Co-training of Chinese characters - Revision history

Liuying: /* Independent variables */

2008-11-03T03:13:57Z

Independent variables

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:13, 3 November 2008
Line 47:		Line 47:
	C) correlated paired unlabeled examples;		C) correlated paired unlabeled examples;
	D) uncorrelated paired unlabeled examples.		D) uncorrelated paired unlabeled examples.
	*[[Image:~~Study1~~.jpg]]		[[Image:study1.jpg]]

	== Hypothesis ==		== Hypothesis ==

Liuying: /* Independent variables */

2008-11-03T03:13:13Z

Independent variables

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:13, 3 November 2008
Line 47:		Line 47:
	C) correlated paired unlabeled examples;		C) correlated paired unlabeled examples;
	D) uncorrelated paired unlabeled examples.		D) uncorrelated paired unlabeled examples.
	[[Image:Study1.jpg]]		*[[Image:Study1.jpg]]

	== Hypothesis ==		== Hypothesis ==

Liuying: /* Independent variables */

2008-11-03T03:12:21Z

Independent variables

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:12, 3 November 2008
Line 47:		Line 47:
	C) correlated paired unlabeled examples;		C) correlated paired unlabeled examples;
	D) uncorrelated paired unlabeled examples.		D) uncorrelated paired unlabeled examples.
	[[Image:~~study1~~.jpg]]		[[Image:Study1.jpg]]

	== Hypothesis ==		== Hypothesis ==

Liuying: /* Independent variables */

2008-11-03T03:04:49Z

Independent variables

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:04, 3 November 2008
Line 45:		Line 45:
	A) none;		A) none;
	B) 192 unpaired unlabeled examples;		B) 192 unpaired unlabeled examples;
	B) correlated paired unlabeled examples;		C) correlated paired unlabeled examples;
	D) uncorrelated paired unlabeled examples		D) uncorrelated paired unlabeled examples.
			[[Image:study1.jpg]]

	== Hypothesis ==		== Hypothesis ==

Liuying: /* Independent variables */

2008-11-02T21:00:34Z

Independent variables

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:00, 2 November 2008
Line 41:		Line 41:

	== Independent variables ==		== Independent variables ==
			Labeling variable and correction variable.
			Four training conditions, between subject design. All subjects received 48 Labeled examples, then followed by
			A) none;
			B) 192 unpaired unlabeled examples;
			B) correlated paired unlabeled examples;
			D) uncorrelated paired unlabeled examples

	~~Labeling~~
	~~Pairing~~
	~~Variation~~
	~~Correlation~~

	== Hypothesis ==		== Hypothesis ==

Liuying@pitt.edu at 01:03, 12 March 2008

2008-03-12T01:03:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:03, 12 March 2008
Line 9:		Line 9:
	*Study Start Date Sep 1, 2005		*Study Start Date Sep 1, 2005
	*Study End Date Dec 31, 2005		*Study End Date Dec 31, 2005
	*LearnLab Site and Courses , ~~CMU Chinese Online~~		*LearnLab Site and Courses: LRDC, pull out study
	*Number of Students: 20		*Number of Students: 44
	*Total Participant Hours for the study: 20		*Total Participant Hours for the study: 44
	*Data in the Data Shop: Yes		*Data in the Data Shop: Yes
	----		----

Liuying@pitt.edu: /* Abstract */

2008-03-11T15:47:33Z

Abstract

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:47, 11 March 2008
Line 17:		Line 17:
	== Abstract ==		== Abstract ==
	The present study explored how native English speakers learn to speak and read Chinese in a cotraining environment. The experiment consisted of two parts. The first part was training, which was used to teach the input (Chinese fonts and sounds) to output (English translations) mapping of 16 Chinese characters. Training methods were manipulated in this part. A quarter of the subjects only received labeled training trials (English translation provided), the others received extra training trials with [[unlabeled examples\|non-labeled trials]] (only the orthography or/and phonology without English translation). The non-labeled trials were further separated into three types: unpaired, correlated paired and uncorrelated paired, with each type used for one quarter of subjects.		The present study explored how native English speakers learn to speak and read Chinese in a cotraining environment. The experiment consisted of two parts. The first part was training, which was used to teach the input (Chinese fonts and sounds) to output (English translations) mapping of 16 Chinese characters. Training methods were manipulated in this part. A quarter of the subjects only received labeled training trials (English translation provided), the others received extra training trials with [[unlabeled examples\|non-labeled trials]] (only the orthography or/and phonology without English translation). The non-labeled trials were further separated into three types: unpaired, correlated paired and uncorrelated paired, with each type used for one quarter of subjects.
			The second part was posttest, in which students produced the English translation when they saw the Chinese fonts or hear the Chinese sounds one by one. The accuracy of translation was recorded. It showed that [[unlabeled examples]] did help the learning, and uncorrelated paired examples did the best among all three types of unlabeled examples.
	The second part was ~~posttesting~~, in which students produced the English translation when they saw the Chinese fonts or hear the Chinese sounds one by one. The accuracy of translation was recorded. ~~The~~ It showed that [[unlabeled examples]] did help the learning, and uncorrelated paired examples did the best among all three types of unlabeled examples.

	== Glossary ==		== Glossary ==

Liuying@pitt.edu: /* Further information */

2008-03-11T14:33:42Z

Further information

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:33, 11 March 2008
Line 76:		Line 76:

	== Further information ==		== Further information ==

	~~www.pitt.edu/~liuying/pslc_plan.doc~~

Liuying@pitt.edu: /* Hypothesis */

2008-03-11T14:32:29Z

Hypothesis

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:32, 11 March 2008
Line 51:		Line 51:

	Pairing of visual font and auditory sound of Chinese characters should enhance learning under both labeled and unlabeled trials, but the benefit is most significant when the trials are unlabeled.		Pairing of visual font and auditory sound of Chinese characters should enhance learning under both labeled and unlabeled trials, but the benefit is most significant when the trials are unlabeled.
			*
	[[Image:cotraining1.jpg]]		[[Image:cotraining1.jpg]]

Liuying@pitt.edu: /* Findings */

2008-03-11T14:13:37Z

Findings

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:13, 11 March 2008
Line 55:		Line 55:
	== Findings ==		== Findings ==

	-“Unlabelled paired” trials may aid learning. Learning meanings was facilitated by the addition of ~~unlabelled~~ paired trials that did not provide meaning.		*“Unlabelled paired” trials may aid learning. Learning meanings was facilitated by the addition of unlabeled paired trials that did not provide meaning.
	However, this ~~unlabelled~~-trials effect was restricted to cross-modal pairs (spoken syllable and written character); it was absent when only one (spoken syllable) or the other (written character) modality was presented.		**However, this unlabeled-trials effect was restricted to cross-modal pairs (spoken syllable and written character); it was absent when only one (spoken syllable) or the other (written character) modality was presented.
	Implication: Cross-modal inputs in this situation can establish multiple representations (speech-writing pairs) from which meaning links are more readily retrieved.		**Implication: Cross-modal inputs in this situation can establish multiple representations (speech-writing pairs) from which meaning links are more readily retrieved.
	-Written form learned better than spoken form Large advantage for the presentation of written characters compared with their corresponding spoken syllables for learning a form-meaning pair.		*Written form learned better than spoken form Large advantage for the presentation of written characters compared with their corresponding spoken syllables for learning a form-meaning pair.
	-Benefits of uncorrelated examples was not observed.		*Benefits of uncorrelated examples was not observed.
	Correlated examples: Given font and given speaker always co-occur (conditional dependent)		**Correlated examples: Given font and given speaker always co-occur (conditional dependent)
	Uncorrelated examples: Given font occurs with all speakers; and given speaker occurs with all fonts (conditional independent)		**Uncorrelated examples: Given font occurs with all speakers; and given speaker occurs with all fonts (conditional independent)
	This is still being assessed by using multiple learning sessions.		**This is still being assessed by using multiple learning sessions.

	[[Image:cotraining2.jpg]]		[[Image:cotraining2.jpg]]