Conceptual Rule Learning in Normal and Learning Disabled Children

Abstract

Conceptual-rule learning performance of 36 normal and learning-disabled children, matched on CA, MA, and sex was compared with the use of a modified reception paradigm. Four types of rules (affirmation, conjunction, disjunction, conditional) and familiar and nonfamiliar shape attributes were used to test Bourne's stimulus-encoding hypothesis. Main findings indicated that when tested, learning-disabled children were deficient in all conceptual-rule tasks on an experimental paced, continuous-reinforcement schedule. Expected differences in rule complexity were found; however, disabled children's conceptual-rule response difficulties did not compare with normals. Manipulation of the attribute of shape familiarity produced only discernible saliency advantages in normal children. It was hypothesized that learning-diabled children were poor in problem solving because of a deficit in the comprehension of negative instances.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 0 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.