Advertisement

Tutorial: Understanding Concepts: Implications for Behavior Analysts and Educators

  • T. V. Joe Layng
Article
  • 26 Downloads

Abstract

How we make sense of the world is founded on our understanding of simple and complex concepts, which form the basis for our vocabulary (Layng, 2016a). We often gain this understanding through life experience, but conceptual learning can be explicitly taught. This tutorial provides a brief introduction to concept learning and teaching that has its roots in behavior analysis and related disciplines (Bruner, Goodnow, & Austin, 1956; Englemann & Carnine, 1982; Markle & Tiemann, 1969; Mechner, 1962; Tiemann & Markle, 1990). Presented here are examples drawn from a sequence designed to teach physical science to elementary school learners to illustrate how concept teaching can be used to improve instruction. These examples include both intradimensional concept teaching, where features of a physical stimulus guide behavior, and interdimensional concept teaching, where relations among different stimuli guide behavior (Bruner, Goodnow, & Austin, 1956; Layng, 2014; Tiemann & Markle, 1990). Efficiencies in teaching using conceptual inheritance designs is briefly described, as well as the implications of what are referred to as conceptual hierarchies, where instances of one concept may share features inherited from a superordinate concepts. The purpose here is not to perform a literature review, but to provide an overview of how concept analysis and teaching may improve instruction.

Keywords

Concept Abstract tact Intradimensional Interdimensional 

Notes

References

  1. Alessi, G. (1987). Generative strategies and teaching for generalization. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 5, 15–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2014, February). Project 2061: Some things middle and high school students know and misconceptions they hold. Retrieved February 2014, from http://www.project2061.org/research/assessment/MiddleHighMisconceptions.htm.
  3. Bronowski, J. (1956). Science and human values. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  4. Bruner, J., Goodnow, J., & Austin, G. (1956). A study of thinking. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.Google Scholar
  5. Clark, D. C. (1971). Teaching concepts in the classroom: A set of teaching prescriptions derived from experimental research. Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph, 62, 253–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Donahoe, J. W., & Palmer, D. C. (2009). Learning and complex behavior. Richmond, MA: Ledgetop. (Original work published 1994).Google Scholar
  7. Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. (1982). Theory of instruction: Principles and applications. New York, NY: Irvington.Google Scholar
  8. Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. (2016). Theory of instruction: Principles and applications (rev. ed.). Eugene, OR: NIFD Press.Google Scholar
  9. Global Partnership for Science Education through Engagement (n.d.). Think like a scientist. Retrieved August 2018, from https://tls.scienceathome.org
  10. Goldiamond, I. (1966). Perception, language, and conceptualization rules. In B. Kleinmuntz (Ed.), Problem solving (pp. 183–224). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. Johnson, K., & Street, E. M. (2018). Generative responding through contingency adduction. In R.-A. Rehfeldt, J. Tarbox, M. Fryling, & L. Hayes (Eds.), Applied behavior analysis of language and cognition. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger.Google Scholar
  12. Johnson, K. R., & Layng, T. V. J. (1992). Breaking the structuralist barrier: Literacy and numeracy with fluency. American Psychologist., 47, 1475–1490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johnson, K. R., & Layng, T. V. J. (1994). The morningside model of generative instruction. In R. Gardner III, D. M. Sainato, J. O. Cooper, T. E. Heron, W. L. Heward, & J. W. Eshleman (Eds.), Behavior analysis in education: Focus on measurably superior instruction. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  14. Koch, K. (1970). Wishes, lies, and dreams: Teaching children to write poetry. New York, NY: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  15. Layng, T. V. J. (2014). Learning science design and development requirements: An update of Hendrix and Tiemann’s “Designs for designers.”. Mexican Journal of Behavior Analysis, 40, 39–57.Google Scholar
  16. Layng, T. V. J. (2016a). Thirty million words––and even more functional relations: A review of Suskind’s Thirty million words. The Behavior Analyst, 39, 339–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Layng, T. V. J. (2016b). Converging qualities of personal competencies. In M. Murphy, S. Redding, & J. Twyman (Eds.), Handbook on personalized learning for states, districts, and schools (pp. 19–36). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University, Center on Innovations in Learning. Retrieved from www.centeril.org/2016Handbook/resources/Layng_chapter_web.pdf. Accessed Nov 2018.
  18. Layng, T. V. J., Sota, M., & Leon, M. (2011). Thinking through text comprehension I: Foundation and guiding relations. The Behavior Analyst Today, 12, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Layng, T. V. J., & Twyman, J. S. (2013). Education + technology + innovation = learning? In Handbook on innovations in learning. Philadelphia, PA: Center for Innovation in Learning.Google Scholar
  20. Leon, M., Ford, V., Shimizu, H., Stretz, A., Thompson, J., Sota, M., Twyman, J. S., & Layng, T. V. J. (2011). Comprehension by design: Teaching young learners to comprehend what they read. Performance Improvement Journal, 50, 40–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leon, M., Layng, T. V. J., & Sota, M. (2011). Thinking through text comprehension III: The programing of verbal and investigative repertoires. The Behavior Analyst Today, 12, 11–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Markle, S. M. (1975). They teach concepts, don’t they? Educational Researcher, 4, 3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Markle, S. M. (1978, February). Teaching conceptual networks. NSPI Journal, 17(1), 4–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Markle, S. M. (1991). Designs for instructional designers. Seattle, WA: Morningside Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Markle, S. M., & Tiemann, P. W. (1969). Really understanding concepts: Or in frumious pursuit of the Jabberwock. (Slide/Tape instructional program) Chicago, IL: Tiemann Associates.Google Scholar
  26. Markle, S. M., & Tiemann, P. W. (1970). “Behavioral” analysis of “cognitive” content. Educational Technology, 10, 41–45.Google Scholar
  27. Mechner, F. (1962). Behavioral analysis for programmers. The Mechner Foundation. Retrieved June 2014, from http://mechnerfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Behavioral-Analysis-for-Programmers.pdf
  28. Merrill, M. D., Tennyson, R. D., & Posey, L. O. (1992). Teaching concepts: An instructional design guide. (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  29. Next Generation Science Standards. (2013). Final next generation science standards. Retrieved October 2018, from https://www.nextgenscience.org/news/final-next-generation-science-standards-released
  30. Robbins, J. K. (2011). Problem solving, reasoning, and analytical thinking in a classroom environment. The Behavior Analyst Today, 12, 40–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Robbins, J. K., Layng, T. V. J., & Karp, H. J. (1995). Ambiguity and the abstract tact: A signal detection analysis. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 12, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rosales-Ruiz, J., & Baer, D. (1997). Behavioral cusps: A developmental and pragmatic concept for behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 533–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story. Boston, MA: Authors Cooperative.Google Scholar
  34. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sota, M. (2012). The effect of contrasting analogies on understanding of and reasoning about natural selection. Poster presentation, the 38th Annual Conference of the Association for Behavior Analysis International, Seattle, WA, May 25–29.Google Scholar
  36. Sota, M., Leon, M., & Layng, T. V. J. (2011). Thinking through text comprehension II: Analysis of verbal and investigative repertoires. The Behavior Analyst Today, 12, 21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tennyson, R. D., & Park, O. (1980). The teaching of concepts: A review of the instructional design literature. Review of Educational Research, 50(1), 55–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tiemann, P. W., & Markle, S. M. (1990). Analyzing instructional content: A guide to instruction and evaluation. Seattle, WA: Morningside Press.Google Scholar
  39. Tiemann, P. W., & Markle, S. M. (n.d.) On beyond the single concept. (Unpublished ms.).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Generategy, LLCSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations