Theory Wiki - User contributions [en]

PSLC GradStudents

2011-03-24T01:45:24Z

Bef25: /* Announcements */

The purpose of this page is to serve as a repository of information relevant for grad students. We hope to maintain this page as a repository of current and relevant information for graduate students currently affiliated with the PSLC, as well as grad students who hope to be in the PSLC.

== Announcements==

1) '''''iSLC 2011''''' - March 25th-27th, 2011 in Washington DC

If you are interested in attending the 2011 inter-Science of Learning Center Young Researchers Conference, please e-mail Colleen Davy (cdavy1@andrew.cmu.edu) by '''November 15th''' and let her know. The information about the conference is below:

''What?'' The iSLC conference brings together graduate students and postdoctoral fellows from the six NSF-funded Science of Learning Centers to share their research, network, and potentially form collaborations with people from other centers.

''When?'' March 25-27th, 2011

''Where?'' Gallaudet University, Washington, D.C.

The theme of this year's conference is "Researching Communication and Communicating Research". The overarching goals include:

# To highlight the use of language and socio-communicative factors in learning. This could include a) how people learn languages, b) how language knowledge and use affects learning, or c) how communication and social interactions can influence how people learn. Other fields of research of course will also be welcome.
# To share our secrets of communicating and collaborating with others- learners, teachers, and other researchers included.
# To teach the other centers about the research done at other centers, and to introduce the other centers to the "language" used by that center in conducting research.

So basically, if you study communication in any of its myriad forms, or if you just like communicating with others, this may be a great opportunity!

2) ** IMPORTANT **

At the April 2011 PSLC Graduate Student Lunch Meeting we will
* select a graduate student representative to the executive committee
* select a new grad student lunch planner
* discuss ideas for a certificate in learning sciences

3) PSLC grads are now responsible for keeping the [http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/index.php/PSLC_People#Graduate_Students List of PSLC Grads] up to date.

* If you know of someone who should be added (or deleted) from this list please e-mail the webmaster at bef25@pitt.edu. Alternatively, feel free to go in and update the list yourself!

== Meeting Notes==
'''Cognitive Factors'''

''September 24, 2010''

Welcome to the new members!

Send Ruth email if you (or any new collaborators, post-docs, grad students) need to be added to the cognitive factors d-list

Send Jo email if you need to be added to the general PSLC d-list

Advisory board dates - January 20 & 21, 2011 (Thur and Fri)

Speaker Series - Rob Goldstone has agreed to come (probably before the AB)

Handout: Cognitive Factors Thrust Plan, if see you see errors send them to Chuck (link to document coming soon)

In general for Annual Report and Strategic Plan it is important to have non-text contributions; send screenshots/pictures of interventions and/or graphs of results as they come up

Also as a general reminder, it is never too early to send bullets of exciting findings, usually collected at least once a year

Talk: How does learning to write help learning to read Chinese (fMRI study) - Fan Cao Abstract Two types of instructions were given to a group of English speakers who learn Chinese as a L2. One is character writing and the other is pinyin writing. The hypothesis is that writing will facilitate the integration of orthographic, phonological and semantic representations by involving both perception and production and by emphasizing the special features of Chinese characters. fMRI scans found that sensory-motor cortex and visual-spatial representation cortex are more involved if the subject had writing experience. We also found that writing training produced more elaborated representations of orthography, phonology and semantics in the brain as compared to pinyin training.

Slides here: Media:PSLC_Sep_24_1.pdf

Next up: Colleen Davy will speak at the October meeting, likely the last week of Oct at CMU

'''Grad student meeting notes: 11/15/2010'''

1) Discussion of iSLC Conference: March 25th-27th, 2011

Theme: researching communication and communicating language

If you are interested in giving a talk or a poster, e-mail Colleen Davy at cdavy1@andrew.cmu.edu. You might also be interested in some of the workshops at iSLC. Current proposals for workshops include sessions on CLAN and the R statistical package.

Colleen needs organizers to help decide on the placement/division of themes for poster sessions and symposia.

Graduate students need to discuss their role in the Ultimate Block Party at the iSLC.

2) Advisory board meeting: January 20th -21st

Theme: PSLC sustainability

Graduate students and post-docs will present a SWOT analysis.

Grad students and post docs can present posters at the session. Grad students and post-docs from all thrusts are encouraged to present posters.

3) Meeting with post-docs: December 6th, 2010

We will prepare a joint post-doc/grad SWOT analysis to present at the advisory board meeting.

== FAQs==

'''1. What does it take to be a PSLC grad student?'''

Well, there are basically three ways you can be considered a PSLC grad student.

a. You work on a project that receives funding from the PSLC.

b. Your advisor or collaborator receives funding from the PSLC and asks you to be involved.

c. You want to be a PSLC grad student.

'''2. What types of opportunities does the PSLC have for a grad student like me?'''

There are a variety of different levels of involvement and types of activities that the PSLC offers.

For the casual grad student, the PSLC organizes a speaker series with talks that may be of interest to students interested in the learning sciences. These are open to whomever wishes to go. There are also monthly lunch meetings where people associated with the PSLC can give a talk on their work.

The grad student community also hopes to organize events catered toward grad students, with topics like applying for grants, finding jobs, collaboration with people at other universities, etc. These are also open to the public.

For those who wish to get more involved, the grad student community also has monthly meetings to discuss center-wide issues, read and discuss articles we believe are relevant, plan future events, etc. Again, these are open to the public.

Finally, each thrust has regular or semi-regular meetings to discuss the thrust's theoretical framework, set the research agenda, and discuss the progress of projects within that thrust. While these are open to anyone, they're probably of limited interest unless you currently have or have had a project affiliated with the thrust.

'''3. What is expected of me as a PSLC grad student?'''

If you receive funding from the PSLC, you are expected, to the extent it is possible, to attend the thrust meetings for your relevant thrust, and attend the monthly PSLC lunches. The grad student community also encourages you to come to the grad student monthly meetings, of course.

If you don't receive funding from the PSLC, but still wish to be a part of the grad student community, your level of involvement is up to you.

'''How do I find out about upcoming talks/meetings/events?'''

One option is to check the Announcements section of this page. A possibly better option would be to get on our mailing list. To do that, e-mail Jo Bodnar at jobodnar AT cs.cmu.edu and ask to be put on the PSLC general mailing list and grad student mailing list.

There is also a regularly updated calendar at our [http://www.learnlab.org main webpage] that is updated regularly and gives a fairly complete account of most PSLC events.

4. '''I already consider myself a PSLC grad, and want to be included on this page! What do I have to do?'''

Well the great thing about the wiki page is that anybody can update it whenever they want! So, if you have an account here, and you know how to edit tables, you can just log in and add yourself!

The table formatting is a bit weird and hard to follow, so if you want to add yourself, the easiest thing to do is just copy this text:

<pre>
|-
| Name || University || Advisor || e-mail address || Bio || Personal Webpage || Link to PSLC project page [Project page URL Project page title]
</pre>

and paste it into the appropriate place on the table. With your own information, of course.

If you don't have an account already, you can easily request one (NOTE: I forget how to do it- I'll need to add that). Once you have an account, you can just click "Edit" above the table, and you can add yourself.

5. '''But that's such a pain! Isn't there an easier way?!'''

There sure is! If you don't want to make all that effort just to have your name and e-mail address on a page, just send your info (you could even put it in the format given above!) to our Wikimaster (yep, we made that word up!), Ben Friedline, at bef25 AT pitt.edu, and he'll put it on here.

== Who are the PSLC grads? ==

{| border=1 cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" style="text-align: left;"
|-
! Grad Student Name
! University/Department
! Advisor
! E-mail
! Bio
! Personal Webpage
! PSLC Projects
|-
| Colleen Davy || Carnegie Mellon/Psychology || Brian MacWhinney || cdavy1@andrew.cmu.edu || I am interested in how adult second language learners develop fluent speaking skills in their second language. || N/A || [http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/index.php/Davy_%26_MacWhinney_-_Spanish_Sentence_Production Spanish Sentence Production]
|-
| Susan Dunlap || University of Pittsburgh || Charles Perfetti || sud4@pitt.edu || My research areas include second language learning, reading, and spelling || n/a || [http://www.learnlab.org]
|-
| Benjamin Friedline || University of Pittsburgh || Alan Juffs || bef25@pitt.edu || I am interested in how adult second language learners acquire morphology in a second language. || N/A || [http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/index.php/Juffs_-_Feature_Focus_in_Word_Learning Feature Focus in Word Learning]
|-
| Ruth Wylie || Carnegie Mellon, HCII || Ken Koedinger & Teruko Mitamura || rwylie@cs.cmu.edu || I'm interested in second language learning and self-explanation. || [http://ruthwylie.wordpress.com/ http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rwylie] || [http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/index.php/Wylie_-_Intelligent_Writing_Tutor Self-Explanation and ESL]
|-
| Mary Lou Vercellotti || University of Pittsburgh || Dr. Nel de Jong || marylou.vercellotti@gmail.com || My research looks at complexity, accuracy, and fluency in the oral production of English as a second language. || N/A || [http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/index.php/Fostering_fluency_in_second_language_learning Refinement and Fluency]
|-
| Turadg Aleahmad || Carnegie Mellon, HCII || Ken Koedinger & John Zimmerman || turadg@cmu.edu || My research is in design methods for theory-driven educational technology. || [http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~taleahma] ||
|-
| Nora Presson || Carnegie Mellon, Psychology || Brian MacWhinney || presson@cmu.edu || I am studying how practice conditions can improve learning of second language grammar, especially testing the effects of explicit instruction. || || [http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/index.php/Presson_%26_MacWhinney_-_Second_Language_Grammar Second Language Grammar Instruction]
|-
| Daniel Belenky || University of Pittsburgh || Timothy Nokes || dmb83@pitt.edu || I am interesting in issues of motivation and cognition. Specifically, I have been studying how achievement goals influence transfer. || N/A || [http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/index.php/Nokes_-_Dialectical_Interaction_and_Robust_Learning Dialectical Interaction and Robust Learning]
|}

== Science of Learning Relevant Courses ==
The PIER program offers three courses -- see the [http://www.cmu.edu/pier PIER Web page]

See also the courses taught be any of the PSLC faculty.

(Please add the names of relevant courses and web pointers if possible!)

<pre>
05832 / 05432 Cognitive Modeling & Intelligent Tutoring Systems
3:00pm-4:20pm, Tuesdays and Thursdays, Fall 2010
Room 3002, Newell-Simon Hall, Carnegie Mellon University
9 units
Dr. Vincent Aleven, aleven@cs.cmu.edu
</pre>

Students in this course will learn about the Cognitive Tutor technology that has been demonstrated to dramatically enhance student learning in domains like math, science, and computer programming. This type of tutoring software is currently in use in 2,700 schools around the country and is used extensively as platform for learning sciences research. The technology is grounded in artificial intelligence, cognitive psychology, and cognitive task analysis. Students will learn data-driven and theoretical methods for analyzing human problem solving and will learn to use such data to inform the design of intelligent tutoring systems. Course projects will focus on the development of an intelligent tutor using CTAT, the Cognitive Tutor Authoring Tools (see http://ctat.pact.cs.cmu.edu). Some assignments will focus on creating cognitive models in the Jess production rule modeling language.

Students should either have programming skills, or experience in the cognitive psychology of human problem solving, or HCI / design skills, or permission from the instructor.

Juffs - Feature Focus in Word Learning

2011-02-07T18:57:53Z

Bef25: /* L2 learning of derived words */

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! PI
| Ben Friedline, Alan Juffs
|-
! Start date
| September 2009
|-
! End date
| July 2010
|-
! Learnlab
| English
|}

== L2 learning of derived words ==
Benjamin Friedline and Alan Juffs

'''Background'''

Inflected and derived words occur frequently in the English language and serve important functions in everyday communication. The term derived word refers to the combination of a base word with a derivational affix. For instance, if the derivational affix –ness is added to the base kind (adjective), the word kindness (noun) is derived. The affix –ness is very productive and can be added to many words to derive novel words such as darkness, awareness, and illness. Other derivational affixes such as –ity are not as productive as –ness and can be used to form a limited number of words, such as ¬purity and scarcity. The term inflected word refers to the combination of a base word and an inflectional affix. For example, if the inflectional affix –ed is added to the base word walk (verb), the resulting word is walked (verb). The addition of the –ed affix is very productive in the formation of the past tense even though it does not apply to a number of irregular past tense forms, such as drove, ate, and sat.

Importantly, the differences in productivity of each type of affix have led some researchers to conclude that there are differences in how they are processed by native speakers. In Words and Rules (WR) theory, Pinker and Ullman (2002) argue that irregular inflected forms (e.g., drove) are stored in the lexicon (or mental dictionary) as whole words, whereas regular forms (e.g., walked) are generated by a regular rule. This theory has also been applied to the processing of derived words in two recent psychological investigations (cf. Alegre & Gordon, 1999; Hagiwara et al., 1999). The main point behind both of these studies is to illustrate that derived words can be either rule-governed (e.g., words with –ness) or stored as whole words in the lexicon (e.g., words with –ity as in purity).
[http://www.bestessays.com custom pappers]
In the area of second language acquisition, adult second language (L2) learners often fail to attain native-like proficiency when producing derived and inflected words in an L2. Lardiere (1998), for instance, showed that second language learners still make errors with inflectional morphology even after many years of exposure to English. In Lardiere’s (1998) study, she recorded and analyzed naturalistic conversations from a Chinese learner of American English. The results of this study indicated that the learner supplied the inflectional affix –ed correctly in only 34% of obligatory contexts even after 18 years of exposure to English. Additionally, in terms of derived words, a recent study by Juffs and Friedline (2010) revealed that intermediate L2 learners often made errors in the production of derived words such as those in examples (1) and (2).
(1) We have one different [difference].
(2) I like doing something music [musical].
In example (1) the learner uses the adjective form different instead of the grammatically correct form difference, which is a noun. In example (2) the learner uses the noun form music in a position that requires the adjective form musical.

The preponderance of such errors in L2 speech has led some researchers to conclude that L2 learners are permanently impaired on the production of derived and inflected words because they do not have access to the same rule-based mechanisms that are present during L1 acquisition (Jiang, 2004; Felser & Clahsen, 2009; Silva & Clahsen, 2008). This hypothesis is formally known as the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis (FDH; Bley-Vroman, 1989), and it has received support from a number of recent studies in the field of second language acquisition. Silva and Clahsen (2008), for instance, use evidence from a masked-priming experiment to compare native speakers to adult L2 learners on a series of morphological priming tasks. The results from this study indicated full priming effects (e.g., darkness primes dark) for native speakers on both inflections and derivations, but only partial priming effects for L2 learners on derivations and no priming effects for L2 learners on inflections. Silva and Clahsen (2008) argue that the limited priming effects (or complete lack thereof) indicate that L2 learners lack rule-based mechanisms and do not know that ¬–ness can be affixed to many adjectives to derive nouns such as darkness, awareness, and illness. This lack of rule-based mechanisms may mean that adult L2 learners memorize all words as unanalyzed chunks of language, without realizing that dark and darkness or walk and walked are intimately related in both form and meaning.

The research by Silva and Clahsen (2008) makes an important contribution to a theory of second language acquisition because it provides a possible explanation for why L2 learners have difficulties with derived and inflected words (i.e., they cannot access rule-based mechanisms). However, this research is limited because it assumes that L2 learners are permanently impaired when compared to native-speakers on all types of rule-based inflectional and derivational morphological processes. This assumption is at odds with findings from studies such as the morpheme order studies (e.g., Bailey, Madden, & Krashen, 1974), critical period studies (e.g., Johnson & Newport, 1989), and studies on the role of morpheme salience in L2 acquisition (e.g., Ellis, 2006) in that these past studies indicate that certain morphemes, such as progressive, may be more easily acquired than others. Johnson and Newport (1989), for instance, claim that the progressive morpheme may not be subject to critical period effects.

Additionally, the role of a learner’s first language may also influence the relative difficulty of a particular morpheme. Potential L1 effects have been discussed in a number of recent SLA studies (e.g., Juffs & Friedline, 2010; White, 2003). Before we conclude that L2 learners are equally impaired in all areas of morphological knowledge, further research is needed to identify if certain morphological structures are easier to acquire than others, how exactly L2 morphological knowledge diverges from native-speaker knowledge, and how a learner’s first language might influence L2 morphological knowledge. The goal of the present research is to answer these questions as they relate to derivational morphology.

'''Research Questions'''

Why are ESL learners so poor in their knowledge of English morphology? What are the knowledge components that are the most challenging for learning through normal language exposure? Do learners have a representational problem or a processing problem? Specifically, what instructional interventions can be designed to overcome observed processing differences in L1 and L2 morphology?

'''Research plan'''

For year 1, the goal of the research is to analyze the knowledge components of ESL learners to lay the groundwork for a hypothesis-based intervention. The research will systematically investigate the components of L2 learners’ knowledge of English derivational morphology to address the following questions:

1) What are the components of L2 derivational knowledge?
2) Are these components different from L1 derivational knowledge?
3) Does L1 matter for the acquisition of derived words in an L2?

'''Methodology'''

To answer these questions, Friedline has developed a series of tasks that will be used to assess what native English speakers and second language learners know about derived words. These tasks included lexical decision, semantic relatedness, and morphological decomposition. Each of these tasks contained several conditions that tested different components of morphological knowledge. Studies on the acquisition of L1 morphological knowledge (e.g., Carlisle, 2000; Carlisle & Fleming, 2003) were consulted in order to develop these conditions. Each condition is outlined below.

''Lexical decision task''

Explanation: In this task, students were asked to rate words from 1 (not a word) or 6 (definitely a word). All words were morphologically complex (e.g., base + affix). Some of the words were real words in English, while other words were not real words in English. The purpose of this task was to assess if native-speakers were sensitive to the effects of semantic blocking and affix ordering. There were four conditions in this task. The conditions are listed below along with an example to illustrate the types of words that were presented in each condition.

Condition 1: Real words
Example: The suffix –able is added to verbs to derive adjectives such as workable or comfortable. A response of 4, 5, or 6 would be counted as accurate.

Condition 2: Semantic blocking
Example: Even though you can add the affix –able to many verbs to derive adjectives, there are some verbs like arrivable and departable look that do not normally take the suffix –able to form adjectives. A response of 1, 2, or 3 would be counted as accurate.

Condition 3: Correct affix ordering
Example: There are some bases that can take two affixes. You can add the affix –able to the verb respect to derive the adjective respectable. Then, you can add the affix –ity to respectable to derive the noun respectability. A response of 4, 5, or 6 would be counted as accurate.

Condition 4: Incorrect affix ordering
Example: In a word like respectability, the word is correct because the affixes are added in the correct order. However, if I add the affix -ity before I add the affix –able, I derive a word like respectitiable. This word is not correct because the affixes are not added in the correct order. A response of 1, 2, or 3 would be counted as accurate.

''Word relatedness task''

Explanation: In this task, students were asked to rate words based on their meaning from 1 (not related) to 6 (definitely related). There were five conditions in this exercise.

Condition 1: No relationship in meaning
Some words are not related in meaning in any way. The words cat and bus are not related in meaning in any way. A response of 1, 2, or 3 would be counted as accurate.

Condition 2: Relationship in meaning
Other words are related in meaning. For instance, bank and money are related in that a bank is a place where you deposit your money. A response of 4, 5, or 6 would be counted as accurate.

Condition 3: Relationship in meaning with different affixes.
This condition contained words with suffixes that were related in meaning. For example, productive (adj.) and production (n.) both share the base produce (v.). A response of 4, 5, or 6 would be counted as accurate.

Condition 4: Relationship in orthography only, not meaning
There are some words that may look like they are related in meaning because they share the same initial letters. In this condition, students saw words like permanence and permission. These words share the letters p-e-r-m, but are unrelated in meaning. A response of 1, 2, or 3 would be counted as accurate.

Condition 5: Relationship in affix only, not meaning
In the final condition, students were presented with words that shared the same affix, but were unrelated in meaning. For example, the words reality and curiosity are unrelated in meaning, but share the affix –ity. A response of 1, 2, or 3 would be counted as accurate.

''Word Analysis Task''

Explanation: On the Word Analysis Task, students were asked to provide the base word of the word provided. Some of these words consisted of a base and an affix such as musician, which has music as a base. Other words, however, could not be broken down into a base and a affix. For instance, dollar cannot be broken down into doll + ar because dollar is a base form. Accuracy was computed for decomposable and non-decomposable words.

Native speakers piloted these tassk in the fall of 2009, and preliminary results are reported for each task in the tables below. A pull out from the ELI in Spring 2010 will collect learner data.

''Participants''

These tasks were administered to native speakers and L2 learners during the fall 2009 and spring 2010 semesters. A total of 23 native-English speakers participated in the study. All of the native speakers were undergraduates at the University of Pittsburgh. Ninety ESL learners participated in this study from three different levels of language proficiency: beginner (n=26), intermediate (n=36), and advanced (n=28). These learners were enrolled in an intensive English program at the University of Pittsburgh.

'''Descriptive Results'''

''Lexical Decision Task''

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''NS Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: Real words
| 93%
|-
! Condition 2: Semantic blocking
| 81%
|-
! Condition 3: Correct affix ordering
| 93%
|-
! Condition 4: Incorrect Affix ordering
| 95%
|}

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''L2 Beginner Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: Real words
| 89%
|-
! Condition 2: Semantic blocking
| 48%
|-
! Condition 3: Correct affix ordering
| 66%
|-
! Condition 4: Incorrect Affix ordering
| 53%
|}

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''L2 Intermediate Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: Real words
| 90%
|-
! Condition 2: Semantic blocking
| 59%
|-
! Condition 3: Correct affix ordering
| 69%
|-
! Condition 4: Incorrect Affix ordering
| 70%
|}

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''L2 Advanced Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: Real words
| 96%
|-
! Condition 2: Semantic blocking
| 53%
|-
! Condition 3: Correct affix ordering
| 77%
|-
! Condition 4: Incorrect Affix ordering
| 81%
|}

''Word relatedness task''
{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''NS Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: No relationship in meaning
| 92%
|-
! Condition 2: Relationship in meaning
| 92%
|-
! Condition 3: Relationship in meaning with different affixes
| 97%
|-
! Condition 4: Relationship in orthography only
| 89%
|-
! Condition 5: Relationship in affix only
| 90%
|}

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''L2 Beginner Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: No relationship in meaning
| 91%
|-
! Condition 2: Relationship in meaning
| 84%
|-
! Condition 3: Relationship in meaning with different affixes
| 89%
|-
! Condition 4: Relationship in orthography only
| 73%
|-
! Condition 5: Relationship in affix only
| 74%
|}

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''L2 Intermediate Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: No relationship in meaning
| 89%
|-
! Condition 2: Relationship in meaning
| 87%
|-
! Condition 3: Relationship in meaning with different affixes
| 89%
|-
! Condition 4: Relationship in orthography only
| 70%
|-
! Condition 5: Relationship in affix only
| 69%
|}

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''L2 Advanced Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: No relationship in meaning
| 95%
|-
! Condition 2: Relationship in meaning
| 79%
|-
! Condition 3: Relationship in meaning with different affixes
| 96%
|-
! Condition 4: Relationship in orthography only
| 81%
|-
! Condition 5: Relationship in affix only
| 89%
|}

''Word Analysis Task''
{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''NS Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: Decomposable
| 85%
|-
! Condition 2: Non-decomposable
| 92%
|}

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''L2 Beginner Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: Decomposable
| 59%
|-
! Condition 2: Non-decomposable
| 73%
|}

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''L2 Intermediate Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: Decomposable
| 61%
|-
! Condition 2: Non-decomposable
| 84%
|}

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''L2 Advanced Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: Decomposable
| 65%
|-
! Condition 2: Non-decomposable
| 81%
|}

'''Discussion of descriptive statistics'''

''Beginning L2 Learners (Level 3)''

The results of this study indicate that level 3 learners from the ELI at the University of Pittsburgh often have problems when processing derived words. Firstly, the lexical decision task may indicate that beginning learners are not sensitive to constraints on the use of morphemes such as –able and –ness or constraints on the ordering of affixes. For instance, the learners in the present study often judge words such as departable and hopenessful to be real English words in spite of the fact that most native speakers rarely (if ever) consider these words to be real English words. Sixteen of 26 level 3 learners said that smileable was a real word in English, while only 1 of 23 native speakers said that this was a real word in English. Likewise, for hopenessful, 18 of 26 learners said that this was a real word, but only 1 of 23 natives considered hopenessful to be a real English word. Second, the word relatedness task seems to indicate that learners rely heavily on orthographic/phonological overlap when processing the meaning of words. Put another way, the learners in this study said that word pairs that were related in form only were also related in meaning. For instance, 12 out of 26 level 3 learners said that the word pair majority-activity were related in meaning, while native speakers (N=23) never say that these words are related in meaning. Finally, the results from the word analysis task may suggest that learners at this level have significant difficulties with derived words that involve phonological and/or orthographic changes to the base. In the present study, almost all of the level 3 learners (22 of 26) incorrectly provided the base word for extension. Native speakers, on the other hand, provided the incorrect base for extension only 4 times out of 23 subjects.

