1. A large body of research demonstrates that infants not only understand that tools can be used as a means to an end, but that they can also perform tool actions themselves. However, no research has examined the types
of behaviors infants exhibit when learning to use tools. Researching these behaviors can lead to a better understanding of infant learning, particularly if there is convincing evidence that certain exploratory behaviors
facilitate an understanding of tools. This paper examines these behaviors, particularly if they are planful (goal oriented) or unplanful (not goal oriented), by examining the actions of 10-month-old infants as they learn to pull a
cane to retrieve an out of reach object. Planful behaviors included intentionally pulling or touching the cane, reaching for the toy, or asking for help. Unplanful behaviors included unintentionally pulling or touching the cane,
pushing the cane in the wrong direction, and grabbing non-essential parts of the apparatus. We also examined how infants distributed their attention during the trials. Infants were categorized as successful if they pulled the
cane and retrieved the toy at least three times. We hypothesize that attentive, planful behavior will be more prevalent in successful infants. The current study found both similarities and differences in the way both
successful and unsuccessful infants explored. We found that both successful and unsuccessful infants spent more time intentionally exploring rather than unintentionally exploring. Furthermore, we found that both
successful and unsuccessful infants were more attentive than distracted during trials. One difference we found between successful and unsuccessful infants was that unsuccessful infants performed equal planful and
unplanful behaviors in both trials. In comparison, successful infants exhibited more planful behaviors in both trials. In addition, unsuccessful infants spent more time looking at the experimenter than successful infants.
These findings partially support the initial hypothesis.
Learning to use novel tools: Behavioral trends associated with learning to perform means-ends actions
Katherine Kiang (Hinsdale Central) and Courtney Filippi (University of Chicago)
Paired t-tests were run to investigate differences in planful and unplanful
behavior in successful and unsuccessful infants. Unsuccessful infants did not
show a statistical difference in duration of planful and unplanful behaviors on
successful trials (p=.157). Nor did they show a statistical difference between
planful and unplanful behaviors in unsuccessful trials (p=.094). However,
successful infants showed a marginally significant difference between planful
and unplanful behaviors on successful trials (p=.076) and a significant
difference on unsuccessful trials (p=.021). Independent t-tests also showed no
statistical differences between successful and unsuccessful infants across all
trial types and behaviors. See graph 1 for averages and standard errors.
Then paired t-tests were run between the proportion of time spent attending to
the problem verses not attending. We found that unsuccessful infants spent
(marginally) more time attending to the problem (p=.070) than not attending.
We also found that successful infants spent more time attending to the
problem (p=.012) than not attending. See graph 2 for averages and standard
errors.
The results of the current study indicate that both
infants that were successful at using the tool to get
the toy and unsuccessful infants exhibit similar
behaviors across all trials (successful vs.
unsuccessful trials). As hypothesized, successful
infants exhibited more planful behaviors compared to
unplanful behaviors. However, unsuccessful infants
performed equal planful and unplanful behaviors in
both trials. This indicates that infants do indeed learn
by gearing more of their behaviors directly toward the
goal at hand. When taking a closer look at the data
(comparing only the intentional planful acts with the
unintentional unplanful acts), however, it is apparent
that both successful and unsuccessful infants spent
more time intentionally exploring rather than
unintentionally exploring. This suggests that
unsuccessful infants are still intentionally exploring
the problem.
Similarities between the infants was also found in the
attention data. We found that both successful and
unsuccessful infants were more attentive than
distracted during trials. A closer look at how the
infants distributed their the attention gives further
insight into what particular parts of the problem the
infants are attending to. We found that unsuccessful
infants looked more at the experimenter.
Experimental Design: Infants are situated on
the mothers’ lap in a quiet testing room. The
infant and mother sit at a table behind the black
board that holds the cane. The experimenter
sits in an adjacent chair. Once comfortable, the
experimenter will introduce the infant to the
toys. After the experimenter introduces the toy
to the infant, pretest trials begin. Each pretest
trial begins with the experimenter placing the
toy in the crook of the cane. Infants then
explore on their own (see Figure 1). After four
trials, if the infant has not already proven
successful (by pulling the cane and grasping
the toy 3 times), the experimenter begins
training trials. These trials are the same as the
pretest trials, except the experimenter aids the
infant by pointing to the cane and toy and/or
assisting in the pulling of the cane. Training
continues until the infant is successful, after
eight training trials, or if the infant becomes
fussy.
Data Collection: All trials are videotaped so that
observational data can be collected. Interact (a
behavioral coding software), is then used to
allow a coder (myself) to go frame by frame
through each testing video and code each
behavior that the infant exhibits during testing
and whether or not the infants successfully use
the cane to obtain the toy. In addition to
marking behaviors, coders indicate where the
infant was looking while performing this
behavior. These behaviors are then organized
into categories (see Table 1).
Often times we seek out tools to help us
obtain items that are out of reach. Using
tools to obtain distal goals is known as a
means-end action because tools are a
means to achieving an end (or a goal). By
6-7 months of age infants are able to
understand that means-ends actions are
goal-directed1
. But how exactly do infants
learn that tools can be used to obtain
otherwise out of reach goals?
One way infants learn about the actions of
others is by actively practicing the action
themselves. For example, Sommerville,
Hildebrand, & Crane (2008) demonstrated
that practice pulling a cane to get an out of
reach toy helps infants learn that cane
actions are directed at the toy—not the
cane. Interestingly, these researchers did
not examine whether there were individual
differences in how infants actively explored
during tool training. It could be that some
kinds of exploration support understanding
of the means-end goal structure of tool
actions and are related to successfully
performing tool actions.
Using a similar model as used for the active
training group of the Sommerville et al
(2008) study, the current study will compare
the behaviors exhibited by infants who
successfully learn a novel tool action to
infants that never successfully learn to use
the tool. The results of this study will be
interesting because they will lead to a better
understanding of infant learning—
particularly if there is convincing evidence
that certain exploratory behaviors facilitate
an understanding of tools. We hypothesize
that infants who successfully use the cane
to get out of reach toys will behave in a
more planful and attentive manner. We
expect unsuccessful infants to show more
non-planful behavior.
INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS
We believe unsuccessful infants are unsuccessful
because they have not yet hit the developmental
stage where they understand the goals of the tool,
and are instead focusing on cues from the
experimenter. Overall, the current study offers
interesting insight into the abilities of infants who both
understand and do not understand the means-to-end
goals structure of tools. Further research should be
conducted with a larger sample size and possibly an
eye tracker for even more precise data.
DISCUSSIONRESULTS
Conclusion
Figure 1.
Experimental
Setup.
Table 1. Behavior Categories.
ABSTRACT
Category Behavior
Planful intentionally pulling or touching the cane,
reaching for the toy, or asking for help
Unplanful unintentionally pulling or touching the cane,
pushing the cane and grabbing the silver
piece or top of cane
Attentive Looking at toy, cane, or experimenter
Graph 1
Graph 2
1. Munakata, McClelland, Johnson, &
Siegler (1997).
2. Sommerville, Hildebrand, & Crane
(2008).
REFERENCES