Theory Wiki - User contributions [en]

Social and Communicative Factors in Learning

2011-07-13T12:59:39Z

Jmorris14:

During PSLC’s first four years, its [[Interactive Communication]] Cluster has studied interactions between a student and a tutor (either human or computer) or, less frequently, two students interacting with each other. Most of the experimental manipulations and subsequent analyses have focused on the cognitive content of interaction through learning space analyses, in other words, the what and when of instruction. Study results investigating the effect of interaction, although somewhat mixed, have largely supported the hypothesis that focused interaction promotes cognitive aspects of learning such as attention to the most important knowledge components in a domain, deeper cognitive processing, and increased engagement with the content. VanLehn and colleagues (2007) present a thorough review of this literature as well as results from recent investigations. These results encouraged early PSLC efforts to “unpack” the nature of communicative interaction in instruction and learning. Rummel and colleagues (Diziol, Rummel, Kahrimanis, et al., 2008a, 2008b), for example have recently evaluated interactions with a rating scheme analysis that quantifies the quality of an interaction on a number of dimensions. This work represents an important step towards the type of up close inspection of communication that many scholars believe is necessary if we are to understand, and be able to manipulate for instructional purposes, how communication works to produce robust learning.

In our re-named Social-Communicative Factors thrust, we propose now to expand our investigations of communication as a core enabler of robust learning to include detailed study of patterns of interaction, the role of conversation and structured talk in initiating and sustaining learning, and the effects on motivation, self-attribution and commitment to a learning group that are associated with learning through social-communicative interaction. Specifically, we propose to investigate how human linguistic interaction works in instruction and learning, and how participants in learning exchanges (both teachers and students) can best be taught productive forms of interaction. We draw from our extensive prior work related separately to classroom discourse (Chapin & O’Connor, 2004; Bill et al., 1992; Resnick et al., 1992) and collaborative learning (Gweon et al., 2007; Joshi & Rose, 2007; Rummel & Diziol, 2008). We note that, although the classroom discourse and collaborative learning communities have proceeded mainly independently from one another, the conversational processes identified as valuable within these two communities are strongly overlapping.

Investigations of valuable conversational contributions have been conducted both within communities exploring the cognitive foundations of group learning and the sociocultural community. Regardless of the theoretical framework, the same ideas have surfaced under a number of different names including [[Accountable Talk]] (Michaels, O’Connor & Resnick, 2007; Resnick, O'Connor, & Michaels, 2007), transactivity (Berkowitz & Gibbs, 1984; Teasley, 1997; Weinberger & Fishcer, 2006; King, 1999), productive agency (Schwartz, 1999), and uptake (Suthers, 2006), and have been demonstrated to predict learning both in collaborative learning contexts (Azimita & Montgomery, 1993; Joshi & Rose, 2007) and classroom contexts (O’Connor et al., 2007). For example, one cognitive justification for the value of transactive conversational behavior is its connection with cognitive conflict (Piaget, 1985), where transactive conversational moves highlight differences between the mental models of collaborating students. One can argue that a major cognitive benefit of collaborative learning is that when students bring differing perspectives to a problem-solving situation, the interaction causes the participants to consider questions that might not have occurred to them otherwise. This stimulus could cause them to identify gaps in their understanding, which they would then be in a position to address. This type of cognitive conflict has the potential to lead to productive shifts in student understanding. It has the potential to elicit elaborate explanations from students that are associated with learning (Webb, Nemer, & Zuniga 2002). From the sociocultural perspective, based on Vygotsky’s seminal work (Vygotsky 1978), we can similarly argue that when students who have different strengths and weaknesses work together, they can provide support for each other that allows them to solve problems that would be just beyond their reach if they were working alone.

We will proceed with two interacting research strategies: one, expanding capacities for recording, coding and analyzing interactive communication that can be at least partially automated; and two, conducting in vivo experiments on ways of teaching participants the most promising patterns of interactive communication and testing the effects of these patterns on measures of robust learning.

In the first thread of our proposed work, we will work toward a common conceptual framework that unifies the classroom discourse, collaborative learning and instructional tutoring communities. To this end, we plan to develop a concrete and precise formalization on a linguistic level of what counts as performing these valued conversational moves. This concrete formalization will provide a common language for documenting and investigating the specific ways in which social-communicative practices can promote (or hinder) learning of complex mathematics and science content and reasoning skills.

In the second thread of our proposed work, we will examine causal connections between these communicative processes and learning by running in vivo experiments in which specific social-communicative practices are introduced into well-defined mathematics and science units of study. We will begin by replicating and extending a series of in vivo experiments on the effects of [[Accountable Talk]] in low-income urban classrooms with high proportions of English language learners in Chelsea, Massachusetts (O’Connor et al 2007; NHSF REC 0231893, PI: O’Connor). In a tightly controlled series of three-day studies in 5th and 6th grade classrooms, O’Connor’s group sought to determine whether it was possible to get evidence supporting a hypothesized causal relationship between selected discourse-intensive instructional practices and student mathematics learning. In previous non-experimental studies in Chelsea, students had shown large gains on standardized tests after a year or more of discourse-intensive instruction, but it was not possible to test the specific features of the intervention that produced these effects. Thus it was possible that cognitive and metacognitive abilities might improve over months of practice in clarifying, justifying and describing mathematical ideas, whether or not explicit transactive communication strategies were employed. Similarly, student motivation might have improved due to long-term participation in an intensive mathematics program, without a specific impact of particular forms of linguistic participation.

We will design and run in vivo experiments to test more specific hypotheses concerning specific [[Accountable Talk]] moves. Subsequent studies will test a larger intervention that includes training in the most effective conversational moves and collaborative scripts with implementation in a number of classrooms. The studies will focus on math and science learning topics. These studies will make use of techniques from automatic collaborative learning process analysis (Rose et al., in press; Wang et al., 2007; Donmez et al., 2005) and script-based support for productive collaboration (Dillenbourg & Jermann, 2007; Kollar, Fischer, & Hesse, 2006; Rummel & Spada, 2007; Diziol, Rummel, Kahrimanis, Spada & Avaris, 2008; Diziol et al., 2008; Walker, Rummel, McLaren & Koedinger, 2007) to carefully manipulate these properties of conversation in highly controlled and context sensitive ways.

== Descendants ==

To create a new project page, enclose your project name in a double set of brackets. Details for a project format may be [[ Project_Page_Template_and_Creation_Instructions | found here.]]

*[[Rose - Integrated framework for analysis of classroom discussions]]
*[[Features of Adaptive Assistance that Improve Peer Tutoring in Algebra (Walker, Rummel, Koedinger)]]
*[[Resnick Project]]

== References ==

* Chi, M.T., Roy, M., & Hausmann, R.G. (March, 2008). Observing tutorial dialogues collaboratively: Insights about human tutoring effectiveness from vicarious learning. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 32:2, 301-341. [http://www.vivaessays.com/buy-essay.html buy essay]

* Michaels, S., O’Connor, C., & Resnick, L. B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in the Philosophy of Education, 27(4), 283-297.

* Meier, A., Spada, H. & Rummel, N. (2007). A rating scheme for assessing the quality of computer-supported collaboration processes. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 63-86. [[Media: Meier_Rating_Scheme.pdf| Click to download]]

* Resnick, L., O'Connor, C., and Michaels, S. (2007). Classroom Discourse, Mathematical Rigor, and Student Reasoning: An Accountable Talk Literature Review.[[Media: Accountable_Talk_Lit_Review.pdf | Click to download]]

* Rose, C., et al. (2007). Analyzing collaborative learning processes automatically: Exploiting the advance of computational linguistics in computer-supported collaborative learning. [[Media: Rose_Analyzing_Collaborative.pdf | Click to download]]

* Walker, E., Rummel, N., & Koedinger, K. (2008). A Research-Oriented Architecture for Providing Adaptive Collaborative Learning Support [[Media: Walker_Architecture_for_Learing.pdf? | Click to download]]

* Yamakawa,Y., Forman, E., and Ansell, E. (2005). The role of positioning in constructing an identity in a third grade mathematics classroom. [[Media: Yamakawa_role_of_positioning.pdf| Click to download]]

