Learning via observation during the second year of life.

Abstract

Deferred imitation of object-related actions was studied at two ages, 12 and 18 months, in order to examine the development of competence in observational learning. Three task categories were investigated: simple/single actions, reiterative actions, and sequentially coordinated actions. At 12 months, evidence for deferred imitation was present for the simple/single actions. It was also true that when the simple/single action component was isolated in the more complex tasks and its achievement scored, deferred imitation was determinable for additional actions. At 18 months, improvements occurred in observational learning for all three task categories. However, even at 18 months, serial and sequential coordinations were accomplished by fewer than half of the children who had observed actions with these properties. Examination of partial successes at both ages was useful for suggesting phases in the information sequence in which encoding was probably inadequate, and in which action schemes were probably insufficiently differentiated for the children to fully profit from modeling.The central place occupied by imitation and its companion process, observational learning, in the day-to-day functioning of human beings has been long recognized (Bandura, 1971;Bruner, 1972;Guillaume, 1971;Piaget, /1962. As with all fundamental concepts, imitation has been given varied meanings, and its specific functions in human life continues to be a matter for discussion (Miller & Dollard, 1941;Piaget, /1962Uzgiris, 1979). Nevertheless, two broad functions are widely acknowledged:The first involves the use of observation and imitation as a means of acquiring new actions, the second deals with the facilitation or enactment of familiar, already acquired actions in particular space/time contexts by virtue of the modeling of others. From a developmental perspective, the first function is linked to questions regarding the nature, speed, and range of new acquisitions that rely on observ-We wish to thank Ann D. Sigafoos for her generous assistance in videorecording the experimental sessions.

Acquiring an understanding of design: evidence from children's insight problem solving

“…Not only is this supported by prior research suggesting that concepts of artifact function do indeed undergo a shift between age 5 and ages 6 -7 (German & Johnson, 2002;Matan, 1995;Matan & Carey, 2001), but it is also consistent with the body of literature showing that by age 5 -and indeed, even earlier -children already have abundant knowledge about everyday object functions (e.g. Abravanel & Gingold, 1985;Gauvain & Greene, 1994;McDonough & Mandler, 1998). This makes it unlikely that the 5-year-olds' lack of functional fixedness was caused by a straightforward lack of knowledge about the typical function of a box.…”

Infant Imitation and Memory: Nine-Month-Olds in Immediate and Deferred Tests

“…This work does not assess the degree to which more novel motor patterns, actions involving complex temporal or spatial sequencing, or activities with more symbolic or cognitive loadings will be imitated at this early age. On the basis of other research (Abravanel & Gingold, 1985;Killen & Uzgiris, 1981;McCabe & Uzgiris, 1983;, it seems likely that there will be interesting constraints on the types of tasks such young infants will copy. For example, in the current study, as with virtually all experiments conducted to date with infants, the actions tested in the imitation condition occur with some nonzero probability in the controls.…”

“…However, two other reports suggest that, at least under certain circumstances, such behavior can be elicited at younger ages. Meltzoff (1985b) found evidence for deferred imitation after a 24-hour delay in 14-month-old infants, and Abravanel and Gingold (1985) reported imitation after a 10-min delay in 12-month-olds. Nevertheless there are still questions about the nature of this ability before 18-24 months.…”

When actions are carved at the joints

“…Any actions unrelated to the job at hand tended to be missed in the children's imitations. Although the individual elements of action are unlikely to have been new for the children, the task's structural organisation -not simply an ordered string of actions -was copied, characteristic of program level imitation (see also Abravanel & Gingold 1985).…”