If the ability to generalize is the goal of training, should training include extensive practice with one example or practice with a variety of examples? In this study, the number of examples used during training generated two treatment groups: Single (one example) and Multiple (four examples). Eight students with moderate retardation were trained and tested under each treatment condition. The results of the study demonstrated that for students with moderate retardation, greater generalization resulted when multiple exemplars were used during training.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArcherE. J., BourneL. E., & BrownF. G. (1955). Concept identification as a function of irrelevant information and instructions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49, 153–164.
2.
BeckerW. C., EngelmannS., & ThomasD. R. (1975). Teaching 2: Cognitive learning and instruc-tion. Chicago: Science Research Associates.
3.
DominowskiR. L. (1965). Role of memory in concept learning. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 271–280.
4.
EngelmannS., & CarnineD. (1982). Theory of instruction: Principles and applications. New York: Irvington Publishers.
5.
HornerR. H., & McDonaldR. S. (1982). Com-parison of single instance and general case in-struction in teaching a generalized vocational skill. Journal of the Association for Persons with Se-vere Handicaps, 7, 7–20.
6.
HuppS. C., & MervisC. B. (1981). Development of generalized concepts by severely handicapped students. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 6, 14–21.
7.
PancsofarE. L., & BatesP. (1985). The impact of the acquisition of successive training exemplars on generalization. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 10, 95–104.
8.
PanyanM., & HallV. (1978). Effects of serial versus concurrent task sequencing on acquisi-tion, maintenance, and generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 67–74.
9.
PoultonK. T., & AlgozzineB. (1980). Manual communication and mental retardation: A re-view of research ad implicaions. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 85, 145–152.
10.
SchroederG. L., & BaerD. M. (1972). Effects of concurrent and serial training on generalized vocal imitation in retarded children. Developmen-tal Psychology, 6, 293–300.
11.
SpragueJ. R., & HornerR. H. (1984). The ef-.fects of single instance, multiple instance and general case training on generalized vending machine use by moderately and severely handi-capped students. Journal of Applied Behavior Anal-ysis, 17, 273–278.
12.
StokesT. F., & BaerD. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349–366.
13.
TrabassoT. R., & BowerG. H. (1968). Attention in learning: Theory and research. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
14.
UnderwoodB. J. (1952). An orientation for re-search on thinking. Psychological Review, 59, 209–220.
15.
WaldoL., GuessD., & FlanaganB. (1982). Ef-fects of concurrent and serial training on recep-tive labeling by severely retarded individuals. TASH Journal, 6, 185–195.
16.
ZeamanD., ThallerC., & HouseB. J. (1964). Variability of irrelevant stimuli in discrimination learning of retardates. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1, 89–98.
