Theory Wiki - User contributions [en]

Zhao & MacWhinney - Learning the English Article

2010-02-02T02:37:12Z

Macw: /* Abstract */

English Article Usage
==Summary Table==

==Abstract==
Documentation of this study is currently in progress.

==Background and Significance==

==Glossary==

==Research Questions==

== Study One==
===Hypothesis===
===Independent Variables===
===Dependent Variables===
===Results===
===Explanation===

==Connections to Other Studies==
==References==
==Future Plans==

Zhao & MacWhinney - Learning the English Article

2010-02-02T02:36:41Z

Macw: New page: English Article Usage ==Summary Table== ==Abstract== ==Background and Significance== ==Glossary== ==Research Questions== == Study One== ===Hypothesis=== ===Independent Variables=== ==...

English Article Usage
==Summary Table==

==Abstract==

==Background and Significance==

==Glossary==

==Research Questions==

== Study One==
===Hypothesis===
===Independent Variables===
===Dependent Variables===
===Results===
===Explanation===

==Connections to Other Studies==
==References==
==Future Plans==

Cognitive Factors

2010-02-02T02:36:19Z

Macw: /* Descendents */

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.

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]]
*[[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 - Fluency]]
*[[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]]

=== 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.

Zhang & MacWhinney - Chinese Pinyin Learning

2010-02-02T02:35:11Z

Macw:

Chinese Pinyin Learning
==Summary Table==

==Abstract==

==Background and Significance==

==Glossary==

==Research Questions==

== Study One==
===Hypothesis===
===Independent Variables===
===Dependent Variables===
===Results===
===Explanation===

==Connections to Other Studies==
==References==
==Future Plans==

Zhang & MacWhinney - Chinese Pinyin Learning

2010-02-02T02:33:41Z

Macw: /* Abstract */

Chinese Pinyin Learning
==Summary Table==

==Abstract==
The documentation of new work on this project is now in progress. For information on previous stages in this project, see the summary of work on [[Chinese pinyin dictation]].

==Background and Significance==

==Glossary==

==Research Questions==

== Study One==
===Hypothesis===
===Independent Variables===
===Dependent Variables===
===Results===
===Explanation===

==Connections to Other Studies==
==References==
==Future Plans==

Zhang & MacWhinney - Chinese Pinyin Learning

2010-02-02T02:32:21Z

Macw: New page: Chinese Pinyin Learning ==Summary Table== ==Abstract== ==Background and Significance== ==Glossary== ==Research Questions== == Study One== ===Hypothesis=== ===Independent Variables=== ...

Cognitive Factors

2010-02-02T02:32:06Z

Macw: /* Descendents */

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.

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]]
*[[MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar]]
*[[Davy & MacWhinney - Spanish Sentence Production]]
*[[Zhang & MacWhinney - Chinese Pinyin Learning]]
*[[Juffs - Feature Focus in Word Learning]]
*[[Fostering fluency in second language learning | de Jong - Fluency]]
*[[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]]

=== 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.

Davy & MacWhinney - Spanish Sentence Production

2010-02-02T02:30:09Z

Macw: /* Abstract */

Spanish Sentence Production
==Summary Table==

==Abstract==
Construction of the documentation on this study is now in progress.

==Background and Significance==

==Glossary==

==Research Questions==

== Study One==
===Hypothesis===
===Independent Variables===
===Dependent Variables===
===Results===
===Explanation===

==Connections to Other Studies==
==References==
==Future Plans==

Davy & MacWhinney - Spanish Sentence Production

2010-02-02T02:29:31Z

Macw: New page: Spanish Sentence Production ==Summary Table== ==Abstract== ==Background and Significance== ==Glossary== ==Research Questions== == Study One== ===Hypothesis=== ===Independent Variables...

Spanish Sentence Production
==Summary Table==

==Abstract==

==Background and Significance==

==Glossary==

==Research Questions==

== Study One==
===Hypothesis===
===Independent Variables===
===Dependent Variables===
===Results===
===Explanation===

==Connections to Other Studies==
==References==
==Future Plans==

Presson and MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar

2010-02-02T02:28:04Z

Macw:

Spanish Conjugation
==Summary Table==

==Abstract==
Adult second language learners often fail to acquire enough fluency in the new language to support smooth communicative interactions. The studies described here explore the hypothesis that robustness can be markedly improved through basic skill training based on three related pedagogical methods: graduated interval recall, resonant co-training, and cue focusing. This prediction will be tested in the context of in vivo and laboratory studies of online learning of Spanish verb conjugation.

==Background & Significance==
The central controversy in the study of second language acquisition is the status of the Critical Period Hypothesis. As formulated first by Penfield & Roberts (Penfield & Roberts, 1959) and then later by Lenneberg (1967), this hypothesis holds that, after some critical age, second languages (L2s) cannot be learned to full native-speaker competence. This critical period has been variously linked to age 2 for lexical learning (Weber-Fox & Neville, 1996) and perception (Kuhl, Conboy, Padden, Nelson, & Pruitt, 2005), age 6 for phonology (Flege, Yeni-Komshian, & Liu, 1999), age 13 for syntax (Johnson & Newport, 1989), or late adulthood for fossilization (MacWhinney, 2005). However, recent research (Hakuta, Bialystok, & Wiley, 2003; Wiley, Bialystok, & Hakuta, 2005) has cast doubt on many of these claims (MacWhinney, in press).

Despite these recent challenges, educators, academics, and the general public continue to believe in the reality of some Critical Period. What makes the notion of a Critical Period so compelling is that fact that adult second language learners often report problems acquiring a native accent in L2 and in using their L2 fluently. The approach to this issue that we have taken is to elaborate an extended version of the Competition Model (MacWhinney, in press) that accounts for age-related effects in second language learning through the mechanisms of entrenchment, transfer, and incomplete resonance. This new Unified Model makes strong predictions about the ways in which age-related effects can be overcome through effective teaching. In particular, the model holds that the problems that adults have in second language learning arise from the entrenched nature of the first language (L1), inadequate exposure to L2, and inappropriate teaching of L2. To correct these problems, teaching of adult learners needs to utilize these three methods:
1. Graduated interval recall,
2. Resonant cotraining, and
3. Cue focusing.
The claim is that L2 instruction that incorporates these three methods will lead to marked improvements in fluency and robustness of learning.

==Glossary==
===Graduated Interval Recall===
This approach to the learning of items (words, sounds, constructions) in a second language was first elaborated by Pimsleur (1967), although components of the idea can be found as far back as Ebbinghaus (1885). Recently, Pavlik et al. (in press) have formalized the parameters controlling this procedure mathematically in the context of the ACT-R model of cognition. The core idea here is most easily illustrated in the context of the learning of a list of new L2 vocabulary items (Nation, 2001). Immediately after a word is presented, learners are almost always able to recall it. However, if we let a minute pass by, the memory trace drops below threshold and retrieval success drops with it. What Pimsleur discovered was that, if we retest the item before the memory trace decays too much, recall will be successful. Once an item has been recalled successfully once, repeated recalls trials can be spaced further and further apart. The neuronal basis of this process has now been elaborated in terms of synaptic reentry reinforcement model of hippocampal functioning (Wittenberg, Sullivan, & Tsien, 2002). Pavlik (in press) has shown that optimization of the intervals required for recall can lead to a two-fold improvement in vocabulary learning. This experimental work is now being extended to the in vivo study of online learning of Chinese vocabulary (Pavlik et al., in press) and pinyin dictation (Zhang, MacWhinney, & Wu, in preparation) in the PSLC online and offline courses. It has also been applied to the learning of Spanish vocabulary through a simple online tutor. The method of graduated interval recall is also being applied to the learning of French gender (Presson, Pavlik, MacWhinney, & Jones, in preparation). Each of these three efforts (Chinese vocabulary, Chinese pinyin, French gender) relies on the same code base for optimization developed by Pavlik.

===Resonant Cotraining===
The second mechanism for adult second language learning highlighted in the Unified Competition Model is the mechanism of resonant co-training. This mechanism has parallels to issues discussed in the [[Coordinative Learning]] Cluster. The basic effect of resonance can be most easily understood by contrasting the learning of French and Chinese. In French, learners have immediate access to a method for encoding the sounds of the language through Roman characters, including a few special French diacritics. Because adults rely so heavily on phonemic recoding during reading (Booth, Perfetti, & MacWhinney, 1999), they can easily form a resonant loop between a new auditory form and its meaning and orthography. This cortical loop serves as a scaffold for the process of hippocampal consolidation discussed above (Wittenberg, Sullivan, & Tsien, 2002). In Chinese, learners cannot form this loop, because they do not yet know most of the Hanzi characters required for writing and reading Chinese. It is this lack of orthographic resonance that makes Asian character-based languages like Japanese and Chinese so challenging for learners with a background in Roman characters. To improve resonance during learning, our systems for vocabulary learning interweave trials using pinyin, meaning, auditory form, and characters. Initial results show a significant advantage for training that incorporates this type of resonance. The PSLC project on [[Learning a tonal language: Chinese]] organized by Wang, Liu, Perfetti, and colleagues further elaborates in the role of resonance and co-training in learning tones. Rather than replicating those studies here, we hope to build on their results as a part of an integrated approach to the design of instruction in Spanish, Chinese, and French.

===Explicit Cue Focusing===

The third mechanism for adult second language learning highlighted in the Unified Competition Model is the mechanism of cue focusing. Cue focusing is currently at the center of work by Zhang on [[Chinese pinyin dictation]] and Presson on [[French gender cues]]. The Chinese tutor allows students direct access to minimal pairs that characterize the correct target form (with tones and letters) and the form they have entered. In this case, cue focusing is explicit on a perceptual level. The French tutor presents cues in a simple, declarative form (i.e. -ance indicates feminine). In terms of the debate regarding implicit and explicit learning, both forms of feedback represent explicit teaching. However, as MacWhinney (1997) argued, explicit teaching is only successful when the cues are extremely simple. Both of these tutors rely on this core principle.

===Entrenchment===
In the theory of self-organizing maps (Kohonen, 2001), entrenchment arises in cortical areas as a result of the formation of connections between mutually active items. In PDP theory, these are members of "gangs" participating in "gang effects" or correlated activation (Rogers & McClelland, 2006). Li, Zhao, & MacWhinney (2007) show how entrenchment increases across epochs of training of a SOM during growth in the size of the lexicon. Once forms are entrenched, it is difficult to organize them in alternative ways. However, there are various computational frameworks that can account for the overlay of a secondary organizations on an entrenched L1 structure.

===Transfer===
Whenever a learner can map a new L2 structure onto a previous L1 structure, analogical transfer is possible. This transfer can be either positive or negative. Positive transfer arises when L1 matches L2. Negative transfer arises when L1 only partially matches L2.

===Social Disincentives===
Infants and toddlers receive a wide range of incentives for language learning, including gaze reinforcement, echoing imitation, games, smiles, and positive verbal input. Across the lifespan, these features mostly decrease until adolescent and adult language learners are eventually faced with many disincentives for language learning, including failure to respond in L2, negative feedback, and avoidance of interactions.

==Research questions==
Adult second language learning, unlike first language acquisition, must deal with learning barriers produced by L1 (first language) entrenchment, transfer, and social disincentives. In order to overcome these barriers, adult learners can rely on specialized reconfigurations of learning methods used by children learning their first language. These supports include: (1) graduated interval recall, (2) resonant co-training, and (3) explicit cue focusing. Presence of only one or two of these supports will lead to good learning, but the best and most robust learning occurs when all three are operative. This means that the overall hypothesis cannot be evaluated by a single definitive experiment. Instead, a series of experiments must be run to evaluate various configurations of the components. Also, it is possible that the effects of these methods may vary across linguistic levels (phonology, orthography, reading, lexicon, syntax, pragmatics, fluency). However, evidence for the effects of any combination of these supports in achieving any level of robustness on any given level would still provide important clues regarding ways to enhance the overall robustness of second language learning. This information could also be useful in understanding robustness in other domains.
==Study One==
===Hypothesis===
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the use of explicit cue marking for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without explicit cue identification.

===Independent Variables===
Group A will receive explicit cues for the preterite and subjunctive and non-explicit cues for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

===Dependent Variables===
The dependent variables are response accuracy and response latency.

===Results===
This study will begin in a pilot form at Penn State in the Spring. The target student population includes 900 subjects.

===Explanation===

==Study Two==
===Hypothesis===
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the introduction of a graduated recall deadline for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without explicit cue identification.

===Independent Variables===
Group A will receive graduated deadlines for the preterite and subjunctive and no deadlines for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

===Dependent Variables===
===Results===
===Explanation===

==Study Three==
===Hypothesis===
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the use of analogical patterns for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without analogical pattern identification.

===Independent Variables===
Group A will receive analogical patterns for the preterite and subjunctive and non-explicit cues for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

===Dependent Variables===
The dependent variables are response accuracy and response latency.

===Results===
This study will begin in a pilot form at Penn State in the Spring. The target student population includes 900 subjects.

===Explanation===

==Connections to Other Studies==

==References==
*Kohonen, T. (2001). Self-organizing maps (3rd ed.). Berlin: Springer.
*Booth, J. R., Perfetti, C. A., MacWhinney, B., & Hunt, S. B. (2000). The association of rapid temporal perception with orthographic and phonological processing in children and adults with reading impairment. Scientific Studies of Reading, 4, 101-132.
*Pimsleur, P. (1967). A memory schedule. Modern Language Journal, 51, 73-75.
*Yoshimura, Y., & MacWhinney, B. (in press). The use of pronominal case in English sentence interpretation. Applied Psycholinguistics.
*Yoshimura, Y., & MacWhinney, B. (in press). Honorifics: A socio-cultural verb agreement cue in Japanese sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics.
*MacWhinney, B. (in press). A tale of two paradigms. In M. Kail, M. Fayol & M. Hickman (Eds.), Language studies. Paris: Springer.
*Zhang, Y., MacWhinney, B., & Wu, S. (in preparation). A tutor for learning Chinese sounds through pinyin. Applied Psycholinguistics.
*Presson, N., Pavlik, P., MacWhinney, B., & Jones, C. (in preparation). A cue-based tutor for learning French nominal gender.
*Prior, A., & MacWhinney, B. (2009). Beyond inhibition: A bilingual advantage in task switching. Bilingualism.
*MacWhinney, B. (2009). The emergence of linguistic complexity. In T. Givon (Ed.), Linguistic complexity (pp. 405-432). New York: Benjamins.
*MacWhinney, B., & Li, P. (2008). Neurolinguistic computational models. In B. Stemmer & H. Whitaker (Eds.), Handbook of the Neuroscience of Language (pp. 229-236). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
*MacWhinney, B. (2008). How mental models encode embodied linguistic perspectives. In R. Klatzky, B. MacWhinney & M. Behrmann (Eds.), Embodiment, Ego-Space, and Action (pp. 369-410). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
*MacWhinney, B. (2008). A Unified Model. In P. Robinson & N. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
*Yoshimura, Y., & MacWhinney, B. (2007). The effect of oral repetition in L2 speech fluency: System for an experimental tool and a language tutor. SLATE Conference.
*Pavlik, P., Presson, N., Dozzi, G., Wu, S., MacWhinney, B., & Koedinger, K. (2007). The FaCT (Fact and Concept Training) System: A new tool linking Cognitive Science with educators. Cognitive Science Society.
*Tokowicz, N., & MacWhinney, B. (2005). Implicit and explicit measures of sensitivity to violations in second language grammar: An event-related potential investigation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 173-204.

==Future Plans==

Presson and MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar

2010-02-02T02:27:36Z

Macw:

Presson and MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar

2010-02-02T02:21:35Z

Macw: Undo revision 10549 by Macw (Talk)

Spanish Conjugation
==Summary Table==

==Abstract==
Adult second language learners often fail to acquire enough fluency in the new language to support smooth communicative interactions. The studies described here explore the hypothesis that robustness can be markedly improved through basic skill training based on three related pedagogical methods: graduated interval recall, resonant co-training, and cue focusing. This prediction will be tested in the context of in vivo and laboratory studies of online learning of Spanish verb conjugation.

==Background & Significance==
The central controversy in the study of second language acquisition is the status of the Critical Period Hypothesis. As formulated first by Penfield & Roberts (Penfield & Roberts, 1959) and then later by Lenneberg (1967), this hypothesis holds that, after some critical age, second languages (L2s) cannot be learned to full native-speaker competence. This critical period has been variously linked to age 2 for lexical learning (Weber-Fox & Neville, 1996) and perception (Kuhl, Conboy, Padden, Nelson, & Pruitt, 2005), age 6 for phonology (Flege, Yeni-Komshian, & Liu, 1999), age 13 for syntax (Johnson & Newport, 1989), or late adulthood for fossilization (MacWhinney, 2005). However, recent research (Hakuta, Bialystok, & Wiley, 2003; Wiley, Bialystok, & Hakuta, 2005) has cast doubt on many of these claims (MacWhinney, in press).

Despite these recent challenges, educators, academics, and the general public continue to believe in the reality of some Critical Period. What makes the notion of a Critical Period so compelling is that fact that adult second language learners often report problems acquiring a native accent in L2 and in using their L2 fluently. The approach to this issue that we have taken is to elaborate an extended version of the Competition Model (MacWhinney, in press) that accounts for age-related effects in second language learning through the mechanisms of entrenchment, transfer, and incomplete resonance. This new Unified Model makes strong predictions about the ways in which age-related effects can be overcome through effective teaching. In particular, the model holds that the problems that adults have in second language learning arise from the entrenched nature of the first language (L1), inadequate exposure to L2, and inappropriate teaching of L2. To correct these problems, teaching of adult learners needs to utilize these three methods:
1. Graduated interval recall,
2. Resonant cotraining, and
3. Cue focusing.
The claim is that L2 instruction that incorporates these three methods will lead to marked improvements in fluency and robustness of learning.

==Glossary==
===Graduated Interval Recall===
This approach to the learning of items (words, sounds, constructions) in a second language was first elaborated by Pimsleur (1967), although components of the idea can be found as far back as Ebbinghaus (1885). Recently, Pavlik et al. (in press) have formalized the parameters controlling this procedure mathematically in the context of the ACT-R model of cognition. The core idea here is most easily illustrated in the context of the learning of a list of new L2 vocabulary items (Nation, 2001). Immediately after a word is presented, learners are almost always able to recall it. However, if we let a minute pass by, the memory trace drops below threshold and retrieval success drops with it. What Pimsleur discovered was that, if we retest the item before the memory trace decays too much, recall will be successful. Once an item has been recalled successfully once, repeated recalls trials can be spaced further and further apart. The neuronal basis of this process has now been elaborated in terms of synaptic reentry reinforcement model of hippocampal functioning (Wittenberg, Sullivan, & Tsien, 2002). Pavlik (in press) has shown that optimization of the intervals required for recall can lead to a two-fold improvement in vocabulary learning. This experimental work is now being extended to the in vivo study of online learning of Chinese vocabulary (Pavlik et al., in press) and pinyin dictation (Zhang, MacWhinney, & Wu, in preparation) in the PSLC online and offline courses. It has also been applied to the learning of Spanish vocabulary through a simple online tutor. The method of graduated interval recall is also being applied to the learning of French gender (Presson, Pavlik, MacWhinney, & Jones, in preparation). Each of these three efforts (Chinese vocabulary, Chinese pinyin, French gender) relies on the same code base for optimization developed by Pavlik.

===Resonant Cotraining===
The second mechanism for adult second language learning highlighted in the Unified Competition Model is the mechanism of resonant co-training. This mechanism has parallels to issues discussed in the [[Coordinative Learning]] Cluster. The basic effect of resonance can be most easily understood by contrasting the learning of French and Chinese. In French, learners have immediate access to a method for encoding the sounds of the language through Roman characters, including a few special French diacritics. Because adults rely so heavily on phonemic recoding during reading (Booth, Perfetti, & MacWhinney, 1999), they can easily form a resonant loop between a new auditory form and its meaning and orthography. This cortical loop serves as a scaffold for the process of hippocampal consolidation discussed above (Wittenberg, Sullivan, & Tsien, 2002). In Chinese, learners cannot form this loop, because they do not yet know most of the Hanzi characters required for writing and reading Chinese. It is this lack of orthographic resonance that makes Asian character-based languages like Japanese and Chinese so challenging for learners with a background in Roman characters. To improve resonance during learning, our systems for vocabulary learning interweave trials using pinyin, meaning, auditory form, and characters. Initial results show a significant advantage for training that incorporates this type of resonance. The PSLC project on [[Learning a tonal language: Chinese]] organized by Wang, Liu, Perfetti, and colleagues further elaborates in the role of resonance and co-training in learning tones. Rather than replicating those studies here, we hope to build on their results as a part of an integrated approach to the design of instruction in Spanish, Chinese, and French.

===Explicit Cue Focusing===

The third mechanism for adult second language learning highlighted in the Unified Competition Model is the mechanism of cue focusing. Cue focusing is currently at the center of work by Zhang on [[Chinese pinyin dictation]] and Presson on [[French gender cues]]. The Chinese tutor allows students direct access to minimal pairs that characterize the correct target form (with tones and letters) and the form they have entered. In this case, cue focusing is explicit on a perceptual level. The French tutor presents cues in a simple, declarative form (i.e. -ance indicates feminine). In terms of the debate regarding implicit and explicit learning, both forms of feedback represent explicit teaching. However, as MacWhinney (1997) argued, explicit teaching is only successful when the cues are extremely simple. Both of these tutors rely on this core principle.

===Entrenchment===
In the theory of self-organizing maps (Kohonen, 2001), entrenchment arises in cortical areas as a result of the formation of connections between mutually active items. In PDP theory, these are members of "gangs" participating in "gang effects" or correlated activation (Rogers & McClelland, 2006). Li, Zhao, & MacWhinney (2007) show how entrenchment increases across epochs of training of a SOM during growth in the size of the lexicon. Once forms are entrenched, it is difficult to organize them in alternative ways. However, there are various computational frameworks that can account for the overlay of a secondary organizations on an entrenched L1 structure.

===Transfer===
Whenever a learner can map a new L2 structure onto a previous L1 structure, analogical transfer is possible. This transfer can be either positive or negative. Positive transfer arises when L1 matches L2. Negative transfer arises when L1 only partially matches L2.

===Social Disincentives===
Infants and toddlers receive a wide range of incentives for language learning, including gaze reinforcement, echoing imitation, games, smiles, and positive verbal input. Across the lifespan, these features mostly decrease until adolescent and adult language learners are eventually faced with many disincentives for language learning, including failure to respond in L2, negative feedback, and avoidance of interactions.

==Research questions==
Adult second language learning, unlike first language acquisition, must deal with learning barriers produced by L1 (first language) entrenchment, transfer, and social disincentives. In order to overcome these barriers, adult learners can rely on specialized reconfigurations of learning methods used by children learning their first language. These supports include: (1) graduated interval recall, (2) resonant co-training, and (3) explicit cue focusing. Presence of only one or two of these supports will lead to good learning, but the best and most robust learning occurs when all three are operative. This means that the overall hypothesis cannot be evaluated by a single definitive experiment. Instead, a series of experiments must be run to evaluate various configurations of the components. Also, it is possible that the effects of these methods may vary across linguistic levels (phonology, orthography, reading, lexicon, syntax, pragmatics, fluency). However, evidence for the effects of any combination of these supports in achieving any level of robustness on any given level would still provide important clues regarding ways to enhance the overall robustness of second language learning. This information could also be useful in understanding robustness in other domains.
===Study One===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the use of explicit cue marking for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without explicit cue identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive explicit cues for the preterite and subjunctive and non-explicit cues for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
The dependent variables are response accuracy and response latency.

====Results====
This study will begin in a pilot form at Penn State in the Spring. The target student population includes 900 subjects.

====Explanation====

===Study Two===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the introduction of a graduated recall deadline for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without explicit cue identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive graduated deadlines for the preterite and subjunctive and no deadlines for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
====Results====
====Explanation====

===Study Three===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the use of analogical patterns for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without analogical pattern identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive analogical patterns for the preterite and subjunctive and non-explicit cues for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
The dependent variables are response accuracy and response latency.

====Results====
This study will begin in a pilot form at Penn State in the Spring. The target student population includes 900 subjects.

====Explanation====

===Further Information===
===Connections to Other Studies===
===Annotated Bibliography===
===References===
*Kohonen, T. (2001). Self-organizing maps (3rd ed.). Berlin: Springer.
*Booth, J. R., Perfetti, C. A., MacWhinney, B., & Hunt, S. B. (2000). The association of rapid temporal perception with orthographic and phonological processing in children and adults with reading impairment. Scientific Studies of Reading, 4, 101-132.
*Pimsleur, P. (1967). A memory schedule. Modern Language Journal, 51, 73-75.
*Yoshimura, Y., & MacWhinney, B. (in press). The use of pronominal case in English sentence interpretation. Applied Psycholinguistics.
*Yoshimura, Y., & MacWhinney, B. (in press). Honorifics: A socio-cultural verb agreement cue in Japanese sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics.
*MacWhinney, B. (in press). A tale of two paradigms. In M. Kail, M. Fayol & M. Hickman (Eds.), Language studies. Paris: Springer.
*Zhang, Y., MacWhinney, B., & Wu, S. (in preparation). A tutor for learning Chinese sounds through pinyin. Applied Psycholinguistics.
*Presson, N., Pavlik, P., MacWhinney, B., & Jones, C. (in preparation). A cue-based tutor for learning French nominal gender.
*Prior, A., & MacWhinney, B. (2009). Beyond inhibition: A bilingual advantage in task switching. Bilingualism.
*MacWhinney, B. (2009). The emergence of linguistic complexity. In T. Givon (Ed.), Linguistic complexity (pp. 405-432). New York: Benjamins.
*MacWhinney, B., & Li, P. (2008). Neurolinguistic computational models. In B. Stemmer & H. Whitaker (Eds.), Handbook of the Neuroscience of Language (pp. 229-236). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
*MacWhinney, B. (2008). How mental models encode embodied linguistic perspectives. In R. Klatzky, B. MacWhinney & M. Behrmann (Eds.), Embodiment, Ego-Space, and Action (pp. 369-410). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
*MacWhinney, B. (2008). A Unified Model. In P. Robinson & N. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
*Yoshimura, Y., & MacWhinney, B. (2007). The effect of oral repetition in L2 speech fluency: System for an experimental tool and a language tutor. SLATE Conference.
*Pavlik, P., Presson, N., Dozzi, G., Wu, S., MacWhinney, B., & Koedinger, K. (2007). The FaCT (Fact and Concept Training) System: A new tool linking Cognitive Science with educators. Cognitive Science Society.
*Tokowicz, N., & MacWhinney, B. (2005). Implicit and explicit measures of sensitivity to violations in second language grammar: An event-related potential investigation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 173-204.

