This article was downloaded by: [UZH Hauptbibliothek / ZentralbibliothekZürich]On: 21 December 2014, At: 17:43Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T3JH, UK

The Exceptional ChildPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cijd19

Incidental learning in mentallyretarded childrenN.N. Singh a & M.G. Ahrens aa Mangere Hospital and Training School , Auckland,New ZealandPublished online: 06 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: N.N. Singh & M.G. Ahrens (1978) Incidental learningin mentally retarded children, The Exceptional Child, 25:1, 53-63, DOI:10.1080/0156655780250106

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0156655780250106

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liablefor any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses,damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arisingdirectly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of theuse of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form

to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use canbe found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

43 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

The Exceptional Child Vol. 25, No. 1 March, 1978 53

Incidental learning in mentally retarded children

N.N. SINGH and M.G. AHRENS,

Mangere Hospital and Training School, Auckland, New Zealand.

Abstract

Incidental learning of film content was investigated in institutionalizedretarded children. In the first of two studies, 40 retardates at six IQ levels,three MA levels, and five CA levels were tested. In the second study, 21 Down'sSyndrome, organic, and familial retardates were tested. The stimuli consistedof an 8-minute film which was shown individually. All subjects were questionedon twenty incidental aspects of the film. In Experiment 1, a curvilinearrelationship was found between incidental learning and IQ. Incidental learningimproved with MA. A retest, taken 120 hours later, revealed a 10.9 percentloss of incidental learning. Higher IQ children showed the greatest loss.Experiment 2 reported no difference in incidental learning as a function ofetiology of retardation. A retest showed a short term memory deficit in organicretardates and a significant loss of incidental learning in Down's Syndromeand familial retardates. Implications of these results were discussed in termsof structured teaching techniques.

Studies of discrimination learning in young children show that retardedchildren exhibit selective attention deficit when compared to normalchildren of comparable mental age (Zeaman and House, 1963). The abilityto attend selectively to critical or relevant stimulus features of theenvironment and to ignore other irrelevant features or cues is an integralpart of the learning process. Intentional learning (Postman, 1964) involvesresponding primarily to cues intended to be learnt. What is learnt isdetermined by the child's prior experience and by the directions andinstructions given to him. Any discrimination formed that is other thanthe one intended is termed incidental learning. It can be defined as the"acquisition of knowledge about stimuli other than those relevant to thedirected learning task" (Goldstein and Kass, 1961).

In a review of the extant literature, Hardman and Drew (1975) reporttwelve studies which investigated incidental learning in mentally retardedchildren. In a number of these studies weak methodologies were employedand incidental learning could have been confounded with the effects ofother uncontrolled variables. The results of these studies taken in concertare equivocal.

The most common design used in incidental learning studies involvesthe use of short term memory (STM) tasks which measure both intentional

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

43 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

54 Singh and Ahrens

(task relevant) and incidental (task irrelevant) recall. The question ariseswhether the incidental learning material is directly or indirectly relevantto the incidental learning task. If it is, then the test is of generalisationand transfer of training (cf. Hardman and Drew, 1975) rather than ofincidental learning.

Tests for incidental learning can be used in naturalistic situations wherethese problems need not arise. The use of films, such as those on children'sTV programmes, offer such an opportunity where there is no obviousreason for undirected learning to occur. A short film can be shown toa child with nothing being stated about remembering anything of itscontents. What the child retains of the contents of the film, which isincidental to the plot and central characters, can be taken to be as a resultof incidental learning and a test of this retention can be used as an indexof incidental learning. The efficacy of this design was demonstrated byHale, Miller and Stevenson (1968) in a study, using samples of normalchildren, which showed that incidental learning can be most effectivelymeasured by this method.

This paper reports two experiments which used this design to test forincidental learning in retarded children.

Experiment 1

Previous studies on incidental learning have investigated the differencesbetween mentally retarded and normal or gifted children equated onmental age (Goldstein and Kass, 1961; Singer, 1964; Hetherington andBanta, 1962) or chronological age (Baumeister, 1963; Logan, Prehm andDrew, 1968).