''Intermediate L2 Learners (Level 4)''

For Level 4 L2 learners, the lexical decision task may indicate that even intermediate-level learners are not sensitive to constraints on the use of morphemes such as –able and –ness or constraints on the ordering of affixes. For instance, the learners in the present study often judge words such as departable and hopenessful to be real English words in spite of the fact that most native speakers rarely (if ever) consider these words to be real English words. Seventeen of 36 level 4 learners said that smileable was a real word in English, while only 1 of 23 native speakers said that this was a real word in English. Likewise, for hopenessful, 21 of 36 learners said that this was a real word, but only 1 of 23 natives considered hopenessful to be a real English word. Second, the word relatedness task seems to indicate that learners rely heavily on orthographic/phonological overlap when processing the meaning of words. Put another way, the learners in this study said that word pairs that were related in form only were also related in meaning. For instance, 14 out of 36 level 3 learners said that the word pair majority-activity were related in meaning, while native speakers (N=23) never say that these words are related in meaning. Finally, the results from the word analysis task may suggest that learners at this level have significant difficulties with derived words that involve phonological and/or orthographic changes to the base. In the present study, more than two-thirds of the level 4 learners (25 of 36) incorrectly provided the base word for extension. Native speakers, on the other hand, provided the incorrect base for extension only 4 times out of 23 subjects.

''Advanced L2 Learners (Level 5)''

For level 5 L2 learners, the lexical decision task may indicate that even advanced learners are not sensitive to constraints on the use of morphemes such as –able and –ness. For instance, the learners in the present study often judge words such as smileable and leavable to be real English words in spite of the fact that most native speakers rarely (if ever) consider these words to be real English words. Fourteen of 28 level 5 learners said that smileable was a real word in English, while only 1 of 23 native speakers said that this was a real word in English. Likewise, for leavable, 19 of 28 learners said that this was a real word, but only 4 of 23 natives considered leavable to be a real English word. Second, the word relatedness task seems to indicate that advanced learners still rely to some degree on orthographic/phonological overlap when processing the meaning of words. Put another way, some advanced learners in this study said that word pairs that were related in form only were also related in meaning. For instance, 11 out of 28 level 3 learners said that the word pair constantly-conservative were related in meaning, while native speakers (N=23) never say that these words are related in meaning. Finally, the results from the word analysis task may suggest that learners at level 5 have significant difficulties with derived words that involve phonological and/or orthographic changes to the base. In the present study, many of the errors on the word analysis task were errors on words that involved a significant orthographic and sometimes phonological change to the base. For instance, 19 of 28 level 5 students incorrectly provided the base word for extension. Native speakers, on the other hand, provided the incorrect base for extension only 4 times out of 23 subjects.

'''General Discussion'''

This section reports the results of this study in connection with the four original research questions. The first question was primarily concerned with determining the knowledge components of second language derivational knowledge. Based on the results of Study 1, second language learners knew the following about derived words in English:
(1) Knowledge of highly frequent derived words.
(2) Knowledge that derived words can be broken down into bases and affixes.
At the same time, the results of Study 1 also provided some indication of areas of weakness in L2 derivational knowledge. Knowledge components that second language learners may have lacked are listed below:
(1) Knowledge of constraints on affix attachment or affix ordering.
(2) Knowledge that overlap in orthography/phonology does not imply overlap in meaning.
(3) Knowledge that derivation sometimes involves phonological changes to a base word.

The second research question asked whether the components of L2 derivational knowledge were different than the components of L1 derivational knowledge. The results of study 1 indicate that L2 derivational knowledge is significantly different (p < .05) from native speaker knowledge. In short, native speakers demonstrated knowledge of derivational morphology that non-natives were shown to lack. For instance, on the lexical decision task natives (accuracy = 95%) clearly knew when affix ordering constraints had been violated, whereas non-natives (accuracy = 69%) demonstrated limited knowledge of these constraint violations.
The remaining two research questions pertained to: 1) influences from linguistic background and 2) influences from English language proficiency. In large part, the results from Study 1 suggest that linguistic background and proficiency made little difference in how language learners performed on tasks related to derivational morphology. In short, such factors have no statistically significant effect (p > .05) on how second language learners perform on tasks related to word-relatedness or word analysis. Nonetheless, there is some evidence from the lexical decision task that group and proficiency may matter for performance on grammaticality judgments in that learners with Korean and Romance language backgrounds tended to outperform learners from Arabic and Chinese language backgrounds on words that violated constraints on English word formation.

In terms of second language acquisition theory, the results of Study 1 may indicate that non-native speakers have little difficulty recognizing high frequency derived words (e.g., darkness), but they have significant difficulty when confronted with words that do not exist in English (e.g., arrivable) or words that involve complex morphological operations such as affix ordering (e.g., thoughtfulness vs. thoughtnessful). Recent work in psycholinguistics may provide a partial explanation for these findings. That is, research on the processing and storage of derived words shows that derived words may be either stored in lexical memory or else produced by a generative rule-governed mechanism (e.g., Alegre & Gordon, 1999; Hagiwara et al., 1999). The data from L2 learners presented here may imply that learners excel at recognizing highly frequent derived words, but are in a sense ‘impaired’ when using rule-based mechanisms to generate (or in this case recognize) that constraints on affix attachment or ordering are being violated. These findings are also consistent with Silva and Clahsen’s (2008) findings from priming experiments involving native and non-native performance on derived words. More specifically, Silva and Clahsen (2008) argue that limited priming effects on derived words among L2 learners evinces impairment to rule-based mechanisms, meaning that L2 learners must rely largely on lexical memory when acquiring derived words in English.

**Additional statistical results and key theoretical discussion is forthcoming in the first author's doctoral dissertation.**

'''Next steps'''

For the 2010-2011 academic year, I am developing a morphology intervention based on the results of the study I completed this year. This will be an in vivo study that I will pilot in the fall 2010 semester and run in the ELI classrooms during the spring 2011 semester. The design of this study includes a pretest, an intervention, and a post-test to assess gains in morphological knowledge. The intervention portion of this study will teach: 1) constraints on affix attachment (e.g., affix ordering) and 2) relational knowledge between base words and related derived words (e.g., creation and creative are related to the base create), which are areas of weakness for adult second language learners based on the results of Study 1. Key research questions for this project include the following: 1) Does instruction on derived words enhance L2 sensitivity to constraints on affix attachment?, 2) What type of instruction works best for teaching constraints on derived words?, and 3) Is L2 knowledge of derived words fundamentally different than that of native speakers? This project directly relates to the "Focus on valid features in word learning" CF goal as well as the "learner background" goal.

''Robust learning of derivational morphology''

One of the core components of the PSLC theory of robust learning is foundational skill building. Foundational skill building refers to the knowledge or skill that “must be mastered in order to provide for subsequent learning” (http://learnlab.org/clusters). The findings from Study 1 relate to this construct in that they provide direct evidence of the knowledge components of derivational morphology that adult second language learners have not yet mastered in relation to adult native-speaker peers. Study 1 does not directly explore the learning processes involved in learning derivational morphology; however, it does provide a foundation for the design of an intervention study that directly investigates such processes. Study 2 builds on Study 1 in the design of an intervention study that seeks to identify how different types of instruction (conditions in PSLC terminology) contribute to the mastery of the knowledge components underlying derived word knowledge. More specifically, Study 2 compares traditional output-based instruction (Swain, 1985) with input-processing instruction (VanPatten, 1996) as the learning conditions for knowledge components underlying derived word knowledge. In terms of the broader PSLC theoretical framework, Study 2 seeks to identify the contributions of different instructional methods to the robust learning of derivational morphology. In terms of the cognitive factors thrust goals, this project most directly relates to to the "Focus on valid features in word learning.”

''Project plan for AY 2010-2011''

1) September 2010 – Complete materials for intervention study (study 2)

2) October 2010 – Defend dissertation overview based on this research

3) October 2010 – Pilot test pretest materials with a pull-out sample from the ELI

4) November 2010 – Analyze results from pilot study and determine appropriate course of action for morphology intervention.

5) Spring 2011 – Implement morphology intervention in the ELI classroom.

6) Summer 2011 - Analyze data and begin to write dissertation

7) Fall 201l - Work on dissertation

'''Selected References'''

Alegre, M., & Gordon, P. (1999). Rule-based versus associative processes in derivational morphology. Brain and Language, 68, 347-354.

Bailey, N., Madden, C., & Krashen, S. (1974). Is there a "natural sequence" in adult second language learning? Language Learning, 24(2), 234-243.

Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). The logical problem of second language learning. In S. Gass & J. Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Carlisle, J.F. (2000). Awareness of the structure and meaning of morphologically complex words: Impact on reading. Reading and Writing, 12(3-4), 169-190.

Carlisle, J. F., & Fleming, J. (2003). Lexical processing of morphologically complex words in the elementary years. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7(3), 239-253.

Ellis, N. C. (2006). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 164-194.

Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2009). Grammatical processing of spoken language in child and adult language learners. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 38(3), 305-319.

Gonnerman, L. M., Seidenberg, M. S., & Andersen, E. S. (2007). Graded semantic and phonological similarity effect in priming: Evidence for a distributed connectionist approach to morphology. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 136(2), 323-345.

Hagiwara, H., Sugioka, Y., Ito, T., Kawamura, M., & Shiota, J.-i. (1999). Neurolinguistic evidence for rule-based nominal suffixation. Language, 75(4), 739-763.

Hay, J. (2002). From speech perception to morphology: Affix ordering revisited. Language, 72(3), 527-555.

Hay, J. B., & Baayen, R. H. (2005). Shifting paradigms: gradient structure in morphology. TRENDS in Cognitive Science, 9(7), 342-348.

Jiang, N. (2004). Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 603-634.

Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60-99.

Friedline, B., & Juffs, A. (2010). L1 influence, morphological (in)sensitivity and L2 lexical development: Evidence from production data. Unpublished manuscript, University of Pittsburgh, PA.

Lardiere, D. (1998). Dissociating syntax from morphology in a divergent L2 end-state grammar. Second Language Research, 14(4), 359-375.

Lardiere, D. (2006). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition: a case study. New York: Routledge

Marslen-Wilson, W. D., Bozic, M., & Randall, B. (2008). Early decomposition in visual word recognition: Dissociating morphology, form, and meaning. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(3), 394-421.

Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Pinker, S., & Ullman, M. T. (2002). The past and future of the past tense. TRENDS in Cognitive Science, 6(11), 456-463.

Silva, R., & Clahsen, H. (2008). Morphologically complex words in L1 and L2 processing: Evidence from masked priming experiments in English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11(2), 245-260.

masked priming experiments in English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11(2), 245-260.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp.

235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury Hours.

VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

White, L. (2003). Fossilization in steady state L2 grammars: Persistent problems with inflectional morphology. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6(2), 129-141.

'''Publications''' (All of these papers cite the original PSLC award (years 1-5) SBE-354420.)

Friedline, B. & Juffs, A. (2010). L1 influence, morphological (in)sensitivity and L2 lexical development: Evidence from production data. The University of Pittsburgh. (Revise and resubmit).

Juffs, A., Friedline, B., Wilson, L., Eskenazi, M. & Heilman, M. (2010). Activity theory and computer assisted learning of English vocabulary. The University of Pittsburgh. (Revise and resubmit).

Friedline, B., & Shirai, Y. (2010). Animacy and second language acquisition of English relative clauses. The University of Pittsburgh. (In preparation for peer review).

'''Conference presentations''' (This presentation cites the original PSLC award (years 1-5) SBE-354420.)

Friedline, B., & Juffs, A. L1 influences on the development of L2 morphosyntactic features. Pennsylvania Association of Applied Linguistics Conference (PAALC). State College: Pennsylvania State University. January 2010.

Juffs - Feature Focus in Word Learning

2011-02-07T18:56:58Z

Bef25: /* L2 learning of derived words */

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! PI
| Ben Friedline, Alan Juffs
|-
! Start date
| September 2009
|-
! End date
| July 2010
|-
! Learnlab
| English
|}

== L2 learning of derived words ==
Benjamin Friedline and Alan Juffs

'''Background'''

Inflected and derived words occur frequently in the English language and serve important functions in everyday communication. The term derived word refers to the combination of a base word with a derivational affix. For instance, if the derivational affix –ness is added to the base kind (adjective), the word kindness (noun) is derived. The affix –ness is very productive and can be added to many words to derive novel words such as darkness, awareness, and illness. Other derivational affixes such as –ity are not as productive as –ness and can be used to form a limited number of words, such as ¬purity and scarcity. The term inflected word refers to the combination of a base word and an inflectional affix. For example, if the inflectional affix –ed is added to the base word walk (verb), the resulting word is walked (verb). The addition of the –ed affix is very productive in the formation of the past tense even though it does not apply to a number of irregular past tense forms, such as drove, ate, and sat.

Importantly, the differences in productivity of each type of affix have led some researchers to conclude that there are differences in how they are processed by native speakers. In Words and Rules (WR) theory, Pinker and Ullman (2002) argue that irregular inflected forms (e.g., drove) are stored in the lexicon (or mental dictionary) as whole words, whereas regular forms (e.g., walked) are generated by a regular rule. This theory has also been applied to the processing of derived words in two recent psychological investigations (cf. Alegre & Gordon, 1999; Hagiwara et al., 1999). The main point behind both of these studies is to illustrate that derived words can be either rule-governed (e.g., words with –ness) or stored as whole words in the lexicon (e.g., words with –ity as in purity).
[http://www.bestessays.com custom pappers]
In the area of second language acquisition, adult second language (L2) learners often fail to attain native-like proficiency when producing derived and inflected words in an L2. Lardiere (1998), for instance, showed that second language learners still make errors with inflectional morphology even after many years of exposure to English. In Lardiere’s (1998) study, she recorded and analyzed naturalistic conversations from a Chinese learner of American English. The results of this study indicated that the learner supplied the inflectional affix –ed correctly in only 34% of obligatory contexts even after 18 years of exposure to English. Additionally, in terms of derived words, a recent study by Juffs and Friedline (2010) revealed that intermediate L2 learners often made errors in the production of derived words such as those in examples (1) and (2).
(1) We have one different [difference].
(2) I like doing something music [musical].
In example (1) the learner uses the adjective form different instead of the grammatically correct form difference, which is a noun. In example (2) the learner uses the noun form music in a position that requires the adjective form musical.

The preponderance of such errors in L2 speech has led some researchers to conclude that L2 learners are permanently impaired on the production of derived and inflected words because they do not have access to the same rule-based mechanisms that are present during L1 acquisition (Jiang, 2004; Felser & Clahsen, 2009; Silva & Clahsen, 2008). This hypothesis is formally known as the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis (FDH; Bley-Vroman, 1989), and it has received support from a number of recent studies in the field of second language acquisition. Silva and Clahsen (2008), for instance, use evidence from a masked-priming experiment to compare native speakers to adult L2 learners on a series of morphological priming tasks. The results from this study indicated full priming effects (e.g., darkness primes dark) for native speakers on both inflections and derivations, but only partial priming effects for L2 learners on derivations and no priming effects for L2 learners on inflections. Silva and Clahsen (2008) argue that the limited priming effects (or complete lack thereof) indicate that L2 learners lack rule-based mechanisms and do not know that ¬–ness can be affixed to many adjectives to derive nouns such as darkness, awareness, and illness. This lack of rule-based mechanisms may mean that adult L2 learners memorize all words as unanalyzed chunks of language, without realizing that dark and darkness or walk and walked are intimately related in both form and meaning.

The research by Silva and Clahsen (2008) makes an important contribution to a theory of second language acquisition because it provides a possible explanation for why L2 learners have difficulties with derived and inflected words (i.e., they cannot access rule-based mechanisms). However, this research is limited because it assumes that L2 learners are permanently impaired when compared to native-speakers on all types of rule-based inflectional and derivational morphological processes. This assumption is at odds with findings from studies such as the morpheme order studies (e.g., Bailey, Madden, & Krashen, 1974), critical period studies (e.g., Johnson & Newport, 1989), and studies on the role of morpheme salience in L2 acquisition (e.g., Ellis, 2006) in that these past studies indicate that certain morphemes, such as progressive, may be more easily acquired than others. Johnson and Newport (1989), for instance, claim that the progressive morpheme may not be subject to critical period effects.

Additionally, the role of a learner’s first language may also influence the relative difficulty of a particular morpheme. Potential L1 effects have been discussed in a number of recent SLA studies (e.g., Juffs & Friedline, 2010; White, 2003). Before we conclude that L2 learners are equally impaired in all areas of morphological knowledge, further research is needed to identify if certain morphological structures are easier to acquire than others, how exactly L2 morphological knowledge diverges from native-speaker knowledge, and how a learner’s first language might influence L2 morphological knowledge. The goal of the present research is to answer these questions as they relate to derivational morphology.

'''Research Questions'''

Why are ESL learners so poor in their knowledge of English morphology? What are the knowledge components that are the most challenging for learning through normal language exposure? Do learners have a representational problem or a processing problem? Specifically, what instructional interventions can be designed to overcome observed processing differences in L1 and L2 morphology?

'''Research plan'''

For year 1, the goal of the research is to analyze the knowledge components of ESL learners to lay the groundwork for a hypothesis-based intervention. The research will systematically investigate the components of L2 learners’ knowledge of English derivational morphology to address the following questions:

1) What are the components of L2 derivational knowledge?
2) Are these components different from L1 derivational knowledge?
3) Does L1 matter for the acquisition of derived words in an L2?

'''Methodology'''

To answer these questions, Friedline has developed a series of tasks that will be used to assess what native English speakers and second language learners know about derived words. These tasks included lexical decision, semantic relatedness, and morphological decomposition. Each of these tasks contained several conditions that tested different components of morphological knowledge. Studies on the acquisition of L1 morphological knowledge (e.g., Carlisle, 2000; Carlisle & Fleming, 2003) were consulted in order to develop these conditions. Each condition is outlined below.

''Lexical decision task''

Explanation: In this task, students were asked to rate words from 1 (not a word) or 6 (definitely a word). All words were morphologically complex (e.g., base + affix). Some of the words were real words in English, while other words were not real words in English. The purpose of this task was to assess if native-speakers were sensitive to the effects of semantic blocking and affix ordering. There were four conditions in this task. The conditions are listed below along with an example to illustrate the types of words that were presented in each condition.

Condition 1: Real words
Example: The suffix –able is added to verbs to derive adjectives such as workable or comfortable. A response of 4, 5, or 6 would be counted as accurate.

Condition 2: Semantic blocking
Example: Even though you can add the affix –able to many verbs to derive adjectives, there are some verbs like arrivable and departable look that do not normally take the suffix –able to form adjectives. A response of 1, 2, or 3 would be counted as accurate.

Condition 3: Correct affix ordering
Example: There are some bases that can take two affixes. You can add the affix –able to the verb respect to derive the adjective respectable. Then, you can add the affix –ity to respectable to derive the noun respectability. A response of 4, 5, or 6 would be counted as accurate.

Condition 4: Incorrect affix ordering
Example: In a word like respectability, the word is correct because the affixes are added in the correct order. However, if I add the affix -ity before I add the affix –able, I derive a word like respectitiable. This word is not correct because the affixes are not added in the correct order. A response of 1, 2, or 3 would be counted as accurate.

''Word relatedness task''

Explanation: In this task, students were asked to rate words based on their meaning from 1 (not related) to 6 (definitely related). There were five conditions in this exercise.

Condition 1: No relationship in meaning
Some words are not related in meaning in any way. The words cat and bus are not related in meaning in any way. A response of 1, 2, or 3 would be counted as accurate.

Condition 2: Relationship in meaning
Other words are related in meaning. For instance, bank and money are related in that a bank is a place where you deposit your money. A response of 4, 5, or 6 would be counted as accurate.

Condition 3: Relationship in meaning with different affixes.
This condition contained words with suffixes that were related in meaning. For example, productive (adj.) and production (n.) both share the base produce (v.). A response of 4, 5, or 6 would be counted as accurate.

Condition 4: Relationship in orthography only, not meaning
There are some words that may look like they are related in meaning because they share the same initial letters. In this condition, students saw words like permanence and permission. These words share the letters p-e-r-m, but are unrelated in meaning. A response of 1, 2, or 3 would be counted as accurate.

Condition 5: Relationship in affix only, not meaning
In the final condition, students were presented with words that shared the same affix, but were unrelated in meaning. For example, the words reality and curiosity are unrelated in meaning, but share the affix –ity. A response of 1, 2, or 3 would be counted as accurate.

''Word Analysis Task''

Explanation: On the Word Analysis Task, students were asked to provide the base word of the word provided. Some of these words consisted of a base and an affix such as musician, which has music as a base. Other words, however, could not be broken down into a base and a affix. For instance, dollar cannot be broken down into doll + ar because dollar is a base form. Accuracy was computed for decomposable and non-decomposable words.

Native speakers piloted these tassk in the fall of 2009, and preliminary results are reported for each task in the tables below. A pull out from the ELI in Spring 2010 will collect learner data.

''Participants''

These tasks were administered to native speakers and L2 learners during the fall 2009 and spring 2010 semesters. A total of 23 native-English speakers participated in the study. All of the native speakers were undergraduates at the University of Pittsburgh. Ninety ESL learners participated in this study from three different levels of language proficiency: beginner (n=26), intermediate (n=36), and advanced (n=28). These learners were enrolled in an intensive English program at the University of Pittsburgh.