===Future Plans===

Presson and MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar

2010-02-02T02:18:06Z

Macw: /* References */

===References===
*Kohonen, T. (2001). Self-organizing maps (3rd ed.). Berlin: Springer.
*Booth, J. R., Perfetti, C. A., MacWhinney, B., & Hunt, S. B. (2000). The association of rapid temporal perception with orthographic and phonological processing in children and adults with reading impairment. Scientific Studies of Reading, 4, 101-132.
*Pimsleur, P. (1967). A memory schedule. Modern Language Journal, 51, 73-75.
*Yoshimura, Y., & MacWhinney, B. (in press). The use of pronominal case in English sentence interpretation. Applied Psycholinguistics.
*Yoshimura, Y., & MacWhinney, B. (in press). Honorifics: A socio-cultural verb agreement cue in Japanese sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics.
*MacWhinney, B. (in press). A tale of two paradigms. In M. Kail, M. Fayol & M. Hickman (Eds.), Language studies. Paris: Springer.
*Zhang, Y., MacWhinney, B., & Wu, S. (in preparation). A tutor for learning Chinese sounds through pinyin. Applied Psycholinguistics.
*Presson, N., Pavlik, P., MacWhinney, B., & Jones, C. (in preparation). A cue-based tutor for learning French nominal gender.
*Prior, A., & MacWhinney, B. (2009). Beyond inhibition: A bilingual advantage in task switching. Bilingualism.
*MacWhinney, B. (2009). The emergence of linguistic complexity. In T. Givon (Ed.), Linguistic complexity (pp. 405-432). New York: Benjamins.
*MacWhinney, B., & Li, P. (2008). Neurolinguistic computational models. In B. Stemmer & H. Whitaker (Eds.), Handbook of the Neuroscience of Language (pp. 229-236). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
*MacWhinney, B. (2008). How mental models encode embodied linguistic perspectives. In R. Klatzky, B. MacWhinney & M. Behrmann (Eds.), Embodiment, Ego-Space, and Action (pp. 369-410). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
*MacWhinney, B. (2008). A Unified Model. In P. Robinson & N. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
*Yoshimura, Y., & MacWhinney, B. (2007). The effect of oral repetition in L2 speech fluency: System for an experimental tool and a language tutor. SLATE Conference.
*Pavlik, P., Presson, N., Dozzi, G., Wu, S., MacWhinney, B., & Koedinger, K. (2007). The FaCT (Fact and Concept Training) System: A new tool linking Cognitive Science with educators. Cognitive Science Society.
*Tokowicz, N., & MacWhinney, B. (2005). Implicit and explicit measures of sensitivity to violations in second language grammar: An event-related potential investigation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 173-204.

===Future Plans===

Presson and MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar

2010-02-02T02:16:08Z

Macw: /* Entrenchment */

Spanish Conjugation
==Summary Table==

==Abstract==
Adult second language learners often fail to acquire enough fluency in the new language to support smooth communicative interactions. The studies described here explore the hypothesis that robustness can be markedly improved through basic skill training based on three related pedagogical methods: graduated interval recall, resonant co-training, and cue focusing. This prediction will be tested in the context of in vivo and laboratory studies of online learning of Spanish verb conjugation.

==Background & Significance==
The central controversy in the study of second language acquisition is the status of the Critical Period Hypothesis. As formulated first by Penfield & Roberts (Penfield & Roberts, 1959) and then later by Lenneberg (1967), this hypothesis holds that, after some critical age, second languages (L2s) cannot be learned to full native-speaker competence. This critical period has been variously linked to age 2 for lexical learning (Weber-Fox & Neville, 1996) and perception (Kuhl, Conboy, Padden, Nelson, & Pruitt, 2005), age 6 for phonology (Flege, Yeni-Komshian, & Liu, 1999), age 13 for syntax (Johnson & Newport, 1989), or late adulthood for fossilization (MacWhinney, 2005). However, recent research (Hakuta, Bialystok, & Wiley, 2003; Wiley, Bialystok, & Hakuta, 2005) has cast doubt on many of these claims (MacWhinney, in press).

Despite these recent challenges, educators, academics, and the general public continue to believe in the reality of some Critical Period. What makes the notion of a Critical Period so compelling is that fact that adult second language learners often report problems acquiring a native accent in L2 and in using their L2 fluently. The approach to this issue that we have taken is to elaborate an extended version of the Competition Model (MacWhinney, in press) that accounts for age-related effects in second language learning through the mechanisms of entrenchment, transfer, and incomplete resonance. This new Unified Model makes strong predictions about the ways in which age-related effects can be overcome through effective teaching. In particular, the model holds that the problems that adults have in second language learning arise from the entrenched nature of the first language (L1), inadequate exposure to L2, and inappropriate teaching of L2. To correct these problems, teaching of adult learners needs to utilize these three methods:
1. Graduated interval recall,
2. Resonant cotraining, and
3. Cue focusing.
The claim is that L2 instruction that incorporates these three methods will lead to marked improvements in fluency and robustness of learning.

==Glossary==
===Graduated Interval Recall===
This approach to the learning of items (words, sounds, constructions) in a second language was first elaborated by Pimsleur (1967), although components of the idea can be found as far back as Ebbinghaus (1885). Recently, Pavlik et al. (in press) have formalized the parameters controlling this procedure mathematically in the context of the ACT-R model of cognition. The core idea here is most easily illustrated in the context of the learning of a list of new L2 vocabulary items (Nation, 2001). Immediately after a word is presented, learners are almost always able to recall it. However, if we let a minute pass by, the memory trace drops below threshold and retrieval success drops with it. What Pimsleur discovered was that, if we retest the item before the memory trace decays too much, recall will be successful. Once an item has been recalled successfully once, repeated recalls trials can be spaced further and further apart. The neuronal basis of this process has now been elaborated in terms of synaptic reentry reinforcement model of hippocampal functioning (Wittenberg, Sullivan, & Tsien, 2002). Pavlik (in press) has shown that optimization of the intervals required for recall can lead to a two-fold improvement in vocabulary learning. This experimental work is now being extended to the in vivo study of online learning of Chinese vocabulary (Pavlik et al., in press) and pinyin dictation (Zhang, MacWhinney, & Wu, in preparation) in the PSLC online and offline courses. It has also been applied to the learning of Spanish vocabulary through a simple online tutor. The method of graduated interval recall is also being applied to the learning of French gender (Presson, Pavlik, MacWhinney, & Jones, in preparation). Each of these three efforts (Chinese vocabulary, Chinese pinyin, French gender) relies on the same code base for optimization developed by Pavlik.

===Resonant Cotraining===
The second mechanism for adult second language learning highlighted in the Unified Competition Model is the mechanism of resonant co-training. This mechanism has parallels to issues discussed in the [[Coordinative Learning]] Cluster. The basic effect of resonance can be most easily understood by contrasting the learning of French and Chinese. In French, learners have immediate access to a method for encoding the sounds of the language through Roman characters, including a few special French diacritics. Because adults rely so heavily on phonemic recoding during reading (Booth, Perfetti, & MacWhinney, 1999), they can easily form a resonant loop between a new auditory form and its meaning and orthography. This cortical loop serves as a scaffold for the process of hippocampal consolidation discussed above (Wittenberg, Sullivan, & Tsien, 2002). In Chinese, learners cannot form this loop, because they do not yet know most of the Hanzi characters required for writing and reading Chinese. It is this lack of orthographic resonance that makes Asian character-based languages like Japanese and Chinese so challenging for learners with a background in Roman characters. To improve resonance during learning, our systems for vocabulary learning interweave trials using pinyin, meaning, auditory form, and characters. Initial results show a significant advantage for training that incorporates this type of resonance. The PSLC project on [[Learning a tonal language: Chinese]] organized by Wang, Liu, Perfetti, and colleagues further elaborates in the role of resonance and co-training in learning tones. Rather than replicating those studies here, we hope to build on their results as a part of an integrated approach to the design of instruction in Spanish, Chinese, and French.

===Explicit Cue Focusing===

The third mechanism for adult second language learning highlighted in the Unified Competition Model is the mechanism of cue focusing. Cue focusing is currently at the center of work by Zhang on [[Chinese pinyin dictation]] and Presson on [[French gender cues]]. The Chinese tutor allows students direct access to minimal pairs that characterize the correct target form (with tones and letters) and the form they have entered. In this case, cue focusing is explicit on a perceptual level. The French tutor presents cues in a simple, declarative form (i.e. -ance indicates feminine). In terms of the debate regarding implicit and explicit learning, both forms of feedback represent explicit teaching. However, as MacWhinney (1997) argued, explicit teaching is only successful when the cues are extremely simple. Both of these tutors rely on this core principle.

===Entrenchment===
In the theory of self-organizing maps (Kohonen, 2001), entrenchment arises in cortical areas as a result of the formation of connections between mutually active items. In PDP theory, these are members of "gangs" participating in "gang effects" or correlated activation (Rogers & McClelland, 2006). Li, Zhao, & MacWhinney (2007) show how entrenchment increases across epochs of training of a SOM during growth in the size of the lexicon. Once forms are entrenched, it is difficult to organize them in alternative ways. However, there are various computational frameworks that can account for the overlay of a secondary organizations on an entrenched L1 structure.

===Transfer===
Whenever a learner can map a new L2 structure onto a previous L1 structure, analogical transfer is possible. This transfer can be either positive or negative. Positive transfer arises when L1 matches L2. Negative transfer arises when L1 only partially matches L2.

===Social Disincentives===
Infants and toddlers receive a wide range of incentives for language learning, including gaze reinforcement, echoing imitation, games, smiles, and positive verbal input. Across the lifespan, these features mostly decrease until adolescent and adult language learners are eventually faced with many disincentives for language learning, including failure to respond in L2, negative feedback, and avoidance of interactions.

==Research questions==
Adult second language learning, unlike first language acquisition, must deal with learning barriers produced by L1 (first language) entrenchment, transfer, and social disincentives. In order to overcome these barriers, adult learners can rely on specialized reconfigurations of learning methods used by children learning their first language. These supports include: (1) graduated interval recall, (2) resonant co-training, and (3) explicit cue focusing. Presence of only one or two of these supports will lead to good learning, but the best and most robust learning occurs when all three are operative. This means that the overall hypothesis cannot be evaluated by a single definitive experiment. Instead, a series of experiments must be run to evaluate various configurations of the components. Also, it is possible that the effects of these methods may vary across linguistic levels (phonology, orthography, reading, lexicon, syntax, pragmatics, fluency). However, evidence for the effects of any combination of these supports in achieving any level of robustness on any given level would still provide important clues regarding ways to enhance the overall robustness of second language learning. This information could also be useful in understanding robustness in other domains.
===Study One===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the use of explicit cue marking for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without explicit cue identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive explicit cues for the preterite and subjunctive and non-explicit cues for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
The dependent variables are response accuracy and response latency.

====Results====
This study will begin in a pilot form at Penn State in the Spring. The target student population includes 900 subjects.

====Explanation====

===Study Two===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the introduction of a graduated recall deadline for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without explicit cue identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive graduated deadlines for the preterite and subjunctive and no deadlines for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
====Results====
====Explanation====

===Study Three===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the use of analogical patterns for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without analogical pattern identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive analogical patterns for the preterite and subjunctive and non-explicit cues for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
The dependent variables are response accuracy and response latency.

====Results====
This study will begin in a pilot form at Penn State in the Spring. The target student population includes 900 subjects.

====Explanation====

===Further Information===
===Connections to Other Studies===
===Annotated Bibliography===
===References===
*Kohonen, T. (2001). Self-organizing maps (3rd ed.). Berlin: Springer.
*Booth, J. R., Perfetti, C. A., MacWhinney, B., & Hunt, S. B. (2000). The association of rapid temporal perception with orthographic and phonological processing in children and adults with reading impairment. Scientific Studies of Reading, 4, 101-132.
*Pimsleur, P. (1967). A memory schedule. Modern Language Journal, 51, 73-75.
*Yoshimura, Y., & MacWhinney, B. (in press). The use of pronominal case in English sentence interpretation. Applied Psycholinguistics.
*Yoshimura, Y., & MacWhinney, B. (in press). Honorifics: A socio-cultural verb agreement cue in Japanese sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics.
*MacWhinney, B. (in press). A tale of two paradigms. In M. Kail, M. Fayol & M. Hickman (Eds.), Language studies. Paris: Springer.
*Zhang, Y., MacWhinney, B., & Wu, S. (in preparation). A tutor for learning Chinese sounds through pinyin. Applied Psycholinguistics.
*Presson, N., Pavlik, P., MacWhinney, B., & Jones, C. (in preparation). A cue-based tutor for learning French nominal gender.
*Prior, A., & MacWhinney, B. (2009). Beyond inhibition: A bilingual advantage in task switching. Bilingualism.
*MacWhinney, B. (2009). The emergence of linguistic complexity. In T. Givon (Ed.), Linguistic complexity (pp. 405-432). New York: Benjamins.
*MacWhinney, B., & Li, P. (2008). Neurolinguistic computational models. In B. Stemmer & H. Whitaker (Eds.), Handbook of the Neuroscience of Language (pp. 229-236). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
*MacWhinney, B. (2008). How mental models encode embodied linguistic perspectives. In R. Klatzky, B. MacWhinney & M. Behrmann (Eds.), Embodiment, Ego-Space, and Action (pp. 369-410). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
*MacWhinney, B. (2008). A Unified Model. In P. Robinson & N. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
*Yoshimura, Y., & MacWhinney, B. (2007). The effect of oral repetition in L2 speech fluency: System for an experimental tool and a language tutor. SLATE Conference.
*Pavlik, P., Presson, N., Dozzi, G., Wu, S., MacWhinney, B., & Koedinger, K. (2007). The FaCT (Fact and Concept Training) System: A new tool linking Cognitive Science with educators. Cognitive Science Society.
*Tokowicz, N., & MacWhinney, B. (2005). Implicit and explicit measures of sensitivity to violations in second language grammar: An event-related potential investigation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 173-204.

===Future Plans===

Presson and MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar

2010-02-02T02:15:46Z

Macw: /* References */

Spanish Conjugation
==Summary Table==

==Abstract==
Adult second language learners often fail to acquire enough fluency in the new language to support smooth communicative interactions. The studies described here explore the hypothesis that robustness can be markedly improved through basic skill training based on three related pedagogical methods: graduated interval recall, resonant co-training, and cue focusing. This prediction will be tested in the context of in vivo and laboratory studies of online learning of Spanish verb conjugation.

==Background & Significance==
The central controversy in the study of second language acquisition is the status of the Critical Period Hypothesis. As formulated first by Penfield & Roberts (Penfield & Roberts, 1959) and then later by Lenneberg (1967), this hypothesis holds that, after some critical age, second languages (L2s) cannot be learned to full native-speaker competence. This critical period has been variously linked to age 2 for lexical learning (Weber-Fox & Neville, 1996) and perception (Kuhl, Conboy, Padden, Nelson, & Pruitt, 2005), age 6 for phonology (Flege, Yeni-Komshian, & Liu, 1999), age 13 for syntax (Johnson & Newport, 1989), or late adulthood for fossilization (MacWhinney, 2005). However, recent research (Hakuta, Bialystok, & Wiley, 2003; Wiley, Bialystok, & Hakuta, 2005) has cast doubt on many of these claims (MacWhinney, in press).

Despite these recent challenges, educators, academics, and the general public continue to believe in the reality of some Critical Period. What makes the notion of a Critical Period so compelling is that fact that adult second language learners often report problems acquiring a native accent in L2 and in using their L2 fluently. The approach to this issue that we have taken is to elaborate an extended version of the Competition Model (MacWhinney, in press) that accounts for age-related effects in second language learning through the mechanisms of entrenchment, transfer, and incomplete resonance. This new Unified Model makes strong predictions about the ways in which age-related effects can be overcome through effective teaching. In particular, the model holds that the problems that adults have in second language learning arise from the entrenched nature of the first language (L1), inadequate exposure to L2, and inappropriate teaching of L2. To correct these problems, teaching of adult learners needs to utilize these three methods:
1. Graduated interval recall,
2. Resonant cotraining, and
3. Cue focusing.
The claim is that L2 instruction that incorporates these three methods will lead to marked improvements in fluency and robustness of learning.

==Glossary==
===Graduated Interval Recall===
This approach to the learning of items (words, sounds, constructions) in a second language was first elaborated by Pimsleur (1967), although components of the idea can be found as far back as Ebbinghaus (1885). Recently, Pavlik et al. (in press) have formalized the parameters controlling this procedure mathematically in the context of the ACT-R model of cognition. The core idea here is most easily illustrated in the context of the learning of a list of new L2 vocabulary items (Nation, 2001). Immediately after a word is presented, learners are almost always able to recall it. However, if we let a minute pass by, the memory trace drops below threshold and retrieval success drops with it. What Pimsleur discovered was that, if we retest the item before the memory trace decays too much, recall will be successful. Once an item has been recalled successfully once, repeated recalls trials can be spaced further and further apart. The neuronal basis of this process has now been elaborated in terms of synaptic reentry reinforcement model of hippocampal functioning (Wittenberg, Sullivan, & Tsien, 2002). Pavlik (in press) has shown that optimization of the intervals required for recall can lead to a two-fold improvement in vocabulary learning. This experimental work is now being extended to the in vivo study of online learning of Chinese vocabulary (Pavlik et al., in press) and pinyin dictation (Zhang, MacWhinney, & Wu, in preparation) in the PSLC online and offline courses. It has also been applied to the learning of Spanish vocabulary through a simple online tutor. The method of graduated interval recall is also being applied to the learning of French gender (Presson, Pavlik, MacWhinney, & Jones, in preparation). Each of these three efforts (Chinese vocabulary, Chinese pinyin, French gender) relies on the same code base for optimization developed by Pavlik.

===Resonant Cotraining===
The second mechanism for adult second language learning highlighted in the Unified Competition Model is the mechanism of resonant co-training. This mechanism has parallels to issues discussed in the [[Coordinative Learning]] Cluster. The basic effect of resonance can be most easily understood by contrasting the learning of French and Chinese. In French, learners have immediate access to a method for encoding the sounds of the language through Roman characters, including a few special French diacritics. Because adults rely so heavily on phonemic recoding during reading (Booth, Perfetti, & MacWhinney, 1999), they can easily form a resonant loop between a new auditory form and its meaning and orthography. This cortical loop serves as a scaffold for the process of hippocampal consolidation discussed above (Wittenberg, Sullivan, & Tsien, 2002). In Chinese, learners cannot form this loop, because they do not yet know most of the Hanzi characters required for writing and reading Chinese. It is this lack of orthographic resonance that makes Asian character-based languages like Japanese and Chinese so challenging for learners with a background in Roman characters. To improve resonance during learning, our systems for vocabulary learning interweave trials using pinyin, meaning, auditory form, and characters. Initial results show a significant advantage for training that incorporates this type of resonance. The PSLC project on [[Learning a tonal language: Chinese]] organized by Wang, Liu, Perfetti, and colleagues further elaborates in the role of resonance and co-training in learning tones. Rather than replicating those studies here, we hope to build on their results as a part of an integrated approach to the design of instruction in Spanish, Chinese, and French.

===Explicit Cue Focusing===

The third mechanism for adult second language learning highlighted in the Unified Competition Model is the mechanism of cue focusing. Cue focusing is currently at the center of work by Zhang on [[Chinese pinyin dictation]] and Presson on [[French gender cues]]. The Chinese tutor allows students direct access to minimal pairs that characterize the correct target form (with tones and letters) and the form they have entered. In this case, cue focusing is explicit on a perceptual level. The French tutor presents cues in a simple, declarative form (i.e. -ance indicates feminine). In terms of the debate regarding implicit and explicit learning, both forms of feedback represent explicit teaching. However, as MacWhinney (1997) argued, explicit teaching is only successful when the cues are extremely simple. Both of these tutors rely on this core principle.

===Entrenchment===
In the theory of self-organizing maps (Kohonen, 1970), entrenchment arises in cortical areas as a result of the formation of connections between mutually active items. In PDP theory, these are members of "gangs" participating in "gang effects" or correlated activation (Rogers & McClelland, 2006). Li, Zhao, & MacWhinney (2007) show how entrenchment increases across epochs of training of a SOM during growth in the size of the lexicon. Once forms are entrenched, it is difficult to organize them in alternative ways. However, there are various computational frameworks that can account for the overlay of a secondary organizations on an entrenched L1 structure.

===Transfer===
Whenever a learner can map a new L2 structure onto a previous L1 structure, analogical transfer is possible. This transfer can be either positive or negative. Positive transfer arises when L1 matches L2. Negative transfer arises when L1 only partially matches L2.

===Social Disincentives===
Infants and toddlers receive a wide range of incentives for language learning, including gaze reinforcement, echoing imitation, games, smiles, and positive verbal input. Across the lifespan, these features mostly decrease until adolescent and adult language learners are eventually faced with many disincentives for language learning, including failure to respond in L2, negative feedback, and avoidance of interactions.

==Research questions==
Adult second language learning, unlike first language acquisition, must deal with learning barriers produced by L1 (first language) entrenchment, transfer, and social disincentives. In order to overcome these barriers, adult learners can rely on specialized reconfigurations of learning methods used by children learning their first language. These supports include: (1) graduated interval recall, (2) resonant co-training, and (3) explicit cue focusing. Presence of only one or two of these supports will lead to good learning, but the best and most robust learning occurs when all three are operative. This means that the overall hypothesis cannot be evaluated by a single definitive experiment. Instead, a series of experiments must be run to evaluate various configurations of the components. Also, it is possible that the effects of these methods may vary across linguistic levels (phonology, orthography, reading, lexicon, syntax, pragmatics, fluency). However, evidence for the effects of any combination of these supports in achieving any level of robustness on any given level would still provide important clues regarding ways to enhance the overall robustness of second language learning. This information could also be useful in understanding robustness in other domains.
===Study One===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the use of explicit cue marking for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without explicit cue identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive explicit cues for the preterite and subjunctive and non-explicit cues for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
The dependent variables are response accuracy and response latency.

====Results====
This study will begin in a pilot form at Penn State in the Spring. The target student population includes 900 subjects.

====Explanation====

===Study Two===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the introduction of a graduated recall deadline for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without explicit cue identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive graduated deadlines for the preterite and subjunctive and no deadlines for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
====Results====
====Explanation====

===Study Three===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the use of analogical patterns for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without analogical pattern identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive analogical patterns for the preterite and subjunctive and non-explicit cues for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
The dependent variables are response accuracy and response latency.

====Results====
This study will begin in a pilot form at Penn State in the Spring. The target student population includes 900 subjects.

====Explanation====

===Further Information===
===Connections to Other Studies===
===Annotated Bibliography===
===References===
*Kohonen, T. (2001). Self-organizing maps (3rd ed.). Berlin: Springer.
*Booth, J. R., Perfetti, C. A., MacWhinney, B., & Hunt, S. B. (2000). The association of rapid temporal perception with orthographic and phonological processing in children and adults with reading impairment. Scientific Studies of Reading, 4, 101-132.
*Pimsleur, P. (1967). A memory schedule. Modern Language Journal, 51, 73-75.
*Yoshimura, Y., & MacWhinney, B. (in press). The use of pronominal case in English sentence interpretation. Applied Psycholinguistics.
*Yoshimura, Y., & MacWhinney, B. (in press). Honorifics: A socio-cultural verb agreement cue in Japanese sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics.
*MacWhinney, B. (in press). A tale of two paradigms. In M. Kail, M. Fayol & M. Hickman (Eds.), Language studies. Paris: Springer.
*Zhang, Y., MacWhinney, B., & Wu, S. (in preparation). A tutor for learning Chinese sounds through pinyin. Applied Psycholinguistics.
*Presson, N., Pavlik, P., MacWhinney, B., & Jones, C. (in preparation). A cue-based tutor for learning French nominal gender.
*Prior, A., & MacWhinney, B. (2009). Beyond inhibition: A bilingual advantage in task switching. Bilingualism.
*MacWhinney, B. (2009). The emergence of linguistic complexity. In T. Givon (Ed.), Linguistic complexity (pp. 405-432). New York: Benjamins.
*MacWhinney, B., & Li, P. (2008). Neurolinguistic computational models. In B. Stemmer & H. Whitaker (Eds.), Handbook of the Neuroscience of Language (pp. 229-236). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
*MacWhinney, B. (2008). How mental models encode embodied linguistic perspectives. In R. Klatzky, B. MacWhinney & M. Behrmann (Eds.), Embodiment, Ego-Space, and Action (pp. 369-410). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
*MacWhinney, B. (2008). A Unified Model. In P. Robinson & N. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
*Yoshimura, Y., & MacWhinney, B. (2007). The effect of oral repetition in L2 speech fluency: System for an experimental tool and a language tutor. SLATE Conference.
*Pavlik, P., Presson, N., Dozzi, G., Wu, S., MacWhinney, B., & Koedinger, K. (2007). The FaCT (Fact and Concept Training) System: A new tool linking Cognitive Science with educators. Cognitive Science Society.
*Tokowicz, N., & MacWhinney, B. (2005). Implicit and explicit measures of sensitivity to violations in second language grammar: An event-related potential investigation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 173-204.

===Future Plans===

Presson and MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar

2010-02-02T02:14:20Z

Macw: /* References */

Spanish Conjugation
==Summary Table==

==Abstract==
Adult second language learners often fail to acquire enough fluency in the new language to support smooth communicative interactions. The studies described here explore the hypothesis that robustness can be markedly improved through basic skill training based on three related pedagogical methods: graduated interval recall, resonant co-training, and cue focusing. This prediction will be tested in the context of in vivo and laboratory studies of online learning of Spanish verb conjugation.

==Background & Significance==
The central controversy in the study of second language acquisition is the status of the Critical Period Hypothesis. As formulated first by Penfield & Roberts (Penfield & Roberts, 1959) and then later by Lenneberg (1967), this hypothesis holds that, after some critical age, second languages (L2s) cannot be learned to full native-speaker competence. This critical period has been variously linked to age 2 for lexical learning (Weber-Fox & Neville, 1996) and perception (Kuhl, Conboy, Padden, Nelson, & Pruitt, 2005), age 6 for phonology (Flege, Yeni-Komshian, & Liu, 1999), age 13 for syntax (Johnson & Newport, 1989), or late adulthood for fossilization (MacWhinney, 2005). However, recent research (Hakuta, Bialystok, & Wiley, 2003; Wiley, Bialystok, & Hakuta, 2005) has cast doubt on many of these claims (MacWhinney, in press).

Despite these recent challenges, educators, academics, and the general public continue to believe in the reality of some Critical Period. What makes the notion of a Critical Period so compelling is that fact that adult second language learners often report problems acquiring a native accent in L2 and in using their L2 fluently. The approach to this issue that we have taken is to elaborate an extended version of the Competition Model (MacWhinney, in press) that accounts for age-related effects in second language learning through the mechanisms of entrenchment, transfer, and incomplete resonance. This new Unified Model makes strong predictions about the ways in which age-related effects can be overcome through effective teaching. In particular, the model holds that the problems that adults have in second language learning arise from the entrenched nature of the first language (L1), inadequate exposure to L2, and inappropriate teaching of L2. To correct these problems, teaching of adult learners needs to utilize these three methods:
1. Graduated interval recall,
2. Resonant cotraining, and
3. Cue focusing.
The claim is that L2 instruction that incorporates these three methods will lead to marked improvements in fluency and robustness of learning.

==Glossary==
===Graduated Interval Recall===
This approach to the learning of items (words, sounds, constructions) in a second language was first elaborated by Pimsleur (1967), although components of the idea can be found as far back as Ebbinghaus (1885). Recently, Pavlik et al. (in press) have formalized the parameters controlling this procedure mathematically in the context of the ACT-R model of cognition. The core idea here is most easily illustrated in the context of the learning of a list of new L2 vocabulary items (Nation, 2001). Immediately after a word is presented, learners are almost always able to recall it. However, if we let a minute pass by, the memory trace drops below threshold and retrieval success drops with it. What Pimsleur discovered was that, if we retest the item before the memory trace decays too much, recall will be successful. Once an item has been recalled successfully once, repeated recalls trials can be spaced further and further apart. The neuronal basis of this process has now been elaborated in terms of synaptic reentry reinforcement model of hippocampal functioning (Wittenberg, Sullivan, & Tsien, 2002). Pavlik (in press) has shown that optimization of the intervals required for recall can lead to a two-fold improvement in vocabulary learning. This experimental work is now being extended to the in vivo study of online learning of Chinese vocabulary (Pavlik et al., in press) and pinyin dictation (Zhang, MacWhinney, & Wu, in preparation) in the PSLC online and offline courses. It has also been applied to the learning of Spanish vocabulary through a simple online tutor. The method of graduated interval recall is also being applied to the learning of French gender (Presson, Pavlik, MacWhinney, & Jones, in preparation). Each of these three efforts (Chinese vocabulary, Chinese pinyin, French gender) relies on the same code base for optimization developed by Pavlik.

