Table for Comparison of Whether or Not Child Responded During Extinction Period Following Operant Period With Age Group PAGE 73 7^ 75 76 77 78 79 v i i TABLE PAGE XVIX. Contingency Table f o r Comparison of Whether or Not C h i l d Responded I n t e r s i g n a l l y During Task (4) With Age Group e « . » • 80 XX« Contingency Table f o r Comparison of Whether or Not C h i l d Responded.During Task (5) With Age Group . . . , « < , . . • « 81 XXI. Contingency Table f o r Comparison of Whether or Not C h i l d Repeated I n s t r u c t i o n s With Age Group . * . . . » . . . « . . 82 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE . PAQE " 1 , Child Seated at Experimental Equipment . . . . 2. Child Awaiting Presentation of Stimulus . . « 15 3. Circuit Diagram for Control Unit « 57 ix AC KNOWLEDGESET S The author is particularly indebted to Dr. Douglas T, Kenny, who served as advisor for this thesis. His guidance and suggestions in the research and writing of this paper are deeply appreciated. Appreciation is also expressed to Dr. Gerald E. Plum for his assistance and advice on both content and structure of this thesis". The author is also indebted to the administration and staff of the Child Study Center, University of British Columbia, and the University H i l l United Church Kindergarten for their cooperation and support of this research project. CHAPTER I STATEMENT OP THE PROBLEM A LTD THEORETICAL BACKGROUND The General Problem Verbal communication plays an important role in the organisation of complex human behavior. Speech enlarges experience, facilitates the acquisition of modes of behav-iour, and is an -essential component of higher cognitive processes* Although speech enters into the structure of mental processes and is probably a powerful means of regu-lating and modifying behaviour, the formation of the regulatory function of speech and its developmental stages has been the object of l i t t l e investigation. The central focus of the present study is to investigate the role of the regulation of behaviour by speech and its effects on the acquisition of simple motor responses in pre-school children. Theoretical Framework On the basis of a number of studies of Russian children, A. R. Luria ( 1 9 6 1 ) proposes that speech has three main functions; an initiating function, the first to de»-velop, which occurs when adult's speech calls forth the required reactions; and inhibitory function, next to de-velop, which occurs when a verbal stimulus can inhibit the required reaction; and finally", with older children, the regulatory function, which involves both initiating and inhibiting properties. This occurs when the child is performing a complex activity as one where he must link a stimulus with a response as well as wait for the stimulus to be presented before responding. The four main: aspects of Luria's research on the regulatory role of speech to be examined in the present investigation are: 1. The f i r s t aspect'- involves Luria's report thai; there are age effects with respect to the child's ability to perform a motor response on the basis of verbal instruction. His descriptions of age-related behaviour with respect to the regulatory function of speech can be divided into five stages (Luria, 1959a)-:' (a) 0-1^ months—This is the orientation phase where words begin to serve a directive function, that i s , evoke an orientational reaction. (b) Ik - 30 months—In this phase, the orienting, direc-tive influence is even better maintained. The child is able to release behaviour more directly, but only i f the behaviour coincides with the child's own activity at the moment. (c) 3 years - k years—Speech is able to direct the child's selection of behaviour. The child is able to carry out simple com-mands^ but he is s t i l l dependent on external speech to regulate his beha-viour. (d) ^ i " years - 5 years—Speech is in a transitional form and becomes externally preselective. The child is able to carry out demands which are complex in nature, but not independently of external speech. (e) 5 years - 5i years—Speech becomes internally pre-selective. The child can instruct him-self in response to an external instruc-tion and also self«-initiate instructions As the child develops,, then, his behaviour becomes • increasingly controlled by his own verbal stimulation, less dependent on external cues and less under the con--trol of his immediate environment. A transition occurs around age five years when behaviour regulation shifts from external to internal regulation by speech. Prior to this transition^, acquisition of a motor response is difficult. According to Luria, speech makes voluntary behaviour possible. The fir s t aim of this study is to determine i f the acquisition of a motor response is a function of age. Secondly, Luria(1961) contends that the addition of the child's own verbalizations, while performing a motor response, facilitates performance. He instructs the child to say "press" or "don't press" aloud while attempting the task, and has found that i t makes the task less difficult. The effects of the child's own verbalization should improve performance and reduce superfluous movements. The words should act as control-ling influences. According to Luria (1961), verbal regulation proceeds from the inability to control impulsivity of response to the ability to inhibit impulsivity. The child of 2 to 3 years of age exhibits a diffuse irradiating exci-tation, whereas the child of 5 years no longer produces impulse reactions'^ Impulsivity will be studied to deter-mine ^ whether or not excitation is reduced as the develop-ment of speech progresses. Finally, Luria (I96I) states that a child of 3 years can understand, recall, and repeat instructions, but may not be able to act upon them. This is due to the fact that the integration of speech and action is difficult. When the child is ^ or 5 years old, however, he can formulate the rule he is following and mediate behaviour with i t . This study will examine the child's ability to verbalize instructions at different ages in order to discover whether the behaviour sequence as sketched above is found. CHAPTER II REVIEW OP TEE LITERATURE History of the Present Study For over a decade i n Russia, Luria has studied how the development of speech affects the acquisition of a simple motor response i n the child. His apparatus consisted of an eight-inch square, "black "box with a ground glass panel upon which may he displayed white, red, yellow, green, or blue ligh t s . His subject squeezed a rubber bulb or balloon i n response to the p resentation of lights on the display panel. The changes i n bulb pressure and stimulus presentations were simultaneously recorded on an ink-writing recording device. His study of the regulatory function of speech was based on experiments with a "simple reaction" (Luria, 19^1, p. 5^). For the youngest children, approximately 1^ to 18 months, the procedure essentially involved the task of press-ing a bulb to the onset of a given color of l i g h t . For the older children the task of pressing to a light was expanded to a discrimination learning task where the child was instruc-ted to .press to one colored light and not to press to a d i f -ferent colored l i g h t . For some of his subjects, Luria intro-duced the child's own verbalization. That i s , he had the child say "press" or "don't press" aloudc to the signals while performing^ the task. After every child had be en.'.given the instructions, he was asked to repeat the instructions 6 before he performed the task. For present purposes, the concern is with the tasks where no overt reinforcement was given for the correct response, Luria (1961) found that' children of ages l i to 3 years showed a highly unstable motor response. Attempts to use the regulatory role of the child's own speech failed because the speech system was s t i l l imperfect. The child was unable tovformulate the rule which he followed and i t was impossible.to obtain even the simplest verbal reactions to the signals. With the child of 3 to ^ years substantial changes took place in speech behaviour and an initiating system of connections could be established through verbal instructions. Such a child engaged in apeeh as a means of generalization, thereby extending his information and formu-lating the necessary rules of behaviour. The excitatory part of the verbal instructions was considerably stronger .. than the inhibitory part and excitation was assumed to be diffuse. From ^ to 5 years and on, the impulsive influence of speech gradually weakened and was replaced by the regula-tory influence. Rapid, immediately formed motor reactions were found to be the first indications that the child's movements have ^ceased to be mechanical and are becoming vol-untary as a result of the mediation of speech. Consequently, habits form more quickly and are more stable. In summary, Luria (1961) has found that for a child 7 of 18 months to 2 years, protracted training was necessary to establish a motor response, and the motor response which was formed was not stable. The task of pressing the bulb to the onset of the light was beyond his abilities. Typically, the light acted as an inhibitory agent, not as a signal. Diffuse irradiating excitation was assumed and the child appeared to be unaware of the fact that he continued squeezing the bulb. With the child of 2 to 3 years, the motor response was s t i l l unstable and required extensive training to be established. The task of pressing the bulb to the white light posed some difficulty. The child either pressed the bulb without wait-ing for the signal, or pressed when the signal occurred and continued after i t ceased. With respect to the discrimination task, pressing to a l l other signals including the positive ones ceased once the inhibitory signal was introduced. The signals s t i l l elicited diffuse excitation, which adult speech might intensify or inhibit. The speech system is s t i l l imperfect, and i t was impossible to obtain even the simplest verbal reactions to the stimuli. At the age of 2 to 3 years the child could understand and recall instructions, but found integration of speech and