In a test which involved a directed task and three incidental learningtasks, Goldstein and Kass (1961) found that retarded and gifted children,who were matched on mental age, initially acquired incidental learningto the same degree but as the complexity of the tasks increased, the retardedchildren were more inaccurate than the gifted children. However, inanother study which compared retarded and normal children of comparablemental age, Singer (1964) found that retarded children exhibited anincidental learning deficit. This study has also shown that retardedchildren's ability to learn incidentally increases with age. Baumeister(1963) found that when retarded and normal children were matched onchronological age, normals performed significantly better than retardateson incidental and intentional learning tasks which involved one presenta-tion and immediate recall. Retardates and normals performed equally well,however, when a retention test was given 48 hours later. This was takenas evidence for a STM deficit in retarded children.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

43 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

The semantic differential technique 5 5

This experiment investigated incidental learning of film content in thementally retarded as a function of their IQ, mental age, chronological ageand period of institutionalization.

Method

Subjects

The subjects were 23 male and 17 female residents of the MangereHospital and Training School, a state institution for the mentally retardedin Auckland, New Zealand. They were randomly selected from thesegment of the population which attended the training school, had CAof 5 to 19 years, no gross physical, sensory or motor disabilities, and nosevere emotional distrubance. They had the following known etiologies:neonatal hypoglycaemia, intracranial haemorrhage, meningitis, perinataland neonatal cerebral anoxia, and microcephaly. Their IQs on theStanford-Binet and WISC intelligence tests ranged from 30 to 59 (mean= 40); MAs ranged from 2 years 9 months to 7 years 6 months (mean= 4 years 4 months); and CAs ranged from 5 years 6 months to 17 years11 months (mean = 13 years 2 months). Their period of institutionaliza-tion ranged from 8 months to 10 years (mean = 5 years 7 months).

Apparatus

A National Colour Video Cassette Recorder NV-3082 and a 19-inchvideo monitor was used to record and present an 8-minute film sequencefrom a children's TV programme "Spot On" (TV1 Productions). Thefilm was simple but interesting by design and was in sound and colour.The children were used to watching TV only in black and white so theywere highly motivated to watch a film in colour. They had not seen thisfilm before.

Procedure

The subjects were shown the film individually in the TV room of theschool. The experimenter's instructions were: "I am going to show youa short film today. I want, you to sit back and enjoy it". The childrenwere not aware of the purpose of the experiment and were given noindication that they would be required to answer several questions on thecontents of the film.

The first scene was of a young girl who introduced the film and ex-plained to the children that it was about a pet donkey. Then a transport truckpulled up outside the TV studio, a donkey stepped out, and was pushedup the steps of the studio. The programme's hosts quizzed the owner ofthe donkey about it for about five and a half minutes. The owner pointed

!AL STATE

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

43 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

56 Singh and Ahrens

out that it was a Jerusalem donkey with a cross marked on its side. Shewent on to describe the donkey's likes, habits, and so on. Finally the younggirl thanked the donkey and its owner for appearing on the programme.

When the film ended, the experimenter said: "Did you enjoy the film?Good. Now, just before you go, I wish to ask you a few questions onwhat you have just seen." The subjects were asked 17 open-ended questions(e.g., How many people were in the film?) and three yes-no questions.The questions were constructed to tap only the incidental aspects of thevisual and auditory contents of the film. The questions could be dividedpost hoc into six categories: number, color, name, visual, verbal, anddeduction.

All subjects were retested on the same questions for retention ofincidental learning 120 hours after the first test.

Results

The number of correct responses was used as the criterion for incidentallearning. An analysis of the correct responses on the basis of sex revealedno significant difference between males and females.

The percentage of correct responses of all subjects according to IQgroups are presented in Figure 1. The results indicate a sharp increase

%50 "

45 - /q

» / / \•2 / / \o / ' \ RETEST| 40- / x X)

cS 35- / .

