Download Word Diagrams in Teaching Classical Conditioning

The Psychological Record, 2002, 52, 129-138
WORD DIAGRAMS IN TEACHING CLASSICAL CONDITIONING
LYLE K. GRANT
Athabasca University
The present experiment examined the value of word diagrams
on the concept learning of university students. All students learned
the concept of classical conditioning by reading a lesson in which
the concept was defined and illustrated through examples and
nonexamples. A diagram group studied a lesson in which word
diagrams graphically illustrated the conditioning process in each
example. A nondiagram group studied the same lesson with the
diagrams omitted. On a posttest students classified novel
examples and nonexamples as such and explained their reasons
for their classifications. Diagram-group students were better at
classifying nonexamples and at providing the correct reasons for
classifying examples than were nondiagram-group students. Half
the students in the diagram group drew diagrams on the posttest
and half did not. Diagram drawers performed better than did
nondrawers on several measures.
An essential component of concept teaching is to present students
with a clear specification of the structure of a concept, which consists of
a statement of the critical features of a concept and how those features
are related . Clear specifications of concept structure have been
empirically validated in research (a) showing the value of concept
definitions (Anderson & Kulhavy, 1972; Johnson & Stratton, 1966; Miller &
Weaver, 1976) and (b) showing the value of analysis statements,
explanations of how the concept structure is fully represented in
examples and incompletely represented in nonexamples (Grant, McAvoy,
& Keenan, 1982; Tennyson, Steve, & Boutwell, 1975). Whereas concept
definitions describe the concept in abstract terms, analysis statements
relate the words in a concept definition to concrete examples of a
concept. For example, a definition of a square is a four-sided figure in
which the equal sides intersect one another at right angles. In this context,
the analysis statements would emphasize to students how the verbal
descriptors in this concept definition (e.g., "four-sided," "equal sides," "right
Please address requests for reprints and other correspondence about this article to Lyle
K. Grant, Psychology Centre, Athabasca University, Athabasca, Alberta, Canada T9S 3A3.
130
GRANT
angles") are present in specific examples of squares and are absent in
nonexamples of squares (e.g., rectangles, nonsquare parallelograms).
Applications of concept learning principles to instruction in behavioranalysis concepts have typically relied on standard text to present
concept definitions and analysis statements to students (Grant, 1996;
Miller, 19S0; Peterson, 1975; Reese & Woolfenden, 1973). In the present
experiment, the concept definition and the analysis statements were
supplemented by diagrams. The purpose of the study was to determine if
diagrams that represent concept definitions and examples improve
student learning.
Much of the richness of the discipline of behavior analysis is in the
study of complex behavior-environment relations or contingencies. This
richness, however, poses one of the major difficulties in teaching
behavior-analysis because complex relations between behavior and the
environment are difficult to describe using prose definitions. Recognizing
this problem, several observers have proposed diagramming systems for
clarifying contingency relations (Goldwater & Acker, 1995; Hummel,
Kaeck, Bowes, & Rittenhouse, 1994; Malott, 1992; Mechner, 1959;
Snapper, Kadden, & Inglis, 19S2). Relatedly, educators have also
advocated using diagrams to represent complex behavior-environment
relations in order to help students learn these concepts (Goldwater &
Acker, 1995; Mattaini, 1995; Michael & Schafer, 1995).
The advocates of diagrams to teach behavior-analysis concepts have
advanced persuasive arguments in favor of using diagrams that have
considerable intuitive appeal. However, research into the effectiveness of
diagrams in communication and teaching has been lacking. The present
experiment examined the effectiveness of a simple word diagram in
teaching classical conditioning. Basic word diagrams have long been
used to illustrate classical conditioning in introductory psychology texts
and texts in the psychology of learning (e.g., Keller & Schoenfeld , 1950,
p. 19, p. 31), even though the use of these diagrams has never been
empirically validated. In an informal survey of behavior-analysis
textbooks, Goldwater and Acker (1995) expressed concern that recent
textbooks have omitted diagrams.
In the present study, students used diagrams as part of a selfinstructional concept-teaching program. The diagrams supplemented
ordinary text as a means of showing how the definition applied to specific
examples of classical conditioning.
Method
Participants
Sixty university students from introductory psychology participated to
fulfill a course requirement. Their grades were independent of performance
in the study. All participants complied with the experimental procedures.
WORD DIAGRAMS
131
General Procedure
When students arrived at the research site they obtained a materials
package that included written directions. Initially, students read a 500word introductory lesson on classical conditioning concepts. This lesson
defined and exemplified unconditioned reflexes , conditioned reflexes,
unconditioned stimuli (US), unconditioned responses (UR), neutral stimuli
(NS), conditioned stimuli (CS), and conditioned responses (CR). The
lesson also compared and contrasted classical conditioning with both
pseudoconditioning and operant conditioning.