action difficult; that i s , he was able to repeat the instructions back to E before being able to perform the task correctly. At this stage, however, the child was unable to formulate the rule he was following. Luria reports that, in the child of 3 to k years, motor responses are more easily formed and are more stable. The child readily pressed in response to the light, hut might continue to exhibit uncontrolled intersignal reactions. In the discrimination task he was able to abstain from press-ing for a short time after the instructions, but the stimu-lating' property of the inhibitory signal was stronger than the inhibitory property of the verbal instruction and resuL-ted in a response to the inhibitory light signal. However,, i f the child used his own speech, saying "press" and "don't press" to the signals, the task presented less difficulty. Diffuse excitation was assumed to be s t i l l present, although this was thought to be reduced as speech development pro-gressed. Changes take place in the speech system and an initiating system of connections could be established through verbal instructions. The excitatory part of the instructions was stronger than the inhibitory part. However, the child rarely proceeded with the f u l l participation of speech. In the year old child and older, Luria claimed that i t was possible to establish a stable system of motor reac-tions hy verbal instructions alone. The task of pressing the bulb to the light presented no difficulty at a l l . The discrimination task was easily grasped and the child no longer reacted to inhibitory stimuli unless experimental conditions were complicated. Impulsive reactions were not apparent. The child could formulate the rule he was follow-ing, and use i t to mediate his behaviour. His speech was richer, more fluent, and mobile,- and well enough developed 9 to enable Mm to regulate motor reactions through speech. This is the decisive turning point in Luria's experiments. He thinks this is the period when speech is internalized and when voluntary movements are developed and performed. From this point on, verbal instructions can mediate a stable sys-tem of positive and negative motor reactions. Related Studies Only recently have North American investigators begun to study and replieate Luria 1s work on the regulatory role of speech in early years of development. Beiswenger (1966) attempted to replicate one of Luria's key experiments. He used the main essentials of the Luria experimental para--digm but altered the task of bulb pressing to lever pressing. Instead of presenting stimuli on a display box he used a clown's face with the red light in one eye, the green light in the other, and with a lever in nose position. Thirty-two subjects between the age of ^1 and 78 months were tested. Six tasks were presented. While the first task served a "warm up" function; the second one involved the establish-ment of a simple motor response. The last four tasks were crucial because they were '-designed to test the child's ability to internally preselect his behaviour pattern on the basis of verbal instructions. They were basically complex discrimination tasks; one dealt with the discrimination between the red and green signals and the other, which was assumed to be more 10 complicated, dealt with the discrimination between a red light paired with a buzzer and a red light alone.' The remain-ing two tasks were discrimination reversals of these tasks. Beiswenger obtained data which agree with the results of Luria for children between k to 54" years and postulates a "cri t i c a l period" which ensues at this age in the normal child's development. This is the turning point when the child is able to regulate his ovm behaviour with sub-vocal speech. Beiswenger's study also supported Luria's theory that verbal.regulation proceeds from the inability to control impulsivity. He concludes that the development of verbal control of behaviour of Russian children coincides in age pattern with that of American children. Other studies investigating aspects of verbal control of behaviour have been done by Birch (1966) and Bern (1966). Birch was concerned with determining what makes a particular command effective for a child of a given age, but ineffec-tive for a younger child. Following the procedures of Luria (1961) and using the same apparatus as Beiswenger, he pre-sented 28 boys and 19 girls, ages two years and two months to seven years, with verbal commands under two conditions: (l) where ongoing behaviour was not the same as that defined by the command, and (2) where i t was. Birch found that external verbal commands will increase the. strength of the tendency to execute the activity described in the command, and that performing this overt activity reduces the strength 11 of the tendency. Also, repeated application of a verbal command is necessary to maintain the strength of a tendency that is being expressed in action. Bern (1966) studied the ability of a child to gener-* ate a self instruction and respond to i t appropriately. Using the spring loaded lever described in the above studios, three and four year old children were required to press the lever that number of times corresponding exactly to the number of lights which were presented on a display and then covered. Bern determined that verbal self-control could be produced experimentally in three year old children by means of a fading procedure where the light intensity was reduced slightly as the child counted. This indicates that speech can gain new functional significance by means of a learning procedure. Also, functionally similar procedures are effec-tive in establishing external stimulus control, nonverbal self-control, and verbal self-control. CHAPTER III METHOD Subjects A total of 61 children were selected for study. Of these, 7 were discarded for the following reasons: four because English was not their, native language and they could not understand the instructions, and three because they did not complete a l l nine tasks. Of the remaining 5^ children, there were 26 males and 28 females between the ages of Ml and 73 months, with a mean age of 55•2 months. The children were obtained from the Child Study Center, University of British Columbia, and the University H i l l United Church Kindergarten, where they had been in attendance for at least seven months. Apparatus The experiment v/as conducted in a room in the nur-sery school. The apparatus, essentially a replication of Luria's, consisted of - an eight inch, square box with a ground glass stimulus display panel. Red, blue, green, and white lights could be presented on the display. The stimulus presentation was recorded by an event marker module which deflected an ink pen on the chart paper, and a time base was provided by an event/time marker module. The paper v/as moved by a chart mover at .625 cm per second. There was a buzzer installed in the display box. A one ounce, red rubber 1 3 medical syringe was connected to a tambour module which permitted measurement and r e c o r d i n g of pressure v a r i a n c e s . The amplitude and d u r a t i o n of response were recorded "by an i n k pen on the moving chart paper. Stimulus p r e s e n t a t i o n event markers and response pressure were temporally synchro-n i z e d on the same moving chart paper,- The stimulus presen-t a t i o n s were programmed by an e i g h t bank program ti m e r , (See Appendix A f o r the c i r c u i t diagram of the apparatus and d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n of the equipment.) The stimulus d i s p l a y box was placed on a low t a b l e w i t h the wires running behind the t a b l e to the programming and r e c o r d i n g equipment which was concealed i n a grey plywood hood. The c h i l d sat on a c h i l d ' s c h a i r which was placed i n f r o n t of the d i s p l a y box. E stood at c h i l d ' s r i g h t . Figures """" i 1 and 2 i l l u s t r a t e the equipment used i n the study. Procedure P r i o r to commencing the experiment, a p i l o t study was run i n order to r e f i n e the procedure and work out any d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h the t e c h n i c a l aspects of the apparatus, A complete d e s c r i p t i o n of the p i l o t study and the changes which were necessary i n the design can be found i n Appendix B. Before the t e s t i n g sessions f o r the experiment proper were begun, E spent one 2-g- hour s e s s i o n w i t h each of the seven nursery school c l a s s e s i n order to be f a m i l i a r w i t h the Figure 1. C h i l d seated at experimental equipmenc 16 children. When the experiment was being conducted, E selec-ted an S from one of the classrooms or off the playground, and brought the _S to the experimental room. The children were told only that E had a game to play that was fun. Conversation with the child on the way to the room was of a ca sua 1_ nature, generally concerned with nursery school actir-vities, the child's activities, or siblings. There was no ' other motivation for cooperating with E than interest in what the game was about. The child was seated in the chair and presented with the following tasks; (For purposes of simplicity, the instruc-tions to the child have been left out of this section. The complete instructions can be found in Appendix C.) (1) The child was given the bulb to hold for 30 seconds to establish a free operant level of bulb pressing. (2) The child was given the instructions "Press the bulb", five times. (3) Bulb pressing was extinguished by instructions not to press the bulb. The extinction interval lasted 30 sec-onds. Por each of the following tasks, the child was asked to verbalize the instructions which had been given to him, before he was allowed to perform the task. The instructions were repeated to the child i f i t appeared that he did not understand them the fi r s t time. 17 (^ ) The child learned to press the bulb on presentation of the white light. Ten signals were presented, (5) The response to the white light was extinguished. Ten signals were presented. (6) A simple discrimination was learned to the red and green lights (red-press, green-don't press). Half of the Ss said nothing while attempting the task. The other half were instructed to say "press" or "don't press" aloud. A l l £>s were given the same random sequence of positive and negative signals, which was as follows; R—G—R—R-r-G—G—R—G—R—R—G—G (twelve signals), (7) The reverse discrimination of Task 6 was then given. For this task, the green light acted as the positive stimulus (press), and the red light as the negative stimulus (don't press). Those Ss who had verbalized "press" and "don't press" on the previous task also verbalized on the pre-sent task. The number and sequence of red and green light was the same as in Task 6. (8) A second discrimination problem was learned. This involved pressing when both the red light flashed and the buzzer sounded (positive stimulus) and not pressing when the red light flashed and no buzzer sounded (negative stimulus). Those Ss who had verbalized "press" and "don't press" on the previous task also verbalized on the pre-sent task. The sequence of positive and negative signals was as follows; RB—R—RB—Rb—R—R—RB—R~Rb—Rb—R—R 18 (twelve signals). (9) The reverse of Task 8 was then given. For this task, the red light and no buzzer acted as the positive stimulus (press), and the red light and buzzer as the negative stimulus (don't press). Those Ss who had verbalized "press" and "don't press" on previous tasks also verbal-ized on the present task. Sa were arranged in chronological order and assigned to one of the following four groups: (1) Verbal-Task order 6, 7, 8, 9. (2) Verbal-Task order 8, 9,.6, 7? (3) Non Verbal-Task order 6, 7 ? 8 ; 9, (4) Non Verbal-Task order 8, 9, 6, 7. The above groups were further divided into age groups of 3"i\ to k years, k to years, to 5 years, and 5 "to 6 years? The mean age and population distribution is presented in Table I. Possible effects of learning one discrimination before the other were balanced for by assigning half of the _Ss to groups which were given the red-green discrimination tasks fi r s t , and the other half to_groups which were given the red-buzzer discriminations f i r s t . The length of stimulus pre-sentation was 1,5 seconds* Inter'stimulus intervals varied randomly from 2,5 to 3 seconds. E did not speak to the child beyond the presentation of the instructions. Two children grew tired prior to the 19 TABLE I Distribution of Subjects and Mean Age For Age Groups Age in Mean Age Verbal Group Non Verbal Group Years in (1) (2) (3) (4) Months 3$ to 4 44.47 3 2 3 2 4 to 4^ 5 3 - 5 3 3 4 4 3 4 to 5 57.29 4 4 3 2 5 to 6 63.01 3 4 4 6 Total 13 14 14 13 20 last task and wanted to return to class, It was explained to them that they were almost finished and there was only one more "game" to play. The experimental session lasted approximately 15 minutes for each child. Tasks 1 to 3 were designed to allow a warm-up period in which the child could "become familiar with the feel of the bulb in his hand. They also served to establish a basal or operant level of bulb pressing which could be used as a mea-sure or indication of general impulsivity. Tasks 4 to 6 are tasks that Luria uses, and they progress from simple to more difficult. The tasks of pressing' and not pressing the bulb to the white light (Tasks k and 5) involve attaching signal significance to an external stimulus (the light) through verbal means. The light acts as an excitatory signal in Task k and as an inhibitory signal in Task 5« Luria (1961) states this task presents no difficulty for a child of four years and on. Task 6 is Luria's crucial test because i t involves both excitatory and inhibitory signals, and the child', on the basis of verbal instructions, must internally preselect his behaviour or response pattern. The child's ability to perform this task is an indication that his motor reactions are under the control of his second signalling system. Task 7 was the same as Task 6 except that the values of the signals were reversed. Beiswenger (1966) reports that in general, discrimination reversals are difficult for 21 both monkeys and younger children. In both cases, there is a period of chance responding which gradually approaches criterion levels of performance. Tasks 8 and 9 were taken directly from Beiswenger's study (1966), These tasks were designed to complicate the basic paradigm of the Task 6 discrimination. It was thought that this test would be more difficult than the others due to the nature of the compound stimulus* Scoring A response was considered to have been made when the bulb press resulted in a pen deflection of more than 2 mm. The discrimination tasks were scored as follows? (1) a response to the positive stimulus was scored as correct, (2) a response to the negative stimulus was scored as an error, (3) no response to the positive stimulus was scored as an error, (^ ) no response to the negative stimulus was scored as correct, (5) intersignal responses were scored neither as correct nor incorrect. Latencies were calculated from the onset of the stim-ulus to the beginning of the response for a l l correct and incorrect responses. Magnitude scores were derived from the number of m i l l i -22 meters on the graph paper the recording pen had heen d i s -placed vrtien the c h i l d pressed the hulb„ CHAPTER IV RESULTS 1. Age Effects The means for the number of correct responses to the white- light on Task 5. for each of the four age groups are presented in Table II. The summary for the analysis of variance can be found in Appendix D, Table XI. The diff-erence between the four age groups in ability to perform Task 5 Was not significant at the .05 level (F~ c ;_=2 #^0, p <*.08). Examination of the means indicates that the youngest age group performed at a slightly lower level than the other three. However, the results do not support Luria !s findings that a motor response is more easily formed and more stable in a five year old than in a three year old. The means for the number of correct responses on the complex discrimination tasks (Tasks 6, 7, 8, and 9) are presented in Tables III, IV, V, and VI respectively. The summaries for the analyses of variance can be found in Appendix I), Tables XII, XIII, XIV, and XV, V/ith respect to what Luria describes as the transition which occurs around age five from external to internal regulation of speech, both Task 7 and Task 8 yielded P values and F = 5.^5, respectively) which were significant at the .01 level. This indicates that for these two tasks, age was a factor in performance. Ho trend towards better perfor-2k TfiELE I I Mean Number of Correct Responses to the White L i g h t (Task 5) Age Group Mean Number of Correct Responses 3 j to 4 years 7.40 4 to 4^ years 9.14 4^ to 5 years 9.69 5 t 6 6 yecrs 9.14 25 TABLE III Mean number of Correct Responses in T r i a l Blocks for Task (6) Age T r i a l Block Group (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 3| to 4 1.40 .80 1.00 1.20 1.60 1.20 Verbal 4 to 4^  1.30 1.86 1.00 1.71 1.86 1.86 Group 4 to 5 . 1.60 1.80 1.80 2.00 2.00 1.80 5 to 6 1.60 1.80 .90 1.20 2.00 1.30 Non Verbal Group ?>\ to 4 4 to 4^  h\ to 5 1.60 1.14 1.62 1.40 1.57 1.62 1.20 1.71 1.25 1.00 1.29 1.62 1.00 1.14 1.25 1.60 1.00 1.62 5 to 6 1.57 1.57 1.71 1.57 1.71 1.57 26 TABLE IV Mean Number of Correct Responses in T r i a l Blocks for Task (7) Age Tri a l Block Group (1) (2) (3) (A) (5) (6) 3$ to 4 1.20 1.20 1.40 1.20 1.00 1.20 Verbal 4 to 42 2.00 1.86 1.86 1.86 1.43 1.86 Group 4j to 5 1.80 1.40 2.00 2.00 1.60 2.00 5 to 6 1.60 1.10 1.80 1.40 1.40 1.90 3\ to 4 1.40 1.80 1.20 1.20 .60 1.40 Non 4 to h\ 2.00 1.29 1.71 1.43 1.29 1.71 Verbal k\ to 5 Group 1.75 1.38 1.95 1.63 1.38 1.50 5 to 6 1.57 1.43 1.43 1.57 1.29 1.57 27 TABLE V Mean Number of Correct Responses in Tr i a l Blocks for Task (8) Age T r i a l Block Group (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 3* to 4 1.00 1.00 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 Verbal 4 to 4^  1.71 2.00 1.43 1.71 1.43 1,43 Group 4£ to 5 1.60 1.60 1.20 2.00 2.00 1.80 5 to 6 1.70 1.80 1.20 1.50 1.90 1.10 3^ to 4 1.00 1.20 1.60 1.40 1.80 .80 Non 4 to hi 1.71 1.86 .86 1.71 1.56 1.43 Verbal mm Group 4| to 5 1.75 1.86 1.13 1.38 1.88 1.50 5 to 6 1.86 1.71 1.00 1.86 1.71 1.71 28 TABLE VI Mean Number of Correct Responses in T r i a l Blocks for Task (9) Age Tr i a l Block Group (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 32 to 4 1.20 .80 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.20 Verbal 4 to h\ 1.71 1.86 1.71 1.57 1.86 1.71 Group i 4j to 5 1.20 2.00 1.40 1.20 1.00 1.40 5 to 6 1.40 .90 1.70 1.40 1.10 1.90 3l to 4 1.20 1.00 1.20 .80 1.20 1.00 Non 4 to 42 1.43 1.14 1.29 1.00 1.29 1.29 Verbal Group 4| to 5 1,25 .88 1.25 .88 1.00 1.13 5 to 6 1.57 1.43 1.43 1. 29 1.57 1.71 2 9 TABLE V I I Mean Number of Correct Responses for Discrimination Tasks (6), (7), (8), and (9) Age Group (6) Discrimination (7) Task (8) (9) 3g to 4 7.20 7.20 6.80 6.40 Verbal Group 4 to 4| 4* to 5 9.57 11.00 10.85 10.80 10.85 10.20 10.42 8.20 5 to 6 8.80 9.20 9.20 8.40 3\ to 4 7.80 7.60 7,80 6.40 Non Verbal Group 4 to t*\ 4| to 5 8.14 9.00 9.43 9.25 9.14 9.50 7.42 6.38 5 to 6 9.71 8.87 9.85 9.00 30 TABLE VIII Mean Number of Correct Respoaees on Tasks (6), (7), (8), (9) for Age Groups (Cell entries are mean number of correct responses out of 12 stimulus presentations) Age Group Mean Number of Correct Responses 3j to 4 years 7.15 4 to 4j years 9.48 4| to 5 years 9.18 5 to 6 years 9.13 31 mance". Ho trend towards better performance was found on Tasks 6 and $m The means for the number of correct responses made on a l l four tasks are presented in Table VII. The analysis of variance across tasks 6, 7, 8, and 9 (see V' Table V11.1) reveals that age effects are signifi-cant at the .05 level over the four tasks (P^ . ^  = 3.9*0• The means for the number of correct responses over a l l tasks for each age group are presented in Table XVI. The "cr i t i c a l point" in the present study appears to be age Js to k years, where performance is ai; a lower level than for the three older groups. There were no statistically significant differences among the three older groups in performance ability'. Therefore, the transition from external to internal regulation of speech occurs in Canadian children approximately a year earlier than in Russian children. 