- Constraints/Principles Theories (think about Piaget)
- Noun-category bias - Quinean connundrum
- Markman's Mutual Exclusivity
- Taxomonic Assumption
- Social-Pragmatic Theory (think about Vygotsky)
- Joint attention - social construction
- Associationistic Theory
- Emergentist Coalition Theory (different theories apply at different stages)
- Hybrid approach
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Class notes, Psych of Language Development
Theories of Word Learning
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Wagner & Torgesen, 1987
Wagner, R.K. & Torgesen, J.K., (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101(2), 192-212.
My assigned article is Wagner and Torgesen’s (1987) literature review on the influence of phonological processing on reading ability acquisition. My outside reading is Allington and Woodside-Jiron’s (1999) critique of the uses and misuses of research in shaping education policy.
This article is coauthored by Joseph Torgesen and Richard Wagner, both of whom are currently at the Florida Center for Reading Research (FCRR) at FSU. They have been very influential in shaping reading policy in the state of Florida and nationally for the past several years. To add to my understanding of this article, I chose an article by Richard Allington, an outspoken critic of educational policy that has resulted from the use, or misuse, of research like Wagner and Torgesen’s. Allington’s piece is not a direct response to Wagner & Torgesen (1987), but it challenges the findings and their policy implications nonetheless.
In this literature review, Wagner and Torgesen wanted to see if there was a causal relationship between phonological processing and learning reading skills. They reviewed three distinct bodies of research that corresponded to three distinct aspects of phonological processing:
Wagner and Torgesen discuss the complications of trying to study questions of correlation and causation of such a complex and invisible process as reading. For example, two variables that seem related could both be influenced by a third variable that is not being measured. The researcher thinks she's looking at a cause and an effect, when she's only looking at two effects of the same unobserved cause. Likewise, there may be a web of unobserved causation at work in any study looking for correlation between variables, particularly when dealing with mental processes. Because direct observation of mental processes is not possible, a researcher may also confuse one variable with another, for instance unintentionally measuring working memory instead of, or in addition to, phonological ability. Likewise in experimental research, the researcher assumes that the training he provides to an experimental group is effectively targeting the skill or ability being studied. The degree to which this is true greatly affects the reliability of the results. The authors sought to offset the weaknesses of each type of study by combining studies of both types, longitudinal correlational studies and experimental studies, in their analysis.
Wagner and Torgesen find many areas of ambiguity and obscurity in the analysis of these data as it relates to their research question. They indicate areas within the reviewed studies where different methods would have answered a particular question, but the answer is unavailable because of the methods actually used. In every case, they describe what an ideal study to answer a particular question would look like, then describe the data from the studies that they found.
The authors found that the three aspects of phonological processing discussed in this article seem to be three ways of measuring the same underlying process. In addition, despite the methodological incompatibilities between Wagner and Toregesen’s research question and the data sets available, they reached the following conclusions:
The article that I selected by Allington & Woodside-Jiron was written more than a decade later in response to a widely-circulated white paper (Thirty Years of Research: What We Now Know About How Children Learn to Read) that purported to summarize best practices for classroom reading instruction. As the authors detailed, the research cited in the white paper did not adequately support the conclusions drawn. This white paper concerned these researchers because it strongly influenced educational policy in multiple states.
Although they don’t specifically address Wagner & Torgesen (1987), Allington and Woodside-Jiron criticize the types of conclusions drawn by Wagner and Torgesen. Specifically, the “studies have more often produced reliable, replicable gains for a specialized population only on measures of phonological processing and psuedo-word pronunciation tasks, while reliable, replicable gains on word reading, fluency, and prose comprehension have been more difficult to generate” (p. 3).
Allington & Woodside-Jiron offer the interpretation that studies of phonological processing provide evidence that: 1) 15-20% of students experience problems with phonological processing; 2) these problems are associated with early reading acquisition; and 3) difficulties in phonological awareness can be remedied. According to Allington & Woodside-Jyron, that’s it. Causation has not been established. There is insufficient evidence to make sweeping changes to instruction of entire school populations based on the research available. Research is often misappropriated in support of policy goals. These authors charge that the researchers involved benefit from having their research used as the basis for policy decisions and policy-makers benefit by adding the “stamp of approval” of scientific research to their policies. Simply put, “the use of 'research' as a policy advocacy tool seems less dependent on the reliability of synthesis of the research than on the ability to place 'research' summaries that support particular policy agendas into the hands of advocates and policymakers." (p. 11).
When reading research, I think it’s important to adopt a critical perspective not only toward sampling procedures and effect sizes, but toward the personalities and the politics connected to the research. In a perfect world, research would represent a dispassionate search for the truth. Considering the educational policy directions of the past twenty years, research like Wagner and Torgesen’s must be considered in a broader, and more critical, context.
Allington, R., & Woodside-Jiron, H. (1999). The politics of literacy teaching: How "research" shaped educational policy. Educational Researcher, 28 (8), 4-13. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1176311
My assigned article is Wagner and Torgesen’s (1987) literature review on the influence of phonological processing on reading ability acquisition. My outside reading is Allington and Woodside-Jiron’s (1999) critique of the uses and misuses of research in shaping education policy.
This article is coauthored by Joseph Torgesen and Richard Wagner, both of whom are currently at the Florida Center for Reading Research (FCRR) at FSU. They have been very influential in shaping reading policy in the state of Florida and nationally for the past several years. To add to my understanding of this article, I chose an article by Richard Allington, an outspoken critic of educational policy that has resulted from the use, or misuse, of research like Wagner and Torgesen’s. Allington’s piece is not a direct response to Wagner & Torgesen (1987), but it challenges the findings and their policy implications nonetheless.
In this literature review, Wagner and Torgesen wanted to see if there was a causal relationship between phonological processing and learning reading skills. They reviewed three distinct bodies of research that corresponded to three distinct aspects of phonological processing:
- phonological awareness (or phonemic awareness). This is the ability to perceive phonemes, measured by the ability to segment and blend phonemes in isolation.
- phonological recoding in lexical access. This refers to translating a written word into speech in order to access its meaning.
- phonetic recoding to maintain information in working memory. This refers to coding words into phonemes for efficient storage in working memory for processing.
Wagner and Torgesen discuss the complications of trying to study questions of correlation and causation of such a complex and invisible process as reading. For example, two variables that seem related could both be influenced by a third variable that is not being measured. The researcher thinks she's looking at a cause and an effect, when she's only looking at two effects of the same unobserved cause. Likewise, there may be a web of unobserved causation at work in any study looking for correlation between variables, particularly when dealing with mental processes. Because direct observation of mental processes is not possible, a researcher may also confuse one variable with another, for instance unintentionally measuring working memory instead of, or in addition to, phonological ability. Likewise in experimental research, the researcher assumes that the training he provides to an experimental group is effectively targeting the skill or ability being studied. The degree to which this is true greatly affects the reliability of the results. The authors sought to offset the weaknesses of each type of study by combining studies of both types, longitudinal correlational studies and experimental studies, in their analysis.
Wagner and Torgesen find many areas of ambiguity and obscurity in the analysis of these data as it relates to their research question. They indicate areas within the reviewed studies where different methods would have answered a particular question, but the answer is unavailable because of the methods actually used. In every case, they describe what an ideal study to answer a particular question would look like, then describe the data from the studies that they found.
The authors found that the three aspects of phonological processing discussed in this article seem to be three ways of measuring the same underlying process. In addition, despite the methodological incompatibilities between Wagner and Toregesen’s research question and the data sets available, they reached the following conclusions:
The article that I selected by Allington & Woodside-Jiron was written more than a decade later in response to a widely-circulated white paper (Thirty Years of Research: What We Now Know About How Children Learn to Read) that purported to summarize best practices for classroom reading instruction. As the authors detailed, the research cited in the white paper did not adequately support the conclusions drawn. This white paper concerned these researchers because it strongly influenced educational policy in multiple states.
