Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.466911
Title: Cognitive style differences in concept attainment : differences in the conceptual strategies used during the presolution period of discrimination learning by kindergarten-age children differing in their analytic and global styles of stimulus differentiation
Author: Nebelkopf, Edwin Barry
Awarding Body: University of Bradford
Current Institution: University of Bradford
Date of Award: 1977
Availability of Full Text:
Access through EThOS:
Abstract:
Differences in the information processing strategies used during the presolution period of discriminative concept learning by kindergarten children differing in their cognitive styles of stimulus articulation were investigated. Field dependent and field independent kindergarten children were preselected on the basis of extreme scores on the Children's Embedded Figures Test, and were assigned to a series of successive discrimination problems varying in stimulus structure and uncertainty. It was hypothesized that field dependent children would be sensitive to variations in stimulus uncertainty (number of individual stimuli comprising the problem set), and would attempt exemplar classification in accord with the associative model of concept learning. It was expected that field independent children would be sensitive only to variations in stimulus structure, and would use the type of strategy described by the hypothesis-testing model of concept learning. Measures of information processing performance (trials to criterion and information transmission from relevant and irrelevant stimulus dimensions) and concept acquisition over presolution trials were used to evaluate the tenability of the research hypothesis. The overall findings of the study strongly supported the hypothesis that individual differences in the predisposition to perceptually differentiate the problem stimuli would be reflected in the type of strategy used in attempting concept solution...
Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Doctoral Thesis - University of Bradford. Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.466911  DOI: Not available
Share: