BRIDGING THE GAP: EVALUATING A FUSION OF PROCEDURES FOR CONCEPTUAL LEARNING

Abstract

Conceptual learning is demonstrated when a learner responds when new examples are presented (i.e., generalization) but not when new nonexamples are presented (i.e., discrimination). Gradually increasing the number of examples and nonexamples taught together (i.e., set-size expansion) promotes conceptual learning with nonhumans. Although set size impacts the speed of acquisition with humans, its effects on conceptual learning have not been evaluated. Therefore, the primary purpose of the current study was to compare acquisition and conceptual learning during two procedures: set-size expansion and single, full set-size. College students were taught two biological concepts, one using set-size expansion and the other with the full set of stimuli. Participants were given feedback on the accuracy of their responses during instruction and tested (with no feedback provided) to assess conceptual learning. There were no systematic differences in accuracy during instruction, duration of instruction, or conceptual learning between the full set and the set-size expansion procedures. However, accuracy during instruction did not reliably predict conceptual learning, demonstrating that conceptual learning must be measured rather than assumed.