- Email: [email protected]
The effect of labels and instruction on concept attainment in the educable mentally retarded
CONTEMPORARY
EDUCATIONAL
PSYCHOLOGY
2,284
-291 (1977)
The Effect of Labels and Instruction on Concept Attainment in the Educable Mentally Retarded RICHARD M. GAKC;IUI.O Univrrsip
of Wisconsin
The present experiment examined concept attainment in 80 educable mentally retarded and 80 normal boys of high and low mental age. The concept of an equilateral triangle was assessed following random exposure to one of four experimental conditions assessing the influence of verbal labels and instruction on the labels. A 2 x 2 x 4 multivariate analysis of variance revealed a significant effect of mental age; however, retarded and normal subjects did not differ in mean performance on any of the five dependent measures. The hypothesized treatment effect was significant at the formal level of concept attainment. The findings were discussed in terms of theoretical and educational implications.
Concept learning of normal and retarded children has long been a concern of psychologists. Recently, Klausmeier, Ghatala, and Frayer (1974) advanced a model of conceptual learning and development (CLD model) which delineated four invariant and successive levels of obtaining the same concept. A concept may be attained at either the concrete, identity, classificatory, or formal level. The levels differ both in inclusiveness and level of abstraction. Each level presumes mastery of the preceding level. Attainment of a concept at the concrete level occurs when an individual attends to, discriminates, and remembers the stimulus that was discriminated. The same operations need to be present for attainment of a concept at each of the successively higher levels. The additional operation which distinguishes the identity level from the concrete level requires that the learner be able to discriminate various forms of the same stimulus object despite changes in perspective or other irrelevant details. This involves generalizing or abstracting the relevant from the irrelevant features of the stimulus object. Concept attainment at the classificatory level incorporates the operations present at the two lower attainment levels plus one additional operaThis research was supported by the Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learning, supported in part as a research and development center by funds from the National Institute of Education, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (Center Contract No. NE-C-00-3-0065). This article is based on a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment for the Ph.D. degree at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. A brief version of this paper was presented at the 54th Annual International Convention of the Council of Exceptional Children, Chicago, April, 1976. Requests for reprints should be sent to Richard M. Gargiulo, who is now at the Department of Special Education, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403. 284 Copyright @ 1977 by Academic Press. Inc All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
LABELS
AND
CONCEPT
ATTAINMENT
285
tion. This operation requires that an individual must now generalize to at least two different instances of a concept as being equivalent in some manner. Generalization necessitates abstracting the relevant attributes of the stimulus object while disregarding the irrelevant attributes. These attributes may be perceptual or nonperceptual instances. The individual reaches conceptual maturity once he attains the formal level. Concept labels are a necessary prerequisite for concept mastery at the formal level. According to the CLD model, an individual may acquire concept labels at any of the three prior levels of attainment. However, at the formal level, labels are of critical importance. The learner must be able to name the concept, infer the relevant attributes, and differentiate a concept in terms of its defining attributes. For example, at the formal level, the learner demonstrates a concept of dog if, when shown illustrations of dogs, wolves, and foxes of various sizes and colors, he properly designates the dogs as such, labels them as dogs, and names the attributes which distinguish the dogs from the nonexamples. A plethora of empirical evidence is available which supports the relationship between concept labels, labeling behavior, and the cognitive operations necessary for concept attainment as posited by the CLD model (Cantor, 1955; Carey & Goss, 1957; Deno, Jenkins, & Marsey, 1971; Johnson & O’Reilly, 1964; Katz, 1963; Norcross, 1958; Norcross & Spiker, 1957; Rasmussen & Archer, 1961). The results of these investigations have indicated that labels facilitate concept attainment, and that, in general, verbal competency plays a very important role in children’s ability to solve various conceptual tasks. This is especially so with the educable mentally retarded individual. Many performance differences between normal and retarded children can be explained as being due to an impaired ability to use verbal symbols as a means of controlling behavior and of abstracting from experience (Furth & Milgram, 1965; Luria, 1961; Milgram & Furth, 1963; Miller, Hale, & Stevenson, 1968). In contrast, Stephens (1966), Blount (1968), and Landau (1968) found that educable retardates supplied with appropriate verbal training through experimental manipulation performed as well as or better than their normal peers on various concept learning tasks. The present study investigated the effects of verbal labels only and labels with instruction on concept attainment in educable mentally retarded (EMR) and normal male subjects of high and low mental age (MA). The concept examined was that of an equilateral triangle. It was anticipated that high MA boys would perform significantly better than low MA boys. Additionally, no difference was predicted between mentally retarded and normally developing boys on concept attainment. The work of Prehm (1966) suggests that the rank order of treatments would be (a) control, (b) verbal labels only, (c) verbal labels and instruction pertaining to pentagon,
286
RICHARD
M.
GARGIULO
and (d) verbal labels with instruction pertaining to equilateral triangle. The last two treatments were hypothesized to result in significantly higher concept attainment than the control condition. METHOD
Subjects One-hundred-sixty subjects, 80 educable mentally retarded boys and 80 normal boys, participated in the experiment. Subjects were stratified into low or high MA groups. Low MA corresponded to a MA range of 5.0-7.5 years; high MA corresponded to a MA range of 7.6- 10.0 years. The subjects were chosen from schools within a large metropolitan Wisconsin city. The normal subjects were selected from first- and third-grade classrooms. The EMR subjects were chosen from both primary and intermediate special education classrooms. Table 1 presents the mean MA, CA, and IQ of the subjects.
Materials Lessons. Four 16-min lessons were constructed that presented selected labels and instruction on the labels. The verbal labels chosen were from a battery of tests on the equilateral triangle developed at the Wisconsin R & D Center (Klausmeier, Ingison, Sipple, & Katzenmeyer, Note 1). Selection was based upon the importance of the labels for the attainment of the concept being taught in the lessons and tested in the battery. One lesson was developed for each of the four treatment conditions, with the presentation standardized across groups. Each lesson was reviewed by mathematics curriculum experts to assure accuracy of content. Treatment I was a lesson on the equilateral triangle and consisted of 12 labels plus instruction in which nine labels were common to the defining attributes (e.g., angle, equal, and polygons) of both equilateral triangles and pentagons and three labels specific to equilateral triangle (i.e., triangle, equilateral triangle, and three). Instruction consisted of the experimenter teaching the definition of the selected labels using an inductive approach. Felt cut-outs of different sizes and colors were also used to help teach the attributes of equilateral triangles and regular pentagons. Treatment II was similar in content to Treatment I, but incorporated a lesson on pentagons. This lesson included the nine attribute labels of Treatment I plus three labels specific to pentagons (i.e., pentagon, regular pentagon, and five). Treatment II was developed as a transfer measure to assess the generalizability of label instruction when using a different but related concept. Treatment III was designed to assess the influence of labels without accompanying instruction. This lesson contained the nine common labels found in both Treatments I and II plus the specific labels from each treatTABLE 1 MEAN
Grout Normal Low High Retarded Low High
MA, CA,
AND
IQ
OF NORMAL
AND RETARDED
SUBJECTS
n
MA
CA
IQ
40 40
6.21 (.447) 8.53 (.752)
7.06 (.611) 8.95 ( ,700)
88.20 ( 6.93) 95.38 (11.37)
40 40
6.26 (542) 8.33 (.488)
10.08 (1.41) 11.61 ( ,854)
75.03 ( 8.27)” 81.73 ( 7.39)”
Note. Standard deviations are given in parentheses. U Extrapolation from IQ tables of Kuhlman- Anderson Test Manual.
LABELS
AND
CONCEPT
ATTAINMENT
287
ment. Subjects in this condition therefore received 15 labels without instruction on the labels. The subjects assigned to the control group, Treatment IV, received a placebo lesson on cutting tools to equate the time that the experimenter spent with the other treatment groups. The labels used in each lesson were photographically set and presented on white 12.5 x 7.5cm file cards with felt attached to one side. Each letter was approximately 6 mm high. A large black flannel board was used for presentation purposes. Dependent measure. The assessment inventory was a battery of R & D Center tests on the equilateral triangle (Klausmeier et al., Note 1). The tests measure performance related to distinct levels of conceptual development as posited by the CLD model. Performance assessed was the total number of 29 items correct on the concrete, identity, classificatory, and formal (discriminating attributes and vocabulary) subtests of the battery. Responses were scored as being either correct or incorrect. The inventory was presented in booklet form and group administered according to procedures outlined in the administrator’s manual. All test questions were read twice by the experimenter.
Procedure All subjects were administered the Kuhlman-Anderson Measure of Academic Potential (Kuhlman & Anderson, 1963) appropriate for their mental age level approximately two weeks prior to the initiation of the experimental treatments. Based upon test results, the experimenter randomly chose 40 primary EMR subjects from a group of 48 retardates whose MA was between 5.0 and 7.5 years. Forty first-grade boys were then randomly selected from a group of 46 first-graders whose MA was also between 5.0 and 7.5 years. The same procedure was followed when selecting the high MA (7.6- 10.0 years) EMR and normal subjects. Each group was chosen from a pool of 45 boys. Subjects received the treatments in groups of five whenever possible, with the order of presentation randomized. The subjects were escorted to a quiet room and administered the lesson appropriate for their treatment condition. Each lesson concluded with the subject receiving the assessment inventory. Upon completion of the session, subjects were returned to their classroom. Additionally, all teachers whose students participated in the experiment received an evaluation form on which they indicated whether or not their students had received instruction on the labels presented in the lessons.
