The Effect of The Effect of Attribute Emphasis in Attribute Emphasis in

Photographic Photographic Illustrations on Illustrations on

Concept Attainment Concept Attainment by Learners having by Learners having Varying Degrees of Varying Degrees of Field DependenceField Dependence

Richard S. Croft Richard S. Croft

OverviewOverview

IntroductionIntroduction Concept LearningConcept Learning Illustrations for InstructionIllustrations for Instruction Field DependenceField Dependence The HypothesesThe Hypotheses The ExperimentThe Experiment Results and AnalysesResults and Analyses ConclusionConclusion

IntroductionIntroduction

Common learning task:Common learning task:Classification of things or ideas Classification of things or ideas based on characteristicsbased on characteristics

AKA AKA Concept Learning Concept Learning or or Concept AttainmentConcept Attainment

IntroductionIntroduction

Learning concrete concepts Learning concrete concepts is a very is a very visualvisual task task

Best to use genuine instances to Best to use genuine instances to teach?teach?

Lions, tigers and bears (oh, my!)Lions, tigers and bears (oh, my!)

Illustrations are frequently more Illustrations are frequently more practicalpractical

IntroductionIntroduction

What kind of illustration is most What kind of illustration is most effective?effective?

Much-studied, frustrating issueMuch-studied, frustrating issue

IntroductionIntroduction

Field dependence:Field dependence:individual’s ability to impose individual’s ability to impose structure on a perceived fieldstructure on a perceived field

Field dependent learners less Field dependent learners less successful at visual taskssuccessful at visual tasks

IntroductionIntroduction

How can we choose illustrations to How can we choose illustrations to help in concept learning?help in concept learning?

Can we develop visual treatments to Can we develop visual treatments to assist field dependent learners in assist field dependent learners in concept learning?concept learning?

Concept Learning: Concept Learning: TerminologyTerminology

ConceptConcept: “…a partitioning of a : “…a partitioning of a stimulus population.” (Bourne, 1970)stimulus population.” (Bourne, 1970)

Concept attainmentConcept attainment: “…the subject : “…the subject must learn a rule for classifying must learn a rule for classifying objects into mutually exclusive objects into mutually exclusive categories.” (Mayer, 1977)categories.” (Mayer, 1977)

TerminologyTerminology

Rules for classification describe Rules for classification describe specific characteristicsspecific characteristics

AttributesAttributes (Bruner, Goodnow, & (Bruner, Goodnow, & Austin, 1956) or Austin, 1956) or cuescues (Trebasso, (Trebasso, 1963) are characteristics1963) are characteristics

Attributes may be critical or non-Attributes may be critical or non-criticalcritical

TerminologyTerminology

Attributes represent values within a Attributes represent values within a dimensiondimension (color may be red or (color may be red or green)green)

StrategiesStrategies

Bruner, Goodnow, Austin (1956)Bruner, Goodnow, Austin (1956)

Selection strategies: Focusing & Selection strategies: Focusing & ScanningScanning

Presentation strategies: Wholist & Presentation strategies: Wholist & PartistPartist

FocusingFocusing and and WholistWholist more effective more effective

TransferTransfer

(Di Vesta & Peverly, 1984)(Di Vesta & Peverly, 1984)

Learning from a wide variety of Learning from a wide variety of instances reduces the chance that instances reduces the chance that non-critical attributes become bound non-critical attributes become bound in learner’s conceptualizationin learner’s conceptualization

Wider application ==better transferWider application ==better transfer

Task ComplexityTask Complexity

Increased number of dimensions Increased number of dimensions increases difficulty of learning…even increases difficulty of learning…even irrelevant dimensions (Bourne & irrelevant dimensions (Bourne & Haygood, 1959, 61)Haygood, 1959, 61)

Subtle distinctions increase difficultySubtle distinctions increase difficulty(Baum, 1954;Battig & Bourne,1961)(Baum, 1954;Battig & Bourne,1961)

Apparent Familiarity of Apparent Familiarity of DomainDomain

Bruner et al. (1956)Bruner et al. (1956)

