言語的 行動의 學習에 있어서 知能水準에 따른 强化形態의 效果

Abstract

A. 問題 本 硏究의 目的은 中學校學生의 言語的 條件化에서 知能水準에 따른 强化形態의 效果를 檢證하는 것이다. 本 硏究에서 밝히고자 하는 問題는 다음과 같다. 1. 知能水準 따라 어떤 强化形態가 보다 效果的인가? 2. 知能水準에 따라 條件化 程度는 어떠한가? 3. 中學1學年에게는 어느 形態의 强化刺戟이 가장 效果的인가? B. 假說 假說1. 言語的 條件化에서 知能水準에 따라 條件化 정도의 차이가 없다. 假說2. 言語的 條件化에서 强化形態에 따라 그 效果의 차이가 없다. 假說3. 低能兒集團에서는 物質的 强化와 社會的 强化가 象徵的 强化보다 效果約이다. 假說4. 正常兒集團에서는 社會的 强化가 物質的 强化와 象徵的 强化보다 더 效果的이다. 假說5. 優秀兒集團에서는 社會的 强化와 象徵的强化가 物質的 强化보다 더 效果的이다. 假說6. 하나의 强化形態는 特定란 知能集團에서 다른 知能集團에서보다 效果的이다. 이 假說을 細分하면 假說6-1 物質的 强化는 低能兒集團에서 가장 效果的이다. 假說6-2 社會的 强化는 세집단에 같은 程度로 效果的이다. 假說6-3 象徵的 强化는 優秀兒集團에서 가장 效果的이다. C. 方法 1. 對象 서울시내 3개 중학교에서 知能檢査 結果에 의해서 선정한 중학교 1학년 205명(低能兒 71명, 正常兒 68명, 優秀兒 66명)을 對象으로 하였다. 2. 資料 業驗資料는 쉬운 과거헝 동사 하나씩을 적은 6*9.5cm 크기의 카드 100매와 "우리는", '그는', "그들은",의 3개의 代名詞를 적은 별지 카드 1매로 되었다. 그리고 반응기록지와 象徵的 强化를 적어 보이는 용지를 사용하였다. 3. 實驗節次 强化刺戟으로 物質的强化로 사탕을, 社會的强化로 "잘했어요 " 를, 象徵的强化로 수를 주었다. 實驗課題는는 代名詞 카드에 있는 3개의 낱말중 하나를 택해서 과거형 동사와 연결하여 짧은 글을 것는 것이다. 처음 20개의 반응(제 1단계)에 대해서는 反應의 基礎率을 정하기 위해서 아무런 强化를 주지 않았다. 나머지 80개의 反應에서는 被談者가 代名詞 "그들은"을 사용해서 짧은 글을 지을때 마다 즉각적인 强化를 주었다. 結果處理에 사용한 資料는 第5段階(마지막 20개의 글짓기) 반응점수에서 第1段階(처음 20개의 글짓기;基礎率) 반응점수를 뺄 점수다. 각 被驗者에 대한 이 차의 점수는 條件化 程度를 나타내는 것이다. 계산의 편의를 위해 모든 점수에 5점을 더해서(최저점수 -5점) 양수점수로 바꾸었다. 假說檢證을 위해 二元的 變量分析方法에 의해서 統計處理를 했다. D. 結果 이 硏究에서 밝혀진 중요 결과는 다음과 같다. 기대했던대로, 知能水準別 集團間에 言語的 條件化의 程度의 差異가 없었고, 强化形態間의 效果에서도 差異가 없었다. 知能과 强化의 相互作用을 보면, 低能兒들을 象徵的 强化보다 物質的强化와 社會的强化에 더 많은 反應을 보였다,(P＜.05). 그런데 物質的强化와 社會的强化 效果는 差異는 없었다. 正常兒들은 物質的强化와 象徵約强化보다 社會的强化에 더 많은 反應을 보였다(P＜.05). 物質的强化와 象徵的强化의 效果의 차이는 없었다. 따라서 假說3과 4도 肯定되었다. 優秀兒들에서는, 예상과는 달리, 세가지 形態의 强化效果간에 意義있는 差異를 보여주지 않았다. 그러므로 假說는 否定되었다. 각 强化刺戟의 가장 效果的인 對象集團을 알아보면, 物質的强化는 低能兒集團에서 다른 두집단에 比해 훨씬 높은 效果를 보였고 (P＜.05), 社會的强化는 知能水準別集團에서 그 效果의 差異를 보여주지 않았다. 그리고 象徵的强化는 優秀兒集團에서 低能兒集團 보다 높은 效果를 보였으나(P＜.05), 正常兒集團보다는 意義있게 높은 效果를 보이지 않았다.;PROBLEMS The present study was designed to investigate simultaneously the effects of intelligence level and type of reinforcement on the conditioning of verbal behavior of middle school boys. The problems investigated in this study are as follows : 1) Are children of different intelligence level differentially influenced by material, social and symbolic reinforces? 2) Are there intelligence differences in degrees of verbal conditioning? 3) What is the most effective type of reinforcers for middle school children in general? HYPOTHESIS The following hypotheses were established to be tested : 1) There are no significant differences in the effects of intelligence level on verbal conditioning. 2) There are no significant differences in the effects of type of reinforcement on verbal conditioning. 3) The intellectually low subjects are more responsive to material and social than to symbolic reinforcement, 4) The subjects of average intelligence are more responsive to social than either to material or symbolic reinforcement. 5) The bright subjects are more responsive to social and symbolic than to material reinforcements. 6) One type of reinforcement is more effective with a particular group than with other groups of intelligence level. (1) The material reinforcer is more reinforcing for the retarded than for the average and the bright subjects. (2) The social reinforcer is equally reinforcing for the three groups of subjects. (3) The symbolic reinforcer is more reinforcing for the bright than for other groups. METHOD Subjects The subjects consisted of 205 seventh grade(males : 71 retarded, 68 average, 76 bright) selected based on the intelligence test from three middle school in Seoul. Matherials The experimental materials included hundred cards of size 9.5 × 6cm with a different verb of past bonae written in the center of each card. On a separate card, written in a center row, there aped three personal pronouns : WE, HE, THEY. The 100 verbs were commonly used words, chosen from fifth-grade readings. Tally sheets were used to record responses. Procedure The experiment design all□ far comparing the effects of simultaneously varying 2 × 2 variabless treatment(material versus social versus symbolic reinforcement) and intelligence level(retarded versus average verses bright), The task required each subject to compose sentence using each of 100 trials in conjunction with any one of three pronouns provided on a card. For the first 20 trails, the experimenter said nothing. This was intended to determine, the base rate of response. For the remaining 80 trials, each time a subject composed a sentence using "they", the experimenter rewarded him. The data used for the statistical analysis were obtained by substracting □(the first 20 trials; the base rate) from BLOCK 5(the last 20 trials) for each subject, The difference score was obtained for each subject as an index of the degree of conditioning. Since there were some negative difference scores, the lowest negative score being -5, a constant of 5 was added to each of, the scores in order to transform all scores to positive numbers for expediency of computation. The means and standard deviations of the transformed difference scores for each of the 9 groups are presented in Table 1. Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations of Difference scores by Intelligence Level and Type of Reinforcement ◁표 삽입▷(원문을 참조하세요) The major findings in this study can be summarized as follows : As predicted, there are no significant differences in the effects of intelligence level on verbal conditioning. And there are no significant differences in responsiveness to any of the three types of reinforcement. Retarded subjects were significantly more responsive to material and social than to symbolic reinforcement(p .05), but the difference between the effects of material and social reinforcement was not significant. Average subjects were significantly more responsive to social than to material and symbolic(p .05), but the differences between the effects of material and symbolic reinforcement was no significant. Contrary to expectation, bright subject showed no statistically significant differences in their responsiveness to the three types of reinforcement. Material reinforcement were effective for retarded subjects than for average and bright subjects. Social reinforcement showed no significant differences in its effects for the three groups of intelligence level. Symbolic reinforcement was more effective for bright subjects than for retarded and average subjects.