The purpose of this study was to compare traditional classification training for a set of abstract concepts with multiple-relations training consisting of inference practice and the use of a content diagram. To examine this, 200 undergraduate and graduate psychology students completed a Web-based tutorial covering the abstract concepts of a psychological theory of language and cognition. All participants received the same core instructional content and practice activities varied by experimental condition: some participants received classification training, some received multiple-relations training, some received a combination of both, and some received neither. Performance on a posttest with three subsections was evaluated. Participants who received classification training were significantly better at identifying new instances of the concepts than participants who did not. Neither classification training nor multiple-relations training had a significant effect on ability to identify concept definitions or answer application questions. Implications for the development of instruction for abstract concepts are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Al-KunifedA., & WanderseeJ. H. (1990). One hundred references related to concept mapping. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27 (10), 1069–1075.
2.
AndersonR. C., & KulhavyR. W. (1972). Learning concepts from definitions. American Educational Research Journal, 9(3), 385–390.
3.
BakerW. P., & LawsonA. E. (2001). Complex instructional analogies and theoretical concept acquisition in college genetics. Science Education, 85(6), 665–683.
4.
BloomB. S.EngelhartM. D.FurstE. J.HillW. H., & KrathwohlD. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: Cognitive domain.New York: McKay.
5.
BrownD. E., & ClementJ. (1989). Overcoming misconceptions via analogical reasoning: Abstract transfer versus explanatory model construction. Instructional Science, 18, 237–261.
6.
CampbellD. T., & StanleyJ. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research.Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
7.
CrosbieJ., & KellyG. (1994). Effects of imposed postfeedback delays in programmed instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27(3), 483–491.
8.
DagherZ. R. (1995). Review of studies on the effectiveness of instructional analogies in science education. Science Education, 79(3), 295–312.
9.
DuitR. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education, 75(6), 649–672.
10.
DupinJ., & JohsuaS. (1989). Analogies and “modeling analogies” in teaching some examples in basic electricity. Science Education, 73, 207–224.
11.
ElhelouM. A. (1997). The use of concept mapping in learning science subjects by Arab students. Educational Research, 39(3), 311–317.
FisherK. M. (1990). Semantic networking: The new kid on the block. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 1001–1018.
14.
GagnéR. M. (1965). The conditions of learning.New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
15.
GentnerD., & GentnerD. R. (1983). Flowing waters or teaming crowds: Mental models of electricity. In GentnerD. & StevensA. L. (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 99–129). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16.
GilbertS. (1989). An evaluation of the use of analogy, simile, and metaphor in science texts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 315–327.
17.
GlynnS. M.BrittonB. K.Semrud-ClikemanM., & MuthK. D. (1989). Analogical reasoning and problem solving in science textbooks. In GloverJ. A.RonningR. R., & ReynoldsC. R. (Eds.), A handbook of creativity: Assessment, research and theory.New York: Plenum.
18.
HansenJ. (1981). The effects of inference training and practice on young children's reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 3, 391–417.
19.
HayesS. C.Barnes-HolmesD., & RocheB. (2001). Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition.New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
20.
HortonS. V.LovittT. C., & BergerudD. (1990). The effectiveness of graphic organizers for three classifications of secondary students in content area classes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23(1), 12–22.
21.
HortonP. B.McConneyA. A.GalloM.WoodsA. L.SennG. J., & HamelinD. (1993). An investigation of the effectiveness of concept mapping as an instructional tool. Science Education, 77, 95–111.
22.
KellyG., & CrosbieJ. (1997). Immediate and delayed effects of imposed postfeedback delays in computerized programmed instruction. The Psychological Record, 47, 687–698.
23.
LuitenJ.AmesW., & AckersonG. (1980). A meta-analysis of the effects of advance organizers on learning and retention. American Educational Research Journal, 17, 211–218.
24.
MarkleS. M. (1969). Good frames and bad: A grammar of frame writing (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
25.
MarkmanE. M. (1981). Two different principles of conceptual organization. In LambM. E. & BrownA. L. (Eds.), Advances in developmental psychology (pp. 199–236). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
26.
MerrillM. D.TennysonR. D., & PoseyL. O. (1992). Teaching concepts: An instructional design guide (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
27.
MooreD. W., & ReadenceJ. E. (1984). A quantitative and qualitative review of graphic organizer research. Journal of Educational Research, 78(1), 11–17.
28.
MunsonK. J., & CrosbieJ. (1998). Effects of response cost in computerized programmed instruction. The Psychological Record, 48, 233–250.
29.
RossB. H., & MurphyG. L. (1999). Food for thought: Cross-classification and category organization in a complex real-world domain. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 495–553.
30.
StavyR. (1991). Using analogies to overcome misconceptions about conservation of matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 305–313.
31.
StewartI.Barnes-HolmesD.HayesS. C., & LipkensR. (2001). Relations among relations: Analogies, metaphors, and stories. In HayesS.Barnes-HolmesD., & RocheB. (Eds.), Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition (pp. 73–86). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
32.
StoryC. M. (1998). What instructional designers need to know about advance organizers. International Journal of Instructional Media, 25(3), 253–261.
33.
TennysonR. D., & CocchiarellaM. J. (1986). An empirically based instructional design theory for teaching concepts. Review of Educational Research, 56(1), 40–71.
34.
TennysonR. D., & ParkO. (1980). The teaching of concepts: A review of instructional design literature. Review of Educational Research, 50, 55–70.
35.
TessmerM.WilsonB., & DriscollM. (1990). A new model of concept teaching and learning. Educational Technology Research & Development, 38(1), 45–53.
36.
TiemannP. W., & MarkleS. M. (1990). Analyzing instructional content: A guide to instruction and evaluation.Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Company.
37.
VenvilleG. J., & TreagustD. F. (1997). Analogies in biology education: A contentious issue. The American Biology Teacher, 59(5), 282–287.