2« Effects of Verbalization The data do not support Luria fs prediction that the addition of the child's own verbalization, that i s , saying "press" and "don't "press" aloud while attempting the task, facilitates performance. A significant P was not found (see Appendix L, Tables XII to XV) on any of the four tasks i n the comparison of the non verbal group and the verbal group.' The overall analysis (see Appendix D, Table XVI) reconfirms the fact that there is no difference in the performance of the verbal and non verbal groups. 32 Other Findings For the purpose of analysis, the number of correct responses was broken up into six blocks of two trials each* The difference in performance across trials was significant for Task 7 (F^ 2^Q = ^.16, p <,0l) and Task 8 2^Q = 6.50, p <.0l). The mean number of correct responses on Tasks 7 and 8 for the six t r i a l blocks is presented in Table IX, For these two tasks the number of correct responses made drops off during the middle block of trials. The child did not perform as well halfway through the tasks as he did at the beginning or end. There was a significant difference in performance across the four tasks (F = 6.^0, p <.01, see Appendix p, "~3,138 Table XVI). The mean number of correct responses over a l l age groups for each task is presented in Table X. There was no significant difference between the red-green discrim-ination task (Task 6) and its reversal (Task 7 ) , but i t appears that the reversal of the red light-buzzer discrim-ination (Task 9) is more difficult than the original discri-mination (Task 8 ) , Also, there was a significant interaction (F = 3«59» 5 j <-J" p <,0l) between whether the child received verbal or non verbal instructions and performance during t r i a l blocks for Task 6 (see Appendix D, Table XIV). 3. Impulsivity A number of different indicators of impulsivity were 33 TABLE IX Mean Number of Correct Responses on Tasks (7) and (8) over Six T r i a l Blocks (Cell entries are mean number of correct responses out of 2 stimulus presentations) T r i a l Block (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Mean Number 1.64 1.55 1.43 1.57 1.53 1.56 Correct 3 ^ TABLE X Mean Number of Correct Responses for Discrimination Tasks (6), (7), (8), and (9) Discrimination Task (6) (7) (8) (9) Mean Number 8.92 9.25 9.28 7.94 Correct 35 •used to determine whether diffuse excitation is present in the young child, but disappears by about five years when the child no longer produces impulsive reactions. The number of responses made during the operant period does not appear to be associated with age (\2 = 10.59, df 6, U.S.), nor does the number of responses made during the extinction period following the operant period (J( = 3«^7, df 3, N.S.). Another measure of impulsivity, the number of intersignal responses made during Task k (presentation of the white light) also yielded a non-significant relationship with age (X2 = 2.25, df ^ , N.S.), as did the number of responses made in the extinction period = 1.89, df 3» N.S.) following the presentation of the white lights (Task 5 ) . (Contingency tables for these Chi Square analyses can be found in Appendix D, Tables XVII to XX). A biserial correlation between impulsivity (as mea-sured by whether or not the child responded intersignally on Task k) and the average magnitude of the correct response yielded an r^ of which indicates a definite but small relationship. The child who responds intersignally tends to respond more vigorously than the child who does not respond intersignally. ^. Instructions Luria contends that a child can verbalize instructions before he is able to perform the task. This does not appear 36 to hold for a l l the children tested here. Twelve Ss could not verbalize the instructions. Of these twelve, five per-formed better than.the 50 percent correct response level expected by chance. It seems, then, there are some children who, although they are unable to t e l l others what they are supposed to do, are able to perform correctly. The length of the instructions for the verbal group was longer than for the non verbal group because of the inclusion of the verbalization of "press" and "don't press". This made the task of repeating the instructions more dif-ficult for the verbal group. Twice as many children in the verbal group could not verbalize the instructions as in the non verbal group (eight children as compared to four children). The ability to repeat instructions appears to be associated with whether or not the child receives the simple or more complicated instructions. In general, the children in the verbal group ignored the instructions to say "press" and "don't press" aloud. Only 5 of the 27 children actually included this.aspect of the instructions when repeating the instructions. These same children were also the only ones who attempted to say "press" or "don't press" while performing the task. It appears that i f the child did not repeat this portion of the directions, he did not carry i t out in the task. Age has an effect on the child's ability to repeat instructions ()^ = 11*3k, df 3, •01, see Appendix D, 37 Table XXI, for contingency table). Sixty percent of the children in the age group of "to k years did not repeat instructions, compared to only 11 percent in the age group of 5 to 6 years. 5« Magnitude of Response A comparison of the average magnitude of the correct response and the average magnitude of the error response over a l l _Ss revealed that the child applies greater pressure on the bulb when he is making the correct response than when he is making an error (t = 11.23, df 1*1-3, P #001). The means for the average correct responses and average error responses are ^ 3 » 0 6 and 27.99, respectively. A Pearson r between the average magnitude of the correct response and the average latency of the correct response for each S yielded an r of -.23 (p .10) which may indicate a- slight trend for the child who responds quickly to also respond more vigorously, 6. Latency of Response Analysis of the latency scores across a l l the data reveals that correct responses have a longer mean latency than the incorrect responses (t = ^. 9 , df 1^3, P ,001). The means for the average latencies of the correct and error responses are 1.02 and .82 seconds, respectively. The shorter latency for correct responses suggests that errors are made on a more impulsive basis than are the correct 38 responses. 7. Consistency of Responses The data were analysed to determine whether how a child responds to a given stimulus on one t r i a l affects how he will respond to the same stimulus on its next pre-sentation. It was found that the consistency equaled 79.35$. This means that one can predict with a probability of approximately .8 the way in which a child will respond to a stimulus i f the previous response is known. CHAPTER V DISCUSSION Before discussing the results of the present study, consideration should he made of the problems inherent in the research reported hy Luria, Most of these problems are fairly typical of many reported Russian studies. One of the more obvious is the lack of supporting data, Luria refers only to single cases and describes his subjects in no more detail than age and sex, and frequently not even sex. There is no mention of the estimated intelligence of the children, where they were obtained, their experience in an experimental situation, or whether the child was pre-trained in any way before the experimental tasks. Also, he does not state the number of children upon which generalizations are made, and he makes no reference to any statistical analyses of the : data, Luria is vague with respect to his experimental pro-cedures, and gives no indication of the stimulus duration or length of the interstimulus interval. In general, his work appears to lack strict control. Another important difficulty in studying L uria's research is the inconsistency with which he reports behav-iour typical of a given age. Different sources vary. His ages and stages are not as clear cut or as easily differen-tiated as i t appears on superficial examination, Eor example, in "Speech and the Regulation of Behavior" (1961, P«53), he describes diffuse nervous excitation as typical for a child %Q of 18 months to 2 years. On the other hand, in "Mentally Retarded Child" (1963, P«156), he describes the same behav-? iour but states i t is typical for age 2 to 2-J- years. There is a great deal of overlap between age groups, and this presents problems when attempting to generalize characteris-tic behaviours for different ages. General Findings The experimental results provide some support for Luria's central hypothesis that the child's ability to regulate ; behaviour with speech improves with age. Although the simple task of pressing the bulb to the white light did not yield; any significant difference in ability to perform as the child grows older, a trend to this effect was indicated. According to Luria, this task should present no difficulty to the five year old, but may e l i c i t impulsive responding or inhibit responding in a three year old. However, there was no dif-ference found in the number of impulsive responses made over age* Beiswenger (1966) has replicated some of Luria's work with American children, With respect to establishing a simple motor reponse, he reports that only one child age ^3 months was not able to perform the task, and four others responded impulsively. He does not discuss whether age effects were found for this task, but because the data are not reported, i t is assumed the effects were not significant. 41 Therefore, Beiswenger may also have had difficulty replicat-ing this aspect of Luria 1e work. It is possible that the difference in performance was not significant because this task, along with the first three served to familiarize the children with the new situation, and other factors such as distraction, concern with what the game was about, or interest in the lights turning on caused interference. It becomes important then to know how familiar Luria 1s children are with the apparatus and situation when they perform. In the present study, this task may have been more a "warm-up" than a measure of verbal regulation of behav-iour. Perhaps i f the introductory period had been more involved or i f the children had previously familiarized themselves with,the set-up, the age effects might have appeared signifi-cant. With respect to a critical point in the child's develop-ment where he internalizes speech and can guide his own beha-viour (approximately 4-g- to 5.years), the data showed age effects on two tasks (Tasks 7 and 8). Age effects were also signifi-cant over a l l four tasks. The group of children age "to k years performed at a lower level than the three older groups, among which there were no statistically significant differ-ences. Therefore, the present data indicate that the critical period is closer to four years, rather than five years old as reported by Luria, Beiswenger (1966) found that "there is a turning point in the child's maturation at age ^ to 5 years, and more particu-larly in the child's ability to regulate his own behaviour with subvocal speech (p.23)". Although he used a "biased sample" (in the sense that most of the children had exper-ienced more unsettled lives and had faced more adjustment problems than an average group of children) which may have negatively affected verbal control of behaviour, his findings are essentially the same as those reported by Luria. He concludes that Russian children and American children coincide in age pattern in the development of verbal control of behav-iour. It appears, then, that Russian, American, and Canadian children a l l experience an increase in ability to verbally regulate behaviour as they grow older. However, the "critical period" is approximately one year earlier in Canadian children and there is a leveling off in ability after they have passed this period Instead of a steady increase. In contrast to Luria .'s findings, the child's own verba-lization did.not have a facilitating effect on the behaviour of the child. One reason for this may be that the addition of the child's own verbalization involves longer and more complicated instructions for the child to have to assimilate. Also, when the child must include his own verbalizations, the task he is to perform becomes more complicated. For the non-verbal task, the child simply has to press or not press; to given signals, whereas, for the verbal task he must remember 43 not only to press or not to press, but he must remember to verbalize as well. Either of these factors or a combination of both could be responsible for the fact that having the child say "press" or "don't • press" aloud did not improve performance. From observation of the children who attempted to use their own verbalization and from the fact that so few children actually did attempt i t , i t is felt that Luria must have some special pre-training period in which he demonstrates the apparatus and tasks to the child, and per-haps lets him practice. The straight instructions without clarification seem too much for the child to understand. It would be interesting to repeat the study having a training session in which the child can become familiar with the equipment prior to attempting Tasks 6 to 9. The training period would involve a demonstration and some practice. The child would also work on saying "press" and "don't press" aloud to the signals without involving the motor response. In this way, the child learns what he is expected to do when he is asked to verbalize while performing the task. In a second session at a later date, the child would be given the complex discrimination tasks with the verbal or non verbal instructions. It is assumed that the confusing or complicating aspect of the verbal instructions would be eliminated by the pre-training, and i t would be possible then to determine whether the child's own verbalization has a facilitating effect or not. The findings regarding impulsivity do not agree with Beiswenger or Luria, who contend that verbal regulation proceeds from inability to control impulsivity of response to ability to inhibit impulsivity. No relationship between impulsivity and age was found. Pour measures of impulsivity were used: the number of responses during the operant period, the number of responses in the extinction period following the operant period, the number of intersignal responses during the presentation of the white light (Task , and the number of responses in the extinction period following the presentation of the white lights (Task 5)« Beiswenger's measure of impulsivity is the frequency of errors and abortive responses. Either none of the above indicators of impulsivity are components of Luria's or Beiswenger's measures, or the phenomenon of impulsivity dropping out over age cannot be observed in the present sample of children. The fact that some children seemed to be unable to verbalize instructions, yet were s t i l l able to perform the task correctly is an interesting finding. This contradicts Luria, who states that the young child is able to understand and recall instructions, but cannot integrate his speech and motor action. The difference between his finding and the present one may be a consequence of socialization practices. Canadian children, generally speaking, may not he reinforced for repeating instructions aloud, whereas the opposite may occur in Russia. Usually when Canadian pre-schoolers are given instructions they are not asked to verbalize them. Also, Canadian youngsters live within a fairly permissive family environment and very l i t t l e of their day's activities are involved with executing commands or f u l f i l l i n g instructions regarding their behaviour. This is in definite contrast to the residential nurseries in the Soviet Union where a large percentage of Russian children spend their first three years of l i f e . According to Brackbill (in Mussen, et al., 19-63)» these nurseries have programs for verbal-motor stimulation of the children which the staff regards as extremely impor-tant. Each nurse has specific daily duties with each child. "As an example of 'verbal duties', the task for Nurse A might be to ask each infant in turn, 'Where is the cat?', 'Where is the visitor?', 'Show me your ear.', 'Show me your hand.', and so on. In each case, the child's answer is followed by appropriate reinforc-ement" (p. 167). It is obvious, then, that a child from this environment is going to be more capable in a Luria-type situation where he is given instructions, expected to repeat them, and then carry them through. Once again, the discrepancy between results is reduced to the question of the background of the children used in Luria's research. 6^ An interesting study could be made using Canadian nursery school children and presenting them with a series of tasks where reinforcement is given for verbalizing instructions. Following such practice, they would be required to perform some of luria'a tasks. If the factor involved is that the child is not used to repeating instruc-tions, i t can be predicted the child with the pre-training will have less difficulty v/ith instructions than the non-trained. The number of children who did not repeat instructions was greater in the youngest group of children than in the oldest. This indicates that as children grow older they are more experienced in repeating instructions and obeying commands. It is also a further indication of the advancer-ment of the verbal system. The finding that the discrimination reversal for Tasks 6 and 7 did not present any difficulty to the children is in agreement with Beiswenger (1966) who found no difference in performance between reversal tasks. This does not agree with most reversal discriminations in animals. The fact that the child can make reversal discriminations without decreasing his performance may be due to the child's ability to switch motor discriminations by means of the verbal system. In contrast, the reversal task for the red light and buzzer discrimination (Task 9) proved to be more difficult than Task 8. This may be a result of the interference of ^7 the strong.orienting response which most children showed to' the "buzzer. The reversal task involved pressing to the light only when the buzzer did not sound. The buzzer was very loud and may have served to trigger off incorrect responses thus resulting in a lower score. According to Bieswenger (1966), Tasks 8 and 9 (the red light-buzzer tasks) are more difficult than the others because they involve the use of a compound stimulus. How-ever, in the present study, Task 8 does not appear to be any more difficult than Task 7 or 6. The fact that there is not much difference over the age groups in the number of correct responses made in the red-green discriminations compared to the red light-buzzer discriminations may be due to the ; balancing in the present study^ This v/as done to eliminate any effects of learning one discrimination before the other. There was no balancing in. Bieswenger's research, and the poorer performance level on the red light-buzzer discrimination may simply have been a result of boredom or fatigue. The number of correct responses made on Task 7 and Task 8 was significantly less in the middle trials of the task compared to the first and last. It is difficult to determine what may be causing the performance lag halfway through the task. It could be the result of confusion after the presen-tation of the first few stimuli, or perhaps momentary bore-dom, distraction, or loss of interest. 