Concepts that Concepts that seemseem to lie within a to lie within a familiar domain are harder to learn familiar domain are harder to learn than unfamiliar concepts with than unfamiliar concepts with identical complexityidentical complexity

Assisting Concept Assisting Concept LearningLearning

Presentation ModePresentation ModeKoran, Koran, & Freeman (1976)Koran, Koran, & Freeman (1976)Di Vesta & Peverly (1984):Di Vesta & Peverly (1984):

Defining important characteristics Defining important characteristics first facilitates concept learningfirst facilitates concept learning

Assisting Concept Assisting Concept LearningLearning

Park (1984):Park (1984):

Pointing out criteria is not enoughPointing out criteria is not enough

Understanding the definition in Understanding the definition in contextual form is important toocontextual form is important too

Assisting Concept Assisting Concept LearningLearning

Modifying ExamplesModifying ExamplesTrabasso (1963) and Turner (1983)Trabasso (1963) and Turner (1983)

Emphasizing subtle attributes helpsEmphasizing subtle attributes helps

Type of emphasis is significantType of emphasis is significant

Instructional IllustrationInstructional Illustration

Intrinsically visual tasks benefit from Intrinsically visual tasks benefit from illustration…verbal tasks usually illustration…verbal tasks usually don’tdon’t

Types of images vary greatlyTypes of images vary greatlyChoice of illustration depends on Choice of illustration depends on many factorsmany factors

Recognition & Recall factorsRecognition & Recall factors

Image selection FactorsImage selection Factors

Dwyer (1967, 1968, 1975), and Dwyer (1967, 1968, 1975), and manymany othersothers

Lesson PacingLesson Pacing

Prior KnowledgePrior Knowledge

General IntelligenceGeneral Intelligence

Special IllustrationsSpecial Illustrations

Recognition FactorsRecognition Factors

Fleming & Sheikhan (1972):Fleming & Sheikhan (1972):Amount of detail X Viewing timeAmount of detail X Viewing timeinfluences recognitioninfluences recognition

Berry (1983):Berry (1983):Color (realistic or not) increases Color (realistic or not) increases recognitionrecognition

RecallRecall

Moore & Sasse (1971):Moore & Sasse (1971):Image detail X Age of viewerImage detail X Age of viewer

Katzman & Nyenhuis (1972):Katzman & Nyenhuis (1972):Color vs. GrayscaleColor vs. GrayscaleViewers Viewers likedliked color better color betterBut recall was no different except But recall was no different except for peripheral informationfor peripheral information

RecallRecall

Berry (1991):Berry (1991):Realistic color, non-realistic color, Realistic color, non-realistic color, and grayscaleand grayscaleRealistic color yielded best recallRealistic color yielded best recall

Differences may be due to age of Differences may be due to age of participants and nature of contentparticipants and nature of content

Field DependenceField Dependence

Asch & Witkin (1948):Asch & Witkin (1948):Individuals’ determining “upright”Individuals’ determining “upright”Body Adjustment Test (BAT)Body Adjustment Test (BAT)Rod and Frame Test (RFT)Rod and Frame Test (RFT)Internal vs. External cuesInternal vs. External cues

Witkin, Dyk, Faterson, Goodenough, Witkin, Dyk, Faterson, Goodenough, & Karp (1962): Disembedding & Karp (1962): Disembedding figuresfigures

Field DependenceField Dependence

Individual scores on BAT, RFT and Individual scores on BAT, RFT and EFT (Embedded Figures Test) EFT (Embedded Figures Test) correlate.correlate.

Individuals who rely heavily on Individuals who rely heavily on external rather than internal cues external rather than internal cues tend to have difficulty with visual tend to have difficulty with visual tasks. tasks.

FD Effects on LearningFD Effects on Learning

Detecting subtle cues Detecting subtle cues (Moore & Gross, 1973)(Moore & Gross, 1973)

Slective attention Slective attention (Avolio, Alexander, Barret, & Sterns, (Avolio, Alexander, Barret, & Sterns, 1981)1981)

Automatize simple sequences Automatize simple sequences (Jolly & Reardon, 1985)(Jolly & Reardon, 1985)

FD & Concept LearningFD & Concept Learning

Kirschenbaum (1968):Kirschenbaum (1968):

FI learners tend to use Wholist strategyFI learners tend to use Wholist strategyFD learners tend to use Partist strategyFD learners tend to use Partist strategy

Park (1984):Park (1984):

FD learners seem to rely on external FD learners seem to rely on external examples rather than organizing their examples rather than organizing their ownown

FD & TransferFD & Transfer

Frank (1983):Frank (1983):Paired association taskPaired association task

Free recall: no difference between Free recall: no difference between FD & FIFD & FI

Alternate context: FI outperform FDAlternate context: FI outperform FD

FD & IllustrationsFD & Illustrations

Canelos & Taylor (1981), Canelos & Taylor (1981), Canelos, Taylor & Altschuld (1983).Canelos, Taylor & Altschuld (1983).Wise (1984):Wise (1984):

No interaction between complexity No interaction between complexity and degree of FD using Dwyer’s and degree of FD using Dwyer’s materialmaterial

FD & IllustrationsFD & Illustrations

French (1984):French (1984):Illustrating concept-learning task Illustrating concept-learning task

Color coded line drawings improve Color coded line drawings improve performance of FD learnersperformance of FD learners

ConclusionsConclusions

Increasing number of attribute Increasing number of attribute dimensions increases difficulty of dimensions increases difficulty of concept learningconcept learning

Increased information requires more Increased information requires more processing timeprocessing time

Reducing complexity speeds Reducing complexity speeds processing but may inhibit transferprocessing but may inhibit transfer

Emphasizing important attributes Emphasizing important attributes facilitates learningfacilitates learning

ConclusionsConclusions

Field dependent learners have more Field dependent learners have more difficulty articulating complex imagesdifficulty articulating complex images

FD learners have greater difficulty FD learners have greater difficulty with transferwith transfer

Color coding images seems to help Color coding images seems to help FD learners identify salient attributesFD learners identify salient attributes

A Real World ProblemA Real World Problem

University students learning a large University students learning a large number of plant or animal species in number of plant or animal species in short time.short time.

Many dimensions, both relevant and Many dimensions, both relevant and irrelevant; limited time, limited irrelevant; limited time, limited feedback.feedback.

Need to transfer to non-classroom Need to transfer to non-classroom settings.settings.

Proposed SolutionProposed Solution

Use realistic illustrations to facilitate Use realistic illustrations to facilitate transfertransfer

Emphasize important attributesEmphasize important attributes

Emphasis should provide particular Emphasis should provide particular benefit to FD learnersbenefit to FD learners

Hypothesis OneHypothesis One

Learners presented a lesson on tree Learners presented a lesson on tree identification illustrated with identification illustrated with photographs having emphasized photographs having emphasized criterial attributes will score higher criterial attributes will score higher on post-tests than learners on post-tests than learners presented a similar lesson that uses presented a similar lesson that uses unmodified photographs.unmodified photographs.

Hypothesis TwoHypothesis Two

Field independent learners will Field independent learners will score higher on the post tests than score higher on the post tests than field dependent learners, regardless field dependent learners, regardless of the type of illustration.of the type of illustration.

Hypothesis ThreeHypothesis Three

Field dependent participants in the Field dependent participants in the treatment group will demonstrate a treatment group will demonstrate a greater increase in performance greater increase in performance than their field independent than their field independent counterparts.counterparts.

(There will be a positive interaction (There will be a positive interaction between the treatment and degree between the treatment and degree of field dependence)of field dependence)

MethodolgyMethodolgy

Pretest (“Introductory Survey”) to Pretest (“Introductory Survey”) to rule out individuals with prior rule out individuals with prior knowledge of dendrology.knowledge of dendrology.