===Resonant Cotraining===
The second mechanism for adult second language learning highlighted in the Unified Competition Model is the mechanism of resonant co-training. This mechanism has parallels to issues discussed in the [[Coordinative Learning]] Cluster. The basic effect of resonance can be most easily understood by contrasting the learning of French and Chinese. In French, learners have immediate access to a method for encoding the sounds of the language through Roman characters, including a few special French diacritics. Because adults rely so heavily on phonemic recoding during reading (Booth, Perfetti, & MacWhinney, 1999), they can easily form a resonant loop between a new auditory form and its meaning and orthography. This cortical loop serves as a scaffold for the process of hippocampal consolidation discussed above (Wittenberg, Sullivan, & Tsien, 2002). In Chinese, learners cannot form this loop, because they do not yet know most of the Hanzi characters required for writing and reading Chinese. It is this lack of orthographic resonance that makes Asian character-based languages like Japanese and Chinese so challenging for learners with a background in Roman characters. To improve resonance during learning, our systems for vocabulary learning interweave trials using pinyin, meaning, auditory form, and characters. Initial results show a significant advantage for training that incorporates this type of resonance. The PSLC project on [[Learning a tonal language: Chinese]] organized by Wang, Liu, Perfetti, and colleagues further elaborates in the role of resonance and co-training in learning tones. Rather than replicating those studies here, we hope to build on their results as a part of an integrated approach to the design of instruction in Spanish, Chinese, and French.

===Explicit Cue Focusing===

The third mechanism for adult second language learning highlighted in the Unified Competition Model is the mechanism of cue focusing. Cue focusing is currently at the center of work by Zhang on [[Chinese pinyin dictation]] and Presson on [[French gender cues]]. The Chinese tutor allows students direct access to minimal pairs that characterize the correct target form (with tones and letters) and the form they have entered. In this case, cue focusing is explicit on a perceptual level. The French tutor presents cues in a simple, declarative form (i.e. -ance indicates feminine). In terms of the debate regarding implicit and explicit learning, both forms of feedback represent explicit teaching. However, as MacWhinney (1997) argued, explicit teaching is only successful when the cues are extremely simple. Both of these tutors rely on this core principle.

===Entrenchment===
In the theory of self-organizing maps (Kohonen, 1970), entrenchment arises in cortical areas as a result of the formation of connections between mutually active items. In PDP theory, these are members of "gangs" participating in "gang effects" or correlated activation (Rogers & McClelland, 2006). Li, Zhao, & MacWhinney (2007) show how entrenchment increases across epochs of training of a SOM during growth in the size of the lexicon. Once forms are entrenched, it is difficult to organize them in alternative ways. However, there are various computational frameworks that can account for the overlay of a secondary organizations on an entrenched L1 structure.

===Transfer===
Whenever a learner can map a new L2 structure onto a previous L1 structure, analogical transfer is possible. This transfer can be either positive or negative. Positive transfer arises when L1 matches L2. Negative transfer arises when L1 only partially matches L2.

===Social Disincentives===
Infants and toddlers receive a wide range of incentives for language learning, including gaze reinforcement, echoing imitation, games, smiles, and positive verbal input. Across the lifespan, these features mostly decrease until adolescent and adult language learners are eventually faced with many disincentives for language learning, including failure to respond in L2, negative feedback, and avoidance of interactions.

==Research questions==
Adult second language learning, unlike first language acquisition, must deal with learning barriers produced by L1 (first language) entrenchment, transfer, and social disincentives. In order to overcome these barriers, adult learners can rely on specialized reconfigurations of learning methods used by children learning their first language. These supports include: (1) graduated interval recall, (2) resonant co-training, and (3) explicit cue focusing. Presence of only one or two of these supports will lead to good learning, but the best and most robust learning occurs when all three are operative. This means that the overall hypothesis cannot be evaluated by a single definitive experiment. Instead, a series of experiments must be run to evaluate various configurations of the components. Also, it is possible that the effects of these methods may vary across linguistic levels (phonology, orthography, reading, lexicon, syntax, pragmatics, fluency). However, evidence for the effects of any combination of these supports in achieving any level of robustness on any given level would still provide important clues regarding ways to enhance the overall robustness of second language learning. This information could also be useful in understanding robustness in other domains.
===Study One===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the use of explicit cue marking for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without explicit cue identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive explicit cues for the preterite and subjunctive and non-explicit cues for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
The dependent variables are response accuracy and response latency.

====Results====
This study will begin in a pilot form at Penn State in the Spring. The target student population includes 900 subjects.

====Explanation====

===Study Two===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the introduction of a graduated recall deadline for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without explicit cue identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive graduated deadlines for the preterite and subjunctive and no deadlines for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
====Results====
====Explanation====

===Study Three===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the use of analogical patterns for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without analogical pattern identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive analogical patterns for the preterite and subjunctive and non-explicit cues for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
The dependent variables are response accuracy and response latency.

====Results====
This study will begin in a pilot form at Penn State in the Spring. The target student population includes 900 subjects.

====Explanation====

===Further Information===
===Connections to Other Studies===
===Annotated Bibliography===
===References===
*Kohonen, T. (2001). Self-organizing maps (3rd ed.). Berlin: Springer.
*Pimsleur, P. (1967). A memory schedule. Modern Language Journal, 51, 73-75.
*Yoshimura, Y., & MacWhinney, B. (in press). The use of pronominal case in English sentence interpretation. Applied Psycholinguistics.
*Yoshimura, Y., & MacWhinney, B. (in press). Honorifics: A socio-cultural verb agreement cue in Japanese sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics.
*MacWhinney, B. (in press). A tale of two paradigms. In M. Kail, M. Fayol & M. Hickman (Eds.), Language studies. Paris: Springer.
*Zhang, Y., MacWhinney, B., & Wu, S. (in preparation). A tutor for learning Chinese sounds through pinyin. Applied Psycholinguistics.
*Presson, N., Pavlik, P., MacWhinney, B., & Jones, C. (in preparation). A cue-based tutor for learning French nominal gender.
*Prior, A., & MacWhinney, B. (2009). Beyond inhibition: A bilingual advantage in task switching. Bilingualism.
*MacWhinney, B. (2009). The emergence of linguistic complexity. In T. Givon (Ed.), Linguistic complexity (pp. 405-432). New York: Benjamins.
*MacWhinney, B., & Li, P. (2008). Neurolinguistic computational models. In B. Stemmer & H. Whitaker (Eds.), Handbook of the Neuroscience of Language (pp. 229-236). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
*MacWhinney, B. (2008). How mental models encode embodied linguistic perspectives. In R. Klatzky, B. MacWhinney & M. Behrmann (Eds.), Embodiment, Ego-Space, and Action (pp. 369-410). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
*MacWhinney, B. (2008). A Unified Model. In P. Robinson & N. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
*Yoshimura, Y., & MacWhinney, B. (2007). The effect of oral repetition in L2 speech fluency: System for an experimental tool and a language tutor. SLATE Conference.
*Pavlik, P., Presson, N., Dozzi, G., Wu, S., MacWhinney, B., & Koedinger, K. (2007). The FaCT (Fact and Concept Training) System: A new tool linking Cognitive Science with educators. Cognitive Science Society.
*Tokowicz, N., & MacWhinney, B. (2005). Implicit and explicit measures of sensitivity to violations in second language grammar: An event-related potential investigation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 173-204.

===Future Plans===

Presson and MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar

2010-02-02T02:07:34Z

Macw: /* social disincentives */

Spanish Conjugation
==Summary Table==

==Abstract==
Adult second language learners often fail to acquire enough fluency in the new language to support smooth communicative interactions. The studies described here explore the hypothesis that robustness can be markedly improved through basic skill training based on three related pedagogical methods: graduated interval recall, resonant co-training, and cue focusing. This prediction will be tested in the context of in vivo and laboratory studies of online learning of Spanish verb conjugation.

==Background & Significance==
The central controversy in the study of second language acquisition is the status of the Critical Period Hypothesis. As formulated first by Penfield & Roberts (Penfield & Roberts, 1959) and then later by Lenneberg (1967), this hypothesis holds that, after some critical age, second languages (L2s) cannot be learned to full native-speaker competence. This critical period has been variously linked to age 2 for lexical learning (Weber-Fox & Neville, 1996) and perception (Kuhl, Conboy, Padden, Nelson, & Pruitt, 2005), age 6 for phonology (Flege, Yeni-Komshian, & Liu, 1999), age 13 for syntax (Johnson & Newport, 1989), or late adulthood for fossilization (MacWhinney, 2005). However, recent research (Hakuta, Bialystok, & Wiley, 2003; Wiley, Bialystok, & Hakuta, 2005) has cast doubt on many of these claims (MacWhinney, in press).

Despite these recent challenges, educators, academics, and the general public continue to believe in the reality of some Critical Period. What makes the notion of a Critical Period so compelling is that fact that adult second language learners often report problems acquiring a native accent in L2 and in using their L2 fluently. The approach to this issue that we have taken is to elaborate an extended version of the Competition Model (MacWhinney, in press) that accounts for age-related effects in second language learning through the mechanisms of entrenchment, transfer, and incomplete resonance. This new Unified Model makes strong predictions about the ways in which age-related effects can be overcome through effective teaching. In particular, the model holds that the problems that adults have in second language learning arise from the entrenched nature of the first language (L1), inadequate exposure to L2, and inappropriate teaching of L2. To correct these problems, teaching of adult learners needs to utilize these three methods:
1. Graduated interval recall,
2. Resonant cotraining, and
3. Cue focusing.
The claim is that L2 instruction that incorporates these three methods will lead to marked improvements in fluency and robustness of learning.

==Glossary==
===Graduated Interval Recall===
This approach to the learning of items (words, sounds, constructions) in a second language was first elaborated by Pimsleur (1967), although components of the idea can be found as far back as Ebbinghaus (1885). Recently, Pavlik et al. (in press) have formalized the parameters controlling this procedure mathematically in the context of the ACT-R model of cognition. The core idea here is most easily illustrated in the context of the learning of a list of new L2 vocabulary items (Nation, 2001). Immediately after a word is presented, learners are almost always able to recall it. However, if we let a minute pass by, the memory trace drops below threshold and retrieval success drops with it. What Pimsleur discovered was that, if we retest the item before the memory trace decays too much, recall will be successful. Once an item has been recalled successfully once, repeated recalls trials can be spaced further and further apart. The neuronal basis of this process has now been elaborated in terms of synaptic reentry reinforcement model of hippocampal functioning (Wittenberg, Sullivan, & Tsien, 2002). Pavlik (in press) has shown that optimization of the intervals required for recall can lead to a two-fold improvement in vocabulary learning. This experimental work is now being extended to the in vivo study of online learning of Chinese vocabulary (Pavlik et al., in press) and pinyin dictation (Zhang, MacWhinney, & Wu, in preparation) in the PSLC online and offline courses. It has also been applied to the learning of Spanish vocabulary through a simple online tutor. The method of graduated interval recall is also being applied to the learning of French gender (Presson, Pavlik, MacWhinney, & Jones, in preparation). Each of these three efforts (Chinese vocabulary, Chinese pinyin, French gender) relies on the same code base for optimization developed by Pavlik.

===Resonant Cotraining===
The second mechanism for adult second language learning highlighted in the Unified Competition Model is the mechanism of resonant co-training. This mechanism has parallels to issues discussed in the [[Coordinative Learning]] Cluster. The basic effect of resonance can be most easily understood by contrasting the learning of French and Chinese. In French, learners have immediate access to a method for encoding the sounds of the language through Roman characters, including a few special French diacritics. Because adults rely so heavily on phonemic recoding during reading (Booth, Perfetti, & MacWhinney, 1999), they can easily form a resonant loop between a new auditory form and its meaning and orthography. This cortical loop serves as a scaffold for the process of hippocampal consolidation discussed above (Wittenberg, Sullivan, & Tsien, 2002). In Chinese, learners cannot form this loop, because they do not yet know most of the Hanzi characters required for writing and reading Chinese. It is this lack of orthographic resonance that makes Asian character-based languages like Japanese and Chinese so challenging for learners with a background in Roman characters. To improve resonance during learning, our systems for vocabulary learning interweave trials using pinyin, meaning, auditory form, and characters. Initial results show a significant advantage for training that incorporates this type of resonance. The PSLC project on [[Learning a tonal language: Chinese]] organized by Wang, Liu, Perfetti, and colleagues further elaborates in the role of resonance and co-training in learning tones. Rather than replicating those studies here, we hope to build on their results as a part of an integrated approach to the design of instruction in Spanish, Chinese, and French.

===Explicit Cue Focusing===

The third mechanism for adult second language learning highlighted in the Unified Competition Model is the mechanism of cue focusing. Cue focusing is currently at the center of work by Zhang on [[Chinese pinyin dictation]] and Presson on [[French gender cues]]. The Chinese tutor allows students direct access to minimal pairs that characterize the correct target form (with tones and letters) and the form they have entered. In this case, cue focusing is explicit on a perceptual level. The French tutor presents cues in a simple, declarative form (i.e. -ance indicates feminine). In terms of the debate regarding implicit and explicit learning, both forms of feedback represent explicit teaching. However, as MacWhinney (1997) argued, explicit teaching is only successful when the cues are extremely simple. Both of these tutors rely on this core principle.

===Entrenchment===
In the theory of self-organizing maps (Kohonen, 1970), entrenchment arises in cortical areas as a result of the formation of connections between mutually active items. In PDP theory, these are members of "gangs" participating in "gang effects" or correlated activation (Rogers & McClelland, 2006). Li, Zhao, & MacWhinney (2007) show how entrenchment increases across epochs of training of a SOM during growth in the size of the lexicon. Once forms are entrenched, it is difficult to organize them in alternative ways. However, there are various computational frameworks that can account for the overlay of a secondary organizations on an entrenched L1 structure.

===Transfer===
Whenever a learner can map a new L2 structure onto a previous L1 structure, analogical transfer is possible. This transfer can be either positive or negative. Positive transfer arises when L1 matches L2. Negative transfer arises when L1 only partially matches L2.

===Social Disincentives===
Infants and toddlers receive a wide range of incentives for language learning, including gaze reinforcement, echoing imitation, games, smiles, and positive verbal input. Across the lifespan, these features mostly decrease until adolescent and adult language learners are eventually faced with many disincentives for language learning, including failure to respond in L2, negative feedback, and avoidance of interactions.

==Research questions==
Adult second language learning, unlike first language acquisition, must deal with learning barriers produced by L1 (first language) entrenchment, transfer, and social disincentives. In order to overcome these barriers, adult learners can rely on specialized reconfigurations of learning methods used by children learning their first language. These supports include: (1) graduated interval recall, (2) resonant co-training, and (3) explicit cue focusing. Presence of only one or two of these supports will lead to good learning, but the best and most robust learning occurs when all three are operative. This means that the overall hypothesis cannot be evaluated by a single definitive experiment. Instead, a series of experiments must be run to evaluate various configurations of the components. Also, it is possible that the effects of these methods may vary across linguistic levels (phonology, orthography, reading, lexicon, syntax, pragmatics, fluency). However, evidence for the effects of any combination of these supports in achieving any level of robustness on any given level would still provide important clues regarding ways to enhance the overall robustness of second language learning. This information could also be useful in understanding robustness in other domains.
===Study One===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the use of explicit cue marking for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without explicit cue identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive explicit cues for the preterite and subjunctive and non-explicit cues for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
The dependent variables are response accuracy and response latency.

====Results====
This study will begin in a pilot form at Penn State in the Spring. The target student population includes 900 subjects.

====Explanation====

===Study Two===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the introduction of a graduated recall deadline for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without explicit cue identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive graduated deadlines for the preterite and subjunctive and no deadlines for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
====Results====
====Explanation====

===Study Three===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the use of analogical patterns for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without analogical pattern identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive analogical patterns for the preterite and subjunctive and non-explicit cues for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
The dependent variables are response accuracy and response latency.

====Results====
This study will begin in a pilot form at Penn State in the Spring. The target student population includes 900 subjects.

====Explanation====

===Further Information===
===Connections to Other Studies===
===Annotated Bibliography===
===References===
===Future Plans===

Presson and MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar

2010-02-02T02:07:21Z

Macw: /* transfer */

Spanish Conjugation
==Summary Table==

==Abstract==
Adult second language learners often fail to acquire enough fluency in the new language to support smooth communicative interactions. The studies described here explore the hypothesis that robustness can be markedly improved through basic skill training based on three related pedagogical methods: graduated interval recall, resonant co-training, and cue focusing. This prediction will be tested in the context of in vivo and laboratory studies of online learning of Spanish verb conjugation.

==Background & Significance==
The central controversy in the study of second language acquisition is the status of the Critical Period Hypothesis. As formulated first by Penfield & Roberts (Penfield & Roberts, 1959) and then later by Lenneberg (1967), this hypothesis holds that, after some critical age, second languages (L2s) cannot be learned to full native-speaker competence. This critical period has been variously linked to age 2 for lexical learning (Weber-Fox & Neville, 1996) and perception (Kuhl, Conboy, Padden, Nelson, & Pruitt, 2005), age 6 for phonology (Flege, Yeni-Komshian, & Liu, 1999), age 13 for syntax (Johnson & Newport, 1989), or late adulthood for fossilization (MacWhinney, 2005). However, recent research (Hakuta, Bialystok, & Wiley, 2003; Wiley, Bialystok, & Hakuta, 2005) has cast doubt on many of these claims (MacWhinney, in press).

Despite these recent challenges, educators, academics, and the general public continue to believe in the reality of some Critical Period. What makes the notion of a Critical Period so compelling is that fact that adult second language learners often report problems acquiring a native accent in L2 and in using their L2 fluently. The approach to this issue that we have taken is to elaborate an extended version of the Competition Model (MacWhinney, in press) that accounts for age-related effects in second language learning through the mechanisms of entrenchment, transfer, and incomplete resonance. This new Unified Model makes strong predictions about the ways in which age-related effects can be overcome through effective teaching. In particular, the model holds that the problems that adults have in second language learning arise from the entrenched nature of the first language (L1), inadequate exposure to L2, and inappropriate teaching of L2. To correct these problems, teaching of adult learners needs to utilize these three methods:
1. Graduated interval recall,
2. Resonant cotraining, and
3. Cue focusing.
The claim is that L2 instruction that incorporates these three methods will lead to marked improvements in fluency and robustness of learning.

==Glossary==
===Graduated Interval Recall===
This approach to the learning of items (words, sounds, constructions) in a second language was first elaborated by Pimsleur (1967), although components of the idea can be found as far back as Ebbinghaus (1885). Recently, Pavlik et al. (in press) have formalized the parameters controlling this procedure mathematically in the context of the ACT-R model of cognition. The core idea here is most easily illustrated in the context of the learning of a list of new L2 vocabulary items (Nation, 2001). Immediately after a word is presented, learners are almost always able to recall it. However, if we let a minute pass by, the memory trace drops below threshold and retrieval success drops with it. What Pimsleur discovered was that, if we retest the item before the memory trace decays too much, recall will be successful. Once an item has been recalled successfully once, repeated recalls trials can be spaced further and further apart. The neuronal basis of this process has now been elaborated in terms of synaptic reentry reinforcement model of hippocampal functioning (Wittenberg, Sullivan, & Tsien, 2002). Pavlik (in press) has shown that optimization of the intervals required for recall can lead to a two-fold improvement in vocabulary learning. This experimental work is now being extended to the in vivo study of online learning of Chinese vocabulary (Pavlik et al., in press) and pinyin dictation (Zhang, MacWhinney, & Wu, in preparation) in the PSLC online and offline courses. It has also been applied to the learning of Spanish vocabulary through a simple online tutor. The method of graduated interval recall is also being applied to the learning of French gender (Presson, Pavlik, MacWhinney, & Jones, in preparation). Each of these three efforts (Chinese vocabulary, Chinese pinyin, French gender) relies on the same code base for optimization developed by Pavlik.

===Resonant Cotraining===
The second mechanism for adult second language learning highlighted in the Unified Competition Model is the mechanism of resonant co-training. This mechanism has parallels to issues discussed in the [[Coordinative Learning]] Cluster. The basic effect of resonance can be most easily understood by contrasting the learning of French and Chinese. In French, learners have immediate access to a method for encoding the sounds of the language through Roman characters, including a few special French diacritics. Because adults rely so heavily on phonemic recoding during reading (Booth, Perfetti, & MacWhinney, 1999), they can easily form a resonant loop between a new auditory form and its meaning and orthography. This cortical loop serves as a scaffold for the process of hippocampal consolidation discussed above (Wittenberg, Sullivan, & Tsien, 2002). In Chinese, learners cannot form this loop, because they do not yet know most of the Hanzi characters required for writing and reading Chinese. It is this lack of orthographic resonance that makes Asian character-based languages like Japanese and Chinese so challenging for learners with a background in Roman characters. To improve resonance during learning, our systems for vocabulary learning interweave trials using pinyin, meaning, auditory form, and characters. Initial results show a significant advantage for training that incorporates this type of resonance. The PSLC project on [[Learning a tonal language: Chinese]] organized by Wang, Liu, Perfetti, and colleagues further elaborates in the role of resonance and co-training in learning tones. Rather than replicating those studies here, we hope to build on their results as a part of an integrated approach to the design of instruction in Spanish, Chinese, and French.

===Explicit Cue Focusing===

The third mechanism for adult second language learning highlighted in the Unified Competition Model is the mechanism of cue focusing. Cue focusing is currently at the center of work by Zhang on [[Chinese pinyin dictation]] and Presson on [[French gender cues]]. The Chinese tutor allows students direct access to minimal pairs that characterize the correct target form (with tones and letters) and the form they have entered. In this case, cue focusing is explicit on a perceptual level. The French tutor presents cues in a simple, declarative form (i.e. -ance indicates feminine). In terms of the debate regarding implicit and explicit learning, both forms of feedback represent explicit teaching. However, as MacWhinney (1997) argued, explicit teaching is only successful when the cues are extremely simple. Both of these tutors rely on this core principle.

===Entrenchment===
In the theory of self-organizing maps (Kohonen, 1970), entrenchment arises in cortical areas as a result of the formation of connections between mutually active items. In PDP theory, these are members of "gangs" participating in "gang effects" or correlated activation (Rogers & McClelland, 2006). Li, Zhao, & MacWhinney (2007) show how entrenchment increases across epochs of training of a SOM during growth in the size of the lexicon. Once forms are entrenched, it is difficult to organize them in alternative ways. However, there are various computational frameworks that can account for the overlay of a secondary organizations on an entrenched L1 structure.

===Transfer===
Whenever a learner can map a new L2 structure onto a previous L1 structure, analogical transfer is possible. This transfer can be either positive or negative. Positive transfer arises when L1 matches L2. Negative transfer arises when L1 only partially matches L2.

===social disincentives===
Infants and toddlers receive a wide range of incentives for language learning, including gaze reinforcement, echoing imitation, games, smiles, and positive verbal input. Across the lifespan, these features mostly decrease until adolescent and adult language learners are eventually faced with many disincentives for language learning, including failure to respond in L2, negative feedback, and avoidance of interactions.

==Research questions==
Adult second language learning, unlike first language acquisition, must deal with learning barriers produced by L1 (first language) entrenchment, transfer, and social disincentives. In order to overcome these barriers, adult learners can rely on specialized reconfigurations of learning methods used by children learning their first language. These supports include: (1) graduated interval recall, (2) resonant co-training, and (3) explicit cue focusing. Presence of only one or two of these supports will lead to good learning, but the best and most robust learning occurs when all three are operative. This means that the overall hypothesis cannot be evaluated by a single definitive experiment. Instead, a series of experiments must be run to evaluate various configurations of the components. Also, it is possible that the effects of these methods may vary across linguistic levels (phonology, orthography, reading, lexicon, syntax, pragmatics, fluency). However, evidence for the effects of any combination of these supports in achieving any level of robustness on any given level would still provide important clues regarding ways to enhance the overall robustness of second language learning. This information could also be useful in understanding robustness in other domains.
===Study One===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the use of explicit cue marking for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without explicit cue identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive explicit cues for the preterite and subjunctive and non-explicit cues for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
The dependent variables are response accuracy and response latency.

====Results====
This study will begin in a pilot form at Penn State in the Spring. The target student population includes 900 subjects.

====Explanation====

===Study Two===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the introduction of a graduated recall deadline for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without explicit cue identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive graduated deadlines for the preterite and subjunctive and no deadlines for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
====Results====
====Explanation====

===Study Three===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the use of analogical patterns for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without analogical pattern identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive analogical patterns for the preterite and subjunctive and non-explicit cues for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
The dependent variables are response accuracy and response latency.

====Results====
This study will begin in a pilot form at Penn State in the Spring. The target student population includes 900 subjects.

====Explanation====

===Further Information===
===Connections to Other Studies===
===Annotated Bibliography===
===References===
===Future Plans===

Presson and MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar

2010-02-02T02:07:09Z

Macw: /* entrenchment */

Spanish Conjugation
==Summary Table==

==Abstract==
Adult second language learners often fail to acquire enough fluency in the new language to support smooth communicative interactions. The studies described here explore the hypothesis that robustness can be markedly improved through basic skill training based on three related pedagogical methods: graduated interval recall, resonant co-training, and cue focusing. This prediction will be tested in the context of in vivo and laboratory studies of online learning of Spanish verb conjugation.

==Background & Significance==
The central controversy in the study of second language acquisition is the status of the Critical Period Hypothesis. As formulated first by Penfield & Roberts (Penfield & Roberts, 1959) and then later by Lenneberg (1967), this hypothesis holds that, after some critical age, second languages (L2s) cannot be learned to full native-speaker competence. This critical period has been variously linked to age 2 for lexical learning (Weber-Fox & Neville, 1996) and perception (Kuhl, Conboy, Padden, Nelson, & Pruitt, 2005), age 6 for phonology (Flege, Yeni-Komshian, & Liu, 1999), age 13 for syntax (Johnson & Newport, 1989), or late adulthood for fossilization (MacWhinney, 2005). However, recent research (Hakuta, Bialystok, & Wiley, 2003; Wiley, Bialystok, & Hakuta, 2005) has cast doubt on many of these claims (MacWhinney, in press).

Despite these recent challenges, educators, academics, and the general public continue to believe in the reality of some Critical Period. What makes the notion of a Critical Period so compelling is that fact that adult second language learners often report problems acquiring a native accent in L2 and in using their L2 fluently. The approach to this issue that we have taken is to elaborate an extended version of the Competition Model (MacWhinney, in press) that accounts for age-related effects in second language learning through the mechanisms of entrenchment, transfer, and incomplete resonance. This new Unified Model makes strong predictions about the ways in which age-related effects can be overcome through effective teaching. In particular, the model holds that the problems that adults have in second language learning arise from the entrenched nature of the first language (L1), inadequate exposure to L2, and inappropriate teaching of L2. To correct these problems, teaching of adult learners needs to utilize these three methods:
1. Graduated interval recall,
2. Resonant cotraining, and
3. Cue focusing.
The claim is that L2 instruction that incorporates these three methods will lead to marked improvements in fluency and robustness of learning.

==Glossary==
===Graduated Interval Recall===
This approach to the learning of items (words, sounds, constructions) in a second language was first elaborated by Pimsleur (1967), although components of the idea can be found as far back as Ebbinghaus (1885). Recently, Pavlik et al. (in press) have formalized the parameters controlling this procedure mathematically in the context of the ACT-R model of cognition. The core idea here is most easily illustrated in the context of the learning of a list of new L2 vocabulary items (Nation, 2001). Immediately after a word is presented, learners are almost always able to recall it. However, if we let a minute pass by, the memory trace drops below threshold and retrieval success drops with it. What Pimsleur discovered was that, if we retest the item before the memory trace decays too much, recall will be successful. Once an item has been recalled successfully once, repeated recalls trials can be spaced further and further apart. The neuronal basis of this process has now been elaborated in terms of synaptic reentry reinforcement model of hippocampal functioning (Wittenberg, Sullivan, & Tsien, 2002). Pavlik (in press) has shown that optimization of the intervals required for recall can lead to a two-fold improvement in vocabulary learning. This experimental work is now being extended to the in vivo study of online learning of Chinese vocabulary (Pavlik et al., in press) and pinyin dictation (Zhang, MacWhinney, & Wu, in preparation) in the PSLC online and offline courses. It has also been applied to the learning of Spanish vocabulary through a simple online tutor. The method of graduated interval recall is also being applied to the learning of French gender (Presson, Pavlik, MacWhinney, & Jones, in preparation). Each of these three efforts (Chinese vocabulary, Chinese pinyin, French gender) relies on the same code base for optimization developed by Pavlik.