30 - / /

/

o7

25 -1 1 I 1 I i

30-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60IQ

Figure 1. Percentage of correct responses as a function of IQ.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

43 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

The semantic differential technique 57

in the percentage of correct responses from an IQ of 30 to an IQ of 45,an insignificant increase from 45 to 50, and a gradual decrease from 50to 60. This indicates a curvilinear relationship between incidental learningand IQ. An analysis of variance revealed a significant IQ X incidentallearning interaction (F = 6.43, df = 4,35, p<.001). A post hoc divisionof the IQ scores shows that there is a significant increase in correctresponses from IQs 30-35 to 46-50 (t = 3.2, df = 21, p<.01) but aninsignificant decrease from IQs 46-50 to 56-60 (t = 0.24, df = 17).

The correct responses of all subjects are plotted in Figure 2 as a functionof their MA, CA and the number of years institutionalized. A significant

Figure 2. Percentage of correct responses as a function of MA, CA and years in institution.

%55 - Q Years in

I InstitutionOMA /

n 9hi

/ / / /V) / l i t

i 4 1 Jt^

u-oJfA yr.30 - / / Y^^ i

25 - o ' // TEST

//

20- 4 RETESTi I I i I |

1-3 4 6 7-9 10-12 13-15 16-18Age/Years

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

43 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

58 Singh and Ahrens

MA x incidental learning interaction (F = 7.9, df = 2,37, p<.01) wasobtained. Fisher t tests were computed between means for the three MAgroups where the mean number of correct responses for each of the MAgroups were as follows: MA 1-3 years = 5.69, MA 4-6 years = 8.22,and MA 7-9 years = 10.5. This comparison of means demonstrates thatthe percentage of correct responses increased significantly from MA 1-3to MA 4-6 (t = 3.49, df = 34, p<.01) and from MA 4-6 to MA 7-9(t = 2.24, df = 25, p<.01).

No significant differences in incidental learning were found betweenconsecutive CA groups or between the youngest and the oldest CA groups.Similarly, no significant differences were found between consecutive groupsof period of institutionalization, nor between the shortest and the longestperiod of institutionalization.

Figure 3 shows the developmental changes in the scores for six categoriesof questions. Each data point was obtained by computing the proportionof subjects who responded correctly to each question and calculating themean of the proportion within each of the six categories. Data was obtainedas a function of the subjects' MA and CA. The six categories of questions

Figure 3. Mean proportion of subjects responding correctly in response category as afunction of MA and CA.

.90 - •

- "8° " Jf 'g // deductions

§. gQ ( j rS'/ - W^^\^^^ verbald ' deductions f/ \ ^ " * ~ - — ^ ^

I .20-verbal /-y% - £^V /K%

£ number/ / 9T^ ^ ^ X ^ 7 < «10 < X V^0 Q n a m e ^ _ , y ^ ^ n a m e

I i i I t | i j \

1-3 4-6 7-9 4-6 7-9 10-12 13-15 16-18

AGE (MA) AGE (CA)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

43 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

The semantic differential technique 59

can be ranked in terms of the proportion of subjects who respondedcorrectly in each category. As a function of MA, the rank sequence (withthe highest first) is as follows: visual, deductions, colour, verbal, numberand names. And as a function of CA: deductions, visual, verbal, colour,number and names. Statistical analysis of these scores were precluded bythe interdependence of the measures, and by the difference in the type,number, and the difficulty of the questions in the various categories.

The retention data are also presented in Figures 1 and 2. The overallretention scores for males and females showed no statistical significance.However, the initial learning and the retention of incidental learningresponses for all subjects showed a marginally significant loss (10.9%) ofincidental learning over a period of 120 hours. Retention scores as afunction of IQ showed that only the higher IQ subjects had significantdecreases in incidental learning scores, notably children with IQs between46 and 60. There were no significant differences between the test/retestscores of the subjects as a function of CA, MA, and the period ofinstitutionalization. In absolute terms, however, there was greater retentionof incidental learning with older children.