Experimental
Design
The experiment employed a 2 x 2 x 4 multivariate analysis of variance, with two levels of Mental Age, two levels of Mental Classification, and four Experimental Conditions. The dependent variables were the five subtests of the assessment inventory. Within each classification there were 80 subjects, 40 high MA and 40 low MA boys. Subjects within each mental age level of each classification were randomly assigned to one of four conditions such that there were 10 subjects per cell. Tukey’s HSD test (Kirk, 1968)was applied in making appropriate post-hoc pairwise comparisons.
RESULTS
A multivariate analysis of variance (Finn, Note 2) was performed on the five correlated subtests of the Equilateral Triangle Test Battery. The multivariate analysis indicated a significant main effect of Mental Age, F(5,140) = 7.3775, p < .OOOl.This analysis also provided no evidence to suggest that retarded subjects differed in learning from the normal subjects, F(5,140) = 1.1163, p > .05. Since the multivariate analysis was significant for the variable of Mental Age, univariate analysis of variance
288
RICHARD
M.
GARGIULO
tests were conducted on the five dependent measures as recommended by McCall (1970). Significant univariate probabilities were indicated for all measures QJ < .04 to p < .0002). The effect of mental age and retarded versus normal on each of the dependent variables is presented in Table 2. Perusal of the table indicates that high MA boys performed significantly better than their low MA counterparts and retarded and normal subjects did not significantly differ in mean performance. In addition, the main effect of Treatment Condition also reached significance, F(15,387) = 7.8254, p < .OOOl. Univariate F tests indicated significance only for the vocabulary measure, F(3,144) = 41.3763, p < .OOOl. Tukey tests revealed that subjects assigned to the equilateral triangle condition performed significantly better than subjects assigned to the other three treatment conditions @ < .05). The post-hoc analysis also indicated that subjects who received instruction on the pentagon had a significantly higher mean score than subjects assigned to either the labels only or control condition 0, < .05). The multivariate analysis did not indicate significance for any of the possible interactions, F’s < 1.4179, p > .05. TABLE 2 MEAN PERFORMANCE SCORESON THE EQUILATERAL TRIANGLE TEST BATTERI
Retarded Low MA
n
Concrete
40
7.20 (1.69) 7.82 ( 54) 7.51 (1.29)
7.17 (1.33) 7.80 ( .51) 7.48 (1.05)
7.70
High MA
40
M Total
80
Normal Low MA
40 40
M Total
80
M Total Low MA
80
High MA
80
Classificatory
Discrim. Attributes
Vocabulary
2.77 ( 57) 2.61 ( 31)
1.17 ( .95) 1.70 (1.18) 1.43 (1.10)
2.52 (1.63) 3.02 (1.14) 2.77 (1.42)
7.80 (1.11) 7.75 ( .89)
7.70 ( .72) 7.72 (1.13) 7.71 ( .94)
2.20 ( .91) 2.72 ( .59) 2.46 ( 31)
1.35 (1.07) 1.65 (1.05) 1.50 (1.W
2.20 (1.60) 2.95 (1.01) 2.57 (1.38)
7.45 (1.29) 7.81 ( .87)
7.43 (1.10) 7.76 ( .87)
2.32 ( .95) 2.75 ( .58)
1.26 (1.01) 1.67 (1.11)
2.36 (1.61) 2.89 (1.07)
( High MA
Identity
.W
2.45 (
.98)
Nore. Total number of correct responses on the concrete and identity tests is eight; total correct on the classificatory and discriminating attributes tests is three; and on the vocabulary tests, seven. Standard deviations are given in parentheses.
LABELS
AND
CONCEPT
ATTAINMENT
289
Nineteen of the 21 classroom teachers (90.47%) involved in the study responded to the questionnaire which sought to ascertain whether or not the subjects had received teacher instruction on the labels prior to presentation in the experiment. The results of the questionnaire, and examination of appropriate curriculum guides and textbooks, supported the assumption that the subjects were unfamiliar with the majority of the labels prior to the experiment. DISCUSSION
The hypothesized main effect of MA was substantiated, thus suggesting that the mental age of the subject, rather than being retarded or normal, was the determining factor in task performance. Robinson and Robinson (1966) suggest that the higher the MA of the child the greater the verbal competency. Hence, the high MA subjects were able to effectively use the labels as verbal mediators which facilitated performance, while the low MA subjects were ineffective possibly due to a deficiency in verbal mediation (Reese, 1962). That is, the labels were inadequate as mediators of response. A complementary explanation of a production deficiency (Flavell, Beach, & Chinsky, 1966) hypothesizes that the labels did not serve as mediators because of the low MA subjects’ habitual failure to produce them at the proper time. However, whether the performance of the low MA subjects was due to a mediational deficiency or a production deficiency remains obscure. A further possibility is that the required cognitive operations necessary for successful task completion as posited by the CLD model were beyond the conceptual ability of the low MA subjects. The favorable comparison between the retardates and normals is consistent with the findings of Stephens (1966) and Landau (1968) and provides evidence that educable retardates supplied with appropriate verbal training are neither verbally nor conceptually inferior to normal peers of similar mental ages. Such evidence suggests that the experimental treatments increased the verbal sophistication of the EMR’s to a level comparable to that of the normals. However, a ceiling effect on the concrete and identity measures possibly depressed the scores of the normals to such a degree that comparable performance was indicated. A further explanation of an experiential factor favoring the retardates, whereby the retarded subjects supplied their own meaningful labels which facilitated performance, also seems tenable. Overall, the treatments affected only a narrow range of concept attainment, specifically, performance at the formal level. This finding could be interpreted as confirming that labels are a necessary prerequisite for concept mastery at this level. It remains unresolved, however, whether or not the subjects responded on a perceptual rather than a strictly conceptual
290
RICHARD
M.