===Resonant Cotraining===
The second mechanism for adult second language learning highlighted in the Unified Competition Model is the mechanism of resonant co-training. This mechanism has parallels to issues discussed in the [[Coordinative Learning]] Cluster. The basic effect of resonance can be most easily understood by contrasting the learning of French and Chinese. In French, learners have immediate access to a method for encoding the sounds of the language through Roman characters, including a few special French diacritics. Because adults rely so heavily on phonemic recoding during reading (Booth, Perfetti, & MacWhinney, 1999), they can easily form a resonant loop between a new auditory form and its meaning and orthography. This cortical loop serves as a scaffold for the process of hippocampal consolidation discussed above (Wittenberg, Sullivan, & Tsien, 2002). In Chinese, learners cannot form this loop, because they do not yet know most of the Hanzi characters required for writing and reading Chinese. It is this lack of orthographic resonance that makes Asian character-based languages like Japanese and Chinese so challenging for learners with a background in Roman characters. To improve resonance during learning, our systems for vocabulary learning interweave trials using pinyin, meaning, auditory form, and characters. Initial results show a significant advantage for training that incorporates this type of resonance. The PSLC project on [[Learning a tonal language: Chinese]] organized by Wang, Liu, Perfetti, and colleagues further elaborates in the role of resonance and co-training in learning tones. Rather than replicating those studies here, we hope to build on their results as a part of an integrated approach to the design of instruction in Spanish, Chinese, and French.

===Explicit Cue Focusing===

The third mechanism for adult second language learning highlighted in the Unified Competition Model is the mechanism of cue focusing. Cue focusing is currently at the center of work by Zhang on [[Chinese pinyin dictation]] and Presson on [[French gender cues]]. The Chinese tutor allows students direct access to minimal pairs that characterize the correct target form (with tones and letters) and the form they have entered. In this case, cue focusing is explicit on a perceptual level. The French tutor presents cues in a simple, declarative form (i.e. -ance indicates feminine). In terms of the debate regarding implicit and explicit learning, both forms of feedback represent explicit teaching. However, as MacWhinney (1997) argued, explicit teaching is only successful when the cues are extremely simple. Both of these tutors rely on this core principle.

===Entrenchment===
In the theory of self-organizing maps (Kohonen, 1970), entrenchment arises in cortical areas as a result of the formation of connections between mutually active items. In PDP theory, these are members of "gangs" participating in "gang effects" or correlated activation (Rogers & McClelland, 2006). Li, Zhao, & MacWhinney (2007) show how entrenchment increases across epochs of training of a SOM during growth in the size of the lexicon. Once forms are entrenched, it is difficult to organize them in alternative ways. However, there are various computational frameworks that can account for the overlay of a secondary organizations on an entrenched L1 structure.

===transfer===
Whenever a learner can map a new L2 structure onto a previous L1 structure, analogical transfer is possible. This transfer can be either positive or negative. Positive transfer arises when L1 matches L2. Negative transfer arises when L1 only partially matches L2.

===social disincentives===
Infants and toddlers receive a wide range of incentives for language learning, including gaze reinforcement, echoing imitation, games, smiles, and positive verbal input. Across the lifespan, these features mostly decrease until adolescent and adult language learners are eventually faced with many disincentives for language learning, including failure to respond in L2, negative feedback, and avoidance of interactions.

==Research questions==
Adult second language learning, unlike first language acquisition, must deal with learning barriers produced by L1 (first language) entrenchment, transfer, and social disincentives. In order to overcome these barriers, adult learners can rely on specialized reconfigurations of learning methods used by children learning their first language. These supports include: (1) graduated interval recall, (2) resonant co-training, and (3) explicit cue focusing. Presence of only one or two of these supports will lead to good learning, but the best and most robust learning occurs when all three are operative. This means that the overall hypothesis cannot be evaluated by a single definitive experiment. Instead, a series of experiments must be run to evaluate various configurations of the components. Also, it is possible that the effects of these methods may vary across linguistic levels (phonology, orthography, reading, lexicon, syntax, pragmatics, fluency). However, evidence for the effects of any combination of these supports in achieving any level of robustness on any given level would still provide important clues regarding ways to enhance the overall robustness of second language learning. This information could also be useful in understanding robustness in other domains.
===Study One===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the use of explicit cue marking for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without explicit cue identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive explicit cues for the preterite and subjunctive and non-explicit cues for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
The dependent variables are response accuracy and response latency.

====Results====
This study will begin in a pilot form at Penn State in the Spring. The target student population includes 900 subjects.

====Explanation====

===Study Two===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the introduction of a graduated recall deadline for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without explicit cue identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive graduated deadlines for the preterite and subjunctive and no deadlines for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
====Results====
====Explanation====

===Study Three===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the use of analogical patterns for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without analogical pattern identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive analogical patterns for the preterite and subjunctive and non-explicit cues for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
The dependent variables are response accuracy and response latency.

====Results====
This study will begin in a pilot form at Penn State in the Spring. The target student population includes 900 subjects.

====Explanation====

===Further Information===
===Connections to Other Studies===
===Annotated Bibliography===
===References===
===Future Plans===

Presson and MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar

2010-02-02T02:06:59Z

Macw: /* explicit cue focusing */

Spanish Conjugation
==Summary Table==

==Abstract==
Adult second language learners often fail to acquire enough fluency in the new language to support smooth communicative interactions. The studies described here explore the hypothesis that robustness can be markedly improved through basic skill training based on three related pedagogical methods: graduated interval recall, resonant co-training, and cue focusing. This prediction will be tested in the context of in vivo and laboratory studies of online learning of Spanish verb conjugation.

==Background & Significance==
The central controversy in the study of second language acquisition is the status of the Critical Period Hypothesis. As formulated first by Penfield & Roberts (Penfield & Roberts, 1959) and then later by Lenneberg (1967), this hypothesis holds that, after some critical age, second languages (L2s) cannot be learned to full native-speaker competence. This critical period has been variously linked to age 2 for lexical learning (Weber-Fox & Neville, 1996) and perception (Kuhl, Conboy, Padden, Nelson, & Pruitt, 2005), age 6 for phonology (Flege, Yeni-Komshian, & Liu, 1999), age 13 for syntax (Johnson & Newport, 1989), or late adulthood for fossilization (MacWhinney, 2005). However, recent research (Hakuta, Bialystok, & Wiley, 2003; Wiley, Bialystok, & Hakuta, 2005) has cast doubt on many of these claims (MacWhinney, in press).

Despite these recent challenges, educators, academics, and the general public continue to believe in the reality of some Critical Period. What makes the notion of a Critical Period so compelling is that fact that adult second language learners often report problems acquiring a native accent in L2 and in using their L2 fluently. The approach to this issue that we have taken is to elaborate an extended version of the Competition Model (MacWhinney, in press) that accounts for age-related effects in second language learning through the mechanisms of entrenchment, transfer, and incomplete resonance. This new Unified Model makes strong predictions about the ways in which age-related effects can be overcome through effective teaching. In particular, the model holds that the problems that adults have in second language learning arise from the entrenched nature of the first language (L1), inadequate exposure to L2, and inappropriate teaching of L2. To correct these problems, teaching of adult learners needs to utilize these three methods:
1. Graduated interval recall,
2. Resonant cotraining, and
3. Cue focusing.
The claim is that L2 instruction that incorporates these three methods will lead to marked improvements in fluency and robustness of learning.

==Glossary==
===Graduated Interval Recall===
This approach to the learning of items (words, sounds, constructions) in a second language was first elaborated by Pimsleur (1967), although components of the idea can be found as far back as Ebbinghaus (1885). Recently, Pavlik et al. (in press) have formalized the parameters controlling this procedure mathematically in the context of the ACT-R model of cognition. The core idea here is most easily illustrated in the context of the learning of a list of new L2 vocabulary items (Nation, 2001). Immediately after a word is presented, learners are almost always able to recall it. However, if we let a minute pass by, the memory trace drops below threshold and retrieval success drops with it. What Pimsleur discovered was that, if we retest the item before the memory trace decays too much, recall will be successful. Once an item has been recalled successfully once, repeated recalls trials can be spaced further and further apart. The neuronal basis of this process has now been elaborated in terms of synaptic reentry reinforcement model of hippocampal functioning (Wittenberg, Sullivan, & Tsien, 2002). Pavlik (in press) has shown that optimization of the intervals required for recall can lead to a two-fold improvement in vocabulary learning. This experimental work is now being extended to the in vivo study of online learning of Chinese vocabulary (Pavlik et al., in press) and pinyin dictation (Zhang, MacWhinney, & Wu, in preparation) in the PSLC online and offline courses. It has also been applied to the learning of Spanish vocabulary through a simple online tutor. The method of graduated interval recall is also being applied to the learning of French gender (Presson, Pavlik, MacWhinney, & Jones, in preparation). Each of these three efforts (Chinese vocabulary, Chinese pinyin, French gender) relies on the same code base for optimization developed by Pavlik.

===Resonant Cotraining===
The second mechanism for adult second language learning highlighted in the Unified Competition Model is the mechanism of resonant co-training. This mechanism has parallels to issues discussed in the [[Coordinative Learning]] Cluster. The basic effect of resonance can be most easily understood by contrasting the learning of French and Chinese. In French, learners have immediate access to a method for encoding the sounds of the language through Roman characters, including a few special French diacritics. Because adults rely so heavily on phonemic recoding during reading (Booth, Perfetti, & MacWhinney, 1999), they can easily form a resonant loop between a new auditory form and its meaning and orthography. This cortical loop serves as a scaffold for the process of hippocampal consolidation discussed above (Wittenberg, Sullivan, & Tsien, 2002). In Chinese, learners cannot form this loop, because they do not yet know most of the Hanzi characters required for writing and reading Chinese. It is this lack of orthographic resonance that makes Asian character-based languages like Japanese and Chinese so challenging for learners with a background in Roman characters. To improve resonance during learning, our systems for vocabulary learning interweave trials using pinyin, meaning, auditory form, and characters. Initial results show a significant advantage for training that incorporates this type of resonance. The PSLC project on [[Learning a tonal language: Chinese]] organized by Wang, Liu, Perfetti, and colleagues further elaborates in the role of resonance and co-training in learning tones. Rather than replicating those studies here, we hope to build on their results as a part of an integrated approach to the design of instruction in Spanish, Chinese, and French.

===Explicit Cue Focusing===

The third mechanism for adult second language learning highlighted in the Unified Competition Model is the mechanism of cue focusing. Cue focusing is currently at the center of work by Zhang on [[Chinese pinyin dictation]] and Presson on [[French gender cues]]. The Chinese tutor allows students direct access to minimal pairs that characterize the correct target form (with tones and letters) and the form they have entered. In this case, cue focusing is explicit on a perceptual level. The French tutor presents cues in a simple, declarative form (i.e. -ance indicates feminine). In terms of the debate regarding implicit and explicit learning, both forms of feedback represent explicit teaching. However, as MacWhinney (1997) argued, explicit teaching is only successful when the cues are extremely simple. Both of these tutors rely on this core principle.

===entrenchment===
In the theory of self-organizing maps (Kohonen, 1970), entrenchment arises in cortical areas as a result of the formation of connections between mutually active items. In PDP theory, these are members of "gangs" participating in "gang effects" or correlated activation (Rogers & McClelland, 2006). Li, Zhao, & MacWhinney (2007) show how entrenchment increases across epochs of training of a SOM during growth in the size of the lexicon. Once forms are entrenched, it is difficult to organize them in alternative ways. However, there are various computational frameworks that can account for the overlay of a secondary organizations on an entrenched L1 structure.

===transfer===
Whenever a learner can map a new L2 structure onto a previous L1 structure, analogical transfer is possible. This transfer can be either positive or negative. Positive transfer arises when L1 matches L2. Negative transfer arises when L1 only partially matches L2.

===social disincentives===
Infants and toddlers receive a wide range of incentives for language learning, including gaze reinforcement, echoing imitation, games, smiles, and positive verbal input. Across the lifespan, these features mostly decrease until adolescent and adult language learners are eventually faced with many disincentives for language learning, including failure to respond in L2, negative feedback, and avoidance of interactions.

==Research questions==
Adult second language learning, unlike first language acquisition, must deal with learning barriers produced by L1 (first language) entrenchment, transfer, and social disincentives. In order to overcome these barriers, adult learners can rely on specialized reconfigurations of learning methods used by children learning their first language. These supports include: (1) graduated interval recall, (2) resonant co-training, and (3) explicit cue focusing. Presence of only one or two of these supports will lead to good learning, but the best and most robust learning occurs when all three are operative. This means that the overall hypothesis cannot be evaluated by a single definitive experiment. Instead, a series of experiments must be run to evaluate various configurations of the components. Also, it is possible that the effects of these methods may vary across linguistic levels (phonology, orthography, reading, lexicon, syntax, pragmatics, fluency). However, evidence for the effects of any combination of these supports in achieving any level of robustness on any given level would still provide important clues regarding ways to enhance the overall robustness of second language learning. This information could also be useful in understanding robustness in other domains.
===Study One===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the use of explicit cue marking for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without explicit cue identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive explicit cues for the preterite and subjunctive and non-explicit cues for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
The dependent variables are response accuracy and response latency.

====Results====
This study will begin in a pilot form at Penn State in the Spring. The target student population includes 900 subjects.

====Explanation====

===Study Two===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the introduction of a graduated recall deadline for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without explicit cue identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive graduated deadlines for the preterite and subjunctive and no deadlines for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
====Results====
====Explanation====

===Study Three===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the use of analogical patterns for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without analogical pattern identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive analogical patterns for the preterite and subjunctive and non-explicit cues for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
The dependent variables are response accuracy and response latency.

====Results====
This study will begin in a pilot form at Penn State in the Spring. The target student population includes 900 subjects.

====Explanation====

===Further Information===
===Connections to Other Studies===
===Annotated Bibliography===
===References===
===Future Plans===

Presson and MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar

2010-02-02T02:06:24Z

Macw: /* explicit cue focusing */

Spanish Conjugation
==Summary Table==

==Abstract==
Adult second language learners often fail to acquire enough fluency in the new language to support smooth communicative interactions. The studies described here explore the hypothesis that robustness can be markedly improved through basic skill training based on three related pedagogical methods: graduated interval recall, resonant co-training, and cue focusing. This prediction will be tested in the context of in vivo and laboratory studies of online learning of Spanish verb conjugation.

==Background & Significance==
The central controversy in the study of second language acquisition is the status of the Critical Period Hypothesis. As formulated first by Penfield & Roberts (Penfield & Roberts, 1959) and then later by Lenneberg (1967), this hypothesis holds that, after some critical age, second languages (L2s) cannot be learned to full native-speaker competence. This critical period has been variously linked to age 2 for lexical learning (Weber-Fox & Neville, 1996) and perception (Kuhl, Conboy, Padden, Nelson, & Pruitt, 2005), age 6 for phonology (Flege, Yeni-Komshian, & Liu, 1999), age 13 for syntax (Johnson & Newport, 1989), or late adulthood for fossilization (MacWhinney, 2005). However, recent research (Hakuta, Bialystok, & Wiley, 2003; Wiley, Bialystok, & Hakuta, 2005) has cast doubt on many of these claims (MacWhinney, in press).

Despite these recent challenges, educators, academics, and the general public continue to believe in the reality of some Critical Period. What makes the notion of a Critical Period so compelling is that fact that adult second language learners often report problems acquiring a native accent in L2 and in using their L2 fluently. The approach to this issue that we have taken is to elaborate an extended version of the Competition Model (MacWhinney, in press) that accounts for age-related effects in second language learning through the mechanisms of entrenchment, transfer, and incomplete resonance. This new Unified Model makes strong predictions about the ways in which age-related effects can be overcome through effective teaching. In particular, the model holds that the problems that adults have in second language learning arise from the entrenched nature of the first language (L1), inadequate exposure to L2, and inappropriate teaching of L2. To correct these problems, teaching of adult learners needs to utilize these three methods:
1. Graduated interval recall,
2. Resonant cotraining, and
3. Cue focusing.
The claim is that L2 instruction that incorporates these three methods will lead to marked improvements in fluency and robustness of learning.

==Glossary==
===Graduated Interval Recall===
This approach to the learning of items (words, sounds, constructions) in a second language was first elaborated by Pimsleur (1967), although components of the idea can be found as far back as Ebbinghaus (1885). Recently, Pavlik et al. (in press) have formalized the parameters controlling this procedure mathematically in the context of the ACT-R model of cognition. The core idea here is most easily illustrated in the context of the learning of a list of new L2 vocabulary items (Nation, 2001). Immediately after a word is presented, learners are almost always able to recall it. However, if we let a minute pass by, the memory trace drops below threshold and retrieval success drops with it. What Pimsleur discovered was that, if we retest the item before the memory trace decays too much, recall will be successful. Once an item has been recalled successfully once, repeated recalls trials can be spaced further and further apart. The neuronal basis of this process has now been elaborated in terms of synaptic reentry reinforcement model of hippocampal functioning (Wittenberg, Sullivan, & Tsien, 2002). Pavlik (in press) has shown that optimization of the intervals required for recall can lead to a two-fold improvement in vocabulary learning. This experimental work is now being extended to the in vivo study of online learning of Chinese vocabulary (Pavlik et al., in press) and pinyin dictation (Zhang, MacWhinney, & Wu, in preparation) in the PSLC online and offline courses. It has also been applied to the learning of Spanish vocabulary through a simple online tutor. The method of graduated interval recall is also being applied to the learning of French gender (Presson, Pavlik, MacWhinney, & Jones, in preparation). Each of these three efforts (Chinese vocabulary, Chinese pinyin, French gender) relies on the same code base for optimization developed by Pavlik.

===Resonant Cotraining===
The second mechanism for adult second language learning highlighted in the Unified Competition Model is the mechanism of resonant co-training. This mechanism has parallels to issues discussed in the [[Coordinative Learning]] Cluster. The basic effect of resonance can be most easily understood by contrasting the learning of French and Chinese. In French, learners have immediate access to a method for encoding the sounds of the language through Roman characters, including a few special French diacritics. Because adults rely so heavily on phonemic recoding during reading (Booth, Perfetti, & MacWhinney, 1999), they can easily form a resonant loop between a new auditory form and its meaning and orthography. This cortical loop serves as a scaffold for the process of hippocampal consolidation discussed above (Wittenberg, Sullivan, & Tsien, 2002). In Chinese, learners cannot form this loop, because they do not yet know most of the Hanzi characters required for writing and reading Chinese. It is this lack of orthographic resonance that makes Asian character-based languages like Japanese and Chinese so challenging for learners with a background in Roman characters. To improve resonance during learning, our systems for vocabulary learning interweave trials using pinyin, meaning, auditory form, and characters. Initial results show a significant advantage for training that incorporates this type of resonance. The PSLC project on [[Learning a tonal language: Chinese]] organized by Wang, Liu, Perfetti, and colleagues further elaborates in the role of resonance and co-training in learning tones. Rather than replicating those studies here, we hope to build on their results as a part of an integrated approach to the design of instruction in Spanish, Chinese, and French.

===explicit cue focusing===

The third mechanism for adult second language learning highlighted in the Unified Competition Model is the mechanism of cue focusing. Cue focusing is currently at the center of work by Zhang on [[Chinese pinyin dictation]] and Presson on [[French gender cues]]. The Chinese tutor allows students direct access to minimal pairs that characterize the correct target form (with tones and letters) and the form they have entered. In this case, cue focusing is explicit on a perceptual level. The French tutor presents cues in a simple, declarative form (i.e. -ance indicates feminine). In terms of the debate regarding implicit and explicit learning, both forms of feedback represent explicit teaching. However, as MacWhinney (1997) argued, explicit teaching is only successful when the cues are extremely simple. Both of these tutors rely on this core principle.

===entrenchment===
In the theory of self-organizing maps (Kohonen, 1970), entrenchment arises in cortical areas as a result of the formation of connections between mutually active items. In PDP theory, these are members of "gangs" participating in "gang effects" or correlated activation (Rogers & McClelland, 2006). Li, Zhao, & MacWhinney (2007) show how entrenchment increases across epochs of training of a SOM during growth in the size of the lexicon. Once forms are entrenched, it is difficult to organize them in alternative ways. However, there are various computational frameworks that can account for the overlay of a secondary organizations on an entrenched L1 structure.

===transfer===
Whenever a learner can map a new L2 structure onto a previous L1 structure, analogical transfer is possible. This transfer can be either positive or negative. Positive transfer arises when L1 matches L2. Negative transfer arises when L1 only partially matches L2.

===social disincentives===
Infants and toddlers receive a wide range of incentives for language learning, including gaze reinforcement, echoing imitation, games, smiles, and positive verbal input. Across the lifespan, these features mostly decrease until adolescent and adult language learners are eventually faced with many disincentives for language learning, including failure to respond in L2, negative feedback, and avoidance of interactions.

==Research questions==
Adult second language learning, unlike first language acquisition, must deal with learning barriers produced by L1 (first language) entrenchment, transfer, and social disincentives. In order to overcome these barriers, adult learners can rely on specialized reconfigurations of learning methods used by children learning their first language. These supports include: (1) graduated interval recall, (2) resonant co-training, and (3) explicit cue focusing. Presence of only one or two of these supports will lead to good learning, but the best and most robust learning occurs when all three are operative. This means that the overall hypothesis cannot be evaluated by a single definitive experiment. Instead, a series of experiments must be run to evaluate various configurations of the components. Also, it is possible that the effects of these methods may vary across linguistic levels (phonology, orthography, reading, lexicon, syntax, pragmatics, fluency). However, evidence for the effects of any combination of these supports in achieving any level of robustness on any given level would still provide important clues regarding ways to enhance the overall robustness of second language learning. This information could also be useful in understanding robustness in other domains.
===Study One===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the use of explicit cue marking for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without explicit cue identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive explicit cues for the preterite and subjunctive and non-explicit cues for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
The dependent variables are response accuracy and response latency.

====Results====
This study will begin in a pilot form at Penn State in the Spring. The target student population includes 900 subjects.

====Explanation====

===Study Two===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the introduction of a graduated recall deadline for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without explicit cue identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive graduated deadlines for the preterite and subjunctive and no deadlines for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
====Results====
====Explanation====

===Study Three===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the use of analogical patterns for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without analogical pattern identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive analogical patterns for the preterite and subjunctive and non-explicit cues for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
The dependent variables are response accuracy and response latency.

====Results====
This study will begin in a pilot form at Penn State in the Spring. The target student population includes 900 subjects.

====Explanation====

===Further Information===
===Connections to Other Studies===
===Annotated Bibliography===
===References===
===Future Plans===

Presson and MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar

2010-02-02T02:05:24Z

Macw: /* explicit cue focusing */

Spanish Conjugation
==Summary Table==

==Abstract==
Adult second language learners often fail to acquire enough fluency in the new language to support smooth communicative interactions. The studies described here explore the hypothesis that robustness can be markedly improved through basic skill training based on three related pedagogical methods: graduated interval recall, resonant co-training, and cue focusing. This prediction will be tested in the context of in vivo and laboratory studies of online learning of Spanish verb conjugation.

==Background & Significance==
The central controversy in the study of second language acquisition is the status of the Critical Period Hypothesis. As formulated first by Penfield & Roberts (Penfield & Roberts, 1959) and then later by Lenneberg (1967), this hypothesis holds that, after some critical age, second languages (L2s) cannot be learned to full native-speaker competence. This critical period has been variously linked to age 2 for lexical learning (Weber-Fox & Neville, 1996) and perception (Kuhl, Conboy, Padden, Nelson, & Pruitt, 2005), age 6 for phonology (Flege, Yeni-Komshian, & Liu, 1999), age 13 for syntax (Johnson & Newport, 1989), or late adulthood for fossilization (MacWhinney, 2005). However, recent research (Hakuta, Bialystok, & Wiley, 2003; Wiley, Bialystok, & Hakuta, 2005) has cast doubt on many of these claims (MacWhinney, in press).

Despite these recent challenges, educators, academics, and the general public continue to believe in the reality of some Critical Period. What makes the notion of a Critical Period so compelling is that fact that adult second language learners often report problems acquiring a native accent in L2 and in using their L2 fluently. The approach to this issue that we have taken is to elaborate an extended version of the Competition Model (MacWhinney, in press) that accounts for age-related effects in second language learning through the mechanisms of entrenchment, transfer, and incomplete resonance. This new Unified Model makes strong predictions about the ways in which age-related effects can be overcome through effective teaching. In particular, the model holds that the problems that adults have in second language learning arise from the entrenched nature of the first language (L1), inadequate exposure to L2, and inappropriate teaching of L2. To correct these problems, teaching of adult learners needs to utilize these three methods:
1. Graduated interval recall,
2. Resonant cotraining, and
3. Cue focusing.
The claim is that L2 instruction that incorporates these three methods will lead to marked improvements in fluency and robustness of learning.

==Glossary==
===Graduated Interval Recall===
This approach to the learning of items (words, sounds, constructions) in a second language was first elaborated by Pimsleur (1967), although components of the idea can be found as far back as Ebbinghaus (1885). Recently, Pavlik et al. (in press) have formalized the parameters controlling this procedure mathematically in the context of the ACT-R model of cognition. The core idea here is most easily illustrated in the context of the learning of a list of new L2 vocabulary items (Nation, 2001). Immediately after a word is presented, learners are almost always able to recall it. However, if we let a minute pass by, the memory trace drops below threshold and retrieval success drops with it. What Pimsleur discovered was that, if we retest the item before the memory trace decays too much, recall will be successful. Once an item has been recalled successfully once, repeated recalls trials can be spaced further and further apart. The neuronal basis of this process has now been elaborated in terms of synaptic reentry reinforcement model of hippocampal functioning (Wittenberg, Sullivan, & Tsien, 2002). Pavlik (in press) has shown that optimization of the intervals required for recall can lead to a two-fold improvement in vocabulary learning. This experimental work is now being extended to the in vivo study of online learning of Chinese vocabulary (Pavlik et al., in press) and pinyin dictation (Zhang, MacWhinney, & Wu, in preparation) in the PSLC online and offline courses. It has also been applied to the learning of Spanish vocabulary through a simple online tutor. The method of graduated interval recall is also being applied to the learning of French gender (Presson, Pavlik, MacWhinney, & Jones, in preparation). Each of these three efforts (Chinese vocabulary, Chinese pinyin, French gender) relies on the same code base for optimization developed by Pavlik.

===Resonant Cotraining===
The second mechanism for adult second language learning highlighted in the Unified Competition Model is the mechanism of resonant co-training. This mechanism has parallels to issues discussed in the [[Coordinative Learning]] Cluster. The basic effect of resonance can be most easily understood by contrasting the learning of French and Chinese. In French, learners have immediate access to a method for encoding the sounds of the language through Roman characters, including a few special French diacritics. Because adults rely so heavily on phonemic recoding during reading (Booth, Perfetti, & MacWhinney, 1999), they can easily form a resonant loop between a new auditory form and its meaning and orthography. This cortical loop serves as a scaffold for the process of hippocampal consolidation discussed above (Wittenberg, Sullivan, & Tsien, 2002). In Chinese, learners cannot form this loop, because they do not yet know most of the Hanzi characters required for writing and reading Chinese. It is this lack of orthographic resonance that makes Asian character-based languages like Japanese and Chinese so challenging for learners with a background in Roman characters. To improve resonance during learning, our systems for vocabulary learning interweave trials using pinyin, meaning, auditory form, and characters. Initial results show a significant advantage for training that incorporates this type of resonance. The PSLC project on [[Learning a tonal language: Chinese]] organized by Wang, Liu, Perfetti, and colleagues further elaborates in the role of resonance and co-training in learning tones. Rather than replicating those studies here, we hope to build on their results as a part of an integrated approach to the design of instruction in Spanish, Chinese, and French.