4-8 In summary, the present results are only moderately consistent with the findings of Luria. It is possible that this is due to three factors. The fi r s t relates to the difficulty of validating Luria 1s hypotheses and data, because his description of his procedure is scant and vague. Consequently, one cannot be sure that the present study is an exact replication of his work. His procedure may involve some sort of pre-training which he has failed to describe or discuss. Also, i t appears he conducts a number of short sessions with each child instead of presenting the child with.a whole series of tasks, such as Tasks 1 to 9» in one session. An indication that his procedure involves more than one session is found in "Verbal Regulation of Behavior" (196*0 where he states, "At first testing, the child does not have sufficient incentive so we can't really start" (p, kOl)m Whether such differences in procedure would be great enough to suppress the expected effect or not is, of course, speculative. Secondly, Luria may base his generalizations on one or two subjects who demonstrate the point he is trying to make. In the present study, there were a number of subjects who were perfect examples of behaviour Luria claimed was typical, but when their scores were grouped v/ith the rest of the _Ss the effect disappeared. The question here is whether or not Luria's results would s t i l l be significant i f his data were 50 s t a t i s t i c a l l y analysed, F i n a l l y , there may he a basic difference between Russian and Canadian children due to t h e i r c u l t u r a l backgrounds, The Russian children appear to have n much more organized program fo r development of verbal a b i l i t y , whereas verbal development i n Canada i s something which i s taken for granted and l i t t l e i s done to stimulate i t . The d i f f e r e n t emphasis of the two countries may be responsible for the differences found i n t h i s study. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY A study was carried out to investigate the role of regulation of behaviour by speech and its effects on the acquisition of simple motor responses in pre-school children* An attempt was made to determine whether the regulatory role of speech proceeds in the developmental progression suggested by the Russian psychologist A. R. Luria. The Ss were 26 male and 28 female children between the ages of 41 and 73 months. They were divided into four age groups? 3z to. 4 years, 4 to 4-jj years, 4|- to 5 years, and 5 "to 6 years. The apparatus was essentially a duplication of the equipment designed by Luria. The procedure consisted of a series of nine tasks. The fi r s t three tasks served to familiarize the child with the apparatus and provided a measure of impulsivity. Task 4 involved performing a simple motor res-ponse to a white light and Task 5 involved inhibition of the response to a white light. The last four tasks included both excitatory and inhibitory signals. On Task 6, the child v/as instructed to respond to a red light and not to respond to a green light. In contrast, on Task 7 "the child responded to the green light and not to the red light. Task 8 involved responding to a complex stimulus, a red light plus a buzzer, and not responding to the red light alone. Task 9 was the reverse of Task 8. The major findings, in brief, are: 1. Age Effects, The results for the simple task of pressing the bulb to the white light did not show any significant difference in ability over the four age groups, but indi-cated a trend for the youngest group to perform at a lower level. The results from the complex discrimination tasks support Luria 1s theory that as the child develops his behaviour becomes increasingly controlled by his own stimulation, less dependent oh external cues, and less under the control of his immediate environment. However, the transition period from external to internal regula-? tion of speech which he claims occurs around age five in Russian children,.occurs approximately one year earlier in Canadian children. 2. Effects of Verbalization. The child's own verbalization of "press" and "don't press" aloud while performing the tasks did not improve performance as Luria predicts. 3. Impulsivity. Ho evidence was obtained that verbal regu-lation proceeds from inability to inhibit impulsivity to ability to inhibit impulsivity, as Luria suggests. ^. Instructions, Contrary to what Luria states, the child may be able to perform a task even though he is unable to verbalize the instructions which have been given him. The child's ability to repeat instructions does not necessarily precede his ability to perform the task. 53 Three factors which nay have "been responsible for the difference in results were discussed. First, there may have been important differences in the procedure used by Luria and the procedure used in this study. Secondly, Luria may be basing his generalizations on only one or two subjects and his results are not typical of a l l subjects. Finally, there may be a basic difference between Russian and Canadian children due to their cultural backgrounds. BIBLIOGRAPHY Beiswenger, H. ,A. Age Effects in the Internalization o'£ the Verbal Control of Motor Behavior„ Unpublished Manuscript, University of Michigan, Center for Human Growth and Development, 1966. Bern, Sandra L^ Verbal self control: the establishment of effective self instruction. Journal of Experimental  Psychology, in press. Birch, D. Verbal Control of Nonyerbal.Behavior. Unpub-lished Manuscript, University of Michigan, Center for Human Growth and Development, 1966. Luria, A. R. The role of speech in the formation of,tempor-ary connections and the regulation of behavior,in the normal and oligophrenic child.. In B. Simon (ed.), Psychology in the Soviet Union. Stanford: Stanford 'University Press, 1957. Luria, A. R. The directive function of speech in develop-ment and dissolution. Word. 1959a, 15, 3^1-352, ^ 33-Luria ? A. R. and Vinogradova, 0 . S. An objective investiga-tion '"of the dynamics'of semantic systems. British  Journal.of Psychology, 1959b, £0, 89-105. Luria, A. R. The Role of'.Speech in the Regulation of Normal  and Abnormal'3ehavior. Hew York: Liveright, 1961. ~r~ Luria, A. R. The'Mentally Retarded Child. Hew York: The MacMillan Co., 1963. Luria, A, R. Verbal regulation of behavior. In Celia Burns Stendler (ed.), Readings in Child'Behavior and Develop4 ment.. Hew York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, Inc., I 9 W . Mussen, P. H., Conger, J. J., and Kagen, J. Child Develop- ment and Personality. Hew York: Harper and Row, 1963. APPENDIX APPENDIX A Description of Equipment The five coloured lights (red, green, white, yellow ? and blue) were programmed hy a Lafayette Eight Bank Program' Timer (model 5431). There were six switches which determined the colour of light displayed on each channel. The timer fed into a special unit (see Figure 3 for the circuit dia-gram) which controlled the lights i n the display panel. The responses and stimulus presentations were recorded on a Harvard Apparatus Chart Mover (model 850) with five ink pens; one event/time-marker module (model 281), three event marker modules (model 280), and one tambour module (model 275)1 - egg}. ..pop - r iMtfts _ O O M M C 7 M COMrtOfJ "S QMLY X ' Y *• X * X** Y 4 ESPeftiMEvJTER NO! WO c 150 1/PlTT-too -I— I ty- 1 '"T I A M P i 50 * Figure 3. C i r c u i t diagram for control unit APPENDIX B Summary of Pilot Study A pilot study was carried out to investigate the factors influencing the acquisition of a simple motor response in children and to determine whether the regulatory role of speech proceeded in Luria'a developmental progression. The Ss were thirteen children between the ages of 42 months and 68 months. There were seven females and six males. The children were obtained from the Child Study Center, University of British Columbia, where they had been in atten-dance for at least seven months. The children were divided into three age groups? 2k to 4J- years, 4g- to 5 years, and 5 to 6 years. The apparatus was the same as that used for the major study (see Chapter III, Apparatus) and the experimental room was arranged in the same manner. Prior to commencing the experiment, E spent one 2-g- hour session with each of the four nursery school classes. j3s were randomly chosen from the playground and the classrooms. The children were presented with the following tasks? 1. The child v/as given the bulb to hold for 30 seconds to establish a free operant level of bulb pressing. 2. The child was given the instructions, "Press the Bulb", five times. 3. Bulb pressing v/as extinguished. The extinction interval lasted 30 seconds. For each of "the following tasks, the child was asked to verbalize the instructions which had been given to him before he was allowed to perform the task. The instructions were repeated to the child i f he did not understand them the first time. The child learned to press the bulb on presentation of the white light. Criterion was set at four correct respon-ses, 5, The response to the white light was extinguished to a criterion of four non-presses to the signal. 6, A simple discrimination was learned to the red and green lights (red—press, green*—donJt press). Criterion was seven correct responses. Half of the £>s said nothing while attempting the task* The other half were instruc-ted to say "press" or "don't press" aloud. A l l _Ss were given the same sequence of positive and negative signals, which was as follows: R—G--R—R—G—G--R—G—R—R— G—G— (this sequence recycled), 7, The reverse discrimination of Task 6 was given. For this task, the green light acted as the positive stim-ulus (press) and the red light as the negative stimulus (don't p ress). Criterion was seven correct responses. Those Ss who had verbalized "press" and "don't press" on the previous task also verbalized on the present task. The sequence of red and green signals was the same as in Task 6. 60 8. A second discrimination problem was learned. It involved pressing when both the red light flashed and the buzzer sounded (positive stimulus) and not pressing when the red light flashed and no buzzer sounded (negative stimu-lus). Criterion was seven correct responses. Those _Ss who had verbalized "press" and "don't press" on the pre-vious task also verbalized on the present task. The sequence of positive and negative signals was as follows; BJB—R—Rb—Rb—R—R—RB—R—RB—RB—R—R— (this sequence recycled). 