GARGIULO
basis. Gibson and Gibson (1955) would argue that perceptual learning occurs during verbal training rather than the labels functioning as mediating or cue-producing responses. The post-hoc analysis supported the third hypothesis and the work of Prehm (1966), thus confirming the generalizability of instruction and implying that the retardates were able to transfer, which aided subsequent performance. It would appear that experience in learning names and differentiating the characteristics of the stimuli positively affected concept attainment, whereas providing labels without instruction was nonfacilitative. A reasonable conclusion would be that verbal labeling can facilitate concept attainment but is certainly not a necessary condition. It would seem that to improve concept attainment one should educate children on the various mental operations involved in conceptualizing. REFERENCES BLOUNT, W. Concept usage research with the mentally retarded. Psychological Bulkfin,
1968, 69, 281-294. CANroa, G. Effects of three types-of pretraining on discrimination learning in pre-school children. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1955, 49, 339-342. CAREY, J., & Goss, A. The role of mediating verbal responses in the conceptual sorting behavior of children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1957, 90, 69-74. DENO, S., JENKINS, J., & MARSEY, J. Transfer variables and sequence effects in subjectmatter learning. Journul of Educational Psychology, 1971, 62, 365-370. FLAVELL, J., BEACH, D., & CHINSKY, J. Spontaneous verbal rehearsal in a memory task as a function of age. Child Development, 1966, 37, 283-299. FURTH, H., & MILGRAM, N. The influence of language on classification: A theoretical model applied to normal, retarded, and deaf children. Genetic Psychology Monograph, 1965, 72, 317-351. GIBSON, J., &GIBSON, E. Perceptual learning: Differentiation or enrichment? Psychological Revielcl, 1955, 62, 32-41. JOHNSON, D., & O’REILLY, C. Concept attainment in children: Classifying and defining. Journul of Educational Psychology. 1964, 55, 71-74. KATZ, P. Effects of labels on children’s perception and discrimination learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1963, 66, 423-428. KIRK, R. Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1968. KLAUSMEIER, H., CHAT-ALA, E., & FRAYER, D. Conceptuul learning and development: A cognitive vielv. New York: Academic Press, 1974. KUHLMAN, F., & ANDERSON, R. Kuhlman-Anderson meusure of academic potential. Princeton: Personnel Press, Inc., 1963. LANDAU, B. Development of concept formution in educable mentally returded and normal boys. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1968. (University Microfilms No. 69-2337). LUKIA, A. The role of speech in the regulation of normal and abnormal behavior. New York: Pergamon Press, 1961. MCCALL, R. The use of multivariate procedures in developmental psychology. In P. Mussen (Ed.), Curmichael’s manual of child psychology. New York: Wiley, 1970. Vol. 1.
LABELS
AND
CONCEPT
ATTAINMENT
291
N., & FURTH, H. The influence of language on concept attainment in educable retarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1963, 67, 733-739. MILLER, L., HALE, G., & STEVENSON, H. Learning and problem solving by retarded and normal subjects. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1968, 72, 681-690. NORCROSS, K. The effects on discrimination performance of the similarity of previously acquired stimulus names. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1958, 56, 305-309. NORCROSS, K., & SPIKER, C. The effects of type of stimulus pretaining on discrimination performance in pre-school children. Child Development. 1957, 28, 79-84. PREHM, H. Concept learning in culturally disadvantaged children as a function of verbal pretraining. Exceptional Children, 1966, 32, 599-604. RASMUSSEN, R., & ARCHER, E. Concept identification as a function of language pretraining and task complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1961, 61, 437-441. REESE, H. Verbal mediation as a function of age. Psychological Bulletin, 1962, 59,502-509. MILGRAM,
ROBINSON,
S., & ROBINSON,
N. The menially
retarded
child, a psychological
approach.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966. Pp. 316-340. STEPHENS, W. Category usage of normal and subnormal children on three types of categories. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1966, 71, 266-273.
REFERENCE 1. KLAUSMEIER,
tual learning
H.,
IXGISON,
L.,
and development
T.,
NOTES
C. Development of concepassessment series I: Equilateral triangle (Working
SIPPLE,
& KATZENMEYER,
Paper No. 119). Madison: Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learning, 1973. 2. FINN, J. Multivariance-univariate and multivariate analysis of variance and covariance: A Forfran IV program (Version 4). State University of New York at Buffalo, 1968.