===explicit cue focusing===

The third mechanism for adult second language learning highlighted in the Unified Competition Model is the mechanism of cue focusing. Cue focusing is currently at the center of work by Zhang on [[Chinese pinyin dictation]] and Presson on [[French grammatical gender cue learning]]. The Chinese tutor allows students direct access to minimal pairs that characterize the correct target form (with tones and letters) and the form they have entered. In this case, cue focusing is explicit on a perceptual level. The French tutor presents cues in a simple, declarative form (i.e. -ance indicates feminine). In terms of the debate regarding implicit and explicit learning, both forms of feedback represent explicit teaching. However, as MacWhinney (1997) argued, explicit teaching is only successful when the cues are extremely simple. Both of these tutors rely on this core principle.

===entrenchment===
In the theory of self-organizing maps (Kohonen, 1970), entrenchment arises in cortical areas as a result of the formation of connections between mutually active items. In PDP theory, these are members of "gangs" participating in "gang effects" or correlated activation (Rogers & McClelland, 2006). Li, Zhao, & MacWhinney (2007) show how entrenchment increases across epochs of training of a SOM during growth in the size of the lexicon. Once forms are entrenched, it is difficult to organize them in alternative ways. However, there are various computational frameworks that can account for the overlay of a secondary organizations on an entrenched L1 structure.

===transfer===
Whenever a learner can map a new L2 structure onto a previous L1 structure, analogical transfer is possible. This transfer can be either positive or negative. Positive transfer arises when L1 matches L2. Negative transfer arises when L1 only partially matches L2.

===social disincentives===
Infants and toddlers receive a wide range of incentives for language learning, including gaze reinforcement, echoing imitation, games, smiles, and positive verbal input. Across the lifespan, these features mostly decrease until adolescent and adult language learners are eventually faced with many disincentives for language learning, including failure to respond in L2, negative feedback, and avoidance of interactions.

==Research questions==
Adult second language learning, unlike first language acquisition, must deal with learning barriers produced by L1 (first language) entrenchment, transfer, and social disincentives. In order to overcome these barriers, adult learners can rely on specialized reconfigurations of learning methods used by children learning their first language. These supports include: (1) graduated interval recall, (2) resonant co-training, and (3) explicit cue focusing. Presence of only one or two of these supports will lead to good learning, but the best and most robust learning occurs when all three are operative. This means that the overall hypothesis cannot be evaluated by a single definitive experiment. Instead, a series of experiments must be run to evaluate various configurations of the components. Also, it is possible that the effects of these methods may vary across linguistic levels (phonology, orthography, reading, lexicon, syntax, pragmatics, fluency). However, evidence for the effects of any combination of these supports in achieving any level of robustness on any given level would still provide important clues regarding ways to enhance the overall robustness of second language learning. This information could also be useful in understanding robustness in other domains.
===Study One===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the use of explicit cue marking for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without explicit cue identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive explicit cues for the preterite and subjunctive and non-explicit cues for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
The dependent variables are response accuracy and response latency.

====Results====
This study will begin in a pilot form at Penn State in the Spring. The target student population includes 900 subjects.

====Explanation====

===Study Two===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the introduction of a graduated recall deadline for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without explicit cue identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive graduated deadlines for the preterite and subjunctive and no deadlines for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
====Results====
====Explanation====

===Study Three===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the use of analogical patterns for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without analogical pattern identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive analogical patterns for the preterite and subjunctive and non-explicit cues for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
The dependent variables are response accuracy and response latency.

====Results====
This study will begin in a pilot form at Penn State in the Spring. The target student population includes 900 subjects.

====Explanation====

===Further Information===
===Connections to Other Studies===
===Annotated Bibliography===
===References===
===Future Plans===

Presson and MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar

2010-02-02T02:03:51Z

Macw: /* Resonant Cotraining */

Spanish Conjugation
==Summary Table==

==Abstract==
Adult second language learners often fail to acquire enough fluency in the new language to support smooth communicative interactions. The studies described here explore the hypothesis that robustness can be markedly improved through basic skill training based on three related pedagogical methods: graduated interval recall, resonant co-training, and cue focusing. This prediction will be tested in the context of in vivo and laboratory studies of online learning of Spanish verb conjugation.

==Background & Significance==
The central controversy in the study of second language acquisition is the status of the Critical Period Hypothesis. As formulated first by Penfield & Roberts (Penfield & Roberts, 1959) and then later by Lenneberg (1967), this hypothesis holds that, after some critical age, second languages (L2s) cannot be learned to full native-speaker competence. This critical period has been variously linked to age 2 for lexical learning (Weber-Fox & Neville, 1996) and perception (Kuhl, Conboy, Padden, Nelson, & Pruitt, 2005), age 6 for phonology (Flege, Yeni-Komshian, & Liu, 1999), age 13 for syntax (Johnson & Newport, 1989), or late adulthood for fossilization (MacWhinney, 2005). However, recent research (Hakuta, Bialystok, & Wiley, 2003; Wiley, Bialystok, & Hakuta, 2005) has cast doubt on many of these claims (MacWhinney, in press).

Despite these recent challenges, educators, academics, and the general public continue to believe in the reality of some Critical Period. What makes the notion of a Critical Period so compelling is that fact that adult second language learners often report problems acquiring a native accent in L2 and in using their L2 fluently. The approach to this issue that we have taken is to elaborate an extended version of the Competition Model (MacWhinney, in press) that accounts for age-related effects in second language learning through the mechanisms of entrenchment, transfer, and incomplete resonance. This new Unified Model makes strong predictions about the ways in which age-related effects can be overcome through effective teaching. In particular, the model holds that the problems that adults have in second language learning arise from the entrenched nature of the first language (L1), inadequate exposure to L2, and inappropriate teaching of L2. To correct these problems, teaching of adult learners needs to utilize these three methods:
1. Graduated interval recall,
2. Resonant cotraining, and
3. Cue focusing.
The claim is that L2 instruction that incorporates these three methods will lead to marked improvements in fluency and robustness of learning.

==Glossary==
===Graduated Interval Recall===
This approach to the learning of items (words, sounds, constructions) in a second language was first elaborated by Pimsleur (1967), although components of the idea can be found as far back as Ebbinghaus (1885). Recently, Pavlik et al. (in press) have formalized the parameters controlling this procedure mathematically in the context of the ACT-R model of cognition. The core idea here is most easily illustrated in the context of the learning of a list of new L2 vocabulary items (Nation, 2001). Immediately after a word is presented, learners are almost always able to recall it. However, if we let a minute pass by, the memory trace drops below threshold and retrieval success drops with it. What Pimsleur discovered was that, if we retest the item before the memory trace decays too much, recall will be successful. Once an item has been recalled successfully once, repeated recalls trials can be spaced further and further apart. The neuronal basis of this process has now been elaborated in terms of synaptic reentry reinforcement model of hippocampal functioning (Wittenberg, Sullivan, & Tsien, 2002). Pavlik (in press) has shown that optimization of the intervals required for recall can lead to a two-fold improvement in vocabulary learning. This experimental work is now being extended to the in vivo study of online learning of Chinese vocabulary (Pavlik et al., in press) and pinyin dictation (Zhang, MacWhinney, & Wu, in preparation) in the PSLC online and offline courses. It has also been applied to the learning of Spanish vocabulary through a simple online tutor. The method of graduated interval recall is also being applied to the learning of French gender (Presson, Pavlik, MacWhinney, & Jones, in preparation). Each of these three efforts (Chinese vocabulary, Chinese pinyin, French gender) relies on the same code base for optimization developed by Pavlik.

===Resonant Cotraining===
The second mechanism for adult second language learning highlighted in the Unified Competition Model is the mechanism of resonant co-training. This mechanism has parallels to issues discussed in the [[Coordinative Learning]] Cluster. The basic effect of resonance can be most easily understood by contrasting the learning of French and Chinese. In French, learners have immediate access to a method for encoding the sounds of the language through Roman characters, including a few special French diacritics. Because adults rely so heavily on phonemic recoding during reading (Booth, Perfetti, & MacWhinney, 1999), they can easily form a resonant loop between a new auditory form and its meaning and orthography. This cortical loop serves as a scaffold for the process of hippocampal consolidation discussed above (Wittenberg, Sullivan, & Tsien, 2002). In Chinese, learners cannot form this loop, because they do not yet know most of the Hanzi characters required for writing and reading Chinese. It is this lack of orthographic resonance that makes Asian character-based languages like Japanese and Chinese so challenging for learners with a background in Roman characters. To improve resonance during learning, our systems for vocabulary learning interweave trials using pinyin, meaning, auditory form, and characters. Initial results show a significant advantage for training that incorporates this type of resonance. The PSLC project on [[Learning a tonal language: Chinese]] organized by Wang, Liu, Perfetti, and colleagues further elaborates in the role of resonance and co-training in learning tones. Rather than replicating those studies here, we hope to build on their results as a part of an integrated approach to the design of instruction in Spanish, Chinese, and French.

===explicit cue focusing===

The third mechanism for adult second language learning highlighted in the Unified Competition Model is the mechanism of cue focusing. Cue focusing is currently at the center of work by Zhang and Wu on Chinese pinyin dictation and Presson and Jones on French gender learning. The Chinese tutor allows students direct access to minimal pairs that characterize the correct target form (with tones and letters) and the form they have entered. In this case, cue focusing is explicit on a perceptual level. The French tutor presents cues in a simple, declarative form (i.e. -ance indicates feminine). In terms of the debate regarding implicit and explicit learning, both forms of feedback represent explicit teaching. However, as MacWhinney (1997) argued, explicit teaching is only successful when the cues are extremely simple. Both of these tutors rely on this core principle.

===entrenchment===
In the theory of self-organizing maps (Kohonen, 1970), entrenchment arises in cortical areas as a result of the formation of connections between mutually active items. In PDP theory, these are members of "gangs" participating in "gang effects" or correlated activation (Rogers & McClelland, 2006). Li, Zhao, & MacWhinney (2007) show how entrenchment increases across epochs of training of a SOM during growth in the size of the lexicon. Once forms are entrenched, it is difficult to organize them in alternative ways. However, there are various computational frameworks that can account for the overlay of a secondary organizations on an entrenched L1 structure.

===transfer===
Whenever a learner can map a new L2 structure onto a previous L1 structure, analogical transfer is possible. This transfer can be either positive or negative. Positive transfer arises when L1 matches L2. Negative transfer arises when L1 only partially matches L2.

===social disincentives===
Infants and toddlers receive a wide range of incentives for language learning, including gaze reinforcement, echoing imitation, games, smiles, and positive verbal input. Across the lifespan, these features mostly decrease until adolescent and adult language learners are eventually faced with many disincentives for language learning, including failure to respond in L2, negative feedback, and avoidance of interactions.

==Research questions==
Adult second language learning, unlike first language acquisition, must deal with learning barriers produced by L1 (first language) entrenchment, transfer, and social disincentives. In order to overcome these barriers, adult learners can rely on specialized reconfigurations of learning methods used by children learning their first language. These supports include: (1) graduated interval recall, (2) resonant co-training, and (3) explicit cue focusing. Presence of only one or two of these supports will lead to good learning, but the best and most robust learning occurs when all three are operative. This means that the overall hypothesis cannot be evaluated by a single definitive experiment. Instead, a series of experiments must be run to evaluate various configurations of the components. Also, it is possible that the effects of these methods may vary across linguistic levels (phonology, orthography, reading, lexicon, syntax, pragmatics, fluency). However, evidence for the effects of any combination of these supports in achieving any level of robustness on any given level would still provide important clues regarding ways to enhance the overall robustness of second language learning. This information could also be useful in understanding robustness in other domains.
===Study One===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the use of explicit cue marking for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without explicit cue identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive explicit cues for the preterite and subjunctive and non-explicit cues for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
The dependent variables are response accuracy and response latency.

====Results====
This study will begin in a pilot form at Penn State in the Spring. The target student population includes 900 subjects.

====Explanation====

===Study Two===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the introduction of a graduated recall deadline for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without explicit cue identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive graduated deadlines for the preterite and subjunctive and no deadlines for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
====Results====
====Explanation====

===Study Three===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the use of analogical patterns for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without analogical pattern identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive analogical patterns for the preterite and subjunctive and non-explicit cues for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
The dependent variables are response accuracy and response latency.

====Results====
This study will begin in a pilot form at Penn State in the Spring. The target student population includes 900 subjects.

====Explanation====

===Further Information===
===Connections to Other Studies===
===Annotated Bibliography===
===References===
===Future Plans===

Presson and MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar

2010-02-02T02:01:43Z

Macw: /* resonant cotraining */

Spanish Conjugation
==Summary Table==

==Abstract==
Adult second language learners often fail to acquire enough fluency in the new language to support smooth communicative interactions. The studies described here explore the hypothesis that robustness can be markedly improved through basic skill training based on three related pedagogical methods: graduated interval recall, resonant co-training, and cue focusing. This prediction will be tested in the context of in vivo and laboratory studies of online learning of Spanish verb conjugation.

==Background & Significance==
The central controversy in the study of second language acquisition is the status of the Critical Period Hypothesis. As formulated first by Penfield & Roberts (Penfield & Roberts, 1959) and then later by Lenneberg (1967), this hypothesis holds that, after some critical age, second languages (L2s) cannot be learned to full native-speaker competence. This critical period has been variously linked to age 2 for lexical learning (Weber-Fox & Neville, 1996) and perception (Kuhl, Conboy, Padden, Nelson, & Pruitt, 2005), age 6 for phonology (Flege, Yeni-Komshian, & Liu, 1999), age 13 for syntax (Johnson & Newport, 1989), or late adulthood for fossilization (MacWhinney, 2005). However, recent research (Hakuta, Bialystok, & Wiley, 2003; Wiley, Bialystok, & Hakuta, 2005) has cast doubt on many of these claims (MacWhinney, in press).

Despite these recent challenges, educators, academics, and the general public continue to believe in the reality of some Critical Period. What makes the notion of a Critical Period so compelling is that fact that adult second language learners often report problems acquiring a native accent in L2 and in using their L2 fluently. The approach to this issue that we have taken is to elaborate an extended version of the Competition Model (MacWhinney, in press) that accounts for age-related effects in second language learning through the mechanisms of entrenchment, transfer, and incomplete resonance. This new Unified Model makes strong predictions about the ways in which age-related effects can be overcome through effective teaching. In particular, the model holds that the problems that adults have in second language learning arise from the entrenched nature of the first language (L1), inadequate exposure to L2, and inappropriate teaching of L2. To correct these problems, teaching of adult learners needs to utilize these three methods:
1. Graduated interval recall,
2. Resonant cotraining, and
3. Cue focusing.
The claim is that L2 instruction that incorporates these three methods will lead to marked improvements in fluency and robustness of learning.

==Glossary==
===Graduated Interval Recall===
This approach to the learning of items (words, sounds, constructions) in a second language was first elaborated by Pimsleur (1967), although components of the idea can be found as far back as Ebbinghaus (1885). Recently, Pavlik et al. (in press) have formalized the parameters controlling this procedure mathematically in the context of the ACT-R model of cognition. The core idea here is most easily illustrated in the context of the learning of a list of new L2 vocabulary items (Nation, 2001). Immediately after a word is presented, learners are almost always able to recall it. However, if we let a minute pass by, the memory trace drops below threshold and retrieval success drops with it. What Pimsleur discovered was that, if we retest the item before the memory trace decays too much, recall will be successful. Once an item has been recalled successfully once, repeated recalls trials can be spaced further and further apart. The neuronal basis of this process has now been elaborated in terms of synaptic reentry reinforcement model of hippocampal functioning (Wittenberg, Sullivan, & Tsien, 2002). Pavlik (in press) has shown that optimization of the intervals required for recall can lead to a two-fold improvement in vocabulary learning. This experimental work is now being extended to the in vivo study of online learning of Chinese vocabulary (Pavlik et al., in press) and pinyin dictation (Zhang, MacWhinney, & Wu, in preparation) in the PSLC online and offline courses. It has also been applied to the learning of Spanish vocabulary through a simple online tutor. The method of graduated interval recall is also being applied to the learning of French gender (Presson, Pavlik, MacWhinney, & Jones, in preparation). Each of these three efforts (Chinese vocabulary, Chinese pinyin, French gender) relies on the same code base for optimization developed by Pavlik.

===Resonant Cotraining===
The second mechanism for adult second language learning highlighted in the Unified Competition Model is the mechanism of resonant co-training. This mechanism has parallels to issues discussed in the [[Coordinative Learning]] Cluster. The basic effect of resonance can be most easily understood by contrasting the learning of French and Chinese. In French, learners have immediate access to a method for encoding the sounds of the language through Roman characters, including a few special French diacritics. Because adults rely so heavily on phonemic recoding during reading (Booth, Perfetti, & MacWhinney, 1999), they can easily form a resonant loop between a new auditory form and its meaning and orthography. This cortical loop serves as a scaffold for the process of hippocampal consolidation discussed above (Wittenberg, Sullivan, & Tsien, 2002). In Chinese, learners cannot form this loop, because they do not yet know most of the Hanzi characters required for writing and reading Chinese. It is this lack of orthographic resonance that makes Asian character-based languages like Japanese and Chinese so challenging for learners with a background in Roman characters. To improve resonance during learning, our systems for vocabulary learning interweave trials using pinyin, meaning, auditory form, and characters. Initial results show a significant advantage for training that incorporates this type of resonance. The PSLC Chinese project organized by Liu, Perfetti, and colleagues further elaborates in the role of resonance and co-training in learning tones. Rather than replicating those studies here, we hope to build on their results as a part of an integrated approach to the design of instruction in Spanish, Chinese, and French.

===explicit cue focusing===

The third mechanism for adult second language learning highlighted in the Unified Competition Model is the mechanism of cue focusing. Cue focusing is currently at the center of work by Zhang and Wu on Chinese pinyin dictation and Presson and Jones on French gender learning. The Chinese tutor allows students direct access to minimal pairs that characterize the correct target form (with tones and letters) and the form they have entered. In this case, cue focusing is explicit on a perceptual level. The French tutor presents cues in a simple, declarative form (i.e. -ance indicates feminine). In terms of the debate regarding implicit and explicit learning, both forms of feedback represent explicit teaching. However, as MacWhinney (1997) argued, explicit teaching is only successful when the cues are extremely simple. Both of these tutors rely on this core principle.

===entrenchment===
In the theory of self-organizing maps (Kohonen, 1970), entrenchment arises in cortical areas as a result of the formation of connections between mutually active items. In PDP theory, these are members of "gangs" participating in "gang effects" or correlated activation (Rogers & McClelland, 2006). Li, Zhao, & MacWhinney (2007) show how entrenchment increases across epochs of training of a SOM during growth in the size of the lexicon. Once forms are entrenched, it is difficult to organize them in alternative ways. However, there are various computational frameworks that can account for the overlay of a secondary organizations on an entrenched L1 structure.

===transfer===
Whenever a learner can map a new L2 structure onto a previous L1 structure, analogical transfer is possible. This transfer can be either positive or negative. Positive transfer arises when L1 matches L2. Negative transfer arises when L1 only partially matches L2.

===social disincentives===
Infants and toddlers receive a wide range of incentives for language learning, including gaze reinforcement, echoing imitation, games, smiles, and positive verbal input. Across the lifespan, these features mostly decrease until adolescent and adult language learners are eventually faced with many disincentives for language learning, including failure to respond in L2, negative feedback, and avoidance of interactions.

==Research questions==
Adult second language learning, unlike first language acquisition, must deal with learning barriers produced by L1 (first language) entrenchment, transfer, and social disincentives. In order to overcome these barriers, adult learners can rely on specialized reconfigurations of learning methods used by children learning their first language. These supports include: (1) graduated interval recall, (2) resonant co-training, and (3) explicit cue focusing. Presence of only one or two of these supports will lead to good learning, but the best and most robust learning occurs when all three are operative. This means that the overall hypothesis cannot be evaluated by a single definitive experiment. Instead, a series of experiments must be run to evaluate various configurations of the components. Also, it is possible that the effects of these methods may vary across linguistic levels (phonology, orthography, reading, lexicon, syntax, pragmatics, fluency). However, evidence for the effects of any combination of these supports in achieving any level of robustness on any given level would still provide important clues regarding ways to enhance the overall robustness of second language learning. This information could also be useful in understanding robustness in other domains.
===Study One===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the use of explicit cue marking for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without explicit cue identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive explicit cues for the preterite and subjunctive and non-explicit cues for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
The dependent variables are response accuracy and response latency.

====Results====
This study will begin in a pilot form at Penn State in the Spring. The target student population includes 900 subjects.

====Explanation====

===Study Two===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the introduction of a graduated recall deadline for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without explicit cue identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive graduated deadlines for the preterite and subjunctive and no deadlines for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
====Results====
====Explanation====

===Study Three===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the use of analogical patterns for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without analogical pattern identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive analogical patterns for the preterite and subjunctive and non-explicit cues for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
The dependent variables are response accuracy and response latency.

====Results====
This study will begin in a pilot form at Penn State in the Spring. The target student population includes 900 subjects.

====Explanation====

===Further Information===
===Connections to Other Studies===
===Annotated Bibliography===
===References===
===Future Plans===

Presson and MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar

2010-02-02T01:58:39Z

Macw: /* graduated interval recall */

Spanish Conjugation
==Summary Table==

==Abstract==
Adult second language learners often fail to acquire enough fluency in the new language to support smooth communicative interactions. The studies described here explore the hypothesis that robustness can be markedly improved through basic skill training based on three related pedagogical methods: graduated interval recall, resonant co-training, and cue focusing. This prediction will be tested in the context of in vivo and laboratory studies of online learning of Spanish verb conjugation.

==Background & Significance==
The central controversy in the study of second language acquisition is the status of the Critical Period Hypothesis. As formulated first by Penfield & Roberts (Penfield & Roberts, 1959) and then later by Lenneberg (1967), this hypothesis holds that, after some critical age, second languages (L2s) cannot be learned to full native-speaker competence. This critical period has been variously linked to age 2 for lexical learning (Weber-Fox & Neville, 1996) and perception (Kuhl, Conboy, Padden, Nelson, & Pruitt, 2005), age 6 for phonology (Flege, Yeni-Komshian, & Liu, 1999), age 13 for syntax (Johnson & Newport, 1989), or late adulthood for fossilization (MacWhinney, 2005). However, recent research (Hakuta, Bialystok, & Wiley, 2003; Wiley, Bialystok, & Hakuta, 2005) has cast doubt on many of these claims (MacWhinney, in press).

Despite these recent challenges, educators, academics, and the general public continue to believe in the reality of some Critical Period. What makes the notion of a Critical Period so compelling is that fact that adult second language learners often report problems acquiring a native accent in L2 and in using their L2 fluently. The approach to this issue that we have taken is to elaborate an extended version of the Competition Model (MacWhinney, in press) that accounts for age-related effects in second language learning through the mechanisms of entrenchment, transfer, and incomplete resonance. This new Unified Model makes strong predictions about the ways in which age-related effects can be overcome through effective teaching. In particular, the model holds that the problems that adults have in second language learning arise from the entrenched nature of the first language (L1), inadequate exposure to L2, and inappropriate teaching of L2. To correct these problems, teaching of adult learners needs to utilize these three methods:
1. Graduated interval recall,
2. Resonant cotraining, and
3. Cue focusing.
The claim is that L2 instruction that incorporates these three methods will lead to marked improvements in fluency and robustness of learning.

==Glossary==
===Graduated Interval Recall===
This approach to the learning of items (words, sounds, constructions) in a second language was first elaborated by Pimsleur (1967), although components of the idea can be found as far back as Ebbinghaus (1885). Recently, Pavlik et al. (in press) have formalized the parameters controlling this procedure mathematically in the context of the ACT-R model of cognition. The core idea here is most easily illustrated in the context of the learning of a list of new L2 vocabulary items (Nation, 2001). Immediately after a word is presented, learners are almost always able to recall it. However, if we let a minute pass by, the memory trace drops below threshold and retrieval success drops with it. What Pimsleur discovered was that, if we retest the item before the memory trace decays too much, recall will be successful. Once an item has been recalled successfully once, repeated recalls trials can be spaced further and further apart. The neuronal basis of this process has now been elaborated in terms of synaptic reentry reinforcement model of hippocampal functioning (Wittenberg, Sullivan, & Tsien, 2002). Pavlik (in press) has shown that optimization of the intervals required for recall can lead to a two-fold improvement in vocabulary learning. This experimental work is now being extended to the in vivo study of online learning of Chinese vocabulary (Pavlik et al., in press) and pinyin dictation (Zhang, MacWhinney, & Wu, in preparation) in the PSLC online and offline courses. It has also been applied to the learning of Spanish vocabulary through a simple online tutor. The method of graduated interval recall is also being applied to the learning of French gender (Presson, Pavlik, MacWhinney, & Jones, in preparation). Each of these three efforts (Chinese vocabulary, Chinese pinyin, French gender) relies on the same code base for optimization developed by Pavlik.

===resonant cotraining===
The second mechanism for adult second language learning highlighted in the Unified Competition Model is the mechanism of resonant co-training. The basic effect of resonance can be most easily understood by contrasting the learning of French and Chinese. In French, learners have immediate access to a method for encoding the sounds of the language through Roman characters, including a few special French diacritics. Because adults rely so heavily on phonemic recoding during reading (Booth, Perfetti, & MacWhinney, 1999), they can easily form a resonant loop between a new auditory form and its meaning and orthography. This cortical loop serves as a scaffold for the process of hippocampal consolidation discussed above (Wittenberg, Sullivan, & Tsien, 2002). In Chinese, learners cannot form this loop, because they do not yet know most of the Hanzi characters required for writing and reading Chinese. It is this lack of orthographic resonance that makes Asian character-based languages like Japanese and Chinese so challenging for learners with a background in Roman characters. To improve resonance during learning, our systems for vocabulary learning interweave trials using pinyin, meaning, auditory form, and characters. Initial results show a significant advantage for training that incorporates this type of resonance. The PSLC Chinese project organized by Liu, Perfetti, and colleagues further elaborates in the role of resonance and co-training in learning tones. Rather than replicating those studies here, we hope to build on their results as a part of an integrated approach to the design of instruction in Spanish, Chinese, and French.

===explicit cue focusing===

The third mechanism for adult second language learning highlighted in the Unified Competition Model is the mechanism of cue focusing. Cue focusing is currently at the center of work by Zhang and Wu on Chinese pinyin dictation and Presson and Jones on French gender learning. The Chinese tutor allows students direct access to minimal pairs that characterize the correct target form (with tones and letters) and the form they have entered. In this case, cue focusing is explicit on a perceptual level. The French tutor presents cues in a simple, declarative form (i.e. -ance indicates feminine). In terms of the debate regarding implicit and explicit learning, both forms of feedback represent explicit teaching. However, as MacWhinney (1997) argued, explicit teaching is only successful when the cues are extremely simple. Both of these tutors rely on this core principle.

===entrenchment===
In the theory of self-organizing maps (Kohonen, 1970), entrenchment arises in cortical areas as a result of the formation of connections between mutually active items. In PDP theory, these are members of "gangs" participating in "gang effects" or correlated activation (Rogers & McClelland, 2006). Li, Zhao, & MacWhinney (2007) show how entrenchment increases across epochs of training of a SOM during growth in the size of the lexicon. Once forms are entrenched, it is difficult to organize them in alternative ways. However, there are various computational frameworks that can account for the overlay of a secondary organizations on an entrenched L1 structure.