Discussion

The results of this study show a curvilinear relationship betweenincidental learning and IQ. Although no literature seems available onincidental learning vs IQ functions in retarded children, studies withnormal children have shown a curvilinear relation between incidentallearning and CA (Maccoby and Hagen, 1965; Siegal and Stevenson, 1966;Hale, Miller, and Stevenson, 1968). The present results do not indicatesuch a relationship between CA and incidental learning. The mostnoteworthy result is the finding that incidental learning is linearlycorrelated with MA in retarded children. No significant orderly rela-tionship was found to exist between incidental learning and the periodof institutionalization.

Experiment 2

This experiment examined incidental learning and its retention in threeetiologically different groups of mentally retarded children. In an earlierstudy, Hetherington and Banta (1962) compared the learning functionsof familial and organic retardates with that of normals. Familial retardatesand normals exhibited significant superiority over organic retardates onincidental learning. This difference, however, disappeared when incidentallearning was retested 48 hours later showing that organic retardates learntless initially but retained more than the familial retardates and normals.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

43 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

60 Singh and Ahrens

The findings of Hetherington and Banta (1962) have been questionedby Hardman and Drew (1975) on the basis of inadequate assessmentprocedures used in the selection of organic and familial retardates. Thepresent investigation is an attempt to provide more conclusive data onincidental learning and STM deficits of Down's Syndrome, organic, andfamilial retardates.

Method

Subjects

Twenty-one retarded children, 12 males and 9 females, from MangereHospital and Training School were used as subjects. Seven were diagnosedas Down's Syndrome, 7 as familial retardates, and 7 as organic retardates.Care was taken in the selection of the subjects so that there was nodiagnostic overlap among the three groups. The organic subjects wereselected on the basis of adequate historical evidence and unequivocalneurological or medical symptoms. The non-organic subjects were screenedso that the sample excluded subjects who had any symptoms or historicalindications suggestive of organicity. The three groups were matched onMA, and CA. The group characteristics are given in Table 1.

Table 1: Subject characteristics of treatment groups

Groups

Down's SyndromeOrganicFamilial

CA

X

13.5013.0013.30

SD

1.251.110.97

MA

X

3.803.903.90

SD0.600.780.66

IX

314035

QSD

3.753.604.00

Apparatus and Procedure

The apparatus and procedure were identical to that of Experiment 1.

Results

A preliminary analysis of the correct response means of males andfemales revealed no sex differences in the three groups. Further sexanalyses were collapsed in view of this finding and that of Experiment1.

Figure 4 shows the percentage correct responses as a function of etiology.An analysis of variance test revealed no significant differences betweenthe three etiological groups (F = 0.4, df = 2,18). The retention data arealso presented in Figure 4. Fisher t tests revealed a significant difference

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

43 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

The semantic differential technique 61

Downs Organic FamilialFigure 4. Percentage of correct responses as a function of etiology.

between the Down's Syndrome and organic retardates (t = 1.29, df =12, p<.15) and between Down's Syndrome and familial retardates (t =1.89, df = 12, p<.05). No significant difference was found in the retentionscores of organic and familial retardates.

It was found that organic retardates had the highest retention ofincidental learning. The difference in the incidental learning scoresbetween the initial test and the retest showed that the Down's Syndromechildren had a greater loss of original learning (t = 1.81, p<.05) thanthe familial retardates (t = 1.26, p<.15). The organic retardates'test/retest difference was not significant.

Discussion

The results indicate that the Down's Syndrome, organic, and familialretardates acquire incidental learning at about the same level. However,there is a marked difference in their retention of such learning when tested120 hours later. The organic retardates exhibited significant superiorityin retention over the Down's Syndrome and familial retardates. This studyconfirms the findings of Hetherington and Banta (1962) who showed thatorganically retarded children retained more incidental learning than thefamilially retarded and normal children.

%

35- /

» 33- /TEST

I 31 " * ^ ^ ,\ ' / RETESTfc 29 - /o /° /

27- /

25 - /

23-| I |

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

43 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

62 Singh and Ahrens

General discussion

The experiments described above provide evidence for incidental learn-ing of film content in mentally retarded children. A curvilinear relationshipwas found between incidental learning and IQ. There was an increasein incidental learning between the IQs of 30 and 50 and a decrease from50 to 60. It appears that lower IQ children are less attentive to the centralplot and relevant features of the film than higher IQ children. Withincreasing IQ, the children tend to attend more to the relevant cues thanthe irrelevant cues thus decreasing their incidental learning. Incidentallearning increased as a function of increasing MA, suggesting that MAis the more crucial variable in determining incidental learning than CAor period of institutionalization.