EDUCATIONAL
PSYCHOLOGY
2,284
-291 (1977)
The Effect of Labels and Instruction on Concept Attainment in the Educable Mentally Retarded RICHARD M. GAKC;IUI.O Univrrsip
of Wisconsin
The present experiment examined concept attainment in 80 educable mentally retarded and 80 normal boys of high and low mental age. The concept of an equilateral triangle was assessed following random exposure to one of four experimental conditions assessing the influence of verbal labels and instruction on the labels. A 2 x 2 x 4 multivariate analysis of variance revealed a significant effect of mental age; however, retarded and normal subjects did not differ in mean performance on any of the five dependent measures. The hypothesized treatment effect was significant at the formal level of concept attainment. The findings were discussed in terms of theoretical and educational implications.
Concept learning of normal and retarded children has long been a concern of psychologists. Recently, Klausmeier, Ghatala, and Frayer (1974) advanced a model of conceptual learning and development (CLD model) which delineated four invariant and successive levels of obtaining the same concept. A concept may be attained at either the concrete, identity, classificatory, or formal level. The levels differ both in inclusiveness and level of abstraction. Each level presumes mastery of the preceding level. Attainment of a concept at the concrete level occurs when an individual attends to, discriminates, and remembers the stimulus that was discriminated. The same operations need to be present for attainment of a concept at each of the successively higher levels. The additional operation which distinguishes the identity level from the concrete level requires that the learner be able to discriminate various forms of the same stimulus object despite changes in perspective or other irrelevant details. This involves generalizing or abstracting the relevant from the irrelevant features of the stimulus object. Concept attainment at the classificatory level incorporates the operations present at the two lower attainment levels plus one additional operaThis research was supported by the Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learning, supported in part as a research and development center by funds from the National Institute of Education, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (Center Contract No. NE-C-00-3-0065). This article is based on a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment for the Ph.D. degree at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. A brief version of this paper was presented at the 54th Annual International Convention of the Council of Exceptional Children, Chicago, April, 1976. Requests for reprints should be sent to Richard M. Gargiulo, who is now at the Department of Special Education, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403. 284 Copyright @ 1977 by Academic Press. Inc All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
LABELS
AND
CONCEPT
ATTAINMENT
285
tion. This operation requires that an individual must now generalize to at least two different instances of a concept as being equivalent in some manner. Generalization necessitates abstracting the relevant attributes of the stimulus object while disregarding the irrelevant attributes. These attributes may be perceptual or nonperceptual instances. The individual reaches conceptual maturity once he attains the formal level. Concept labels are a necessary prerequisite for concept mastery at the formal level. According to the CLD model, an individual may acquire concept labels at any of the three prior levels of attainment. However, at the formal level, labels are of critical importance. The learner must be able to name the concept, infer the relevant attributes, and differentiate a concept in terms of its defining attributes. For example, at the formal level, the learner demonstrates a concept of dog if, when shown illustrations of dogs, wolves, and foxes of various sizes and colors, he properly designates the dogs as such, labels them as dogs, and names the attributes which distinguish the dogs from the nonexamples. A plethora of empirical evidence is available which supports the relationship between concept labels, labeling behavior, and the cognitive operations necessary for concept attainment as posited by the CLD model (Cantor, 1955; Carey & Goss, 1957; Deno, Jenkins, & Marsey, 1971; Johnson & O’Reilly, 1964; Katz, 1963; Norcross, 1958; Norcross & Spiker, 1957; Rasmussen & Archer, 1961). The results of these investigations have indicated that labels facilitate concept attainment, and that, in general, verbal competency plays a very important role in children’s ability to solve various conceptual tasks. This is especially so with the educable mentally retarded individual. Many performance differences between normal and retarded children can be explained as being due to an impaired ability to use verbal symbols as a means of controlling behavior and of abstracting from experience (Furth & Milgram, 1965; Luria, 1961; Milgram & Furth, 1963; Miller, Hale, & Stevenson, 1968). In contrast, Stephens (1966), Blount (1968), and Landau (1968) found that educable retardates supplied with appropriate verbal training through experimental manipulation performed as well as or better than their normal peers on various concept learning tasks. The present study investigated the effects of verbal labels only and labels with instruction on concept attainment in educable mentally retarded (EMR) and normal male subjects of high and low mental age (MA). The concept examined was that of an equilateral triangle. It was anticipated that high MA boys would perform significantly better than low MA boys. Additionally, no difference was predicted between mentally retarded and normally developing boys on concept attainment. The work of Prehm (1966) suggests that the rank order of treatments would be (a) control, (b) verbal labels only, (c) verbal labels and instruction pertaining to pentagon,
286
RICHARD
M.
GARGIULO
and (d) verbal labels with instruction pertaining to equilateral triangle. The last two treatments were hypothesized to result in significantly higher concept attainment than the control condition. METHOD
Subjects One-hundred-sixty subjects, 80 educable mentally retarded boys and 80 normal boys, participated in the experiment. Subjects were stratified into low or high MA groups. Low MA corresponded to a MA range of 5.0-7.5 years; high MA corresponded to a MA range of 7.6- 10.0 years. The subjects were chosen from schools within a large metropolitan Wisconsin city. The normal subjects were selected from first- and third-grade classrooms. The EMR subjects were chosen from both primary and intermediate special education classrooms. Table 1 presents the mean MA, CA, and IQ of the subjects.
Materials Lessons. Four 16-min lessons were constructed that presented selected labels and instruction on the labels. The verbal labels chosen were from a battery of tests on the equilateral triangle developed at the Wisconsin R & D Center (Klausmeier, Ingison, Sipple, & Katzenmeyer, Note 1). Selection was based upon the importance of the labels for the attainment of the concept being taught in the lessons and tested in the battery. One lesson was developed for each of the four treatment conditions, with the presentation standardized across groups. Each lesson was reviewed by mathematics curriculum experts to assure accuracy of content. Treatment I was a lesson on the equilateral triangle and consisted of 12 labels plus instruction in which nine labels were common to the defining attributes (e.g., angle, equal, and polygons) of both equilateral triangles and pentagons and three labels specific to equilateral triangle (i.e., triangle, equilateral triangle, and three). Instruction consisted of the experimenter teaching the definition of the selected labels using an inductive approach. Felt cut-outs of different sizes and colors were also used to help teach the attributes of equilateral triangles and regular pentagons. Treatment II was similar in content to Treatment I, but incorporated a lesson on pentagons. This lesson included the nine attribute labels of Treatment I plus three labels specific to pentagons (i.e., pentagon, regular pentagon, and five). Treatment II was developed as a transfer measure to assess the generalizability of label instruction when using a different but related concept. Treatment III was designed to assess the influence of labels without accompanying instruction. This lesson contained the nine common labels found in both Treatments I and II plus the specific labels from each treatTABLE 1 MEAN
Grout Normal Low High Retarded Low High
MA, CA,
AND
IQ
OF NORMAL
AND RETARDED
SUBJECTS
n
MA
CA
IQ
40 40
6.21 (.447) 8.53 (.752)
7.06 (.611) 8.95 ( ,700)
88.20 ( 6.93) 95.38 (11.37)
40 40
6.26 (542) 8.33 (.488)
10.08 (1.41) 11.61 ( ,854)
75.03 ( 8.27)” 81.73 ( 7.39)”
Note. Standard deviations are given in parentheses. U Extrapolation from IQ tables of Kuhlman- Anderson Test Manual.
LABELS
AND
CONCEPT
ATTAINMENT
287
ment. Subjects in this condition therefore received 15 labels without instruction on the labels. The subjects assigned to the control group, Treatment IV, received a placebo lesson on cutting tools to equate the time that the experimenter spent with the other treatment groups. The labels used in each lesson were photographically set and presented on white 12.5 x 7.5cm file cards with felt attached to one side. Each letter was approximately 6 mm high. A large black flannel board was used for presentation purposes. Dependent measure. The assessment inventory was a battery of R & D Center tests on the equilateral triangle (Klausmeier et al., Note 1). The tests measure performance related to distinct levels of conceptual development as posited by the CLD model. Performance assessed was the total number of 29 items correct on the concrete, identity, classificatory, and formal (discriminating attributes and vocabulary) subtests of the battery. Responses were scored as being either correct or incorrect. The inventory was presented in booklet form and group administered according to procedures outlined in the administrator’s manual. All test questions were read twice by the experimenter.
Procedure All subjects were administered the Kuhlman-Anderson Measure of Academic Potential (Kuhlman & Anderson, 1963) appropriate for their mental age level approximately two weeks prior to the initiation of the experimental treatments. Based upon test results, the experimenter randomly chose 40 primary EMR subjects from a group of 48 retardates whose MA was between 5.0 and 7.5 years. Forty first-grade boys were then randomly selected from a group of 46 first-graders whose MA was also between 5.0 and 7.5 years. The same procedure was followed when selecting the high MA (7.6- 10.0 years) EMR and normal subjects. Each group was chosen from a pool of 45 boys. Subjects received the treatments in groups of five whenever possible, with the order of presentation randomized. The subjects were escorted to a quiet room and administered the lesson appropriate for their treatment condition. Each lesson concluded with the subject receiving the assessment inventory. Upon completion of the session, subjects were returned to their classroom. Additionally, all teachers whose students participated in the experiment received an evaluation form on which they indicated whether or not their students had received instruction on the labels presented in the lessons.
Experimental
Design
The experiment employed a 2 x 2 x 4 multivariate analysis of variance, with two levels of Mental Age, two levels of Mental Classification, and four Experimental Conditions. The dependent variables were the five subtests of the assessment inventory. Within each classification there were 80 subjects, 40 high MA and 40 low MA boys. Subjects within each mental age level of each classification were randomly assigned to one of four conditions such that there were 10 subjects per cell. Tukey’s HSD test (Kirk, 1968)was applied in making appropriate post-hoc pairwise comparisons.