===transfer===
Whenever a learner can map a new L2 structure onto a previous L1 structure, analogical transfer is possible. This transfer can be either positive or negative. Positive transfer arises when L1 matches L2. Negative transfer arises when L1 only partially matches L2.

===social disincentives===
Infants and toddlers receive a wide range of incentives for language learning, including gaze reinforcement, echoing imitation, games, smiles, and positive verbal input. Across the lifespan, these features mostly decrease until adolescent and adult language learners are eventually faced with many disincentives for language learning, including failure to respond in L2, negative feedback, and avoidance of interactions.

==Research questions==
Adult second language learning, unlike first language acquisition, must deal with learning barriers produced by L1 (first language) entrenchment, transfer, and social disincentives. In order to overcome these barriers, adult learners can rely on specialized reconfigurations of learning methods used by children learning their first language. These supports include: (1) graduated interval recall, (2) resonant co-training, and (3) explicit cue focusing. Presence of only one or two of these supports will lead to good learning, but the best and most robust learning occurs when all three are operative. This means that the overall hypothesis cannot be evaluated by a single definitive experiment. Instead, a series of experiments must be run to evaluate various configurations of the components. Also, it is possible that the effects of these methods may vary across linguistic levels (phonology, orthography, reading, lexicon, syntax, pragmatics, fluency). However, evidence for the effects of any combination of these supports in achieving any level of robustness on any given level would still provide important clues regarding ways to enhance the overall robustness of second language learning. This information could also be useful in understanding robustness in other domains.
===Study One===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the use of explicit cue marking for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without explicit cue identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive explicit cues for the preterite and subjunctive and non-explicit cues for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
The dependent variables are response accuracy and response latency.

====Results====
This study will begin in a pilot form at Penn State in the Spring. The target student population includes 900 subjects.

====Explanation====

===Study Two===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the introduction of a graduated recall deadline for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without explicit cue identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive graduated deadlines for the preterite and subjunctive and no deadlines for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
====Results====
====Explanation====

===Study Three===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the use of analogical patterns for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without analogical pattern identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive analogical patterns for the preterite and subjunctive and non-explicit cues for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
The dependent variables are response accuracy and response latency.

====Results====
This study will begin in a pilot form at Penn State in the Spring. The target student population includes 900 subjects.

====Explanation====

===Further Information===
===Connections to Other Studies===
===Annotated Bibliography===
===References===
===Future Plans===

Cognitive Factors

2010-02-02T01:57:11Z

Macw: /* Descendents */

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.

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]]
*[[MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar]]
*[[Davy & MacWhinney - Spanish Sentence Production]]
*[[Juffs - Feature Focus in Word Learning]]
*[[Fostering fluency in second language learning | de Jong - Fluency]]
*[[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]]

=== 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.

Cognitive Factors

2010-02-02T01:56:48Z

Macw: /* Descendents */

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.

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]]
*[[MacWhinney - Sentence Language Grammar]]
*[[Davy & MacWhinney - Spanish Sentence Production]]
*[[Juffs - Feature Focus in Word Learning]]
*[[Fostering fluency in second language learning | de Jong - Fluency]]
*[[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]]

=== 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.

Cognitive Factors

2010-02-02T01:55:58Z

Macw: /* Descendents */

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.

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, Sagarra, & MacWhinney - Spanish Verbs]]
*[[Davy & MacWhinney - Spanish Sentence Production]]
*[[Juffs - Feature Focus in Word Learning]]
*[[Fostering fluency in second language learning | de Jong - Fluency]]
*[[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]]

=== 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.

Cognitive Factors

2010-02-02T01:54:31Z

Macw: /* Descendents */

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.

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]]
*[[MacWhinney, Presson, Sagarra - Second Language Grammar]]
*[[MacWhinney - Spanish Conjugation]]
*[[Juffs - Feature Focus in Word Learning]]
*[[Fostering fluency in second language learning | de Jong - Fluency]]
*[[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]]

=== 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.

Refinement and Fluency

2010-02-02T01:50:48Z

Macw: /* Explicit instruction */

= The PSLC Refinement and Fluency cluster =

== Abstract ==
The studies in this cluster concern the design and organization of instructional activities to facilitate the acquisition, [[refinement]], and fluent control of critical [[knowledge components]]. The research of the cluster addresses a series of core propositions, including but not limited to the following.

1. cognitive task analysis or knowledge component analysis: Complex knowledge consists of smaller components that can be identified through analysis of knowledge-based task performance and tested in experiments. To design effective instruction, learning tasks are anlayzed into simpler task components.

2. fluency from basics: For true fluency, higher level skills must be grounded on well-practiced lower level skills.

3. scheduling of practice: [[Optimized scheduling]] of [[practice]] uses principles of memory to maximize robust learning and achieve mastery.

4. [[explicit instruction]]: Explicit instruction, i.e. instruction that either directly asserts information ("facts") or provides rules, facilitates the acquisition and refinement of specific skills. Rules are effective only when they are relatively simple.

5. [[implicit instruction]]: Implicit instruction, i.e. exposure to to-be-learned patterns, can foster the development of pattern familiarity and strengthen connections of these patterns to other patterns.

6. immediacy of feedback: A corollary of the scheduling and explicit instruction propositions is that immediate feedback facilitates learning.

7. [[cue validity]]: In both explicit and implicit instruction, the validity of a cue for a knowledge component affects the learning of that knowledge component. (Cue validity is related to [[feature validity]].)

8. [[focusing]]: Instruction that directs (focuses) the learner's attention to valid cues leads to more robust learning than unfocused instruction or instruction that focuses on less valid cues.

9. learning to learn: The acquisition of skills and strategies that can generalize across learning tasks can promote new learning. Examples may be deep analysis, help-seeking, use of advance organizers, and, most generally, meta-cognitive strategies.

10. [[transfer]]: A learner's earlier knowledge places strong constraints on new learning, promoting some forms of learning, while inhibiting others.

The overall hypothesis is that instruction that systematically reflects the complex [[features]] of targeted knowledge in relation to the learner’s existing knowledge leads to more robust learning than instruction that does not. The principle is that the gap between targeted knowledge and existing knowledge needs to be directly reflected in the organization of instructional events. This organization includes the structure of knowledge components selected for instruction, the scheduling of learning events, practice, recall opportunities, explicit and implicit presentations, and other activities.

This hypothesis can be rephrased in terms of the PSLC general hypothesis, which is that [[robust learning]] occurs when the [[learning event space]] is designed to include appropriate target paths, and when students are encouraged to take those paths. The studies in this cluster focus on the formulation of well specified target paths with highly predictable learning outcomes.

<br><center>[[Image:Rf.JPG]]</center>

==Significance==
A core theme in this cluster is that instruction in basic skills can facilitate the acquisition and refinement of knowledge and prepare the learner for [[fluency]]-enhancing practice. Instruction that provides practice and feedback for basic skills on a schedule that closely matches observed student abilities is important for this goal, and can be effectively delivered by computer. In the area of second language learning, the strengths of computerized instruction are matched by certain weaknesses. In particular, computerized tutors are not yet good at speech recognition, making it difficult to assess student production. Moreover, contact with a human teacher can increase the breadth of language usage, as well as motivation. Therefore, an optimal environment for language learning would combine the strengths of computerized instruction with those of classroom instruction. It is possible that a similar analysis will apply to science and math.

== Glossary ==
[[:Category:Refinement and Fluency|Refinement and Fluency]] glossary.

== Research question ==
The overall research question is how can instruction optimally support the acquisition, refinement, and fluent use of complex targeted knowledge, taking into account the learner’s existing knowledge in relation to the knowledge demands of the target domain? In examining this general question, the studies focus on features of the learning situation, including the following: the cognitive demands of targeted knowledge components, the scheduling of practice, the timing and extent of explicit [[instructional method|instructional events]] relative to implicit learning opportunities, and the role of feedback.

== Independent variables ==
At a general level, the research varies the organization of instructional events. This organization variable is typically based on alternative analyses of task demands, relevant knowledge components, and learner background.

== Dependent variables ==
The dependent variables in these studies assess learner performance during learning events and following learning. Typical measures are percentage correct and number of learning trials or time to reach a given standard of performance. Response times are also measured in some cases.

== Hypotheses ==
Instruction that systematically reflects the complex features of targeted knowledge in relation to the learner’s existing knowledge leads to more robust learning than instruction that does not. More specifically, the initial acquisition of knowledge and its refinement benefit from instructional activities that require the learner to attend to and encode [[valid features]] of the learning content. The fluency corollary: Fluency builds on the knowledge components acquired and refined in learning, strengthening and integrating these components through practice.

Specific hypotheses about the organization of instruction derive from task analyzes of specific domain knowledge and the existing knowledge of the learner. A background assumption for most studies is that fluency is grounded in well-practiced lower level skills. A few examples of specific hypotheses are as follows:

1. Scheduling of practice hypothesis: The optimal scheduling of practice uses principles of memory consolidation to maximize robust learning and achieve mastery.

2. Resonance hypothesis: The acquisition of knowledge components can be facilitated by evoking associations between divergent coding systems. (This hypothesis is similar or perhaps the same as [[Coordinative Learning]] hypothesis or [[co-training]] more specifically whereby "divergent coding systems" here may be the same as "multiple input sources" in co-training.)

3. [[Explicit instruction]] hypothesis: Explicit rule-based instruction facilitates the acquisition of specific skills, but only if the rules are simple.

4. [[Implicit instruction]] hypothesis: Implicit instruction or exposure serves to foster the development of initial familiarity with larger patterns.

5. Feedback hypothesis: Instruction that provides immediate, diagnostic feedback will be superior to instruction that does not.

6. Cue validity hypothesis: In both explicit and implicit instruction, cue validity plays a central role in determining ease of learning of knowledge components. See also [[feature validity]].

7. [[Focusing]] hypothesis: Instruction that focuses the learner's attention on valid cues will lead to more robust learning than unfocused instruction or instruction that focuses on less valid cues.

8. Learning to learn hypothesis: The acquisition of certain skills in one context support future learning in other contexts. Such skills include problem analysis, help-seeking, or advance organizers.

9. Learner knowledge hypothesis: A learner's existing knowledge places strong constraints on new learning, promoting some forms of learning, while blocking others.

10. Active learning hypothesis: Even in simple tasks, learning is more robust when the learner actively engages in the learning material.

== Explanation ==
All knowledge involves content and procedures that are specific to a domain. An analysis of the domain reveals the complexities that a learner of a given background will face and the knowledge components that are part of the overall complexity. Accordingly, the organization of instruction is critical in allowing the learner to attend to the critical valid features of knowledge components and to integrated them in authentic performance. Acquiring valid features and strengthening their associations facilitates retrieval during subsequent assessment and instruction, leading to more robust learning. Additionally, robust learning is increased by the scheduling of learning events that promotes the [[long-term retention]] of the associations.

== Descendents ==

=== Explicit instruction ===
'''A. Explicit vs Implicit.''' These projects typically compare a more explicit form of instruction with a more implicit form
* [[Learning the role of radicals in reading Chinese]] (Liu et al.)
* [[Basic skills training|French dictation training]] (MacWhinney)
* [[Providing optimal support for robust learning of syntactic constructions in ESL]] (Levin, Frishkoff, De Jong, Pavlik)
* [[Extending the Self-Explanation Effect to Second Language Grammar Learning]] (Wylie, Koedinger, Mitamura)

'''B. Explicit attention manipulations''' studies typically vary features available to learner
* [[Chinese pinyin dictation]] (Zhang-MacWhinney)
* [[Learning a tonal language: Chinese]] (Wang, Perfetti, Liu) [Also Coordinative learning]
* [[French gender cues | French grammatical gender cue learning]] (Presson, MacWhinney)
** [[Learning French gender cues with prototypes | Instruction of French gender cues]] (Presson, MacWhinney)
**[[French gender prototypes | Lab study of grammar learning contrasting explicit and implicit instruction and prototype usage]] (Presson, MacWhinney)
**[[French gender attention | Lab study of effects of time pressure and explicitness on gender learning]] (Presson, MacWhinney)

'''C. Explicit instruction: Practice and Scheduling''' Typical studies control practice events and provide feedback
* [[Optimizing the practice schedule]] (Pavlik et al.) [[Applying optimal scheduling of practice in the Chinese Learnlab|1]]
* [[Japanese fluency]] (Yoshimura-MacWhinney)
* [[Fostering fluency in second language learning]] (De Jong, Halderman, Perfetti)
* [[Using learning curves to optimize problem assignment]] (Cen & Koedinger)
* [[Learning ESL Vocabulary with Context and Definitions: Order Effects and Self-Generation]] (Balass, Nelson, Perfetti)

=== Knowledge accessibility ===
'''A. Background knowledge''' These projects directly study effects of learners' background knowledge
* [[Intelligent_Writing_Tutor | First language effects on second language grammar acquisition]] (Mitamura, Wylie)
* [[Assistance_Dilemma_English_Articles | The Assistance Dilemma and the English Article System]] (Wylie, Mitamura, Koedinger)
* [[The_Help_Tutor__Roll_Aleven_McLaren|Tutoring a meta-cognitive skill: Help-seeking (Roll, Aleven & McLaren)]] [Also in Interactive Communication]
* [[The Impact of Native Writing Systems on 2nd Language Reading]] (Einikis, Ben-Yehudah, Fiez)

'''B. Availability of knowledge during learning'''
* [[Optimizing the practice schedule]] (Pavlik et al.) [[Understanding paired associate transfer effects based on shared stimulus components|2]], [[Applying optimal scheduling of practice in the Chinese Learnlab|1]], [[Understanding encoding inhibition, retrieval inhibition and destructive interference effects of errors during practice|3]]
* [[Using syntactic priming to increase robust learning]] (De Jong, Perfetti, DeKeyser)
* [[Composition_Effect__Kao_Roll|What is difficult about composite problems? (Kao, Roll)]]
* [[Arithmetical fluency project]] (Fiez)
* [[A word-experience model of Chinese character learning]] (Reichle, Perfetti, & Liu)
* [[Integrated Learning of Chinese]] (Liu, Perfetti, Wang, Wu)
* [[Integration of reading, writing and typing in learning Chinese words]] (Liu, Perfetti, Guan, Wu, Wang)

=== Active processing ===
These projects also include some addressing issues of learner control
* [[Mental rotations during vocabulary training]] (Tokowicz-Degani)
*[[Note-Taking_Technologies | Note-taking Project Page (Bauer & Koedinger)]] [Also in Coordinative Learning]
**[[Note-Taking: Restriction and Selection]] (completed)
**[[Note-Taking: Focusing On Concepts]] (planned)
**[[Note-Taking: Focusing On Quantity]] (planned)
*[[Handwriting Algebra Tutor]] (Anthony, Yang & Koedinger) [Also in Coordinative Learning]
**[[Lab study proof-of-concept for handwriting vs typing input for learning algebra equation-solving]] (completed)
**[[In vivo comparison of Cognitive Tutor Algebra using handwriting vs typing input]] (in progress)

===Other===

* [[Development of a Novel Writing System]] (Greene, Durisko, Ciuca, Fiez)

== Annotated bibliography ==
Forthcoming

[[Category:Cluster]]

Presson and MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar

2009-12-04T22:29:01Z

Macw: /* Research questions */

Spanish Conjugation
==Summary Table==

==Abstract==
Adult second language learners often fail to acquire enough fluency in the new language to support smooth communicative interactions. The studies described here explore the hypothesis that robustness can be markedly improved through basic skill training based on three related pedagogical methods: graduated interval recall, resonant co-training, and cue focusing. This prediction will be tested in the context of in vivo and laboratory studies of online learning of Spanish verb conjugation.

==Background & Significance==
The central controversy in the study of second language acquisition is the status of the Critical Period Hypothesis. As formulated first by Penfield & Roberts (Penfield & Roberts, 1959) and then later by Lenneberg (1967), this hypothesis holds that, after some critical age, second languages (L2s) cannot be learned to full native-speaker competence. This critical period has been variously linked to age 2 for lexical learning (Weber-Fox & Neville, 1996) and perception (Kuhl, Conboy, Padden, Nelson, & Pruitt, 2005), age 6 for phonology (Flege, Yeni-Komshian, & Liu, 1999), age 13 for syntax (Johnson & Newport, 1989), or late adulthood for fossilization (MacWhinney, 2005). However, recent research (Hakuta, Bialystok, & Wiley, 2003; Wiley, Bialystok, & Hakuta, 2005) has cast doubt on many of these claims (MacWhinney, in press).

Despite these recent challenges, educators, academics, and the general public continue to believe in the reality of some Critical Period. What makes the notion of a Critical Period so compelling is that fact that adult second language learners often report problems acquiring a native accent in L2 and in using their L2 fluently. The approach to this issue that we have taken is to elaborate an extended version of the Competition Model (MacWhinney, in press) that accounts for age-related effects in second language learning through the mechanisms of entrenchment, transfer, and incomplete resonance. This new Unified Model makes strong predictions about the ways in which age-related effects can be overcome through effective teaching. In particular, the model holds that the problems that adults have in second language learning arise from the entrenched nature of the first language (L1), inadequate exposure to L2, and inappropriate teaching of L2. To correct these problems, teaching of adult learners needs to utilize these three methods:
1. Graduated interval recall,
2. Resonant cotraining, and
3. Cue focusing.
The claim is that L2 instruction that incorporates these three methods will lead to marked improvements in fluency and robustness of learning.

==Glossary==
===graduated interval recall===
This approach to the learning of items (words, sounds, constructions) in a second language was first elaborated by Pimsleur (1967), although components of the idea can be found as far back as Ebbinghaus (1885). Recently, Pavlik et al. (in press) have formalized the parameters controlling this procedure mathematically in the context of the ACT-R model of cognition. The core idea here is most easily illustrated in the context of the learning of a list of new L2 vocabulary items (Nation, 2001). Immediately after a word is presented, learners are almost always able to recall it. However, if we let a minute pass by, the memory trace drops below threshold and retrieval success drops with it. What Pimsleur discovered was that, if we retest the item before the memory trace decays too much, recall will be successful. Once an item has been recalled successfully once, repeated recalls trials can be spaced further and further apart. The neuronal basis of this process has now been elaborated in terms of synaptic reentry reinforcement model of hippocampal functioning (Wittenberg, Sullivan, & Tsien, 2002). Pavlik (in press) has shown that optimization of the intervals required for recall can lead to a two-fold improvement in vocabulary learning. This experimental work is now being extended to the in vivo study of online learning of Chinese vocabulary (Pavlik et al., in press) and pinyin dictation (Zhang, MacWhinney, & Wu, in preparation) in the PSLC online and offline courses. It has also been applied to the learning of Spanish vocabulary through a simple online tutor. The method of graduated interval recall is also being applied to the learning of French gender (Presson, Pavlik, MacWhinney, & Jones, in preparation). Each of these three efforts (Chinese vocabulary, Chinese pinyin, French gender) relies on the same code base for optimization developed by Pavlik.

===resonant cotraining===
The second mechanism for adult second language learning highlighted in the Unified Competition Model is the mechanism of resonant co-training. The basic effect of resonance can be most easily understood by contrasting the learning of French and Chinese. In French, learners have immediate access to a method for encoding the sounds of the language through Roman characters, including a few special French diacritics. Because adults rely so heavily on phonemic recoding during reading (Booth, Perfetti, & MacWhinney, 1999), they can easily form a resonant loop between a new auditory form and its meaning and orthography. This cortical loop serves as a scaffold for the process of hippocampal consolidation discussed above (Wittenberg, Sullivan, & Tsien, 2002). In Chinese, learners cannot form this loop, because they do not yet know most of the Hanzi characters required for writing and reading Chinese. It is this lack of orthographic resonance that makes Asian character-based languages like Japanese and Chinese so challenging for learners with a background in Roman characters. To improve resonance during learning, our systems for vocabulary learning interweave trials using pinyin, meaning, auditory form, and characters. Initial results show a significant advantage for training that incorporates this type of resonance. The PSLC Chinese project organized by Liu, Perfetti, and colleagues further elaborates in the role of resonance and co-training in learning tones. Rather than replicating those studies here, we hope to build on their results as a part of an integrated approach to the design of instruction in Spanish, Chinese, and French.

===explicit cue focusing===

The third mechanism for adult second language learning highlighted in the Unified Competition Model is the mechanism of cue focusing. Cue focusing is currently at the center of work by Zhang and Wu on Chinese pinyin dictation and Presson and Jones on French gender learning. The Chinese tutor allows students direct access to minimal pairs that characterize the correct target form (with tones and letters) and the form they have entered. In this case, cue focusing is explicit on a perceptual level. The French tutor presents cues in a simple, declarative form (i.e. -ance indicates feminine). In terms of the debate regarding implicit and explicit learning, both forms of feedback represent explicit teaching. However, as MacWhinney (1997) argued, explicit teaching is only successful when the cues are extremely simple. Both of these tutors rely on this core principle.

===entrenchment===
In the theory of self-organizing maps (Kohonen, 1970), entrenchment arises in cortical areas as a result of the formation of connections between mutually active items. In PDP theory, these are members of "gangs" participating in "gang effects" or correlated activation (Rogers & McClelland, 2006). Li, Zhao, & MacWhinney (2007) show how entrenchment increases across epochs of training of a SOM during growth in the size of the lexicon. Once forms are entrenched, it is difficult to organize them in alternative ways. However, there are various computational frameworks that can account for the overlay of a secondary organizations on an entrenched L1 structure.

===transfer===
Whenever a learner can map a new L2 structure onto a previous L1 structure, analogical transfer is possible. This transfer can be either positive or negative. Positive transfer arises when L1 matches L2. Negative transfer arises when L1 only partially matches L2.

===social disincentives===
Infants and toddlers receive a wide range of incentives for language learning, including gaze reinforcement, echoing imitation, games, smiles, and positive verbal input. Across the lifespan, these features mostly decrease until adolescent and adult language learners are eventually faced with many disincentives for language learning, including failure to respond in L2, negative feedback, and avoidance of interactions.

==Research questions==
Adult second language learning, unlike first language acquisition, must deal with learning barriers produced by L1 (first language) entrenchment, transfer, and social disincentives. In order to overcome these barriers, adult learners can rely on specialized reconfigurations of learning methods used by children learning their first language. These supports include: (1) graduated interval recall, (2) resonant co-training, and (3) explicit cue focusing. Presence of only one or two of these supports will lead to good learning, but the best and most robust learning occurs when all three are operative. This means that the overall hypothesis cannot be evaluated by a single definitive experiment. Instead, a series of experiments must be run to evaluate various configurations of the components. Also, it is possible that the effects of these methods may vary across linguistic levels (phonology, orthography, reading, lexicon, syntax, pragmatics, fluency). However, evidence for the effects of any combination of these supports in achieving any level of robustness on any given level would still provide important clues regarding ways to enhance the overall robustness of second language learning. This information could also be useful in understanding robustness in other domains.
===Study One===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the use of explicit cue marking for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without explicit cue identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive explicit cues for the preterite and subjunctive and non-explicit cues for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
The dependent variables are response accuracy and response latency.

====Results====
This study will begin in a pilot form at Penn State in the Spring. The target student population includes 900 subjects.

====Explanation====

===Study Two===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the introduction of a graduated recall deadline for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without explicit cue identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive graduated deadlines for the preterite and subjunctive and no deadlines for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
====Results====
====Explanation====

===Study Three===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the use of analogical patterns for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without analogical pattern identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive analogical patterns for the preterite and subjunctive and non-explicit cues for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
The dependent variables are response accuracy and response latency.

====Results====
This study will begin in a pilot form at Penn State in the Spring. The target student population includes 900 subjects.

====Explanation====

===Further Information===
===Connections to Other Studies===
===Annotated Bibliography===
===References===
===Future Plans===

Presson and MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar

2009-12-04T22:27:12Z

Macw: /* social disincentives */

Spanish Conjugation
==Summary Table==

==Abstract==
Adult second language learners often fail to acquire enough fluency in the new language to support smooth communicative interactions. The studies described here explore the hypothesis that robustness can be markedly improved through basic skill training based on three related pedagogical methods: graduated interval recall, resonant co-training, and cue focusing. This prediction will be tested in the context of in vivo and laboratory studies of online learning of Spanish verb conjugation.

==Background & Significance==
The central controversy in the study of second language acquisition is the status of the Critical Period Hypothesis. As formulated first by Penfield & Roberts (Penfield & Roberts, 1959) and then later by Lenneberg (1967), this hypothesis holds that, after some critical age, second languages (L2s) cannot be learned to full native-speaker competence. This critical period has been variously linked to age 2 for lexical learning (Weber-Fox & Neville, 1996) and perception (Kuhl, Conboy, Padden, Nelson, & Pruitt, 2005), age 6 for phonology (Flege, Yeni-Komshian, & Liu, 1999), age 13 for syntax (Johnson & Newport, 1989), or late adulthood for fossilization (MacWhinney, 2005). However, recent research (Hakuta, Bialystok, & Wiley, 2003; Wiley, Bialystok, & Hakuta, 2005) has cast doubt on many of these claims (MacWhinney, in press).

Despite these recent challenges, educators, academics, and the general public continue to believe in the reality of some Critical Period. What makes the notion of a Critical Period so compelling is that fact that adult second language learners often report problems acquiring a native accent in L2 and in using their L2 fluently. The approach to this issue that we have taken is to elaborate an extended version of the Competition Model (MacWhinney, in press) that accounts for age-related effects in second language learning through the mechanisms of entrenchment, transfer, and incomplete resonance. This new Unified Model makes strong predictions about the ways in which age-related effects can be overcome through effective teaching. In particular, the model holds that the problems that adults have in second language learning arise from the entrenched nature of the first language (L1), inadequate exposure to L2, and inappropriate teaching of L2. To correct these problems, teaching of adult learners needs to utilize these three methods:
1. Graduated interval recall,
2. Resonant cotraining, and
3. Cue focusing.
The claim is that L2 instruction that incorporates these three methods will lead to marked improvements in fluency and robustness of learning.

==Glossary==
===graduated interval recall===
This approach to the learning of items (words, sounds, constructions) in a second language was first elaborated by Pimsleur (1967), although components of the idea can be found as far back as Ebbinghaus (1885). Recently, Pavlik et al. (in press) have formalized the parameters controlling this procedure mathematically in the context of the ACT-R model of cognition. The core idea here is most easily illustrated in the context of the learning of a list of new L2 vocabulary items (Nation, 2001). Immediately after a word is presented, learners are almost always able to recall it. However, if we let a minute pass by, the memory trace drops below threshold and retrieval success drops with it. What Pimsleur discovered was that, if we retest the item before the memory trace decays too much, recall will be successful. Once an item has been recalled successfully once, repeated recalls trials can be spaced further and further apart. The neuronal basis of this process has now been elaborated in terms of synaptic reentry reinforcement model of hippocampal functioning (Wittenberg, Sullivan, & Tsien, 2002). Pavlik (in press) has shown that optimization of the intervals required for recall can lead to a two-fold improvement in vocabulary learning. This experimental work is now being extended to the in vivo study of online learning of Chinese vocabulary (Pavlik et al., in press) and pinyin dictation (Zhang, MacWhinney, & Wu, in preparation) in the PSLC online and offline courses. It has also been applied to the learning of Spanish vocabulary through a simple online tutor. The method of graduated interval recall is also being applied to the learning of French gender (Presson, Pavlik, MacWhinney, & Jones, in preparation). Each of these three efforts (Chinese vocabulary, Chinese pinyin, French gender) relies on the same code base for optimization developed by Pavlik.

===resonant cotraining===
The second mechanism for adult second language learning highlighted in the Unified Competition Model is the mechanism of resonant co-training. The basic effect of resonance can be most easily understood by contrasting the learning of French and Chinese. In French, learners have immediate access to a method for encoding the sounds of the language through Roman characters, including a few special French diacritics. Because adults rely so heavily on phonemic recoding during reading (Booth, Perfetti, & MacWhinney, 1999), they can easily form a resonant loop between a new auditory form and its meaning and orthography. This cortical loop serves as a scaffold for the process of hippocampal consolidation discussed above (Wittenberg, Sullivan, & Tsien, 2002). In Chinese, learners cannot form this loop, because they do not yet know most of the Hanzi characters required for writing and reading Chinese. It is this lack of orthographic resonance that makes Asian character-based languages like Japanese and Chinese so challenging for learners with a background in Roman characters. To improve resonance during learning, our systems for vocabulary learning interweave trials using pinyin, meaning, auditory form, and characters. Initial results show a significant advantage for training that incorporates this type of resonance. The PSLC Chinese project organized by Liu, Perfetti, and colleagues further elaborates in the role of resonance and co-training in learning tones. Rather than replicating those studies here, we hope to build on their results as a part of an integrated approach to the design of instruction in Spanish, Chinese, and French.

===explicit cue focusing===

The third mechanism for adult second language learning highlighted in the Unified Competition Model is the mechanism of cue focusing. Cue focusing is currently at the center of work by Zhang and Wu on Chinese pinyin dictation and Presson and Jones on French gender learning. The Chinese tutor allows students direct access to minimal pairs that characterize the correct target form (with tones and letters) and the form they have entered. In this case, cue focusing is explicit on a perceptual level. The French tutor presents cues in a simple, declarative form (i.e. -ance indicates feminine). In terms of the debate regarding implicit and explicit learning, both forms of feedback represent explicit teaching. However, as MacWhinney (1997) argued, explicit teaching is only successful when the cues are extremely simple. Both of these tutors rely on this core principle.

===entrenchment===
In the theory of self-organizing maps (Kohonen, 1970), entrenchment arises in cortical areas as a result of the formation of connections between mutually active items. In PDP theory, these are members of "gangs" participating in "gang effects" or correlated activation (Rogers & McClelland, 2006). Li, Zhao, & MacWhinney (2007) show how entrenchment increases across epochs of training of a SOM during growth in the size of the lexicon. Once forms are entrenched, it is difficult to organize them in alternative ways. However, there are various computational frameworks that can account for the overlay of a secondary organizations on an entrenched L1 structure.

===transfer===
Whenever a learner can map a new L2 structure onto a previous L1 structure, analogical transfer is possible. This transfer can be either positive or negative. Positive transfer arises when L1 matches L2. Negative transfer arises when L1 only partially matches L2.

===social disincentives===
Infants and toddlers receive a wide range of incentives for language learning, including gaze reinforcement, echoing imitation, games, smiles, and positive verbal input. Across the lifespan, these features mostly decrease until adolescent and adult language learners are eventually faced with many disincentives for language learning, including failure to respond in L2, negative feedback, and avoidance of interactions.

==Research questions==
Adult second language learning, unlike first language acquisition, must deal with learning barriers produced by L1 (first language) entrenchment, transfer, and social disincentives. In order to overcome these barriers, adult learners can rely on specialized reconfigurations of learning methods used by children learning their first language. These supports include: (1) graduated interval recall, (2) resonant co-training, and (3) explicit cue focusing. Presence of only one or two of these supports will lead to good learning, but the best and most robust learning occurs when all three are operative. This means that the overall hypothesis cannot be evaluated by a single definitive experiment. Instead, a series of experiments must be run to evaluate various configurations of the components. Also, it is possible that the effects of these methods may vary across linguistic levels (phonology, orthography, reading, lexicon, syntax, pragmatics, fluency). However, evidence for the effects of any combination of these supports in achieving any level of robustness on any given level would still provide important clues regarding ways to enhance the overall robustness of second language learning. This information could also be useful in understanding robustness in other domains.
===Study One===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the use of explicit cue marking for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without explicit cue identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive explicit cues for the preterite and subjunctive and non-explicit cues for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
The dependent variables are response accuracy and response latency.

====Results====
This study will begin in a pilot form at Penn State in the Spring. The target student population includes 900 subjects.

====Explanation====

===Study Two===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the introduction of a graduated recall deadline for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without explicit cue identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive graduated deadlines for the preterite and subjunctive and no deadlines for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
====Results====
====Explanation====

===Further Information===
===Connections to Other Studies===
===Annotated Bibliography===
===References===
===Future Plans===

Presson and MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar

2009-12-04T22:24:42Z

Macw: /* transfer */

Spanish Conjugation
==Summary Table==

==Abstract==
Adult second language learners often fail to acquire enough fluency in the new language to support smooth communicative interactions. The studies described here explore the hypothesis that robustness can be markedly improved through basic skill training based on three related pedagogical methods: graduated interval recall, resonant co-training, and cue focusing. This prediction will be tested in the context of in vivo and laboratory studies of online learning of Spanish verb conjugation.

==Background & Significance==
The central controversy in the study of second language acquisition is the status of the Critical Period Hypothesis. As formulated first by Penfield & Roberts (Penfield & Roberts, 1959) and then later by Lenneberg (1967), this hypothesis holds that, after some critical age, second languages (L2s) cannot be learned to full native-speaker competence. This critical period has been variously linked to age 2 for lexical learning (Weber-Fox & Neville, 1996) and perception (Kuhl, Conboy, Padden, Nelson, & Pruitt, 2005), age 6 for phonology (Flege, Yeni-Komshian, & Liu, 1999), age 13 for syntax (Johnson & Newport, 1989), or late adulthood for fossilization (MacWhinney, 2005). However, recent research (Hakuta, Bialystok, & Wiley, 2003; Wiley, Bialystok, & Hakuta, 2005) has cast doubt on many of these claims (MacWhinney, in press).

Despite these recent challenges, educators, academics, and the general public continue to believe in the reality of some Critical Period. What makes the notion of a Critical Period so compelling is that fact that adult second language learners often report problems acquiring a native accent in L2 and in using their L2 fluently. The approach to this issue that we have taken is to elaborate an extended version of the Competition Model (MacWhinney, in press) that accounts for age-related effects in second language learning through the mechanisms of entrenchment, transfer, and incomplete resonance. This new Unified Model makes strong predictions about the ways in which age-related effects can be overcome through effective teaching. In particular, the model holds that the problems that adults have in second language learning arise from the entrenched nature of the first language (L1), inadequate exposure to L2, and inappropriate teaching of L2. To correct these problems, teaching of adult learners needs to utilize these three methods:
1. Graduated interval recall,
2. Resonant cotraining, and
3. Cue focusing.
The claim is that L2 instruction that incorporates these three methods will lead to marked improvements in fluency and robustness of learning.

==Glossary==
===graduated interval recall===
This approach to the learning of items (words, sounds, constructions) in a second language was first elaborated by Pimsleur (1967), although components of the idea can be found as far back as Ebbinghaus (1885). Recently, Pavlik et al. (in press) have formalized the parameters controlling this procedure mathematically in the context of the ACT-R model of cognition. The core idea here is most easily illustrated in the context of the learning of a list of new L2 vocabulary items (Nation, 2001). Immediately after a word is presented, learners are almost always able to recall it. However, if we let a minute pass by, the memory trace drops below threshold and retrieval success drops with it. What Pimsleur discovered was that, if we retest the item before the memory trace decays too much, recall will be successful. Once an item has been recalled successfully once, repeated recalls trials can be spaced further and further apart. The neuronal basis of this process has now been elaborated in terms of synaptic reentry reinforcement model of hippocampal functioning (Wittenberg, Sullivan, & Tsien, 2002). Pavlik (in press) has shown that optimization of the intervals required for recall can lead to a two-fold improvement in vocabulary learning. This experimental work is now being extended to the in vivo study of online learning of Chinese vocabulary (Pavlik et al., in press) and pinyin dictation (Zhang, MacWhinney, & Wu, in preparation) in the PSLC online and offline courses. It has also been applied to the learning of Spanish vocabulary through a simple online tutor. The method of graduated interval recall is also being applied to the learning of French gender (Presson, Pavlik, MacWhinney, & Jones, in preparation). Each of these three efforts (Chinese vocabulary, Chinese pinyin, French gender) relies on the same code base for optimization developed by Pavlik.

===resonant cotraining===
The second mechanism for adult second language learning highlighted in the Unified Competition Model is the mechanism of resonant co-training. The basic effect of resonance can be most easily understood by contrasting the learning of French and Chinese. In French, learners have immediate access to a method for encoding the sounds of the language through Roman characters, including a few special French diacritics. Because adults rely so heavily on phonemic recoding during reading (Booth, Perfetti, & MacWhinney, 1999), they can easily form a resonant loop between a new auditory form and its meaning and orthography. This cortical loop serves as a scaffold for the process of hippocampal consolidation discussed above (Wittenberg, Sullivan, & Tsien, 2002). In Chinese, learners cannot form this loop, because they do not yet know most of the Hanzi characters required for writing and reading Chinese. It is this lack of orthographic resonance that makes Asian character-based languages like Japanese and Chinese so challenging for learners with a background in Roman characters. To improve resonance during learning, our systems for vocabulary learning interweave trials using pinyin, meaning, auditory form, and characters. Initial results show a significant advantage for training that incorporates this type of resonance. The PSLC Chinese project organized by Liu, Perfetti, and colleagues further elaborates in the role of resonance and co-training in learning tones. Rather than replicating those studies here, we hope to build on their results as a part of an integrated approach to the design of instruction in Spanish, Chinese, and French.

===explicit cue focusing===

The third mechanism for adult second language learning highlighted in the Unified Competition Model is the mechanism of cue focusing. Cue focusing is currently at the center of work by Zhang and Wu on Chinese pinyin dictation and Presson and Jones on French gender learning. The Chinese tutor allows students direct access to minimal pairs that characterize the correct target form (with tones and letters) and the form they have entered. In this case, cue focusing is explicit on a perceptual level. The French tutor presents cues in a simple, declarative form (i.e. -ance indicates feminine). In terms of the debate regarding implicit and explicit learning, both forms of feedback represent explicit teaching. However, as MacWhinney (1997) argued, explicit teaching is only successful when the cues are extremely simple. Both of these tutors rely on this core principle.

===entrenchment===
In the theory of self-organizing maps (Kohonen, 1970), entrenchment arises in cortical areas as a result of the formation of connections between mutually active items. In PDP theory, these are members of "gangs" participating in "gang effects" or correlated activation (Rogers & McClelland, 2006). Li, Zhao, & MacWhinney (2007) show how entrenchment increases across epochs of training of a SOM during growth in the size of the lexicon. Once forms are entrenched, it is difficult to organize them in alternative ways. However, there are various computational frameworks that can account for the overlay of a secondary organizations on an entrenched L1 structure.

===transfer===
Whenever a learner can map a new L2 structure onto a previous L1 structure, analogical transfer is possible. This transfer can be either positive or negative. Positive transfer arises when L1 matches L2. Negative transfer arises when L1 only partially matches L2.

===social disincentives===

==Research questions==
Adult second language learning, unlike first language acquisition, must deal with learning barriers produced by L1 (first language) entrenchment, transfer, and social disincentives. In order to overcome these barriers, adult learners can rely on specialized reconfigurations of learning methods used by children learning their first language. These supports include: (1) graduated interval recall, (2) resonant co-training, and (3) explicit cue focusing. Presence of only one or two of these supports will lead to good learning, but the best and most robust learning occurs when all three are operative. This means that the overall hypothesis cannot be evaluated by a single definitive experiment. Instead, a series of experiments must be run to evaluate various configurations of the components. Also, it is possible that the effects of these methods may vary across linguistic levels (phonology, orthography, reading, lexicon, syntax, pragmatics, fluency). However, evidence for the effects of any combination of these supports in achieving any level of robustness on any given level would still provide important clues regarding ways to enhance the overall robustness of second language learning. This information could also be useful in understanding robustness in other domains.
===Study One===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the use of explicit cue marking for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without explicit cue identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive explicit cues for the preterite and subjunctive and non-explicit cues for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
The dependent variables are response accuracy and response latency.

====Results====
This study will begin in a pilot form at Penn State in the Spring. The target student population includes 900 subjects.

====Explanation====

===Study Two===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the introduction of a graduated recall deadline for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without explicit cue identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive graduated deadlines for the preterite and subjunctive and no deadlines for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
====Results====
====Explanation====

===Further Information===
===Connections to Other Studies===
===Annotated Bibliography===
===References===
===Future Plans===

Presson and MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar

2009-12-04T22:11:43Z

Macw: /* entrenchment */

Spanish Conjugation
==Summary Table==

==Abstract==
Adult second language learners often fail to acquire enough fluency in the new language to support smooth communicative interactions. The studies described here explore the hypothesis that robustness can be markedly improved through basic skill training based on three related pedagogical methods: graduated interval recall, resonant co-training, and cue focusing. This prediction will be tested in the context of in vivo and laboratory studies of online learning of Spanish verb conjugation.

==Background & Significance==
The central controversy in the study of second language acquisition is the status of the Critical Period Hypothesis. As formulated first by Penfield & Roberts (Penfield & Roberts, 1959) and then later by Lenneberg (1967), this hypothesis holds that, after some critical age, second languages (L2s) cannot be learned to full native-speaker competence. This critical period has been variously linked to age 2 for lexical learning (Weber-Fox & Neville, 1996) and perception (Kuhl, Conboy, Padden, Nelson, & Pruitt, 2005), age 6 for phonology (Flege, Yeni-Komshian, & Liu, 1999), age 13 for syntax (Johnson & Newport, 1989), or late adulthood for fossilization (MacWhinney, 2005). However, recent research (Hakuta, Bialystok, & Wiley, 2003; Wiley, Bialystok, & Hakuta, 2005) has cast doubt on many of these claims (MacWhinney, in press).

Despite these recent challenges, educators, academics, and the general public continue to believe in the reality of some Critical Period. What makes the notion of a Critical Period so compelling is that fact that adult second language learners often report problems acquiring a native accent in L2 and in using their L2 fluently. The approach to this issue that we have taken is to elaborate an extended version of the Competition Model (MacWhinney, in press) that accounts for age-related effects in second language learning through the mechanisms of entrenchment, transfer, and incomplete resonance. This new Unified Model makes strong predictions about the ways in which age-related effects can be overcome through effective teaching. In particular, the model holds that the problems that adults have in second language learning arise from the entrenched nature of the first language (L1), inadequate exposure to L2, and inappropriate teaching of L2. To correct these problems, teaching of adult learners needs to utilize these three methods:
1. Graduated interval recall,
2. Resonant cotraining, and
3. Cue focusing.
The claim is that L2 instruction that incorporates these three methods will lead to marked improvements in fluency and robustness of learning.

==Glossary==
===graduated interval recall===
This approach to the learning of items (words, sounds, constructions) in a second language was first elaborated by Pimsleur (1967), although components of the idea can be found as far back as Ebbinghaus (1885). Recently, Pavlik et al. (in press) have formalized the parameters controlling this procedure mathematically in the context of the ACT-R model of cognition. The core idea here is most easily illustrated in the context of the learning of a list of new L2 vocabulary items (Nation, 2001). Immediately after a word is presented, learners are almost always able to recall it. However, if we let a minute pass by, the memory trace drops below threshold and retrieval success drops with it. What Pimsleur discovered was that, if we retest the item before the memory trace decays too much, recall will be successful. Once an item has been recalled successfully once, repeated recalls trials can be spaced further and further apart. The neuronal basis of this process has now been elaborated in terms of synaptic reentry reinforcement model of hippocampal functioning (Wittenberg, Sullivan, & Tsien, 2002). Pavlik (in press) has shown that optimization of the intervals required for recall can lead to a two-fold improvement in vocabulary learning. This experimental work is now being extended to the in vivo study of online learning of Chinese vocabulary (Pavlik et al., in press) and pinyin dictation (Zhang, MacWhinney, & Wu, in preparation) in the PSLC online and offline courses. It has also been applied to the learning of Spanish vocabulary through a simple online tutor. The method of graduated interval recall is also being applied to the learning of French gender (Presson, Pavlik, MacWhinney, & Jones, in preparation). Each of these three efforts (Chinese vocabulary, Chinese pinyin, French gender) relies on the same code base for optimization developed by Pavlik.

===resonant cotraining===
The second mechanism for adult second language learning highlighted in the Unified Competition Model is the mechanism of resonant co-training. The basic effect of resonance can be most easily understood by contrasting the learning of French and Chinese. In French, learners have immediate access to a method for encoding the sounds of the language through Roman characters, including a few special French diacritics. Because adults rely so heavily on phonemic recoding during reading (Booth, Perfetti, & MacWhinney, 1999), they can easily form a resonant loop between a new auditory form and its meaning and orthography. This cortical loop serves as a scaffold for the process of hippocampal consolidation discussed above (Wittenberg, Sullivan, & Tsien, 2002). In Chinese, learners cannot form this loop, because they do not yet know most of the Hanzi characters required for writing and reading Chinese. It is this lack of orthographic resonance that makes Asian character-based languages like Japanese and Chinese so challenging for learners with a background in Roman characters. To improve resonance during learning, our systems for vocabulary learning interweave trials using pinyin, meaning, auditory form, and characters. Initial results show a significant advantage for training that incorporates this type of resonance. The PSLC Chinese project organized by Liu, Perfetti, and colleagues further elaborates in the role of resonance and co-training in learning tones. Rather than replicating those studies here, we hope to build on their results as a part of an integrated approach to the design of instruction in Spanish, Chinese, and French.

===explicit cue focusing===

The third mechanism for adult second language learning highlighted in the Unified Competition Model is the mechanism of cue focusing. Cue focusing is currently at the center of work by Zhang and Wu on Chinese pinyin dictation and Presson and Jones on French gender learning. The Chinese tutor allows students direct access to minimal pairs that characterize the correct target form (with tones and letters) and the form they have entered. In this case, cue focusing is explicit on a perceptual level. The French tutor presents cues in a simple, declarative form (i.e. -ance indicates feminine). In terms of the debate regarding implicit and explicit learning, both forms of feedback represent explicit teaching. However, as MacWhinney (1997) argued, explicit teaching is only successful when the cues are extremely simple. Both of these tutors rely on this core principle.

===entrenchment===
In the theory of self-organizing maps (Kohonen, 1970), entrenchment arises in cortical areas as a result of the formation of connections between mutually active items. In PDP theory, these are members of "gangs" participating in "gang effects" or correlated activation (Rogers & McClelland, 2006). Li, Zhao, & MacWhinney (2007) show how entrenchment increases across epochs of training of a SOM during growth in the size of the lexicon. Once forms are entrenched, it is difficult to organize them in alternative ways. However, there are various computational frameworks that can account for the overlay of a secondary organizations on an entrenched L1 structure.

===transfer===
===social disincentives===

==Research questions==
Adult second language learning, unlike first language acquisition, must deal with learning barriers produced by L1 (first language) entrenchment, transfer, and social disincentives. In order to overcome these barriers, adult learners can rely on specialized reconfigurations of learning methods used by children learning their first language. These supports include: (1) graduated interval recall, (2) resonant co-training, and (3) explicit cue focusing. Presence of only one or two of these supports will lead to good learning, but the best and most robust learning occurs when all three are operative. This means that the overall hypothesis cannot be evaluated by a single definitive experiment. Instead, a series of experiments must be run to evaluate various configurations of the components. Also, it is possible that the effects of these methods may vary across linguistic levels (phonology, orthography, reading, lexicon, syntax, pragmatics, fluency). However, evidence for the effects of any combination of these supports in achieving any level of robustness on any given level would still provide important clues regarding ways to enhance the overall robustness of second language learning. This information could also be useful in understanding robustness in other domains.
===Study One===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the use of explicit cue marking for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without explicit cue identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive explicit cues for the preterite and subjunctive and non-explicit cues for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
The dependent variables are response accuracy and response latency.

====Results====
This study will begin in a pilot form at Penn State in the Spring. The target student population includes 900 subjects.

====Explanation====

===Study Two===
====Hypothesis====
We hypothesize that learners will benefit from the introduction of a graduated recall deadline for the correct formation of verbs in the 6 person-number combinations of the present, imperfect, and preterite of the verbs taught in first year Spanish. The control group will receive equivalent training, but without explicit cue identification.

====Independent Variables====
Group A will receive graduated deadlines for the preterite and subjunctive and no deadlines for the present, imperative, and imperfective. Group B will receive the reverse.

====Dependent Variables====
====Results====
====Explanation====

===Further Information===
===Connections to Other Studies===
===Annotated Bibliography===
===References===
===Future Plans===

Presson and MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar

2009-12-04T22:05:57Z

Macw: /* Abstract */

Presson and MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar

2009-12-04T22:05:26Z

Macw: /* Summary Table */

Feature focusing

2009-12-04T22:05:04Z

Macw: /* Examples */

==Brief statement of principle==
Instruction leads to more robust learning when it guides the learner's attention ("focuses") toward relevant [[features]] of the material, as opposed to unfocused instruction or instruction that guides attention toward irrelevant [[features]].

==Description of principle==
This principle involves encouraging students to focus on the key [[knowledge components]] in the educational material they are studying. Feature focusing instruction may help students to learn [[knowledge components]] with higher [[feature validity]]. More geneally, attention [[focusing]] may also result in students spending more time during a [[learning events|learning event]] on a particular [[knowledge component]] and thus increase its [[strength]].
===Operational definition===
Instruction that guides the student to key [[knowledge components]] will result in superior [[long-term retention]] than unfocused instruction.
===Examples===
Examples include:
*the [[Note-Taking: Focusing On Concepts| Note-Taking]] studies in the Refinement and Fluency cluster.
*basic skills in [[Chinese pinyin dictation]]
*learning [[French gender cues]]
*[[MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar]]
* [[Learning the role of radicals in reading Chinese]]
* [[Learning a tonal language: Chinese]]

==Experimental support==
===Laboratory experiment support===
Two [[Note-Taking: Focusing On Concepts| note-taking studies]] have found that when copy-pasting notes, students perform better on both [[Normal post-test|Normal post-tests]] and [[long-term retention]] tests when they make selections that include only single ideas, rather than multiple ideas. While behavioral interventions have been effective in reducing selection size, they have not produced increased learning outcomes. With regards to note-taking students' ability to identify key [[knowledge components]] may be limited by their understanding of the material, rather than the note-taking interface.
===In vivo experiment support===

See the following PSLC studies:
* [[FrenchCulture]]
* [[Learning the role of radicals in reading Chinese]]
* [[Chinese pinyin dictation]]
* [[Learning a tonal language: Chinese]]

(The authors of these studies should add a sentence or two summary of their findings in this section as well as update other relevant sections on this page.)

==Theoretical rationale==
Feature focusing is a [[refinement]] process, where students are identifying the key ideas, and rejecting irrelevant or unimportant ideas. With regards to feature focusing in learning of explicit textual content, focusing on key ideas may be related to previous results where summaries were found to produce superior outcomes to full text (see Reder & Anderson).

==Conditions of application==

==Caveats, limitations, open issues, or dissenting views==
==Variations (descendants)==
==Generalizations (ascendants)==
==References==
* Bauer, A., Koedinger, K. 2008. Note-Taking, Selecting, and Choice: Designing Interfaces that Encourage Smaller Seelctions. Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL 2008). To Appear.
* Bauer, A., Koedinger, K. 2007. Selection-Based Note-Taking Applications. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’07). 981-990.
* Bauer, A., Koedinger, K. 2006. Pasting and Encoding: Note-taking in Online Courses. IEEE ICALT ’06. 789-793.
* Reder, L. M. & Anderson, J. R. (1980a). A comparison of texts and their summaries: memorial consequences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 198, 121-134.
[[Category:Glossary]]
[[Category:Instructional Principle]]
[[Category:Refinement and Fluency]]

Feature focusing

2009-12-04T22:03:41Z

Macw: /* Examples */

==Brief statement of principle==
Instruction leads to more robust learning when it guides the learner's attention ("focuses") toward relevant [[features]] of the material, as opposed to unfocused instruction or instruction that guides attention toward irrelevant [[features]].

==Description of principle==
This principle involves encouraging students to focus on the key [[knowledge components]] in the educational material they are studying. Feature focusing instruction may help students to learn [[knowledge components]] with higher [[feature validity]]. More geneally, attention [[focusing]] may also result in students spending more time during a [[learning events|learning event]] on a particular [[knowledge component]] and thus increase its [[strength]].
===Operational definition===
Instruction that guides the student to key [[knowledge components]] will result in superior [[long-term retention]] than unfocused instruction.
===Examples===
Examples include:
*the [[Note-Taking: Focusing On Concepts| Note-Taking]] studies in the Refinement and Fluency cluster.
*basic skills in [[Chinese pinyin dictation]]
*learning [[French gender cues]]
*learning [[Learning Second Language Grammar]]
* [[Learning the role of radicals in reading Chinese]]
* [[Learning a tonal language: Chinese]]

==Experimental support==
===Laboratory experiment support===
Two [[Note-Taking: Focusing On Concepts| note-taking studies]] have found that when copy-pasting notes, students perform better on both [[Normal post-test|Normal post-tests]] and [[long-term retention]] tests when they make selections that include only single ideas, rather than multiple ideas. While behavioral interventions have been effective in reducing selection size, they have not produced increased learning outcomes. With regards to note-taking students' ability to identify key [[knowledge components]] may be limited by their understanding of the material, rather than the note-taking interface.
===In vivo experiment support===

See the following PSLC studies:
* [[FrenchCulture]]
* [[Learning the role of radicals in reading Chinese]]
* [[Chinese pinyin dictation]]
* [[Learning a tonal language: Chinese]]

(The authors of these studies should add a sentence or two summary of their findings in this section as well as update other relevant sections on this page.)

==Theoretical rationale==
Feature focusing is a [[refinement]] process, where students are identifying the key ideas, and rejecting irrelevant or unimportant ideas. With regards to feature focusing in learning of explicit textual content, focusing on key ideas may be related to previous results where summaries were found to produce superior outcomes to full text (see Reder & Anderson).

==Conditions of application==

==Caveats, limitations, open issues, or dissenting views==
==Variations (descendants)==
==Generalizations (ascendants)==
==References==
* Bauer, A., Koedinger, K. 2008. Note-Taking, Selecting, and Choice: Designing Interfaces that Encourage Smaller Seelctions. Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL 2008). To Appear.
* Bauer, A., Koedinger, K. 2007. Selection-Based Note-Taking Applications. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’07). 981-990.
* Bauer, A., Koedinger, K. 2006. Pasting and Encoding: Note-taking in Online Courses. IEEE ICALT ’06. 789-793.
* Reder, L. M. & Anderson, J. R. (1980a). A comparison of texts and their summaries: memorial consequences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 198, 121-134.
[[Category:Glossary]]
[[Category:Instructional Principle]]
[[Category:Refinement and Fluency]]

Feature focusing

2009-12-04T22:03:21Z

Macw: /* Examples */

==Brief statement of principle==
Instruction leads to more robust learning when it guides the learner's attention ("focuses") toward relevant [[features]] of the material, as opposed to unfocused instruction or instruction that guides attention toward irrelevant [[features]].

==Description of principle==
This principle involves encouraging students to focus on the key [[knowledge components]] in the educational material they are studying. Feature focusing instruction may help students to learn [[knowledge components]] with higher [[feature validity]]. More geneally, attention [[focusing]] may also result in students spending more time during a [[learning events|learning event]] on a particular [[knowledge component]] and thus increase its [[strength]].
===Operational definition===
Instruction that guides the student to key [[knowledge components]] will result in superior [[long-term retention]] than unfocused instruction.
===Examples===
Examples include:
*the [[Note-Taking: Focusing On Concepts| Note-Taking]] studies in the Refinement and Fluency cluster.
*basic skills in [[Chinese pinyin dictation]]
*learning [[French gender cues]]
*learning [[Second Language Grammar]]
* [[Learning the role of radicals in reading Chinese]]
* [[Learning a tonal language: Chinese]]

==Experimental support==
===Laboratory experiment support===
Two [[Note-Taking: Focusing On Concepts| note-taking studies]] have found that when copy-pasting notes, students perform better on both [[Normal post-test|Normal post-tests]] and [[long-term retention]] tests when they make selections that include only single ideas, rather than multiple ideas. While behavioral interventions have been effective in reducing selection size, they have not produced increased learning outcomes. With regards to note-taking students' ability to identify key [[knowledge components]] may be limited by their understanding of the material, rather than the note-taking interface.
===In vivo experiment support===

See the following PSLC studies:
* [[FrenchCulture]]
* [[Learning the role of radicals in reading Chinese]]
* [[Chinese pinyin dictation]]
* [[Learning a tonal language: Chinese]]

(The authors of these studies should add a sentence or two summary of their findings in this section as well as update other relevant sections on this page.)