[[Link title]]== Other recommended readings on the role of classroom dialogue in learning and development==
* Adey, P.S. & Shayer, M. (1990). Accelerating the development of formal thinking in middle and high school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(31), 267 - 285.
* Adey, P. & Shayer, M. (1993). An Exploration of Long-Term Far-Transfer Effects Following an Extended Intervention Program in the High School Science Curriculum. Cognition & Instruction, 11, 1 - 29.
* Adey, P., & Shayer, M. (2001). Thinking Science. London: Nelson Thormes.
* Adey, P. (2005). Issues arising from the long-term evaluation of cognitive acceleration programs. Research in Science Education, 35, 3-22.
* Adey, P.S. & Shayer, M. (1994). Really Raising Standards: cognitive intervention and academic achievement. London: Routledge.
* [http://www.robinalexander.org.uk Alexander, R.] (2000) Culture and pedagogy: International comparisons in primary education Blackwell , Oxford. Use as a source for [http://www.professays.com/info college essay writing], [http://essaysexperts.com custom writing service]
* Alexander, R. (2008) Towards teaching: Rethinking classroom talk. 4th ed., Dialogos , York, England
* [http://www.robinalexander.org.uk Alexander, R.] Mercer, N. and Hodgkinson, S. (eds) (2005) [[Media: Robinalexander_IACEP_2005.pdf | Culture, dialogue and learning: Notes on an emerging pedagogy. Exploring talk in school]] Sage , London.
* Anderson, R. C., Chinn, C., Waggoner, M., Nquyen, K. (1998). Intellectually stimulating story discussions. In J. Osborn & F. Lehr (Eds), Literacy for all: Issues in teaching and learning (170-187). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
* Anderson. R. C., Chinn, C., Chang, J., Waggoner, M., & Yi, H. (1997). On the Logical Integrity of Children's Arguments. Cognition and Instruction, 15 (2 ), 135 – 167.
* Applebee, A. N., Langer, J. A., Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-Based Approaches to Developing Understanding: Classroom Instruction and Student Performance in Middle and High School English. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 685-730.
* Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2009). Transformation of robust misconceptions through peer argumentation. In: B. B. Schwarz, T. Dreyfus, & R. Hershkowitz (Eds.) Guided Transformation of Knowledge in Classrooms (159-172). New York, NY: Routledge, Advances in Learning & Instruction series.
* Asterhan, C. S. C. & Schwarz, B. B. (in press). Online human guidance of small group discussions: The case of synchronous e-argumentation in a diagram-based discussion space. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning.
* Asterhan, C. S. C. & Schwarz, B. B. (2009). Argumentation and explanation in conceptual change: Indications from protocol analyses of peer-to-peer dialogue. Cognitive Science, 33, 373-399.
* Asterhan, C. S. C. & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 626-639.
* Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2000). Making believe: the collective construction of public mathematical knowledge in the elementary classroom. In D. Phillips (Ed.), Yearbook of the national society for the study of education, Constructivism in education. (pp. 193–224). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
* Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G., (2006). Improving comprehension with Questioning the Author: A fresh and expanded view of a powerful approach. NY: Scholastic.
* Bernstein, B. (1971/2003). Class, Codes and Control: Theoretical studies towards a sociology of language. London, UK: Routledge.
* Bill, V. L., Leer, M. N., Reams, L. E., & Resnick, L. B. (1992). From cupcakes to equations: The structure of discourse in a primary mathematics classroom. Verbum, 15(1), 63-85
* Boaler, J. (2006). How a Detracked Mathematics Approach Promoted Respect, Responsibility, and High Achievement. Theory Into Practice, 45(1), p40-46.
* Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 393-451). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
* Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
* Chapin, S. & O’Connor, M.C. (2004). Project Challenge: Identifying and developing talent in mathematics within low-income urban schools. Boston University School of Education Research Report No. 1, 1-6.
* Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.
* Chi, M. T. H., Roy, M., & Hausmann, R. G. M. (2008). Observing tutorial dialogues collaboratively: Insights about human tutoring effectivness from vicarious learning. Cognitive Science, 33, 301–341.
* Chi, M.T.H., Siler, S., Jeong, H., Yamauchi, T., & Hausmann, R. (2001). Learning from human tutoring. Cognitive Science, 25, 471-534.
* Chin, C. & Osborne, J. (in press). Supporting argumentation through students’ questions: Case studies in science classrooms. To appear in the Journal of the Learning Sciences.
* Chinn, C. A., & Anderson, R. C. (1998). The structure of discussions that promote reasoning. Teachers College Record, 100, 315–368.
* Cobb, P., Wood, T., Yackel, E., Nicholls, J., Wheatley, G., Trigatti, B., et al. (1991). Assessment of a Problem-Centered Second-Grade Mathematics Project. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(1), 3-29.
* Coleman, E. B. (1998). Using explanatory knowledge during problem solving in science. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 387–427.
* DeVries, E., Lund, K., & Baker, M. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 63–103.
* Driver, R., Newton, P., Osborne, J. Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms.
* Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38,39–72.
* Engle, R. A. & Conant, F. C. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition & Instruction, 20(4), 399-483.
* Felton, M. & Kuhn, D. (2001) The Development of argumentive discourse skill. Discourse Processes, 32(2&3), 135–153
* Ford, M. J., & Forman, E. A. (2006). Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. In J. Green & A. Luke (Eds.), Review of Research in Education (Vol. 30, pp. 1-32). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
* Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis.
* Gillies, R. M. (2004). The effects of communication training on teachers’and students’verbal behaviours during cooperative learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 257–279.
* Goldberg, T., Schwarz, B. B., & Porat, D (2008). Living and dormant collective memories as contexts of history learning. Learning and Instruction, 18, 223-237.
* Hart, B., & Risley, R. T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
* Howe, C., Tolmie, A., Duchak-Tanner, V., & Rattay, C. (2000). Hypothesis-testing in science: Group consensus and the acquisition of conceptual and procedural knowledge. Learning & Instruction, 10, 361-391.
* Hugener, I., Pauli, C., Reusser, K., Lipowsky, F., Rakoczy, K., & Klieme, E. (2009). Teaching patterns and learning quality in Swiss and German mathematics lessons. Learning and Instruction, 19(1), 66-78.
* Iordanou, K. & Kuhn, D. (2009). Arguing on the computer in scientific and non-scientific domains. In C. O'Malley, D. Suthers, P. Reimann & A. Dimitracopoulou (Eds), Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Practices: CSCL2009 Conference Proceedings (pp. 576-585). [http://www.bestessayhelp.com custom writing services]
* King, A., & Rosenshine, B. (1993). Effects of guided cooperative questioning on children’s knowledge construction. Journal of ExperimentalEducation, 61, 127–148.
* Kuhn, D. & Udell, W. (2003). The Development of Argument Skills. Child Development, 74 (5), 1245-1260.
* Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28, 16-25.[http://www.bestessayhelp.com/essay-help/buy-essay buy essays online]
* Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 287–315.
* Lefstein, A. & Snell, J. (in press). Classroom Discourse: The Promise and Complexity of Dialogic Practice. To appear in : S. Ellis, E. McCartney, J. Bourne (Eds), Insight and Impact: Applied Linguistics and the Primary School, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
* Lipman, M. (1975). Philosophy for Children. . ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED103296.
* Mason, L. (1998). Sharing cognition to construct scientific knowledge in school context: The role of oral and written discourse Instructional Science, 26: 359–389.
* McKeown, M. G., Beck, I., & Blake, R. G. K. (2009). Rethinking reading comprehension instruction: A comparison of instruction for strategies and content approaches. Reading Research Quarterly, 44, 218-253.
* Mercer, N., Dawes, L et al. (2004). Reasoning as a Scientist: Ways of Helping Children to Use Language to Learn Science. British Educational Research Journal, 30(3): 359-377.
* Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30, 359–377.
* Mercer, N. & Littleton, K. (2007) Dialogue and the Development of Children's Thinking: a sociocultural approach. London: Routledge.
* Mercer, N., Wegerif, R. & Dawes, L. (1999). Children's Talk and the Development of Reasoning in the Classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25, 95-111.
* Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, I.A.G., Soter, A. o., Henessey, M. N., & Alexander, J. F. (2009). Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ comprehension of text: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 740-764.
* Nussbaum, E. M., & Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 384–395.
* Nystrand, M. & Gamoran, A. (1991). Instructional Discourse, Student Engagement, Literature Achievement. Research in the Teaching of English, 25(3): 261-290.
* Palincsar, A-M., & Brown A. L. (1984). Reciprocal Teaching of Comprehension-Fostering and Comprehension-Monitoring Activities. Cognition & Instruction, 1(2) 117-175
* Pontecorvo, C., & Girardet, H. (1993). Arguing and reasoning in understanding historical topics. Cognition and Instruction, 11, 365-395.
* Resnick, L. B., & Nelson-Le Gall, S. (1997). Socializing intelligence. In L. Smith, J. Dockrell, & P.
Eds.), Piaget, Vygotsky and beyond (pp. 145-158). London/New York: Routledge.
* Resnick, L. B., Bill, V., Lesgold, S., & Leer, M. (1991). Thinking in arithmetic class. In B. Means, C. Chelemer, & M. S. Knapp (Eds.), Teaching advanced skills to at-risk students: Views from research and practice (pp. 27-53). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
* Resnick, L.B., Michaels, S., & O’Connor, C. (in press). How (well structured) talk builds the mind. In R. Sternberg & D. Preiss (Eds.), From Genes to Context: New Discoveries about Learning from Educational Research and Their Applications. New York: Springer.
* Resnick, L. B., Salmon, M. H., Zeitz, C. M., Wathen, S. H., & Holowchak, M. (1993). Reasoning in conversation. Cognition and Instruction, 11, 347-364.
* Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S. (2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes, 32(2-3), 155-157.
* Sandora, C., Beck, I. & McKeown, M. (1999). A comparison of two discussion strategies on students’ comprehension and interpretation of complex literature. Journal of Reading Psychology, 20, 177-212.
* Schwarz, B. B., & Asterhan, C. S. C. (2010). Argumentation and Reasoning. To appear in: K. Littleton, C. Wood, & J. Kleine Staarman (Eds). International Handbook of Psychology in Education. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.
* Schwarz, B. B. & Asterhan, C. S. C. (in press). E-moderation of synchronous discussions in educational settings: A nascent practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences.
* Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., & Biezuner, S. (2000). Two wrongs may make a right...if they argue together! Cognition & Instruction, 18, 461-494.
* Seymour, J. R. & Lehrer, R. (2006). Tracing the evolution of pedagogical content knowledge as the development of interanimated discourses. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 549-582.
* Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses, and mathematizing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
* Shayer, M. (1999). Cognitive acceleration through science education II: its effects and scope. International Journal of Science Education, 21(8), 883 - 902.
* Simon, S. & Richardson, K. (2009). Argumentation in School Science: Breaking the Tradition of Authoritative Exposition Through a Pedagogy that Promotes Discussion and Reasoning. Argumentation, 23,469–493
* Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S. & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Orchestrating Productive Mathematical Discussions: Five Practices for Helping Teachers Move Beyond Show and Tell. Mathematical Thinking & Learning, 10, 313–340.
* Topping, K. J. & S. Trickey (2007a). Collaborative philosophical enquiry for school children: Cognitive effects at 10-12 years. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 271-288.
* Topping, K. J. & Trickey, S. (2007b). Collaborative philosophical inquiry for schoolchildren: Cognitive gains at 2-year follow-up. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 787-796.
* Walshaw, M., & Anthony, G. (2008). The Teacher’s Role in Classroom Discourse: A Review of Recent Research Into Mathematics Classrooms. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 516-551.
* Webb, N. M. (2009). The teacher’s role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 1-28.
* Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841–873). New York, NY: Macmillan.
* Webb, N., Franke, M. L., Ing, M., Chan, A., De, T., Freund, D., & Battey, D. (2009). The role of teacher instructional practices in student collaboration. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 360-381.
* Wegerif, N., Mercer, N. & Dawes, L. (1999). From social interaction to individual reasoning: an empirical investigation of a possible socio-cultural model of cognitive development. Learning & Instruction, 9. 493-516.

== Meeting Notes ==
'''Social and Communicative Factors Thrust Workshop on Coding and Analysis of Classroom Dialogue, Pittsburgh May 26-27, 2011'''
*''Effects of Social Metacognition on Micro-Creativity: Statistical Discourse Analyses of Group Problem Solving'' - Ming Ming Chiu [[Media:CHIU_-Social_Metacognition.pptx | Click to download]]
*''Dialogue Analysis to Inform the Development of a Natural-language Tutoring System for Physics'' - Sandra Katz, Michael Ford, Pamela Jordan, Diane Litman
*''Temporal patterns of knowledge construction: Statistical discourse analysis of a role-based online discussion'' - Ming Ming Chiu & Alyssa Wise [[Media:Knowledge_construction.pptx‎ | Click to download]]
*''Analyzing Teacher-Led Talks: A Talk Map Representation'' - Gaowei Chen
*''Towards Academically Productive Talk Supported by Conversational Agents'' - Carolyn Penstein Rosé, Lauren Resnick, Gregory Dyke, Iris Howley, Rohit Kumar [[Media:Bio-Analysis-Carolyn.pdf | Click to download]]
*''What (if anything) about framing? Is it significant? Do we need to consider it?''- Jim Greeno [[Media:WorkshopSlides.pptx | Click to download]]
*''Measuring Classroom Discussions'' - Rip Correnti, Moddy McKeown, Jimmy Scherrer, Peg Smith, Mary Kay Stein, Kevin Ashley, Jim Greeno