RESULTS
A multivariate analysis of variance (Finn, Note 2) was performed on the five correlated subtests of the Equilateral Triangle Test Battery. The multivariate analysis indicated a significant main effect of Mental Age, F(5,140) = 7.3775, p < .OOOl.This analysis also provided no evidence to suggest that retarded subjects differed in learning from the normal subjects, F(5,140) = 1.1163, p > .05. Since the multivariate analysis was significant for the variable of Mental Age, univariate analysis of variance
288
RICHARD
M.
GARGIULO
tests were conducted on the five dependent measures as recommended by McCall (1970). Significant univariate probabilities were indicated for all measures QJ < .04 to p < .0002). The effect of mental age and retarded versus normal on each of the dependent variables is presented in Table 2. Perusal of the table indicates that high MA boys performed significantly better than their low MA counterparts and retarded and normal subjects did not significantly differ in mean performance. In addition, the main effect of Treatment Condition also reached significance, F(15,387) = 7.8254, p < .OOOl. Univariate F tests indicated significance only for the vocabulary measure, F(3,144) = 41.3763, p < .OOOl. Tukey tests revealed that subjects assigned to the equilateral triangle condition performed significantly better than subjects assigned to the other three treatment conditions @ < .05). The post-hoc analysis also indicated that subjects who received instruction on the pentagon had a significantly higher mean score than subjects assigned to either the labels only or control condition 0, < .05). The multivariate analysis did not indicate significance for any of the possible interactions, F’s < 1.4179, p > .05. TABLE 2 MEAN PERFORMANCE SCORESON THE EQUILATERAL TRIANGLE TEST BATTERI
Retarded Low MA
n
Concrete
40
7.20 (1.69) 7.82 ( 54) 7.51 (1.29)
7.17 (1.33) 7.80 ( .51) 7.48 (1.05)
7.70
High MA
40
M Total
80
Normal Low MA
40 40
M Total
80
M Total Low MA
80
High MA
80
Classificatory
Discrim. Attributes
Vocabulary
2.77 ( 57) 2.61 ( 31)
1.17 ( .95) 1.70 (1.18) 1.43 (1.10)
2.52 (1.63) 3.02 (1.14) 2.77 (1.42)
7.80 (1.11) 7.75 ( .89)
7.70 ( .72) 7.72 (1.13) 7.71 ( .94)
2.20 ( .91) 2.72 ( .59) 2.46 ( 31)
1.35 (1.07) 1.65 (1.05) 1.50 (1.W
2.20 (1.60) 2.95 (1.01) 2.57 (1.38)
7.45 (1.29) 7.81 ( .87)
7.43 (1.10) 7.76 ( .87)
2.32 ( .95) 2.75 ( .58)
1.26 (1.01) 1.67 (1.11)
2.36 (1.61) 2.89 (1.07)
( High MA
Identity
.W
2.45 (
.98)
Nore. Total number of correct responses on the concrete and identity tests is eight; total correct on the classificatory and discriminating attributes tests is three; and on the vocabulary tests, seven. Standard deviations are given in parentheses.
LABELS
AND
CONCEPT
ATTAINMENT
289
Nineteen of the 21 classroom teachers (90.47%) involved in the study responded to the questionnaire which sought to ascertain whether or not the subjects had received teacher instruction on the labels prior to presentation in the experiment. The results of the questionnaire, and examination of appropriate curriculum guides and textbooks, supported the assumption that the subjects were unfamiliar with the majority of the labels prior to the experiment. DISCUSSION
The hypothesized main effect of MA was substantiated, thus suggesting that the mental age of the subject, rather than being retarded or normal, was the determining factor in task performance. Robinson and Robinson (1966) suggest that the higher the MA of the child the greater the verbal competency. Hence, the high MA subjects were able to effectively use the labels as verbal mediators which facilitated performance, while the low MA subjects were ineffective possibly due to a deficiency in verbal mediation (Reese, 1962). That is, the labels were inadequate as mediators of response. A complementary explanation of a production deficiency (Flavell, Beach, & Chinsky, 1966) hypothesizes that the labels did not serve as mediators because of the low MA subjects’ habitual failure to produce them at the proper time. However, whether the performance of the low MA subjects was due to a mediational deficiency or a production deficiency remains obscure. A further possibility is that the required cognitive operations necessary for successful task completion as posited by the CLD model were beyond the conceptual ability of the low MA subjects. The favorable comparison between the retardates and normals is consistent with the findings of Stephens (1966) and Landau (1968) and provides evidence that educable retardates supplied with appropriate verbal training are neither verbally nor conceptually inferior to normal peers of similar mental ages. Such evidence suggests that the experimental treatments increased the verbal sophistication of the EMR’s to a level comparable to that of the normals. However, a ceiling effect on the concrete and identity measures possibly depressed the scores of the normals to such a degree that comparable performance was indicated. A further explanation of an experiential factor favoring the retardates, whereby the retarded subjects supplied their own meaningful labels which facilitated performance, also seems tenable. Overall, the treatments affected only a narrow range of concept attainment, specifically, performance at the formal level. This finding could be interpreted as confirming that labels are a necessary prerequisite for concept mastery at this level. It remains unresolved, however, whether or not the subjects responded on a perceptual rather than a strictly conceptual
290
RICHARD
M.
GARGIULO
basis. Gibson and Gibson (1955) would argue that perceptual learning occurs during verbal training rather than the labels functioning as mediating or cue-producing responses. The post-hoc analysis supported the third hypothesis and the work of Prehm (1966), thus confirming the generalizability of instruction and implying that the retardates were able to transfer, which aided subsequent performance. It would appear that experience in learning names and differentiating the characteristics of the stimuli positively affected concept attainment, whereas providing labels without instruction was nonfacilitative. A reasonable conclusion would be that verbal labeling can facilitate concept attainment but is certainly not a necessary condition. It would seem that to improve concept attainment one should educate children on the various mental operations involved in conceptualizing. REFERENCES BLOUNT, W. Concept usage research with the mentally retarded. Psychological Bulkfin,
1968, 69, 281-294. CANroa, G. Effects of three types-of pretraining on discrimination learning in pre-school children. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1955, 49, 339-342. CAREY, J., & Goss, A. The role of mediating verbal responses in the conceptual sorting behavior of children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1957, 90, 69-74. DENO, S., JENKINS, J., & MARSEY, J. Transfer variables and sequence effects in subjectmatter learning. Journul of Educational Psychology, 1971, 62, 365-370. FLAVELL, J., BEACH, D., & CHINSKY, J. Spontaneous verbal rehearsal in a memory task as a function of age. Child Development, 1966, 37, 283-299. FURTH, H., & MILGRAM, N. The influence of language on classification: A theoretical model applied to normal, retarded, and deaf children. Genetic Psychology Monograph, 1965, 72, 317-351. GIBSON, J., &GIBSON, E. Perceptual learning: Differentiation or enrichment? Psychological Revielcl, 1955, 62, 32-41. JOHNSON, D., & O’REILLY, C. Concept attainment in children: Classifying and defining. Journul of Educational Psychology. 1964, 55, 71-74. KATZ, P. Effects of labels on children’s perception and discrimination learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1963, 66, 423-428. KIRK, R. Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1968. KLAUSMEIER, H., CHAT-ALA, E., & FRAYER, D. Conceptuul learning and development: A cognitive vielv. New York: Academic Press, 1974. KUHLMAN, F., & ANDERSON, R. Kuhlman-Anderson meusure of academic potential. Princeton: Personnel Press, Inc., 1963. LANDAU, B. Development of concept formution in educable mentally returded and normal boys. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1968. (University Microfilms No. 69-2337). LUKIA, A. The role of speech in the regulation of normal and abnormal behavior. New York: Pergamon Press, 1961. MCCALL, R. The use of multivariate procedures in developmental psychology. In P. Mussen (Ed.), Curmichael’s manual of child psychology. New York: Wiley, 1970. Vol. 1.
LABELS
AND
CONCEPT
ATTAINMENT
291
N., & FURTH, H. The influence of language on concept attainment in educable retarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1963, 67, 733-739. MILLER, L., HALE, G., & STEVENSON, H. Learning and problem solving by retarded and normal subjects. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1968, 72, 681-690. NORCROSS, K. The effects on discrimination performance of the similarity of previously acquired stimulus names. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1958, 56, 305-309. NORCROSS, K., & SPIKER, C. The effects of type of stimulus pretaining on discrimination performance in pre-school children. Child Development. 1957, 28, 79-84. PREHM, H. Concept learning in culturally disadvantaged children as a function of verbal pretraining. Exceptional Children, 1966, 32, 599-604. RASMUSSEN, R., & ARCHER, E. Concept identification as a function of language pretraining and task complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1961, 61, 437-441. REESE, H. Verbal mediation as a function of age. Psychological Bulletin, 1962, 59,502-509. MILGRAM,
ROBINSON,
S., & ROBINSON,
N. The menially
retarded
child, a psychological
approach.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966. Pp. 316-340. STEPHENS, W. Category usage of normal and subnormal children on three types of categories. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1966, 71, 266-273.
REFERENCE 1. KLAUSMEIER,
tual learning
H.,
IXGISON,
L.,
and development
T.,
NOTES
C. Development of concepassessment series I: Equilateral triangle (Working
SIPPLE,
& KATZENMEYER,
Paper No. 119). Madison: Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learning, 1973. 2. FINN, J. Multivariance-univariate and multivariate analysis of variance and covariance: A Forfran IV program (Version 4). State University of New York at Buffalo, 1968.