==Theoretical rationale==
Feature focusing is a [[refinement]] process, where students are identifying the key ideas, and rejecting irrelevant or unimportant ideas. With regards to feature focusing in learning of explicit textual content, focusing on key ideas may be related to previous results where summaries were found to produce superior outcomes to full text (see Reder & Anderson).

==Conditions of application==

==Caveats, limitations, open issues, or dissenting views==
==Variations (descendants)==
==Generalizations (ascendants)==
==References==
* Bauer, A., Koedinger, K. 2008. Note-Taking, Selecting, and Choice: Designing Interfaces that Encourage Smaller Seelctions. Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL 2008). To Appear.
* Bauer, A., Koedinger, K. 2007. Selection-Based Note-Taking Applications. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’07). 981-990.
* Bauer, A., Koedinger, K. 2006. Pasting and Encoding: Note-taking in Online Courses. IEEE ICALT ’06. 789-793.
* Reder, L. M. & Anderson, J. R. (1980a). A comparison of texts and their summaries: memorial consequences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 198, 121-134.
[[Category:Glossary]]
[[Category:Instructional Principle]]
[[Category:Refinement and Fluency]]

Cognitive Factors

2009-12-04T22:00:23Z

Macw: /* Descendents */

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.

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]]
*[[MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar]]
*[[MacWhinney - Spanish Conjugation]]
*[[Juffs - Feature Focus in Word Learning]]
*[[de Jong - Fluency]]
*[[McLaren_-_The_Assistance_Dilemma_And_Discovery_Learning | McLaren - The Assistance Dilemma and Discovery Learning]]
*[[Wylie - Intelligent Writing Tutor]]
*[[REAP_main | Eskenazi - REAP]]

=== 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.

Cognitive Factors

2009-12-04T21:59:21Z

Macw: /* Descendents */

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.

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]]
*[[MacWhinney - Spanish Conjugation]]
*[[Juffs - Feature Focus in Word Learning]]
*[[de Jong - Fluency]]
*[[McLaren_-_The_Assistance_Dilemma_And_Discovery_Learning | McLaren - The Assistance Dilemma and Discovery Learning]]
*[[Wylie - Intelligent Writing Tutor]]
*[[REAP_main | Eskenazi - REAP]]

=== 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.

Presson and MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar

2009-12-04T21:58:09Z

Macw:

Analogical comparison principle

2009-12-04T21:55:35Z

Macw: /* Examples */

==Brief statement of principle==
Analogical comparison can facilitate schema abstraction and transfer of that knowledge to new problem. By comparing the commonalities between two examples, students can focus on the causal structure and improve their learning about the concept.

==Description of principle==
A problem schema is a knowledge organization of the information associated with a particular problem category. Problem schemas typically include declarative knowledge of principles, concepts, and formulae, as well as the procedural knowledge for how to apply that knowledge to solve a problem. Schemas have been hypothesized as the underlying knowledge organization of expert knowledge (Chase & Simon, 1973; Chi et al., 1981; Larkin et al., 1980). One way in which schemas can be acquired is through analogical comparison (Gick & Holyoak, 1983).
Analogical comparison operates through aligning and mapping two example problem representations to one another and then extracting their commonalities (Gentner, 1983; Gick & Holyoak, 1983; Hummel & Holyoak, 2003). This process discards the elements of the knowledge representation that do not overlap between two examples but preserves the common elements. The resulting knowledge organization typically consists of fewer superficial similarities (than the examples) but retains the deep causal structure of the problems.
===Operational definition===
Analogical comparison is defined as the process of extracting the commonalities between two or more example problems to help form a schema for a problem.

===Examples===
Students are given two worked examples and are instructed to compare each part of the examples writing a summary of the similarities and differences between the two (e.g., goals, concepts, and solution procedures). Next, participants are asked to explain how each component of their written summary relates to the principle.

Planned tutorials for [[Spanish Conjugation]] involve comparing verb formation across analogical groups such as the "ue" stem-changing verb (colgar-cuelgo).

==Experimental support==

===Empirical and correlational support===
Research studies of mathematics classrooms show use of this principle correlates with cross-country standardized achievement results (Richland, Zur, Holyoak, 2007).

===Laboratory experiment support===
Analogical comparison has also been shown to improve learning even when both examples are not initially well understood (Kurtz, Miao, & Gentner, 2001; Gentner Lowenstein, & Thompson, 2003). By comparing the commonalities between two examples, students could focus on the causal structure and improve their learning about the concept. Kurtz et al. (2001) showed that students who were learning about the concept of heat transfer learned more when comparing examples than when studying each example separately.
The process of analogical comparison has also been shown to aid transfer. For example, Ross (1987) found that giving
learners analogical examples to illustrate a probability principle facilitated their later use of the probability formula to solve other problems.

===In vivo experiment support===
[[Bridging_Principles_and_Examples_through_Analogy_and_Explanation|Nokes & VanLehn, (2007)]] found that when students learned to solve problems on rotational kinematics by either self-explaining worked examples or engage in analogical comparison of worked examples, they outperformed students who simply read the worked examples, on far transfer tests.

==Theoretical rationale==
Comparing and contrasting problems can facilitate [[analogical comparison]].
When students compare two or more similar problems, and extract a problem-solving schema from that information, they are engaging in a constructive [[sense making]] process, which they may not have the opportunity to do in simply reading the examples.

==Conditions of application==
Under what conditions is analogical comparison beneficial to students?

==Caveats, limitations, open issues, or dissenting views==
High degree of structural similarity required;
Reminding of prior problems helpful

==Variations (descendants)==
None

==Generalizations (ascendants)==
[[Example-rule coordination]]

==References==
[[Category:Glossary]]
[[Category:Instructional Principle]]

* Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). The Mind's Eye in Chess. In W. G. Chase (Ed.), Visual Information processing. NY and London Academic Press.
* Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and Representation of Physics Problems by Experts and Novices. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 5(2), 121-152.
* Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J., & Thompson, L. (2004). Analogical Encoding: Facilitating Knowledge Transfer and Integration. Proceedings of the 26 th meeting of the Cognitive Science Society.
* Gick, M., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1.
* Kurtz, K. J., Miao, C.-H., & Gentner, D. (2001). Learning by Analogical Bootstrapping. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(4), 417-446.
* Larkin, J., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science, 208, 1335-1342.
* Richland, L.E., Zur, O., Holyoak, K.J. (2007). Cognitive Supports for Analogies in the Mathematics Classroom. Science, 316, pp.1128-1129.
* Ross, B. (1987). This is like that: the use of earlier problems and the separation of similarity effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 629-639.

Feature focusing

2009-12-04T21:49:39Z

Macw: /* Examples */

==Brief statement of principle==
Instruction leads to more robust learning when it guides the learner's attention ("focuses") toward relevant [[features]] of the material, as opposed to unfocused instruction or instruction that guides attention toward irrelevant [[features]].

==Description of principle==
This principle involves encouraging students to focus on the key [[knowledge components]] in the educational material they are studying. Feature focusing instruction may help students to learn [[knowledge components]] with higher [[feature validity]]. More geneally, attention [[focusing]] may also result in students spending more time during a [[learning events|learning event]] on a particular [[knowledge component]] and thus increase its [[strength]].
===Operational definition===
Instruction that guides the student to key [[knowledge components]] will result in superior [[long-term retention]] than unfocused instruction.
===Examples===
Examples include:
*the [[Note-Taking: Focusing On Concepts| Note-Taking]] studies in the Refinement and Fluency cluster.
*basic skills in [[Chinese pinyin dictation]]
*learning [[French gender cues]]
*learning [[Link title | Spanish conjugation]]
* [[Learning the role of radicals in reading Chinese]]
* [[Learning a tonal language: Chinese]]

==Experimental support==
===Laboratory experiment support===
Two [[Note-Taking: Focusing On Concepts| note-taking studies]] have found that when copy-pasting notes, students perform better on both [[Normal post-test|Normal post-tests]] and [[long-term retention]] tests when they make selections that include only single ideas, rather than multiple ideas. While behavioral interventions have been effective in reducing selection size, they have not produced increased learning outcomes. With regards to note-taking students' ability to identify key [[knowledge components]] may be limited by their understanding of the material, rather than the note-taking interface.
===In vivo experiment support===

See the following PSLC studies:
* [[FrenchCulture]]
* [[Learning the role of radicals in reading Chinese]]
* [[Chinese pinyin dictation]]
* [[Learning a tonal language: Chinese]]

(The authors of these studies should add a sentence or two summary of their findings in this section as well as update other relevant sections on this page.)

==Theoretical rationale==
Feature focusing is a [[refinement]] process, where students are identifying the key ideas, and rejecting irrelevant or unimportant ideas. With regards to feature focusing in learning of explicit textual content, focusing on key ideas may be related to previous results where summaries were found to produce superior outcomes to full text (see Reder & Anderson).

==Conditions of application==

==Caveats, limitations, open issues, or dissenting views==
==Variations (descendants)==
==Generalizations (ascendants)==
==References==
* Bauer, A., Koedinger, K. 2008. Note-Taking, Selecting, and Choice: Designing Interfaces that Encourage Smaller Seelctions. Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL 2008). To Appear.
* Bauer, A., Koedinger, K. 2007. Selection-Based Note-Taking Applications. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’07). 981-990.
* Bauer, A., Koedinger, K. 2006. Pasting and Encoding: Note-taking in Online Courses. IEEE ICALT ’06. 789-793.
* Reder, L. M. & Anderson, J. R. (1980a). A comparison of texts and their summaries: memorial consequences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 198, 121-134.
[[Category:Glossary]]
[[Category:Instructional Principle]]
[[Category:Refinement and Fluency]]

Feature focusing

2009-12-04T21:47:59Z

Macw: /* Examples */

==Brief statement of principle==
Instruction leads to more robust learning when it guides the learner's attention ("focuses") toward relevant [[features]] of the material, as opposed to unfocused instruction or instruction that guides attention toward irrelevant [[features]].

==Description of principle==
This principle involves encouraging students to focus on the key [[knowledge components]] in the educational material they are studying. Feature focusing instruction may help students to learn [[knowledge components]] with higher [[feature validity]]. More geneally, attention [[focusing]] may also result in students spending more time during a [[learning events|learning event]] on a particular [[knowledge component]] and thus increase its [[strength]].
===Operational definition===
Instruction that guides the student to key [[knowledge components]] will result in superior [[long-term retention]] than unfocused instruction.
===Examples===
Examples include:
*the [[Note-Taking: Focusing On Concepts| Note-Taking]] studies in the Refinement and Fluency cluster.
*basic skills in [[Chinese pinyin dictation | Chinese pinyin dictation]]
*learning [[French gender cues | French gendercues]]
*learning [[Link title | Spanish conjugation]]

* [[Learning the role of radicals in reading Chinese]]
* [[Chinese pinyin dictation]]
* [[Learning a tonal language: Chinese]]

==Experimental support==
===Laboratory experiment support===
Two [[Note-Taking: Focusing On Concepts| note-taking studies]] have found that when copy-pasting notes, students perform better on both [[Normal post-test|Normal post-tests]] and [[long-term retention]] tests when they make selections that include only single ideas, rather than multiple ideas. While behavioral interventions have been effective in reducing selection size, they have not produced increased learning outcomes. With regards to note-taking students' ability to identify key [[knowledge components]] may be limited by their understanding of the material, rather than the note-taking interface.
===In vivo experiment support===

See the following PSLC studies:
* [[FrenchCulture]]
* [[Learning the role of radicals in reading Chinese]]
* [[Chinese pinyin dictation]]
* [[Learning a tonal language: Chinese]]

(The authors of these studies should add a sentence or two summary of their findings in this section as well as update other relevant sections on this page.)

==Theoretical rationale==
Feature focusing is a [[refinement]] process, where students are identifying the key ideas, and rejecting irrelevant or unimportant ideas. With regards to feature focusing in learning of explicit textual content, focusing on key ideas may be related to previous results where summaries were found to produce superior outcomes to full text (see Reder & Anderson).

==Conditions of application==

==Caveats, limitations, open issues, or dissenting views==
==Variations (descendants)==
==Generalizations (ascendants)==
==References==
* Bauer, A., Koedinger, K. 2008. Note-Taking, Selecting, and Choice: Designing Interfaces that Encourage Smaller Seelctions. Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL 2008). To Appear.
* Bauer, A., Koedinger, K. 2007. Selection-Based Note-Taking Applications. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’07). 981-990.
* Bauer, A., Koedinger, K. 2006. Pasting and Encoding: Note-taking in Online Courses. IEEE ICALT ’06. 789-793.
* Reder, L. M. & Anderson, J. R. (1980a). A comparison of texts and their summaries: memorial consequences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 198, 121-134.
[[Category:Glossary]]
[[Category:Instructional Principle]]
[[Category:Refinement and Fluency]]

Feature focusing

2009-12-04T21:36:49Z

Macw: /* Examples */

==Brief statement of principle==
Instruction leads to more robust learning when it guides the learner's attention ("focuses") toward relevant [[features]] of the material, as opposed to unfocused instruction or instruction that guides attention toward irrelevant [[features]].

==Description of principle==
This principle involves encouraging students to focus on the key [[knowledge components]] in the educational material they are studying. Feature focusing instruction may help students to learn [[knowledge components]] with higher [[feature validity]]. More geneally, attention [[focusing]] may also result in students spending more time during a [[learning events|learning event]] on a particular [[knowledge component]] and thus increase its [[strength]].
===Operational definition===
Instruction that guides the student to key [[knowledge components]] will result in superior [[long-term retention]] than unfocused instruction.
===Examples===
Examples include:
*the [[Note-Taking: Focusing On Concepts| Note-Taking]] studies in the Refinement and Fluency cluster.
*basic skills in Chinese
*learning French gender cues
*learnin[[Link title]]g Spanish conjugation

==Experimental support==
===Laboratory experiment support===
Two [[Note-Taking: Focusing On Concepts| note-taking studies]] have found that when copy-pasting notes, students perform better on both [[Normal post-test|Normal post-tests]] and [[long-term retention]] tests when they make selections that include only single ideas, rather than multiple ideas. While behavioral interventions have been effective in reducing selection size, they have not produced increased learning outcomes. With regards to note-taking students' ability to identify key [[knowledge components]] may be limited by their understanding of the material, rather than the note-taking interface.
===In vivo experiment support===

See the following PSLC studies:
* [[FrenchCulture]]
* [[Learning the role of radicals in reading Chinese]]
* [[Chinese pinyin dictation]]
* [[Learning a tonal language: Chinese]]

(The authors of these studies should add a sentence or two summary of their findings in this section as well as update other relevant sections on this page.)

==Theoretical rationale==
Feature focusing is a [[refinement]] process, where students are identifying the key ideas, and rejecting irrelevant or unimportant ideas. With regards to feature focusing in learning of explicit textual content, focusing on key ideas may be related to previous results where summaries were found to produce superior outcomes to full text (see Reder & Anderson).

==Conditions of application==

==Caveats, limitations, open issues, or dissenting views==
==Variations (descendants)==
==Generalizations (ascendants)==
==References==
* Bauer, A., Koedinger, K. 2008. Note-Taking, Selecting, and Choice: Designing Interfaces that Encourage Smaller Seelctions. Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL 2008). To Appear.
* Bauer, A., Koedinger, K. 2007. Selection-Based Note-Taking Applications. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’07). 981-990.
* Bauer, A., Koedinger, K. 2006. Pasting and Encoding: Note-taking in Online Courses. IEEE ICALT ’06. 789-793.
* Reder, L. M. & Anderson, J. R. (1980a). A comparison of texts and their summaries: memorial consequences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 198, 121-134.
[[Category:Glossary]]
[[Category:Instructional Principle]]
[[Category:Refinement and Fluency]]

Feature focusing

2009-12-04T21:35:50Z

Macw: /* learning Spanish conjugation */

==Brief statement of principle==
Instruction leads to more robust learning when it guides the learner's attention ("focuses") toward relevant [[features]] of the material, as opposed to unfocused instruction or instruction that guides attention toward irrelevant [[features]].

==Description of principle==
This principle involves encouraging students to focus on the key [[knowledge components]] in the educational material they are studying. Feature focusing instruction may help students to learn [[knowledge components]] with higher [[feature validity]]. More geneally, attention [[focusing]] may also result in students spending more time during a [[learning events|learning event]] on a particular [[knowledge component]] and thus increase its [[strength]].
===Operational definition===
Instruction that guides the student to key [[knowledge components]] will result in superior [[long-term retention]] than unfocused instruction.
===Examples===
Examples include:
the [[Note-Taking: Focusing On Concepts| Note-Taking]] studies in the Refinement and Fluency cluster.

basic skills in Chinese

learning French gender cues

learning Spanish conjugation

==Experimental support==
===Laboratory experiment support===
Two [[Note-Taking: Focusing On Concepts| note-taking studies]] have found that when copy-pasting notes, students perform better on both [[Normal post-test|Normal post-tests]] and [[long-term retention]] tests when they make selections that include only single ideas, rather than multiple ideas. While behavioral interventions have been effective in reducing selection size, they have not produced increased learning outcomes. With regards to note-taking students' ability to identify key [[knowledge components]] may be limited by their understanding of the material, rather than the note-taking interface.
===In vivo experiment support===

See the following PSLC studies:
* [[FrenchCulture]]
* [[Learning the role of radicals in reading Chinese]]
* [[Chinese pinyin dictation]]
* [[Learning a tonal language: Chinese]]

(The authors of these studies should add a sentence or two summary of their findings in this section as well as update other relevant sections on this page.)

==Theoretical rationale==
Feature focusing is a [[refinement]] process, where students are identifying the key ideas, and rejecting irrelevant or unimportant ideas. With regards to feature focusing in learning of explicit textual content, focusing on key ideas may be related to previous results where summaries were found to produce superior outcomes to full text (see Reder & Anderson).

==Conditions of application==

==Caveats, limitations, open issues, or dissenting views==
==Variations (descendants)==
==Generalizations (ascendants)==
==References==
* Bauer, A., Koedinger, K. 2008. Note-Taking, Selecting, and Choice: Designing Interfaces that Encourage Smaller Seelctions. Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL 2008). To Appear.
* Bauer, A., Koedinger, K. 2007. Selection-Based Note-Taking Applications. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’07). 981-990.
* Bauer, A., Koedinger, K. 2006. Pasting and Encoding: Note-taking in Online Courses. IEEE ICALT ’06. 789-793.
* Reder, L. M. & Anderson, J. R. (1980a). A comparison of texts and their summaries: memorial consequences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 198, 121-134.
[[Category:Glossary]]
[[Category:Instructional Principle]]
[[Category:Refinement and Fluency]]

Feature focusing

2009-12-04T21:35:35Z

Macw: /* learning French gender cues */

==Brief statement of principle==
Instruction leads to more robust learning when it guides the learner's attention ("focuses") toward relevant [[features]] of the material, as opposed to unfocused instruction or instruction that guides attention toward irrelevant [[features]].

==Description of principle==
This principle involves encouraging students to focus on the key [[knowledge components]] in the educational material they are studying. Feature focusing instruction may help students to learn [[knowledge components]] with higher [[feature validity]]. More geneally, attention [[focusing]] may also result in students spending more time during a [[learning events|learning event]] on a particular [[knowledge component]] and thus increase its [[strength]].
===Operational definition===
Instruction that guides the student to key [[knowledge components]] will result in superior [[long-term retention]] than unfocused instruction.
===Examples===
Examples include:
the [[Note-Taking: Focusing On Concepts| Note-Taking]] studies in the Refinement and Fluency cluster.

basic skills in Chinese

learning French gender cues

=learning Spanish conjugation=

==Experimental support==
===Laboratory experiment support===
Two [[Note-Taking: Focusing On Concepts| note-taking studies]] have found that when copy-pasting notes, students perform better on both [[Normal post-test|Normal post-tests]] and [[long-term retention]] tests when they make selections that include only single ideas, rather than multiple ideas. While behavioral interventions have been effective in reducing selection size, they have not produced increased learning outcomes. With regards to note-taking students' ability to identify key [[knowledge components]] may be limited by their understanding of the material, rather than the note-taking interface.
===In vivo experiment support===

See the following PSLC studies:
* [[FrenchCulture]]
* [[Learning the role of radicals in reading Chinese]]
* [[Chinese pinyin dictation]]
* [[Learning a tonal language: Chinese]]

(The authors of these studies should add a sentence or two summary of their findings in this section as well as update other relevant sections on this page.)

==Theoretical rationale==
Feature focusing is a [[refinement]] process, where students are identifying the key ideas, and rejecting irrelevant or unimportant ideas. With regards to feature focusing in learning of explicit textual content, focusing on key ideas may be related to previous results where summaries were found to produce superior outcomes to full text (see Reder & Anderson).

==Conditions of application==

==Caveats, limitations, open issues, or dissenting views==
==Variations (descendants)==
==Generalizations (ascendants)==
==References==
* Bauer, A., Koedinger, K. 2008. Note-Taking, Selecting, and Choice: Designing Interfaces that Encourage Smaller Seelctions. Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL 2008). To Appear.
* Bauer, A., Koedinger, K. 2007. Selection-Based Note-Taking Applications. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’07). 981-990.
* Bauer, A., Koedinger, K. 2006. Pasting and Encoding: Note-taking in Online Courses. IEEE ICALT ’06. 789-793.
* Reder, L. M. & Anderson, J. R. (1980a). A comparison of texts and their summaries: memorial consequences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 198, 121-134.
[[Category:Glossary]]
[[Category:Instructional Principle]]
[[Category:Refinement and Fluency]]

Feature focusing

2009-12-04T21:35:24Z

Macw: /* basic skills in Chinese */

==Brief statement of principle==
Instruction leads to more robust learning when it guides the learner's attention ("focuses") toward relevant [[features]] of the material, as opposed to unfocused instruction or instruction that guides attention toward irrelevant [[features]].

==Description of principle==
This principle involves encouraging students to focus on the key [[knowledge components]] in the educational material they are studying. Feature focusing instruction may help students to learn [[knowledge components]] with higher [[feature validity]]. More geneally, attention [[focusing]] may also result in students spending more time during a [[learning events|learning event]] on a particular [[knowledge component]] and thus increase its [[strength]].
===Operational definition===
Instruction that guides the student to key [[knowledge components]] will result in superior [[long-term retention]] than unfocused instruction.
===Examples===
Examples include:
the [[Note-Taking: Focusing On Concepts| Note-Taking]] studies in the Refinement and Fluency cluster.

basic skills in Chinese

=learning French gender cues=
=learning Spanish conjugation=

==Experimental support==
===Laboratory experiment support===
Two [[Note-Taking: Focusing On Concepts| note-taking studies]] have found that when copy-pasting notes, students perform better on both [[Normal post-test|Normal post-tests]] and [[long-term retention]] tests when they make selections that include only single ideas, rather than multiple ideas. While behavioral interventions have been effective in reducing selection size, they have not produced increased learning outcomes. With regards to note-taking students' ability to identify key [[knowledge components]] may be limited by their understanding of the material, rather than the note-taking interface.
===In vivo experiment support===

See the following PSLC studies:
* [[FrenchCulture]]
* [[Learning the role of radicals in reading Chinese]]
* [[Chinese pinyin dictation]]
* [[Learning a tonal language: Chinese]]

(The authors of these studies should add a sentence or two summary of their findings in this section as well as update other relevant sections on this page.)

==Theoretical rationale==
Feature focusing is a [[refinement]] process, where students are identifying the key ideas, and rejecting irrelevant or unimportant ideas. With regards to feature focusing in learning of explicit textual content, focusing on key ideas may be related to previous results where summaries were found to produce superior outcomes to full text (see Reder & Anderson).

==Conditions of application==

==Caveats, limitations, open issues, or dissenting views==
==Variations (descendants)==
==Generalizations (ascendants)==
==References==
* Bauer, A., Koedinger, K. 2008. Note-Taking, Selecting, and Choice: Designing Interfaces that Encourage Smaller Seelctions. Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL 2008). To Appear.
* Bauer, A., Koedinger, K. 2007. Selection-Based Note-Taking Applications. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’07). 981-990.
* Bauer, A., Koedinger, K. 2006. Pasting and Encoding: Note-taking in Online Courses. IEEE ICALT ’06. 789-793.
* Reder, L. M. & Anderson, J. R. (1980a). A comparison of texts and their summaries: memorial consequences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 198, 121-134.
[[Category:Glossary]]
[[Category:Instructional Principle]]
[[Category:Refinement and Fluency]]

Feature focusing

2009-12-04T21:35:12Z

Macw: /* the Note-Taking studies in the Refinement and Fluency cluster. */

==Brief statement of principle==
Instruction leads to more robust learning when it guides the learner's attention ("focuses") toward relevant [[features]] of the material, as opposed to unfocused instruction or instruction that guides attention toward irrelevant [[features]].

==Description of principle==
This principle involves encouraging students to focus on the key [[knowledge components]] in the educational material they are studying. Feature focusing instruction may help students to learn [[knowledge components]] with higher [[feature validity]]. More geneally, attention [[focusing]] may also result in students spending more time during a [[learning events|learning event]] on a particular [[knowledge component]] and thus increase its [[strength]].
===Operational definition===
Instruction that guides the student to key [[knowledge components]] will result in superior [[long-term retention]] than unfocused instruction.
===Examples===
Examples include:
the [[Note-Taking: Focusing On Concepts| Note-Taking]] studies in the Refinement and Fluency cluster.

=basic skills in Chinese=
=learning French gender cues=
=learning Spanish conjugation=

==Experimental support==
===Laboratory experiment support===
Two [[Note-Taking: Focusing On Concepts| note-taking studies]] have found that when copy-pasting notes, students perform better on both [[Normal post-test|Normal post-tests]] and [[long-term retention]] tests when they make selections that include only single ideas, rather than multiple ideas. While behavioral interventions have been effective in reducing selection size, they have not produced increased learning outcomes. With regards to note-taking students' ability to identify key [[knowledge components]] may be limited by their understanding of the material, rather than the note-taking interface.
===In vivo experiment support===

See the following PSLC studies:
* [[FrenchCulture]]
* [[Learning the role of radicals in reading Chinese]]
* [[Chinese pinyin dictation]]
* [[Learning a tonal language: Chinese]]

(The authors of these studies should add a sentence or two summary of their findings in this section as well as update other relevant sections on this page.)

==Theoretical rationale==
Feature focusing is a [[refinement]] process, where students are identifying the key ideas, and rejecting irrelevant or unimportant ideas. With regards to feature focusing in learning of explicit textual content, focusing on key ideas may be related to previous results where summaries were found to produce superior outcomes to full text (see Reder & Anderson).

==Conditions of application==

==Caveats, limitations, open issues, or dissenting views==
==Variations (descendants)==
==Generalizations (ascendants)==
==References==
* Bauer, A., Koedinger, K. 2008. Note-Taking, Selecting, and Choice: Designing Interfaces that Encourage Smaller Seelctions. Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL 2008). To Appear.
* Bauer, A., Koedinger, K. 2007. Selection-Based Note-Taking Applications. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’07). 981-990.
* Bauer, A., Koedinger, K. 2006. Pasting and Encoding: Note-taking in Online Courses. IEEE ICALT ’06. 789-793.
* Reder, L. M. & Anderson, J. R. (1980a). A comparison of texts and their summaries: memorial consequences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 198, 121-134.
[[Category:Glossary]]
[[Category:Instructional Principle]]
[[Category:Refinement and Fluency]]