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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
What we refer to here as attributes have been referred to by others using the terms features or properties. The term attribute will be used here, but should be considered to be synonymous with the others.
Thanks to Sara Pendergast for suggesting the “must have,” “can have” terminology.
How often has someone asked for the meaning of a word used in a sentence and one struggles to answer although the “meaning” of the sentence is crystal clear?
For an introduction to a behavior analytic approach to providing learners with an effective inquiry repertoire, see Robbins (2011).
A similar approach is taken to teaching principles; a principle describes a relation between concepts that can typically be stated, “If . . . , then . . . ” (Tiemann & Markle, 1990).
For a complete example of teaching young children an interdimensional concept, see the 14-step procedure for teaching “steeper” provided by Engelmann and Carnine (2016; also see, Layng, 2016a; Layng et al., 2011; Leon, Layng, & Sota, 2011b; Sota et al., 2011; Tiemann & Markle, 1990, for a more detailed discussion).
Further, once the critical and variable properties of various intradimensional and interdimensional concepts are described, and because one instance of a concept may be an example of another concept (e.g., cow and farm animal), instruction can be created that allows for teaching of what Markle (1978) described as conceptual networks. We can create exercises where learners come under the guidance of more than one set of features such that features of one are used to describe features of another, Skinner’s (1957) metaphorical tact. We can, for example, bring learners into contact with Rutherford’s atomic model where features of a solar system are used to describe features of the atom (see Bronowski, 1956, and Goldiamond, 1966, for this and other examples) or exquisitely teach children how to write poetry (Koch, 1970).
The program is available through Morningside Press, Seattle, WA.
References
Alessi, G. (1987). Generative strategies and teaching for generalization. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 5, 15–27.
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.
Bronowski, J. (1956). Science and human values. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Bruner, J., Goodnow, J., & Austin, G. (1956). A study of thinking. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
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.
Donahoe, J. W., & Palmer, D. C. (2009). Learning and complex behavior. Richmond, MA: Ledgetop. (Original work published 1994).
Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. (1982). Theory of instruction: Principles and applications. New York, NY: Irvington.
Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. (2016). Theory of instruction: Principles and applications (rev. ed.). Eugene, OR: NIFD Press.
Global Partnership for Science Education through Engagement (n.d.). Think like a scientist. Retrieved August 2018, from https://tls.scienceathome.org
Goldiamond, I. (1966). Perception, language, and conceptualization rules. In B. Kleinmuntz (Ed.), Problem solving (pp. 183–224). New York, NY: Wiley.
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.
Johnson, K. R., & Layng, T. V. J. (1992). Breaking the structuralist barrier: Literacy and numeracy with fluency. American Psychologist., 47, 1475–1490.
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.
Koch, K. (1970). Wishes, lies, and dreams: Teaching children to write poetry. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Markle, S. M. (1975). They teach concepts, don’t they? Educational Researcher, 4, 3–9.
Markle, S. M. (1978, February). Teaching conceptual networks. NSPI Journal, 17(1), 4–7.
Markle, S. M. (1991). Designs for instructional designers. Seattle, WA: Morningside Press.
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.
Markle, S. M., & Tiemann, P. W. (1970). “Behavioral” analysis of “cognitive” content. Educational Technology, 10, 41–45.
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
Merrill, M. D., Tennyson, R. D., & Posey, L. O. (1992). Teaching concepts: An instructional design guide. (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
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
Robbins, J. K. (2011). Problem solving, reasoning, and analytical thinking in a classroom environment. The Behavior Analyst Today, 12, 40–47.
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.
Rosales-Ruiz, J., & Baer, D. (1997). Behavioral cusps: A developmental and pragmatic concept for behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 533–554.
Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story. Boston, MA: Authors Cooperative.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
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.
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.
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.
Tiemann, P. W., & Markle, S. M. (1990). Analyzing instructional content: A guide to instruction and evaluation. Seattle, WA: Morningside Press.
Tiemann, P. W., & Markle, S. M. (n.d.) On beyond the single concept. (Unpublished ms.).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Layng, T.V.J. Tutorial: Understanding Concepts: Implications for Behavior Analysts and Educators. Perspect Behav Sci 42, 345–363 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-018-00188-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-018-00188-6