'''Descriptive Results'''

''Lexical Decision Task''

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''NS Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: Real words
| 93%
|-
! Condition 2: Semantic blocking
| 81%
|-
! Condition 3: Correct affix ordering
| 93%
|-
! Condition 4: Incorrect Affix ordering
| 95%
|}

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''L2 Beginner Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: Real words
| 89%
|-
! Condition 2: Semantic blocking
| 48%
|-
! Condition 3: Correct affix ordering
| 66%
|-
! Condition 4: Incorrect Affix ordering
| 53%
|}

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''L2 Intermediate Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: Real words
| 90%
|-
! Condition 2: Semantic blocking
| 59%
|-
! Condition 3: Correct affix ordering
| 69%
|-
! Condition 4: Incorrect Affix ordering
| 70%
|}

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''L2 Advanced Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: Real words
| 96%
|-
! Condition 2: Semantic blocking
| 53%
|-
! Condition 3: Correct affix ordering
| 77%
|-
! Condition 4: Incorrect Affix ordering
| 81%
|}

''Word relatedness task''
{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''NS Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: No relationship in meaning
| 92%
|-
! Condition 2: Relationship in meaning
| 92%
|-
! Condition 3: Relationship in meaning with different affixes
| 97%
|-
! Condition 4: Relationship in orthography only
| 89%
|-
! Condition 5: Relationship in affix only
| 90%
|}

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''L2 Beginner Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: No relationship in meaning
| 91%
|-
! Condition 2: Relationship in meaning
| 84%
|-
! Condition 3: Relationship in meaning with different affixes
| 89%
|-
! Condition 4: Relationship in orthography only
| 73%
|-
! Condition 5: Relationship in affix only
| 74%
|}

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''L2 Intermediate Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: No relationship in meaning
| 89%
|-
! Condition 2: Relationship in meaning
| 87%
|-
! Condition 3: Relationship in meaning with different affixes
| 89%
|-
! Condition 4: Relationship in orthography only
| 70%
|-
! Condition 5: Relationship in affix only
| 69%
|}

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''L2 Advanced Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: No relationship in meaning
| 95%
|-
! Condition 2: Relationship in meaning
| 79%
|-
! Condition 3: Relationship in meaning with different affixes
| 96%
|-
! Condition 4: Relationship in orthography only
| 81%
|-
! Condition 5: Relationship in affix only
| 89%
|}

''Word Analysis Task''
{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''NS Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: Decomposable
| 85%
|-
! Condition 2: Non-decomposable
| 92%
|}

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''L2 Beginner Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: Decomposable
| 59%
|-
! Condition 2: Non-decomposable
| 73%
|}

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''L2 Intermediate Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: Decomposable
| 61%
|-
! Condition 2: Non-decomposable
| 84%
|}

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''L2 Advanced Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: Decomposable
| 65%
|-
! Condition 2: Non-decomposable
| 81%
|}

'''Discussion of descriptive statistics'''

''Beginning L2 Learners (Level 3)''

The results of this study indicate that level 3 learners from the ELI at the University of Pittsburgh often have problems when processing derived words. Firstly, the lexical decision task may indicate that beginning learners are not sensitive to constraints on the use of morphemes such as –able and –ness or constraints on the ordering of affixes. For instance, the learners in the present study often judge words such as departable and hopenessful to be real English words in spite of the fact that most native speakers rarely (if ever) consider these words to be real English words. Sixteen of 26 level 3 learners said that smileable was a real word in English, while only 1 of 23 native speakers said that this was a real word in English. Likewise, for hopenessful, 18 of 26 learners said that this was a real word, but only 1 of 23 natives considered hopenessful to be a real English word. Second, the word relatedness task seems to indicate that learners rely heavily on orthographic/phonological overlap when processing the meaning of words. Put another way, the learners in this study said that word pairs that were related in form only were also related in meaning. For instance, 12 out of 26 level 3 learners said that the word pair majority-activity were related in meaning, while native speakers (N=23) never say that these words are related in meaning. Finally, the results from the word analysis task may suggest that learners at this level have significant difficulties with derived words that involve phonological and/or orthographic changes to the base. In the present study, almost all of the level 3 learners (22 of 26) incorrectly provided the base word for extension. Native speakers, on the other hand, provided the incorrect base for extension only 4 times out of 23 subjects.

''Intermediate L2 Learners (Level 4)''

For Level 4 L2 learners, the lexical decision task may indicate that even intermediate-level learners are not sensitive to constraints on the use of morphemes such as –able and –ness or constraints on the ordering of affixes. For instance, the learners in the present study often judge words such as departable and hopenessful to be real English words in spite of the fact that most native speakers rarely (if ever) consider these words to be real English words. Seventeen of 36 level 4 learners said that smileable was a real word in English, while only 1 of 23 native speakers said that this was a real word in English. Likewise, for hopenessful, 21 of 36 learners said that this was a real word, but only 1 of 23 natives considered hopenessful to be a real English word. Second, the word relatedness task seems to indicate that learners rely heavily on orthographic/phonological overlap when processing the meaning of words. Put another way, the learners in this study said that word pairs that were related in form only were also related in meaning. For instance, 14 out of 36 level 3 learners said that the word pair majority-activity were related in meaning, while native speakers (N=23) never say that these words are related in meaning. Finally, the results from the word analysis task may suggest that learners at this level have significant difficulties with derived words that involve phonological and/or orthographic changes to the base. In the present study, more than two-thirds of the level 4 learners (25 of 36) incorrectly provided the base word for extension. Native speakers, on the other hand, provided the incorrect base for extension only 4 times out of 23 subjects.

''Advanced L2 Learners (Level 5)''

For level 5 L2 learners, the lexical decision task may indicate that even advanced learners are not sensitive to constraints on the use of morphemes such as –able and –ness. For instance, the learners in the present study often judge words such as smileable and leavable to be real English words in spite of the fact that most native speakers rarely (if ever) consider these words to be real English words. Fourteen of 28 level 5 learners said that smileable was a real word in English, while only 1 of 23 native speakers said that this was a real word in English. Likewise, for leavable, 19 of 28 learners said that this was a real word, but only 4 of 23 natives considered leavable to be a real English word. Second, the word relatedness task seems to indicate that advanced learners still rely to some degree on orthographic/phonological overlap when processing the meaning of words. Put another way, some advanced learners in this study said that word pairs that were related in form only were also related in meaning. For instance, 11 out of 28 level 3 learners said that the word pair constantly-conservative were related in meaning, while native speakers (N=23) never say that these words are related in meaning. Finally, the results from the word analysis task may suggest that learners at level 5 have significant difficulties with derived words that involve phonological and/or orthographic changes to the base. In the present study, many of the errors on the word analysis task were errors on words that involved a significant orthographic and sometimes phonological change to the base. For instance, 19 of 28 level 5 students incorrectly provided the base word for extension. Native speakers, on the other hand, provided the incorrect base for extension only 4 times out of 23 subjects.

'''General Discussion'''

This section reports the results of this study in connection with the four original research questions. The first question was primarily concerned with determining the knowledge components of second language derivational knowledge. Based on the results of Study 1, second language learners knew the following about derived words in English:
(1) Knowledge of highly frequent derived words.
(2) Knowledge that derived words can be broken down into bases and affixes.
At the same time, the results of Study 1 also provided some indication of areas of weakness in L2 derivational knowledge. Knowledge components that second language learners may have lacked are listed below:
(1) Knowledge of constraints on affix attachment or affix ordering.
(2) Knowledge that overlap in orthography/phonology does not imply overlap in meaning.
(3) Knowledge that derivation sometimes involves phonological changes to a base word.

The second research question asked whether the components of L2 derivational knowledge were different than the components of L1 derivational knowledge. The results of study 1 indicate that L2 derivational knowledge is significantly different (p < .05) from native speaker knowledge. In short, native speakers demonstrated knowledge of derivational morphology that non-natives were shown to lack. For instance, on the lexical decision task natives (accuracy = 95%) clearly knew when affix ordering constraints had been violated, whereas non-natives (accuracy = 69%) demonstrated limited knowledge of these constraint violations.
The remaining two research questions pertained to: 1) influences from linguistic background and 2) influences from English language proficiency. In large part, the results from Study 1 suggest that linguistic background and proficiency made little difference in how language learners performed on tasks related to derivational morphology. In short, such factors have no statistically significant effect (p > .05) on how second language learners perform on tasks related to word-relatedness or word analysis. Nonetheless, there is some evidence from the lexical decision task that group and proficiency may matter for performance on grammaticality judgments in that learners with Korean and Romance language backgrounds tended to outperform learners from Arabic and Chinese language backgrounds on words that violated constraints on English word formation.

In terms of second language acquisition theory, the results of Study 1 may indicate that non-native speakers have little difficulty recognizing high frequency derived words (e.g., darkness), but they have significant difficulty when confronted with words that do not exist in English (e.g., arrivable) or words that involve complex morphological operations such as affix ordering (e.g., thoughtfulness vs. thoughtnessful). Recent work in psycholinguistics may provide a partial explanation for these findings. That is, research on the processing and storage of derived words shows that derived words may be either stored in lexical memory or else produced by a generative rule-governed mechanism (e.g., Alegre & Gordon, 1999; Hagiwara et al., 1999). The data from L2 learners presented here may imply that learners excel at recognizing highly frequent derived words, but are in a sense ‘impaired’ when using rule-based mechanisms to generate (or in this case recognize) that constraints on affix attachment or ordering are being violated. These findings are also consistent with Silva and Clahsen’s (2008) findings from priming experiments involving native and non-native performance on derived words. More specifically, Silva and Clahsen (2008) argue that limited priming effects on derived words among L2 learners evinces impairment to rule-based mechanisms, meaning that L2 learners must rely largely on lexical memory when acquiring derived words in English.

**Additional statistical results and key theoretical discussion is forthcoming in the first author's doctoral dissertation.**

'''Next steps'''

For the 2010-2011 academic year, I am developing a morphology intervention based on the results of the study I completed this year. This will be an in vivo study that I will pilot in the fall 2010 semester and run in the ELI classrooms during the spring 2011 semester. The design of this study includes a pretest, an intervention, and a post-test to assess gains in morphological knowledge. The intervention portion of this study will teach: 1) constraints on affix attachment (e.g., affix ordering) and 2) relational knowledge between base words and related derived words (e.g., creation and creative are related to the base create), which are areas of weakness for adult second language learners based on the results of Study 1. Key research questions for this project include the following: 1) Does instruction on derived words enhance L2 sensitivity to constraints on affix attachment?, 2) What type of instruction works best for teaching constraints on derived words?, and 3) Is L2 knowledge of derived words fundamentally different than that of native speakers? This project directly relates to the "Focus on valid features in word learning" CF goal as well as the "learner background" goal.

''Robust learning of derivational morphology''

One of the core components of the PSLC theory of robust learning is foundational skill building. Foundational skill building refers to the knowledge or skill that “must be mastered in order to provide for subsequent learning” (http://learnlab.org/clusters). The findings from Study 1 relate to this construct in that they provide direct evidence of the knowledge components of derivational morphology that adult second language learners have not yet mastered in relation to adult native-speaker peers. Study 1 does not directly explore the learning processes involved in learning derivational morphology; however, it does provide a foundation for the design of an intervention study that directly investigates such processes. Study 2 builds on Study 1 in the design of an intervention study that seeks to identify how different types of instruction (conditions in PSLC terminology) contribute to the mastery of the knowledge components underlying derived word knowledge. More specifically, Study 2 compares traditional output-based instruction (Swain, 1985) with input-processing instruction (VanPatten, 1996) as the learning conditions for knowledge components underlying derived word knowledge. In terms of the broader PSLC theoretical framework, Study 2 seeks to identify the contributions of different instructional methods to the robust learning of derivational morphology. In terms of the cognitive factors thrust goals, this project most directly relates to to the "Focus on valid features in word learning.”

''Project plan for AY 2010-2011''

1) September 2010 – Complete materials for intervention study (study 2)

2) October 2010 – Defend dissertation overview based on this research

3) October 2010 – Pilot test pretest materials with a pull-out sample from the ELI

4) November 2010 – Analyze results from pilot study and determine appropriate course of action for morphology intervention.

5) Spring 2011 – Implement morphology intervention in the ELI classroom.

6) Summer 2011 - Analyze data and begin to write dissertation

7) Fall 201l - Work on dissertation

'''Selected References'''

Alegre, M., & Gordon, P. (1999). Rule-based versus associative processes in derivational morphology. Brain and Language, 68, 347-354.

Bailey, N., Madden, C., & Krashen, S. (1974). Is there a "natural sequence" in adult second language learning? Language Learning, 24(2), 234-243.

Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). The logical problem of second language learning. In S. Gass & J. Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Carlisle, J.F. (2000). Awareness of the structure and meaning of morphologically complex words: Impact on reading. Reading and Writing, 12(3-4), 169-190.

Carlisle, J. F., & Fleming, J. (2003). Lexical processing of morphologically complex words in the elementary years. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7(3), 239-253.

Ellis, N. C. (2006). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 164-194.

Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2009). Grammatical processing of spoken language in child and adult language learners. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 38(3), 305-319.

Gonnerman, L. M., Seidenberg, M. S., & Andersen, E. S. (2007). Graded semantic and phonological similarity effect in priming: Evidence for a distributed connectionist approach to morphology. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 136(2), 323-345.

Hagiwara, H., Sugioka, Y., Ito, T., Kawamura, M., & Shiota, J.-i. (1999). Neurolinguistic evidence for rule-based nominal suffixation. Language, 75(4), 739-763.

Hay, J. (2002). From speech perception to morphology: Affix ordering revisited. Language, 72(3), 527-555.

Hay, J. B., & Baayen, R. H. (2005). Shifting paradigms: gradient structure in morphology. TRENDS in Cognitive Science, 9(7), 342-348.

Jiang, N. (2004). Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 603-634.

Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60-99.

Friedline, B., & Juffs, A. (2010). L1 influence, morphological (in)sensitivity and L2 lexical development: Evidence from production data. Unpublished manuscript, University of Pittsburgh, PA.

Lardiere, D. (1998). Dissociating syntax from morphology in a divergent L2 end-state grammar. Second Language Research, 14(4), 359-375.

Lardiere, D. (2006). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition: a case study. New York: Routledge

Marslen-Wilson, W. D., Bozic, M., & Randall, B. (2008). Early decomposition in visual word recognition: Dissociating morphology, form, and meaning. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(3), 394-421.

Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Pinker, S., & Ullman, M. T. (2002). The past and future of the past tense. TRENDS in Cognitive Science, 6(11), 456-463.

Silva, R., & Clahsen, H. (2008). Morphologically complex words in L1 and L2 processing: Evidence from masked priming experiments in English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11(2), 245-260.

masked priming experiments in English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11(2), 245-260.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp.

235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury Hours.

VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

White, L. (2003). Fossilization in steady state L2 grammars: Persistent problems with inflectional morphology. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6(2), 129-141.

'''Publications'''

Papers (All of these papers cite the original PSLC award (years 1-5) SBE-354420.)

Friedline, B. & Juffs, A. (2010). L1 influence, morphological (in)sensitivity and L2 lexical development: Evidence from production data. The University of Pittsburgh. (Revise and resubmit).

Juffs, A., Friedline, B., Wilson, L., Eskenazi, M. & Heilman, M. (2010). Activity theory and computer assisted learning of English vocabulary. The University of Pittsburgh. (Revise and resubmit).

Friedline, B., & Shirai, Y. (2010). Animacy and second language acquisition of English relative clauses. The University of Pittsburgh. (In preparation for peer review).

''Conference presentations'' (This presentation cites the original PSLC award (years 1-5) SBE-354420.)

Friedline, B., & Juffs, A. L1 influences on the development of L2 morphosyntactic features. Pennsylvania Association of Applied Linguistics Conference (PAALC). State College: Pennsylvania State University. January 2010.

Juffs - Feature Focus in Word Learning

2011-02-07T18:54:44Z

Bef25: /* L2 learning of derived words */

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! PI
| Ben Friedline, Alan Juffs
|-
! Start date
| September 2009
|-
! End date
| July 2010
|-
! Learnlab
| English
|}

== L2 learning of derived words ==
Benjamin Friedline and Alan Juffs

'''Background'''

Inflected and derived words occur frequently in the English language and serve important functions in everyday communication. The term derived word refers to the combination of a base word with a derivational affix. For instance, if the derivational affix –ness is added to the base kind (adjective), the word kindness (noun) is derived. The affix –ness is very productive and can be added to many words to derive novel words such as darkness, awareness, and illness. Other derivational affixes such as –ity are not as productive as –ness and can be used to form a limited number of words, such as ¬purity and scarcity. The term inflected word refers to the combination of a base word and an inflectional affix. For example, if the inflectional affix –ed is added to the base word walk (verb), the resulting word is walked (verb). The addition of the –ed affix is very productive in the formation of the past tense even though it does not apply to a number of irregular past tense forms, such as drove, ate, and sat.

Importantly, the differences in productivity of each type of affix have led some researchers to conclude that there are differences in how they are processed by native speakers. In Words and Rules (WR) theory, Pinker and Ullman (2002) argue that irregular inflected forms (e.g., drove) are stored in the lexicon (or mental dictionary) as whole words, whereas regular forms (e.g., walked) are generated by a regular rule. This theory has also been applied to the processing of derived words in two recent psychological investigations (cf. Alegre & Gordon, 1999; Hagiwara et al., 1999). The main point behind both of these studies is to illustrate that derived words can be either rule-governed (e.g., words with –ness) or stored as whole words in the lexicon (e.g., words with –ity as in purity).
[http://www.bestessays.com custom pappers]
In the area of second language acquisition, adult second language (L2) learners often fail to attain native-like proficiency when producing derived and inflected words in an L2. Lardiere (1998), for instance, showed that second language learners still make errors with inflectional morphology even after many years of exposure to English. In Lardiere’s (1998) study, she recorded and analyzed naturalistic conversations from a Chinese learner of American English. The results of this study indicated that the learner supplied the inflectional affix –ed correctly in only 34% of obligatory contexts even after 18 years of exposure to English. Additionally, in terms of derived words, a recent study by Juffs and Friedline (2010) revealed that intermediate L2 learners often made errors in the production of derived words such as those in examples (1) and (2).
(1) We have one different [difference].
(2) I like doing something music [musical].
In example (1) the learner uses the adjective form different instead of the grammatically correct form difference, which is a noun. In example (2) the learner uses the noun form music in a position that requires the adjective form musical.

The preponderance of such errors in L2 speech has led some researchers to conclude that L2 learners are permanently impaired on the production of derived and inflected words because they do not have access to the same rule-based mechanisms that are present during L1 acquisition (Jiang, 2004; Felser & Clahsen, 2009; Silva & Clahsen, 2008). This hypothesis is formally known as the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis (FDH; Bley-Vroman, 1989), and it has received support from a number of recent studies in the field of second language acquisition. Silva and Clahsen (2008), for instance, use evidence from a masked-priming experiment to compare native speakers to adult L2 learners on a series of morphological priming tasks. The results from this study indicated full priming effects (e.g., darkness primes dark) for native speakers on both inflections and derivations, but only partial priming effects for L2 learners on derivations and no priming effects for L2 learners on inflections. Silva and Clahsen (2008) argue that the limited priming effects (or complete lack thereof) indicate that L2 learners lack rule-based mechanisms and do not know that ¬–ness can be affixed to many adjectives to derive nouns such as darkness, awareness, and illness. This lack of rule-based mechanisms may mean that adult L2 learners memorize all words as unanalyzed chunks of language, without realizing that dark and darkness or walk and walked are intimately related in both form and meaning.

The research by Silva and Clahsen (2008) makes an important contribution to a theory of second language acquisition because it provides a possible explanation for why L2 learners have difficulties with derived and inflected words (i.e., they cannot access rule-based mechanisms). However, this research is limited because it assumes that L2 learners are permanently impaired when compared to native-speakers on all types of rule-based inflectional and derivational morphological processes. This assumption is at odds with findings from studies such as the morpheme order studies (e.g., Bailey, Madden, & Krashen, 1974), critical period studies (e.g., Johnson & Newport, 1989), and studies on the role of morpheme salience in L2 acquisition (e.g., Ellis, 2006) in that these past studies indicate that certain morphemes, such as progressive, may be more easily acquired than others. Johnson and Newport (1989), for instance, claim that the progressive morpheme may not be subject to critical period effects.

Additionally, the role of a learner’s first language may also influence the relative difficulty of a particular morpheme. Potential L1 effects have been discussed in a number of recent SLA studies (e.g., Juffs & Friedline, 2010; White, 2003). Before we conclude that L2 learners are equally impaired in all areas of morphological knowledge, further research is needed to identify if certain morphological structures are easier to acquire than others, how exactly L2 morphological knowledge diverges from native-speaker knowledge, and how a learner’s first language might influence L2 morphological knowledge. The goal of the present research is to answer these questions as they relate to derivational morphology.

'''Research Questions'''

Why are ESL learners so poor in their knowledge of English morphology? What are the knowledge components that are the most challenging for learning through normal language exposure? Do learners have a representational problem or a processing problem? Specifically, what instructional interventions can be designed to overcome observed processing differences in L1 and L2 morphology?

'''Research plan'''

For year 1, the goal of the research is to analyze the knowledge components of ESL learners to lay the groundwork for a hypothesis-based intervention. The research will systematically investigate the components of L2 learners’ knowledge of English derivational morphology to address the following questions:

1) What are the components of L2 derivational knowledge?
2) Are these components different from L1 derivational knowledge?
3) Does L1 matter for the acquisition of derived words in an L2?

'''Methodology'''

To answer these questions, Friedline has developed a series of tasks that will be used to assess what native English speakers and second language learners know about derived words. These tasks included lexical decision, semantic relatedness, and morphological decomposition. Each of these tasks contained several conditions that tested different components of morphological knowledge. Studies on the acquisition of L1 morphological knowledge (e.g., Carlisle, 2000; Carlisle & Fleming, 2003) were consulted in order to develop these conditions. Each condition is outlined below.

''Lexical decision task''

Explanation: In this task, students were asked to rate words from 1 (not a word) or 6 (definitely a word). All words were morphologically complex (e.g., base + affix). Some of the words were real words in English, while other words were not real words in English. The purpose of this task was to assess if native-speakers were sensitive to the effects of semantic blocking and affix ordering. There were four conditions in this task. The conditions are listed below along with an example to illustrate the types of words that were presented in each condition.

Condition 1: Real words
Example: The suffix –able is added to verbs to derive adjectives such as workable or comfortable. A response of 4, 5, or 6 would be counted as accurate.

Condition 2: Semantic blocking
Example: Even though you can add the affix –able to many verbs to derive adjectives, there are some verbs like arrivable and departable look that do not normally take the suffix –able to form adjectives. A response of 1, 2, or 3 would be counted as accurate.

Condition 3: Correct affix ordering
Example: There are some bases that can take two affixes. You can add the affix –able to the verb respect to derive the adjective respectable. Then, you can add the affix –ity to respectable to derive the noun respectability. A response of 4, 5, or 6 would be counted as accurate.

Condition 4: Incorrect affix ordering
Example: In a word like respectability, the word is correct because the affixes are added in the correct order. However, if I add the affix -ity before I add the affix –able, I derive a word like respectitiable. This word is not correct because the affixes are not added in the correct order. A response of 1, 2, or 3 would be counted as accurate.

''Word relatedness task''

Explanation: In this task, students were asked to rate words based on their meaning from 1 (not related) to 6 (definitely related). There were five conditions in this exercise.

Condition 1: No relationship in meaning
Some words are not related in meaning in any way. The words cat and bus are not related in meaning in any way. A response of 1, 2, or 3 would be counted as accurate.

Condition 2: Relationship in meaning
Other words are related in meaning. For instance, bank and money are related in that a bank is a place where you deposit your money. A response of 4, 5, or 6 would be counted as accurate.

Condition 3: Relationship in meaning with different affixes.
This condition contained words with suffixes that were related in meaning. For example, productive (adj.) and production (n.) both share the base produce (v.). A response of 4, 5, or 6 would be counted as accurate.

Condition 4: Relationship in orthography only, not meaning
There are some words that may look like they are related in meaning because they share the same initial letters. In this condition, students saw words like permanence and permission. These words share the letters p-e-r-m, but are unrelated in meaning. A response of 1, 2, or 3 would be counted as accurate.

