Creating the Components for Teaching Concepts
Script matched pairs where only one critical feature changes—learners then generalize to brand-new examples.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Johnson et al. (2021) wrote a how-to guide. They list seven steps for building concept lessons that let learners answer new examples they have never seen.
The paper is theoretical. No kids, no trials, just a recipe drawn from Direct Instruction lore.
What they found
The team says true concepts need close-in nonexamples. Each nonexample changes only one critical feature. You show the pair side-by-side so the learner spots the difference.
They warn that showing lots of examples without matched nonexamples will not create generative responding.
How this fits with other research
McGrother et al. (1996) tested the idea with Chinese characters. Kids who learned the one distinctive feature learned faster and remembered longer than kids who traced and copied. The human data back the recipe.
Stoddard et al. (1967) worked with circle and ellipse shapes. Children who first saw hard, almost-alike pairs, erred, then backed up ended up with finer discriminations than kids who moved ahead error-free. The error-then-back-up curve lines up with Johnson’s call for tight example-nonexample pairs.
Zentall et al. (1975) found no clear advantage for simultaneous feature presentation in pigeons. This seems to clash with Johnson’s side-by-side advice, but the bird study used one key color, not scripted pairs. The difference is in the layout, not the principle.
Why it matters
You can plug the seven steps into any concept lesson tomorrow. Pick the feature that defines the concept. Write one nonexample that keeps every other feature the same. Show the pair, ask for the rule, then cycle new pairs until the learner can sort never-before-seen cases. This beats drilling long lists of examples.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Take one concept you teach, create a nonexample that differs by one feature, and run five rapid example-nonexample trials.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
An important dimension of Direct Instruction (DI) programs involves teaching conceptual behavior related to broadly applicable generalizations of a content domain. The current article outlines the necessary components for teaching a concept in any domain. The first step (1) is to conduct a concept analysis of the critical features that define the concept, as well as the features that vary from instance to instance of the concept. From this prescription we must (2) develop a range of typical and far-out examples of the concept that illustrate both the critical and variable features, (3) develop a minimum rational set of close-in nonexamples of the concept, each of which is missing only one critical feature, (4) develop matched example/nonexample pairs to highlight the critical feature missing in each example, and (5) develop additional examples and nonexamples that may be needed to produce the desired discriminations. Multiple exemplar teaching is not enough. Teaching a concept this way produces generative responding to examples as well as nonexamples not presented during instruction. To assess learners’ generative responding, we must (6) create another set of far-out examples and close-in nonexamples from the concept-analysis prescription. Finally, after initially acquiring conceptual behavior, learners must (7) practice with additional far-out examples and close-in nonexamples. Once these components are created, a teacher is ready to develop an instructional sequence featuring tasks that include context-setting descriptions, rules, examples, and nonexamples.
Behavior Analysis in Practice, 2021 · doi:10.1007/s40617-021-00626-z