;

10.8 Knowledge Check

This is a free preview and your progress is not being tracked. Purchase access to complete this module for CEUs.
10 Comments
Collapse Comments

This is showing the given information as the correct answer for me instead of the mutually entailed relations.

i agree with person above. very confusing

I’m not entirely sure what Ryan means with his comment or what you are agreeing with. I know these questions can be a little awkward to work through because it is difficult to describe relational responses using words that will be rather similar to the contextual cues that set the occasion for the relational response.

In summary, though, the “given information” in these questions is not the same as the relational responses described in the answers or feedback. The given information is basically the contextual cues and the stimuli to be related. The answer options are describing relational responses. If that doesn’t help, can you elaborate on what you are struggling with?

These questions are not helping me to understand the material and are worded in a way which seems contraindicated by the previous information provided

I don’t know what you mean by “worded in a way which seems contraindicated by the previous information provided.”

I agree with the two previous commenters Lia and Ryan. This question should be reworded, as the way it is written now does not help me reach understanding.

How would you suggest it be reworded?

So I think I got to the root of why this question seems confusing after I continued on with the training. The format of the answers and the diagram above remains the same, with only a slight variation in the question for several questions/topics moving forward. The questions after this section were much more clear utilizing this format, as they start to include more variables. However with mutual entailment this format made it confusing as there are multiple examples shown above where relational responses could be mutually entailed (I am not saying as options for selection, but just viewing the example). Having 2 examples or relations moving forward is useful, for example with combinatorial. However before learning about that topic, it is confusng that there could be a correct answer from both of the examples listed, but you are only looking for an answer based off ONE of the examples. Long winded way to say with this question it would be useful to only show one relation as an example.

Thanks for the clarification! I think I understand your concerns. I’ll take your suggestion under advisement, but there are specific reasons these questions are formatted this way and consistent throughout the lessons (primarily to give the learner practice discriminating between examples and non-examples of several related concepts that are being taught). The distractors (or “incorrect” answers) in these questions are non-examples of the current concept, but also examples of other similar concepts.

These questions would certainly be *easier* if only one bidirectional relation was included as an example, but then the feasible distractors would not be good examples of other concepts taught in the tutorial (because some of those concepts require at least three related stimuli). I could add some simpler questions involving only two stimuli to prepare the learner for these more complex questions and discriminations, but I’m not convinced that would really make these questions any easier to answer (particularly because the learner has already been exposed to quite a few examples of mutual entailment by this point in the tutorial). It’s an empirical question, I suppose! Perhaps we’ll test it out one day.

yes, this is confusing. Can’t manage to get a correct answer on this one.

This section is for the civil and public discussion of the content of this page. We reserve the right to moderate and remove comments that are irrelevant, disrespectful, hateful, harassing, threatening, or spamlike. If you are experiencing a technical issue, please contact our helpdesk for assistance.

Leave a Comment