Cognitive Factors

2011-07-13T12:54:09Z

Jmorris14:

The research in this thrust is aimed at understanding cognitive learning—changes in knowledge—that result from [[instructional events]]. It builds on work in the learning sciences field at large and on research carried out in the PSLC over its first four years within the [[Refinement and Fluency]] cluster and part of the [[Coordinative Learning]] cluster, thereby merging two themes that organized the first phase of the PSLC. Each of these clusters was concerned with identifying instructional events that produce robust learning. They differed mainly in that the relevant theme within the Coordinative Learning cluster had a specific focus on instructional events that included more than one input. (A second theme within the Coordinative Learning cluster was on instructional events that provoke learning events involving more than one reasoning method and this theme will be continued in the [[Metacognition and Motivation]] thrust). In the fifth year of the PSLC, we carry forward research from each of these clusters, while making a transition to an additional set of research questions. Although we frame this section in terms of the new Cognitive Factors thrust, the research carried out during the 5th year has been initiated in the current Refinement and Fluency and in part of the Coordinative Learning clusters.

Our work on cognitive factors encompasses a triangulated set of events around learning: learning events, instructional events, and assessment events. Anything from a lesson to an entire curriculum can be considered a sequence of events whose durations vary from seconds to semesters. The hypotheses of the Cognitive Factors Thrust concern how instructional procedures (e.g., decisions about the learner’s task, materials, practice, feedback) affect learning events and thus the outcomes of learning. Learning involves the acquisition of [[knowledge components]], an increase in the [[feature validity]] and the [[strength]] of these components, and the integration of these components through practice. Our basic hypotheses include the following:

* Explicitness: Instruction that draws the learner’s attention to valid features that support the relevant knowledge components leads to more robust learning than instruction that does not.
* Assistance: The degree of assistance in the instruction affects learning in relation to student knowledge on specific knowledge components.
* Practice: Practice schedules can be optimized using models of learning based on memory activation assumptions.
* Integration: Knowledge components that are integrated during learning and practice lead to more robust learning and fluent performance across different tasks.
* [http://www.superiorpapers.com/ research papers]

The research plan tests these hypotheses across knowledge domains, as exemplified by the following projects:

''Language background factors in L2 learning''. This work illustrates the synergies that develop in the PSLC’s LearnLab context, in this case between English as a second language (ESL) director Alan Juffs and other PSLC language researchers. In a prior cluster meeting, Juffs presented ESL classroom data that compared various L1 background students in their performance on transcribing their own speech, a standard piece of instruction in the ESL curriculum. The result that caught the interest of PSLC researchers (Dunlap, Guan, Perfetti) was the very poor spelling performance of Arabic-background students, relative to Spanish, Korean, and Chinese ESL students, despite comparable levels of spoken language performance. Furthermore, Juffs identified this discrepancy as a long-standing one in ESL instruction. Although one might hypothesize that a key factor is orthographic differences between L1 and L2, this seems unlikely here. Spanish to English is closer, but Chinese to English is farther in L1-L2 orthographic similarity. The first steps toward a new study have been taken with the help of a PSLC summer intern, who coded the errors made in spelling by all L1 background learners. The pattern of errors can be characterized as qualitatively similar, differing across languages quantitatively, suggesting a generalized English spelling problem. This analysis has led to the hypothesis that feature focusing—attention to full spelling patterns—is different across the L1 backgrounds, which we will test in a training experiment that focuses attention on spelling patterns.

''Second language vocabulary learning''. Another new project originating within the Refinement and Fluency cluster will study English vocabulary learning using REAP. Based on recent research by Balass on the trade-offs between explicit (dictionary-based) and implicit (inferences from text) instruction in learning new words by monolingual subjects (Bolger et al, 2008), the new work will apply this tradeoff idea to second language learners. The hypothesis is that allowing learners to view definitions is more effective after they have read a sentence containing the word to be learned. This hypothesis reflects ideas about assistance (giving a definition versus inferring it) and the assumption that learning word meanings from context depends on the overlapping memory traces established by specific encounters with the word (Bolger et al, 2008). REAP allows us to use authentic texts for studies with students of various L1 backgrounds learning English through reading texts in their areas of interest. In our experiments, we will vary the availability of definitions provided on-line as part of the text reading.

''Explicit instruction and practice schedules in algebra and second language learning''. Foreign language learning in classrooms has stimulated research on explicit vs implicit instruction, with conclusions favoring the value of explicit instruction (Norris and Ortega, 2000). A major conclusion from PSLC work is that instruction that draws attention to critical valid features—“feature focusing”—is important in acquiring knowledge components for complex tasks. This conclusion has evidence from studies of L2 learning of the English grammar by Levin, Friskoff, Pavlik, studies of radical learning by Dunlap et al and by Pavlik, and by studies by Zhang and MacWhinney and by Liu et al on learning spoken syllables through pin-yin (alphabetic spellings). Projects in French dictation (MacWhinney) and French grammar (Presson & MacWhinney), Chinese dictation (Zhang & MacWhinney), algebra (Pavlik) and arithmetical computation (Fiez) also reflect this theme. Much of this work has been combined with completely general hypotheses about practice, based on Pavlik and Anderson (2005)’s model that describes the trade-off between the benefit of spaced practice and the cost of longer retention intervals brought by spacing. The resulting optimized practice schedule has been tested in several PSLC studies of vocabulary learning in Chinese (Pavlik, MacWhinney, Koedinger; reported in Pavlik, 2006), cues to French gender (Presson, MacWhinney, & Pavlik). Important is the generality of the optimization model. It applies to all domain content and studies in both algebra and second language learning have nee carried out. The new work in second language and in algebra builds on the synergies that have emerged from collaborations between domain researchers (e.g. MacWhinney) and Pavlik around experiments and models for optimizing practice. For Chinese, MacWhinney, Zhang, and Pavlik have developed a tutor for Chinese dictation and vocabulary learning that is being used in 18 sites. Data from these sites will be used to test the results of practice schedules and the form of instructional events (e.g. cues to gender in French) with longer term measures of robust learning. Because each of the tutors logs results to DataShop, the student records are a rich source of data for further study, including researchers beyond the PSLC.