Group Embedded Figures Test Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) to determine degree of FD(GEFT) to determine degree of FD

Computer-based lesson on Computer-based lesson on identifying red maple, sugar maple, identifying red maple, sugar maple, norway maple, and silver maple by norway maple, and silver maple by looking at leaves.looking at leaves.

MethodologyMethodology

Thirty second delay.Thirty second delay. Computer-based post-test of fifteen Computer-based post-test of fifteen

randomly selected stimulirandomly selected stimuli Transfer test of 20 randomly chosen Transfer test of 20 randomly chosen

genuine leaves mounted on card genuine leaves mounted on card stockstock

Random assignment to groupRandom assignment to group 115 voluntary participants 115 voluntary participants

ResultsResults

31 FD participants31 FD participants

46 FI participants46 FI participants

38 indeterminant (mean GEFT +/- 38 indeterminant (mean GEFT +/- 1/2 SD)1/2 SD)

AnalysisAnalysis

Bartlett’s test for homogeneity of Bartlett’s test for homogeneity of means failed, so assumptions for means failed, so assumptions for ANOVA were not satisfiedANOVA were not satisfied

Use t tests for hypotheses one and Use t tests for hypotheses one and twotwo

T-test of Treatment T-test of Treatment EffectEffect

ControlControl TreatmeTreatmentnt

tt d.f.d.f.

Test 1Test 1

15 15 itemsitems

FDFD 8.5008.500 8.2168.216 (0.228)(0.228) 2929

Ind.Ind. 9.3899.389 10.60010.600 1.4371.437 3737

FIFI 11.06711.067 11.83911.839 0.8670.867 2222

OverallOverall 9.6129.612 10.65210.652 1.930 *1.930 * 108108

Test 2Test 220 20 itemsitems

TransfeTransferr

FDFD 10.87510.875 11.93311.933 0.7060.706 3131

Ind.Ind. 12.27812.278 14.55014.550 1.882 *1.882 * 3737

FIFI 13.80013.800 16.09716.097 1.767 *1.767 * 2525

OverallOverall 12.28612.286 14.68214.682 3.097 *3.097 * 106106

Effect of FDEffect of FD

FDFD FIFI tt d.f.d.f.

ControControll

Test 1Test 1

Test 2Test 2

8.5008.500 11.0611.0677

2.494 2.494 **

2929

10.8710.8755

13.8013.8000

1.865 1.865 **

3030

Treat-Treat-mentment

Test 1Test 1

Test 2Test 2

8.2678.267 11.8311.8399

4.060 4.060 **

2222

11.9311.9333

16.0916.0977

3.431 3.431 **

2727

InteractionInteraction

No ANOVANo ANOVA However, inspection shows that FD However, inspection shows that FD

participants scores were almost participants scores were almost identical in all conditions, so identical in all conditions, so interaction is ruled outinteraction is ruled out

ConclusionsConclusions

Overall, treatment improved Overall, treatment improved performance both in the computer-performance both in the computer-based test and in the transfer test.based test and in the transfer test.

FI learners performed better in all FI learners performed better in all cases.cases.

There was no evidence of interaction There was no evidence of interaction between the treatment and degree between the treatment and degree of field dependence.of field dependence.

Further StudyFurther Study

Pacing may be a variable to examine.Pacing may be a variable to examine.

What about the nature of emphasis?What about the nature of emphasis?

Combining the materials with some Combining the materials with some form of practice to encourage form of practice to encourage internalizing.internalizing.

Correct possible flaws in instruments.Correct possible flaws in instruments.

Treatment EffectTreatment Effect

TesTestt

ControlControl n mean n mean sdsd

TreatmentTreatment n mean n mean sdsd

TotalTotal n mean sd n mean sd

11 4949 9.69.6 2.82.8 6666 10.710.7 2.92.9 115115 10.210.2 2.92.9

22 4949 12.312.3 4.14.1 6666 14.714.7 4.14.1 115115 13.713.7 4.74.7

TtlTtl 4949 21.921.9 6.06.0 6666 25.325.3 6.46.4 115115 23.923.9 6.46.4