The retention results show that there is significant loss of incidentallearning when retardates are tested on the same questions after 120 hours.However, only the higher IQ children show this loss while the lower IQchildren exhibit STM deficit only. It appears that new learning interactsstrongly with previously learnt material resulting in retroactive inhibitionof such learning in higher IQ children . Also, it may be that the higherIQ children are less motivated to retain irrelevant incidental material.

The present findings are also in accord with those of Hetherington andBanta (1962) who found that normal children and familial retardates aresuperior than organic retardates on short-term recall of incidental materialbut equivalent after 48 hours. Organic retardates, in the present study,were found to be inferior in incidental learning to familial retardates butsuperior to Down's Syndrome children. However, when tested 120 hourslater organic retardates showed no loss of incidental learning while thefamilial retardates and the Down's Syndrome children had very significantlosses. This finding confirmed Hetherington and Banta's (1962) resultswhich also showed that organic retardates had a STM deficit.

The findings of this study coupled with those of Hetherington and Banta(1962) with regard to the STM deficit of organically retarded childrenhas important implications for designing more effective methods forteaching retardates of different etiologies. For those with STM deficitlearning materials need to be presented systematically and periodicallyrepeated so that learning may occur in stages with each presentationbuilding upon what has previously been learnt. For those like the Down'sSyndrome children, whose retention ability of incidental learning over aperiod of time is very minor, one has to begin almost from a tabula rasaeach time, with greater emphasis being placed on directed teaching.

Acknowledgements

This research was conducted while the first author was in receipt of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

43 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

The semantic differential technique 63

a Postgraduate Fellowship from the Medical Research Council (MRC)of New Zealand. Grateful appreciation is extended to Dr D.J. Woods,the medical superintendent of Mangere Hospital and Training School, forhis encouragement, to the teaching staff at the Training Centre forcooperation in providing the subjects, and to Mrs Judy Singh, for readingsuccessive drafts of this paper.

ReferencesBaumeister, A.A. A comparison of normals and retardates with respect to incidental and

intentional learning. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1963, 68, 404-408.Goldstein, H. & Kass, C. Incidental learning of educable mentally retarded and gifted

children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1961, 66, 245-249.Hale, G.A., Miller, L.K. & Stevenson, H.W. Incidental learning of film content: A

developmental study. Child Development, 1968, 39, 69-77.Hardman, M.L. & Drew, C.J. Incidental learning in the mentally retarded: A review.

Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 1975, 10, 3-9,Hetherington, E.M. & Banta, T.J. Incidental and intentional learning in normal and

mentally retarded children. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology,1962, 55, 402-404.

Logan, D.R., Prehm, H.J. & Drew, C.J. Effects of unidirectional training on bi-directionalrecall in retarded and nonretarded subjects. American Journal of Mental Deficiency,1968, 73, 493-495.

Maccoby, E.E. & Hagen, J.W. Effects of distortion upon central vs. incidental recall:Developmental trends. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1965, 2, 280-289.

Postman, L. Short-term memory and incidental learning. In A.W. Melton (ed.), Categoriesof Human Learning. New York, Academic Press. Pp 146-201.

Siegal, R.V. & Stevenson, H.W. Incidental learning: A developmental study. ChildDevelopment, 1966, 37, 811-817.

Singer, R.V. Incidental and intentional learning in retarded and normal children.Dissertation Abstracts, 1964, 25, 652.

Zeaman, D. & House, B.J. An attentional theory of retardate discrimination learning.In N.R. Ellis (Ed.), Handbook of Mental Retardation. New York, McGraw-Hill,pp. 159-222.

N.N. Singh is clinical psychologist and head of Psychology Department at Mangere Hospitaland Training School.M.G. Ahrens is the Senior Training Officer at Mangere Hospital and Training School,Auckland, New Zealand.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

43 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014