Tennyson and Cocchiarella's concept-teaching model: structure choice follows generalization/discrimination needs and dimension stability¶

Theory · All theories
Evidence · 6 claims (5 for, 1 mixed) · 1 study (1 causal), q3 · 1 of 1 report an effect size · 6 claims rest on one study

Description¶

The article tests Tennyson and Cocchiarella's (1986) empirically based model of concept instruction, which holds that "the instructor who is effective at teaching concepts needs to determine if the concept being addressed shouldbe presented in succession or in coordination with the other concepts." Successive (outline) presentation suits concepts needing generalization only within their class; coordinate (simultaneous) presentation suits concepts also needing discrimination from other classes; variable-dimension concepts additionally require context, best and expository examples, interrogatory examples, attribute elaboration, strategy information, and embedded refreshment. The study applied this taxonomy to teach schedules of reinforcement as a variable coordinate concept.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• The instructor must perform a content analysis deciding presentation mode (successive vs. coordinate) based on whether concepts need discrimination across classes, and dimension stability across contexts

Constraints¶

• The article concludes the model "is accurate for only L.ome conditions": it is adequate for definitions in clearly taught lessons but less adequate for identification and application, and inadequate when instruction is unclear

Target Learners¶

• undergraduate students

Target Learning Objectives¶

• concept learning: defining, identifying, and applying concepts

Claims¶

• Clear Variable Coordinate Beats Unclear [+M]
• Clarity Concept Structure Interaction [~M]
• Clarity matters less as concept structure becomes simpler: no significant clear-vs-unclear difference for constant successive lessons [+W]
• Instructional clarity is a significant main effect on concept achievement, accounting for roughly half of score variance across measures [+M]
• Each positive clarity move (keys, links, framing, focusing, examples) correlates positively with every concept achievement measure [+M]
• Students accurately perceive differences between clear and unclear lessons regardless of concept structure [+W]

Related Theories¶

Examples¶

• Concept Discovery Through Examples and Non-examples
• Varying Irrelevant Attributes in Examples
• Matched Examples and Non-examples
• Contrasting Cases

Key Sources¶

• Snyder, Stephen; Bushur, Lori; Hoeksema, Pam; Olson, Mark; Clark, Shawn; Snyder, Jill. (1991). The Effect of Instructional Clarity and Concept Structure on Student Achievement and Perception. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED331809