Condition 5: Relationship in affix only, not meaning
In the final condition, students were presented with words that shared the same affix, but were unrelated in meaning. For example, the words reality and curiosity are unrelated in meaning, but share the affix –ity. A response of 1, 2, or 3 would be counted as accurate.

''Word Analysis Task''

Explanation: On the Word Analysis Task, students were asked to provide the base word of the word provided. Some of these words consisted of a base and an affix such as musician, which has music as a base. Other words, however, could not be broken down into a base and a affix. For instance, dollar cannot be broken down into doll + ar because dollar is a base form. Accuracy was computed for decomposable and non-decomposable words.

Native speakers piloted these tassk in the fall of 2009, and preliminary results are reported for each task in the tables below. A pull out from the ELI in Spring 2010 will collect learner data.

''Participants''

These tasks were administered to native speakers and L2 learners during the fall 2009 and spring 2010 semesters. A total of 23 native-English speakers participated in the study. All of the native speakers were undergraduates at the University of Pittsburgh. Ninety ESL learners participated in this study from three different levels of language proficiency: beginner (n=26), intermediate (n=36), and advanced (n=28). These learners were enrolled in an intensive English program at the University of Pittsburgh.

'''Descriptive Results'''

''Lexical Decision Task''

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''NS Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: Real words
| 93%
|-
! Condition 2: Semantic blocking
| 81%
|-
! Condition 3: Correct affix ordering
| 93%
|-
! Condition 4: Incorrect Affix ordering
| 95%
|}

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''L2 Beginner Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: Real words
| 89%
|-
! Condition 2: Semantic blocking
| 48%
|-
! Condition 3: Correct affix ordering
| 66%
|-
! Condition 4: Incorrect Affix ordering
| 53%
|}

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''L2 Intermediate Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: Real words
| 90%
|-
! Condition 2: Semantic blocking
| 59%
|-
! Condition 3: Correct affix ordering
| 69%
|-
! Condition 4: Incorrect Affix ordering
| 70%
|}

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''L2 Advanced Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: Real words
| 96%
|-
! Condition 2: Semantic blocking
| 53%
|-
! Condition 3: Correct affix ordering
| 77%
|-
! Condition 4: Incorrect Affix ordering
| 81%
|}

''Word relatedness task''
{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''NS Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: No relationship in meaning
| 92%
|-
! Condition 2: Relationship in meaning
| 92%
|-
! Condition 3: Relationship in meaning with different affixes
| 97%
|-
! Condition 4: Relationship in orthography only
| 89%
|-
! Condition 5: Relationship in affix only
| 90%
|}

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''L2 Beginner Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: No relationship in meaning
| 91%
|-
! Condition 2: Relationship in meaning
| 84%
|-
! Condition 3: Relationship in meaning with different affixes
| 89%
|-
! Condition 4: Relationship in orthography only
| 73%
|-
! Condition 5: Relationship in affix only
| 74%
|}

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''L2 Intermediate Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: No relationship in meaning
| 89%
|-
! Condition 2: Relationship in meaning
| 87%
|-
! Condition 3: Relationship in meaning with different affixes
| 89%
|-
! Condition 4: Relationship in orthography only
| 70%
|-
! Condition 5: Relationship in affix only
| 69%
|}

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''L2 Advanced Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: No relationship in meaning
| 95%
|-
! Condition 2: Relationship in meaning
| 79%
|-
! Condition 3: Relationship in meaning with different affixes
| 96%
|-
! Condition 4: Relationship in orthography only
| 81%
|-
! Condition 5: Relationship in affix only
| 89%
|}

''Word Analysis Task''
{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''NS Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: Decomposable
| 85%
|-
! Condition 2: Non-decomposable
| 92%
|}

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''L2 Beginner Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: Decomposable
| 59%
|-
! Condition 2: Non-decomposable
| 73%
|}

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''L2 Intermediate Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: Decomposable
| 61%
|-
! Condition 2: Non-decomposable
| 84%
|}

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''L2 Advanced Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: Decomposable
| 65%
|-
! Condition 2: Non-decomposable
| 81%
|}

'''Discussion of descriptive statistics'''

''Beginning L2 Learners (Level 3)''

The results of this study indicate that level 3 learners from the ELI at the University of Pittsburgh often have problems when processing derived words. Firstly, the lexical decision task may indicate that beginning learners are not sensitive to constraints on the use of morphemes such as –able and –ness or constraints on the ordering of affixes. For instance, the learners in the present study often judge words such as departable and hopenessful to be real English words in spite of the fact that most native speakers rarely (if ever) consider these words to be real English words. Sixteen of 26 level 3 learners said that smileable was a real word in English, while only 1 of 23 native speakers said that this was a real word in English. Likewise, for hopenessful, 18 of 26 learners said that this was a real word, but only 1 of 23 natives considered hopenessful to be a real English word. Second, the word relatedness task seems to indicate that learners rely heavily on orthographic/phonological overlap when processing the meaning of words. Put another way, the learners in this study said that word pairs that were related in form only were also related in meaning. For instance, 12 out of 26 level 3 learners said that the word pair majority-activity were related in meaning, while native speakers (N=23) never say that these words are related in meaning. Finally, the results from the word analysis task may suggest that learners at this level have significant difficulties with derived words that involve phonological and/or orthographic changes to the base. In the present study, almost all of the level 3 learners (22 of 26) incorrectly provided the base word for extension. Native speakers, on the other hand, provided the incorrect base for extension only 4 times out of 23 subjects.

''Intermediate L2 Learners (Level 4)''

For Level 4 L2 learners, the lexical decision task may indicate that even intermediate-level learners are not sensitive to constraints on the use of morphemes such as –able and –ness or constraints on the ordering of affixes. For instance, the learners in the present study often judge words such as departable and hopenessful to be real English words in spite of the fact that most native speakers rarely (if ever) consider these words to be real English words. Seventeen of 36 level 4 learners said that smileable was a real word in English, while only 1 of 23 native speakers said that this was a real word in English. Likewise, for hopenessful, 21 of 36 learners said that this was a real word, but only 1 of 23 natives considered hopenessful to be a real English word. Second, the word relatedness task seems to indicate that learners rely heavily on orthographic/phonological overlap when processing the meaning of words. Put another way, the learners in this study said that word pairs that were related in form only were also related in meaning. For instance, 14 out of 36 level 3 learners said that the word pair majority-activity were related in meaning, while native speakers (N=23) never say that these words are related in meaning. Finally, the results from the word analysis task may suggest that learners at this level have significant difficulties with derived words that involve phonological and/or orthographic changes to the base. In the present study, more than two-thirds of the level 4 learners (25 of 36) incorrectly provided the base word for extension. Native speakers, on the other hand, provided the incorrect base for extension only 4 times out of 23 subjects.

''Advanced L2 Learners (Level 5)''

For level 5 L2 learners, the lexical decision task may indicate that even advanced learners are not sensitive to constraints on the use of morphemes such as –able and –ness. For instance, the learners in the present study often judge words such as smileable and leavable to be real English words in spite of the fact that most native speakers rarely (if ever) consider these words to be real English words. Fourteen of 28 level 5 learners said that smileable was a real word in English, while only 1 of 23 native speakers said that this was a real word in English. Likewise, for leavable, 19 of 28 learners said that this was a real word, but only 4 of 23 natives considered leavable to be a real English word. Second, the word relatedness task seems to indicate that advanced learners still rely to some degree on orthographic/phonological overlap when processing the meaning of words. Put another way, some advanced learners in this study said that word pairs that were related in form only were also related in meaning. For instance, 11 out of 28 level 3 learners said that the word pair constantly-conservative were related in meaning, while native speakers (N=23) never say that these words are related in meaning. Finally, the results from the word analysis task may suggest that learners at level 5 have significant difficulties with derived words that involve phonological and/or orthographic changes to the base. In the present study, many of the errors on the word analysis task were errors on words that involved a significant orthographic and sometimes phonological change to the base. For instance, 19 of 28 level 5 students incorrectly provided the base word for extension. Native speakers, on the other hand, provided the incorrect base for extension only 4 times out of 23 subjects.

'''General Discussion'''

This section reports the results of this study in connection with the four original research questions. The first question was primarily concerned with determining the knowledge components of second language derivational knowledge. Based on the results of Study 1, second language learners knew the following about derived words in English:
(1) Knowledge of highly frequent derived words.
(2) Knowledge that derived words can be broken down into bases and affixes.
At the same time, the results of Study 1 also provided some indication of areas of weakness in L2 derivational knowledge. Knowledge components that second language learners may have lacked are listed below:
(1) Knowledge of constraints on affix attachment or affix ordering.
(2) Knowledge that overlap in orthography/phonology does not imply overlap in meaning.
(3) Knowledge that derivation sometimes involves phonological changes to a base word.

The second research question asked whether the components of L2 derivational knowledge were different than the components of L1 derivational knowledge. The results of study 1 indicate that L2 derivational knowledge is significantly different (p < .05) from native speaker knowledge. In short, native speakers demonstrated knowledge of derivational morphology that non-natives were shown to lack. For instance, on the lexical decision task natives (accuracy = 95%) clearly knew when affix ordering constraints had been violated, whereas non-natives (accuracy = 69%) demonstrated limited knowledge of these constraint violations.
The remaining two research questions pertained to: 1) influences from linguistic background and 2) influences from English language proficiency. In large part, the results from Study 1 suggest that linguistic background and proficiency made little difference in how language learners performed on tasks related to derivational morphology. In short, such factors have no statistically significant effect (p > .05) on how second language learners perform on tasks related to word-relatedness or word analysis. Nonetheless, there is some evidence from the lexical decision task that group and proficiency may matter for performance on grammaticality judgments in that learners with Korean and Romance language backgrounds tended to outperform learners from Arabic and Chinese language backgrounds on words that violated constraints on English word formation.

In terms of second language acquisition theory, the results of Study 1 may indicate that non-native speakers have little difficulty recognizing high frequency derived words (e.g., darkness), but they have significant difficulty when confronted with words that do not exist in English (e.g., arrivable) or words that involve complex morphological operations such as affix ordering (e.g., thoughtfulness vs. thoughtnessful). Recent work in psycholinguistics may provide a partial explanation for these findings. That is, research on the processing and storage of derived words shows that derived words may be either stored in lexical memory or else produced by a generative rule-governed mechanism (e.g., Alegre & Gordon, 1999; Hagiwara et al., 1999). The data from L2 learners presented here may imply that learners excel at recognizing highly frequent derived words, but are in a sense ‘impaired’ when using rule-based mechanisms to generate (or in this case recognize) that constraints on affix attachment or ordering are being violated. These findings are also consistent with Silva and Clahsen’s (2008) findings from priming experiments involving native and non-native performance on derived words. More specifically, Silva and Clahsen (2008) argue that limited priming effects on derived words among L2 learners evinces impairment to rule-based mechanisms, meaning that L2 learners must rely largely on lexical memory when acquiring derived words in English.

**Additional statistical results and key theoretical discussion is forthcoming in the first author's doctoral dissertation.**

'''Next steps'''

For the 2010-2011 academic year, I am developing a morphology intervention based on the results of the study I completed this year. This will be an in vivo study that I will pilot in the fall 2010 semester and run in the ELI classrooms during the spring 2011 semester. The design of this study includes a pretest, an intervention, and a post-test to assess gains in morphological knowledge. The intervention portion of this study will teach: 1) constraints on affix attachment (e.g., affix ordering) and 2) relational knowledge between base words and related derived words (e.g., creation and creative are related to the base create), which are areas of weakness for adult second language learners based on the results of Study 1. Key research questions for this project include the following: 1) Does instruction on derived words enhance L2 sensitivity to constraints on affix attachment?, 2) What type of instruction works best for teaching constraints on derived words?, and 3) Is L2 knowledge of derived words fundamentally different than that of native speakers? This project directly relates to the "Focus on valid features in word learning" CF goal as well as the "learner background" goal.

''Robust learning of derivational morphology''

One of the core components of the PSLC theory of robust learning is foundational skill building. Foundational skill building refers to the knowledge or skill that “must be mastered in order to provide for subsequent learning” (http://learnlab.org/clusters). The findings from Study 1 relate to this construct in that they provide direct evidence of the knowledge components of derivational morphology that adult second language learners have not yet mastered in relation to adult native-speaker peers. Study 1 does not directly explore the learning processes involved in learning derivational morphology; however, it does provide a foundation for the design of an intervention study that directly investigates such processes. Study 2 builds on Study 1 in the design of an intervention study that seeks to identify how different types of instruction (conditions in PSLC terminology) contribute to the mastery of the knowledge components underlying derived word knowledge. More specifically, Study 2 compares traditional output-based instruction (Swain, 1985) with input-processing instruction (VanPatten, 1996) as the learning conditions for knowledge components underlying derived word knowledge. In terms of the broader PSLC theoretical framework, Study 2 seeks to identify the contributions of different instructional methods to the robust learning of derivational morphology. In terms of the cognitive factors thrust goals, this project most directly relates to to the "Focus on valid features in word learning.”

''Project plan for AY 2010-2011''

1) September 2010 – Complete materials for intervention study (study 2)

2) October 2010 – Defend dissertation overview based on this research

3) October 2010 – Pilot test pretest materials with a pull-out sample from the ELI

4) November 2010 – Analyze results from pilot study and determine appropriate course of action for morphology intervention.

5) January 2011 – Implement morphology intervention in the ELI classroom.

'''Selected References'''

Alegre, M., & Gordon, P. (1999). Rule-based versus associative processes in derivational morphology. Brain and Language, 68, 347-354.

Bailey, N., Madden, C., & Krashen, S. (1974). Is there a "natural sequence" in adult second language learning? Language Learning, 24(2), 234-243.

Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). The logical problem of second language learning. In S. Gass & J. Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Carlisle, J.F. (2000). Awareness of the structure and meaning of morphologically complex words: Impact on reading. Reading and Writing, 12(3-4), 169-190.

Carlisle, J. F., & Fleming, J. (2003). Lexical processing of morphologically complex words in the elementary years. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7(3), 239-253.

Ellis, N. C. (2006). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 164-194.

Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2009). Grammatical processing of spoken language in child and adult language learners. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 38(3), 305-319.

Gonnerman, L. M., Seidenberg, M. S., & Andersen, E. S. (2007). Graded semantic and phonological similarity effect in priming: Evidence for a distributed connectionist approach to morphology. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 136(2), 323-345.

Hagiwara, H., Sugioka, Y., Ito, T., Kawamura, M., & Shiota, J.-i. (1999). Neurolinguistic evidence for rule-based nominal suffixation. Language, 75(4), 739-763.

Hay, J. (2002). From speech perception to morphology: Affix ordering revisited. Language, 72(3), 527-555.

Hay, J. B., & Baayen, R. H. (2005). Shifting paradigms: gradient structure in morphology. TRENDS in Cognitive Science, 9(7), 342-348.

Jiang, N. (2004). Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 603-634.

Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60-99.

Friedline, B., & Juffs, A. (2010). L1 influence, morphological (in)sensitivity and L2 lexical development: Evidence from production data. Unpublished manuscript, University of Pittsburgh, PA.

Lardiere, D. (1998). Dissociating syntax from morphology in a divergent L2 end-state grammar. Second Language Research, 14(4), 359-375.

Lardiere, D. (2006). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition: a case study. New York: Routledge

Marslen-Wilson, W. D., Bozic, M., & Randall, B. (2008). Early decomposition in visual word recognition: Dissociating morphology, form, and meaning. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(3), 394-421.

Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Pinker, S., & Ullman, M. T. (2002). The past and future of the past tense. TRENDS in Cognitive Science, 6(11), 456-463.

Silva, R., & Clahsen, H. (2008). Morphologically complex words in L1 and L2 processing: Evidence from masked priming experiments in English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11(2), 245-260.

masked priming experiments in English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11(2), 245-260.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp.

235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury Hours.

VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

White, L. (2003). Fossilization in steady state L2 grammars: Persistent problems with inflectional morphology. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6(2), 129-141.

'''Publications'''

Papers (All of these papers cite the original PSLC award (years 1-5) SBE-354420.)

Friedline, B. & Juffs, A. (2010). L1 influence, morphological (in)sensitivity and L2 lexical development: Evidence from production data. The University of Pittsburgh. (Revise and resubmit).

Juffs, A., Friedline, B., Wilson, L., Eskenazi, M. & Heilman, M. (2010). Activity theory and computer assisted learning of English vocabulary. The University of Pittsburgh. (Revise and resubmit).

Friedline, B., & Shirai, Y. (2010). Animacy and second language acquisition of English relative clauses. The University of Pittsburgh. (In preparation for peer review).

''Conference presentations'' (This presentation cites the original PSLC award (years 1-5) SBE-354420.)

Friedline, B., & Juffs, A. L1 influences on the development of L2 morphosyntactic features. Pennsylvania Association of Applied Linguistics Conference (PAALC). State College: Pennsylvania State University. January 2010.

PSLC GradStudents

2010-11-16T02:43:37Z

Bef25: /* Announcements */

The purpose of this page is to serve as a repository of information relevant for grad students. We hope to maintain this page as a repository of current and relevant information for graduate students currently affiliated with the PSLC, as well as grad students who hope to be in the PSLC.

== Announcements==

1) '''''iSLC 2011''''' - March 25th-27th, 2011 in Washington DC

If you are interested in attending the 2011 inter-Science of Learning Center Young Researchers Conference, please e-mail Colleen Davy (cdavy1@andrew.cmu.edu) by '''November 15th''' and let her know. The information about the conference is below:

''What?'' The iSLC conference brings together graduate students and postdoctoral fellows from the six NSF-funded Science of Learning Centers to share their research, network, and potentially form collaborations with people from other centers.

''When?'' March 25-27th, 2011

''Where?'' Gallaudet University, Washington, D.C.

The theme of this year's conference is "Researching Communication and Communicating Research". The overarching goals include:

# To highlight the use of language and socio-communicative factors in learning. This could include a) how people learn languages, b) how language knowledge and use affects learning, or c) how communication and social interactions can influence how people learn. Other fields of research of course will also be welcome.
# To share our secrets of communicating and collaborating with others- learners, teachers, and other researchers included.
# To teach the other centers about the research done at other centers, and to introduce the other centers to the "language" used by that center in conducting research.

So basically, if you study communication in any of its myriad forms, or if you just like communicating with others, this may be a great opportunity!

2) PSLC grads are now responsible for keeping the [http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/index.php/PSLC_People#Graduate_Students List of PSLC Grads] up to date.

* If you know of someone who should be added (or deleted) from this list please e-mail the webmaster at bef25@pitt.edu. Alternatively, feel free to go in and update the list yourself!

3) PSLC Graduate Student Meetings are scheduled for the following days and will begin at noon.

* Monday, December 6 at CMU: Joint meeting with post-docs to prepare SWOT analysis.

== Meeting Notes==
'''Cognitive Factors'''

''September 24, 2010''

Welcome to the new members!

Send Ruth email if you (or any new collaborators, post-docs, grad students) need to be added to the cognitive factors d-list

Send Jo email if you need to be added to the general PSLC d-list

Advisory board dates - January 20 & 21, 2011 (Thur and Fri)

Speaker Series - Rob Goldstone has agreed to come (probably before the AB)

Handout: Cognitive Factors Thrust Plan, if see you see errors send them to Chuck (link to document coming soon)

In general for Annual Report and Strategic Plan it is important to have non-text contributions; send screenshots/pictures of interventions and/or graphs of results as they come up

Also as a general reminder, it is never too early to send bullets of exciting findings, usually collected at least once a year

Talk: How does learning to write help learning to read Chinese (fMRI study) - Fan Cao Abstract Two types of instructions were given to a group of English speakers who learn Chinese as a L2. One is character writing and the other is pinyin writing. The hypothesis is that writing will facilitate the integration of orthographic, phonological and semantic representations by involving both perception and production and by emphasizing the special features of Chinese characters. fMRI scans found that sensory-motor cortex and visual-spatial representation cortex are more involved if the subject had writing experience. We also found that writing training produced more elaborated representations of orthography, phonology and semantics in the brain as compared to pinyin training.

Slides here: Media:PSLC_Sep_24_1.pdf

Next up: Colleen Davy will speak at the October meeting, likely the last week of Oct at CMU

'''Grad student meeting notes: 11/15/2010'''

1) Discussion of iSLC Conference: March 25th-27th, 2011

Theme: researching communication and communicating language

If you are interested in giving a talk or a poster, e-mail Colleen Davy at cdavy1@andrew.cmu.edu. You might also be interested in some of the workshops at iSLC. Current proposals for workshops include sessions on CLAN and the R statistical package.

Colleen needs organizers to help decide on the placement/division of themes for poster sessions and symposia.

Graduate students need to discuss their role in the Ultimate Block Party at the iSLC.

2) Advisory board meeting: January 20th -21st

Theme: PSLC sustainability

Graduate students and post-docs will present a SWOT analysis.

Grad students and post docs can present posters at the session. Grad students and post-docs from all thrusts are encouraged to present posters.

3) Meeting with post-docs: December 6th, 2010

We will prepare a joint post-doc/grad SWOT analysis to present at the advisory board meeting.

== FAQs==

'''1. What does it take to be a PSLC grad student?'''

Well, there are basically three ways you can be considered a PSLC grad student.

a. You work on a project that receives funding from the PSLC.

b. Your advisor or collaborator receives funding from the PSLC and asks you to be involved.

c. You want to be a PSLC grad student.

'''2. What types of opportunities does the PSLC have for a grad student like me?'''

There are a variety of different levels of involvement and types of activities that the PSLC offers.

For the casual grad student, the PSLC organizes a speaker series with talks that may be of interest to students interested in the learning sciences. These are open to whomever wishes to go. There are also monthly lunch meetings where people associated with the PSLC can give a talk on their work.

The grad student community also hopes to organize events catered toward grad students, with topics like applying for grants, finding jobs, collaboration with people at other universities, etc. These are also open to the public.

For those who wish to get more involved, the grad student community also has monthly meetings to discuss center-wide issues, read and discuss articles we believe are relevant, plan future events, etc. Again, these are open to the public.

Finally, each thrust has regular or semi-regular meetings to discuss the thrust's theoretical framework, set the research agenda, and discuss the progress of projects within that thrust. While these are open to anyone, they're probably of limited interest unless you currently have or have had a project affiliated with the thrust.

'''3. What is expected of me as a PSLC grad student?'''

If you receive funding from the PSLC, you are expected, to the extent it is possible, to attend the thrust meetings for your relevant thrust, and attend the monthly PSLC lunches. The grad student community also encourages you to come to the grad student monthly meetings, of course.

If you don't receive funding from the PSLC, but still wish to be a part of the grad student community, your level of involvement is up to you.

'''How do I find out about upcoming talks/meetings/events?'''

One option is to check the Announcements section of this page. A possibly better option would be to get on our mailing list. To do that, e-mail Jo Bodnar at jobodnar AT cs.cmu.edu and ask to be put on the PSLC general mailing list and grad student mailing list.

There is also a regularly updated calendar at our [http://www.learnlab.org main webpage] that is updated regularly and gives a fairly complete account of most PSLC events.

4. '''I already consider myself a PSLC grad, and want to be included on this page! What do I have to do?'''

Well the great thing about the wiki page is that anybody can update it whenever they want! So, if you have an account here, and you know how to edit tables, you can just log in and add yourself!

The table formatting is a bit weird and hard to follow, so if you want to add yourself, the easiest thing to do is just copy this text:

<pre>
|-
| Name || University || Advisor || e-mail address || Bio || Personal Webpage || Link to PSLC project page [Project page URL Project page title]
</pre>

and paste it into the appropriate place on the table. With your own information, of course.

If you don't have an account already, you can easily request one (NOTE: I forget how to do it- I'll need to add that). Once you have an account, you can just click "Edit" above the table, and you can add yourself.

5. '''But that's such a pain! Isn't there an easier way?!'''

There sure is! If you don't want to make all that effort just to have your name and e-mail address on a page, just send your info (you could even put it in the format given above!) to our Wikimaster (yep, we made that word up!), Ben Friedline, at bef25 AT pitt.edu, and he'll put it on here.

== Who are the PSLC grads? ==

{| border=1 cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" style="text-align: left;"
|-
! Grad Student Name
! University/Department
! Advisor
! E-mail
! Bio
! Personal Webpage
! PSLC Projects
|-
| Colleen Davy || Carnegie Mellon/Psychology || Brian MacWhinney || cdavy1@andrew.cmu.edu || I am interested in how adult second language learners develop fluent speaking skills in their second language. || N/A || [http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/index.php/Davy_%26_MacWhinney_-_Spanish_Sentence_Production Spanish Sentence Production]
|-
| Susan Dunlap || University of Pittsburgh || Charles Perfetti || sud4@pitt.edu || My research areas include second language learning, reading, and spelling || n/a || [http://www.learnlab.org]
|-
| Benjamin Friedline || University of Pittsburgh || Alan Juffs || bef25@pitt.edu || I am interested in how adult second language learners acquire morphology in a second language. || N/A || [http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/index.php/Juffs_-_Feature_Focus_in_Word_Learning Feature Focus in Word Learning]
|-
| Ruth Wylie || Carnegie Mellon, HCII || Ken Koedinger & Teruko Mitamura || rwylie@cs.cmu.edu || I'm interested in second language learning and self-explanation. || [http://ruthwylie.wordpress.com/ http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rwylie] || [http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/index.php/Wylie_-_Intelligent_Writing_Tutor Self-Explanation and ESL]
|-
| Mary Lou Vercellotti || University of Pittsburgh || Dr. Nel de Jong || marylou.vercellotti@gmail.com || My research looks at complexity, accuracy, and fluency in the oral production of English as a second language. || N/A || [http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/index.php/Fostering_fluency_in_second_language_learning Refinement and Fluency]
|-
| Turadg Aleahmad || Carnegie Mellon, HCII || Ken Koedinger & John Zimmerman || turadg@cmu.edu || My research is in design methods for theory-driven educational technology. || [http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~taleahma] ||
|-
| Nora Presson || Carnegie Mellon, Psychology || Brian MacWhinney || presson@cmu.edu || I am studying how practice conditions can improve learning of second language grammar, especially testing the effects of explicit instruction. || || [http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/index.php/Presson_%26_MacWhinney_-_Second_Language_Grammar Second Language Grammar Instruction]
|-
| Daniel Belenky || University of Pittsburgh || Timothy Nokes || dmb83@pitt.edu || I am interesting in issues of motivation and cognition. Specifically, I have been studying how achievement goals influence transfer. || N/A || [http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/index.php/Nokes_-_Dialectical_Interaction_and_Robust_Learning Dialectical Interaction and Robust Learning]
|}

== Science of Learning Relevant Courses ==
The PIER program offers three courses -- see the [http://www.cmu.edu/pier PIER Web page]

See also the courses taught be any of the PSLC faculty.

(Please add the names of relevant courses and web pointers if possible!)

<pre>
05832 / 05432 Cognitive Modeling & Intelligent Tutoring Systems
3:00pm-4:20pm, Tuesdays and Thursdays, Fall 2010
Room 3002, Newell-Simon Hall, Carnegie Mellon University
9 units
Dr. Vincent Aleven, aleven@cs.cmu.edu
</pre>

Students in this course will learn about the Cognitive Tutor technology that has been demonstrated to dramatically enhance student learning in domains like math, science, and computer programming. This type of tutoring software is currently in use in 2,700 schools around the country and is used extensively as platform for learning sciences research. The technology is grounded in artificial intelligence, cognitive psychology, and cognitive task analysis. Students will learn data-driven and theoretical methods for analyzing human problem solving and will learn to use such data to inform the design of intelligent tutoring systems. Course projects will focus on the development of an intelligent tutor using CTAT, the Cognitive Tutor Authoring Tools (see http://ctat.pact.cs.cmu.edu). Some assignments will focus on creating cognitive models in the Jess production rule modeling language.

Students should either have programming skills, or experience in the cognitive psychology of human problem solving, or HCI / design skills, or permission from the instructor.

PSLC GradStudents

2010-11-16T02:42:23Z

Bef25: /* Meeting Notes */

The purpose of this page is to serve as a repository of information relevant for grad students. We hope to maintain this page as a repository of current and relevant information for graduate students currently affiliated with the PSLC, as well as grad students who hope to be in the PSLC.

== Announcements==

1) '''''iSLC 2011''''' - March 25th-27th, 2011 in Washington DC

If you are interested in attending the 2011 inter-Science of Learning Center Young Researchers Conference, please e-mail Colleen Davy (cdavy1@andrew.cmu.edu) by '''November 15th''' and let her know. The information about the conference is below:

''What?'' The iSLC conference brings together graduate students and postdoctoral fellows from the six NSF-funded Science of Learning Centers to share their research, network, and potentially form collaborations with people from other centers.

''When?'' March 25-27th, 2011

''Where?'' Gallaudet University, Washington, D.C.

The theme of this year's conference is "Researching Communication and Communicating Research". The overarching goals include:

# To highlight the use of language and socio-communicative factors in learning. This could include a) how people learn languages, b) how language knowledge and use affects learning, or c) how communication and social interactions can influence how people learn. Other fields of research of course will also be welcome.
# To share our secrets of communicating and collaborating with others- learners, teachers, and other researchers included.
# To teach the other centers about the research done at other centers, and to introduce the other centers to the "language" used by that center in conducting research.

So basically, if you study communication in any of its myriad forms, or if you just like communicating with others, this may be a great opportunity!

2) PSLC grads are now responsible for keeping the [http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/index.php/PSLC_People#Graduate_Students List of PSLC Grads] up to date.

* If you know of someone who should be added (or deleted) from this list please e-mail the webmaster at bef25@pitt.edu. Alternatively, feel free to go in and update the list yourself!

3) PSLC Graduate Student Meetings are scheduled for the following days and will begin at noon.

* Monday, November 15 in 408 LRDC - topic ?
* Monday, December 6 at CMU topic ?

== Meeting Notes==
'''Cognitive Factors'''

''September 24, 2010''

Welcome to the new members!

Send Ruth email if you (or any new collaborators, post-docs, grad students) need to be added to the cognitive factors d-list

Send Jo email if you need to be added to the general PSLC d-list

Advisory board dates - January 20 & 21, 2011 (Thur and Fri)

Speaker Series - Rob Goldstone has agreed to come (probably before the AB)

Handout: Cognitive Factors Thrust Plan, if see you see errors send them to Chuck (link to document coming soon)

In general for Annual Report and Strategic Plan it is important to have non-text contributions; send screenshots/pictures of interventions and/or graphs of results as they come up

Also as a general reminder, it is never too early to send bullets of exciting findings, usually collected at least once a year

Talk: How does learning to write help learning to read Chinese (fMRI study) - Fan Cao Abstract Two types of instructions were given to a group of English speakers who learn Chinese as a L2. One is character writing and the other is pinyin writing. The hypothesis is that writing will facilitate the integration of orthographic, phonological and semantic representations by involving both perception and production and by emphasizing the special features of Chinese characters. fMRI scans found that sensory-motor cortex and visual-spatial representation cortex are more involved if the subject had writing experience. We also found that writing training produced more elaborated representations of orthography, phonology and semantics in the brain as compared to pinyin training.

Slides here: Media:PSLC_Sep_24_1.pdf

Next up: Colleen Davy will speak at the October meeting, likely the last week of Oct at CMU

'''Grad student meeting notes: 11/15/2010'''

1) Discussion of iSLC Conference: March 25th-27th, 2011

Theme: researching communication and communicating language

If you are interested in giving a talk or a poster, e-mail Colleen Davy at cdavy1@andrew.cmu.edu. You might also be interested in some of the workshops at iSLC. Current proposals for workshops include sessions on CLAN and the R statistical package.

Colleen needs organizers to help decide on the placement/division of themes for poster sessions and symposia.

Graduate students need to discuss their role in the Ultimate Block Party at the iSLC.

2) Advisory board meeting: January 20th -21st

Theme: PSLC sustainability

Graduate students and post-docs will present a SWOT analysis.

Grad students and post docs can present posters at the session. Grad students and post-docs from all thrusts are encouraged to present posters.

3) Meeting with post-docs: December 6th, 2010

We will prepare a joint post-doc/grad SWOT analysis to present at the advisory board meeting.

== FAQs==

'''1. What does it take to be a PSLC grad student?'''

Well, there are basically three ways you can be considered a PSLC grad student.

a. You work on a project that receives funding from the PSLC.

b. Your advisor or collaborator receives funding from the PSLC and asks you to be involved.

c. You want to be a PSLC grad student.

'''2. What types of opportunities does the PSLC have for a grad student like me?'''

There are a variety of different levels of involvement and types of activities that the PSLC offers.

For the casual grad student, the PSLC organizes a speaker series with talks that may be of interest to students interested in the learning sciences. These are open to whomever wishes to go. There are also monthly lunch meetings where people associated with the PSLC can give a talk on their work.

The grad student community also hopes to organize events catered toward grad students, with topics like applying for grants, finding jobs, collaboration with people at other universities, etc. These are also open to the public.

For those who wish to get more involved, the grad student community also has monthly meetings to discuss center-wide issues, read and discuss articles we believe are relevant, plan future events, etc. Again, these are open to the public.

Finally, each thrust has regular or semi-regular meetings to discuss the thrust's theoretical framework, set the research agenda, and discuss the progress of projects within that thrust. While these are open to anyone, they're probably of limited interest unless you currently have or have had a project affiliated with the thrust.

'''3. What is expected of me as a PSLC grad student?'''

If you receive funding from the PSLC, you are expected, to the extent it is possible, to attend the thrust meetings for your relevant thrust, and attend the monthly PSLC lunches. The grad student community also encourages you to come to the grad student monthly meetings, of course.

If you don't receive funding from the PSLC, but still wish to be a part of the grad student community, your level of involvement is up to you.

'''How do I find out about upcoming talks/meetings/events?'''

One option is to check the Announcements section of this page. A possibly better option would be to get on our mailing list. To do that, e-mail Jo Bodnar at jobodnar AT cs.cmu.edu and ask to be put on the PSLC general mailing list and grad student mailing list.

There is also a regularly updated calendar at our [http://www.learnlab.org main webpage] that is updated regularly and gives a fairly complete account of most PSLC events.

4. '''I already consider myself a PSLC grad, and want to be included on this page! What do I have to do?'''

Well the great thing about the wiki page is that anybody can update it whenever they want! So, if you have an account here, and you know how to edit tables, you can just log in and add yourself!

The table formatting is a bit weird and hard to follow, so if you want to add yourself, the easiest thing to do is just copy this text:

<pre>
|-
| Name || University || Advisor || e-mail address || Bio || Personal Webpage || Link to PSLC project page [Project page URL Project page title]
</pre>

and paste it into the appropriate place on the table. With your own information, of course.

If you don't have an account already, you can easily request one (NOTE: I forget how to do it- I'll need to add that). Once you have an account, you can just click "Edit" above the table, and you can add yourself.

5. '''But that's such a pain! Isn't there an easier way?!'''

There sure is! If you don't want to make all that effort just to have your name and e-mail address on a page, just send your info (you could even put it in the format given above!) to our Wikimaster (yep, we made that word up!), Ben Friedline, at bef25 AT pitt.edu, and he'll put it on here.

== Who are the PSLC grads? ==

{| border=1 cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" style="text-align: left;"
|-
! Grad Student Name
! University/Department
! Advisor
! E-mail
! Bio
! Personal Webpage
! PSLC Projects
|-
| Colleen Davy || Carnegie Mellon/Psychology || Brian MacWhinney || cdavy1@andrew.cmu.edu || I am interested in how adult second language learners develop fluent speaking skills in their second language. || N/A || [http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/index.php/Davy_%26_MacWhinney_-_Spanish_Sentence_Production Spanish Sentence Production]
|-
| Susan Dunlap || University of Pittsburgh || Charles Perfetti || sud4@pitt.edu || My research areas include second language learning, reading, and spelling || n/a || [http://www.learnlab.org]
|-
| Benjamin Friedline || University of Pittsburgh || Alan Juffs || bef25@pitt.edu || I am interested in how adult second language learners acquire morphology in a second language. || N/A || [http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/index.php/Juffs_-_Feature_Focus_in_Word_Learning Feature Focus in Word Learning]
|-
| Ruth Wylie || Carnegie Mellon, HCII || Ken Koedinger & Teruko Mitamura || rwylie@cs.cmu.edu || I'm interested in second language learning and self-explanation. || [http://ruthwylie.wordpress.com/ http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rwylie] || [http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/index.php/Wylie_-_Intelligent_Writing_Tutor Self-Explanation and ESL]
|-
| Mary Lou Vercellotti || University of Pittsburgh || Dr. Nel de Jong || marylou.vercellotti@gmail.com || My research looks at complexity, accuracy, and fluency in the oral production of English as a second language. || N/A || [http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/index.php/Fostering_fluency_in_second_language_learning Refinement and Fluency]
|-
| Turadg Aleahmad || Carnegie Mellon, HCII || Ken Koedinger & John Zimmerman || turadg@cmu.edu || My research is in design methods for theory-driven educational technology. || [http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~taleahma] ||
|-
| Nora Presson || Carnegie Mellon, Psychology || Brian MacWhinney || presson@cmu.edu || I am studying how practice conditions can improve learning of second language grammar, especially testing the effects of explicit instruction. || || [http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/index.php/Presson_%26_MacWhinney_-_Second_Language_Grammar Second Language Grammar Instruction]
|-
| Daniel Belenky || University of Pittsburgh || Timothy Nokes || dmb83@pitt.edu || I am interesting in issues of motivation and cognition. Specifically, I have been studying how achievement goals influence transfer. || N/A || [http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/index.php/Nokes_-_Dialectical_Interaction_and_Robust_Learning Dialectical Interaction and Robust Learning]
|}

== Science of Learning Relevant Courses ==
The PIER program offers three courses -- see the [http://www.cmu.edu/pier PIER Web page]

See also the courses taught be any of the PSLC faculty.

(Please add the names of relevant courses and web pointers if possible!)

<pre>
05832 / 05432 Cognitive Modeling & Intelligent Tutoring Systems
3:00pm-4:20pm, Tuesdays and Thursdays, Fall 2010
Room 3002, Newell-Simon Hall, Carnegie Mellon University
9 units
Dr. Vincent Aleven, aleven@cs.cmu.edu
</pre>

Students in this course will learn about the Cognitive Tutor technology that has been demonstrated to dramatically enhance student learning in domains like math, science, and computer programming. This type of tutoring software is currently in use in 2,700 schools around the country and is used extensively as platform for learning sciences research. The technology is grounded in artificial intelligence, cognitive psychology, and cognitive task analysis. Students will learn data-driven and theoretical methods for analyzing human problem solving and will learn to use such data to inform the design of intelligent tutoring systems. Course projects will focus on the development of an intelligent tutor using CTAT, the Cognitive Tutor Authoring Tools (see http://ctat.pact.cs.cmu.edu). Some assignments will focus on creating cognitive models in the Jess production rule modeling language.

Students should either have programming skills, or experience in the cognitive psychology of human problem solving, or HCI / design skills, or permission from the instructor.

PSLC GradStudents

2010-09-28T18:46:42Z

Bef25: /* Meeting Notes */

The purpose of this page is to serve as a repository of information relevant for grad students. We hope to maintain this page as a repository of current and relevant information for graduate students currently affiliated with the PSLC, as well as grad students who hope to be in the PSLC.

== Announcements==

1) PSLC grads are now responsible for keeping the [http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/index.php/PSLC_People#Graduate_Students List of PSLC Grads] up to date.

* If you know of someone who should be added (or deleted) from this list please e-mail the webmaster at bef25@pitt.edu. Alternatively, feel free to go in and update the list yourself!

2) Please e-mail Mary Lou Vercellotti ASAP if you are interested in attending the iSLC conference in Washington, D.C. on October 13-15. Up to three graduate students may attend.

3) Ultimate Block Party in Central Park, NY.

* Description: This is an outreach event for PSLC research. Faculty and graduate students are invited to attend to serve as "experts" as families visit the workshops in the park. (You will receive a brightly colored lab coat if you decide to help out.)

* How to sign up: E-mail Michael Bett at mbett@cs.cmu.edu if you are interested.

4) PSLC Graduate Student Meetings are scheduled for the following days and will begin at noon.

* Monday, September 20 in 408 LRDC - topic: grad student wiki pages
* Monday, October 18 at CMU (location tba) - topic what is the PSLC and why should you care
* Monday, November 15 in 408 LRDC - topic ?
* Monday, December 6 at CMU topic ?

== Meeting Notes==
'''Cognitive Factors'''

''September 24, 2010''

Welcome to the new members!

Send Ruth email if you (or any new collaborators, post-docs, grad students) need to be added to the cognitive factors d-list

Send Jo email if you need to be added to the general PSLC d-list

Advisory board dates - January 20 & 21, 2011 (Thur and Fri)

Speaker Series - Rob Goldstone has agreed to come (probably before the AB)

Handout: Cognitive Factors Thrust Plan, if see you see errors send them to Chuck (link to document coming soon)

In general for Annual Report and Strategic Plan it is important to have non-text contributions; send screenshots/pictures of interventions and/or graphs of results as they come up

Also as a general reminder, it is never too early to send bullets of exciting findings, usually collected at least once a year

Talk: How does learning to write help learning to read Chinese (fMRI study) - Fan Cao Abstract Two types of instructions were given to a group of English speakers who learn Chinese as a L2. One is character writing and the other is pinyin writing. The hypothesis is that writing will facilitate the integration of orthographic, phonological and semantic representations by involving both perception and production and by emphasizing the special features of Chinese characters. fMRI scans found that sensory-motor cortex and visual-spatial representation cortex are more involved if the subject had writing experience. We also found that writing training produced more elaborated representations of orthography, phonology and semantics in the brain as compared to pinyin training.

Slides here: Media:PSLC_Sep_24_1.pdf

Next up: Colleen Davy will speak at the October meeting, likely the last week of Oct at CMU

== FAQs==

'''1. What does it take to be a PSLC grad student?'''

Well, there are basically three ways you can be considered a PSLC grad student.

a. You work on a project that receives funding from the PSLC.

b. Your advisor or collaborator receives funding from the PSLC and asks you to be involved.

c. You want to be a PSLC grad student.

'''2. What types of opportunities does the PSLC have for a grad student like me?'''

There are a variety of different levels of involvement and types of activities that the PSLC offers.

For the casual grad student, the PSLC organizes a speaker series with talks that may be of interest to students interested in the learning sciences. These are open to whomever wishes to go. There are also monthly lunch meetings where people associated with the PSLC can give a talk on their work.

The grad student community also hopes to organize events catered toward grad students, with topics like applying for grants, finding jobs, collaboration with people at other universities, etc. These are also open to the public.

For those who wish to get more involved, the grad student community also has monthly meetings to discuss center-wide issues, read and discuss articles we believe are relevant, plan future events, etc. Again, these are open to the public.

Finally, each thrust has regular or semi-regular meetings to discuss the thrust's theoretical framework, set the research agenda, and discuss the progress of projects within that thrust. While these are open to anyone, they're probably of limited interest unless you currently have or have had a project affiliated with the thrust.

'''3. What is expected of me as a PSLC grad student?'''

If you receive funding from the PSLC, you are expected, to the extent it is possible, to attend the thrust meetings for your relevant thrust, and attend the monthly PSLC lunches. The grad student community also encourages you to come to the grad student monthly meetings, of course.

If you don't receive funding from the PSLC, but still wish to be a part of the grad student community, your level of involvement is up to you.

'''How do I find out about upcoming talks/meetings/events?'''

One option is to check the Announcements section of this page. A possibly better option would be to get on our mailing list. To do that, e-mail Jo Bodnar at jobodnar AT cs.cmu.edu and ask to be put on the PSLC general mailing list and grad student mailing list.

There is also a regularly updated calendar at our [http://www.learnlab.org main webpage] that is updated regularly and gives a fairly complete account of most PSLC events.

4. '''I already consider myself a PSLC grad, and want to be included on this page! What do I have to do?'''

Well the great thing about the wiki page is that anybody can update it whenever they want! So, if you have an account here, and you know how to edit tables, you can just log in and add yourself!

The table formatting is a bit weird and hard to follow, so if you want to add yourself, the easiest thing to do is just copy this text:

<pre>
|-
| Name || University || Advisor || e-mail address || Bio || Personal Webpage || Link to PSLC project page [Project page URL Project page title]
</pre>

and paste it into the appropriate place on the table. With your own information, of course.

If you don't have an account already, you can easily request one (NOTE: I forget how to do it- I'll need to add that). Once you have an account, you can just click "Edit" above the table, and you can add yourself.

5. '''But that's such a pain! Isn't there an easier way?!'''

There sure is! If you don't want to make all that effort just to have your name and e-mail address on a page, just send your info (you could even put it in the format given above!) to our Wikimaster (yep, we made that word up!), Ben Friedline, at bef25 AT pitt.edu, and he'll put it on here.

== Who are the PSLC grads? ==

{| border=1 cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" style="text-align: left;"
|-
! Grad Student Name
! University/Department
! Advisor
! E-mail
! Bio
! Personal Webpage
! PSLC Projects
|-
| Colleen Davy || Carnegie Mellon/Psychology || Brian MacWhinney || cdavy1@andrew.cmu.edu || I am interested in how adult second language learners develop fluent speaking skills in their second language. || N/A || [http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/index.php/Davy_%26_MacWhinney_-_Spanish_Sentence_Production Spanish Sentence Production]
|-
| Benjamin Friedline || University of Pittsburgh || Alan Juffs || bef25@pitt.edu || I am interested in how adult second language learners acquire morphology in a second language. || N/A || [http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/index.php/Juffs_-_Feature_Focus_in_Word_Learning Feature Focus in Word Learning]
|-
| Ruth Wylie || Carnegie Mellon, HCII || Ken Koedinger & Teruko Mitamura || rwylie@cs.cmu.edu || I'm interested in second language learning and self-explanation. || [http://ruthwylie.wordpress.com/ http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rwylie] || [http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/index.php/Wylie_-_Intelligent_Writing_Tutor Self-Explanation and ESL]
|-
| Mary Lou Vercellotti || University of Pittsburgh || Dr. Nel de Jong || marylou.vercellotti@gmail.com || My research looks at complexity, accuracy, and fluency in the oral production of English as a second language. || N/A || [http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/index.php/Fostering_fluency_in_second_language_learning Refinement and Fluency]
|-
| Turadg Aleahmad || Carnegie Mellon, HCII || Ken Koedinger & John Zimmerman || turadg@cmu.edu || My research is in design methods for theory-driven educational technology. || [http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~taleahma] ||
|-
| Nora Presson || Carnegie Mellon, Psychology || Brian MacWhinney || presson@cmu.edu || I am studying how practice conditions can improve learning of second language grammar, especially testing the effects of explicit instruction. || || [http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/index.php/Presson_%26_MacWhinney_-_Second_Language_Grammar Second Language Grammar Instruction]
|-
| Daniel Belenky || University of Pittsburgh || Timothy Nokes || dmb83@pitt.edu || I am interesting in issues of motivation and cognition. Specifically, I have been studying how achievement goals influence transfer. || N/A || [http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/index.php/Nokes_-_Dialectical_Interaction_and_Robust_Learning Dialectical Interaction and Robust Learning]
|}

== Science of Learning Relevant Courses ==
The PIER program offers three courses -- see the [http://www.cmu.edu/pier PIER Web page]

See also the courses taught be any of the PSLC faculty.

(Please add the names of relevant courses and web pointers if possible!)

<pre>
05832 / 05432 Cognitive Modeling & Intelligent Tutoring Systems
3:00pm-4:20pm, Tuesdays and Thursdays, Fall 2010
Room 3002, Newell-Simon Hall, Carnegie Mellon University
9 units
Dr. Vincent Aleven, aleven@cs.cmu.edu
</pre>

Students in this course will learn about the Cognitive Tutor technology that has been demonstrated to dramatically enhance student learning in domains like math, science, and computer programming. This type of tutoring software is currently in use in 2,700 schools around the country and is used extensively as platform for learning sciences research. The technology is grounded in artificial intelligence, cognitive psychology, and cognitive task analysis. Students will learn data-driven and theoretical methods for analyzing human problem solving and will learn to use such data to inform the design of intelligent tutoring systems. Course projects will focus on the development of an intelligent tutor using CTAT, the Cognitive Tutor Authoring Tools (see http://ctat.pact.cs.cmu.edu). Some assignments will focus on creating cognitive models in the Jess production rule modeling language.

Students should either have programming skills, or experience in the cognitive psychology of human problem solving, or HCI / design skills, or permission from the instructor.

PSLC GradStudents

2010-09-28T18:42:45Z

Bef25: /* Who are the PSLC grads? */

The purpose of this page is to serve as a repository of information relevant for grad students. We hope to maintain this page as a repository of current and relevant information for graduate students currently affiliated with the PSLC, as well as grad students who hope to be in the PSLC.

== Announcements==

1) PSLC grads are now responsible for keeping the [http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/index.php/PSLC_People#Graduate_Students List of PSLC Grads] up to date.

* If you know of someone who should be added (or deleted) from this list please e-mail the webmaster at bef25@pitt.edu. Alternatively, feel free to go in and update the list yourself!

2) Please e-mail Mary Lou Vercellotti ASAP if you are interested in attending the iSLC conference in Washington, D.C. on October 13-15. Up to three graduate students may attend.

3) Ultimate Block Party in Central Park, NY.

* Description: This is an outreach event for PSLC research. Faculty and graduate students are invited to attend to serve as "experts" as families visit the workshops in the park. (You will receive a brightly colored lab coat if you decide to help out.)

* How to sign up: E-mail Michael Bett at mbett@cs.cmu.edu if you are interested.

4) PSLC Graduate Student Meetings are scheduled for the following days and will begin at noon.

* Monday, September 20 in 408 LRDC - topic: grad student wiki pages
* Monday, October 18 at CMU (location tba) - topic what is the PSLC and why should you care
* Monday, November 15 in 408 LRDC - topic ?
* Monday, December 6 at CMU topic ?

== Meeting Notes==

== FAQs==

'''1. What does it take to be a PSLC grad student?'''

Well, there are basically three ways you can be considered a PSLC grad student.

a. You work on a project that receives funding from the PSLC.

b. Your advisor or collaborator receives funding from the PSLC and asks you to be involved.

c. You want to be a PSLC grad student.

'''2. What types of opportunities does the PSLC have for a grad student like me?'''

There are a variety of different levels of involvement and types of activities that the PSLC offers.

For the casual grad student, the PSLC organizes a speaker series with talks that may be of interest to students interested in the learning sciences. These are open to whomever wishes to go. There are also monthly lunch meetings where people associated with the PSLC can give a talk on their work.

The grad student community also hopes to organize events catered toward grad students, with topics like applying for grants, finding jobs, collaboration with people at other universities, etc. These are also open to the public.

For those who wish to get more involved, the grad student community also has monthly meetings to discuss center-wide issues, read and discuss articles we believe are relevant, plan future events, etc. Again, these are open to the public.

Finally, each thrust has regular or semi-regular meetings to discuss the thrust's theoretical framework, set the research agenda, and discuss the progress of projects within that thrust. While these are open to anyone, they're probably of limited interest unless you currently have or have had a project affiliated with the thrust.

'''3. What is expected of me as a PSLC grad student?'''

If you receive funding from the PSLC, you are expected, to the extent it is possible, to attend the thrust meetings for your relevant thrust, and attend the monthly PSLC lunches. The grad student community also encourages you to come to the grad student monthly meetings, of course.

If you don't receive funding from the PSLC, but still wish to be a part of the grad student community, your level of involvement is up to you.

'''How do I find out about upcoming talks/meetings/events?'''

One option is to check the Announcements section of this page. A possibly better option would be to get on our mailing list. To do that, e-mail Jo Bodnar at jobodnar AT cs.cmu.edu and ask to be put on the PSLC general mailing list and grad student mailing list.

There is also a regularly updated calendar at our [http://www.learnlab.org main webpage] that is updated regularly and gives a fairly complete account of most PSLC events.

4. '''I already consider myself a PSLC grad, and want to be included on this page! What do I have to do?'''

Well the great thing about the wiki page is that anybody can update it whenever they want! So, if you have an account here, and you know how to edit tables, you can just log in and add yourself!

The table formatting is a bit weird and hard to follow, so if you want to add yourself, the easiest thing to do is just copy this text:

<pre>
|-
| Name || University || Advisor || e-mail address || Bio || Personal Webpage || Link to PSLC project page [Project page URL Project page title]
</pre>

and paste it into the appropriate place on the table. With your own information, of course.

If you don't have an account already, you can easily request one (NOTE: I forget how to do it- I'll need to add that). Once you have an account, you can just click "Edit" above the table, and you can add yourself.

5. '''But that's such a pain! Isn't there an easier way?!'''

There sure is! If you don't want to make all that effort just to have your name and e-mail address on a page, just send your info (you could even put it in the format given above!) to our Wikimaster (yep, we made that word up!), Ben Friedline, at bef25 AT pitt.edu, and he'll put it on here.

== Who are the PSLC grads? ==

{| border=1 cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" style="text-align: left;"
|-
! Grad Student Name
! University/Department
! Advisor
! E-mail
! Bio
! Personal Webpage
! PSLC Projects
|-
| Colleen Davy || Carnegie Mellon/Psychology || Brian MacWhinney || cdavy1@andrew.cmu.edu || I am interested in how adult second language learners develop fluent speaking skills in their second language. || N/A || [http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/index.php/Davy_%26_MacWhinney_-_Spanish_Sentence_Production Spanish Sentence Production]
|-
| Benjamin Friedline || University of Pittsburgh || Alan Juffs || bef25@pitt.edu || I am interested in how adult second language learners acquire morphology in a second language. || N/A || [http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/index.php/Juffs_-_Feature_Focus_in_Word_Learning Feature Focus in Word Learning]
|-
| Ruth Wylie || Carnegie Mellon, HCII || Ken Koedinger & Teruko Mitamura || rwylie@cs.cmu.edu || I'm interested in second language learning and self-explanation. || [http://ruthwylie.wordpress.com/ http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rwylie] || [http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/index.php/Wylie_-_Intelligent_Writing_Tutor Self-Explanation and ESL]
|-
| Mary Lou Vercellotti || University of Pittsburgh || Dr. Nel de Jong || marylou.vercellotti@gmail.com || My research looks at complexity, accuracy, and fluency in the oral production of English as a second language. || N/A || [http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/index.php/Fostering_fluency_in_second_language_learning Refinement and Fluency]
|-
| Turadg Aleahmad || Carnegie Mellon, HCII || Ken Koedinger & John Zimmerman || turadg@cmu.edu || My research is in design methods for theory-driven educational technology. || [http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~taleahma] ||
|-
| Nora Presson || Carnegie Mellon, Psychology || Brian MacWhinney || presson@cmu.edu || I am studying how practice conditions can improve learning of second language grammar, especially testing the effects of explicit instruction. || || [http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/index.php/Presson_%26_MacWhinney_-_Second_Language_Grammar Second Language Grammar Instruction]
|-
| Daniel Belenky || University of Pittsburgh || Timothy Nokes || dmb83@pitt.edu || I am interesting in issues of motivation and cognition. Specifically, I have been studying how achievement goals influence transfer. || N/A || [http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/index.php/Nokes_-_Dialectical_Interaction_and_Robust_Learning Dialectical Interaction and Robust Learning]
|}

== Science of Learning Relevant Courses ==
The PIER program offers three courses -- see the [http://www.cmu.edu/pier PIER Web page]

See also the courses taught be any of the PSLC faculty.

(Please add the names of relevant courses and web pointers if possible!)

<pre>
05832 / 05432 Cognitive Modeling & Intelligent Tutoring Systems
3:00pm-4:20pm, Tuesdays and Thursdays, Fall 2010
Room 3002, Newell-Simon Hall, Carnegie Mellon University
9 units
Dr. Vincent Aleven, aleven@cs.cmu.edu
</pre>

Students in this course will learn about the Cognitive Tutor technology that has been demonstrated to dramatically enhance student learning in domains like math, science, and computer programming. This type of tutoring software is currently in use in 2,700 schools around the country and is used extensively as platform for learning sciences research. The technology is grounded in artificial intelligence, cognitive psychology, and cognitive task analysis. Students will learn data-driven and theoretical methods for analyzing human problem solving and will learn to use such data to inform the design of intelligent tutoring systems. Course projects will focus on the development of an intelligent tutor using CTAT, the Cognitive Tutor Authoring Tools (see http://ctat.pact.cs.cmu.edu). Some assignments will focus on creating cognitive models in the Jess production rule modeling language.

Students should either have programming skills, or experience in the cognitive psychology of human problem solving, or HCI / design skills, or permission from the instructor.

PSLC GradStudents

2010-09-21T18:19:18Z

Bef25: /* Who are the PSLC grads? */

PSLC People

2010-09-20T16:58:07Z

Bef25: /* Graduate Students */

== '''The Executive Committee''' ==

=== Directors ===
{| border=1 cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" style="text-align: left;"
| '''Ken Koedinger''' || Carnegie Mellon University || Human-Computer Interaction Institute
|-
| '''Charles Perfetti''' || University of Pittsburgh || Psychology, LRDC Director
|}

=== Managing Director ===
{| border=1 cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" style="text-align: left;"
| '''Michael Bett''' || Carnegie Mellon University || Human-Computer Interaction Institute
|}

=== Members ===
{| border=1 cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" style="text-align: left;"
| Aleven, Vincent || Carnegie Mellon University || Human-Computer Interaction
|-
| Eskenazi, Maxine || Carnegie Mellon University || Language Technologies Institute
|-
| Fiez, Julie || University of Pittsburgh || Psychology
|-
| Gordon, Geoff || Carnegie Mellon University || Machine Learning
|-
| Klahr, David || Carnegie Mellon University || Psychology
|-
| Lovett, Marsha || Carnegie Mellon University || Psychology
|-
| Nokes, Tim || University of Pittsburgh || LRDC
|-
| Resnick, Lauren || University of Pittsburgh || Learning Research and Development Center
|-
| Rose, Carolyn || Carnegie Mellon University || Human-Computer Interaction Institute/Language Technologies Institute
|}

== Advisory Board ==
{| border=1 cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" style="text-align: left;"
| Aronson, Joshua || New York University || Applied Psychology
|-
| Atkinson, Robert || Arizona State University || Division of Psychology in Education
|-
| Azevedo, Roger || University of Memphis || Psychology
|-
| Biswas, Gautam || Vanderbilt University || Computer Science and Computer Engineering
|-
| Collins, Allan || Northwestern University || Education and Social Policy
|-
| Dede, Christopher || Harvard University || Technology in Education
|-
| Goldman, Susan || University of Illinois || Psychology
|-
| Goldstone, Rob || Indiana University || Psychology
|-
| Griffiths, Tom || Berkeley || Psychology
|-
| Lesgold, Alan || University of Pittsburgh || School of Education
|-
| Li, Ping || Penn State University || Psychology
|-
| Minstrell, Jim || FACET Innovations, LLC Seattle, WA ||
|-
| Schauble, Leona || Vanderbilt University || Teaching & Learning
|}

== Graduate Students ==
{| border=1 cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" style="text-align: left;"

| Adam Skory || Carnegie Mellon ||
|-
| Benjamin Friedline || University of Pittsburgh || Linguistics
|-
| Colleen Davy || Carnegie Mellon || Psychology
|-
| Garbiel Parent || Carnegie Mellon ||
|-
| (Derek) Ho Leung Chan || University of Pittsburgh ||
|-
| Leida Tolentino || University of Pittsburgh ||
|-
| Nora Presson || Carnegie Mellon ||
|-
| Ruth Wylie || Carnegie Mellon ||
|-
| Susan Dunlap || University of Pittsburgh ||
|-
| Yun Zhao || Carnegie Mellon ||
|-
| Benjamin Shih || Carnegie Mellon ||
|-
| Collin Lynch || University of Pittsburgh ||
|-
| Erik Zawadzki || Carnegie Mellon ||
|-
| Nan Li || Carnegie Mellon ||
|-
| Amy Ogan || Carnegie Mellon ||
|-
| Dan Belenky || University of Pittsburgh ||
|-
| Matthew Easterday || Carnegie Mellon ||
|-
| Soniya Gadgil || University of Pittsburgh ||
|-
| Yanhui Zhang || Carnegie Mellon ||
|-
| Dejana Diziol || Freiburg ||
|-
| Elizabeth Ayers || Carnegie Mellon ||
|-
| Elsa Golden || Carnegie Mellon ||
|-
| April Galyardt || Carnegie Mellon ||
|-
| Jamie Jirout || Carnegie Mellon ||
|-
| Martina Rau || Carnegie Mellon ||
|-
| Tom Lauwers || Carnegie Mellon ||
|-
| Tracy Sweet || Carnegie Mellon ||
|-
| Kevin Del Rosa || Carnegie Mellon ||
|-
| Turadg Aleahmad || Carnegie Mellon ||
|-
| Gahgene Gweon || Carnegie Mellon ||
|-
| Anagha Kulkarni (Joshi) || Carnegie Mellon ||
|-
| Bryan Matlen || Carnegie Mellon ||
|-
| Sung-Young Jung || University of Pittsburgh ||
|-
| Gustavo Santos || Carnegie Mellon ||
|-
| Hao-Chuan Wang || Carnegie Mellon ||
|-
| Indrayana Rustandi || Carnegie Mellon ||
|-
| Jessica Nelson || University of Pittsburgh ||
|-
| Rohit Kumar || Carnegie Mellon ||
|-
| Roxana Gheorghiu || University of Pittsburgh ||
|-
| Tamar Degani || University of Pittsburgh ||
|-
| Yan Mu || Carnegie Mellon ||
|-
| Elijah Mayfield || Carnegie Mellon ||
|-
| Erin Walker || Carnegie Mellon ||
|-
| Iris Howley || Carnegie Mellon ||
|-
| Sherice Clark || University of Ediborough ||
|-
| Tracy Clark || Univeristy of Pennslyvania ||
|-
| Laurens Feestra || Netherlands ||
|-
| Maaike Waalkens || Netherlands ||
|-
| Mary Lou Vercellotti || University of Pittsburgh || Linguistics
|-
| Nozomi Tanaka || University of Pittsburgh || Linguistics
|-
| Martin VanVelsen || Carnegie Mellon ||
|-
| Eliane Stampfer || Carnegie Mellon ||
|-
| Katherine Martin || University of Pittsburgh || Linguistics
|}

== Post Docs ==
{| border=1 cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" style="text-align: left;"

| Laura Halderman || University of Pittsburgh ||
|-
| Hua Ai || Carnegie Mellon || LTI
|-
| Seiji Isotani || Carnegie Mellon University || HCII
|-
| John Connelly || University of Pittsburgh ||
|-
| Amy Crosson || University of Pittsburgh ||
|-
| Min Chi || Carnegie Mellon || HCII
|-
| Alicia Chang || University of Pittsburgh ||
|-
| Ido Roll || University of British Columbia ||
|-
| Connie Guan Qun || University of Pittsburgh ||
|-
| Stephanie Siler || Carnegie Mellon || Psychology
|-
| Zelha Tunc-Pekkan || Carnegie Mellon || HCII
|-
| Fan Cao || University of Pittsburgh ||
|-
| Suzanne Adlof || University of Pittsburgh ||
|-
| Chin-LungYang || University of Pittsburgh ||
|-
| Candace Walkington || University of Texas ||
|-
| Matthew Bernacki || University of Pittsburgh ||
|-
| Gregory Dyke || University of Pittsburgh ||
|-
| Sherrice Clarke || University of Pittsburgh ||

|}

== Faculty ==
{| border=1 cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" style="text-align: left;"
| Al Corbett || Carnegie Mellon || HCII
|-
| Alan Juffs || University of Pittsburgh || Linguistics
|-
| Brian Junker || Carnegie Mellon || Statisics
|-
| Brian MacWhinney || Carnegie Mellon || Psychology
|-
| Bruce McLaren || Carnegie Mellon || HCII
|-
| Carolyn Rosé || Carnegie Mellon || LTI/HCII
|-
| Charles Perfetti || University of Pittsburgh || LRDC
|-
| Christa Asterhan || Hebrew University ||
|-
| David Klahr || Carnegie Mellon || Psychology
|-
| David Yaron || Carnegie Mellon || Chemistry
|-
| Geoff Gordon || Carnegie Mellon || Machine Learning
|-
| Jack Mostow || Carnegie Mellon || Robotics
|-
| Jim Greeno || University of Pittsburgh || Instruction and Learning
|-
| John Stamper || Carnegie Mellon || HCII
|-
| Ken Koedinger || Carnegie Mellon || HCII
|-
| Kirsten Butcher || University of Utah || Instructional Design & Educational Technology
|-
| Kurt VanLehn || Arizona State University || Computer Science and Engineering
|-
| Lauren Resnick || University of Pittsburgh || LRDC
|-
| Louis Gomez || University of Pittsburgh || School of Education
|-
| Marsha Lovett || Carnegie Mellon || Eberly Center
|-
| Mary Catherine O'Connor || Boston University || School of Education
|-
| Matthew Kam || Carnegie Mellon || HCII
|-
| Maxine Eskenazi || Carnegie Mellon || LTI
|-
| Nel de Jong || Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam ||
|-
| Niels Pinkwart || Clausthal University of Technology ||
|-
| Nikol Rummel || Ruhr-Universität Bochum || Psychology
|-
| Noboru Matsuda || Carnegie Mellon || HCII
|-
| Phil Pavlik || Carnegie Mellon || HCII
|-
| Richard Scheines || Carnegie Mellon || Philosphy
|-
| Ryan Baker || WPI ||
|-
| Sandy Katz || University of Pittsburgh || LRDC
|-
| Sarah Michaels || Clark University || Education
|-
| Teruko Matamura || Carnegie Mellon || LTI
|-
| Tim Nokes || University of Pittsburgh ||
|-
| Vincent Aleven || Carnegie Mellon || LTI
|-
| William Cohen || Carnegie Mellon || ML

|}

== Staff ==
{| border=1 cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" style="text-align: left;"

| Bob Hausman || Carnegie Learning ||
|-
| Brett Leber || Carnegie Mellon ||
|-
| Cressida Magaro || Carnegie Mellon ||
|-
| Cressida Magaro || Carnegie Mellon ||
|-
| Demi, Sandy || Carnegie Mellon University ||
|-
| Gail Kusbit || Carnegie Mellon || Research Manager
|-
| Haney, Mark || University of Pittsburgh ||
|-
| Jo Bodnar || Carnegie Mellon ||
|-
| Karabinos, Michael || Carnegie Mellon University ||
|-
| Kevin Willows || Carnegie Mellon ||
|-
| Kowalski, John || Carnegie Mellon University ||
|-
| Martin van Velsen || Carnegie Mellon ||
|-
| McGuire, Christy || Edalytics ||
|-
| Michael Bett || Carnegie Mellon || Managing Director
|-
| Mike Karabinos || Carnegie Mellon ||
|-
| Sewell, Jonathan || Carnegie Mellon University ||
|-
| Silliman, Scott || University of Pittsburgh ||
|-
| Skogsholm, Alida || Carnegie Mellon University || DataShop Manager
|-
| Smith, Dorolyn || University of Pittsburgh ||
|-
| Steve Ritter || Carnegie Learning || Founder
|-
| Strader, Ross || Carnegie Mellon University ||
|-
| Thomas Harris || Edalytics ||

|}

PSLC GradStudents

2010-09-06T21:22:55Z

Bef25: /* Announcements */

PSLC GradStudents

2010-09-01T23:06:42Z

Bef25: /* Announcements */

PSLC GradStudents

2010-09-01T23:06:24Z

Bef25: /* Announcements */

PSLC GradStudents

2010-09-01T23:05:54Z

Bef25: /* Announcements */

PSLC GradStudents

2010-09-01T22:54:38Z

Bef25: /* Announcements */

Juffs - Feature Focus in Word Learning

2010-08-29T20:55:54Z

Bef25: /* L2 learning of derived words */

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! PI
| Ben Friedline, Alan Juffs
|-
! Start date
| September 2009
|-
! End date
| July 2010
|-
! Learnlab
| English
|}

== L2 learning of derived words ==
Benjamin Friedline and Alan Juffs

'''Background'''

Inflected and derived words occur frequently in the English language and serve important functions in everyday communication. The term derived word refers to the combination of a base word with a derivational affix. For instance, if the derivational affix –ness is added to the base kind (adjective), the word kindness (noun) is derived. The affix –ness is very productive and can be added to many words to derive novel words such as darkness, awareness, and illness. Other derivational affixes such as –ity are not as productive as –ness and can be used to form a limited number of words, such as ¬purity and scarcity. The term inflected word refers to the combination of a base word and an inflectional affix. For example, if the inflectional affix –ed is added to the base word walk (verb), the resulting word is walked (verb). The addition of the –ed affix is very productive in the formation of the past tense even though it does not apply to a number of irregular past tense forms, such as drove, ate, and sat.

Importantly, the differences in productivity of each type of affix have led some researchers to conclude that there are differences in how they are processed by native speakers. In Words and Rules (WR) theory, Pinker and Ullman (2002) argue that irregular inflected forms (e.g., drove) are stored in the lexicon (or mental dictionary) as whole words, whereas regular forms (e.g., walked) are generated by a regular rule. This theory has also been applied to the processing of derived words in two recent psychological investigations (cf. Alegre & Gordon, 1999; Hagiwara et al., 1999). The main point behind both of these studies is to illustrate that derived words can be either rule-governed (e.g., words with –ness) or stored as whole words in the lexicon (e.g., words with –ity as in purity).

In the area of second language acquisition, adult second language (L2) learners often fail to attain native-like proficiency when producing derived and inflected words in an L2. Lardiere (1998), for instance, showed that second language learners still make errors with inflectional morphology even after many years of exposure to English. In Lardiere’s (1998) study, she recorded and analyzed naturalistic conversations from a Chinese learner of American English. The results of this study indicated that the learner supplied the inflectional affix –ed correctly in only 34% of obligatory contexts even after 18 years of exposure to English. Additionally, in terms of derived words, a recent study by Juffs and Friedline (2010) revealed that intermediate L2 learners often made errors in the production of derived words such as those in examples (1) and (2).
(1) We have one different [difference].
(2) I like doing something music [musical].
In example (1) the learner uses the adjective form different instead of the grammatically correct form difference, which is a noun. In example (2) the learner uses the noun form music in a position that requires the adjective form musical.

The preponderance of such errors in L2 speech has led some researchers to conclude that L2 learners are permanently impaired on the production of derived and inflected words because they do not have access to the same rule-based mechanisms that are present during L1 acquisition (Jiang, 2004; Felser & Clahsen, 2009; Silva & Clahsen, 2008). This hypothesis is formally known as the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis (FDH; Bley-Vroman, 1989), and it has received support from a number of recent studies in the field of second language acquisition. Silva and Clahsen (2008), for instance, use evidence from a masked-priming experiment to compare native speakers to adult L2 learners on a series of morphological priming tasks. The results from this study indicated full priming effects (e.g., darkness primes dark) for native speakers on both inflections and derivations, but only partial priming effects for L2 learners on derivations and no priming effects for L2 learners on inflections. Silva and Clahsen (2008) argue that the limited priming effects (or complete lack thereof) indicate that L2 learners lack rule-based mechanisms and do not know that ¬–ness can be affixed to many adjectives to derive nouns such as darkness, awareness, and illness. This lack of rule-based mechanisms may mean that adult L2 learners memorize all words as unanalyzed chunks of language, without realizing that dark and darkness or walk and walked are intimately related in both form and meaning.

The research by Silva and Clahsen (2008) makes an important contribution to a theory of second language acquisition because it provides a possible explanation for why L2 learners have difficulties with derived and inflected words (i.e., they cannot access rule-based mechanisms). However, this research is limited because it assumes that L2 learners are permanently impaired when compared to native-speakers on all types of rule-based inflectional and derivational morphological processes. This assumption is at odds with findings from studies such as the morpheme order studies (e.g., Bailey, Madden, & Krashen, 1974), critical period studies (e.g., Johnson & Newport, 1989), and studies on the role of morpheme salience in L2 acquisition (e.g., Ellis, 2006) in that these past studies indicate that certain morphemes, such as progressive, may be more easily acquired than others. Johnson and Newport (1989), for instance, claim that the progressive morpheme may not be subject to critical period effects.

Additionally, the role of a learner’s first language may also influence the relative difficulty of a particular morpheme. Potential L1 effects have been discussed in a number of recent SLA studies (e.g., Juffs & Friedline, 2010; White, 2003). Before we conclude that L2 learners are equally impaired in all areas of morphological knowledge, further research is needed to identify if certain morphological structures are easier to acquire than others, how exactly L2 morphological knowledge diverges from native-speaker knowledge, and how a learner’s first language might influence L2 morphological knowledge. The goal of the present research is to answer these questions as they relate to derivational morphology.

'''Research Questions'''

Why are ESL learners so poor in their knowledge of English morphology? What are the knowledge components that are the most challenging for learning through normal language exposure? Do learners have a representational problem or a processing problem? Specifically, what instructional interventions can be designed to overcome observed processing differences in L1 and L2 morphology?

'''Research plan'''

For year 1, the goal of the research is to analyze the knowledge components of ESL learners to lay the groundwork for a hypothesis-based intervention. The research will systematically investigate the components of L2 learners’ knowledge of English derivational morphology to address the following questions:

1) What are the components of L2 derivational knowledge?
2) Are these components different from L1 derivational knowledge?
3) Does L1 matter for the acquisition of derived words in an L2?

'''Methodology'''

To answer these questions, Friedline has developed a series of tasks that will be used to assess what native English speakers and second language learners know about derived words. These tasks included lexical decision, semantic relatedness, and morphological decomposition. Each of these tasks contained several conditions that tested different components of morphological knowledge. Studies on the acquisition of L1 morphological knowledge (e.g., Carlisle, 2000; Carlisle & Fleming, 2003) were consulted in order to develop these conditions. Each condition is outlined below.

''Lexical decision task''

Explanation: In this task, students were asked to rate words from 1 (not a word) or 6 (definitely a word). All words were morphologically complex (e.g., base + affix). Some of the words were real words in English, while other words were not real words in English. The purpose of this task was to assess if native-speakers were sensitive to the effects of semantic blocking and affix ordering. There were four conditions in this task. The conditions are listed below along with an example to illustrate the types of words that were presented in each condition.

Condition 1: Real words
Example: The suffix –able is added to verbs to derive adjectives such as workable or comfortable. A response of 4, 5, or 6 would be counted as accurate.

Condition 2: Semantic blocking
Example: Even though you can add the affix –able to many verbs to derive adjectives, there are some verbs like arrivable and departable look that do not normally take the suffix –able to form adjectives. A response of 1, 2, or 3 would be counted as accurate.

Condition 3: Correct affix ordering
Example: There are some bases that can take two affixes. You can add the affix –able to the verb respect to derive the adjective respectable. Then, you can add the affix –ity to respectable to derive the noun respectability. A response of 4, 5, or 6 would be counted as accurate.

Condition 4: Incorrect affix ordering
Example: In a word like respectability, the word is correct because the affixes are added in the correct order. However, if I add the affix -ity before I add the affix –able, I derive a word like respectitiable. This word is not correct because the affixes are not added in the correct order. A response of 1, 2, or 3 would be counted as accurate.

''Word relatedness task''

Explanation: In this task, students were asked to rate words based on their meaning from 1 (not related) to 6 (definitely related). There were five conditions in this exercise.

Condition 1: No relationship in meaning
Some words are not related in meaning in any way. The words cat and bus are not related in meaning in any way. A response of 1, 2, or 3 would be counted as accurate.

Condition 2: Relationship in meaning
Other words are related in meaning. For instance, bank and money are related in that a bank is a place where you deposit your money. A response of 4, 5, or 6 would be counted as accurate.

Condition 3: Relationship in meaning with different affixes.
This condition contained words with suffixes that were related in meaning. For example, productive (adj.) and production (n.) both share the base produce (v.). A response of 4, 5, or 6 would be counted as accurate.

Condition 4: Relationship in orthography only, not meaning
There are some words that may look like they are related in meaning because they share the same initial letters. In this condition, students saw words like permanence and permission. These words share the letters p-e-r-m, but are unrelated in meaning. A response of 1, 2, or 3 would be counted as accurate.

Condition 5: Relationship in affix only, not meaning
In the final condition, students were presented with words that shared the same affix, but were unrelated in meaning. For example, the words reality and curiosity are unrelated in meaning, but share the affix –ity. A response of 1, 2, or 3 would be counted as accurate.

''Word Analysis Task''

Explanation: On the Word Analysis Task, students were asked to provide the base word of the word provided. Some of these words consisted of a base and an affix such as musician, which has music as a base. Other words, however, could not be broken down into a base and a affix. For instance, dollar cannot be broken down into doll + ar because dollar is a base form. Accuracy was computed for decomposable and non-decomposable words.

Native speakers piloted these tassk in the fall of 2009, and preliminary results are reported for each task in the tables below. A pull out from the ELI in Spring 2010 will collect learner data.

''Participants''

These tasks were administered to native speakers and L2 learners during the fall 2009 and spring 2010 semesters. A total of 23 native-English speakers participated in the study. All of the native speakers were undergraduates at the University of Pittsburgh. Ninety ESL learners participated in this study from three different levels of language proficiency: beginner (n=26), intermediate (n=36), and advanced (n=28). These learners were enrolled in an intensive English program at the University of Pittsburgh.

'''Descriptive Results'''

''Lexical Decision Task''

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''NS Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: Real words
| 93%
|-
! Condition 2: Semantic blocking
| 81%
|-
! Condition 3: Correct affix ordering
| 93%
|-
! Condition 4: Incorrect Affix ordering
| 95%
|}

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''L2 Beginner Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: Real words
| 89%
|-
! Condition 2: Semantic blocking
| 48%
|-
! Condition 3: Correct affix ordering
| 66%
|-
! Condition 4: Incorrect Affix ordering
| 53%
|}

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''L2 Intermediate Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: Real words
| 90%
|-
! Condition 2: Semantic blocking
| 59%
|-
! Condition 3: Correct affix ordering
| 69%
|-
! Condition 4: Incorrect Affix ordering
| 70%
|}

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''L2 Advanced Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: Real words
| 96%
|-
! Condition 2: Semantic blocking
| 53%
|-
! Condition 3: Correct affix ordering
| 77%
|-
! Condition 4: Incorrect Affix ordering
| 81%
|}

''Word relatedness task''
{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''NS Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: No relationship in meaning
| 92%
|-
! Condition 2: Relationship in meaning
| 92%
|-
! Condition 3: Relationship in meaning with different affixes
| 97%
|-
! Condition 4: Relationship in orthography only
| 89%
|-
! Condition 5: Relationship in affix only
| 90%
|}

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''L2 Beginner Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: No relationship in meaning
| 91%
|-
! Condition 2: Relationship in meaning
| 84%
|-
! Condition 3: Relationship in meaning with different affixes
| 89%
|-
! Condition 4: Relationship in orthography only
| 73%
|-
! Condition 5: Relationship in affix only
| 74%
|}

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''L2 Intermediate Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: No relationship in meaning
| 89%
|-
! Condition 2: Relationship in meaning
| 87%
|-
! Condition 3: Relationship in meaning with different affixes
| 89%
|-
! Condition 4: Relationship in orthography only
| 70%
|-
! Condition 5: Relationship in affix only
| 69%
|}

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''L2 Advanced Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: No relationship in meaning
| 95%
|-
! Condition 2: Relationship in meaning
| 79%
|-
! Condition 3: Relationship in meaning with different affixes
| 96%
|-
! Condition 4: Relationship in orthography only
| 81%
|-
! Condition 5: Relationship in affix only
| 89%
|}

''Word Analysis Task''
{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''NS Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: Decomposable
| 85%
|-
! Condition 2: Non-decomposable
| 92%
|}

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''L2 Beginner Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: Decomposable
| 59%
|-
! Condition 2: Non-decomposable
| 73%
|}

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''L2 Intermediate Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: Decomposable
| 61%
|-
! Condition 2: Non-decomposable
| 84%
|}

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''L2 Advanced Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: Decomposable
| 65%
|-
! Condition 2: Non-decomposable
| 81%
|}

'''Discussion of descriptive statistics'''

''Beginning L2 Learners (Level 3)''

The results of this study indicate that level 3 learners from the ELI at the University of Pittsburgh often have problems when processing derived words. Firstly, the lexical decision task may indicate that beginning learners are not sensitive to constraints on the use of morphemes such as –able and –ness or constraints on the ordering of affixes. For instance, the learners in the present study often judge words such as departable and hopenessful to be real English words in spite of the fact that most native speakers rarely (if ever) consider these words to be real English words. Sixteen of 26 level 3 learners said that smileable was a real word in English, while only 1 of 23 native speakers said that this was a real word in English. Likewise, for hopenessful, 18 of 26 learners said that this was a real word, but only 1 of 23 natives considered hopenessful to be a real English word. Second, the word relatedness task seems to indicate that learners rely heavily on orthographic/phonological overlap when processing the meaning of words. Put another way, the learners in this study said that word pairs that were related in form only were also related in meaning. For instance, 12 out of 26 level 3 learners said that the word pair majority-activity were related in meaning, while native speakers (N=23) never say that these words are related in meaning. Finally, the results from the word analysis task may suggest that learners at this level have significant difficulties with derived words that involve phonological and/or orthographic changes to the base. In the present study, almost all of the level 3 learners (22 of 26) incorrectly provided the base word for extension. Native speakers, on the other hand, provided the incorrect base for extension only 4 times out of 23 subjects.

''Intermediate L2 Learners (Level 4)''

For Level 4 L2 learners, the lexical decision task may indicate that even intermediate-level learners are not sensitive to constraints on the use of morphemes such as –able and –ness or constraints on the ordering of affixes. For instance, the learners in the present study often judge words such as departable and hopenessful to be real English words in spite of the fact that most native speakers rarely (if ever) consider these words to be real English words. Seventeen of 36 level 4 learners said that smileable was a real word in English, while only 1 of 23 native speakers said that this was a real word in English. Likewise, for hopenessful, 21 of 36 learners said that this was a real word, but only 1 of 23 natives considered hopenessful to be a real English word. Second, the word relatedness task seems to indicate that learners rely heavily on orthographic/phonological overlap when processing the meaning of words. Put another way, the learners in this study said that word pairs that were related in form only were also related in meaning. For instance, 14 out of 36 level 3 learners said that the word pair majority-activity were related in meaning, while native speakers (N=23) never say that these words are related in meaning. Finally, the results from the word analysis task may suggest that learners at this level have significant difficulties with derived words that involve phonological and/or orthographic changes to the base. In the present study, more than two-thirds of the level 4 learners (25 of 36) incorrectly provided the base word for extension. Native speakers, on the other hand, provided the incorrect base for extension only 4 times out of 23 subjects.

''Advanced L2 Learners (Level 5)''

For level 5 L2 learners, the lexical decision task may indicate that even advanced learners are not sensitive to constraints on the use of morphemes such as –able and –ness. For instance, the learners in the present study often judge words such as smileable and leavable to be real English words in spite of the fact that most native speakers rarely (if ever) consider these words to be real English words. Fourteen of 28 level 5 learners said that smileable was a real word in English, while only 1 of 23 native speakers said that this was a real word in English. Likewise, for leavable, 19 of 28 learners said that this was a real word, but only 4 of 23 natives considered leavable to be a real English word. Second, the word relatedness task seems to indicate that advanced learners still rely to some degree on orthographic/phonological overlap when processing the meaning of words. Put another way, some advanced learners in this study said that word pairs that were related in form only were also related in meaning. For instance, 11 out of 28 level 3 learners said that the word pair constantly-conservative were related in meaning, while native speakers (N=23) never say that these words are related in meaning. Finally, the results from the word analysis task may suggest that learners at level 5 have significant difficulties with derived words that involve phonological and/or orthographic changes to the base. In the present study, many of the errors on the word analysis task were errors on words that involved a significant orthographic and sometimes phonological change to the base. For instance, 19 of 28 level 5 students incorrectly provided the base word for extension. Native speakers, on the other hand, provided the incorrect base for extension only 4 times out of 23 subjects.

'''General Discussion'''

This section reports the results of this study in connection with the four original research questions. The first question was primarily concerned with determining the knowledge components of second language derivational knowledge. Based on the results of Study 1, second language learners knew the following about derived words in English:
(1) Knowledge of highly frequent derived words.
(2) Knowledge that derived words can be broken down into bases and affixes.
At the same time, the results of Study 1 also provided some indication of areas of weakness in L2 derivational knowledge. Knowledge components that second language learners may have lacked are listed below:
(1) Knowledge of constraints on affix attachment or affix ordering.
(2) Knowledge that overlap in orthography/phonology does not imply overlap in meaning.
(3) Knowledge that derivation sometimes involves phonological changes to a base word.

The second research question asked whether the components of L2 derivational knowledge were different than the components of L1 derivational knowledge. The results of study 1 indicate that L2 derivational knowledge is significantly different (p < .05) from native speaker knowledge. In short, native speakers demonstrated knowledge of derivational morphology that non-natives were shown to lack. For instance, on the lexical decision task natives (accuracy = 95%) clearly knew when affix ordering constraints had been violated, whereas non-natives (accuracy = 69%) demonstrated limited knowledge of these constraint violations.
The remaining two research questions pertained to: 1) influences from linguistic background and 2) influences from English language proficiency. In large part, the results from Study 1 suggest that linguistic background and proficiency made little difference in how language learners performed on tasks related to derivational morphology. In short, such factors have no statistically significant effect (p > .05) on how second language learners perform on tasks related to word-relatedness or word analysis. Nonetheless, there is some evidence from the lexical decision task that group and proficiency may matter for performance on grammaticality judgments in that learners with Korean and Romance language backgrounds tended to outperform learners from Arabic and Chinese language backgrounds on words that violated constraints on English word formation.

In terms of second language acquisition theory, the results of Study 1 may indicate that non-native speakers have little difficulty recognizing high frequency derived words (e.g., darkness), but they have significant difficulty when confronted with words that do not exist in English (e.g., arrivable) or words that involve complex morphological operations such as affix ordering (e.g., thoughtfulness vs. thoughtnessful). Recent work in psycholinguistics may provide a partial explanation for these findings. That is, research on the processing and storage of derived words shows that derived words may be either stored in lexical memory or else produced by a generative rule-governed mechanism (e.g., Alegre & Gordon, 1999; Hagiwara et al., 1999). The data from L2 learners presented here may imply that learners excel at recognizing highly frequent derived words, but are in a sense ‘impaired’ when using rule-based mechanisms to generate (or in this case recognize) that constraints on affix attachment or ordering are being violated. These findings are also consistent with Silva and Clahsen’s (2008) findings from priming experiments involving native and non-native performance on derived words. More specifically, Silva and Clahsen (2008) argue that limited priming effects on derived words among L2 learners evinces impairment to rule-based mechanisms, meaning that L2 learners must rely largely on lexical memory when acquiring derived words in English.

**Additional statistical results and key theoretical discussion is forthcoming in the first author's doctoral dissertation.**

'''Next steps'''

For the 2010-2011 academic year, I am developing a morphology intervention based on the results of the study I completed this year. This will be an in vivo study that I will pilot in the fall 2010 semester and run in the ELI classrooms during the spring 2011 semester. The design of this study includes a pretest, an intervention, and a post-test to assess gains in morphological knowledge. The intervention portion of this study will teach: 1) constraints on affix attachment (e.g., affix ordering) and 2) relational knowledge between base words and related derived words (e.g., creation and creative are related to the base create), which are areas of weakness for adult second language learners based on the results of Study 1. Key research questions for this project include the following: 1) Does instruction on derived words enhance L2 sensitivity to constraints on affix attachment?, 2) What type of instruction works best for teaching constraints on derived words?, and 3) Is L2 knowledge of derived words fundamentally different than that of native speakers? This project directly relates to the "Focus on valid features in word learning" CF goal as well as the "learner background" goal.

''Robust learning of derivational morphology''

One of the core components of the PSLC theory of robust learning is foundational skill building. Foundational skill building refers to the knowledge or skill that “must be mastered in order to provide for subsequent learning” (http://learnlab.org/clusters). The findings from Study 1 relate to this construct in that they provide direct evidence of the knowledge components of derivational morphology that adult second language learners have not yet mastered in relation to adult native-speaker peers. Study 1 does not directly explore the learning processes involved in learning derivational morphology; however, it does provide a foundation for the design of an intervention study that directly investigates such processes. Study 2 builds on Study 1 in the design of an intervention study that seeks to identify how different types of instruction (conditions in PSLC terminology) contribute to the mastery of the knowledge components underlying derived word knowledge. More specifically, Study 2 compares traditional output-based instruction (Swain, 1985) with input-processing instruction (VanPatten, 1996) as the learning conditions for knowledge components underlying derived word knowledge. In terms of the broader PSLC theoretical framework, Study 2 seeks to identify the contributions of different instructional methods to the robust learning of derivational morphology. In terms of the cognitive factors thrust goals, this project most directly relates to to the "Focus on valid features in word learning.”

''Project plan for AY 2010-2011''

1) September 2010 – Complete materials for intervention study (study 2)

2) October 2010 – Defend dissertation overview based on this research

3) October 2010 – Pilot test pretest materials with a pull-out sample from the ELI

4) November 2010 – Analyze results from pilot study and determine appropriate course of action for morphology intervention.

5) January 2011 – Implement morphology intervention in the ELI classroom.

6) April 2011 – Defend PhD dissertation

7) August 2011 – Submit PhD dissertation with all revisions.

'''Selected References'''

Alegre, M., & Gordon, P. (1999). Rule-based versus associative processes in derivational morphology. Brain and Language, 68, 347-354.

Bailey, N., Madden, C., & Krashen, S. (1974). Is there a "natural sequence" in adult second language learning? Language Learning, 24(2), 234-243.

Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). The logical problem of second language learning. In S. Gass & J. Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Carlisle, J.F. (2000). Awareness of the structure and meaning of morphologically complex words: Impact on reading. Reading and Writing, 12(3-4), 169-190.

Carlisle, J. F., & Fleming, J. (2003). Lexical processing of morphologically complex words in the elementary years. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7(3), 239-253.

Ellis, N. C. (2006). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 164-194.

Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2009). Grammatical processing of spoken language in child and adult language learners. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 38(3), 305-319.

Gonnerman, L. M., Seidenberg, M. S., & Andersen, E. S. (2007). Graded semantic and phonological similarity effect in priming: Evidence for a distributed connectionist approach to morphology. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 136(2), 323-345.

Hagiwara, H., Sugioka, Y., Ito, T., Kawamura, M., & Shiota, J.-i. (1999). Neurolinguistic evidence for rule-based nominal suffixation. Language, 75(4), 739-763.

Hay, J. (2002). From speech perception to morphology: Affix ordering revisited. Language, 72(3), 527-555.

Hay, J. B., & Baayen, R. H. (2005). Shifting paradigms: gradient structure in morphology. TRENDS in Cognitive Science, 9(7), 342-348.

Jiang, N. (2004). Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 603-634.

Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60-99.

Friedline, B., & Juffs, A. (2010). L1 influence, morphological (in)sensitivity and L2 lexical development: Evidence from production data. Unpublished manuscript, University of Pittsburgh, PA.

Lardiere, D. (1998). Dissociating syntax from morphology in a divergent L2 end-state grammar. Second Language Research, 14(4), 359-375.

Lardiere, D. (2006). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition: a case study. New York: Routledge

Marslen-Wilson, W. D., Bozic, M., & Randall, B. (2008). Early decomposition in visual word recognition: Dissociating morphology, form, and meaning. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(3), 394-421.

Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Pinker, S., & Ullman, M. T. (2002). The past and future of the past tense. TRENDS in Cognitive Science, 6(11), 456-463.

Silva, R., & Clahsen, H. (2008). Morphologically complex words in L1 and L2 processing: Evidence from masked priming experiments in English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11(2), 245-260.

masked priming experiments in English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11(2), 245-260.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp.

235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury Hours.

VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

White, L. (2003). Fossilization in steady state L2 grammars: Persistent problems with inflectional morphology. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6(2), 129-141.

'''Publications'''

Friedline, B ., & Juffs, A. (submitted). L1 influence, morphological (in)sensitivity and L2 lexical development: Evidence from production data. University of Pittsburgh, PA.

Juffs - Feature Focus in Word Learning

2010-08-29T20:51:46Z

Bef25: /* L2 learning of derived words */

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! PI
| Ben Friedline, Alan Juffs
|-
! Start date
| September 2009
|-
! End date
| July 2010
|-
! Learnlab
| English
|}

== L2 learning of derived words ==
Benjamin Friedline and Alan Juffs

'''Background'''

Inflected and derived words occur frequently in the English language and serve important functions in everyday communication. The term derived word refers to the combination of a base word with a derivational affix. For instance, if the derivational affix –ness is added to the base kind (adjective), the word kindness (noun) is derived. The affix –ness is very productive and can be added to many words to derive novel words such as darkness, awareness, and illness. Other derivational affixes such as –ity are not as productive as –ness and can be used to form a limited number of words, such as ¬purity and scarcity. The term inflected word refers to the combination of a base word and an inflectional affix. For example, if the inflectional affix –ed is added to the base word walk (verb), the resulting word is walked (verb). The addition of the –ed affix is very productive in the formation of the past tense even though it does not apply to a number of irregular past tense forms, such as drove, ate, and sat.

