Skip to main content

Creating the Components for Teaching Concepts

Abstract

An important dimension of Direct Instruction (DI) programs involves teaching conceptual behavior related to broadly applicable generalizations of a content domain. The current article outlines the necessary components for teaching a concept in any domain. The first step (1) is to conduct a concept analysis of the critical features that define the concept, as well as the features that vary from instance to instance of the concept. From this prescription we must (2) develop a range of typical and far-out examples of the concept that illustrate both the critical and variable features, (3) develop a minimum rational set of close-in nonexamples of the concept, each of which is missing only one critical feature, (4) develop matched example/nonexample pairs to highlight the critical feature missing in each example, and (5) develop additional examples and nonexamples that may be needed to produce the desired discriminations. Multiple exemplar teaching is not enough. Teaching a concept this way produces generative responding to examples as well as nonexamples not presented during instruction. To assess learners’ generative responding, we must (6) create another set of far-out examples and close-in nonexamples from the concept-analysis prescription. Finally, after initially acquiring conceptual behavior, learners must (7) practice with additional far-out examples and close-in nonexamples. Once these components are created, a teacher is ready to develop an instructional sequence featuring tasks that include context-setting descriptions, rules, examples, and nonexamples.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 6.
Fig. 7.
Fig. 8.
Fig. 9.
Fig. 10.
Fig. 11.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Tiemann and Markle (1990) consider naming nonexamples as examples instances of “overgeneralization,” and naming examples as nonexamples instances of “undergeneralization,” although we do not prefer these terms.

References

  1. Becker, W. (1986). Applied psychology for teachers: A behavioral cognitive approach. Science Research Associates.

  2. Engelmann, S. (1969). Conceptual learning. Dimensions..

  3. Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. (1991). Theory of instruction (rev. ed.). National Institute for Direct Instruction.

  4. Herrnstein, R. J., Loveland, D. H., & Cable, C. (1976). Natural concepts in pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 2(4), 285–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.2.4.285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Johnson, D. A. (2014). The need for an integration of technology, behavior-based instructional design, and contingency management: An opportunity for behavior analysis. Revista Mexicana de Analisis de la Conducta [Mexican Journal of Behavior Analysis], 40, 58–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Johnson, K., Street, E., Kieta, A., & Robbins, J. (2020). The Morningside Model of Generative Instruction. Sloan.

  7. Layng, T. (2018). Tutorial: Understanding concepts: Implications for behavior analysts and educators. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 42, 345–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-018-00188-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Markle, S. M. (1967). Empirical testing of programs. In P . C. Lange (Ed.), Programmed instruction: Sixty–sixth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education: 2 (pp. 104–138). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  9. Markle, S. (1990). Designs for instructional designers. Morningside Press.

  10. Markle, S., & Tiemann, P. (1969). Really understanding concepts, or, in fruminous pursuit of the Jabberwock. Stipes.

  11. Markle, S., & Tiemann, P. (1974). Some principles of instructional design at higher cognitive levels. In R. Ulrich, T. Stachnik, & J. Mabry (Eds.), Control of human behavior (Vol. III) (pp. 312–323). Scott, Foresman.

  12. Merrill, D., & Tennyson, R. (1992). Teaching concepts: An instructional design guide. Educational Technology Publications.

  13. Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Tennyson, R., Woolley, F., & Merrill, D. (1972). Exemplar and nonexemplar variables which produce correct concept classification behavior and specified classification errors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 144–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Tiemann, P., & Markle, S. (1990). Analyzing instructional content: A guide to instruction and evaluation. Morningside Press.

  16. Watanabe, S., Sakamoto, J., & Wakita, M. (1995). Pigeons' discrimination of painting by Monet and Picasso. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 63(2), 165–174. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1995.63-165.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kent Johnson.

Ethics declarations

All of the procedures in this study which involved human participants were conducted according to ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Johnson, K., Bulla, A.J. Creating the Components for Teaching Concepts. Behav Analysis Practice 14, 785–792 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-021-00626-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Instructional design
  • concept learning
  • generative responding