Categorical invariance and structural complexity in human concept learning

An alternative account of human concept learning based on an invariance measure of the categorical\ud stimulus is proposed. The categorical invariance model (CIM) characterizes the degree of structural\ud complexity of a Boolean category as a function of its inherent degree of invariance and its cardinality or\ud size. To do this we introduce a mathematical framework based on the notion of a Boolean differential\ud operator on Boolean categories that generates the degrees of invariance (i.e., logical manifold) of the\ud category in respect to its dimensions. Using this framework, we propose that the structural complexity\ud of a Boolean category is indirectly proportional to its degree of categorical invariance and directly\ud proportional to its cardinality or size. Consequently, complexity and invariance notions are formally\ud unified to account for concept learning difficulty. Beyond developing the above unifying mathematical\ud framework, the CIM is significant in that: (1) it precisely predicts the key learning difficulty ordering of\ud the SHJ [Shepard, R. N., Hovland, C. L.,&Jenkins, H. M. (1961). Learning and memorization of classifications.\ud Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 75(13), 1-42] Boolean category types consisting of three\ud binary dimensions and four positive examples; (2) it is, in general, a good quantitative predictor of the\ud degree of learning difficulty of a large class of categories (in particular, the 41 category types studied\ud by Feldman [Feldman, J. (2000). Minimization of Boolean complexity in human concept learning. Nature,\ud 407, 630-633]); (3) it is, in general, a good quantitative predictor of parity effects for this large class of\ud categories; (4) it does all of the above without free parameters; and (5) it is cognitively plausible (e.g.,\ud cognitively tractable)

Layers of generality and types of generalization in pattern activities

Pattern generalization is considered one of the prominent routes for in-troducing students to algebra. However, not all generalizations are al-gebraic. In the use of pattern generalization as a route to algebra, we —teachers and educators— thus have to remain vigilant in order not to confound algebraic generalizations with other forms of dealing with the general. But how to distinguish between algebraic and non-algebraic generalizations? On epistemological and semiotic grounds, in this arti-cle I suggest a characterization of algebraic generalizations. This char-acterization helps to bring about a typology of algebraic and arithmetic generalizations. The typology is illustrated with classroom examples