9 . The reverse discrimination of Task 8 was then given. For this task, the red light without the buzzer acted as the positive stimulus (press), and the red light with the buzzer as the negative stimulus (don't press). Criterion was seven correct responses. Those Ss who had verbalized "press" and "don't p ress" on previous tasks also ver-balized on the present task. The sequence of positive and negative signals was the same as in Task 8. Five of the thirteen j3s were given the instructions found in Appendix C. The remaining eight had a. longer and more redundant version. The findings were as follows: 1. Age Effects. With respect to what Luria describes as the transition from external to internal regulation of speech, the data did not support the idea of a critical period around kh to 5 years. Analysis of variance yielded 61 4 a nonsignificant F (Z^IO ~ 1«32)» There was no trend toward "better performance as the child grows older, i t was noted however, that the children of ^ to 5 years performed slightly better than the children in the other two groups. 2. Effects of Verbalization. Luria 1s contention that the addi-tion of the child's own verbalization, that i s , saying "press" and "don't press" aloud while attempting the tasks, facilitates performance was also not supported. The means for the number of correct responses in the non verbal group were higher than in the verbal group. This suggested a trend opposite to tftat predicted by Luria. Analysis of variance yielded an F of 3»88, which is not significant at pX.05. Therefore verbalization did not improve perfor-mance, but made no difference or may even have inhibited correct responding. 3. Impulsivity. It was thought that the free operant period at the beginning of the experiment would be an indicator of general impulsivity of the child, but scores during this period seem to be unrelated to age or performance. In gen-eral, most £>s (10 out of 13) did not show any impulsive behaviour in this interval* The child simply followed the instructions to hold the bulb. The operant period alone did not provide an adequate assessment of impulsivity, *)-, Instructions. Luria's statement that a child can verbalize instructions before he is able to perform the task did not appear to hold for a l l the children tested here. Two of 6 2 the Els could not verbalize the instructions, but when presented with the task, performed well above average* 5 . Discrimination Reversals. In general, discrimination reversals did not present any difficulty for the child. There was no difference between the latencies for Tasks 6 and 7 , but the difference between Task 8 and 9 was significant at the . 0 5 level (t = 2 ' , 6 1 , df 1 0 ) . 6 . Latencies. Correct responses appeared to have a longer latency than the incorrect responses but t = 1 . 4 6 , df 1 1 was not significant at the . 0 5 level, 7 . Task Difficulty. Analysis of variance revealed no dif-ference in difficulty between tasks 6 through 9 . 8". Sex Differences. Analysis of variance for sex differ-ences yielded a nonsignificant P. There were a number of problems encountered while running the pilot study. One of the most important of these was the discovery that the instructions were unnecessarily long and redundant. Although they were of extended length, they did not supply any more information to the child than the shorter version. They may also have served to confuse the child or induce boredom. By reducing the instructions, the length of the experimental session was shortened and thereby some of the source of boredom was eliminated. The experiment was originally designed to have seven correct responses to be the criterion for performance on the discrimination tasks. This led to some difficulties because 63 after approximately' ten stimulus presentations the child began to lose interest in the task, and i f criterion had not been reached by fifteen presentations, i t never was. It became apparent that the number of trials to criterion was not a fair measure of performance. Also, statistical analysis would have been difficult using the number of responses to criterion. Therefore, i t was decided to use blocks of ten trials for the pilot study. The only problem inherent in the use of ten-trial blocks was that an equal number of pos-itive and negative signals were not included. For the first discriminations (Tasks 6 and 8), there were six positive stimuli and four negative stimuli presented, while for the reverse discrimination (Tasks 7 and 9)» there were only four positive stimuli and six negative stimuli. It is possible that this has had a confounding effect on the data for the pilot study. For the purposes of the major study, t r i a l blocks consisted of twelve stimulus presentations, six posi-r tive and six negative. As was mentioned earlier in the summary, the method originally decided to determine the impulsivity of the child was the number of impulsive responses occurring in the oper-ant period before the beginning of the tasks. However, there was l i t t l e impulsive behaviour shown during this time, and for the few £>s who did show some impulsive behaviour there was no consistent relationship of impulsivity with any var-iable such as age or performance. In the pilot study, the child v/as required to place the bulb on the table after each task. This may have had the effect of inhibiting impulsive ' behaviour. The instructions were changed so that the child remained holding the bulb throughout the complete series of tasks. Finally, on close examination of the graphs, i t became apparent that the sensitivity of the pressure tambour was too high. Strong contractions of the bulb by the child were resulting in an ink-pen deflection which went off the graph paper. If the deflection was off the paper, i t made ;Lt impossible to calculate the strength of the child's contrac-tions. The sensitivity was therefore reduced. In summary, a pilot study was carried out for an experiment designed to investigate the factors influencing the acquisition of a simple motor response i n children of 3 to 6 years old, and to determine whether the regulatory role of speech proceeds i n the' developmental progression Luria suggests. The J3s were 7 male and 6 female children between the ages of 42 and 68 months. In general, the findings do not lend much support to Luria's theory, ITo significant c r i t i c a l point when the child internalizes speech and can thus regulate behaviour was found in the child's development. Secondly, the pi l o t study did not find that the child's own verbalization improved his performance, but that i t made_ no difference or may have inhibited i t to some extent. Also, contrary to what Luria states, the child may be able to perforin a task even though he i s unable to verbalize the ins t r u c t i o n s which have been given to him. The child's a b i l i t y to repeat instructions does not necessarily precede his a b i l i t y to perform the task. F i n a l l y , a discussion was made of the methodological problems which arose during the p i l o t study, and changes and corrections i n the design and apparatus were presented. APPENDIX C Instructions "Hi. Would you like to^come and play my game with, me now? It won't take very long. I ' l l "bring you right hack after we have finished." (Bring child to experimental room and assist in taking off his coat, etc. ? show him around the room, and let him examine the general situation.) "I would like you to sit here in this chair and face the window in this box." Task (1) "Here is a bulb. I would like you to hold the bulb for a l i t t l e while." Hand bulb to child. After 30 seconds, say, "Nov/ give the bulb back to me." Reach for the bulb. Task (2) "See you can press the bulb like this." Demonstrate press. "How I am going to give the bulb to you and each time I say—press the bulb—I want you to press the bulb like this," Demonstrate again. Hand bulb to child and say: "Press the bulb.1' "Press the bulb again," "Press the bulb," "Nov/ press the bulb again," "And press the bulb once more." Task (3) "That' s very good, Nov; I don't want you to press the bulb. Just hold the bulb without pressing i t . " After 30 seconds, say "That was very good," 67 Task (*Q "Nov/. I want yon to v/atcli the window'in t h i s box. Each time a white l i g h t appears i n the window, I v/ant you to press the bulb." "Can you t e l l me what you are supposed to do?" I f £> i n d i c a t e s that he i s not sure v/hat he i s supposed to do, repeat the i n s t r u c t i o n s above. I f j3 i n d i c a t e s v/hat he i s supposed to do, say, "Watch the window and v / e ' l l p l a y the game." At end of stimulus presentations say, "OK, now can you t e l l me when you were supposed to press the bulb?" To answer say, "That's f i n e . " Task ( 5 ) "This time, I do not v/ant you to press the bulb when the white l i g h t appears i n the window." "Can you t e l l me v/hat you are supposed to do?" I f S i n d i c a t e s that he i s not sure what he should do, repeat the i n s t r u c t i o n s above. I f 3 i n d i c a t e s what he i s supposed to do, say, "Watch the window and v / e ' l l p l a y the game." At end of the stimulus presentations say, "Can YOU t e l l me when vou were not supposed to press the bulb? f ! To answer say, "Good." Task (6a) Non Ve r b a l I n s t r u c t i o n s "This time we are going to do something a l i t t l e d i f f e r e n t , l i s t e n ' c a r e f u l l y . Each time a red l i g h t comes on i n the v/indow, I v/ant you to press the bulb. But i f a green l i g h t comes on i n the v/indow, I do not v/ant you to press the bulb." "Can you t e l l me v/hat you are'supposed to do when the red l i g h t conies on? That's r i g h t , you press the bulb. Can you t e l l me what you do when the green l i g h t comes on? That's r i g h t , you do not press rhe bulb." 6 8 If S cannot t e l l what he is supposed to do, repeat instruc-tions above. If S ind icates what he is supposed to do, say, "Watch the window, and we'll play the game," At vend of stimulus presentations, say, "OK, now can :you t e l l me when you were supposed to press the bulb?" Pause, "Can you t e l l me when you were not supposed to press?" Task (6b) Verbal Instructions "This time we are going to do something a l i t t l e different. Listen'carefully. Bach time a red light comes on in the window, I want you to say 'press' out loud and press the bulb. But i f a green light comes on in the window, I want you to say 'don't press' out loud and do not press the bulb." "Can you t e l l me what you are'supposed to do