After reading the introductory lesson, the students read a conceptual
exercise consisting of examples and nonexamples of classical
conditioning. Each of the examples was based on a published account of
human classical conditioning. One of the nonexamples illustrated operant
conditioning and one illustrated pseudoconditioning. Beneath each item
was an "analysis" that identified the item as an example or a nonexample.
For examples, the analysis identified the US, UR, NS, CS, and CR. For
nonexamples, the analysis explained why the item lacked the critical
features of classical conditioning and when applicable identified the item
as an instance of operant conditioning or pseudoconditioning.
After completing the conceptual exercise, students took a posttest
consisting of six novel (i.e., previously unseen) items, three examples of
classical conditioning (Elison, 1941; Razran, 1949; Vaitl, Gruppe, &
Kimmel, 1985) and three nonexamples. One nonexample was an
instance of operant conditioning, one was an instance of
pseudoconditioning, and one was an instance of neither operant
conditioning nor pseudoconditioning.
For each item, each student was required to classify the item as an
example or a non example and to analyze the presence or absence of the
critical features (i.e., US, UR, NS, CS, and CR). For the nonexamples each
student was also asked to identify them as examples of operant conditioning
or of pseudoconditioning. The posttest instructions did not specify whether
the student should draw diagrams in answering the items.
Experimental Treatments and Design
There were two experimental treatments: Matched versus unmatched
examples/nonexamples and the use of diagrams. In the matched condition,
the conceptual exercise consisted of 14 example/nonexample pairs
presented side by side. The examples (Bierley, McSweeney, &
Vannieuwkerk, 1985; Cannon & Baker, 1981; Cannon, Best, Batson, &
Feldman, 1983; Clarke & Hayes, 1984; Dekker, Peiser, & Groen, 1964;
Doerr, 1981; Efron, 1964; Hayduk, 1980; Kasatkin & Levikova, 1932;
McConaghy, 1970; Quarti & Renaud, 1964; Switzer, 1933; Watson & Rayner,
1920; Wolpe, 1958) illustrated classical conditioning. The matched
non examples were modified versions of the examples changed so that they
did not illustrate classical conditioning. Of the 14 nonexamples in the
matched condition , 6 were examples of pseudoconditioning, 3 were
examples of operant conditioning, and 5 were examples of neither
GRANT
132
pseudoconditioning nor operant conditioning. With minor modifications, the
examples and nonexamples of classical conditioning used in the present
study are included in Grant and Evans' (1994, pp. 412-417, pp. 506-512)
self-instructional exercise over classical conditioning.
In the unmatched condition, the conceptual exercise consisted of 14
items, 10 examples and 4 nonexamples. The unmatched exercise was
constructed by omitting the matched example or nonexample, as
appropriate. One of the nonexamples illustrated operant conditioning and
one illustrated pseudoconditioning. The design of the unmatched
condition followed Miller and Weaver's (1976) concept-teaching
recommendations, which designate that 30% of the items should be
nonexamples. The comparison of the matched and unmatched
treatments was included because the matched treatment permitted
students to see 40% more diagrams than the unmatched treatment,
enhancing any possible effects of diagrams.
1. US ----------------------------> Food
(Food)
(Salivation)
Unconditioned Reflex
2. NS --------------> US ---------------> UR
(Metronome) I
(Food)
(Salivation)
NS-US Prediction Unconditioned Reflex
3. CS ---------------------------> CR
(Metronome)
(Salivation)
Conditioned Reflex
Figure 1. The diagram of classical conditioning the participants used in the introductory lesson.
WORD DIAGRAMS
133
In the diagram condition, the introductory lesson and each example
in the conceptual exercise contained a diagram representing the classical
conditioning. In the nondiagram condition, the diagram was omitted.
Figure 1 represents the diagram used in the introductory lesson. The
remaining diagrams were similar to Figure 1, differing only in the specific
stimuli and responses contained in the example. As illustrated in Figure
1, the lesson emphasized the predictiveness of the CS in signaling the US
as being the key factor in conditioning rather than temporal contiguity
between the CS and the US.
Students were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions (15
participants per condition), formed by crossing lesson format (matched
examples and nonexamples versus unmatched examples and
nonexamples) with diagrams (present versus absent).
Interrater Reliability
Two independent raters scored all the posttests. For the classification
task, the raters scored each item as correct or incorrect on the basis of
whether the student had properly identified examples and nonexamples.
For analysis-task examples, the raters individually scored the correctness
of the student's identification of the US, UR, NS, CS, and CR. For
analysis-task nonexamples, the raters scored the correctness of the
student's identification of non examples as instances of operant
conditioning, of pseudoconditioning, or of neither operant conditioning nor
pseudoconditioning. If the first two raters disagreed, a third rater cast the
deciding vote.
Interrater reliability was calculated by dividing the number of
agreements by the number of agreements plus the number of
disagreements. On the classification task, reliability of posttest grading
was .99. On the analysis task, the reliability coefficient was 1.00 for
nonexamples. On the analysis task, the mean reliability coefficient for
examples ranged from .95 to .97 with an overall mean of .96
Results and Discussion
A 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 (diagrams/nondiagrams x matched/unmatched format
x examples/nonexamples x classification/analysis) repeated-measures
analysis of variance was conducted on the posttest data. The proportion
of responses correct per item served as the dependent measure for
purposes of data analysis. On the posttest, the students answered
nonexample items (M = .76 correct responses per item) correctly more
often than example items (M = .65 correct responses per item), F(1, 56)
= 6.90, P < .05. In addition, the students correctly responded more often
to the classification task (M = .825) than to the analysis task (M = .59),
F(1, 56) = 112.56, P < .01.
The major significant result was the diagrams/nondiagrams x
examples/non examples x classification/analysis interaction, F(1, 56) =
8.86, P < .01. Newman-Keuls tests indicated that students using diagrams
134
GRANT
correctly classified nonexamples (M = .93) more frequently than did
students not using diagrams (M = .83), p < .01. In addition, students using
diagrams correctly analyzed examples (M = .61) more frequently than did
students not using diagrams (M = .49), p < .01.
Of the 30 students in the diagram group, 15 (drawers) happened to draw
their own diagrams in answering the posttest example items and the other
15 (nondrawers) did not. In order to examine differences between these two
groups, a 2 x 2 x 2 (drawers/nondrawers x examples/nonexamples x
classification/analysis) repeated-measures analysis of variance was
conducted. Students correctly answered classification-task items (M = .84)
more often than they correctly answered the analysis-task items (M = .62),
F(1,28) = 4.25, P < .05.
Drawers answered posttest items (M = .80) correctly more often than
did nondrawers (M = .66), F(1, 28) = 6.30, P < .05. Also significant in this
analysis was the drawers/nondrawers x examples/non examples x
classification/analysis interaction, F(1, 28) =8.93, P < .01. Newman-Keuls
tests indicated that drawers correctly classified examples (M = .82) more
often than did nondrawers (M = .69), p < .05. Drawers classified
nonexamples correctly (M = 1.00) more often than did nondrawers (M =
.87), p < .01. Finally, drawers correctly analyzed examples (M = .75) more
often than did nondrawers (M = .47), p < .01.
To summarize, the major finding of this study was that diagrams of
classical conditioning improved students' learning of that concept. On the
posttest, students given diagrams (a) more often correctly classified novel
nonexamples of classical conditioning and (b) more often correctly
analyzed novel examples of classical conditioning by being able to
correctly identify the US, UR, NS, CS, and CR.
The beneficial effects of diagrams provide general support for advocates
of the use of diagrams to teach behavior-analysis concepts (Goldwater &
Acker, 1995; Malott, 1992; Mattaini, 1995; Michael & Schafer, 1995).
Although there are differences in the proposed systems of diagrammatic
representation, all the systems share the representation of temporal
sequences of events in spatial dimensions on the printed page. Students in
the present study benefited from relatively simple diagrams that illustrated,
in spatial dimensions, the temporal sequences among the US, UR, CS and
CR. Behavior-analysis procedures generally involve temporal sequences of
events (e.g., the effects of antecedents and consequences on responses)
and it may be that diagrams make these sequences easier to understand
and to learn by representing them in spatial dimensions. In comparison to
the systems for diagramming behavior analysis concepts (Goldwater &
Acker, 1995; Hummel et aI., 1994; Malott, 1992; Mechner, 1959; Snapper et
aI., 1982), the diagrams the students used in the present study were simple
ones that required no specific knowledge of diagramming symbols. Students
may stand to benefit even more from learning more sophisticated
diagramming systems.
The diagrams used in the present study provide support for the
general proposition that diagrams illustrating concept structure are a
WORD DIAGRAMS
135
useful adjunct to concept teaching methods. Waddill, McDaniel, and
Einstein (1988) suggest that research concerning the instructional
effectiveness of visual aids should identify the specific contexts and
conditions that are appropriate for presenting visual aids. The present
study suggests that diagrams are appropriate at the definitional and
example analysis stages of concept teaching. This finding is especially
important because research and advice in concept teaching (Grant,
1986; Merrill, Tennyson, & Posey, 1992; Tennyson & Cocchiarella, 1986)
has generally emphasized only standard prose concept definitions. It may
be that word diagrams should often augment the use of standard prose in
teaching concepts.
The beneficial effect of diagrams on the example-analysis task
indicated that diagrammatic representation was particularly effective in
teaching students to identify the relationships among the stimuli and
responses in classical conditioning. The finding that diagrams improved
nonexample classification indicates that diagrams were also particularly
effective in reducing errors of overgeneralization or overextension, in
which nonexamples of a concept are classified as examples.
The diagrams were of no help in the nonexample-analysis task, in
which the students were required to specify whether nonexamples were
instances of operant conditioning or pseudoconditioning. Because the
diagrams did not represent these concepts, the diagrams could not be
expected to improve student performance in analyzing nonexamples.
However, the diagrams were also of no help in classifying examples, and
they should have been of assistance if the diagrams had acted to improve
the students' abilities to identify the components of classical conditioning.
Students in the diagram group who drew diagrams in answering the
posttest items were better at example classification than were diagram
group students who did not draw diagrams. This result suggests that
diagrams improved both example and nonexample classification for those
students who actually made use of the diagrams. Although suggestive of
additional benefits of diagrams, the correlational natu re of the
comparisons between the drawers and nondrawers makes it difficult to
come to any firm conclusions. For example the drawers could have simply
been more motivated , which led them to draw diagrams and do better on
the posttest, without any necessary functional relationship between
drawing and improved test performance.
The effectiveness of diagrams leads naturally to considerations
concerning how teachers can and should implement diagrams in their
written instructional materials, lectures, and web-based materials.
Although this issue is beyond the scope of the present data, some rough
guidelines have emerged from the author's work. First, because diagrams
tend to focus the student's attention, using diagrams may be more
effective to teach relatively difficult concepts like classical conditioning
that students need to spend more time on than simpler concepts. Second,
many diagrams illustrate temporal sequences of events and these types
of diagrams lend themselves well to use in overheads in lectures because
136
GRANT
the instructor is able to point out subsections of the diagram and explain
the component processes the diagram illustrates. This kind of step-bystep highlighting of parts of diagrams is also increasingly possible
through computer-based and web-based instruction. Diagrams are
particularly well suited to web-based instruction because they are
relatively easy to read on a computer screen, unlike long passages of
text. Third , as suggested by the comparisons of the drawers and
nondrawers in the current study, there may well be important benefits in
teaching and encouraging students to draw diagrams. Diagramming
methods may enable students to organize and recall concepts and
principles more effectively than traditional methods such as reading and
rereading and reciting text.
References
ANDERSON , R. C., & KULHAVY, R. W. (1972). Learning concepts from
definitions. American Educational Research Journal, 9, 385-390.
BIERLEY, C., MCSWEENEY, F. K., & VANNIEUWKERK, R. (1985). Classical
conditioning of preferences for stimuli. Journal of Consumer Research, 12,
316-323.
CANNON , D. S., & BAKER, T. B. (1981). Emetic and electric shock alcohol
aversion therapy: Assessment of conditioning. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 49, 20-33.
CANNON, D. S., BEST, M. R., BATSON, J. D., & FELDMAN, M. (1983). Taste
familiarity and apomorphine-induced taste aversions in humans. Behavior
Research and Therapy, 21 , 669-673.
CLARKE, J. C., & HAYES, K. (1984). Covert sensitization , stimulus relevance and
the equipotentiality premise. Behavior Research and Therapy, 22, 451-454.
DEKKER, E., PELSER, H. E. , & GROEN, J. (1964). Conditioning as a cause of
asthmatic attacks; a laboratory study. In C. M. Franks (Ed.), Conditioning
techniques in clinical practice and research (pp. 116-131). New York: Springer.
DOERR, H. O. (1981) . Cognitive derivation of generalization stimuli: Separation of
components. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 17, 73-75.
EFRON , R. (1964). The conditioned inhibition of uncinate fits. In C. M. Franks
(Ed.) , Conditioning techniques in clinical practice and research (pp. 132143). New York: Springer.
ELLSON , D. G. (1941) . Hallucinations produced by sensory conditioning. Journal
of Experimental Psychology, 28, 1-20.
GOLDWATER, B. C., & ACKER, L. E. (1995). A descriptive notation system for
contingency diagramming in behavior analysis. The Behavior Analyst, 18,
113-121.
GRANT, L. (1986) . Categorizing and concept learning. In H. W. Reese & L. J.
Parrott (Eds.), Behavior science: Philosophical, methodological, and
empirical advances (pp. 139-162). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
GRANT, L. (1996) . Positive reinforcement: A self-instructional exercise. [WWW
Document]. URL http://server.bmod.athabascau.calhtml/prtutlreinpair.htm
GRANT, L., & EVANS, A. E. (1994) . Principles of behavior analysis. New York:
Harper-Collins.
WORD DIAGRAMS
137
GRANT, L., MCAVOY, R., & KEENAN , J. B. (1982) . Prompting and feedback
variables in concept programming. Teaching of Psychology, 9,173-177.
HAYDUK, A. W. (1980) . Increasing hand efficiency at cold temperatures by
training hand vasodilation with a classical conditioning-biofeedback overlap
design . Biofeedback and Self-Regulation, 5, 307-326.
HUMMEL, J. H., KAECK, D. J., BOWES, R. L. , & RITTENHOUSE, R. D. (1994).
Diagramming operant processes. The ABA Newsletter, 17, 4-5.
JOHNSON , D. M., & STRATTON, R. P. (1966). Evaluation of five methods of
teaching concepts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57, 48-53.
KASATKIN , N. I. , & LEVI KOVA, A. M. (1932) . On the development of early
conditioned reflexes and differentiations of auditory stimuli in infants.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 1-19.
KELLER , F. S. , & SCHOENFELD, W S. (1950) . Principles of psychology. New
York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
MALOTT, R. W (1992). Saving the world with contingency diagramming. The ABA
Newsletter, 15, 45.
MATTAINI , M. A. (1995). Contingency diagrams as teaching tools. The Behavior
Analyst, 18, 93-98.
MCCONAGHY, N. (1970). Penile response conditioning and its relationship to
aversion therapy in homosexuals. Behavior Therapy, 1, 213-221 .
MECHNER , F. (1959) . A notational system for description of behavioral
processes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2, 133-150.
MERRILL, M. D., TENNYSON , R. D. , & POSEY, L. O. (1992) . Teaching concepts:
An instructional design guide. Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Educational
Technology Publications.
MICHAEL, J., & SHAFER, E. (1995). State notation for teaching about behavioral
procedures. The Behavior Analyst, 18, 123-140.
MILLER, L. K. (1980) . Principles of everyday behavior analysis (2nd ed.).
Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
MILLER, L. K. , & WEAVER , F. H. (1976) . A behavioral technology for producing
concept formation in university students. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 9, 289-300.
PETERSON, N. (1978) . An introduction to verbal behavior. Grand Rapids, MI :
Behavior Associates.
QUARTI , C., & RENAUD, J. (1964). A new treatment of constipation by conditioning:
A preliminary report. In C. M. Franks (Ed.), Conditioning techniques in clinical
practice and research (pp. 219-227) . New York: Springer.
RAZRAN, G. (1949) . Sentential and propositional generalization of sal ivary
conditioning to verbal stimuli . Science, 109, 447-448.
REESE , D. G., & WOOLFENDEN , R. M. (1973). Behavior analysis of everyday life:
A program for the generalization of behavioral concepts. Kalamazoo, MI :
Behaviordelia.
SNAPPER, A. G., KADDEN, R. M., & INGLIS, G. B. (1982). State notation of
behavioral procedures. Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation,
14, 329-342.
SWITZER, S. A. (1933). Disinhibition of the conditioned galvanic skin response.
Journal of General Psychology, 9,77-100.
TENNYSON, R. D., & COCCHIARELLA, M. J. (1986). An empirically based
instructional design theory for teaching concepts. Review of Educational
Research, 56, 40-71 .
TENNYSON , R. D. , STEVE, M. W , & BOUTWELL, R. E. (1975). Instance
sequence and analysis of instance attribute representation in concept
acquisition . Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 821-827.
138
GRANT
VAITL, D., GRUPPE, H., & KIMMEL, H. D. (1985) . Contextual stimulus control of
conditional vasomotor and electrodermal reactions to angry and friendly
faces. The Pavlovian Journal of Biological SCience, 20, 124-131.
WADDILL, P. J., MCDANIEL, M. A. , & EINSTEIN, G. O. (1988). Illustrations as
adjuncts to prose: A text-appropriate processing approach. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 80 , 457-464.
WATSON, J . B., & RAYNER , R. (1920) . Conditioned emotional reactions. Journal
of Experimental Psychology, 3, 1-20.
WOLPE , J . (1958) . Psychotherapy by reciprocal inhibition. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.