Establishing fraction-decimal equivalence using a respondent-type training procedure.
The purpose of this study was to teach children fraction-decimal equivalence using the respondent-type training procedure and test for any emergent generalization. In the first experiemnt, subjects were respondently trained on the conditional discriminations; A1-->B1, A2-->B2, and tested B1-A1, B2-A...
| Publicado en: | Psychological Record Vol. 51; no. 1; pp. 151 - 166 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Psychological Record
Winter2001
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=507729509&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ssf uiTerm: 507729509 longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson) uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00332933 PSD jtl: Psychological Record issn: 00332933 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Winter2001 vid: 51 iid: 1 pid: 761 pub: Psychological Record artinfo: ui: 507729509 ppf: 151 ppct: 15 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 810KB tig: atl: Establishing fraction-decimal equivalence using a respondent-type training procedure. aug: au: Leader, Geraldine Barnes-Holmes, Dermot su: Association of ideas Discrimination learning Mathematics education Transfer of training sug: subj: Association of ideas Discrimination learning Mathematics education Transfer of training keyword: Association (Psychology) Transfer by generalization ab: The purpose of this study was to teach children fraction-decimal equivalence using the respondent-type training procedure and test for any emergent generalization. In the first experiemnt, subjects were respondently trained on the conditional discriminations; A1-->B1, A2-->B2, and tested B1-A1, B2-A2. Subjects were then trained on the conditional discriminations C1-->B1, C2-->B2 and tested B1-C1, B2-C2. Subjects were subsequently tested for the emergence of the untrained relations A-C and C-A. When subjects were presented with the Stimulus A1 they observed 1/4 and when subjects were presented with A2 they observed 2/4. When subjects were presented with B1 they observed a circle with the upper left quarter shaded and when subjects were presented with B2 they observed a circle divided into four quarters with the upper half shaded. When subjects were presented with C1 they observed 0.25 and when subjects were presented with C2 they observed 0.50. Experiment 2 was identical to Experiment 1 except that subjects were administered three generalization tests. In Generalization Test Number 1, the Stimuli A1, A2, C1, and C2 served as samples and shapes not seen in training but with the same shaded areas served as comparison stimuli. Generalization Test No. 2 was identical to the previous test, except that the comparison stimuli consisted of a shape not seen in training and the shaded area was altered. Generalization Test No. 3 was identical to the previous two tests except that the comparison stimuli were altered in that the number of shaded and unshaded areas was increased. Experiment 3 was identical to Experiment 2 except that an extra generalization test was added to the experiment. This test was identical to Generalization Test No. 3 of Experiment 2, except that the shaded areas were contiguous with each other. In Experiment 1, subjects were successful on all equivalence tests. In Experiment 2, subjects were successful on all equivalence tests and 50% of subjects successfully completed the final generalization tests. In Experiment 3, subjects were successful on all equivalence tests and on all generalization tests. Reprinted by permission of the publisher. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: N holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|