''Learning the logic of unconfounded experiments.'' We will extend our research on college level science topics (chemistry and physics) to middle school science, with a focus on the cross-domain topic of experimental design. The ability to design unconfounded experiments and make valid inferences from their outcomes is an essential skill in scientific reasoning. The key idea here is CVS: the Control of Variables Strategy. CVS is the fundamental idea underlying the design of unconfounded experiments from which valid, causal, inferences can be made. Its acquisition is an important step in the development of scientific reasoning skills , because it provides a strong constraint on search in the space of experiments (Klahr, 2000). The Tutor for Experimental Design (TED), developed by Klahr’s research team, builds on previous work studying the different paths of learning and transfer that result from teaching CVS using different instructional methods that span from direct instruction to discovery (Chen & Klahr, 1999) and show differences along the “physical-virtual” dimension (Triona & Klahr, 2007). We build on this by constructing of a semi-autonomous tutor, then developing a full computer based tutor in Pittsburgh middle school LearnLabs and carrying out in vivo experiments with TED.

''Integration of knowledge components.'' Isolated knowledge components are not sufficient to produce fluent use of knowledge. Integrating knowledge components is important both in authentic practice that follows acquisition of knowledge components but, we hypothesize, also in the initial acquisition of components. Some of our prior work in coordinative learning establishes some of the conditions that favor multiple inputs during learning (e.g., Davenport et al in stochiometry). And experiments on fluency support the value of repeated practice in single-topic speaking as way to support fluency (de Jong, Halderman and Perfetti). In new work we propose to build on progress we have made in the study of fluency in language (de Jong et al) and arithmetic (Fiez). For example, we will follow the discovery by de Jong and colleagues that when L2 speakers repeat a speech on a single topic, their fluency scores increase on a number of measures. We will test the hypothesis that this results from the advantage of retrieving the same conceptual and lexical knowledge and overall speech plan on successive attempts, allowing fluency to increase on procedural components supported by chunking of words to phrases. We are accumulating a large database in the English LearnLab that will support the testing of additional hypotheses. The idea that some relatively simple learning (e.g. 3-5 knowledge components) is supported by integration from the beginning is being tested by Liu, Guan & Perfetti in a study of learning to read Chinese characters. The hypothesis is that when students write unfamiliar characters within the same 60-second time period that they read the character and try to learn its meaning and pronunciation, they will show more robust learning measured by reading tasks. Underlying this hypothesis is the idea that the representation of a character (or other objects that follow structural principles) can be perceptual-motor as well as visual.

== Descendents ==

To create a new project page, enclose your project name in a double set of brackets. Details for a project format may be [[ Project_Page_Template_and_Creation_Instructions | found here.]]

*[[Klahr - TED]]
*[[Perfetti - Read Write Integration]]
*[[Presson & MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar]]
*[[Davy & MacWhinney - Spanish Sentence Production]]
*[[Zhang & MacWhinney - Chinese Pinyin Learning]]
*[[Zhao & MacWhinney - English Article Usage]]
*[[Juffs - Feature Focus in Word Learning]]
*[[Fostering fluency in second language learning | de Jong, Halderman & Perfetti - Fostering fluency in second language learning]]
*[http://mg-trans.com.ua/perevozka-nefteprodyctov/ Transportation of oil products]
*[[McLaren_-_The_Assistance_Dilemma_And_Discovery_Learning | McLaren - The Assistance Dilemma and Discovery Learning]]
*[[Wylie - Intelligent Writing Tutor]]
*[[REAP_main | Eskenazi - REAP]]
*[[Roll - Productive Failure in a Chemistry Virtual Lab]]

[[Cognitive Factors Monthly Meeting Notes]]

=== References ===
* Borek, A., McLaren, B.M., Karabinos, M., & Yaron, D. (2009). How Much Assistance is Helpful to Students in Discovery Learning? In U. Cress, V. Dimitrova, & M. Specht (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning, Learning in the Synergy of Multiple Disciplines (EC-TEL 2009), LNCS 5794, September/October 2009, Nice, France. (pp. 391-404). Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

Juffs - Feature Focus in Word Learning

2011-07-13T12:48:23Z

Jmorris14:

{| 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 to [http://www.vivaessays.com/buy-essay.html buy essay]

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.