Importantly, the differences in productivity of each type of affix have led some researchers to conclude that there are differences in how they are processed by native speakers. In Words and Rules (WR) theory, Pinker and Ullman (2002) argue that irregular inflected forms (e.g., drove) are stored in the lexicon (or mental dictionary) as whole words, whereas regular forms (e.g., walked) are generated by a regular rule. This theory has also been applied to the processing of derived words in two recent psychological investigations (cf. Alegre & Gordon, 1999; Hagiwara et al., 1999). The main point behind both of these studies is to illustrate that derived words can be either rule-governed (e.g., words with –ness) or stored as whole words in the lexicon (e.g., words with –ity as in purity).

In the area of second language acquisition, adult second language (L2) learners often fail to attain native-like proficiency when producing derived and inflected words in an L2. Lardiere (1998), for instance, showed that second language learners still make errors with inflectional morphology even after many years of exposure to English. In Lardiere’s (1998) study, she recorded and analyzed naturalistic conversations from a Chinese learner of American English. The results of this study indicated that the learner supplied the inflectional affix –ed correctly in only 34% of obligatory contexts even after 18 years of exposure to English. Additionally, in terms of derived words, a recent study by Juffs and Friedline (2010) revealed that intermediate L2 learners often made errors in the production of derived words such as those in examples (1) and (2).
(1) We have one different [difference].
(2) I like doing something music [musical].
In example (1) the learner uses the adjective form different instead of the grammatically correct form difference, which is a noun. In example (2) the learner uses the noun form music in a position that requires the adjective form musical.

The preponderance of such errors in L2 speech has led some researchers to conclude that L2 learners are permanently impaired on the production of derived and inflected words because they do not have access to the same rule-based mechanisms that are present during L1 acquisition (Jiang, 2004; Felser & Clahsen, 2009; Silva & Clahsen, 2008). This hypothesis is formally known as the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis (FDH; Bley-Vroman, 1989), and it has received support from a number of recent studies in the field of second language acquisition. Silva and Clahsen (2008), for instance, use evidence from a masked-priming experiment to compare native speakers to adult L2 learners on a series of morphological priming tasks. The results from this study indicated full priming effects (e.g., darkness primes dark) for native speakers on both inflections and derivations, but only partial priming effects for L2 learners on derivations and no priming effects for L2 learners on inflections. Silva and Clahsen (2008) argue that the limited priming effects (or complete lack thereof) indicate that L2 learners lack rule-based mechanisms and do not know that ¬–ness can be affixed to many adjectives to derive nouns such as darkness, awareness, and illness. This lack of rule-based mechanisms may mean that adult L2 learners memorize all words as unanalyzed chunks of language, without realizing that dark and darkness or walk and walked are intimately related in both form and meaning.

The research by Silva and Clahsen (2008) makes an important contribution to a theory of second language acquisition because it provides a possible explanation for why L2 learners have difficulties with derived and inflected words (i.e., they cannot access rule-based mechanisms). However, this research is limited because it assumes that L2 learners are permanently impaired when compared to native-speakers on all types of rule-based inflectional and derivational morphological processes. This assumption is at odds with findings from studies such as the morpheme order studies (e.g., Bailey, Madden, & Krashen, 1974), critical period studies (e.g., Johnson & Newport, 1989), and studies on the role of morpheme salience in L2 acquisition (e.g., Ellis, 2006) in that these past studies indicate that certain morphemes, such as progressive, may be more easily acquired than others. Johnson and Newport (1989), for instance, claim that the progressive morpheme may not be subject to critical period effects.

Additionally, the role of a learner’s first language may also influence the relative difficulty of a particular morpheme. Potential L1 effects have been discussed in a number of recent SLA studies (e.g., Juffs & Friedline, 2010; White, 2003). Before we conclude that L2 learners are equally impaired in all areas of morphological knowledge, further research is needed to identify if certain morphological structures are easier to acquire than others, how exactly L2 morphological knowledge diverges from native-speaker knowledge, and how a learner’s first language might influence L2 morphological knowledge. The goal of the present research is to answer these questions as they relate to derivational morphology.

'''Research Questions'''

Why are ESL learners so poor in their knowledge of English morphology? What are the knowledge components that are the most challenging for learning through normal language exposure? Do learners have a representational problem or a processing problem? Specifically, what instructional interventions can be designed to overcome observed processing differences in L1 and L2 morphology?

'''Research plan'''

For year 1, the goal of the research is to analyze the knowledge components of ESL learners to lay the groundwork for a hypothesis-based intervention. The research will systematically investigate the components of L2 learners’ knowledge of English derivational morphology to address the following questions:

1) What are the components of L2 derivational knowledge?
2) Are these components different from L1 derivational knowledge?
3) Does L1 matter for the acquisition of derived words in an L2?

'''Methodology'''

To answer these questions, Friedline has developed a series of tasks that will be used to assess what native English speakers and second language learners know about derived words. These tasks included lexical decision, semantic relatedness, and morphological decomposition. Each of these tasks contained several conditions that tested different components of morphological knowledge. Studies on the acquisition of L1 morphological knowledge (e.g., Carlisle, 2000; Carlisle & Fleming, 2003) were consulted in order to develop these conditions. Each condition is outlined below.

''Lexical decision task''

Explanation: In this task, students were asked to rate words from 1 (not a word) or 6 (definitely a word). All words were morphologically complex (e.g., base + affix). Some of the words were real words in English, while other words were not real words in English. The purpose of this task was to assess if native-speakers were sensitive to the effects of semantic blocking and affix ordering. There were four conditions in this task. The conditions are listed below along with an example to illustrate the types of words that were presented in each condition.

Condition 1: Real words
Example: The suffix –able is added to verbs to derive adjectives such as workable or comfortable. A response of 4, 5, or 6 would be counted as accurate.

Condition 2: Semantic blocking
Example: Even though you can add the affix –able to many verbs to derive adjectives, there are some verbs like arrivable and departable look that do not normally take the suffix –able to form adjectives. A response of 1, 2, or 3 would be counted as accurate.

Condition 3: Correct affix ordering
Example: There are some bases that can take two affixes. You can add the affix –able to the verb respect to derive the adjective respectable. Then, you can add the affix –ity to respectable to derive the noun respectability. A response of 4, 5, or 6 would be counted as accurate.

Condition 4: Incorrect affix ordering
Example: In a word like respectability, the word is correct because the affixes are added in the correct order. However, if I add the affix -ity before I add the affix –able, I derive a word like respectitiable. This word is not correct because the affixes are not added in the correct order. A response of 1, 2, or 3 would be counted as accurate.

''Word relatedness task''

Explanation: In this task, students were asked to rate words based on their meaning from 1 (not related) to 6 (definitely related). There were five conditions in this exercise.

Condition 1: No relationship in meaning
Some words are not related in meaning in any way. The words cat and bus are not related in meaning in any way. A response of 1, 2, or 3 would be counted as accurate.

Condition 2: Relationship in meaning
Other words are related in meaning. For instance, bank and money are related in that a bank is a place where you deposit your money. A response of 4, 5, or 6 would be counted as accurate.

Condition 3: Relationship in meaning with different affixes.
This condition contained words with suffixes that were related in meaning. For example, productive (adj.) and production (n.) both share the base produce (v.). A response of 4, 5, or 6 would be counted as accurate.

Condition 4: Relationship in orthography only, not meaning
There are some words that may look like they are related in meaning because they share the same initial letters. In this condition, students saw words like permanence and permission. These words share the letters p-e-r-m, but are unrelated in meaning. A response of 1, 2, or 3 would be counted as accurate.

Condition 5: Relationship in affix only, not meaning
In the final condition, students were presented with words that shared the same affix, but were unrelated in meaning. For example, the words reality and curiosity are unrelated in meaning, but share the affix –ity. A response of 1, 2, or 3 would be counted as accurate.

''Word Analysis Task''

Explanation: On the Word Analysis Task, students were asked to provide the base word of the word provided. Some of these words consisted of a base and an affix such as musician, which has music as a base. Other words, however, could not be broken down into a base and a affix. For instance, dollar cannot be broken down into doll + ar because dollar is a base form. Accuracy was computed for decomposable and non-decomposable words.

Native speakers piloted these tassk in the fall of 2009, and preliminary results are reported for each task in the tables below. A pull out from the ELI in Spring 2010 will collect learner data.

''Participants''

These tasks were administered to native speakers and L2 learners during the fall 2009 and spring 2010 semesters. A total of 23 native-English speakers participated in the study. All of the native speakers were undergraduates at the University of Pittsburgh. Ninety ESL learners participated in this study from three different levels of language proficiency: beginner (n=26), intermediate (n=36), and advanced (n=28). These learners were enrolled in an intensive English program at the University of Pittsburgh.

'''Descriptive Results'''

''Lexical Decision Task''

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''NS Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: Real words
| 93%
|-
! Condition 2: Semantic blocking
| 81%
|-
! Condition 3: Correct affix ordering
| 93%
|-
! Condition 4: Incorrect Affix ordering
| 95%
|}

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''L2 Beginner Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: Real words
| 89%
|-
! Condition 2: Semantic blocking
| 48%
|-
! Condition 3: Correct affix ordering
| 66%
|-
! Condition 4: Incorrect Affix ordering
| 53%
|}

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''L2 Intermediate Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: Real words
| 90%
|-
! Condition 2: Semantic blocking
| 59%
|-
! Condition 3: Correct affix ordering
| 69%
|-
! Condition 4: Incorrect Affix ordering
| 70%
|}

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''L2 Advanced Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: Real words
| 96%
|-
! Condition 2: Semantic blocking
| 53%
|-
! Condition 3: Correct affix ordering
| 77%
|-
! Condition 4: Incorrect Affix ordering
| 81%
|}

''Word relatedness task''
{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''NS Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: No relationship in meaning
| 92%
|-
! Condition 2: Relationship in meaning
| 92%
|-
! Condition 3: Relationship in meaning with different affixes
| 97%
|-
! Condition 4: Relationship in orthography only
| 89%
|-
! Condition 5: Relationship in affix only
| 90%
|}

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''L2 Beginner Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: No relationship in meaning
| 91%
|-
! Condition 2: Relationship in meaning
| 84%
|-
! Condition 3: Relationship in meaning with different affixes
| 89%
|-
! Condition 4: Relationship in orthography only
| 73%
|-
! Condition 5: Relationship in affix only
| 74%
|}

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''L2 Intermediate Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: No relationship in meaning
| 89%
|-
! Condition 2: Relationship in meaning
| 87%
|-
! Condition 3: Relationship in meaning with different affixes
| 89%
|-
! Condition 4: Relationship in orthography only
| 70%
|-
! Condition 5: Relationship in affix only
| 69%
|}

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''L2 Advanced Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: No relationship in meaning
| 95%
|-
! Condition 2: Relationship in meaning
| 79%
|-
! Condition 3: Relationship in meaning with different affixes
| 96%
|-
! Condition 4: Relationship in orthography only
| 81%
|-
! Condition 5: Relationship in affix only
| 89%
|}

''Word Analysis Task''
{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''NS Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: Decomposable
| 85%
|-
! Condition 2: Non-decomposable
| 92%
|}

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''L2 Beginner Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: Decomposable
| 59%
|-
! Condition 2: Non-decomposable
| 73%
|}

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''L2 Intermediate Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: Decomposable
| 61%
|-
! Condition 2: Non-decomposable
| 84%
|}

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"
|-
! '''Condition'''
| '''L2 Advanced Accuracy'''
|-
! Condition 1: Decomposable
| 65%
|-
! Condition 2: Non-decomposable
| 81%
|}

'''Discussion of descriptive statistics'''

''Beginning L2 Learners (Level 3)''

The results of this study indicate that level 3 learners from the ELI at the University of Pittsburgh often have problems when processing derived words. Firstly, the lexical decision task may indicate that beginning learners are not sensitive to constraints on the use of morphemes such as –able and –ness or constraints on the ordering of affixes. For instance, the learners in the present study often judge words such as departable and hopenessful to be real English words in spite of the fact that most native speakers rarely (if ever) consider these words to be real English words. Sixteen of 26 level 3 learners said that smileable was a real word in English, while only 1 of 23 native speakers said that this was a real word in English. Likewise, for hopenessful, 18 of 26 learners said that this was a real word, but only 1 of 23 natives considered hopenessful to be a real English word. Second, the word relatedness task seems to indicate that learners rely heavily on orthographic/phonological overlap when processing the meaning of words. Put another way, the learners in this study said that word pairs that were related in form only were also related in meaning. For instance, 12 out of 26 level 3 learners said that the word pair majority-activity were related in meaning, while native speakers (N=23) never say that these words are related in meaning. Finally, the results from the word analysis task may suggest that learners at this level have significant difficulties with derived words that involve phonological and/or orthographic changes to the base. In the present study, almost all of the level 3 learners (22 of 26) incorrectly provided the base word for extension. Native speakers, on the other hand, provided the incorrect base for extension only 4 times out of 23 subjects.

''Intermediate L2 Learners (Level 4)''

For Level 4 L2 learners, the lexical decision task may indicate that even intermediate-level learners are not sensitive to constraints on the use of morphemes such as –able and –ness or constraints on the ordering of affixes. For instance, the learners in the present study often judge words such as departable and hopenessful to be real English words in spite of the fact that most native speakers rarely (if ever) consider these words to be real English words. Seventeen of 36 level 4 learners said that smileable was a real word in English, while only 1 of 23 native speakers said that this was a real word in English. Likewise, for hopenessful, 21 of 36 learners said that this was a real word, but only 1 of 23 natives considered hopenessful to be a real English word. Second, the word relatedness task seems to indicate that learners rely heavily on orthographic/phonological overlap when processing the meaning of words. Put another way, the learners in this study said that word pairs that were related in form only were also related in meaning. For instance, 14 out of 36 level 3 learners said that the word pair majority-activity were related in meaning, while native speakers (N=23) never say that these words are related in meaning. Finally, the results from the word analysis task may suggest that learners at this level have significant difficulties with derived words that involve phonological and/or orthographic changes to the base. In the present study, more than two-thirds of the level 4 learners (25 of 36) incorrectly provided the base word for extension. Native speakers, on the other hand, provided the incorrect base for extension only 4 times out of 23 subjects.

''Advanced L2 Learners (Level 5)''

For level 5 L2 learners, the lexical decision task may indicate that even advanced learners are not sensitive to constraints on the use of morphemes such as –able and –ness. For instance, the learners in the present study often judge words such as smileable and leavable to be real English words in spite of the fact that most native speakers rarely (if ever) consider these words to be real English words. Fourteen of 28 level 5 learners said that smileable was a real word in English, while only 1 of 23 native speakers said that this was a real word in English. Likewise, for leavable, 19 of 28 learners said that this was a real word, but only 4 of 23 natives considered leavable to be a real English word. Second, the word relatedness task seems to indicate that advanced learners still rely to some degree on orthographic/phonological overlap when processing the meaning of words. Put another way, some advanced learners in this study said that word pairs that were related in form only were also related in meaning. For instance, 11 out of 28 level 3 learners said that the word pair constantly-conservative were related in meaning, while native speakers (N=23) never say that these words are related in meaning. Finally, the results from the word analysis task may suggest that learners at level 5 have significant difficulties with derived words that involve phonological and/or orthographic changes to the base. In the present study, many of the errors on the word analysis task were errors on words that involved a significant orthographic and sometimes phonological change to the base. For instance, 19 of 28 level 5 students incorrectly provided the base word for extension. Native speakers, on the other hand, provided the incorrect base for extension only 4 times out of 23 subjects.

'''General Discussion'''

This section reports the results of this study in connection with the four original research questions. The first question was primarily concerned with determining the knowledge components of second language derivational knowledge. Based on the results of Study 1, second language learners knew the following about derived words in English:
(1) Knowledge of highly frequent derived words.
(2) Knowledge that derived words can be broken down into bases and affixes.
At the same time, the results of Study 1 also provided some indication of areas of weakness in L2 derivational knowledge. Knowledge components that second language learners may have lacked are listed below:
(1) Knowledge of constraints on affix attachment or affix ordering.
(2) Knowledge that overlap in orthography/phonology does not imply overlap in meaning.
(3) Knowledge that derivation sometimes involves phonological changes to a base word.

The second research question asked whether the components of L2 derivational knowledge were different than the components of L1 derivational knowledge. The results of study 1 indicate that L2 derivational knowledge is significantly different (p < .05) from native speaker knowledge. In short, native speakers demonstrated knowledge of derivational morphology that non-natives were shown to lack. For instance, on the lexical decision task natives (accuracy = 95%) clearly knew when affix ordering constraints had been violated, whereas non-natives (accuracy = 69%) demonstrated limited knowledge of these constraint violations.
The remaining two research questions pertained to: 1) influences from linguistic background and 2) influences from English language proficiency. In large part, the results from Study 1 suggest that linguistic background and proficiency made little difference in how language learners performed on tasks related to derivational morphology. In short, such factors have no statistically significant effect (p > .05) on how second language learners perform on tasks related to word-relatedness or word analysis. Nonetheless, there is some evidence from the lexical decision task that group and proficiency may matter for performance on grammaticality judgments in that learners with Korean and Romance language backgrounds tended to outperform learners from Arabic and Chinese language backgrounds on words that violated constraints on English word formation.

In terms of second language acquisition theory, the results of Study 1 may indicate that non-native speakers have little difficulty recognizing high frequency derived words (e.g., darkness), but they have significant difficulty when confronted with words that do not exist in English (e.g., arrivable) or words that involve complex morphological operations such as affix ordering (e.g., thoughtfulness vs. thoughtnessful). Recent work in psycholinguistics may provide a partial explanation for these findings. That is, research on the processing and storage of derived words shows that derived words may be either stored in lexical memory or else produced by a generative rule-governed mechanism (e.g., Alegre & Gordon, 1999; Hagiwara et al., 1999). The data from L2 learners presented here may imply that learners excel at recognizing highly frequent derived words, but are in a sense ‘impaired’ when using rule-based mechanisms to generate (or in this case recognize) that constraints on affix attachment or ordering are being violated. These findings are also consistent with Silva and Clahsen’s (2008) findings from priming experiments involving native and non-native performance on derived words. More specifically, Silva and Clahsen (2008) argue that limited priming effects on derived words among L2 learners evinces impairment to rule-based mechanisms, meaning that L2 learners must rely largely on lexical memory when acquiring derived words in English.

**Additional statistical results and key theoretical discussion is forthcoming in the first author's doctoral dissertation.**

'''Next steps'''

For the 2010-2011 academic year, I am developing a morphology intervention based on the results of the study I completed this year. This will be an in vivo study that I will pilot in the fall 2010 semester and run in the ELI classrooms during the spring 2011 semester. The design of this study includes a pretest, an intervention, and a post-test to assess gains in morphological knowledge. The intervention portion of this study will teach: 1) constraints on affix attachment (e.g., affix ordering) and 2) relational knowledge between base words and related derived words (e.g., creation and creative are related to the base create), which are areas of weakness for adult second language learners based on the results of Study 1. Key research questions for this project include the following: 1) Does instruction on derived words enhance L2 sensitivity to constraints on affix attachment?, 2) What type of instruction works best for teaching constraints on derived words?, and 3) Is L2 knowledge of derived words fundamentally different than that of native speakers? This project directly relates to the "Focus on valid features in word learning" CF goal as well as the "learner background" goal.

''Robust learning of derivational morphology''

One of the core components of the PSLC theory of robust learning is foundational skill building. Foundational skill building refers to the knowledge or skill that “must be mastered in order to provide for subsequent learning” (http://learnlab.org/clusters). The findings from Study 1 relate to this construct in that they provide direct evidence of the knowledge components of derivational morphology that adult second language learners have not yet mastered in relation to adult native-speaker peers. Study 1 does not directly explore the learning processes involved in learning derivational morphology; however, it does provide a foundation for the design of an intervention study that directly investigates such processes. Study 2 builds on Study 1 in the design of an intervention study that seeks to identify how different types of instruction (conditions in PSLC terminology) contribute to the mastery of the knowledge components underlying derived word knowledge. More specifically, Study 2 compares traditional output-based instruction (Swain, 1985) with input-processing instruction (VanPatten, 1996) as the learning conditions for knowledge components underlying derived word knowledge. In terms of the broader PSLC theoretical framework, Study 2 seeks to identify the contributions of different instructional methods to the robust learning of derivational morphology. In terms of the cognitive factors thrust goals, this project most directly relates to to the "Focus on valid features in word learning.”

''Project plan for AY 2010-2011''

1) September 2010 – Complete materials for intervention study (study 2)

2) October 2010 – Defend dissertation overview based on this research

3) October 2010 – Pilot test pretest materials with a pull-out sample from the ELI

4) November 2010 – Analyze results from pilot study and determine appropriate course of action for morphology intervention.

5) January 2011 – Implement morphology intervention in the ELI classroom.

6) April 2011 – Defend PhD dissertation

7) August 2011 – Submit PhD dissertation with all revisions.

'''Selected References'''

Alegre, M., & Gordon, P. (1999). Rule-based versus associative processes in derivational morphology. Brain and Language, 68, 347-354.

Bailey, N., Madden, C., & Krashen, S. (1974). Is there a "natural sequence" in adult second language learning? Language Learning, 24(2), 234-243.

Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). The logical problem of second language learning. In S. Gass & J. Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Carlisle, J.F. (2000). Awareness of the structure and meaning of morphologically complex words: Impact on reading. Reading and Writing, 12(3-4), 169-190.

Carlisle, J. F., & Fleming, J. (2003). Lexical processing of morphologically complex words in the elementary years. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7(3), 239-253.

Ellis, N. C. (2006). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 164-194.

Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2009). Grammatical processing of spoken language in child and adult language learners. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 38(3), 305-319.

Gonnerman, L. M., Seidenberg, M. S., & Andersen, E. S. (2007). Graded semantic and phonological similarity effect in priming: Evidence for a distributed connectionist approach to morphology. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 136(2), 323-345.

Hagiwara, H., Sugioka, Y., Ito, T., Kawamura, M., & Shiota, J.-i. (1999). Neurolinguistic evidence for rule-based nominal suffixation. Language, 75(4), 739-763.

Hay, J. (2002). From speech perception to morphology: Affix ordering revisited. Language, 72(3), 527-555.

Hay, J. B., & Baayen, R. H. (2005). Shifting paradigms: gradient structure in morphology. TRENDS in Cognitive Science, 9(7), 342-348.

Jiang, N. (2004). Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 603-634.

Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60-99.

Friedline, B., & Juffs, A. (2010). L1 influence, morphological (in)sensitivity and L2 lexical development: Evidence from production data. Unpublished manuscript, University of Pittsburgh, PA.

Lardiere, D. (1998). Dissociating syntax from morphology in a divergent L2 end-state grammar. Second Language Research, 14(4), 359-375.

Lardiere, D. (2006). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition: a case study. New York: Routledge

Marslen-Wilson, W. D., Bozic, M., & Randall, B. (2008). Early decomposition in visual word recognition: Dissociating morphology, form, and meaning. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(3), 394-421.

Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Pinker, S., & Ullman, M. T. (2002). The past and future of the past tense. TRENDS in Cognitive Science, 6(11), 456-463.

Silva, R., & Clahsen, H. (2008). Morphologically complex words in L1 and L2 processing: Evidence from masked priming experiments in English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11(2), 245-260.

masked priming experiments in English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11(2), 245-260.

VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

White, L. (2003). Fossilization in steady state L2 grammars: Persistent problems with inflectional morphology. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6(2), 129-141.

'''Publications'''

Friedline, B ., & Juffs, A. (submitted). L1 influence, morphological (in)sensitivity and L2 lexical development: Evidence from production data. University of Pittsburgh, PA.

PSLC GradStudents

2010-08-27T17:35:33Z

Bef25: /* Announcements */