Although they don’t specifically address Wagner & Torgesen (1987), Allington and Woodside-Jiron criticize the types of conclusions drawn by Wagner and Torgesen. Specifically, the “studies have more often produced reliable, replicable gains for a specialized population only on measures of phonological processing and psuedo-word pronunciation tasks, while reliable, replicable gains on word reading, fluency, and prose comprehension have been more difficult to generate” (p. 3).
Allington & Woodside-Jiron offer the interpretation that studies of phonological processing provide evidence that: 1) 15-20% of students experience problems with phonological processing; 2) these problems are associated with early reading acquisition; and 3) difficulties in phonological awareness can be remedied. According to Allington & Woodside-Jyron, that’s it. Causation has not been established. There is insufficient evidence to make sweeping changes to instruction of entire school populations based on the research available. Research is often misappropriated in support of policy goals. These authors charge that the researchers involved benefit from having their research used as the basis for policy decisions and policy-makers benefit by adding the “stamp of approval” of scientific research to their policies. Simply put, “the use of 'research' as a policy advocacy tool seems less dependent on the reliability of synthesis of the research than on the ability to place 'research' summaries that support particular policy agendas into the hands of advocates and policymakers." (p. 11).
When reading research, I think it’s important to adopt a critical perspective not only toward sampling procedures and effect sizes, but toward the personalities and the politics connected to the research. In a perfect world, research would represent a dispassionate search for the truth. Considering the educational policy directions of the past twenty years, research like Wagner and Torgesen’s must be considered in a broader, and more critical, context.
References
Wagner, R.K. & Torgesen, J.K., (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101(2), 192-212.Allington, R., & Woodside-Jiron, H. (1999). The politics of literacy teaching: How "research" shaped educational policy. Educational Researcher, 28 (8), 4-13. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1176311
Monday, January 26, 2009
This week's reading for Wednesday
McGregor, K.K. (2004). Developmental dependencies between lexical semantics and reading (pp. 302-317). In. C.A. Stone, E.R. Silliman, B.J. Ehren, & K. Apel (eds.), Handbook of Language and Literacy: Development and Disorders. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. (everyone)(Pro-Copy)
Goswami, U. (2001). Early phonological development and the acquisition of literacy (pp. 111-125). In S.B. Neuman & D.K. Dickinson (eds.) Handbook of Early Literacy Research. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. (everyone)(Pro-Copy)
Wagner, R.K. & Torgesen, J.K., (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101(2), 192-212.
Plus, something that relates to Wagner and Torgesen, and presentation on that. I'd like to do that presentation in Prezi.
Goswami, U. (2001). Early phonological development and the acquisition of literacy (pp. 111-125). In S.B. Neuman & D.K. Dickinson (eds.) Handbook of Early Literacy Research. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. (everyone)(Pro-Copy)
Wagner, R.K. & Torgesen, J.K., (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101(2), 192-212.
Plus, something that relates to Wagner and Torgesen, and presentation on that. I'd like to do that presentation in Prezi.
Class notes, Reading Research
Be open to the expertise of others, partners in research. Don't let ego get in the way. Your methodological decisions are dictated by your research questions and your orientation toward the data.
Kinch says, the higher the proposition density, the harder it is to understand a text.
Protocol analysis is inductive, a window into the cognitive process. You are making inferences to construct a model the cognitive process, a model of a reader's thoughts.
Subjects are trained in protocol analysis before data collection with similar task using different material. During training, reinforce process talk, not product talk. By doing this, you are skewing the verbal protocol toward the type of data you are looking for. If you don't train subjects, you can get a lot of unusable data. When you do, you run the risk of not finding things that you aren't looking for.
Subjects have to be engaging in goal-directed behavior so that you can collect data; they have to be trying to do something, not just read without a specific purpose.
The researcher's verbal prompts need to be on topic. Talking about making a hamburger while cleaning a carburetor will disrupt the cognitive process. In protocol analysis, you talk about the task that you are doing; it doesn't disrupt, it just slows down cognitive processing.
Just enough categories to account for the data. Start broad, with many categories, then check back with the data to narrow.
Next week, historical analysis.
Harvey Graff looks at what literacy does to cultures. He sees literacy's outside impact on culture, separate from culture. Doug Hartman and Jennifer Monahan research the history of reading. Also, content analysis and document analysis. Jim King and Norm Stahl work with oral histories. We will be looking at USF's collection of educator oral histories on iTunes U. Lastly, we will be looking at how one situates the history of reading for course delivery.
Kinch says, the higher the proposition density, the harder it is to understand a text.
Protocol analysis is inductive, a window into the cognitive process. You are making inferences to construct a model the cognitive process, a model of a reader's thoughts.
Subjects are trained in protocol analysis before data collection with similar task using different material. During training, reinforce process talk, not product talk. By doing this, you are skewing the verbal protocol toward the type of data you are looking for. If you don't train subjects, you can get a lot of unusable data. When you do, you run the risk of not finding things that you aren't looking for.
Subjects have to be engaging in goal-directed behavior so that you can collect data; they have to be trying to do something, not just read without a specific purpose.
The researcher's verbal prompts need to be on topic. Talking about making a hamburger while cleaning a carburetor will disrupt the cognitive process. In protocol analysis, you talk about the task that you are doing; it doesn't disrupt, it just slows down cognitive processing.
Just enough categories to account for the data. Start broad, with many categories, then check back with the data to narrow.
Next week, historical analysis.
Harvey Graff looks at what literacy does to cultures. He sees literacy's outside impact on culture, separate from culture. Doug Hartman and Jennifer Monahan research the history of reading. Also, content analysis and document analysis. Jim King and Norm Stahl work with oral histories. We will be looking at USF's collection of educator oral histories on iTunes U. Lastly, we will be looking at how one situates the history of reading for course delivery.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Class notes, week 3
Language and Literacy Development: Preverbal Communication
Language depends on a prior development of communication. A desire to communicate must precede that.
Word meaning is arbitrary and idiosyncratic.
Prelinguistic dialogue
What do children learn?
Language depends on a prior development of communication. A desire to communicate must precede that.
Word meaning is arbitrary and idiosyncratic.
Prelinguistic dialogue
- situation dependent
- routines
What do children learn?
- Initiation & termination of conversations
- Turn-taking
- Pacing
- Verbal and non-verbal elements
- Birth to 6 mos. Socialization and Early Communication
- Newborn
- Interactions synchronized with speech
- Preference for human speech
- 1 Month
- Engaged in interactional sequences (movement and eye contact)
- Imitate pitch and duration of speech
- Develops social smile and cooing
- 2 Months
- Mouth movements are more distinct
- Infant develops eye contact with mother
- 3 Months
- Child likely to revocalize if caregiver responds verbally resulting in "conversational" turn-taking
- Helps develop babbling and turn-taking
- Babbling becomes speechlike (use of syllables)
- Protoconversations
- Rituals emerge
- Provide predictable patterns of behavior and speech
- Game playing emerges
- Include aspects of communication
- Child likely to revocalize if caregiver responds verbally resulting in "conversational" turn-taking
- 5 Months
- Deliberate imitation of movements and vocalizations
- Facial imitation most frequent b/w 4-6 mos
- Face to face play
- Infant exposed to facial expressions
- Vocalization based on temperament
- Deliberate imitation of movements and vocalizations
- 6 Months
- Interest in toyes and objects increase
- Eye-hand coordination increases
- Interactions include infant, caregiver, and object
- Joint attention begins to develop
- Initiated by caregiver
- Interest in toyes and objects increase
- 7 Months
- Begins developing attachment
- Demonstrates selective listening to simple words
- Complies with simple requests
- 8-10 Months
- Imitate simple motor behaviors
- waves bye
- Folllow maternal pointing and glancing
- Imitate simple motor behaviors
- Newborn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