when the red light comes on? That's right ? you Hay 'press' out loud and press the bulb* Can you tell'me what you do when the green light comes on? That's right, you say 'don't press' out loud, and do not press the bulb." If S cannot ".tell what he is supposed to do, repeat the instruc-tions above. If JS indicates what he is supposed to do, say, "Watch the window and we'll play the game." At end of the stimulus presentations say, "OK, now can you t e l l me when you were supposed to press the bulb?' Pause. "Can you t e l l me when you were not supposed to press?" "That^was very good." Task (7b) Verbal Instructions "Nov/ listen carefully because this time we are going to play the game a l i t t l e differently. This time, when the green light comes on in the window, I want you to say 'press''out loud and press the bulb. But i f the red light comes on, I want you to say 'don't press' out loud and do not press the bulb*" "Can you t e l l me what you are'supposed to do when the green light comes on? That's right, you say 'press' out loud and press the bulb. Can you tell'me what you do when the red light comes on? That's right, you say, 'don't press' out loud and do not press the bulb," 69 If S cannot t e l l what he is supposed to do, repeat the instructions above. If S indicates v/hat he is supposed to do, say, "Watch the window and we'll play the game." At the end of.the stimulus presentations, say, "OK, now can you t e l l me when you were supposed to press the bulb?" Pause. "Can you t e l l me when you were not supposed to press?" "That was very good." Task (8a) Non Verbal Instructions "Nov/ we'll play the game a l i t t l e differently. But before we start the game I want you to hear the buzzer that can come from this box." Sound buzzer "Listen carefully. This time when the red light comes on and the buzzer sounds, I want you to press the bulb. But when the red light comes on and no buzzer sounds, I do not want you to press the bulb." "Can you t e l l me v/hat you are supposed to do v/hen the red light comes on.and the buzzer sounds? That's right, you press the bulb. Can you t e l l me v/hat you do v/hen'the red light comes on and.no buzzer sounds? That's right, you do not press the bulb." If £> cannot t e l l what he is supposed to do, repeat the instruct-• tions above. If S indicates v/hat he is supposed to do, say, "Watch the window and v/e'll play the game," At the end of.the stimulus presentations, say, "OK, now can you t e l l me when you were supposed to press the bulb?" Pause. "Can you t e l l me when you were not supposed to press?" "That v/as very good." Task (8b) Verbal Instructions "Nov/ we'll play the game a l i t t l e differently. But before we start, I want you to hear the buzzer that can come from this box." Sound buzzer. "Listen carefully. This time v/hen the red light comes on and 70 the buzzer sounds, I want you to say 'press' out loud and press the bulb". But when the red light comes on and no buzzer sounds, I want :you to say 'don't press' out loud and do not; press the bulb." "Can you t e l l me what you are supposed to do when the red light comes on and the buzzer sounds? That's right, you say 'press' out loud and you press the bulb. Can you t e l l me what you do when the red light comes on and no buzzer sounds? That's right, you say 'don't press' out loud and do not press the bulb." If S cannot; t e l l v/hat he is supposed to do, repeat instruc-tions above. If £> indicates what he is supposed to do, say, "Watch the v/indow and we'll play the game." At the end of the stimulus presentations, say, "OK, now can you t e l l me when you were supposed to press the bulb?" Pause. "Can you t e l l me when you were not supposed to press?" "That was very good." Task (9a) Non Verbal Instructions "Now listen carefully, because this time we are going to play the game in a different v/ay. This time when the red light comes on alone and no buzzer sounds, I v/ant you to press the bulb. But when the red light comes on and the buzzer sounds, I do not v/ant you to press the bulb." "Can you t e l l me v/hat you are supposed to do v/hen'the red light comes on and no buzzer sounds? That's right, you press the bulb. Can you t e l l me v/hat you do when the red light comes on and.the buzzer sounds? That's right, you do not press the bulb." If S indicates what he is supposed to do, repeat instruc-tions above.' If S indicates v/hat he is supposed to do, say, "Watch the window and we'll play the game." At end of. stimulus presentations say, "OK, now can you t e l l me when you were supposed to press the bulb?" Pause. "Can you t e l l me when you v/ere not supposed to press?" "That was very good." 71 Task (9"b) Verbal Instructions "Now listen carefully, because this time we are going to play the game in a different way. This time when the red light comes on alone and no buzzer sounds, I want you to say 'press' out loud and press the bulb. But when the red light comes on and the buzzer sounds, I want you to say 'don't press' out loud and do not press the bulb," "Can you t e l l me what you are supposed to do when the red light comes on and no buzzer sounds? That's right, you say 'press' out loud and press the bulb. Can you t e l l me what you do when the red light comes on and the buzzer sounds? That's right, you say 'don't press' out loud and do not press the bulb." If S cannot t e l l you what he is supposed to do, repeat instructions above. If Si indicates what he is supposed to do, say, "Watch the window and we'll play the game." At end of stimulus presentations, say, "OK, now can you t e l l me when, you were supposed to press the bulb?" Pause. "Can you t e l l me when you were not supposed to press?" "That was very good." After a l l tasks have been completed, say, "The game is over now. Thank you very much for playing with me. You .have done a very good job, Now I will take you back to class," APPENDIX D Further Tables TABLE XI Analysis of Variance of Number of Correct Responses to White Light as a Function of Age Source of Variance SS df MS F p Age 34.92 3 11.64 2.40 X05 Error 243.00 50 4.86 Total 277.93 53 t 73 TABLE XII Analysis of Variance of Number of Correct Responses as a Function of the Verbal or Non Verbal Factor, Age, and T r i a l Block for Task (6) Source of Variance SS df MS Between Ss 55.222 Verbal vs. Non Verbal (A) .44 Age (B) 5.20 AB 4.04 Subjects within groups 45.54 53 1 3 3 46 1.04 .44 1.73 1.35 .99 1.03 .45 1.75 1.36 Within Ss Trials (e) AC BC ABC C x Subjects within groups 103.67 3.26 6.37 6.02 6.23 81.79 270 5 5 15 15 230 .38 .65 1.27 .40 .41 .35 1.08 1.83 3.59 1.13 1.17 .01 74 TABLE XIII Analysis of Variance of Number of Correct Responses as a Function of the Verbal or Non Verbal Factor, Age, and T r i a l Block for Task (7) Source of Variance SS df MS F P Between Ss 41.15 53 .73 — Verbal vs Non Verbal (A) .89 1 .89 — — Age (B) 8.64 3 2.88 4.40 .01 AB U43 3 .50 -- --Subjects within groups 30.12 46 .65 Within Ss 99.33 270 .37 — — Trials (C) 7.53 5 1.51 4.16 .01 AC 1.16 5 .23 — --BC 4.11 15 .27 -- — ABC 3.25 15 .21 — — C x Subjects within groups 83.28 230 .36 75 TABLE XIV Analysis of Variance of Number of Correct Responses as a Function of the Verbal or Non Verbal Factor, Age, and T r i a l Block for Task (8) Source of Variance SS df MS F p Between S 3 47.81 53 .90 — --Verbal vs. Non Verbal (A) .08 1 .08 — Age (B) 8.46 3 2.82 5.43 .61 AB 2.60 3 .87 1.66 --Subjects within groups 23.93 46 .52 Within Sa 108.50 270 .40 Trials (C) 11.77 5 2.35 6.50 .01 AC . 46 5 .09 --BC 6.64 15 .44 -- --ABC 6.23 15 .42 — — C x Subjects within groupa 83.41 230 .36 TABLE XV Analysis of Variance of Number of Correct Responses as a Function of the Verbal or Non Verbal Factor, Age, and T r i a l Block for Task (9) Source of Variance SS df MS F Between Ss 76.95 53 1.45 Verbal vs. Non Verbal (A) 3.16 1 3.16 2.40 Age (B) 9.26 3 3.09 2.35 AB 4.04 3 1.35 — Subjects within groups 60.49 46 1.31 Within Ss 119.67 270 Trials (C) 3.95 5 .79 1.72 AC 1.43 5 .29 --BC 4;24 15 .28 --ABC 4.26 15 .31 — C x Subjects within groups 105.43 230 .46 77 TABLE XVI Analysis of Variance of Number of Correct Responses as a Function of the Verbal or Non Verbal Factor, Age and Task Source of Variance SS df MS F P Between Ss 795.58 53 15.01 1.22 Verbal vs. Non Verbal (A) 19.56 1 19.56 1.59 --Age (B) 145.47 3 48.49 3.94 .05 AB 64.93 3 21.64 1.76 --Subjects within groups 565.62 46 12.30 Within Ss 577.75 162 3.57 1.07 Tasks (C) 63.75 :• .'3 21.23 6.40 .01 •\C 7.72 3 .2.57 .77 . --BC 4. .59 9 4.62 1.39 ABC 6.24 9 .69 C x Subjects within groups 458.38 138 3.32 TABLE XVII Contingency Table for Comparison of the Number of Responses Made During Operant Period With Age Group Age Group No One More Than Total Responses Response One Response 3^  to 4 years 6 0 4 10 ik to 4^ years 12 1 1 14 4^  to 5 years 10 2 1 13 5 to 6 years 9 5 3 17 Total 37 8 9 54 X - 10.59, df 6, Not Significant TABLE XVIII Contingency Table for Comparison of whether or Not Child Responded During Extinction Period Following Operant Period With Age Group Age Group One or No Total More Responses Responses 3^ to 4 years 3 7 10 4- to 4^  years 2 12 14 4^  to 5 years 1 12 13 5 to 6 years 1 16 17 Total 7 47 54 X m 3.6696, df 3, Not Significant TABLE XVIX Contingency Table for Comparison of Whether or Not Child Respondad Intersignally During Task (4) With Age Group Age Group • One or No Total More Responses Responses 3 j to 4 years 7 3 10 4 to 4^ years 6 8 14 42 to 5 years 9 4 13 5 to 6 years 11 6 17 T o t a l 33 21 54 T£ » 2.7479, df 3, Not Significant TABLE XX Contingency Table for Comparison of Whether or Not .Child .Responded During Task (5) With Age Group Age Group One or No Total More Responses Responses 3j to 4 years 4 6 10 4 to 4»> years 4 10 14 H>; to 5 years 2 11 13 5 to 6 years 4 13 17 Total 14 40 54 •jC2 - 1.8851, df 3, Not Significant 82 TABLE XXI Contingency Table for Comparison of Whether or Not Child Pvepeated Instructions With Age Group Age Group Repeated Did Not Repeat Total Instructions Instructions ^ tc 4 years 4 6 10 4 co 4g years 13 1 14 to 5 years 10 3 13 5 to 6 years 15 2 17 Total 42 12 54 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0104383/manifest

Comment

Related Items