Mechanisms of Spatial Learning: Teaching Children Geometric Categories

  • Linsey Smith
  • Raedy M. Ping
  • Bryan J. Matlen
  • Micah B. Goldwater
  • Dedre Gentner
  • Susan Levine
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8684)

Abstract

Children’s representations of geometric categories like triangles are often centered on a prototypical exemplar (e.g., an equilateral triangle). New cases are judged based on perceptual similarity to the prototype; such a strategy leads to systematic errors in categorization. Creating correct geometric categories requires children to move beyond a reliance on perceptual similarity and learn category-defining rules (e.g., a triangle is an enclosed, three-sided shape). In this research, we test whether a brief training experience using comparison could help three- and four-year-old children learn the category of triangle. Further, we ask whether different types of comparisons (within-category or between-category) support learning in distinct ways. The data indicate that both types of comparison fostered category learning, but that within-category comparisons promoted generalization to new exemplars whereas between-category comparisons reduced overgeneralization to non-exemplars. Furthermore, these effects were moderated by the perceptual similarity of the compared pairs. The results indicate that comparison can foster spatial category learning.

Keywords

Spatial Learning Analogy Comparison Contrast Categorization Geometric Categories Education 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Satlow, E., Newcombe, N.: When is a triangle not a triangle? Young children’s conceptions of geometric shapes. Cognitive Development 13, 547–559 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Forbus, K.D.: Qualitative modeling. WIREs Cogn. Sci. 2, 374–391 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ankowski, A.A., Vlach, H.A., Sandhofer, C.M.: Comparison Versus Contrast: Task Specifics Affect Category Acquisition. Inf. Child. Dev. 22(1), 1–23 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Casasola, M.: Can language do the driving? The effect of linguistic input on infants’ categorization of support spatial relations. Developmental Psychology 41, 183–191 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Childers, J.B.: Attention to multiple events helps 21⁄2-year-olds extend new verbs. First Language 31, 3–22 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Christie, S., Gentner, D.: Where hypotheses come from: Learning new relations by structural alignment. J. Cognition and Development 11(3), 356–373 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gentner, D., Namy, L.: Comparison in the Development of Categories. Cognitive Development 14, 487–513 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kotovsky, L., Gentner, D.: Comparison and Categorization in the Development of Relational Similarity. Child Development 67, 2797–2822 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Waxman, S.R., Klibanoff, R.S.: The role of comparison in the extension of novel adjectives. Developmental Psychology 36(5), 571–581 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Namy, L.L., Gentner, D.: Making a silk purse out of two sow’s ears: Young children’s use of comparison in category learning. J. Experimental Psychology: General 131(1), 5–15 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Markman, A.B., Gentner, D.: Structure-Mapping in the Comparison Process, Amer. J. of Psychology 113(4), 501–538 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K.D., Gentner, D.: The Structure-Mapping Engine: Algorithm and Examples. Artificial Intelligence 20(41), 1–63 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gentner, D.: Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science 7(2), 155–170 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gentner, D.: Bootstrapping the mind: Analogical processes and symbol systems. Cognitive Science 34(5), 752–775 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Markman, A.B., Gentner, D.: Structural alignment during similarity comparisons. Cognitive Psychology 25, 431–467 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gentner, D., Markman, A.B.: Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist 52, 45–56 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Higgins, E.J., Ross, B.H.: Comparisons in Category Learning: How Best to Compare for What. In: Carlson, L., Hölscher, C., Shipley, T. (eds.) Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 1388–1393. Cognitive Science Society, Austin (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gentner, D., Anggoro, F.K., Klibanoff, R.S.: Structure-mapping and Relational Language Support Children’s Learning of Relational Categories. Child Development 82(4), 1173–1188 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gentner, D., Levine, S., Dhillon, S., Poltermann, A.: Using structural alignment to facilitate learning of spatial concepts in an informal setting. In: Kokinov, B., Holyoak, K.J., Gentner, D. (eds.) Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Analogy. NBU Press, Sofia (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gentner, D., Levine, S.C., Dhillon, S., Ping, R., Bradley, C., Poltermann, A., Honke, G.: Rapid learning in a children’s museum via analogical comparison (submitted)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Goldstone, R.L., Sakamoto, Y.: The Transfer of Abstract Principles Governing Complex Adaptive Systems. Cognitive Psychology 46, 414–466 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gentner, D., Rattermann, M.J.: Language and the career of similarity. In: Gelman, S.A., Byrnes, J.P. (eds.) Perspectives on Thought and Language: Interrelations in Development, pp. 225–277. Cambridge University Press, London (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Goldstone, R.L.: Isolated and Interrelated Concepts. Memory & Cognition 24, 608–628 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McLure, M.D., Friedman, S.E., Forbus, K.D.: Learning concepts from sketches via analogical generalization and near-misses. Proc. Cog. Sci., 465–470 (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gick, M.L., Paterson, K.J.: Do contrasting examples facilitate schema acquisition and analogical transfer? Canadian Journal of Psychology 46, 539–550 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kurtz, K.J., Gentner, D.: Detecting anomalous features in complex stimuli: The role of structured comparison. JEP: Applied 19(3), 219–232 (2013)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Waxman, S., Gelman, R.: Preschoolers’ use of superordinate relations in classification and language. Cognitive Development 1, 139–156 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Namy, L.L., Clepper, L.E.: The differing roles of comparison and contrast in children’s categorization. J. Experimental Child Psychology 107, 291–305 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Linsey Smith
    • 1
  • Raedy M. Ping
    • 2
  • Bryan J. Matlen
    • 1
  • Micah B. Goldwater
    • 3
  • Dedre Gentner
    • 1
  • Susan Levine
    • 2
  1. 1.Northwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA
  2. 2.The University of ChicagoChicagoUSA
  3. 3.The University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations