https://learnlab.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Presson&feedformat=atomLearnLab - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T06:04:34ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.31.12https://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=PSLC_GradStudents&diff=11062PSLC GradStudents2010-09-22T18:20:18Z<p>Presson: /* Who are the PSLC grads? */</p>
<hr />
<div>The purpose of this page is to serve as a repository of information relevant for grad students. We hope to maintain this page as a repository of current and relevant information for graduate students currently affiliated with the PSLC, as well as grad students who hope to be in the PSLC. <br />
<br />
== Announcements==<br />
<br />
1) PSLC grads are now responsible for keeping the [http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/index.php/PSLC_People#Graduate_Students List of PSLC Grads] up to date. <br />
<br />
* If you know of someone who should be added (or deleted) from this list please e-mail the webmaster at bef25@pitt.edu. Alternatively, feel free to go in and update the list yourself!<br />
<br />
2) Please e-mail Mary Lou Vercellotti ASAP if you are interested in attending the iSLC conference in Washington, D.C. on October 13-15. Up to three graduate students may attend.<br />
<br />
3) Ultimate Block Party in Central Park, NY.<br />
<br />
* Description: This is an outreach event for PSLC research. Faculty and graduate students are invited to attend to serve as "experts" as families visit the workshops in the park. (You will receive a brightly colored lab coat if you decide to help out.)<br />
<br />
* How to sign up: E-mail Michael Bett at mbett@cs.cmu.edu if you are interested.<br />
<br />
4) PSLC Graduate Student Meetings are scheduled for the following days and will begin at noon.<br />
<br />
* Monday, September 20 in 408 LRDC - topic: grad student wiki pages<br />
* Monday, October 18 at CMU (location tba) - topic what is the PSLC and why should you care<br />
* Monday, November 15 in 408 LRDC - topic ?<br />
* Monday, December 6 at CMU topic ?<br />
<br />
== Meeting Notes==<br />
<br />
== FAQs==<br />
<br />
'''1. What does it take to be a PSLC grad student?'''<br />
<br />
Well, there are basically three ways you can be considered a PSLC grad student.<br />
<br />
a. You work on a project that receives funding from the PSLC.<br />
<br />
b. Your advisor or collaborator receives funding from the PSLC and asks you to be involved.<br />
<br />
c. You want to be a PSLC grad student.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''2. What types of opportunities does the PSLC have for a grad student like me?''' <br />
<br />
There are a variety of different levels of involvement and types of activities that the PSLC offers. <br />
<br />
For the casual grad student, the PSLC organizes a speaker series with talks that may be of interest to students interested in the learning sciences. These are open to whomever wishes to go. There are also monthly lunch meetings where people associated with the PSLC can give a talk on their work. <br />
<br />
The grad student community also hopes to organize events catered toward grad students, with topics like applying for grants, finding jobs, collaboration with people at other universities, etc. These are also open to the public. <br />
<br />
For those who wish to get more involved, the grad student community also has monthly meetings to discuss center-wide issues, read and discuss articles we believe are relevant, plan future events, etc. Again, these are open to the public. <br />
<br />
Finally, each thrust has regular or semi-regular meetings to discuss the thrust's theoretical framework, set the research agenda, and discuss the progress of projects within that thrust. While these are open to anyone, they're probably of limited interest unless you currently have or have had a project affiliated with the thrust. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''3. What is expected of me as a PSLC grad student?'''<br />
<br />
If you receive funding from the PSLC, you are expected, to the extent it is possible, to attend the thrust meetings for your relevant thrust, and attend the monthly PSLC lunches. The grad student community also encourages you to come to the grad student monthly meetings, of course.<br />
<br />
If you don't receive funding from the PSLC, but still wish to be a part of the grad student community, your level of involvement is up to you. <br />
<br />
<br />
'''How do I find out about upcoming talks/meetings/events?'''<br />
<br />
One option is to check the Announcements section of this page. A possibly better option would be to get on our mailing list. To do that, e-mail Jo Bodnar at jobodnar AT cs.cmu.edu and ask to be put on the PSLC general mailing list and grad student mailing list. <br />
<br />
There is also a regularly updated calendar at our [http://www.learnlab.org main webpage] that is updated regularly and gives a fairly complete account of most PSLC events.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
4. '''I already consider myself a PSLC grad, and want to be included on this page! What do I have to do?'''<br />
<br />
Well the great thing about the wiki page is that anybody can update it whenever they want! So, if you have an account here, and you know how to edit tables, you can just log in and add yourself! <br />
<br />
The table formatting is a bit weird and hard to follow, so if you want to add yourself, the easiest thing to do is just copy this text:<br />
<br />
<pre><br />
|-<br />
| Name || University || Advisor || e-mail address || Bio || Personal Webpage || Link to PSLC project page [Project page URL Project page title]<br />
</pre><br />
<br />
and paste it into the appropriate place on the table. With your own information, of course. <br />
<br />
If you don't have an account already, you can easily request one (NOTE: I forget how to do it- I'll need to add that). Once you have an account, you can just click "Edit" above the table, and you can add yourself. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
5. '''But that's such a pain! Isn't there an easier way?!'''<br />
<br />
There sure is! If you don't want to make all that effort just to have your name and e-mail address on a page, just send your info (you could even put it in the format given above!) to our Wikimaster (yep, we made that word up!), Ben Friedline, at bef25 AT pitt.edu, and he'll put it on here.<br />
<br />
== Who are the PSLC grads? ==<br />
<br />
{| border=1 cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" style="text-align: left;"<br />
|-<br />
! Grad Student Name<br />
! University/Department<br />
! Advisor<br />
! E-mail<br />
! Bio<br />
! Personal Webpage<br />
! PSLC Projects<br />
|-<br />
| Colleen Davy || Carnegie Mellon/Psychology || Brian MacWhinney || cdavy1@andrew.cmu.edu || I am interested in how adult second language learners develop fluent speaking skills in their second language. || N/A || [http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/index.php/Davy_%26_MacWhinney_-_Spanish_Sentence_Production Spanish Sentence Production]<br />
|-<br />
| Benjamin Friedline || University of Pittsburgh || Alan Juffs || bef25@pitt.edu || I am interested in how adult second language learners acquire morphology in a second language. || N/A || [http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/index.php/Juffs_-_Feature_Focus_in_Word_Learning Feature Focus in Word Learning]<br />
|-<br />
| Ruth Wylie || Carnegie Mellon, HCII || Ken Koedinger & Teruko Mitamura || rwylie@cs.cmu.edu || I'm interested in second language learning and self-explanation. || [http://ruthwylie.wordpress.com/ http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rwylie] || [http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/index.php/Wylie_-_Intelligent_Writing_Tutor Self-Explanation and ESL]<br />
|-<br />
| Mary Lou Vercellotti || University of Pittsburgh || Dr. Nel de Jong || marylou.vercellotti@gmail.com || My research looks at complexity, accuracy, and fluency in the oral production of English as a second language. || N/A || [http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/index.php/Fostering_fluency_in_second_language_learning Refinement and Fluency]<br />
|-<br />
| Turadg Aleahmad || Carnegie Mellon, HCII || Ken Koedinger & John Zimmerman || turadg@cmu.edu || My research is in design methods for theory-driven educational technology. || [http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~taleahma] || <br />
|-<br />
| Nora Presson || Carnegie Mellon, Psychology || Brian MacWhinney || presson@cmu.edu || I am studying how practice conditions can improve learning of second language grammar, especially testing the effects of explicit instruction. || || [http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/index.php/Presson_%26_MacWhinney_-_Second_Language_Grammar Second Language Grammar Instruction]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== Science of Learning Relevant Courses ==<br />
The PIER program offers three courses -- see the [http://www.cmu.edu/pier PIER Web page]<br />
<br />
See also the courses taught be any of the PSLC faculty.<br />
<br />
(Please add the names of relevant courses and web pointers if possible!)<br />
<br />
<br />
<pre><br />
05832 / 05432 Cognitive Modeling & Intelligent Tutoring Systems<br />
3:00pm-4:20pm, Tuesdays and Thursdays, Fall 2010<br />
Room 3002, Newell-Simon Hall, Carnegie Mellon University<br />
9 units<br />
Dr. Vincent Aleven, aleven@cs.cmu.edu<br />
</pre><br />
<br />
Students in this course will learn about the Cognitive Tutor technology that has been demonstrated to dramatically enhance student learning in domains like math, science, and computer programming. This type of tutoring software is currently in use in 2,700 schools around the country and is used extensively as platform for learning sciences research. The technology is grounded in artificial intelligence, cognitive psychology, and cognitive task analysis. Students will learn data-driven and theoretical methods for analyzing human problem solving and will learn to use such data to inform the design of intelligent tutoring systems. Course projects will focus on the development of an intelligent tutor using CTAT, the Cognitive Tutor Authoring Tools (see http://ctat.pact.cs.cmu.edu). Some assignments will focus on creating cognitive models in the Jess production rule modeling language.<br />
<br />
Students should either have programming skills, or experience in the cognitive psychology of human problem solving, or HCI / design skills, or permission from the instructor.</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Integrating_Regular_and_Irregular_Forms&diff=10965Integrating Regular and Irregular Forms2010-08-30T20:25:47Z<p>Presson: /* Hypotheses */</p>
<hr />
<div>{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"<br />
|- <br />
! PIs<br />
| Nora Presson, Brian MacWhinney, Nuria Sagarra<br />
|-<br />
! Faculty<br />
| MacWhinney<br />
|-<br />
! Postdocs<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Others with > 160 hours<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Study Start Date<br />
| 09/10<br />
|-<br />
! Study End Date<br />
| 12/10<br />
|-<br />
! Learnlab<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (total)<br />
| <br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (treatment)<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
! Total Participant Hours<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
! Datashop?<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Abstract==<br />
<br />
Following the initial study of Spanish students practicing with irregular verbs ([[Rules_vs._Analogy_in_Spanish_Irregular_Verbs]]), we use a similar practice activity that adds regular verbs (in addition to those inflectional forms of irregular verbs that follow the regular pattern).<br />
<br />
==Glossary==<br />
*[[explicit instruction]]<br />
*[[cue validity]]<br />
*[[cue reliability]]<br />
*[[cue availability]]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Research question==<br />
<br />
There are two major methodological changes from the first study. First, we implement as between- instead of within-subjects the instructional manipulation, whether incorrect feedback is presented as a rule for when stem transformations are appropriate or presented as the correct answer with a correct and analogous high-frequency exemplar to model. <br />
<br />
Second, we are interested in how regular forms of verbs that sometimes require transformations on the stem (i.e., regular forms of "irregular" verbs) differ from forms where the verb is regular (i.e., no forms require a transformation). It is possible that the structure of the first experiment, presenting only verbs that do require a transformation, led to an expectation of irregularity, which would explain how some groups declined in accuracy on the regular forms of those irregular verbs (although not by much) after training.<br />
<br />
==Background and significance==<br />
<br />
Learners have difficulty processing inflected verb forms (Clahsen & Felser, 2006; Johnson & Newport, 1989). Some models of language processing postulate that this difficulty stems from learners' lack of ability to compose regular inflected forms as native speakers can (e.g., the Declarative/Procedural model of Ullman, 1997; 2001). This prediction stems on the assumptions that:<br />
*native speakers store irregular forms but compose (some but not necessarily all) regular ones (see for example Pinker, 1997)<br />
*learners are unable to process (decompose) morphologically complex forms in a nativelike way (possibly because of a Critical Period effect)<br />
<br />
The evidence that learners treat regulars and irregulars similarly (from which most infer that both are stored) comes from priming studies, where native speakers show priming of the base stem for regular but not irregular inflections, and also from production data showing frequency effects on latency for irregular but not regular inflected forms. <br />
<br />
However, most previous studies of the difference between regular and irregular forms do not distinguish between levels or types of irregularity. There are irregular forms that have predictable changes, and inflected forms that do not show any idiosyncratic transformation, though other forms of the same verb do. <br />
<br />
One level of distinction comes from a recent study by Bowden and colleagues (2010) that compared Spanish -''ar'' verbs, which are the most frequent type of verbs, are most often regular, and encompass most novel words, to -''er'' and -''ir'' verbs, which have fewer types and are more likely to be irregular. They showed that native speakers only failed to show frequency effects when producing -''ar'' but not -''er/-''ir'' regular inflected forms in both present (irregularities possible) and imperfect (almost no possible irregularities) tenses. Also, learners showed frequency effects (which they interpret to mean forms are stored and not composed) for all types of verbs and tenses. <br />
<br />
Most of the "irregular" verbs used in that study, however, do show predictable patterns that can explain the stem transformations. We are interested in whether these regularities matter; that is, whether a wholly idiosyncratic transformation is really processed the same way as an irregular that follows a predictable pattern.<br />
<br />
We compare two types of irregularity: first, spelling change verbs, where a change is needed to preserve the phonological form of the verb (e.g., ''sacar'' "to take out" -> ''saqué'' "I took out" because the regular transformation would lead to ''sacé'', with a soft 'c'.). We compared those to stem change verbs, where the change is not meant to preserve phonology but does follow a similar pattern across a large number of verbs. Also, we compare irregular verbs to regular verbs, where no forms require any transformation of the stem. <br />
<br />
Learner performance is full of errors, so we are interested in how to improve performance with practice and explicit feedback. In this study, we used two feedback types: an explicit explanation of when to transform the verb stem (i.e., which forms are irregular), and presenting a correctly inflected form of a highly frequent verb their teacher judged that they would know. These were assigned between subjects.<br />
<br />
==Dependent variables==<br />
*Response accuracy<br />
*Latency of correct responses<br />
<br />
==Independent variables==<br />
*Regular Verbs / Irregular Verbs<br />
*Regular Forms / Irregular Forms<br />
*Stem Change / Spelling Change<br />
*Pre-Test / Post-Test / Two-Week Delay<br />
<br />
==Hypotheses==<br />
<br />
#Learning will occur for all forms, but will be greatest for irregular verbs where the forms do require a transformation (irregular forms)<br />
#Regular forms of irregular verbs will show a performance profile in between irregular forms and regular forms of regular verbs. <br />
#Regular -ar verbs will show better performance than regular -er / -ir verbs<br />
#Teaching with a rule will improve learning compared to teaching with an analogous example.<br />
<br />
==Findings==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
<br />
==Annotated bibliography==</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Integrating_Regular_and_Irregular_Forms&diff=10964Integrating Regular and Irregular Forms2010-08-30T19:42:03Z<p>Presson: /* Independent variables */</p>
<hr />
<div>{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"<br />
|- <br />
! PIs<br />
| Nora Presson, Brian MacWhinney, Nuria Sagarra<br />
|-<br />
! Faculty<br />
| MacWhinney<br />
|-<br />
! Postdocs<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Others with > 160 hours<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Study Start Date<br />
| 09/10<br />
|-<br />
! Study End Date<br />
| 12/10<br />
|-<br />
! Learnlab<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (total)<br />
| <br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (treatment)<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
! Total Participant Hours<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
! Datashop?<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Abstract==<br />
<br />
Following the initial study of Spanish students practicing with irregular verbs ([[Rules_vs._Analogy_in_Spanish_Irregular_Verbs]]), we use a similar practice activity that adds regular verbs (in addition to those inflectional forms of irregular verbs that follow the regular pattern).<br />
<br />
==Glossary==<br />
*[[explicit instruction]]<br />
*[[cue validity]]<br />
*[[cue reliability]]<br />
*[[cue availability]]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Research question==<br />
<br />
There are two major methodological changes from the first study. First, we implement as between- instead of within-subjects the instructional manipulation, whether incorrect feedback is presented as a rule for when stem transformations are appropriate or presented as the correct answer with a correct and analogous high-frequency exemplar to model. <br />
<br />
Second, we are interested in how regular forms of verbs that sometimes require transformations on the stem (i.e., regular forms of "irregular" verbs) differ from forms where the verb is regular (i.e., no forms require a transformation). It is possible that the structure of the first experiment, presenting only verbs that do require a transformation, led to an expectation of irregularity, which would explain how some groups declined in accuracy on the regular forms of those irregular verbs (although not by much) after training.<br />
<br />
==Background and significance==<br />
<br />
Learners have difficulty processing inflected verb forms (Clahsen & Felser, 2006; Johnson & Newport, 1989). Some models of language processing postulate that this difficulty stems from learners' lack of ability to compose regular inflected forms as native speakers can (e.g., the Declarative/Procedural model of Ullman, 1997; 2001). This prediction stems on the assumptions that:<br />
*native speakers store irregular forms but compose (some but not necessarily all) regular ones (see for example Pinker, 1997)<br />
*learners are unable to process (decompose) morphologically complex forms in a nativelike way (possibly because of a Critical Period effect)<br />
<br />
The evidence that learners treat regulars and irregulars similarly (from which most infer that both are stored) comes from priming studies, where native speakers show priming of the base stem for regular but not irregular inflections, and also from production data showing frequency effects on latency for irregular but not regular inflected forms. <br />
<br />
However, most previous studies of the difference between regular and irregular forms do not distinguish between levels or types of irregularity. There are irregular forms that have predictable changes, and inflected forms that do not show any idiosyncratic transformation, though other forms of the same verb do. <br />
<br />
One level of distinction comes from a recent study by Bowden and colleagues (2010) that compared Spanish -''ar'' verbs, which are the most frequent type of verbs, are most often regular, and encompass most novel words, to -''er'' and -''ir'' verbs, which have fewer types and are more likely to be irregular. They showed that native speakers only failed to show frequency effects when producing -''ar'' but not -''er/-''ir'' regular inflected forms in both present (irregularities possible) and imperfect (almost no possible irregularities) tenses. Also, learners showed frequency effects (which they interpret to mean forms are stored and not composed) for all types of verbs and tenses. <br />
<br />
Most of the "irregular" verbs used in that study, however, do show predictable patterns that can explain the stem transformations. We are interested in whether these regularities matter; that is, whether a wholly idiosyncratic transformation is really processed the same way as an irregular that follows a predictable pattern.<br />
<br />
We compare two types of irregularity: first, spelling change verbs, where a change is needed to preserve the phonological form of the verb (e.g., ''sacar'' "to take out" -> ''saqué'' "I took out" because the regular transformation would lead to ''sacé'', with a soft 'c'.). We compared those to stem change verbs, where the change is not meant to preserve phonology but does follow a similar pattern across a large number of verbs. Also, we compare irregular verbs to regular verbs, where no forms require any transformation of the stem. <br />
<br />
Learner performance is full of errors, so we are interested in how to improve performance with practice and explicit feedback. In this study, we used two feedback types: an explicit explanation of when to transform the verb stem (i.e., which forms are irregular), and presenting a correctly inflected form of a highly frequent verb their teacher judged that they would know. These were assigned between subjects.<br />
<br />
==Dependent variables==<br />
*Response accuracy<br />
*Latency of correct responses<br />
<br />
==Independent variables==<br />
*Regular Verbs / Irregular Verbs<br />
*Regular Forms / Irregular Forms<br />
*Stem Change / Spelling Change<br />
*Pre-Test / Post-Test / Two-Week Delay<br />
<br />
==Hypotheses==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Findings==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
<br />
==Annotated bibliography==</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Integrating_Regular_and_Irregular_Forms&diff=10963Integrating Regular and Irregular Forms2010-08-30T19:40:53Z<p>Presson: /* Dependent variables */</p>
<hr />
<div>{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"<br />
|- <br />
! PIs<br />
| Nora Presson, Brian MacWhinney, Nuria Sagarra<br />
|-<br />
! Faculty<br />
| MacWhinney<br />
|-<br />
! Postdocs<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Others with > 160 hours<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Study Start Date<br />
| 09/10<br />
|-<br />
! Study End Date<br />
| 12/10<br />
|-<br />
! Learnlab<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (total)<br />
| <br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (treatment)<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
! Total Participant Hours<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
! Datashop?<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Abstract==<br />
<br />
Following the initial study of Spanish students practicing with irregular verbs ([[Rules_vs._Analogy_in_Spanish_Irregular_Verbs]]), we use a similar practice activity that adds regular verbs (in addition to those inflectional forms of irregular verbs that follow the regular pattern).<br />
<br />
==Glossary==<br />
*[[explicit instruction]]<br />
*[[cue validity]]<br />
*[[cue reliability]]<br />
*[[cue availability]]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Research question==<br />
<br />
There are two major methodological changes from the first study. First, we implement as between- instead of within-subjects the instructional manipulation, whether incorrect feedback is presented as a rule for when stem transformations are appropriate or presented as the correct answer with a correct and analogous high-frequency exemplar to model. <br />
<br />
Second, we are interested in how regular forms of verbs that sometimes require transformations on the stem (i.e., regular forms of "irregular" verbs) differ from forms where the verb is regular (i.e., no forms require a transformation). It is possible that the structure of the first experiment, presenting only verbs that do require a transformation, led to an expectation of irregularity, which would explain how some groups declined in accuracy on the regular forms of those irregular verbs (although not by much) after training.<br />
<br />
==Background and significance==<br />
<br />
Learners have difficulty processing inflected verb forms (Clahsen & Felser, 2006; Johnson & Newport, 1989). Some models of language processing postulate that this difficulty stems from learners' lack of ability to compose regular inflected forms as native speakers can (e.g., the Declarative/Procedural model of Ullman, 1997; 2001). This prediction stems on the assumptions that:<br />
*native speakers store irregular forms but compose (some but not necessarily all) regular ones (see for example Pinker, 1997)<br />
*learners are unable to process (decompose) morphologically complex forms in a nativelike way (possibly because of a Critical Period effect)<br />
<br />
The evidence that learners treat regulars and irregulars similarly (from which most infer that both are stored) comes from priming studies, where native speakers show priming of the base stem for regular but not irregular inflections, and also from production data showing frequency effects on latency for irregular but not regular inflected forms. <br />
<br />
However, most previous studies of the difference between regular and irregular forms do not distinguish between levels or types of irregularity. There are irregular forms that have predictable changes, and inflected forms that do not show any idiosyncratic transformation, though other forms of the same verb do. <br />
<br />
One level of distinction comes from a recent study by Bowden and colleagues (2010) that compared Spanish -''ar'' verbs, which are the most frequent type of verbs, are most often regular, and encompass most novel words, to -''er'' and -''ir'' verbs, which have fewer types and are more likely to be irregular. They showed that native speakers only failed to show frequency effects when producing -''ar'' but not -''er/-''ir'' regular inflected forms in both present (irregularities possible) and imperfect (almost no possible irregularities) tenses. Also, learners showed frequency effects (which they interpret to mean forms are stored and not composed) for all types of verbs and tenses. <br />
<br />
Most of the "irregular" verbs used in that study, however, do show predictable patterns that can explain the stem transformations. We are interested in whether these regularities matter; that is, whether a wholly idiosyncratic transformation is really processed the same way as an irregular that follows a predictable pattern.<br />
<br />
We compare two types of irregularity: first, spelling change verbs, where a change is needed to preserve the phonological form of the verb (e.g., ''sacar'' "to take out" -> ''saqué'' "I took out" because the regular transformation would lead to ''sacé'', with a soft 'c'.). We compared those to stem change verbs, where the change is not meant to preserve phonology but does follow a similar pattern across a large number of verbs. Also, we compare irregular verbs to regular verbs, where no forms require any transformation of the stem. <br />
<br />
Learner performance is full of errors, so we are interested in how to improve performance with practice and explicit feedback. In this study, we used two feedback types: an explicit explanation of when to transform the verb stem (i.e., which forms are irregular), and presenting a correctly inflected form of a highly frequent verb their teacher judged that they would know. These were assigned between subjects.<br />
<br />
==Dependent variables==<br />
*Response accuracy<br />
*Latency of correct responses<br />
<br />
==Independent variables==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Hypotheses==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Findings==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
<br />
==Annotated bibliography==</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Integrating_Regular_and_Irregular_Forms&diff=10962Integrating Regular and Irregular Forms2010-08-30T19:40:09Z<p>Presson: /* Background and significance */</p>
<hr />
<div>{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"<br />
|- <br />
! PIs<br />
| Nora Presson, Brian MacWhinney, Nuria Sagarra<br />
|-<br />
! Faculty<br />
| MacWhinney<br />
|-<br />
! Postdocs<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Others with > 160 hours<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Study Start Date<br />
| 09/10<br />
|-<br />
! Study End Date<br />
| 12/10<br />
|-<br />
! Learnlab<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (total)<br />
| <br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (treatment)<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
! Total Participant Hours<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
! Datashop?<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Abstract==<br />
<br />
Following the initial study of Spanish students practicing with irregular verbs ([[Rules_vs._Analogy_in_Spanish_Irregular_Verbs]]), we use a similar practice activity that adds regular verbs (in addition to those inflectional forms of irregular verbs that follow the regular pattern).<br />
<br />
==Glossary==<br />
*[[explicit instruction]]<br />
*[[cue validity]]<br />
*[[cue reliability]]<br />
*[[cue availability]]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Research question==<br />
<br />
There are two major methodological changes from the first study. First, we implement as between- instead of within-subjects the instructional manipulation, whether incorrect feedback is presented as a rule for when stem transformations are appropriate or presented as the correct answer with a correct and analogous high-frequency exemplar to model. <br />
<br />
Second, we are interested in how regular forms of verbs that sometimes require transformations on the stem (i.e., regular forms of "irregular" verbs) differ from forms where the verb is regular (i.e., no forms require a transformation). It is possible that the structure of the first experiment, presenting only verbs that do require a transformation, led to an expectation of irregularity, which would explain how some groups declined in accuracy on the regular forms of those irregular verbs (although not by much) after training.<br />
<br />
==Background and significance==<br />
<br />
Learners have difficulty processing inflected verb forms (Clahsen & Felser, 2006; Johnson & Newport, 1989). Some models of language processing postulate that this difficulty stems from learners' lack of ability to compose regular inflected forms as native speakers can (e.g., the Declarative/Procedural model of Ullman, 1997; 2001). This prediction stems on the assumptions that:<br />
*native speakers store irregular forms but compose (some but not necessarily all) regular ones (see for example Pinker, 1997)<br />
*learners are unable to process (decompose) morphologically complex forms in a nativelike way (possibly because of a Critical Period effect)<br />
<br />
The evidence that learners treat regulars and irregulars similarly (from which most infer that both are stored) comes from priming studies, where native speakers show priming of the base stem for regular but not irregular inflections, and also from production data showing frequency effects on latency for irregular but not regular inflected forms. <br />
<br />
However, most previous studies of the difference between regular and irregular forms do not distinguish between levels or types of irregularity. There are irregular forms that have predictable changes, and inflected forms that do not show any idiosyncratic transformation, though other forms of the same verb do. <br />
<br />
One level of distinction comes from a recent study by Bowden and colleagues (2010) that compared Spanish -''ar'' verbs, which are the most frequent type of verbs, are most often regular, and encompass most novel words, to -''er'' and -''ir'' verbs, which have fewer types and are more likely to be irregular. They showed that native speakers only failed to show frequency effects when producing -''ar'' but not -''er/-''ir'' regular inflected forms in both present (irregularities possible) and imperfect (almost no possible irregularities) tenses. Also, learners showed frequency effects (which they interpret to mean forms are stored and not composed) for all types of verbs and tenses. <br />
<br />
Most of the "irregular" verbs used in that study, however, do show predictable patterns that can explain the stem transformations. We are interested in whether these regularities matter; that is, whether a wholly idiosyncratic transformation is really processed the same way as an irregular that follows a predictable pattern.<br />
<br />
We compare two types of irregularity: first, spelling change verbs, where a change is needed to preserve the phonological form of the verb (e.g., ''sacar'' "to take out" -> ''saqué'' "I took out" because the regular transformation would lead to ''sacé'', with a soft 'c'.). We compared those to stem change verbs, where the change is not meant to preserve phonology but does follow a similar pattern across a large number of verbs. Also, we compare irregular verbs to regular verbs, where no forms require any transformation of the stem. <br />
<br />
Learner performance is full of errors, so we are interested in how to improve performance with practice and explicit feedback. In this study, we used two feedback types: an explicit explanation of when to transform the verb stem (i.e., which forms are irregular), and presenting a correctly inflected form of a highly frequent verb their teacher judged that they would know. These were assigned between subjects.<br />
<br />
==Dependent variables==<br />
<br />
<br />
==Independent variables==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Hypotheses==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Findings==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
<br />
==Annotated bibliography==</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Integrating_Regular_and_Irregular_Forms&diff=10961Integrating Regular and Irregular Forms2010-08-30T19:38:51Z<p>Presson: /* Research question */</p>
<hr />
<div>{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"<br />
|- <br />
! PIs<br />
| Nora Presson, Brian MacWhinney, Nuria Sagarra<br />
|-<br />
! Faculty<br />
| MacWhinney<br />
|-<br />
! Postdocs<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Others with > 160 hours<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Study Start Date<br />
| 09/10<br />
|-<br />
! Study End Date<br />
| 12/10<br />
|-<br />
! Learnlab<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (total)<br />
| <br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (treatment)<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
! Total Participant Hours<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
! Datashop?<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Abstract==<br />
<br />
Following the initial study of Spanish students practicing with irregular verbs ([[Rules_vs._Analogy_in_Spanish_Irregular_Verbs]]), we use a similar practice activity that adds regular verbs (in addition to those inflectional forms of irregular verbs that follow the regular pattern).<br />
<br />
==Glossary==<br />
*[[explicit instruction]]<br />
*[[cue validity]]<br />
*[[cue reliability]]<br />
*[[cue availability]]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Research question==<br />
<br />
There are two major methodological changes from the first study. First, we implement as between- instead of within-subjects the instructional manipulation, whether incorrect feedback is presented as a rule for when stem transformations are appropriate or presented as the correct answer with a correct and analogous high-frequency exemplar to model. <br />
<br />
Second, we are interested in how regular forms of verbs that sometimes require transformations on the stem (i.e., regular forms of "irregular" verbs) differ from forms where the verb is regular (i.e., no forms require a transformation). It is possible that the structure of the first experiment, presenting only verbs that do require a transformation, led to an expectation of irregularity, which would explain how some groups declined in accuracy on the regular forms of those irregular verbs (although not by much) after training.<br />
<br />
==Background and significance==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Dependent variables==<br />
<br />
<br />
==Independent variables==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Hypotheses==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Findings==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
<br />
==Annotated bibliography==</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Presson_and_MacWhinney_-_Second_Language_Grammar&diff=10960Presson and MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar2010-08-30T19:34:03Z<p>Presson: </p>
<hr />
<div>Spanish Conjugation <br />
<br />
<br />
==Abstract==<br />
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.<br />
<br />
==Background & Significance==<br />
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). <br />
<br />
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:<br />
1. Graduated interval recall,<br />
2. Resonant cotraining, and<br />
3. Cue focusing.<br />
The claim is that L2 instruction that incorporates these three methods will lead to marked improvements in fluency and robustness of learning.<br />
<br />
==Glossary==<br />
===Graduated Interval Recall===<br />
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.<br />
<br />
===Resonant Cotraining===<br />
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.<br />
<br />
===Explicit Cue Focusing===<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
===Entrenchment===<br />
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.<br />
<br />
===Transfer===<br />
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.<br />
<br />
===Social Disincentives===<br />
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.<br />
<br />
==Research questions== <br />
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.<br />
<br />
==Studies of Second Language Grammar Learning==<br />
<br />
===French Grammatical Gender===<br />
* [[French gender cues | French grammatical gender cue learning]] (Presson, MacWhinney)<br />
** [[Learning French gender cues with prototypes | Instruction of French gender cues]] (Presson, MacWhinney)<br />
**[[French gender prototypes | Lab study of grammar learning contrasting explicit and implicit instruction and prototype usage]] (Presson, MacWhinney)<br />
**[[French gender attention | Lab study of effects of time pressure and explicitness on gender learning]] (Presson, MacWhinney)<br />
<br />
===Spanish Verb Conjugation===<br />
*[[Spanish Verb Conjugation]] <br />
**[[Rules vs. Analogy in Spanish Irregular Verbs| Irregular Verbs in Spanish]] (Presson, MacWhinney, Sagarra)<br />
**[[Integrating Regular and Irregular Forms | Regular and Irregular Spanish Verb Forms]] (Presson, MacWhinney, Sagarra)<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
*Kohonen, T. (2001). Self-organizing maps (3rd ed.). Berlin: Springer.<br />
*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.<br />
*Pimsleur, P. (1967). A memory schedule. Modern Language Journal, 51, 73-75.<br />
*Yoshimura, Y., & MacWhinney, B. (in press). The use of pronominal case in English sentence interpretation. Applied Psycholinguistics.<br />
*Yoshimura, Y., & MacWhinney, B. (in press). Honorifics: A socio-cultural verb agreement cue in Japanese sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics.<br />
*MacWhinney, B. (in press). A tale of two paradigms. In M. Kail, M. Fayol & M. Hickman (Eds.), Language studies. Paris: Springer.<br />
*Zhang, Y., MacWhinney, B., & Wu, S. (in preparation). A tutor for learning Chinese sounds through pinyin. Applied Psycholinguistics.<br />
*Prior, A., & MacWhinney, B. (2009). Beyond inhibition: A bilingual advantage in task switching. Bilingualism.<br />
*MacWhinney, B. (2009). The emergence of linguistic complexity. In T. Givon (Ed.), Linguistic complexity (pp. 405-432). New York: Benjamins.<br />
*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.<br />
*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.<br />
*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.<br />
*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.<br />
*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.<br />
*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.<br />
<br />
==Future Plans==</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Rules_vs._Analogy_in_Spanish_Irregular_Verbs&diff=10947Rules vs. Analogy in Spanish Irregular Verbs2010-08-25T16:39:33Z<p>Presson: /* Hypotheses */</p>
<hr />
<div>{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"<br />
|- <br />
! PIs<br />
| Nora Presson, Brian MacWhinney, Nuria Sagarra<br />
|-<br />
! Faculty<br />
| MacWhinney<br />
|-<br />
! Postdocs<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Others with > 160 hours<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Study Start Date<br />
| 04/01/10<br />
|-<br />
! Study End Date<br />
| 06/01/10<br />
|-<br />
! Learnlab<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (total)<br />
| 105<br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (treatment)<br />
|-105<br />
|-<br />
! Total Participant Hours<br />
| ~350<br />
|-<br />
! Datashop?<br />
| Not yet<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Abstract==<br />
<br />
The goal of this experiment was to test explicit instruction of when irregular verbs take a change in the stem, and when they use a regular affixation pattern. We gave beginning Spanish students practice conjugating verbs that have irregularity in some inflected forms. Two irregularity types were compared: stem-change verbs, where the pattern of transformations is predictable based on a large gang of similar irregular verbs, and spelling-change verbs, where the pattern of transformations is predictable based on the spelling and the phonology of the inflected form and the infinitive. We compared explicit formulations of "when to change" the stem of a verb with an analogical comparison condition, where instead of a rule formulation, participants saw a similarly irregular verb they knew (judged by the instructor) conjugated appropriately as a model.<br />
<br />
==Glossary==<br />
*[[explicit instruction]]<br />
*[[cue validity]]<br />
*[[cue reliability]]<br />
*[[cue availability]]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Research question==<br />
<br />
*What is the baseline accuracy (latency) for producing inflected verb forms for irregular verbs (i.e., verbs where at least one form requires an idiosyncratic transformation)?<br />
*Do forms that require a transformation (irregular forms) show lower accuracy (higher latency) than forms that do not, even when the verb itself is irregular?<br />
*Do spelling change verbs, where the change is predictable from the spelling of the infinitive, show different response patterns than stem change verbs, which are not visible from the infinitive?<br />
*Does providing a rule about when change of the stem is necessary improve performance compared to providing a known form that is transformed in the same way as the practice verb?<br />
*How does the amount of improvement after practice depend on:<br />
**Regularity of the form<br />
**Instruction type (rule vs. exemplar)<br />
**Change type (spelling vs. stem)<br />
<br />
==Background and significance==<br />
<br />
Learners have difficulty processing inflected verb forms (Clahsen & Felser, 2006; Johnson & Newport, 1989). Some models of language processing postulate that this difficulty stems from learners' lack of ability to compose regular inflected forms as native speakers can (e.g., the Declarative/Procedural model of Ullman, 1997; 2001). This prediction stems on the assumptions that:<br />
*native speakers store irregular forms but compose (some but not necessarily all) regular ones (see for example Pinker, 1997)<br />
*learners are unable to process (decompose) morphologically complex forms in a nativelike way (possibly because of a Critical Period effect)<br />
<br />
The evidence that learners treat regulars and irregulars similarly (from which most infer that both are stored) comes from priming studies, where native speakers show priming of the base stem for regular but not irregular inflections, and also from production data showing frequency effects on latency for irregular but not regular inflected forms. <br />
<br />
However, most previous studies of the difference between regular and irregular forms do not distinguish between levels or types of irregularity. There are irregular forms that have predictable changes, and inflected forms that do not show any idiosyncratic transformation, though other forms of the same verb do. <br />
<br />
One level of distinction comes from a recent study by Bowden and colleagues (2010) that compared Spanish -''ar'' verbs, which are the most frequent type of verbs, are most often regular, and encompass most novel words, to -''er'' and -''ir'' verbs, which have fewer types and are more likely to be irregular. They showed that native speakers only failed to show frequency effects when producing -''ar'' but not -''er/-''ir'' regular inflected forms in both present (irregularities possible) and imperfect (almost no possible irregularities) tenses. Also, learners showed frequency effects (which they interpret to mean forms are stored and not composed) for all types of verbs and tenses. <br />
<br />
Most of the "irregular" verbs used in that study, however, do show predictable patterns that can explain the stem transformations. We are interested in whether these regularities matter; that is, whether a wholly idiosyncratic transformation is really processed the same way as an irregular that follows a predictable pattern.<br />
<br />
We compare two types of irregularity: first, spelling change verbs, where a change is needed to preserve the phonological form of the verb (e.g., ''sacar'' "to take out" -> ''saqué'' "I took out" because the regular transformation would lead to ''sacé'', with a soft 'c'.). We compared those to stem change verbs, where the change is not meant to preserve phonology but does follow a similar pattern across a large number of verbs. <br />
<br />
Learner performance is full of errors, so we are interested in how to improve performance with practice and explicit feedback. In this study, we used two feedback types: an explicit explanation of when to transform the verb stem (i.e., which forms are irregular), and presenting a correctly inflected form of a highly frequent verb their teacher judged that they would know.<br />
<br />
==Dependent variables==<br />
<br />
*Response accuracy (% inflected forms typed correctly at first attempt)<br />
*Response latency (seconds to type inflected form)<br />
<br />
==Independent variables==<br />
*Spelling change verbs compared to stem change verbs<br />
*Practice with a rule (e.g., for ''arrancar'', a spelling change verb, "c --> qu when ending begins with e or i"; for ''volver'', a stem change verb, "o --> ue when syllable is stressed") vs. practice with an analogy (a verb following the same pattern of irregularity that their teacher judged would be familiar)<br />
*Forms that do require a transformation to the stem (irregular) vs. forms that do not (regular)<br />
*Test time (pre-test, post-test, 1-week follow-up)<br />
<br />
==Hypotheses==<br />
<br />
#Performance will improve after 3 sessions of training for ~15 minutes. Post-test accuracy immediately after training as well as after a one-week delay will be higher than pre-test accuracy.<br />
#Irregular forms will show lower accuracy than regular forms, even though all forms come from "irregular" verbs. <br />
#Training will be more helpful for irregular than regular forms.<br />
#Feedback with an analogy will be more helpful with stem change verbs (unpredictable from infinitive form), whereas an explicit rule will be more helpful with spelling change verbs (predictable from the infinitive).<br />
<br />
==Findings==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
<br />
==Annotated bibliography==</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Rules_vs._Analogy_in_Spanish_Irregular_Verbs&diff=10946Rules vs. Analogy in Spanish Irregular Verbs2010-08-25T16:17:53Z<p>Presson: /* Background and significance */</p>
<hr />
<div>{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"<br />
|- <br />
! PIs<br />
| Nora Presson, Brian MacWhinney, Nuria Sagarra<br />
|-<br />
! Faculty<br />
| MacWhinney<br />
|-<br />
! Postdocs<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Others with > 160 hours<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Study Start Date<br />
| 04/01/10<br />
|-<br />
! Study End Date<br />
| 06/01/10<br />
|-<br />
! Learnlab<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (total)<br />
| 105<br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (treatment)<br />
|-105<br />
|-<br />
! Total Participant Hours<br />
| ~350<br />
|-<br />
! Datashop?<br />
| Not yet<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Abstract==<br />
<br />
The goal of this experiment was to test explicit instruction of when irregular verbs take a change in the stem, and when they use a regular affixation pattern. We gave beginning Spanish students practice conjugating verbs that have irregularity in some inflected forms. Two irregularity types were compared: stem-change verbs, where the pattern of transformations is predictable based on a large gang of similar irregular verbs, and spelling-change verbs, where the pattern of transformations is predictable based on the spelling and the phonology of the inflected form and the infinitive. We compared explicit formulations of "when to change" the stem of a verb with an analogical comparison condition, where instead of a rule formulation, participants saw a similarly irregular verb they knew (judged by the instructor) conjugated appropriately as a model.<br />
<br />
==Glossary==<br />
*[[explicit instruction]]<br />
*[[cue validity]]<br />
*[[cue reliability]]<br />
*[[cue availability]]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Research question==<br />
<br />
*What is the baseline accuracy (latency) for producing inflected verb forms for irregular verbs (i.e., verbs where at least one form requires an idiosyncratic transformation)?<br />
*Do forms that require a transformation (irregular forms) show lower accuracy (higher latency) than forms that do not, even when the verb itself is irregular?<br />
*Do spelling change verbs, where the change is predictable from the spelling of the infinitive, show different response patterns than stem change verbs, which are not visible from the infinitive?<br />
*Does providing a rule about when change of the stem is necessary improve performance compared to providing a known form that is transformed in the same way as the practice verb?<br />
*How does the amount of improvement after practice depend on:<br />
**Regularity of the form<br />
**Instruction type (rule vs. exemplar)<br />
**Change type (spelling vs. stem)<br />
<br />
==Background and significance==<br />
<br />
Learners have difficulty processing inflected verb forms (Clahsen & Felser, 2006; Johnson & Newport, 1989). Some models of language processing postulate that this difficulty stems from learners' lack of ability to compose regular inflected forms as native speakers can (e.g., the Declarative/Procedural model of Ullman, 1997; 2001). This prediction stems on the assumptions that:<br />
*native speakers store irregular forms but compose (some but not necessarily all) regular ones (see for example Pinker, 1997)<br />
*learners are unable to process (decompose) morphologically complex forms in a nativelike way (possibly because of a Critical Period effect)<br />
<br />
The evidence that learners treat regulars and irregulars similarly (from which most infer that both are stored) comes from priming studies, where native speakers show priming of the base stem for regular but not irregular inflections, and also from production data showing frequency effects on latency for irregular but not regular inflected forms. <br />
<br />
However, most previous studies of the difference between regular and irregular forms do not distinguish between levels or types of irregularity. There are irregular forms that have predictable changes, and inflected forms that do not show any idiosyncratic transformation, though other forms of the same verb do. <br />
<br />
One level of distinction comes from a recent study by Bowden and colleagues (2010) that compared Spanish -''ar'' verbs, which are the most frequent type of verbs, are most often regular, and encompass most novel words, to -''er'' and -''ir'' verbs, which have fewer types and are more likely to be irregular. They showed that native speakers only failed to show frequency effects when producing -''ar'' but not -''er/-''ir'' regular inflected forms in both present (irregularities possible) and imperfect (almost no possible irregularities) tenses. Also, learners showed frequency effects (which they interpret to mean forms are stored and not composed) for all types of verbs and tenses. <br />
<br />
Most of the "irregular" verbs used in that study, however, do show predictable patterns that can explain the stem transformations. We are interested in whether these regularities matter; that is, whether a wholly idiosyncratic transformation is really processed the same way as an irregular that follows a predictable pattern.<br />
<br />
We compare two types of irregularity: first, spelling change verbs, where a change is needed to preserve the phonological form of the verb (e.g., ''sacar'' "to take out" -> ''saqué'' "I took out" because the regular transformation would lead to ''sacé'', with a soft 'c'.). We compared those to stem change verbs, where the change is not meant to preserve phonology but does follow a similar pattern across a large number of verbs. <br />
<br />
Learner performance is full of errors, so we are interested in how to improve performance with practice and explicit feedback. In this study, we used two feedback types: an explicit explanation of when to transform the verb stem (i.e., which forms are irregular), and presenting a correctly inflected form of a highly frequent verb their teacher judged that they would know.<br />
<br />
==Dependent variables==<br />
<br />
*Response accuracy (% inflected forms typed correctly at first attempt)<br />
*Response latency (seconds to type inflected form)<br />
<br />
==Independent variables==<br />
*Spelling change verbs compared to stem change verbs<br />
*Practice with a rule (e.g., for ''arrancar'', a spelling change verb, "c --> qu when ending begins with e or i"; for ''volver'', a stem change verb, "o --> ue when syllable is stressed") vs. practice with an analogy (a verb following the same pattern of irregularity that their teacher judged would be familiar)<br />
*Forms that do require a transformation to the stem (irregular) vs. forms that do not (regular)<br />
*Test time (pre-test, post-test, 1-week follow-up)<br />
<br />
==Hypotheses==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Findings==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
<br />
==Annotated bibliography==</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Rules_vs._Analogy_in_Spanish_Irregular_Verbs&diff=10945Rules vs. Analogy in Spanish Irregular Verbs2010-08-25T16:10:38Z<p>Presson: /* Background and significance */</p>
<hr />
<div>{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"<br />
|- <br />
! PIs<br />
| Nora Presson, Brian MacWhinney, Nuria Sagarra<br />
|-<br />
! Faculty<br />
| MacWhinney<br />
|-<br />
! Postdocs<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Others with > 160 hours<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Study Start Date<br />
| 04/01/10<br />
|-<br />
! Study End Date<br />
| 06/01/10<br />
|-<br />
! Learnlab<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (total)<br />
| 105<br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (treatment)<br />
|-105<br />
|-<br />
! Total Participant Hours<br />
| ~350<br />
|-<br />
! Datashop?<br />
| Not yet<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Abstract==<br />
<br />
The goal of this experiment was to test explicit instruction of when irregular verbs take a change in the stem, and when they use a regular affixation pattern. We gave beginning Spanish students practice conjugating verbs that have irregularity in some inflected forms. Two irregularity types were compared: stem-change verbs, where the pattern of transformations is predictable based on a large gang of similar irregular verbs, and spelling-change verbs, where the pattern of transformations is predictable based on the spelling and the phonology of the inflected form and the infinitive. We compared explicit formulations of "when to change" the stem of a verb with an analogical comparison condition, where instead of a rule formulation, participants saw a similarly irregular verb they knew (judged by the instructor) conjugated appropriately as a model.<br />
<br />
==Glossary==<br />
*[[explicit instruction]]<br />
*[[cue validity]]<br />
*[[cue reliability]]<br />
*[[cue availability]]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Research question==<br />
<br />
*What is the baseline accuracy (latency) for producing inflected verb forms for irregular verbs (i.e., verbs where at least one form requires an idiosyncratic transformation)?<br />
*Do forms that require a transformation (irregular forms) show lower accuracy (higher latency) than forms that do not, even when the verb itself is irregular?<br />
*Do spelling change verbs, where the change is predictable from the spelling of the infinitive, show different response patterns than stem change verbs, which are not visible from the infinitive?<br />
*Does providing a rule about when change of the stem is necessary improve performance compared to providing a known form that is transformed in the same way as the practice verb?<br />
*How does the amount of improvement after practice depend on:<br />
**Regularity of the form<br />
**Instruction type (rule vs. exemplar)<br />
**Change type (spelling vs. stem)<br />
<br />
==Background and significance==<br />
<br />
Learners have difficulty processing inflected verb forms (Clahsen & Felser, 2006; Johnson & Newport, 1989). Some models of language processing postulate that this difficulty stems from learners' lack of ability to compose regular inflected forms as native speakers can (e.g., the Declarative/Procedural model of Ullman, 1997; 2001). This prediction stems on the assumptions that:<br />
*native speakers store irregular forms but compose (some but not necessarily all) regular ones (see for example Pinker, 1997)<br />
*learners are unable to process (decompose) morphologically complex forms in a nativelike way (possibly because of a Critical Period effect)<br />
<br />
The evidence that learners treat regulars and irregulars similarly (from which most infer that both are stored) comes from priming studies, where native speakers show priming of the base stem for regular but not irregular inflections, and also from production data showing frequency effects on latency for irregular but not regular inflected forms. <br />
<br />
However, most previous studies of the difference between regular and irregular forms do not distinguish between levels or types of irregularity. There are irregular forms that have predictable changes, and inflected forms that do not show any idiosyncratic transformation, though other forms of the same verb do. <br />
<br />
One level of distinction comes from a recent study by Bowden and colleagues (2010) that compared Spanish -''ar'' verbs, which are the most frequent type of verbs, are most often regular, and encompass most novel words, to -''er'' and -''ir'' verbs, which have fewer types and are more likely to be irregular. They showed that native speakers only failed to show frequency effects when producing -''ar'' but not -''er/-''ir'' regular inflected forms in both present (irregularities possible) and imperfect (almost no possible irregularities) tenses. Also, learners showed frequency effects (which they interpret to mean forms are stored and not composed) for all types of verbs and tenses. <br />
<br />
Most of the "irregular" verbs used in that study, however, do show predictable patterns that can explain the stem transformations. We are interested in whether these regularities matter; that is, whether a wholly idiosyncratic transformation is really processed the same way as an irregular that follows a predictable pattern.<br />
<br />
==Dependent variables==<br />
<br />
*Response accuracy (% inflected forms typed correctly at first attempt)<br />
*Response latency (seconds to type inflected form)<br />
<br />
==Independent variables==<br />
*Spelling change verbs compared to stem change verbs<br />
*Practice with a rule (e.g., for ''arrancar'', a spelling change verb, "c --> qu when ending begins with e or i"; for ''volver'', a stem change verb, "o --> ue when syllable is stressed") vs. practice with an analogy (a verb following the same pattern of irregularity that their teacher judged would be familiar)<br />
*Forms that do require a transformation to the stem (irregular) vs. forms that do not (regular)<br />
*Test time (pre-test, post-test, 1-week follow-up)<br />
<br />
==Hypotheses==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Findings==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
<br />
==Annotated bibliography==</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Cognitive_Factors&diff=10944Cognitive Factors2010-08-25T15:44:44Z<p>Presson: /* Descendents */</p>
<hr />
<div>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. <br />
<br />
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:<br />
<br />
* 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.<br />
* Assistance: The degree of assistance in the instruction affects learning in relation to student knowledge on specific knowledge components.<br />
* Practice: Practice schedules can be optimized using models of learning based on memory activation assumptions.<br />
* Integration: Knowledge components that are integrated during learning and practice lead to more robust learning and fluent performance across different tasks. <br />
* [http://www.superiorpapers.com/ research papers]<br />
<br />
The research plan tests these hypotheses across knowledge domains, as exemplified by the following projects:<br />
<br />
''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.<br />
<br />
''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. <br />
<br />
''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. <br />
<br />
''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. <br />
<br />
''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.<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
<br />
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.]]<br />
<br />
*[[Klahr - TED]]<br />
*[[Perfetti - Read Write Integration]]<br />
*[[Presson & MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar]]<br />
*[[Davy & MacWhinney - Spanish Sentence Production]]<br />
*[[Zhang & MacWhinney - Chinese Pinyin Learning]]<br />
*[[Zhao & MacWhinney - English Article Usage]]<br />
*[[Juffs - Feature Focus in Word Learning]]<br />
*[[Fostering fluency in second language learning | de Jong - Fluency]]<br />
*[[McLaren_-_The_Assistance_Dilemma_And_Discovery_Learning | McLaren - The Assistance Dilemma and Discovery Learning]]<br />
*[[Wylie - Intelligent Writing Tutor]]<br />
*[[REAP_main | Eskenazi - REAP]]<br />
*[[Roll - Productive Failure in a Chemistry Virtual Lab]]<br />
<br />
=== References ===<br />
* 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.</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Presson_%26_MacWhinney_-_Second_Language_Grammar&diff=10942Presson & MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar2010-08-25T15:44:29Z<p>Presson: MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar moved to Presson & MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar: All Presson & MacWhinney studies are descendants</p>
<hr />
<div>#REDIRECT [[Presson and MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar]]</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=MacWhinney_-_Second_Language_Grammar&diff=10943MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar2010-08-25T15:44:29Z<p>Presson: MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar moved to Presson & MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar: All Presson & MacWhinney studies are descendants</p>
<hr />
<div>#REDIRECT [[Presson & MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar]]</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Cognitive_Factors&diff=10941Cognitive Factors2010-08-25T15:44:12Z<p>Presson: /* Descendents */</p>
<hr />
<div>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. <br />
<br />
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:<br />
<br />
* 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.<br />
* Assistance: The degree of assistance in the instruction affects learning in relation to student knowledge on specific knowledge components.<br />
* Practice: Practice schedules can be optimized using models of learning based on memory activation assumptions.<br />
* Integration: Knowledge components that are integrated during learning and practice lead to more robust learning and fluent performance across different tasks. <br />
* [http://www.superiorpapers.com/ research papers]<br />
<br />
The research plan tests these hypotheses across knowledge domains, as exemplified by the following projects:<br />
<br />
''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.<br />
<br />
''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. <br />
<br />
''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. <br />
<br />
''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. <br />
<br />
''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.<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
<br />
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.]]<br />
<br />
*[[Klahr - TED]]<br />
*[[Perfetti - Read Write Integration]]<br />
*[[Presson and MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar]]<br />
*[[Davy & MacWhinney - Spanish Sentence Production]]<br />
*[[Zhang & MacWhinney - Chinese Pinyin Learning]]<br />
*[[Zhao & MacWhinney - English Article Usage]]<br />
*[[Juffs - Feature Focus in Word Learning]]<br />
*[[Fostering fluency in second language learning | de Jong - Fluency]]<br />
*[[McLaren_-_The_Assistance_Dilemma_And_Discovery_Learning | McLaren - The Assistance Dilemma and Discovery Learning]]<br />
*[[Wylie - Intelligent Writing Tutor]]<br />
*[[REAP_main | Eskenazi - REAP]]<br />
*[[Roll - Productive Failure in a Chemistry Virtual Lab]]<br />
<br />
=== References ===<br />
* 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.</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Presson_and_MacWhinney_-_Second_Language_Grammar&diff=10939Presson and MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar2010-08-25T15:43:53Z<p>Presson: MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar moved to Presson and MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar: All Presson & MacWhinney studies are descendants</p>
<hr />
<div>Spanish Conjugation <br />
==Summary Table==<br />
<br />
==Abstract==<br />
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.<br />
<br />
==Background & Significance==<br />
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). <br />
<br />
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:<br />
1. Graduated interval recall,<br />
2. Resonant cotraining, and<br />
3. Cue focusing.<br />
The claim is that L2 instruction that incorporates these three methods will lead to marked improvements in fluency and robustness of learning.<br />
<br />
==Glossary==<br />
===Graduated Interval Recall===<br />
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.<br />
<br />
===Resonant Cotraining===<br />
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.<br />
<br />
===Explicit Cue Focusing===<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
===Entrenchment===<br />
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.<br />
<br />
===Transfer===<br />
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.<br />
<br />
===Social Disincentives===<br />
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.<br />
<br />
==Research questions== <br />
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.<br />
<br />
==Studies of Second Language Grammar Learning==<br />
<br />
===French Grammatical Gender===<br />
* [[French gender cues | French grammatical gender cue learning]] (Presson, MacWhinney)<br />
** [[Learning French gender cues with prototypes | Instruction of French gender cues]] (Presson, MacWhinney)<br />
**[[French gender prototypes | Lab study of grammar learning contrasting explicit and implicit instruction and prototype usage]] (Presson, MacWhinney)<br />
**[[French gender attention | Lab study of effects of time pressure and explicitness on gender learning]] (Presson, MacWhinney)<br />
<br />
===Spanish Verb Conjugation===<br />
*[[Spanish Verb Conjugation]] <br />
**[[Rules vs. Analogy in Spanish Irregular Verbs| Irregular Verbs in Spanish]] (Presson, MacWhinney, Sagarra)<br />
**[[Integrating Regular and Irregular Forms | Regular and Irregular Spanish Verb Forms]] (Presson, MacWhinney, Sagarra)<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
*Kohonen, T. (2001). Self-organizing maps (3rd ed.). Berlin: Springer.<br />
*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.<br />
*Pimsleur, P. (1967). A memory schedule. Modern Language Journal, 51, 73-75.<br />
*Yoshimura, Y., & MacWhinney, B. (in press). The use of pronominal case in English sentence interpretation. Applied Psycholinguistics.<br />
*Yoshimura, Y., & MacWhinney, B. (in press). Honorifics: A socio-cultural verb agreement cue in Japanese sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics.<br />
*MacWhinney, B. (in press). A tale of two paradigms. In M. Kail, M. Fayol & M. Hickman (Eds.), Language studies. Paris: Springer.<br />
*Zhang, Y., MacWhinney, B., & Wu, S. (in preparation). A tutor for learning Chinese sounds through pinyin. Applied Psycholinguistics.<br />
*Prior, A., & MacWhinney, B. (2009). Beyond inhibition: A bilingual advantage in task switching. Bilingualism.<br />
*MacWhinney, B. (2009). The emergence of linguistic complexity. In T. Givon (Ed.), Linguistic complexity (pp. 405-432). New York: Benjamins.<br />
*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.<br />
*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.<br />
*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.<br />
*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.<br />
*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.<br />
*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.<br />
<br />
==Future Plans==</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Presson_%26_MacWhinney_-_Second_Language_Grammar&diff=10940Presson & MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar2010-08-25T15:43:53Z<p>Presson: MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar moved to Presson and MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar: All Presson & MacWhinney studies are descendants</p>
<hr />
<div>#REDIRECT [[Presson and MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar]]</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Rules_vs._Analogy_in_Spanish_Irregular_Verbs&diff=10927Rules vs. Analogy in Spanish Irregular Verbs2010-08-24T15:12:25Z<p>Presson: /* Independent variables */</p>
<hr />
<div>{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"<br />
|- <br />
! PIs<br />
| Nora Presson, Brian MacWhinney, Nuria Sagarra<br />
|-<br />
! Faculty<br />
| MacWhinney<br />
|-<br />
! Postdocs<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Others with > 160 hours<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Study Start Date<br />
| 04/01/10<br />
|-<br />
! Study End Date<br />
| 06/01/10<br />
|-<br />
! Learnlab<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (total)<br />
| 105<br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (treatment)<br />
|-105<br />
|-<br />
! Total Participant Hours<br />
| ~350<br />
|-<br />
! Datashop?<br />
| Not yet<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Abstract==<br />
<br />
The goal of this experiment was to test explicit instruction of when irregular verbs take a change in the stem, and when they use a regular affixation pattern. We gave beginning Spanish students practice conjugating verbs that have irregularity in some inflected forms. Two irregularity types were compared: stem-change verbs, where the pattern of transformations is predictable based on a large gang of similar irregular verbs, and spelling-change verbs, where the pattern of transformations is predictable based on the spelling and the phonology of the inflected form and the infinitive. We compared explicit formulations of "when to change" the stem of a verb with an analogical comparison condition, where instead of a rule formulation, participants saw a similarly irregular verb they knew (judged by the instructor) conjugated appropriately as a model.<br />
<br />
==Glossary==<br />
*[[explicit instruction]]<br />
*[[cue validity]]<br />
*[[cue reliability]]<br />
*[[cue availability]]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Research question==<br />
<br />
*What is the baseline accuracy (latency) for producing inflected verb forms for irregular verbs (i.e., verbs where at least one form requires an idiosyncratic transformation)?<br />
*Do forms that require a transformation (irregular forms) show lower accuracy (higher latency) than forms that do not, even when the verb itself is irregular?<br />
*Do spelling change verbs, where the change is predictable from the spelling of the infinitive, show different response patterns than stem change verbs, which are not visible from the infinitive?<br />
*Does providing a rule about when change of the stem is necessary improve performance compared to providing a known form that is transformed in the same way as the practice verb?<br />
*How does the amount of improvement after practice depend on:<br />
**Regularity of the form<br />
**Instruction type (rule vs. exemplar)<br />
**Change type (spelling vs. stem)<br />
<br />
==Background and significance==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Dependent variables==<br />
<br />
*Response accuracy (% inflected forms typed correctly at first attempt)<br />
*Response latency (seconds to type inflected form)<br />
<br />
==Independent variables==<br />
*Spelling change verbs compared to stem change verbs<br />
*Practice with a rule (e.g., for ''arrancar'', a spelling change verb, "c --> qu when ending begins with e or i"; for ''volver'', a stem change verb, "o --> ue when syllable is stressed") vs. practice with an analogy (a verb following the same pattern of irregularity that their teacher judged would be familiar)<br />
*Forms that do require a transformation to the stem (irregular) vs. forms that do not (regular)<br />
*Test time (pre-test, post-test, 1-week follow-up)<br />
<br />
==Hypotheses==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Findings==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
<br />
==Annotated bibliography==</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Rules_vs._Analogy_in_Spanish_Irregular_Verbs&diff=10926Rules vs. Analogy in Spanish Irregular Verbs2010-08-24T14:59:56Z<p>Presson: /* Independent variables */</p>
<hr />
<div>{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"<br />
|- <br />
! PIs<br />
| Nora Presson, Brian MacWhinney, Nuria Sagarra<br />
|-<br />
! Faculty<br />
| MacWhinney<br />
|-<br />
! Postdocs<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Others with > 160 hours<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Study Start Date<br />
| 04/01/10<br />
|-<br />
! Study End Date<br />
| 06/01/10<br />
|-<br />
! Learnlab<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (total)<br />
| 105<br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (treatment)<br />
|-105<br />
|-<br />
! Total Participant Hours<br />
| ~350<br />
|-<br />
! Datashop?<br />
| Not yet<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Abstract==<br />
<br />
The goal of this experiment was to test explicit instruction of when irregular verbs take a change in the stem, and when they use a regular affixation pattern. We gave beginning Spanish students practice conjugating verbs that have irregularity in some inflected forms. Two irregularity types were compared: stem-change verbs, where the pattern of transformations is predictable based on a large gang of similar irregular verbs, and spelling-change verbs, where the pattern of transformations is predictable based on the spelling and the phonology of the inflected form and the infinitive. We compared explicit formulations of "when to change" the stem of a verb with an analogical comparison condition, where instead of a rule formulation, participants saw a similarly irregular verb they knew (judged by the instructor) conjugated appropriately as a model.<br />
<br />
==Glossary==<br />
*[[explicit instruction]]<br />
*[[cue validity]]<br />
*[[cue reliability]]<br />
*[[cue availability]]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Research question==<br />
<br />
*What is the baseline accuracy (latency) for producing inflected verb forms for irregular verbs (i.e., verbs where at least one form requires an idiosyncratic transformation)?<br />
*Do forms that require a transformation (irregular forms) show lower accuracy (higher latency) than forms that do not, even when the verb itself is irregular?<br />
*Do spelling change verbs, where the change is predictable from the spelling of the infinitive, show different response patterns than stem change verbs, which are not visible from the infinitive?<br />
*Does providing a rule about when change of the stem is necessary improve performance compared to providing a known form that is transformed in the same way as the practice verb?<br />
*How does the amount of improvement after practice depend on:<br />
**Regularity of the form<br />
**Instruction type (rule vs. exemplar)<br />
**Change type (spelling vs. stem)<br />
<br />
==Background and significance==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Dependent variables==<br />
<br />
*Response accuracy (% inflected forms typed correctly at first attempt)<br />
*Response latency (seconds to type inflected form)<br />
<br />
==Independent variables==<br />
*Spelling change verbs compared to stem change verbs<br />
*Practice with a rule (e.g., for ''arrancar'', a spelling change verb, "c --> qu when ending begins with e or i"; for ''volver'', a stem change verb, "o --> ue when syllable is stressed")<br />
*Forms that do require a transformation to the stem (irregular) vs. forms that do not (regular)<br />
*Test time (pre-test, post-test, 1-week follow-up)<br />
<br />
==Hypotheses==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Findings==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
<br />
==Annotated bibliography==</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Rules_vs._Analogy_in_Spanish_Irregular_Verbs&diff=10925Rules vs. Analogy in Spanish Irregular Verbs2010-08-24T14:55:08Z<p>Presson: /* Dependent variables */</p>
<hr />
<div>{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"<br />
|- <br />
! PIs<br />
| Nora Presson, Brian MacWhinney, Nuria Sagarra<br />
|-<br />
! Faculty<br />
| MacWhinney<br />
|-<br />
! Postdocs<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Others with > 160 hours<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Study Start Date<br />
| 04/01/10<br />
|-<br />
! Study End Date<br />
| 06/01/10<br />
|-<br />
! Learnlab<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (total)<br />
| 105<br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (treatment)<br />
|-105<br />
|-<br />
! Total Participant Hours<br />
| ~350<br />
|-<br />
! Datashop?<br />
| Not yet<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Abstract==<br />
<br />
The goal of this experiment was to test explicit instruction of when irregular verbs take a change in the stem, and when they use a regular affixation pattern. We gave beginning Spanish students practice conjugating verbs that have irregularity in some inflected forms. Two irregularity types were compared: stem-change verbs, where the pattern of transformations is predictable based on a large gang of similar irregular verbs, and spelling-change verbs, where the pattern of transformations is predictable based on the spelling and the phonology of the inflected form and the infinitive. We compared explicit formulations of "when to change" the stem of a verb with an analogical comparison condition, where instead of a rule formulation, participants saw a similarly irregular verb they knew (judged by the instructor) conjugated appropriately as a model.<br />
<br />
==Glossary==<br />
*[[explicit instruction]]<br />
*[[cue validity]]<br />
*[[cue reliability]]<br />
*[[cue availability]]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Research question==<br />
<br />
*What is the baseline accuracy (latency) for producing inflected verb forms for irregular verbs (i.e., verbs where at least one form requires an idiosyncratic transformation)?<br />
*Do forms that require a transformation (irregular forms) show lower accuracy (higher latency) than forms that do not, even when the verb itself is irregular?<br />
*Do spelling change verbs, where the change is predictable from the spelling of the infinitive, show different response patterns than stem change verbs, which are not visible from the infinitive?<br />
*Does providing a rule about when change of the stem is necessary improve performance compared to providing a known form that is transformed in the same way as the practice verb?<br />
*How does the amount of improvement after practice depend on:<br />
**Regularity of the form<br />
**Instruction type (rule vs. exemplar)<br />
**Change type (spelling vs. stem)<br />
<br />
==Background and significance==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Dependent variables==<br />
<br />
*Response accuracy (% inflected forms typed correctly at first attempt)<br />
*Response latency (seconds to type inflected form)<br />
<br />
==Independent variables==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Hypotheses==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Findings==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
<br />
==Annotated bibliography==</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Rules_vs._Analogy_in_Spanish_Irregular_Verbs&diff=10924Rules vs. Analogy in Spanish Irregular Verbs2010-08-24T14:54:18Z<p>Presson: /* Research question */</p>
<hr />
<div>{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"<br />
|- <br />
! PIs<br />
| Nora Presson, Brian MacWhinney, Nuria Sagarra<br />
|-<br />
! Faculty<br />
| MacWhinney<br />
|-<br />
! Postdocs<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Others with > 160 hours<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Study Start Date<br />
| 04/01/10<br />
|-<br />
! Study End Date<br />
| 06/01/10<br />
|-<br />
! Learnlab<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (total)<br />
| 105<br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (treatment)<br />
|-105<br />
|-<br />
! Total Participant Hours<br />
| ~350<br />
|-<br />
! Datashop?<br />
| Not yet<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Abstract==<br />
<br />
The goal of this experiment was to test explicit instruction of when irregular verbs take a change in the stem, and when they use a regular affixation pattern. We gave beginning Spanish students practice conjugating verbs that have irregularity in some inflected forms. Two irregularity types were compared: stem-change verbs, where the pattern of transformations is predictable based on a large gang of similar irregular verbs, and spelling-change verbs, where the pattern of transformations is predictable based on the spelling and the phonology of the inflected form and the infinitive. We compared explicit formulations of "when to change" the stem of a verb with an analogical comparison condition, where instead of a rule formulation, participants saw a similarly irregular verb they knew (judged by the instructor) conjugated appropriately as a model.<br />
<br />
==Glossary==<br />
*[[explicit instruction]]<br />
*[[cue validity]]<br />
*[[cue reliability]]<br />
*[[cue availability]]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Research question==<br />
<br />
*What is the baseline accuracy (latency) for producing inflected verb forms for irregular verbs (i.e., verbs where at least one form requires an idiosyncratic transformation)?<br />
*Do forms that require a transformation (irregular forms) show lower accuracy (higher latency) than forms that do not, even when the verb itself is irregular?<br />
*Do spelling change verbs, where the change is predictable from the spelling of the infinitive, show different response patterns than stem change verbs, which are not visible from the infinitive?<br />
*Does providing a rule about when change of the stem is necessary improve performance compared to providing a known form that is transformed in the same way as the practice verb?<br />
*How does the amount of improvement after practice depend on:<br />
**Regularity of the form<br />
**Instruction type (rule vs. exemplar)<br />
**Change type (spelling vs. stem)<br />
<br />
==Background and significance==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Dependent variables==<br />
<br />
<br />
==Independent variables==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Hypotheses==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Findings==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
<br />
==Annotated bibliography==</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Presson_and_MacWhinney_-_Second_Language_Grammar&diff=10921Presson and MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar2010-08-20T20:01:38Z<p>Presson: /* References */</p>
<hr />
<div>Spanish Conjugation <br />
==Summary Table==<br />
<br />
==Abstract==<br />
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.<br />
<br />
==Background & Significance==<br />
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). <br />
<br />
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:<br />
1. Graduated interval recall,<br />
2. Resonant cotraining, and<br />
3. Cue focusing.<br />
The claim is that L2 instruction that incorporates these three methods will lead to marked improvements in fluency and robustness of learning.<br />
<br />
==Glossary==<br />
===Graduated Interval Recall===<br />
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.<br />
<br />
===Resonant Cotraining===<br />
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.<br />
<br />
===Explicit Cue Focusing===<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
===Entrenchment===<br />
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.<br />
<br />
===Transfer===<br />
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.<br />
<br />
===Social Disincentives===<br />
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.<br />
<br />
==Research questions== <br />
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.<br />
<br />
==Studies of Second Language Grammar Learning==<br />
<br />
===French Grammatical Gender===<br />
* [[French gender cues | French grammatical gender cue learning]] (Presson, MacWhinney)<br />
** [[Learning French gender cues with prototypes | Instruction of French gender cues]] (Presson, MacWhinney)<br />
**[[French gender prototypes | Lab study of grammar learning contrasting explicit and implicit instruction and prototype usage]] (Presson, MacWhinney)<br />
**[[French gender attention | Lab study of effects of time pressure and explicitness on gender learning]] (Presson, MacWhinney)<br />
<br />
===Spanish Verb Conjugation===<br />
*[[Spanish Verb Conjugation]] <br />
**[[Rules vs. Analogy in Spanish Irregular Verbs| Irregular Verbs in Spanish]] (Presson, MacWhinney, Sagarra)<br />
**[[Integrating Regular and Irregular Forms | Regular and Irregular Spanish Verb Forms]] (Presson, MacWhinney, Sagarra)<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
*Kohonen, T. (2001). Self-organizing maps (3rd ed.). Berlin: Springer.<br />
*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.<br />
*Pimsleur, P. (1967). A memory schedule. Modern Language Journal, 51, 73-75.<br />
*Yoshimura, Y., & MacWhinney, B. (in press). The use of pronominal case in English sentence interpretation. Applied Psycholinguistics.<br />
*Yoshimura, Y., & MacWhinney, B. (in press). Honorifics: A socio-cultural verb agreement cue in Japanese sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics.<br />
*MacWhinney, B. (in press). A tale of two paradigms. In M. Kail, M. Fayol & M. Hickman (Eds.), Language studies. Paris: Springer.<br />
*Zhang, Y., MacWhinney, B., & Wu, S. (in preparation). A tutor for learning Chinese sounds through pinyin. Applied Psycholinguistics.<br />
*Prior, A., & MacWhinney, B. (2009). Beyond inhibition: A bilingual advantage in task switching. Bilingualism.<br />
*MacWhinney, B. (2009). The emergence of linguistic complexity. In T. Givon (Ed.), Linguistic complexity (pp. 405-432). New York: Benjamins.<br />
*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.<br />
*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.<br />
*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.<br />
*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.<br />
*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.<br />
*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.<br />
<br />
==Future Plans==</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Integrating_Regular_and_Irregular_Forms&diff=10920Integrating Regular and Irregular Forms2010-08-20T19:29:08Z<p>Presson: /* Abstract */</p>
<hr />
<div>{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"<br />
|- <br />
! PIs<br />
| Nora Presson, Brian MacWhinney, Nuria Sagarra<br />
|-<br />
! Faculty<br />
| MacWhinney<br />
|-<br />
! Postdocs<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Others with > 160 hours<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Study Start Date<br />
| 09/10<br />
|-<br />
! Study End Date<br />
| 12/10<br />
|-<br />
! Learnlab<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (total)<br />
| <br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (treatment)<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
! Total Participant Hours<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
! Datashop?<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Abstract==<br />
<br />
Following the initial study of Spanish students practicing with irregular verbs ([[Rules_vs._Analogy_in_Spanish_Irregular_Verbs]]), we use a similar practice activity that adds regular verbs (in addition to those inflectional forms of irregular verbs that follow the regular pattern).<br />
<br />
==Glossary==<br />
*[[explicit instruction]]<br />
*[[cue validity]]<br />
*[[cue reliability]]<br />
*[[cue availability]]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Research question==<br />
<br />
==Background and significance==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Dependent variables==<br />
<br />
<br />
==Independent variables==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Hypotheses==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Findings==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
<br />
==Annotated bibliography==</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Integrating_Regular_and_Irregular_Forms&diff=10919Integrating Regular and Irregular Forms2010-08-20T19:28:39Z<p>Presson: /* Abstract */</p>
<hr />
<div>{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"<br />
|- <br />
! PIs<br />
| Nora Presson, Brian MacWhinney, Nuria Sagarra<br />
|-<br />
! Faculty<br />
| MacWhinney<br />
|-<br />
! Postdocs<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Others with > 160 hours<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Study Start Date<br />
| 09/10<br />
|-<br />
! Study End Date<br />
| 12/10<br />
|-<br />
! Learnlab<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (total)<br />
| <br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (treatment)<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
! Total Participant Hours<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
! Datashop?<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Abstract==<br />
<br />
Following the [[initial study of Spanish students practicing with irregular verbs | Rules_vs._Analogy_in_Spanish_Irregular_Verbs]], we use a similar practice activity that adds regular verbs (in addition to those inflectional forms of irregular verbs that follow the regular pattern).<br />
<br />
==Glossary==<br />
*[[explicit instruction]]<br />
*[[cue validity]]<br />
*[[cue reliability]]<br />
*[[cue availability]]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Research question==<br />
<br />
==Background and significance==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Dependent variables==<br />
<br />
<br />
==Independent variables==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Hypotheses==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Findings==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
<br />
==Annotated bibliography==</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Rules_vs._Analogy_in_Spanish_Irregular_Verbs&diff=10918Rules vs. Analogy in Spanish Irregular Verbs2010-08-20T17:45:49Z<p>Presson: /* Research question */</p>
<hr />
<div>{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"<br />
|- <br />
! PIs<br />
| Nora Presson, Brian MacWhinney, Nuria Sagarra<br />
|-<br />
! Faculty<br />
| MacWhinney<br />
|-<br />
! Postdocs<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Others with > 160 hours<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Study Start Date<br />
| 04/01/10<br />
|-<br />
! Study End Date<br />
| 06/01/10<br />
|-<br />
! Learnlab<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (total)<br />
| 105<br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (treatment)<br />
|-105<br />
|-<br />
! Total Participant Hours<br />
| ~350<br />
|-<br />
! Datashop?<br />
| Not yet<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Abstract==<br />
<br />
The goal of this experiment was to test explicit instruction of when irregular verbs take a change in the stem, and when they use a regular affixation pattern. We gave beginning Spanish students practice conjugating verbs that have irregularity in some inflected forms. Two irregularity types were compared: stem-change verbs, where the pattern of transformations is predictable based on a large gang of similar irregular verbs, and spelling-change verbs, where the pattern of transformations is predictable based on the spelling and the phonology of the inflected form and the infinitive. We compared explicit formulations of "when to change" the stem of a verb with an analogical comparison condition, where instead of a rule formulation, participants saw a similarly irregular verb they knew (judged by the instructor) conjugated appropriately as a model.<br />
<br />
==Glossary==<br />
*[[explicit instruction]]<br />
*[[cue validity]]<br />
*[[cue reliability]]<br />
*[[cue availability]]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Research question==<br />
<br />
==Background and significance==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Dependent variables==<br />
<br />
<br />
==Independent variables==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Hypotheses==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Findings==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
<br />
==Annotated bibliography==</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Integrating_Regular_and_Irregular_Forms&diff=10917Integrating Regular and Irregular Forms2010-08-20T17:45:35Z<p>Presson: /* Research question */</p>
<hr />
<div>{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"<br />
|- <br />
! PIs<br />
| Nora Presson, Brian MacWhinney, Nuria Sagarra<br />
|-<br />
! Faculty<br />
| MacWhinney<br />
|-<br />
! Postdocs<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Others with > 160 hours<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Study Start Date<br />
| 09/10<br />
|-<br />
! Study End Date<br />
| 12/10<br />
|-<br />
! Learnlab<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (total)<br />
| <br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (treatment)<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
! Total Participant Hours<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
! Datashop?<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Abstract==<br />
<br />
Following the initial study of Spanish students practicing with irregular verbs [[Rules_vs._Analogy_in_Spanish_Irregular_Verbs]]<br />
<br />
==Glossary==<br />
*[[explicit instruction]]<br />
*[[cue validity]]<br />
*[[cue reliability]]<br />
*[[cue availability]]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Research question==<br />
<br />
==Background and significance==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Dependent variables==<br />
<br />
<br />
==Independent variables==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Hypotheses==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Findings==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
<br />
==Annotated bibliography==</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Integrating_Regular_and_Irregular_Forms&diff=10916Integrating Regular and Irregular Forms2010-08-20T17:45:19Z<p>Presson: New page: {| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto" |- ! PIs | Nora Presson, Brian MacWhinney, Nuria Sagarra |- ! Faculty | MacWhinney |- ! Postdocs | n/a |- ! Others with ...</p>
<hr />
<div>{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"<br />
|- <br />
! PIs<br />
| Nora Presson, Brian MacWhinney, Nuria Sagarra<br />
|-<br />
! Faculty<br />
| MacWhinney<br />
|-<br />
! Postdocs<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Others with > 160 hours<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Study Start Date<br />
| 09/10<br />
|-<br />
! Study End Date<br />
| 12/10<br />
|-<br />
! Learnlab<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (total)<br />
| <br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (treatment)<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
! Total Participant Hours<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
! Datashop?<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Abstract==<br />
<br />
Following the initial study of Spanish students practicing with irregular verbs [[Rules_vs._Analogy_in_Spanish_Irregular_Verbs]]<br />
<br />
==Glossary==<br />
*[[explicit instruction]]<br />
*[[cue validity]]<br />
*[[cue reliability]]<br />
*[[cue availability]]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Research question==<br />
This research is designed to discover the best method of producing robust learning of French nominal gender, as well as the factors that make this learning more difficult.<br />
<br />
==Background and significance==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Dependent variables==<br />
<br />
<br />
==Independent variables==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Hypotheses==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Findings==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
<br />
==Annotated bibliography==</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Presson_and_MacWhinney_-_Second_Language_Grammar&diff=10915Presson and MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar2010-08-20T15:36:15Z<p>Presson: /* Spanish Verb Conjugation */</p>
<hr />
<div>Spanish Conjugation <br />
==Summary Table==<br />
<br />
==Abstract==<br />
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.<br />
<br />
==Background & Significance==<br />
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). <br />
<br />
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:<br />
1. Graduated interval recall,<br />
2. Resonant cotraining, and<br />
3. Cue focusing.<br />
The claim is that L2 instruction that incorporates these three methods will lead to marked improvements in fluency and robustness of learning.<br />
<br />
==Glossary==<br />
===Graduated Interval Recall===<br />
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.<br />
<br />
===Resonant Cotraining===<br />
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.<br />
<br />
===Explicit Cue Focusing===<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
===Entrenchment===<br />
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.<br />
<br />
===Transfer===<br />
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.<br />
<br />
===Social Disincentives===<br />
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.<br />
<br />
==Research questions== <br />
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.<br />
<br />
==Studies of Second Language Grammar Learning==<br />
<br />
===French Grammatical Gender===<br />
* [[French gender cues | French grammatical gender cue learning]] (Presson, MacWhinney)<br />
** [[Learning French gender cues with prototypes | Instruction of French gender cues]] (Presson, MacWhinney)<br />
**[[French gender prototypes | Lab study of grammar learning contrasting explicit and implicit instruction and prototype usage]] (Presson, MacWhinney)<br />
**[[French gender attention | Lab study of effects of time pressure and explicitness on gender learning]] (Presson, MacWhinney)<br />
<br />
===Spanish Verb Conjugation===<br />
*[[Spanish Verb Conjugation]] <br />
**[[Rules vs. Analogy in Spanish Irregular Verbs| Irregular Verbs in Spanish]] (Presson, MacWhinney, Sagarra)<br />
**[[Integrating Regular and Irregular Forms | Regular and Irregular Spanish Verb Forms]] (Presson, MacWhinney, Sagarra)<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
*Kohonen, T. (2001). Self-organizing maps (3rd ed.). Berlin: Springer.<br />
*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.<br />
*Pimsleur, P. (1967). A memory schedule. Modern Language Journal, 51, 73-75.<br />
*Yoshimura, Y., & MacWhinney, B. (in press). The use of pronominal case in English sentence interpretation. Applied Psycholinguistics.<br />
*Yoshimura, Y., & MacWhinney, B. (in press). Honorifics: A socio-cultural verb agreement cue in Japanese sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics.<br />
*MacWhinney, B. (in press). A tale of two paradigms. In M. Kail, M. Fayol & M. Hickman (Eds.), Language studies. Paris: Springer.<br />
*Zhang, Y., MacWhinney, B., & Wu, S. (in preparation). A tutor for learning Chinese sounds through pinyin. Applied Psycholinguistics.<br />
*Presson, N., Pavlik, P., MacWhinney, B., & Jones, C. (in preparation). A cue-based tutor for learning French nominal gender.<br />
*Prior, A., & MacWhinney, B. (2009). Beyond inhibition: A bilingual advantage in task switching. Bilingualism.<br />
*MacWhinney, B. (2009). The emergence of linguistic complexity. In T. Givon (Ed.), Linguistic complexity (pp. 405-432). New York: Benjamins.<br />
*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.<br />
*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.<br />
*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.<br />
*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.<br />
*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.<br />
*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.<br />
<br />
==Future Plans==</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Rules_vs._Analogy_in_Spanish_Irregular_Verbs&diff=10914Rules vs. Analogy in Spanish Irregular Verbs2010-08-20T15:33:22Z<p>Presson: New page: {| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto" |- ! PIs | Nora Presson, Brian MacWhinney, Nuria Sagarra |- ! Faculty | MacWhinney |- ! Postdocs | n/a |- ! Others with ...</p>
<hr />
<div>{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"<br />
|- <br />
! PIs<br />
| Nora Presson, Brian MacWhinney, Nuria Sagarra<br />
|-<br />
! Faculty<br />
| MacWhinney<br />
|-<br />
! Postdocs<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Others with > 160 hours<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Study Start Date<br />
| 04/01/10<br />
|-<br />
! Study End Date<br />
| 06/01/10<br />
|-<br />
! Learnlab<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (total)<br />
| 105<br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (treatment)<br />
|-105<br />
|-<br />
! Total Participant Hours<br />
| ~350<br />
|-<br />
! Datashop?<br />
| Not yet<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Abstract==<br />
<br />
The goal of this experiment was to test explicit instruction of when irregular verbs take a change in the stem, and when they use a regular affixation pattern. We gave beginning Spanish students practice conjugating verbs that have irregularity in some inflected forms. Two irregularity types were compared: stem-change verbs, where the pattern of transformations is predictable based on a large gang of similar irregular verbs, and spelling-change verbs, where the pattern of transformations is predictable based on the spelling and the phonology of the inflected form and the infinitive. We compared explicit formulations of "when to change" the stem of a verb with an analogical comparison condition, where instead of a rule formulation, participants saw a similarly irregular verb they knew (judged by the instructor) conjugated appropriately as a model.<br />
<br />
==Glossary==<br />
*[[explicit instruction]]<br />
*[[cue validity]]<br />
*[[cue reliability]]<br />
*[[cue availability]]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Research question==<br />
This research is designed to discover the best method of producing robust learning of French nominal gender, as well as the factors that make this learning more difficult.<br />
<br />
==Background and significance==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Dependent variables==<br />
<br />
<br />
==Independent variables==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Hypotheses==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Findings==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
<br />
==Annotated bibliography==</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Spanish_Verb_Conjugation&diff=10913Spanish Verb Conjugation2010-08-20T15:22:57Z<p>Presson: /* Types of Irregularity */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Background==<br />
<br />
The majority of experiments on learning regular versus irregular forms in second language grammar come from English past tense. However, in English only regular past tense forms show affixation (e.g., ''walk'' -> ''walked''); irregulars show a transformation of the stem itself (e.g., ''go'' -> ''went''). This means that regular / irregular forms in English differ not only in regularity, but also in the need for an affix.<br />
<br />
Experiments with languages like Spanish can avoid this confound. Spanish shows a rich inflectional morphology system, and both regular (no transformation to the stem) and irregular (some transformation) require affixes when conjugating the verb. <br />
<br />
===Types of Irregularity===<br />
<br />
In traditional dual-route models of morphological processing (e.g., Pinker, 2000), there is one significant dissociation in morphology, between regulars that can be (but may not be) composed from the stem and appropriate regular affix, and irregulars that are always retrieved by rote from declarative memory. <br />
<br />
However, the types of irregularity in Spanish could complicate the picture of regular vs. irregular morphological inflection. For example, there are verbs that follow a "stem change" pattern (e.g., ''colgar'' "to hold"); the transformation of the stem is limited to certain inflectional forms (1st person singular ''cuelgo'' takes a transformation, while 1st person plural ''colgamos'' does not), and the pattern of transformation is shared across all stem-change verbs. <br />
<br />
Also, there are "spelling change" verbs, which change orthographic form to preserve a sound in the verb stem. Verbs that end in ''-car'', for example, show a hard 'c' sound in the infinitive (e.g., ''colocar'', "to place"). When conjugated, the affix rules can lead to a vowel next to the 'c' that creates a soft 'c' sound (i.e., an 'e' or 'i'). In these cases, the spelling changes from 'c' to 'qu' to preserve the pronunciation (e.g. 1st person singular for present subjunctive ''coloque'').<br />
<br />
Of course, there are some verbs that follow a seemingly entirely idiosyncratic pattern, as in the English irregular past tense. ''Ir'', for example, turns to ''voy'' in the singular first person present tense, and this transformation is not predictable. <br />
<br />
<br />
===Goals of Researching Spanish Conjugation===<br />
<br />
First, by seeing which types of irregularity are helped (and which are not) by practice producing inflected verb forms, we can compare types of irregularity in terms of difficulty and learnability. Second, we can test the hypothesis that "predictable irregularity" can be processed differently than entirely idiosyncratic transformations. To do this, we can teach students to look for regularity in irregular verbs and see which types of irregularity benefit from explicit instruction or from gang effects with other frequent verbs that change in similar ways.</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Spanish_Verb_Conjugation&diff=10912Spanish Verb Conjugation2010-08-20T15:18:41Z<p>Presson: New page: ==Background== The majority of experiments on learning regular versus irregular forms in second language grammar come from English past tense. However, in English only regular past tense...</p>
<hr />
<div>==Background==<br />
<br />
The majority of experiments on learning regular versus irregular forms in second language grammar come from English past tense. However, in English only regular past tense forms show affixation (e.g., ''walk'' -> ''walked''); irregulars show a transformation of the stem itself (e.g., ''go'' -> ''went''). This means that regular / irregular forms in English differ not only in regularity, but also in the need for an affix.<br />
<br />
Experiments with languages like Spanish can avoid this confound. Spanish shows a rich inflectional morphology system, and both regular (no transformation to the stem) and irregular (some transformation) require affixes when conjugating the verb. <br />
<br />
===Types of Irregularity===<br />
<br />
In traditional dual-route models of morphological processing (e.g., Pinker, 2000), there is one significant dissociation in morphology, between regulars that can be (but may not be) composed from the stem and appropriate regular affix, and irregulars that are always retrieved by rote from declarative memory. <br />
<br />
However, the types of irregularity in Spanish could complicate the picture of regular vs. irregular morphological inflection. For example, there are verbs that follow a "stem change" pattern (e.g., ''colgar'' "to hold"); the transformation of the stem is limited to certain inflectional forms (1st person singular ''cuelgo'' takes a transformation, while 1st person plural ''colgamos'' does not), and the pattern of transformation is shared across all stem-change verbs. <br />
<br />
Also, there are "spelling change" verbs, which change orthographic form to preserve a sound in the verb stem. Verbs that end in ''-car'', for example, show a hard 'c' sound in the infinitive (e.g., ''colocar'', "to place"). When conjugated, the affix rules can lead to a vowel next to the 'c' that creates a soft 'c' sound (i.e., an 'e' or 'i'). In these cases, the spelling changes from 'c' to 'qu' to preserve the pronunciation (e.g. 1st person singular for present subjunctive ''coloque'').</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Presson_and_MacWhinney_-_Second_Language_Grammar&diff=10911Presson and MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar2010-08-20T15:05:42Z<p>Presson: </p>
<hr />
<div>Spanish Conjugation <br />
==Summary Table==<br />
<br />
==Abstract==<br />
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.<br />
<br />
==Background & Significance==<br />
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). <br />
<br />
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:<br />
1. Graduated interval recall,<br />
2. Resonant cotraining, and<br />
3. Cue focusing.<br />
The claim is that L2 instruction that incorporates these three methods will lead to marked improvements in fluency and robustness of learning.<br />
<br />
==Glossary==<br />
===Graduated Interval Recall===<br />
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.<br />
<br />
===Resonant Cotraining===<br />
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.<br />
<br />
===Explicit Cue Focusing===<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
===Entrenchment===<br />
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.<br />
<br />
===Transfer===<br />
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.<br />
<br />
===Social Disincentives===<br />
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.<br />
<br />
==Research questions== <br />
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.<br />
<br />
==Studies of Second Language Grammar Learning==<br />
<br />
===French Grammatical Gender===<br />
* [[French gender cues | French grammatical gender cue learning]] (Presson, MacWhinney)<br />
** [[Learning French gender cues with prototypes | Instruction of French gender cues]] (Presson, MacWhinney)<br />
**[[French gender prototypes | Lab study of grammar learning contrasting explicit and implicit instruction and prototype usage]] (Presson, MacWhinney)<br />
**[[French gender attention | Lab study of effects of time pressure and explicitness on gender learning]] (Presson, MacWhinney)<br />
<br />
===Spanish Verb Conjugation===<br />
*[[Spanish Verb Conjugation]] <br />
**[[Rules vs. Analogy in Spanish Irregular Verbs| Irregular Verbs in Spanish]] (Presson, MacWhinney)<br />
**[[Integrating Regular and Irregular Forms | Regular and Irregular Spanish Verb Forms]] (Presson, MacWhinney)<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
*Kohonen, T. (2001). Self-organizing maps (3rd ed.). Berlin: Springer.<br />
*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.<br />
*Pimsleur, P. (1967). A memory schedule. Modern Language Journal, 51, 73-75.<br />
*Yoshimura, Y., & MacWhinney, B. (in press). The use of pronominal case in English sentence interpretation. Applied Psycholinguistics.<br />
*Yoshimura, Y., & MacWhinney, B. (in press). Honorifics: A socio-cultural verb agreement cue in Japanese sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics.<br />
*MacWhinney, B. (in press). A tale of two paradigms. In M. Kail, M. Fayol & M. Hickman (Eds.), Language studies. Paris: Springer.<br />
*Zhang, Y., MacWhinney, B., & Wu, S. (in preparation). A tutor for learning Chinese sounds through pinyin. Applied Psycholinguistics.<br />
*Presson, N., Pavlik, P., MacWhinney, B., & Jones, C. (in preparation). A cue-based tutor for learning French nominal gender.<br />
*Prior, A., & MacWhinney, B. (2009). Beyond inhibition: A bilingual advantage in task switching. Bilingualism.<br />
*MacWhinney, B. (2009). The emergence of linguistic complexity. In T. Givon (Ed.), Linguistic complexity (pp. 405-432). New York: Benjamins.<br />
*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.<br />
*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.<br />
*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.<br />
*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.<br />
*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.<br />
*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.<br />
<br />
==Future Plans==</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Presson_and_MacWhinney_-_Second_Language_Grammar&diff=10910Presson and MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar2010-08-20T15:00:24Z<p>Presson: /* Connections to Other Studies */</p>
<hr />
<div>Spanish Conjugation <br />
==Summary Table==<br />
<br />
==Abstract==<br />
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.<br />
<br />
==Background & Significance==<br />
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). <br />
<br />
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:<br />
1. Graduated interval recall,<br />
2. Resonant cotraining, and<br />
3. Cue focusing.<br />
The claim is that L2 instruction that incorporates these three methods will lead to marked improvements in fluency and robustness of learning.<br />
<br />
==Glossary==<br />
===Graduated Interval Recall===<br />
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.<br />
<br />
===Resonant Cotraining===<br />
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.<br />
<br />
===Explicit Cue Focusing===<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
===Entrenchment===<br />
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.<br />
<br />
===Transfer===<br />
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.<br />
<br />
===Social Disincentives===<br />
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.<br />
<br />
==Research questions== <br />
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.<br />
==Study One==<br />
===Hypothesis===<br />
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.<br />
<br />
===Independent Variables===<br />
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.<br />
<br />
===Dependent Variables===<br />
The dependent variables are response accuracy and response latency.<br />
<br />
===Results===<br />
This study will begin in a pilot form at Penn State in the Spring. The target student population includes 900 subjects.<br />
<br />
===Explanation===<br />
<br />
==Study Two== <br />
===Hypothesis===<br />
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.<br />
<br />
===Independent Variables===<br />
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.<br />
<br />
===Dependent Variables=== <br />
===Results=== <br />
===Explanation===<br />
<br />
==Study Three==<br />
===Hypothesis===<br />
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.<br />
<br />
===Independent Variables===<br />
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.<br />
<br />
===Dependent Variables===<br />
The dependent variables are response accuracy and response latency.<br />
<br />
===Results===<br />
This study will begin in a pilot form at Penn State in the Spring. The target student population includes 900 subjects.<br />
<br />
===Explanation===<br />
<br />
==Connections to Other Studies==<br />
<br />
* [[French gender cues | French grammatical gender cue learning]] (Presson, MacWhinney)<br />
** [[Learning French gender cues with prototypes | Instruction of French gender cues]] (Presson, MacWhinney)<br />
**[[French gender prototypes | Lab study of grammar learning contrasting explicit and implicit instruction and prototype usage]] (Presson, MacWhinney)<br />
**[[French gender attention | Lab study of effects of time pressure and explicitness on gender learning]] (Presson, MacWhinney)<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
*Kohonen, T. (2001). Self-organizing maps (3rd ed.). Berlin: Springer.<br />
*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.<br />
*Pimsleur, P. (1967). A memory schedule. Modern Language Journal, 51, 73-75.<br />
*Yoshimura, Y., & MacWhinney, B. (in press). The use of pronominal case in English sentence interpretation. Applied Psycholinguistics.<br />
*Yoshimura, Y., & MacWhinney, B. (in press). Honorifics: A socio-cultural verb agreement cue in Japanese sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics.<br />
*MacWhinney, B. (in press). A tale of two paradigms. In M. Kail, M. Fayol & M. Hickman (Eds.), Language studies. Paris: Springer.<br />
*Zhang, Y., MacWhinney, B., & Wu, S. (in preparation). A tutor for learning Chinese sounds through pinyin. Applied Psycholinguistics.<br />
*Presson, N., Pavlik, P., MacWhinney, B., & Jones, C. (in preparation). A cue-based tutor for learning French nominal gender.<br />
*Prior, A., & MacWhinney, B. (2009). Beyond inhibition: A bilingual advantage in task switching. Bilingualism.<br />
*MacWhinney, B. (2009). The emergence of linguistic complexity. In T. Givon (Ed.), Linguistic complexity (pp. 405-432). New York: Benjamins.<br />
*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.<br />
*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.<br />
*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.<br />
*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.<br />
*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.<br />
*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.<br />
<br />
==Future Plans==</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=French_gender_attention&diff=10909French gender attention2010-08-18T21:29:23Z<p>Presson: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"<br />
|- <br />
! PIs<br />
| Presson, MacWhinney<br />
|-<br />
! Faculty<br />
| MacWhinney<br />
|-<br />
! Postdocs<br />
| Pavlik<br />
|-<br />
! Others with > 160 hours<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Study Start Date<br />
| 10/01/08<br />
|-<br />
! Study End Date<br />
| 05/30/08<br />
|-<br />
! Learnlab<br />
| N/A<br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (total)<br />
| 80-100<br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (treatment)<br />
| N/A<br />
|-<br />
! Total Participant Hours<br />
| ~100<br />
|-<br />
! Datashop?<br />
| Summer '09<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Abstract==<br />
<br />
This study extends the research question in a previous study by [[French gender prototypes| Presson & MacWhinney]]. In that experiment, explicit instruction led to better generalization and robustness to forgetting, compared to correct/incorrect feedback only. In the current study, explicitness is manipulated as well, with the more explicit condition the same as the previous study. However, the more implicit condition in this case is a highlighting manipulation, with no rules presented and in which participants see the relevant cue in capital letters to draw attention to the endings of words (e.g. "fromAGE" v. "fromage"). We want to know first if students are as effective at extracting cue patterns with this intervention as with strictly explicit instruction.<br />
<br />
Second, we manipulate the time pressure of the task between groups. Time pressure favors procedural and automatic performance. If the highlighting condition is less explicit and equally effective, we expect an advantage within the time pressure condition (answer within 1400ms) compared to the no time pressure condition (trial times out at 6000ms, as in prior studies). This is important because time pressure is an essential element of naturalistic language use. In addition, time pressure changes the task demands, which we hypothesize will encourage more implicit representations of categories than with no time pressure.<br />
<br />
==Glossary==<br />
*[[mastery]]<br />
*[[explicit instruction]]<br />
*[[cue validity]]<br />
*[[cue reliability]]<br />
*[[cue availability]]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Research question==<br />
This research is designed to discover the best method of producing robust learning of French nominal gender, as well as the factors that make this learning more difficult.<br />
<br />
==Background and significance==<br />
<br />
Tucker, Lambert and Rigault (1977) evaluated the L1 (first language) learning of cues to gender in French. More recently, Holmes and Dejean de la Batie (1999) produced the first study of the acquisition of grammatical gender by L2 learners. Holmes and Segui (2004) have extended the detail of these analyses, but so far only with native speakers.<br />
Carroll (1999) and Lyster (2006) have explored the role of [[cue validity]] and [[availability]] in predicting usage by learners. All of these studies underscore the importance of high validity cues for the general vocabulary. However, these cues are only marginally useful for the highest frequency forms, whose gender must be learned more or less by rote. These analyses are in very close accord with the claims of the [[Competition Model]] (MacWhinney 1978, 2006). <br />
<br />
In the Competition Model, each cue has a strength that is based on its reliability in signaling information (as in, for example, the use of spelling to predict grammatical gender). Some cues are more reliable than others: for instance, in the case of nouns that refer to people, semantic cues (the gender of a person) are more reliable than spelling cues. Over time, a learner picks up on these reliabilities, first acquiring the most clearly reliable cues, then later pulling apart conflicting but frequently co-occurring ones. Cue conflicts are then resolved through a process of [[competition]]. A full discussion of cue conflict is found in MacDonald and MacWhinney (1991).<br />
<br />
<br />
In the current study, we manipulate whether participants receive explicit cues to gender patterns, or merely correct / incorrect feedback with the relevant cues highlighted (through capitalization) to direct attention.<br />
<br />
==Dependent variables==<br />
<br />
Accuracy and latency in training, as well as pre-/post-test gain scores, are dependent measures. In the post-test, there are two blocks: visual presentation (as in training) and auditory presentation (a transfer task).<br />
<br />
==Independent variables==<br />
<br />
Between-groups manipulations of time pressure (present or absent 1400ms time limit) and explicitness produce four groups:<br />
<br />
Rule + Time Pressure<br />
<br />
Rule - Time Pressure<br />
<br />
Highlighting + Time Pressure<br />
<br />
Highlighting - Time Pressure<br />
<br />
Time pressure is operationalized by timimg out test trials after (''some interval'') ms.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Screenshots==<br />
<br />
<gallery><br />
Image:Gender pretest.jpg|Pre-test trial<br />
Image:Gender explicit.jpg|Explicit condition<br />
Image:Gender highlight.jpg|Highlighting condition<br />
Image:Gender feedback.jpg |Feedback<br />
<br />
</gallery><br />
<br />
==Hypotheses==<br />
After 40 minutes of training, we hypothesize learning that is retained after a one-week retention interval and which generalizes to novel words under the same cue categories. <br />
<br />
From previous studies, the response form has changed from seeing nouns in isolation and categorizing them as masculine or feminine to seeing both the correct and incorrect noun phrases on each trial, including a gendered definite article (e.g. "le fromage" and *"la fromage"). This method change may make learning more difficult than prior studies; however, it improves external validity by making the categorization process better resemble language input. <br />
<br />
Because prior studies (e.g., [[French gender prototypes|Explicitness and Category Breadth]]) suggest that explicitness of instruction does not affect accuracy in training, we predict equivalent performance in the learning block. Explicit presentation of the prompt would be more robust to decay and generalization if in fact the manipulation makes the cue more salient (compared to the highlighting condition). <br />
<br />
Adding time pressure will suppress initial performance in training. We predict that this suppression will be temporary, and in fact that later performance could show a time pressure advantage, especially in the no-feedback post-test. In addition, time pressure should change the relative effectiveness of an explicit inference rule vs. noticing highlights, such that noticing is easier than inference under time pressure, therefore improving learning.<br />
<br />
At the one-week delay, participants complete an auditory version of the categorization task, testing whether the cue information transfers at all to correct French phonological representation, is too distant from French to help with auditory categorization, or is purely orthographic / visual.<br />
<br />
==Findings==<br />
Analyses were performed using d-prime as a measure of categorization sensitivity that accounts for possible response bias, and using response latency for correct responses. <br />
<br />
#Pre-test performance was close to chance for all groups (mean accuracy = .51, ''SD''= .11; highest group mean d-prime = 0.30, ''SD''= 0.19).<br />
# All groups learned the cues to grammatical gender as demonstrated by improved post-test d-prime and reduced post-test latency, both of which remained at a one-week delayed post-test. <br />
# Explicit instruction showed higher accuracy than a less explicit highlighting condition, on tests both with time pressure (d-prime of explicit = 2.04, highlighting = 1.45) and without (d-prime of explicit = 2.70, highlighting = 1.96). This contradicts our speculation that time pressure might mitigate the positive effect<br />
# Both explicit and highlighting instructional groups had lower d-prime when tested under time pressure. <br />
# Training under time pressure did not eliminate the impairment in accuracy from testing under time pressure (i.e., both groups had higher d-prime without time pressure). <br />
# Training under time pressure did not affect d-prime at any post-test. <br />
# After controlling for mean pre-test latency, neither instructional variable (explicitness or training time pressure) influenced the amount of speed-up from pre-test to post-test. However, there was a marginally significant interaction (''F''(1,76) = 3.16, ''p'' = .08) such that the time pressure training responded faster at immediate post-test and that advantage disappeared after a one-week delay.<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
Participants in all groups learned to categorize nouns by grammatical gender based on spelling cues. However, those who trained with explicit cues learned more than those who saw the nouns with the same orthographic cue highlighted with capital letters. This effect persisted a week after training. Testing with time pressure had the expected interfering effect on d-prime, but contrary to our predictions, explicit instruction was not more vulnerable to disruption in time pressure contexts (either training or testing under time pressure). <br />
<br />
This could indicate that the learners in this study were not forced to use procedural knowledge with a 1400 ms deadline, and that a shorter time limit would show the expected problems with explicit instruction. However, it could also mean that instructional explicitness does not lead to representations that are less flexible. By replicating the advantage explicit instruction had over correctness feedback while adding a non-explicit highlighting to the same cue information that was being explicitly taught, we showed that simple explicit cues can improve performance categorizing nouns by grammatical gender.<br />
<br />
==Descendents==<br />
<br />
==Annotated bibliography==<br />
*Anderson, J. R., & Fincham, J. M. (1994). Acquisition of procedural skills from examples. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 20(6), 1322-1340.<br />
*Carroll, S. (1999). Input and SLA: Adults' sensitivity to different sorts of cues to French gender. Language Learning, 49, 37-92.<br />
*DeKeyser, R. M. (2005). What Makes Learning Second-Language Grammar Difficult? A Review of Issues. Language Learning, 55(Suppl1), 1-25.<br />
*Holmes, V. M., & Dejean de la Batie, B. (1999). Assignment of grammatical gender by native speakers and foreign learners of French. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20, 479-506.<br />
*Holmes, V. M., & Segui, J. (2004). Sublexical and lexical influences on gender assignment in French. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 33, 425-457.<br />
*Lyster, R. (2006). Predictability in French gender attribution: A corpus analysis. French Language Studies, 16, 69-92.<br />
*MacDonald, J. L., & MacWhinney, B. (1991). Levels of learning: A microdevelopmental study of concept formation. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 407-430.<br />
*MacWhinney, B. (2006). A unified model. In N. Ellis & P. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Press.<br />
*Pimsleur, P. (1967). A memory schedule. The Modern Language Journal, 51(2), 73-75.<br />
*Robinson, P. (1997). Generalizability and automaticity of second language learning under implicit, incidental, enhanced, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Aquisition, 19(2), 223-247.<br />
*Segalowitz, S., Segalowitz, N., & Wood, A. (1998). Assessing the development of automaticity in second language word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 53-67.<br />
*Ullman, M. T. (2001). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: the declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4(1), 105-122.</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=French_gender_attention&diff=10908French gender attention2010-08-18T21:18:48Z<p>Presson: /* Findings */</p>
<hr />
<div>{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"<br />
|- <br />
! PIs<br />
| Presson, MacWhinney<br />
|-<br />
! Faculty<br />
| MacWhinney<br />
|-<br />
! Postdocs<br />
| Pavlik<br />
|-<br />
! Others with > 160 hours<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Study Start Date<br />
| 10/01/08<br />
|-<br />
! Study End Date<br />
| 05/30/08<br />
|-<br />
! Learnlab<br />
| N/A<br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (total)<br />
| 80-100<br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (treatment)<br />
| N/A<br />
|-<br />
! Total Participant Hours<br />
| ~100<br />
|-<br />
! Datashop?<br />
| Summer '09<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Abstract==<br />
<br />
This study extends the research question in a previous study by [[French gender prototypes| Presson & MacWhinney]]. In that experiment, explicit instruction led to better generalization and robustness to forgetting, compared to correct/incorrect feedback only. In the current study, explicitness is manipulated as well, with the more explicit condition the same as the previous study. However, the more implicit condition in this case is a highlighting manipulation, with no rules presented and in which participants see the relevant cue in capital letters to draw attention to the endings of words (e.g. "fromAGE" v. "fromage"). We want to know first if students are as effective at extracting cue patterns with this intervention as with strictly explicit instruction.<br />
<br />
Second, we manipulate the time pressure of the task between groups. Time pressure favors procedural and automatic performance. If the highlighting condition is less explicit and equally effective, we expect an advantage within the time pressure condition (answer within 1400ms) compared to the no time pressure condition (trial times out at 6000ms, as in prior studies). This is important because time pressure is an essential element of naturalistic language use. In addition, time pressure changes the task demands, which we hypothesize will encourage more implicit representations of categories than with no time pressure.<br />
<br />
==Glossary==<br />
*[[mastery]]<br />
*[[explicit instruction]]<br />
*[[cue validity]]<br />
*[[cue reliability]]<br />
*[[cue availability]]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Research question==<br />
This research is designed to discover the best method of producing robust learning of French nominal gender, as well as the factors that make this learning more difficult.<br />
<br />
==Background and significance==<br />
<br />
Tucker, Lambert and Rigault (1977) evaluated the L1 (first language) learning of cues to gender in French. More recently, Holmes and Dejean de la Batie (1999) produced the first study of the acquisition of grammatical gender by L2 learners. Holmes and Segui (2004) have extended the detail of these analyses, but so far only with native speakers.<br />
Carroll (1999) and Lyster (2006) have explored the role of [[cue validity]] and [[availability]] in predicting usage by learners. All of these studies underscore the importance of high validity cues for the general vocabulary. However, these cues are only marginally useful for the highest frequency forms, whose gender must be learned more or less by rote. These analyses are in very close accord with the claims of the [[Competition Model]] (MacWhinney 1978, 2006). <br />
<br />
In the Competition Model, each cue has a strength that is based on its reliability in signaling information (as in, for example, the use of spelling to predict grammatical gender). Some cues are more reliable than others: for instance, in the case of nouns that refer to people, semantic cues (the gender of a person) are more reliable than spelling cues. Over time, a learner picks up on these reliabilities, first acquiring the most clearly reliable cues, then later pulling apart conflicting but frequently co-occurring ones. Cue conflicts are then resolved through a process of [[competition]]. A full discussion of cue conflict is found in MacDonald and MacWhinney (1991).<br />
<br />
<br />
In the current study, we manipulate whether participants receive explicit cues to gender patterns, or merely correct / incorrect feedback with the relevant cues highlighted (through capitalization) to direct attention.<br />
<br />
==Dependent variables==<br />
<br />
Accuracy and latency in training, as well as pre-/post-test gain scores, are dependent measures. In the post-test, there are two blocks: visual presentation (as in training) and auditory presentation (a transfer task).<br />
<br />
==Independent variables==<br />
<br />
Between-groups manipulations of time pressure (present or absent 1400ms time limit) and explicitness produce four groups:<br />
<br />
Rule + Time Pressure<br />
<br />
Rule - Time Pressure<br />
<br />
Highlighting + Time Pressure<br />
<br />
Highlighting - Time Pressure<br />
<br />
Time pressure is operationalized by timimg out test trials after (''some interval'') ms.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Screenshots==<br />
<br />
<gallery><br />
Image:Gender pretest.jpg|Pre-test trial<br />
Image:Gender explicit.jpg|Explicit condition<br />
Image:Gender highlight.jpg|Highlighting condition<br />
Image:Gender feedback.jpg |Feedback<br />
<br />
</gallery><br />
<br />
==Hypotheses==<br />
After 40 minutes of training, we hypothesize learning that is retained after a one-week retention interval and which generalizes to novel words under the same cue categories. <br />
<br />
From previous studies, the response form has changed from seeing nouns in isolation and categorizing them as masculine or feminine to seeing both the correct and incorrect noun phrases on each trial, including a gendered definite article (e.g. "le fromage" and *"la fromage"). This method change may make learning more difficult than prior studies; however, it improves external validity by making the categorization process better resemble language input. <br />
<br />
Because prior studies (e.g., [[French gender prototypes|Explicitness and Category Breadth]]) suggest that explicitness of instruction does not affect accuracy in training, we predict equivalent performance in the learning block. Explicit presentation of the prompt would be more robust to decay and generalization if in fact the manipulation makes the cue more salient (compared to the highlighting condition). <br />
<br />
Adding time pressure will suppress initial performance in training. We predict that this suppression will be temporary, and in fact that later performance could show a time pressure advantage, especially in the no-feedback post-test. In addition, time pressure should change the relative effectiveness of an explicit inference rule vs. noticing highlights, such that noticing is easier than inference under time pressure, therefore improving learning.<br />
<br />
At the one-week delay, participants complete an auditory version of the categorization task, testing whether the cue information transfers at all to correct French phonological representation, is too distant from French to help with auditory categorization, or is purely orthographic / visual.<br />
<br />
==Findings==<br />
Analyses were performed using d-prime as a measure of categorization sensitivity that accounts for possible response bias, and using response latency for correct responses. <br />
<br />
#Pre-test performance was close to chance for all groups (mean accuracy = .51, ''SD''= .11; highest group mean d-prime = 0.30, ''SD''= 0.19).<br />
# All groups learned the cues to grammatical gender as demonstrated by improved post-test d-prime and reduced post-test latency, both of which remained at a one-week delayed post-test. <br />
# Explicit instruction showed higher accuracy than a less explicit highlighting condition, on tests both with time pressure (d-prime of explicit = 2.04, highlighting = 1.45) and without (d-prime of explicit = 2.70, highlighting = 1.96). This contradicts our speculation that time pressure might mitigate the positive effect<br />
# Both explicit and highlighting instructional groups had lower d-prime when tested under time pressure. <br />
# Training under time pressure did not eliminate the impairment in accuracy from testing under time pressure (i.e., both groups had higher d-prime without time pressure). <br />
# Training under time pressure did not affect d-prime at any post-test. <br />
# After controlling for mean pre-test latency, neither instructional variable (explicitness or training time pressure) influenced the amount of speed-up from pre-test to post-test. However, there was a marginally significant interaction (''F''(1,76) = 3.16, ''p'' = .08) such that the time pressure training responded faster at immediate post-test and that advantage disappeared after a one-week delay.<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
PENDING<br />
==Descendents==<br />
<br />
==Annotated bibliography==<br />
*Anderson, J. R., & Fincham, J. M. (1994). Acquisition of procedural skills from examples. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 20(6), 1322-1340.<br />
*Carroll, S. (1999). Input and SLA: Adults' sensitivity to different sorts of cues to French gender. Language Learning, 49, 37-92.<br />
*DeKeyser, R. M. (2005). What Makes Learning Second-Language Grammar Difficult? A Review of Issues. Language Learning, 55(Suppl1), 1-25.<br />
*Holmes, V. M., & Dejean de la Batie, B. (1999). Assignment of grammatical gender by native speakers and foreign learners of French. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20, 479-506.<br />
*Holmes, V. M., & Segui, J. (2004). Sublexical and lexical influences on gender assignment in French. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 33, 425-457.<br />
*Lyster, R. (2006). Predictability in French gender attribution: A corpus analysis. French Language Studies, 16, 69-92.<br />
*MacDonald, J. L., & MacWhinney, B. (1991). Levels of learning: A microdevelopmental study of concept formation. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 407-430.<br />
*MacWhinney, B. (2006). A unified model. In N. Ellis & P. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Press.<br />
*Pimsleur, P. (1967). A memory schedule. The Modern Language Journal, 51(2), 73-75.<br />
*Robinson, P. (1997). Generalizability and automaticity of second language learning under implicit, incidental, enhanced, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Aquisition, 19(2), 223-247.<br />
*Segalowitz, S., Segalowitz, N., & Wood, A. (1998). Assessing the development of automaticity in second language word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 53-67.<br />
*Ullman, M. T. (2001). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: the declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4(1), 105-122.</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=French_gender_cues&diff=10904French gender cues2010-08-18T13:40:21Z<p>Presson: /* Descendents */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Abstract==<br />
<br />
This is the main page for Presson and MacWhinnney's studies teaching students to use cues in French to determine the grammatical gender of words. <br />
<br />
The goal of this project is to improve the ability of students of Elementary French to determine the gender of French nouns. This improvement is attained through large amounts of practice, and is measured in terms of ability to generalize to novel nouns. Like other studies conducted by MacWhinney and Pavlik ([[Optimizing the practice schedule]]), this work emphasizes the role of scheduling in attaining mastery. <br />
<br />
==Glossary==<br />
*[[optimal spacing interval]]<br />
*[[mastery]]<br />
*[[cue validity]]<br />
*[[cue reliability]]<br />
*[[cue availability]]<br />
*[[lexical effects]]<br />
<br />
==Research question==<br />
This research is designed to discover the best method of producing robust learning of French nominal gender, as well as the factors that make this learning more difficult.<br />
<br />
==Experimental Design==<br />
<br />
The gender categorization task originated as an M/F response on the keyboard to a bare French noun, presented with English translation (as in [[French gender prototypes|Explicitness and Category Breadth]]). <br />
<br />
Recently, this has changed. The later version of the task (used in [[French gender attention|Influence of Time Pressure on Explicitness Effects]]) removes the English translation as task-irrelevant cognitive load, and also changes the question type, presenting the noun twice with masculine and feminine articles (e.g., le fromage, *la fromage) and asks participants to choose M or F to select which alternative is correct. See [[:Image:Gender pretest.jpg]] for an illustration of this response type. <br />
<br />
==Background and significance==<br />
<br />
Tucker, Lambert and Rigault (1977) evaluated the L1 (first language) learning of cues to gender in French. More recently, Holmes and Dejean de la Batie (1999) produced the first study of the acquisition of grammatical gender by L2 learners. Holmes and Segui (2004) have extended the detail of these analyses, but so far only with native speakers.<br />
Carroll (1999) and Lyster (2006) have explored the role of [[cue validity]] and [[availability]] in predicting usage by learners. All of these studies underscore the importance of high validity cues for the general vocabulary. However, these cues are only marginally useful for the highest frequency forms, whose gender must be learned more or less by rote. These analyses are in very close accord with the claims of the [[Competition Model]] (MacWhinney 1978, 2006). <br />
<br />
In the Competition Model, each cue has a strength that is based on its reliability in signaling information (as in, for example, the use of spelling to predict grammatical gender). Some cues are more reliable than others: for instance, in the case of nouns that refer to people, semantic cues (the gender of a person) are more reliable than spelling cues. Over time, a learner picks up on these reliabilities, first acquiring the most clearly reliable cues, then later pulling apart conflicting but frequently co-occurring ones. Cue conflicts are then resolved through a process of [[competition]]. A full discussion of cue conflict is found in MacDonald and MacWhinney (1991).<br />
<br />
<br />
Our goal here is to use these findings to guide effective instruction. One way of doing so is to aim for mastery of some grammatical structure in an L2, in this case grammatical gender, to show that with efficient and optimized practice, the learning gains can be large. We do this using an optimized schedule designed by Pavlik (2005) in the [[FaCT System]] and inspired by the memory schedules of Pimsleur (1967). We expect that, with a sufficient amount of practice under the right conditions, grammatical gender assignment can become proceduralized. Although grammatical gender is a relatively simple grammatical structure, and (for English L1 speakers) should show little interference from structures in the native language, this is an important first step toward optimizing grammar learning overall as well as toward learning more about the available mechanisms to learn an L2.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Descendents==<br />
'''Completed Experiments'''<br />
*[[Learning French gender cues with prototypes]] (Presson, MacWhinney, & Pavlik): Overview of cue structure, introduction to training<br />
*[[French gender cue learning through optimized adaptive practice | French grammatical gender cue learning through optimized adaptive practice]] (Presson, MacWhinney, & Pavlik)<br />
*[[French gender prototypes|Explicitness and Category Breadth]]: Within the French gender learning task, comparing implicit and explicit instruction, crossed with a manipulation of category breadth (Presson & MacWhinney)<br />
*[[French gender attention|Influence of Time Pressure on Explicitness Effects]]: Comparing a more and less explicit training condition in French gender with and without time pressure (Presson & MacWhinney)<br />
<br />
==Bibliography==<br />
*Anderson, J. R., & Fincham, J. M. (1994). Acquisition of procedural skills from examples. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 20(6), 1322-1340.<br />
*Carroll, S. (1999). Input and SLA: Adults' sensitivity to different sorts of cues to French gender. Language Learning, 49, 37-92.<br />
*DeKeyser, R. M. (2005). What Makes Learning Second-Language Grammar Difficult? A Review of Issues. Language Learning, 55(Suppl1), 1-25.<br />
*Holmes, V. M., & Dejean de la Batie, B. (1999). Assignment of grammatical gender by native speakers and foreign learners of French. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20, 479-506.<br />
*Holmes, V. M., & Segui, J. (2004). Sublexical and lexical influences on gender assignment in French. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 33, 425-457.<br />
*Lyster, R. (2006). Predictability in French gender attribution: A corpus analysis. French Language Studies, 16, 69-92.<br />
*MacDonald, J. L., & MacWhinney, B. (1991). Levels of learning: A microdevelopmental study of concept formation. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 407-430.<br />
*MacWhinney, B. (2006). A unified model. In N. Ellis & P. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Press.<br />
*Pavlik Jr., P. (2005). Modeling order effects in the learning of information.<br />
*Pavlik Jr., P., & Anderson, J. R. (2005). Practice and forgetting effects on vocabulary memory: An activation-based model of the spacing effect. Cognitive Science, 29(4), 559-586.<br />
*Pimsleur, P. (1967). A memory schedule. The Modern Language Journal, 51(2), 73-75.<br />
*Robinson, P. (1997). Generalizability and automaticity of second language learning under implicit, incidental, enhanced, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Aquisition, 19(2), 223-247.<br />
*Ullman, M. T. (2001). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: the declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4(1), 105-122.</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=French_gender_cues&diff=8816French gender cues2009-01-29T20:22:15Z<p>Presson: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Abstract==<br />
<br />
This is the main page for Presson and MacWhinnney's studies teaching students to use cues in French to determine the grammatical gender of words. <br />
<br />
The goal of this project is to improve the ability of students of Elementary French to determine the gender of French nouns. This improvement is attained through large amounts of practice, and is measured in terms of ability to generalize to novel nouns. Like other studies conducted by MacWhinney and Pavlik ([[Optimizing the practice schedule]]), this work emphasizes the role of scheduling in attaining mastery. <br />
<br />
==Glossary==<br />
*[[optimal spacing interval]]<br />
*[[mastery]]<br />
*[[cue validity]]<br />
*[[cue reliability]]<br />
*[[cue availability]]<br />
*[[lexical effects]]<br />
<br />
==Research question==<br />
This research is designed to discover the best method of producing robust learning of French nominal gender, as well as the factors that make this learning more difficult.<br />
<br />
==Experimental Design==<br />
<br />
The gender categorization task originated as an M/F response on the keyboard to a bare French noun, presented with English translation (as in [[French gender prototypes|Explicitness and Category Breadth]]). <br />
<br />
Recently, this has changed. The later version of the task (used in [[French gender attention|Influence of Time Pressure on Explicitness Effects]]) removes the English translation as task-irrelevant cognitive load, and also changes the question type, presenting the noun twice with masculine and feminine articles (e.g., le fromage, *la fromage) and asks participants to choose M or F to select which alternative is correct. See [[:Image:Gender pretest.jpg]] for an illustration of this response type. <br />
<br />
==Background and significance==<br />
<br />
Tucker, Lambert and Rigault (1977) evaluated the L1 (first language) learning of cues to gender in French. More recently, Holmes and Dejean de la Batie (1999) produced the first study of the acquisition of grammatical gender by L2 learners. Holmes and Segui (2004) have extended the detail of these analyses, but so far only with native speakers.<br />
Carroll (1999) and Lyster (2006) have explored the role of [[cue validity]] and [[availability]] in predicting usage by learners. All of these studies underscore the importance of high validity cues for the general vocabulary. However, these cues are only marginally useful for the highest frequency forms, whose gender must be learned more or less by rote. These analyses are in very close accord with the claims of the [[Competition Model]] (MacWhinney 1978, 2006). <br />
<br />
In the Competition Model, each cue has a strength that is based on its reliability in signaling information (as in, for example, the use of spelling to predict grammatical gender). Some cues are more reliable than others: for instance, in the case of nouns that refer to people, semantic cues (the gender of a person) are more reliable than spelling cues. Over time, a learner picks up on these reliabilities, first acquiring the most clearly reliable cues, then later pulling apart conflicting but frequently co-occurring ones. Cue conflicts are then resolved through a process of [[competition]]. A full discussion of cue conflict is found in MacDonald and MacWhinney (1991).<br />
<br />
<br />
Our goal here is to use these findings to guide effective instruction. One way of doing so is to aim for mastery of some grammatical structure in an L2, in this case grammatical gender, to show that with efficient and optimized practice, the learning gains can be large. We do this using an optimized schedule designed by Pavlik (2005) in the [[FaCT System]] and inspired by the memory schedules of Pimsleur (1967). We expect that, with a sufficient amount of practice under the right conditions, grammatical gender assignment can become proceduralized. Although grammatical gender is a relatively simple grammatical structure, and (for English L1 speakers) should show little interference from structures in the native language, this is an important first step toward optimizing grammar learning overall as well as toward learning more about the available mechanisms to learn an L2.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Descendents==<br />
'''Completed Experiments'''<br />
*[[Learning French gender cues with prototypes]] (Presson, MacWhinney, & Pavlik): Overview of cue structure, introduction to training<br />
*[[French gender cue learning through optimized adaptive practice | French grammatical gender cue learning through optimized adaptive practice]] (Presson, MacWhinney, & Pavlik)<br />
*[[French gender prototypes|Explicitness and Category Breadth]]: Within the French gender learning task, comparing implicit and explicit instruction, crossed with a manipulation of category breadth (Presson & MacWhinney)<br />
<br />
'''Planned Experiments'''<br />
*[[French gender attention|Influence of Time Pressure on Explicitness Effects]]: Comparing a more and less explicit training condition in French gender with and without time pressure (Presson & MacWhinney)<br />
<br />
==Bibliography==<br />
*Anderson, J. R., & Fincham, J. M. (1994). Acquisition of procedural skills from examples. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 20(6), 1322-1340.<br />
*Carroll, S. (1999). Input and SLA: Adults' sensitivity to different sorts of cues to French gender. Language Learning, 49, 37-92.<br />
*DeKeyser, R. M. (2005). What Makes Learning Second-Language Grammar Difficult? A Review of Issues. Language Learning, 55(Suppl1), 1-25.<br />
*Holmes, V. M., & Dejean de la Batie, B. (1999). Assignment of grammatical gender by native speakers and foreign learners of French. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20, 479-506.<br />
*Holmes, V. M., & Segui, J. (2004). Sublexical and lexical influences on gender assignment in French. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 33, 425-457.<br />
*Lyster, R. (2006). Predictability in French gender attribution: A corpus analysis. French Language Studies, 16, 69-92.<br />
*MacDonald, J. L., & MacWhinney, B. (1991). Levels of learning: A microdevelopmental study of concept formation. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 407-430.<br />
*MacWhinney, B. (2006). A unified model. In N. Ellis & P. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Press.<br />
*Pavlik Jr., P. (2005). Modeling order effects in the learning of information.<br />
*Pavlik Jr., P., & Anderson, J. R. (2005). Practice and forgetting effects on vocabulary memory: An activation-based model of the spacing effect. Cognitive Science, 29(4), 559-586.<br />
*Pimsleur, P. (1967). A memory schedule. The Modern Language Journal, 51(2), 73-75.<br />
*Robinson, P. (1997). Generalizability and automaticity of second language learning under implicit, incidental, enhanced, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Aquisition, 19(2), 223-247.<br />
*Ullman, M. T. (2001). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: the declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4(1), 105-122.</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=French_gender_attention&diff=8815French gender attention2009-01-29T20:03:44Z<p>Presson: </p>
<hr />
<div>{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"<br />
|- <br />
! PIs<br />
| Presson, MacWhinney<br />
|-<br />
! Faculty<br />
| MacWhinney<br />
|-<br />
! Postdocs<br />
| Pavlik<br />
|-<br />
! Others with > 160 hours<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Study Start Date<br />
| 10/01/08<br />
|-<br />
! Study End Date<br />
| 05/30/08<br />
|-<br />
! Learnlab<br />
| N/A<br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (total)<br />
| 80-100<br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (treatment)<br />
| N/A<br />
|-<br />
! Total Participant Hours<br />
| ~100<br />
|-<br />
! Datashop?<br />
| Summer '09<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Abstract==<br />
<br />
This study extends the research question in a previous study by [[French gender prototypes| Presson & MacWhinney]]. In that experiment, explicit instruction led to better generalization and robustness to forgetting, compared to correct/incorrect feedback only. In the current study, explicitness is manipulated as well, with the more explicit condition the same as the previous study. However, the more implicit condition in this case is a highlighting manipulation, with no rules presented and in which participants see the relevant cue in capital letters to draw attention to the endings of words (e.g. "fromAGE" v. "fromage"). We want to know first if students are as effective at extracting cue patterns with this intervention as with strictly explicit instruction.<br />
<br />
Second, we manipulate the time pressure of the task between groups. Time pressure favors procedural and automatic performance. If the highlighting condition is less explicit and equally effective, we expect an advantage within the time pressure condition (answer within 1400ms) compared to the no time pressure condition (trial times out at 6000ms, as in prior studies). This is important because time pressure is an essential element of naturalistic language use. In addition, time pressure changes the task demands, which we hypothesize will encourage more implicit representations of categories than with no time pressure.<br />
<br />
==Glossary==<br />
*[[mastery]]<br />
*[[explicit instruction]]<br />
*[[cue validity]]<br />
*[[cue reliability]]<br />
*[[cue availability]]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Research question==<br />
This research is designed to discover the best method of producing robust learning of French nominal gender, as well as the factors that make this learning more difficult.<br />
<br />
==Background and significance==<br />
<br />
Tucker, Lambert and Rigault (1977) evaluated the L1 (first language) learning of cues to gender in French. More recently, Holmes and Dejean de la Batie (1999) produced the first study of the acquisition of grammatical gender by L2 learners. Holmes and Segui (2004) have extended the detail of these analyses, but so far only with native speakers.<br />
Carroll (1999) and Lyster (2006) have explored the role of [[cue validity]] and [[availability]] in predicting usage by learners. All of these studies underscore the importance of high validity cues for the general vocabulary. However, these cues are only marginally useful for the highest frequency forms, whose gender must be learned more or less by rote. These analyses are in very close accord with the claims of the [[Competition Model]] (MacWhinney 1978, 2006). <br />
<br />
In the Competition Model, each cue has a strength that is based on its reliability in signaling information (as in, for example, the use of spelling to predict grammatical gender). Some cues are more reliable than others: for instance, in the case of nouns that refer to people, semantic cues (the gender of a person) are more reliable than spelling cues. Over time, a learner picks up on these reliabilities, first acquiring the most clearly reliable cues, then later pulling apart conflicting but frequently co-occurring ones. Cue conflicts are then resolved through a process of [[competition]]. A full discussion of cue conflict is found in MacDonald and MacWhinney (1991).<br />
<br />
<br />
In the current study, we manipulate whether participants receive explicit cues to gender patterns, or merely correct / incorrect feedback with the relevant cues highlighted (through capitalization) to direct attention.<br />
<br />
==Dependent variables==<br />
<br />
Accuracy and latency in training, as well as pre-/post-test gain scores, are dependent measures. In the post-test, there are two blocks: visual presentation (as in training) and auditory presentation (a transfer task).<br />
<br />
==Independent variables==<br />
<br />
Between-groups manipulations of time pressure (present or absent 1400ms time limit) and explicitness produce four groups:<br />
<br />
Rule + Time Pressure<br />
<br />
Rule - Time Pressure<br />
<br />
Highlighting + Time Pressure<br />
<br />
Highlighting - Time Pressure<br />
<br />
Time pressure is operationalized by timimg out test trials after (''some interval'') ms.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Screenshots==<br />
<br />
<gallery><br />
Image:Gender pretest.jpg|Pre-test trial<br />
Image:Gender explicit.jpg|Explicit condition<br />
Image:Gender highlight.jpg|Highlighting condition<br />
Image:Gender feedback.jpg |Feedback<br />
<br />
</gallery><br />
<br />
==Hypotheses==<br />
After 40 minutes of training, we hypothesize learning that is retained after a one-week retention interval and which generalizes to novel words under the same cue categories. <br />
<br />
From previous studies, the response form has changed from seeing nouns in isolation and categorizing them as masculine or feminine to seeing both the correct and incorrect noun phrases on each trial, including a gendered definite article (e.g. "le fromage" and *"la fromage"). This method change may make learning more difficult than prior studies; however, it improves external validity by making the categorization process better resemble language input. <br />
<br />
Because prior studies (e.g., [[French gender prototypes|Explicitness and Category Breadth]]) suggest that explicitness of instruction does not affect accuracy in training, we predict equivalent performance in the learning block. Explicit presentation of the prompt would be more robust to decay and generalization if in fact the manipulation makes the cue more salient (compared to the highlighting condition). <br />
<br />
Adding time pressure will suppress initial performance in training. We predict that this suppression will be temporary, and in fact that later performance could show a time pressure advantage, especially in the no-feedback post-test. In addition, time pressure should change the relative effectiveness of an explicit inference rule vs. noticing highlights, such that noticing is easier than inference under time pressure, therefore improving learning.<br />
<br />
At the one-week delay, participants complete an auditory version of the categorization task, testing whether the cue information transfers at all to correct French phonological representation, is too distant from French to help with auditory categorization, or is purely orthographic / visual.<br />
<br />
==Findings==<br />
<br />
PENDING<br />
<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
PENDING<br />
==Descendents==<br />
<br />
==Annotated bibliography==<br />
*Anderson, J. R., & Fincham, J. M. (1994). Acquisition of procedural skills from examples. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 20(6), 1322-1340.<br />
*Carroll, S. (1999). Input and SLA: Adults' sensitivity to different sorts of cues to French gender. Language Learning, 49, 37-92.<br />
*DeKeyser, R. M. (2005). What Makes Learning Second-Language Grammar Difficult? A Review of Issues. Language Learning, 55(Suppl1), 1-25.<br />
*Holmes, V. M., & Dejean de la Batie, B. (1999). Assignment of grammatical gender by native speakers and foreign learners of French. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20, 479-506.<br />
*Holmes, V. M., & Segui, J. (2004). Sublexical and lexical influences on gender assignment in French. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 33, 425-457.<br />
*Lyster, R. (2006). Predictability in French gender attribution: A corpus analysis. French Language Studies, 16, 69-92.<br />
*MacDonald, J. L., & MacWhinney, B. (1991). Levels of learning: A microdevelopmental study of concept formation. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 407-430.<br />
*MacWhinney, B. (2006). A unified model. In N. Ellis & P. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Press.<br />
*Pimsleur, P. (1967). A memory schedule. The Modern Language Journal, 51(2), 73-75.<br />
*Robinson, P. (1997). Generalizability and automaticity of second language learning under implicit, incidental, enhanced, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Aquisition, 19(2), 223-247.<br />
*Segalowitz, S., Segalowitz, N., & Wood, A. (1998). Assessing the development of automaticity in second language word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 53-67.<br />
*Ullman, M. T. (2001). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: the declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4(1), 105-122.</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=French_gender_attention&diff=8814French gender attention2009-01-29T19:11:25Z<p>Presson: /* Independent variables */</p>
<hr />
<div>{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"<br />
|- <br />
! PIs<br />
| Presson, MacWhinney<br />
|-<br />
! Faculty<br />
| MacWhinney<br />
|-<br />
! Postdocs<br />
| Pavlik<br />
|-<br />
! Others with > 160 hours<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Study Start Date<br />
| 10/01/08<br />
|-<br />
! Study End Date<br />
| 05/30/08<br />
|-<br />
! Learnlab<br />
| N/A<br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (total)<br />
| 80-100<br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (treatment)<br />
| N/A<br />
|-<br />
! Total Participant Hours<br />
| ~100<br />
|-<br />
! Datashop?<br />
| Summer '09<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Abstract==<br />
<br />
This study extends the research question in a previous study by [[French gender prototypes| Presson & MacWhinney]]. In that experiment, explicit instruction led to better generalization and robustness to forgetting, compared to correct/incorrect feedback only. In the current study, explicitness is manipulated as well, with the more explicit condition the same as the previous study. However, the more implicit condition in this case is a highlighting manipulation, with no rules presented and in which participants see the relevant cue in capital letters to draw attention to the endings of words (e.g. "fromAGE" v. "fromage"). We want to know first if students are as effective at extracting cue patterns with this intervention as with strictly explicit instruction.<br />
<br />
Second, we manipulate the time pressure of the task between groups. Time pressure favors procedural and automatic performance. If the highlighting condition is less explicit and equally effective, we expect an advantage within the time pressure condition (answer within 1400ms) compared to the no time pressure condition (trial times out at 6000ms, as in prior studies). This is important because time pressure is an essential element of naturalistic language use. In addition, time pressure changes the task demands, which we hypothesize will encourage more implicit representations of categories than with no time pressure.<br />
<br />
==Glossary==<br />
*[[mastery]]<br />
*[[explicit instruction]]<br />
*[[cue validity]]<br />
*[[cue reliability]]<br />
*[[cue availability]]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Research question==<br />
This research is designed to discover the best method of producing robust learning of French nominal gender, as well as the factors that make this learning more difficult.<br />
<br />
==Background and significance==<br />
<br />
Tucker, Lambert and Rigault (1977) evaluated the L1 (first language) learning of cues to gender in French. More recently, Holmes and Dejean de la Batie (1999) produced the first study of the acquisition of grammatical gender by L2 learners. Holmes and Segui (2004) have extended the detail of these analyses, but so far only with native speakers.<br />
Carroll (1999) and Lyster (2006) have explored the role of [[cue validity]] and [[availability]] in predicting usage by learners. All of these studies underscore the importance of high validity cues for the general vocabulary. However, these cues are only marginally useful for the highest frequency forms, whose gender must be learned more or less by rote. These analyses are in very close accord with the claims of the [[Competition Model]] (MacWhinney 1978, 2006). <br />
<br />
In the Competition Model, each cue has a strength that is based on its reliability in signaling information (as in, for example, the use of spelling to predict grammatical gender). Some cues are more reliable than others: for instance, in the case of nouns that refer to people, semantic cues (the gender of a person) are more reliable than spelling cues. Over time, a learner picks up on these reliabilities, first acquiring the most clearly reliable cues, then later pulling apart conflicting but frequently co-occurring ones. Cue conflicts are then resolved through a process of [[competition]]. A full discussion of cue conflict is found in MacDonald and MacWhinney (1991).<br />
<br />
<br />
In the current study, we manipulate whether participants receive explicit cues to gender patterns, or merely correct / incorrect feedback with the relevant cues highlighted (through capitalization) to direct attention.<br />
<br />
==Dependent variables==<br />
<br />
Accuracy and latency in training, as well as pre-/post-test gain scores, are dependent measures. In the post-test, there are two blocks: visual presentation (as in training) and auditory presentation (a transfer task).<br />
<br />
==Independent variables==<br />
<br />
Between-groups manipulations of time pressure (present or absent 1400ms time limit) and explicitness produce four groups:<br />
<br />
Rule + Time Pressure<br />
<br />
Rule - Time Pressure<br />
<br />
Highlighting + Time Pressure<br />
<br />
Highlighting - Time Pressure<br />
<br />
Time pressure is operationalized by timimg out test trials after (''some interval'') ms.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Screenshots==<br />
<br />
<gallery><br />
Image:Gender pretest.jpg|Pre-test trial<br />
Image:Gender explicit.jpg|Explicit condition<br />
Image:Gender highlight.jpg|Highlighting condition<br />
Image:Gender feedback.jpg |Feedback<br />
<br />
</gallery><br />
<br />
==Hypotheses==<br />
After 40 minutes of training, we hypothesize learning that is retained after a one-week retention interval and which generalizes to novel words under the same cue categories. <br />
<br />
From previous studies, the response form has changed from seeing nouns in isolation and categorizing them as masculine or feminine to seeing both the correct and incorrect noun phrases on each trial, including a gendered definite article (e.g. "le fromage" and *"la fromage"). This method change may make learning more difficult than prior studies; however, it improves external validity by making the categorization process better resemble language input. <br />
<br />
Because prior studies (e.g., [[French gender prototypes|Explicitness and Category Breadth]]) suggest that explicitness of instruction does not affect accuracy in training, we predict equivalent performance in the learning block. Explicit presentation of the prompt would be more robust to decay and generalization if in fact the manipulation makes the cue more salient (compared to the highlighting condition). <br />
<br />
Adding time pressure will suppress initial performance in training. We predict that this suppression will be temporary, and in fact that later performance could show a time pressure advantage, especially in the no-feedback post-test. In addition, time pressure should change the relative effectiveness of an explicit inference rule vs. noticing highlights, such that noticing is easier than inference under time pressure, therefore improving learning.<br />
<br />
At the one-week delay, participants complete an auditory version of the categorization task, testing whether the cue information transfers at all to correct French phonological representation, is too distant from French to help with auditory categorization, or is purely orthographic / visual.<br />
<br />
==Findings==<br />
<br />
PENDING<br />
<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
PENDING<br />
==Descendents==<br />
<br />
==Annotated bibliography==<br />
*Anderson, J. R., & Fincham, J. M. (1994). Acquisition of procedural skills from examples. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 20(6), 1322-1340.<br />
*Carroll, S. (1999). Input and SLA: Adults' sensitivity to different sorts of cues to French gender. Language Learning, 49, 37-92.<br />
*DeKeyser, R. M. (2005). What Makes Learning Second-Language Grammar Difficult? A Review of Issues. Language Learning, 55(Suppl1), 1-25.<br />
*Holmes, V. M., & Dejean de la Batie, B. (1999). Assignment of grammatical gender by native speakers and foreign learners of French. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20, 479-506.<br />
*Holmes, V. M., & Segui, J. (2004). Sublexical and lexical influences on gender assignment in French. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 33, 425-457.<br />
*Lyster, R. (2006). Predictability in French gender attribution: A corpus analysis. French Language Studies, 16, 69-92.<br />
*MacDonald, J. L., & MacWhinney, B. (1991). Levels of learning: A microdevelopmental study of concept formation. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 407-430.<br />
*MacWhinney, B. (2006). A unified model. In N. Ellis & P. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Press.<br />
*Pimsleur, P. (1967). A memory schedule. The Modern Language Journal, 51(2), 73-75.<br />
*Robinson, P. (1997). Generalizability and automaticity of second language learning under implicit, incidental, enhanced, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Aquisition, 19(2), 223-247.<br />
*Segalowitz, S., Segalowitz, N., & Wood, A. (1998). Assessing the development of automaticity in second language word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 53-67.<br />
*Ullman, M. T. (2001). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: the declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4(1), 105-122.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Protected]]</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=File:Gender_feedback.jpg&diff=8813File:Gender feedback.jpg2009-01-29T19:05:54Z<p>Presson: Screenshot of French gender tutor, feedback screen.</p>
<hr />
<div>Screenshot of French gender tutor, feedback screen.</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=File:Gender_highlight.jpg&diff=8812File:Gender highlight.jpg2009-01-29T19:04:23Z<p>Presson: Screenshot of French gender tutor, highlighting condition.</p>
<hr />
<div>Screenshot of French gender tutor, highlighting condition.</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=File:Gender_explicit.jpg&diff=8811File:Gender explicit.jpg2009-01-29T19:03:30Z<p>Presson: Screenshot of French gender tutor, explicit condition.</p>
<hr />
<div>Screenshot of French gender tutor, explicit condition.</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=File:Gender_pretest.jpg&diff=8810File:Gender pretest.jpg2009-01-29T19:01:35Z<p>Presson: Screenshot of the French Gender Tutor, pre-test.</p>
<hr />
<div>Screenshot of the French Gender Tutor, pre-test.</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=French_gender_attention&diff=8809French gender attention2009-01-29T18:54:14Z<p>Presson: /* Abstract */</p>
<hr />
<div>{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"<br />
|- <br />
! PIs<br />
| Presson, MacWhinney<br />
|-<br />
! Faculty<br />
| MacWhinney<br />
|-<br />
! Postdocs<br />
| Pavlik<br />
|-<br />
! Others with > 160 hours<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Study Start Date<br />
| 10/01/08<br />
|-<br />
! Study End Date<br />
| 05/30/08<br />
|-<br />
! Learnlab<br />
| N/A<br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (total)<br />
| 80-100<br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (treatment)<br />
| N/A<br />
|-<br />
! Total Participant Hours<br />
| ~100<br />
|-<br />
! Datashop?<br />
| Summer '09<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Abstract==<br />
<br />
This study extends the research question in a previous study by [[French gender prototypes| Presson & MacWhinney]]. In that experiment, explicit instruction led to better generalization and robustness to forgetting, compared to correct/incorrect feedback only. In the current study, explicitness is manipulated as well, with the more explicit condition the same as the previous study. However, the more implicit condition in this case is a highlighting manipulation, with no rules presented and in which participants see the relevant cue in capital letters to draw attention to the endings of words (e.g. "fromAGE" v. "fromage"). We want to know first if students are as effective at extracting cue patterns with this intervention as with strictly explicit instruction.<br />
<br />
Second, we manipulate the time pressure of the task between groups. Time pressure favors procedural and automatic performance. If the highlighting condition is less explicit and equally effective, we expect an advantage within the time pressure condition (answer within 1400ms) compared to the no time pressure condition (trial times out at 6000ms, as in prior studies). This is important because time pressure is an essential element of naturalistic language use. In addition, time pressure changes the task demands, which we hypothesize will encourage more implicit representations of categories than with no time pressure.<br />
<br />
==Glossary==<br />
*[[mastery]]<br />
*[[explicit instruction]]<br />
*[[cue validity]]<br />
*[[cue reliability]]<br />
*[[cue availability]]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Research question==<br />
This research is designed to discover the best method of producing robust learning of French nominal gender, as well as the factors that make this learning more difficult.<br />
<br />
==Background and significance==<br />
<br />
Tucker, Lambert and Rigault (1977) evaluated the L1 (first language) learning of cues to gender in French. More recently, Holmes and Dejean de la Batie (1999) produced the first study of the acquisition of grammatical gender by L2 learners. Holmes and Segui (2004) have extended the detail of these analyses, but so far only with native speakers.<br />
Carroll (1999) and Lyster (2006) have explored the role of [[cue validity]] and [[availability]] in predicting usage by learners. All of these studies underscore the importance of high validity cues for the general vocabulary. However, these cues are only marginally useful for the highest frequency forms, whose gender must be learned more or less by rote. These analyses are in very close accord with the claims of the [[Competition Model]] (MacWhinney 1978, 2006). <br />
<br />
In the Competition Model, each cue has a strength that is based on its reliability in signaling information (as in, for example, the use of spelling to predict grammatical gender). Some cues are more reliable than others: for instance, in the case of nouns that refer to people, semantic cues (the gender of a person) are more reliable than spelling cues. Over time, a learner picks up on these reliabilities, first acquiring the most clearly reliable cues, then later pulling apart conflicting but frequently co-occurring ones. Cue conflicts are then resolved through a process of [[competition]]. A full discussion of cue conflict is found in MacDonald and MacWhinney (1991).<br />
<br />
<br />
In the current study, we manipulate whether participants receive explicit cues to gender patterns, or merely correct / incorrect feedback with the relevant cues highlighted (through capitalization) to direct attention.<br />
<br />
==Dependent variables==<br />
<br />
Accuracy and latency in training, as well as pre-/post-test gain scores, are dependent measures. In the post-test, there are two blocks: visual presentation (as in training) and auditory presentation (a transfer task).<br />
<br />
==Independent variables==<br />
<br />
Between-groups manipulations of time pressure (present or absent 1400ms time limit) and explicitness produce four groups:<br />
<br />
Rule + Time Pressure<br />
<br />
Rule - Time Pressure<br />
<br />
Highlighting + Time Pressure<br />
<br />
Highlighting - Time Pressure<br />
<br />
Time pressure is operationalized by timimg out test trials after (''some interval'') ms.<br />
<br />
==Hypotheses==<br />
After 40 minutes of training, we hypothesize learning that is retained after a one-week retention interval and which generalizes to novel words under the same cue categories. <br />
<br />
From previous studies, the response form has changed from seeing nouns in isolation and categorizing them as masculine or feminine to seeing both the correct and incorrect noun phrases on each trial, including a gendered definite article (e.g. "le fromage" and *"la fromage"). This method change may make learning more difficult than prior studies; however, it improves external validity by making the categorization process better resemble language input. <br />
<br />
Because prior studies (e.g., [[French gender prototypes|Explicitness and Category Breadth]]) suggest that explicitness of instruction does not affect accuracy in training, we predict equivalent performance in the learning block. Explicit presentation of the prompt would be more robust to decay and generalization if in fact the manipulation makes the cue more salient (compared to the highlighting condition). <br />
<br />
Adding time pressure will suppress initial performance in training. We predict that this suppression will be temporary, and in fact that later performance could show a time pressure advantage, especially in the no-feedback post-test. In addition, time pressure should change the relative effectiveness of an explicit inference rule vs. noticing highlights, such that noticing is easier than inference under time pressure, therefore improving learning.<br />
<br />
At the one-week delay, participants complete an auditory version of the categorization task, testing whether the cue information transfers at all to correct French phonological representation, is too distant from French to help with auditory categorization, or is purely orthographic / visual.<br />
<br />
==Findings==<br />
<br />
PENDING<br />
<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
PENDING<br />
==Descendents==<br />
<br />
==Annotated bibliography==<br />
*Anderson, J. R., & Fincham, J. M. (1994). Acquisition of procedural skills from examples. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 20(6), 1322-1340.<br />
*Carroll, S. (1999). Input and SLA: Adults' sensitivity to different sorts of cues to French gender. Language Learning, 49, 37-92.<br />
*DeKeyser, R. M. (2005). What Makes Learning Second-Language Grammar Difficult? A Review of Issues. Language Learning, 55(Suppl1), 1-25.<br />
*Holmes, V. M., & Dejean de la Batie, B. (1999). Assignment of grammatical gender by native speakers and foreign learners of French. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20, 479-506.<br />
*Holmes, V. M., & Segui, J. (2004). Sublexical and lexical influences on gender assignment in French. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 33, 425-457.<br />
*Lyster, R. (2006). Predictability in French gender attribution: A corpus analysis. French Language Studies, 16, 69-92.<br />
*MacDonald, J. L., & MacWhinney, B. (1991). Levels of learning: A microdevelopmental study of concept formation. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 407-430.<br />
*MacWhinney, B. (2006). A unified model. In N. Ellis & P. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Press.<br />
*Pimsleur, P. (1967). A memory schedule. The Modern Language Journal, 51(2), 73-75.<br />
*Robinson, P. (1997). Generalizability and automaticity of second language learning under implicit, incidental, enhanced, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Aquisition, 19(2), 223-247.<br />
*Segalowitz, S., Segalowitz, N., & Wood, A. (1998). Assessing the development of automaticity in second language word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 53-67.<br />
*Ullman, M. T. (2001). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: the declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4(1), 105-122.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Protected]]</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=French_gender_attention&diff=8808French gender attention2009-01-29T18:53:36Z<p>Presson: /* Independent variables */</p>
<hr />
<div>{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"<br />
|- <br />
! PIs<br />
| Presson, MacWhinney<br />
|-<br />
! Faculty<br />
| MacWhinney<br />
|-<br />
! Postdocs<br />
| Pavlik<br />
|-<br />
! Others with > 160 hours<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Study Start Date<br />
| 10/01/08<br />
|-<br />
! Study End Date<br />
| 05/30/08<br />
|-<br />
! Learnlab<br />
| N/A<br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (total)<br />
| 80-100<br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (treatment)<br />
| N/A<br />
|-<br />
! Total Participant Hours<br />
| ~100<br />
|-<br />
! Datashop?<br />
| Summer '09<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Abstract==<br />
<br />
This study extends the research question in a previous study by [[French gender prototypes| Presson & MacWhinney]]. In that experiment, explicit instruction led to better generalization and robustness to forgetting, compared to correct/incorrect feedback only. In the current study, explicitness is manipulated as well, with the more explicit condition the same as the previous study. However, the more implicit condition in this case is a highlighting manipulation, with no rules presented and in which participants see the relevant cue in capital letters to draw attention to the endings of words (e.g. "fromAGE" v. "fromage"). We want to know first if students are as effective at extracting cue patterns with this intervention as with strictly explicit instruction.<br />
<br />
Second, we manipulate the time pressure of the task between groups. Time pressure favors procedural and automatic performance. If the highlighting condition is less explicit and equally effective, we expect an advantage within the time pressure condition. This is important because time pressure is an essential element of naturalistic language use. In addition, time pressure changes the task demands, which we hypothesize will encourage more implicit representations of categories than with no time pressure.<br />
<br />
==Glossary==<br />
*[[mastery]]<br />
*[[explicit instruction]]<br />
*[[cue validity]]<br />
*[[cue reliability]]<br />
*[[cue availability]]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Research question==<br />
This research is designed to discover the best method of producing robust learning of French nominal gender, as well as the factors that make this learning more difficult.<br />
<br />
==Background and significance==<br />
<br />
Tucker, Lambert and Rigault (1977) evaluated the L1 (first language) learning of cues to gender in French. More recently, Holmes and Dejean de la Batie (1999) produced the first study of the acquisition of grammatical gender by L2 learners. Holmes and Segui (2004) have extended the detail of these analyses, but so far only with native speakers.<br />
Carroll (1999) and Lyster (2006) have explored the role of [[cue validity]] and [[availability]] in predicting usage by learners. All of these studies underscore the importance of high validity cues for the general vocabulary. However, these cues are only marginally useful for the highest frequency forms, whose gender must be learned more or less by rote. These analyses are in very close accord with the claims of the [[Competition Model]] (MacWhinney 1978, 2006). <br />
<br />
In the Competition Model, each cue has a strength that is based on its reliability in signaling information (as in, for example, the use of spelling to predict grammatical gender). Some cues are more reliable than others: for instance, in the case of nouns that refer to people, semantic cues (the gender of a person) are more reliable than spelling cues. Over time, a learner picks up on these reliabilities, first acquiring the most clearly reliable cues, then later pulling apart conflicting but frequently co-occurring ones. Cue conflicts are then resolved through a process of [[competition]]. A full discussion of cue conflict is found in MacDonald and MacWhinney (1991).<br />
<br />
<br />
In the current study, we manipulate whether participants receive explicit cues to gender patterns, or merely correct / incorrect feedback with the relevant cues highlighted (through capitalization) to direct attention.<br />
<br />
==Dependent variables==<br />
<br />
Accuracy and latency in training, as well as pre-/post-test gain scores, are dependent measures. In the post-test, there are two blocks: visual presentation (as in training) and auditory presentation (a transfer task).<br />
<br />
==Independent variables==<br />
<br />
Between-groups manipulations of time pressure (present or absent 1400ms time limit) and explicitness produce four groups:<br />
<br />
Rule + Time Pressure<br />
<br />
Rule - Time Pressure<br />
<br />
Highlighting + Time Pressure<br />
<br />
Highlighting - Time Pressure<br />
<br />
Time pressure is operationalized by timimg out test trials after (''some interval'') ms.<br />
<br />
==Hypotheses==<br />
After 40 minutes of training, we hypothesize learning that is retained after a one-week retention interval and which generalizes to novel words under the same cue categories. <br />
<br />
From previous studies, the response form has changed from seeing nouns in isolation and categorizing them as masculine or feminine to seeing both the correct and incorrect noun phrases on each trial, including a gendered definite article (e.g. "le fromage" and *"la fromage"). This method change may make learning more difficult than prior studies; however, it improves external validity by making the categorization process better resemble language input. <br />
<br />
Because prior studies (e.g., [[French gender prototypes|Explicitness and Category Breadth]]) suggest that explicitness of instruction does not affect accuracy in training, we predict equivalent performance in the learning block. Explicit presentation of the prompt would be more robust to decay and generalization if in fact the manipulation makes the cue more salient (compared to the highlighting condition). <br />
<br />
Adding time pressure will suppress initial performance in training. We predict that this suppression will be temporary, and in fact that later performance could show a time pressure advantage, especially in the no-feedback post-test. In addition, time pressure should change the relative effectiveness of an explicit inference rule vs. noticing highlights, such that noticing is easier than inference under time pressure, therefore improving learning.<br />
<br />
At the one-week delay, participants complete an auditory version of the categorization task, testing whether the cue information transfers at all to correct French phonological representation, is too distant from French to help with auditory categorization, or is purely orthographic / visual.<br />
<br />
==Findings==<br />
<br />
PENDING<br />
<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
PENDING<br />
==Descendents==<br />
<br />
==Annotated bibliography==<br />
*Anderson, J. R., & Fincham, J. M. (1994). Acquisition of procedural skills from examples. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 20(6), 1322-1340.<br />
*Carroll, S. (1999). Input and SLA: Adults' sensitivity to different sorts of cues to French gender. Language Learning, 49, 37-92.<br />
*DeKeyser, R. M. (2005). What Makes Learning Second-Language Grammar Difficult? A Review of Issues. Language Learning, 55(Suppl1), 1-25.<br />
*Holmes, V. M., & Dejean de la Batie, B. (1999). Assignment of grammatical gender by native speakers and foreign learners of French. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20, 479-506.<br />
*Holmes, V. M., & Segui, J. (2004). Sublexical and lexical influences on gender assignment in French. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 33, 425-457.<br />
*Lyster, R. (2006). Predictability in French gender attribution: A corpus analysis. French Language Studies, 16, 69-92.<br />
*MacDonald, J. L., & MacWhinney, B. (1991). Levels of learning: A microdevelopmental study of concept formation. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 407-430.<br />
*MacWhinney, B. (2006). A unified model. In N. Ellis & P. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Press.<br />
*Pimsleur, P. (1967). A memory schedule. The Modern Language Journal, 51(2), 73-75.<br />
*Robinson, P. (1997). Generalizability and automaticity of second language learning under implicit, incidental, enhanced, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Aquisition, 19(2), 223-247.<br />
*Segalowitz, S., Segalowitz, N., & Wood, A. (1998). Assessing the development of automaticity in second language word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 53-67.<br />
*Ullman, M. T. (2001). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: the declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4(1), 105-122.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Protected]]</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Instructional_events&diff=8807Instructional events2009-01-29T18:41:57Z<p>Presson: /* Instructional Events */</p>
<hr />
<div>=== Instructional Events ===<br />
<br />
Studying robust learning means hypothesizing the point at which when said learning occurs. Unfortunately, there is no way to directly observe these [[learning events]], or the points in time and shifts in knowledge state when students are said to learn. <br />
<br />
As researchers, however, we do have the ability to observe '''instructional events''', which are external to the student and involve the presentation of information or elicitation of a behavioral response. <br />
<br />
The instructional event, therefore, is used as evidence to infer student learning, or to presume the existence of an unobservable learning event.<br />
<br />
=== References ===<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Glossary]] [[Category:PSLC_General]]</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Instructional_events&diff=8806Instructional events2009-01-29T18:41:32Z<p>Presson: /* Instructional Events */</p>
<hr />
<div>=== Instructional Events ===<br />
<br />
Studying robust learning means hypothesizing the point at which when said learning occurs. Unfortunately, there is no way to directly observe these [[learning events]], or points in time / shifts in knowledge when students are said to learn. <br />
<br />
As researchers, however, we do have the ability to observe '''instructional events''', which are external to the student and involve the presentation of information or elicitation of a behavioral response. <br />
<br />
The instructional event, therefore, is used as evidence to infer student learning, or to presume the existence of an unobservable learning event.<br />
<br />
=== References ===<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Glossary]] [[Category:PSLC_General]]</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Instructional_events&diff=8805Instructional events2009-01-29T18:41:07Z<p>Presson: New page: === Instructional Events === Studying robust learning means hypothesizing the point at which when said learning occurs. Unfortunately, there is no way to directly observe these [[learning...</p>
<hr />
<div>=== Instructional Events ===<br />
<br />
Studying robust learning means hypothesizing the point at which when said learning occurs. Unfortunately, there is no way to directly observe these [[learning events]], or points in time / shifts in knowledge representations (?) when students are said to learn. <br />
<br />
As researchers, however, we do have the ability to observe '''instructional events''', which are external to the student and involve the presentation of information or elicitation of a behavioral response. <br />
<br />
The instructional event, therefore, is used as evidence to infer student learning, or to presume the existence of an unobservable learning event.<br />
<br />
=== References ===<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Glossary]] [[Category:PSLC_General]]</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=French_gender_attention&diff=8804French gender attention2009-01-29T18:29:20Z<p>Presson: /* Abstract */</p>
<hr />
<div>{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"<br />
|- <br />
! PIs<br />
| Presson, MacWhinney<br />
|-<br />
! Faculty<br />
| MacWhinney<br />
|-<br />
! Postdocs<br />
| Pavlik<br />
|-<br />
! Others with > 160 hours<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Study Start Date<br />
| 10/01/08<br />
|-<br />
! Study End Date<br />
| 05/30/08<br />
|-<br />
! Learnlab<br />
| N/A<br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (total)<br />
| 80-100<br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (treatment)<br />
| N/A<br />
|-<br />
! Total Participant Hours<br />
| ~100<br />
|-<br />
! Datashop?<br />
| Summer '09<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Abstract==<br />
<br />
This study extends the research question in a previous study by [[French gender prototypes| Presson & MacWhinney]]. In that experiment, explicit instruction led to better generalization and robustness to forgetting, compared to correct/incorrect feedback only. In the current study, explicitness is manipulated as well, with the more explicit condition the same as the previous study. However, the more implicit condition in this case is a highlighting manipulation, with no rules presented and in which participants see the relevant cue in capital letters to draw attention to the endings of words (e.g. "fromAGE" v. "fromage"). We want to know first if students are as effective at extracting cue patterns with this intervention as with strictly explicit instruction.<br />
<br />
Second, we manipulate the time pressure of the task between groups. Time pressure favors procedural and automatic performance. If the highlighting condition is less explicit and equally effective, we expect an advantage within the time pressure condition. This is important because time pressure is an essential element of naturalistic language use. In addition, time pressure changes the task demands, which we hypothesize will encourage more implicit representations of categories than with no time pressure.<br />
<br />
==Glossary==<br />
*[[mastery]]<br />
*[[explicit instruction]]<br />
*[[cue validity]]<br />
*[[cue reliability]]<br />
*[[cue availability]]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Research question==<br />
This research is designed to discover the best method of producing robust learning of French nominal gender, as well as the factors that make this learning more difficult.<br />
<br />
==Background and significance==<br />
<br />
Tucker, Lambert and Rigault (1977) evaluated the L1 (first language) learning of cues to gender in French. More recently, Holmes and Dejean de la Batie (1999) produced the first study of the acquisition of grammatical gender by L2 learners. Holmes and Segui (2004) have extended the detail of these analyses, but so far only with native speakers.<br />
Carroll (1999) and Lyster (2006) have explored the role of [[cue validity]] and [[availability]] in predicting usage by learners. All of these studies underscore the importance of high validity cues for the general vocabulary. However, these cues are only marginally useful for the highest frequency forms, whose gender must be learned more or less by rote. These analyses are in very close accord with the claims of the [[Competition Model]] (MacWhinney 1978, 2006). <br />
<br />
In the Competition Model, each cue has a strength that is based on its reliability in signaling information (as in, for example, the use of spelling to predict grammatical gender). Some cues are more reliable than others: for instance, in the case of nouns that refer to people, semantic cues (the gender of a person) are more reliable than spelling cues. Over time, a learner picks up on these reliabilities, first acquiring the most clearly reliable cues, then later pulling apart conflicting but frequently co-occurring ones. Cue conflicts are then resolved through a process of [[competition]]. A full discussion of cue conflict is found in MacDonald and MacWhinney (1991).<br />
<br />
<br />
In the current study, we manipulate whether participants receive explicit cues to gender patterns, or merely correct / incorrect feedback with the relevant cues highlighted (through capitalization) to direct attention.<br />
<br />
==Dependent variables==<br />
<br />
Accuracy and latency in training, as well as pre-/post-test gain scores, are dependent measures. In the post-test, there are two blocks: visual presentation (as in training) and auditory presentation (a transfer task).<br />
<br />
==Independent variables==<br />
<br />
Between-groups manipulations of time pressure and explicitness produce four groups:<br />
<br />
Rule + Time Pressure<br />
<br />
Rule - Time Pressure<br />
<br />
Highlighting + Time Pressure<br />
<br />
Highlighting - Time Pressure<br />
<br />
Time pressure is operationalized by timimg out test trials after (''some interval'') ms.<br />
<br />
==Hypotheses==<br />
After 40 minutes of training, we hypothesize learning that is retained after a one-week retention interval and which generalizes to novel words under the same cue categories. <br />
<br />
From previous studies, the response form has changed from seeing nouns in isolation and categorizing them as masculine or feminine to seeing both the correct and incorrect noun phrases on each trial, including a gendered definite article (e.g. "le fromage" and *"la fromage"). This method change may make learning more difficult than prior studies; however, it improves external validity by making the categorization process better resemble language input. <br />
<br />
Because prior studies (e.g., [[French gender prototypes|Explicitness and Category Breadth]]) suggest that explicitness of instruction does not affect accuracy in training, we predict equivalent performance in the learning block. Explicit presentation of the prompt would be more robust to decay and generalization if in fact the manipulation makes the cue more salient (compared to the highlighting condition). <br />
<br />
Adding time pressure will suppress initial performance in training. We predict that this suppression will be temporary, and in fact that later performance could show a time pressure advantage, especially in the no-feedback post-test. In addition, time pressure should change the relative effectiveness of an explicit inference rule vs. noticing highlights, such that noticing is easier than inference under time pressure, therefore improving learning.<br />
<br />
At the one-week delay, participants complete an auditory version of the categorization task, testing whether the cue information transfers at all to correct French phonological representation, is too distant from French to help with auditory categorization, or is purely orthographic / visual.<br />
<br />
==Findings==<br />
<br />
PENDING<br />
<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
PENDING<br />
==Descendents==<br />
<br />
==Annotated bibliography==<br />
*Anderson, J. R., & Fincham, J. M. (1994). Acquisition of procedural skills from examples. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 20(6), 1322-1340.<br />
*Carroll, S. (1999). Input and SLA: Adults' sensitivity to different sorts of cues to French gender. Language Learning, 49, 37-92.<br />
*DeKeyser, R. M. (2005). What Makes Learning Second-Language Grammar Difficult? A Review of Issues. Language Learning, 55(Suppl1), 1-25.<br />
*Holmes, V. M., & Dejean de la Batie, B. (1999). Assignment of grammatical gender by native speakers and foreign learners of French. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20, 479-506.<br />
*Holmes, V. M., & Segui, J. (2004). Sublexical and lexical influences on gender assignment in French. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 33, 425-457.<br />
*Lyster, R. (2006). Predictability in French gender attribution: A corpus analysis. French Language Studies, 16, 69-92.<br />
*MacDonald, J. L., & MacWhinney, B. (1991). Levels of learning: A microdevelopmental study of concept formation. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 407-430.<br />
*MacWhinney, B. (2006). A unified model. In N. Ellis & P. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Press.<br />
*Pimsleur, P. (1967). A memory schedule. The Modern Language Journal, 51(2), 73-75.<br />
*Robinson, P. (1997). Generalizability and automaticity of second language learning under implicit, incidental, enhanced, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Aquisition, 19(2), 223-247.<br />
*Segalowitz, S., Segalowitz, N., & Wood, A. (1998). Assessing the development of automaticity in second language word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 53-67.<br />
*Ullman, M. T. (2001). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: the declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4(1), 105-122.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Protected]]</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=French_gender_attention&diff=8543French gender attention2008-11-19T15:07:08Z<p>Presson: /* Hypotheses */</p>
<hr />
<div>{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"<br />
|- <br />
! PIs<br />
| Presson, MacWhinney<br />
|-<br />
! Faculty<br />
| MacWhinney<br />
|-<br />
! Postdocs<br />
| Pavlik<br />
|-<br />
! Others with > 160 hours<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Study Start Date<br />
| 10/01/08<br />
|-<br />
! Study End Date<br />
| 05/30/08<br />
|-<br />
! Learnlab<br />
| N/A<br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (total)<br />
| 80-100<br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (treatment)<br />
| N/A<br />
|-<br />
! Total Participant Hours<br />
| ~100<br />
|-<br />
! Datashop?<br />
| Summer '09<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Abstract==<br />
<br />
This study extends the research question in a previous study by [[French gender prototypes| Presson & MacWhinney]]. In that experiment, explicit instruction led to better generalization and robustness to forgetting, compared to correct/incorrect feedback only. In the current study, explicitness is manipulated as well, with the more explicit condition the same as the previous study. However, the more implicit condition in this case is a highlighting manipulation, with no rules presented and in which participants see the relevant cue in capital letters to draw attention to the endings of words (e.g. "fromAGE" v. "fromage"). We want to know first if students are as effective at extracting cue patterns with this intervention as with strictly explicit instruction.<br />
<br />
Second, we manipulate the time pressure of the task between groups. Time pressure favors procedural and automatic performance. If the highlighting condition is less explicit and equally effective, we expect an advantage within the time pressure condition. This is important because time pressure is an essential element of naturalistic language use.<br />
<br />
==Glossary==<br />
*[[mastery]]<br />
*[[explicit instruction]]<br />
*[[cue validity]]<br />
*[[cue reliability]]<br />
*[[cue availability]]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Research question==<br />
This research is designed to discover the best method of producing robust learning of French nominal gender, as well as the factors that make this learning more difficult.<br />
<br />
==Background and significance==<br />
<br />
Tucker, Lambert and Rigault (1977) evaluated the L1 (first language) learning of cues to gender in French. More recently, Holmes and Dejean de la Batie (1999) produced the first study of the acquisition of grammatical gender by L2 learners. Holmes and Segui (2004) have extended the detail of these analyses, but so far only with native speakers.<br />
Carroll (1999) and Lyster (2006) have explored the role of [[cue validity]] and [[availability]] in predicting usage by learners. All of these studies underscore the importance of high validity cues for the general vocabulary. However, these cues are only marginally useful for the highest frequency forms, whose gender must be learned more or less by rote. These analyses are in very close accord with the claims of the [[Competition Model]] (MacWhinney 1978, 2006). <br />
<br />
In the Competition Model, each cue has a strength that is based on its reliability in signaling information (as in, for example, the use of spelling to predict grammatical gender). Some cues are more reliable than others: for instance, in the case of nouns that refer to people, semantic cues (the gender of a person) are more reliable than spelling cues. Over time, a learner picks up on these reliabilities, first acquiring the most clearly reliable cues, then later pulling apart conflicting but frequently co-occurring ones. Cue conflicts are then resolved through a process of [[competition]]. A full discussion of cue conflict is found in MacDonald and MacWhinney (1991).<br />
<br />
<br />
In the current study, we manipulate whether participants receive explicit cues to gender patterns, or merely correct / incorrect feedback with the relevant cues highlighted (through capitalization) to direct attention.<br />
<br />
==Dependent variables==<br />
<br />
Accuracy and latency in training, as well as pre-/post-test gain scores, are dependent measures. In the post-test, there are two blocks: visual presentation (as in training) and auditory presentation (a transfer task).<br />
<br />
==Independent variables==<br />
<br />
Between-groups manipulations of time pressure and explicitness produce four groups:<br />
<br />
Rule + Time Pressure<br />
<br />
Rule - Time Pressure<br />
<br />
Highlighting + Time Pressure<br />
<br />
Highlighting - Time Pressure<br />
<br />
Time pressure is operationalized by timimg out test trials after (''some interval'') ms.<br />
<br />
==Hypotheses==<br />
After 40 minutes of training, we hypothesize learning that is retained after a one-week retention interval and which generalizes to novel words under the same cue categories. <br />
<br />
From previous studies, the response form has changed from seeing nouns in isolation and categorizing them as masculine or feminine to seeing both the correct and incorrect noun phrases on each trial, including a gendered definite article (e.g. "le fromage" and *"la fromage"). This method change may make learning more difficult than prior studies; however, it improves external validity by making the categorization process better resemble language input. <br />
<br />
Because prior studies (e.g., [[French gender prototypes|Explicitness and Category Breadth]]) suggest that explicitness of instruction does not affect accuracy in training, we predict equivalent performance in the learning block. Explicit presentation of the prompt would be more robust to decay and generalization if in fact the manipulation makes the cue more salient (compared to the highlighting condition). <br />
<br />
Adding time pressure will suppress initial performance in training. We predict that this suppression will be temporary, and in fact that later performance could show a time pressure advantage, especially in the no-feedback post-test. In addition, time pressure should change the relative effectiveness of an explicit inference rule vs. noticing highlights, such that noticing is easier than inference under time pressure, therefore improving learning.<br />
<br />
At the one-week delay, participants complete an auditory version of the categorization task, testing whether the cue information transfers at all to correct French phonological representation, is too distant from French to help with auditory categorization, or is purely orthographic / visual.<br />
<br />
==Findings==<br />
<br />
PENDING<br />
<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
PENDING<br />
==Descendents==<br />
<br />
==Annotated bibliography==<br />
*Anderson, J. R., & Fincham, J. M. (1994). Acquisition of procedural skills from examples. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 20(6), 1322-1340.<br />
*Carroll, S. (1999). Input and SLA: Adults' sensitivity to different sorts of cues to French gender. Language Learning, 49, 37-92.<br />
*DeKeyser, R. M. (2005). What Makes Learning Second-Language Grammar Difficult? A Review of Issues. Language Learning, 55(Suppl1), 1-25.<br />
*Holmes, V. M., & Dejean de la Batie, B. (1999). Assignment of grammatical gender by native speakers and foreign learners of French. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20, 479-506.<br />
*Holmes, V. M., & Segui, J. (2004). Sublexical and lexical influences on gender assignment in French. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 33, 425-457.<br />
*Lyster, R. (2006). Predictability in French gender attribution: A corpus analysis. French Language Studies, 16, 69-92.<br />
*MacDonald, J. L., & MacWhinney, B. (1991). Levels of learning: A microdevelopmental study of concept formation. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 407-430.<br />
*MacWhinney, B. (2006). A unified model. In N. Ellis & P. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Press.<br />
*Pimsleur, P. (1967). A memory schedule. The Modern Language Journal, 51(2), 73-75.<br />
*Robinson, P. (1997). Generalizability and automaticity of second language learning under implicit, incidental, enhanced, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Aquisition, 19(2), 223-247.<br />
*Segalowitz, S., Segalowitz, N., & Wood, A. (1998). Assessing the development of automaticity in second language word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 53-67.<br />
*Ullman, M. T. (2001). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: the declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4(1), 105-122.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Protected]]</div>Pressonhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=French_gender_attention&diff=8542French gender attention2008-11-19T14:59:58Z<p>Presson: /* Background and significance */</p>
<hr />
<div>{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin: 2em auto 2em auto"<br />
|- <br />
! PIs<br />
| Presson, MacWhinney<br />
|-<br />
! Faculty<br />
| MacWhinney<br />
|-<br />
! Postdocs<br />
| Pavlik<br />
|-<br />
! Others with > 160 hours<br />
| n/a<br />
|-<br />
! Study Start Date<br />
| 10/01/08<br />
|-<br />
! Study End Date<br />
| 05/30/08<br />
|-<br />
! Learnlab<br />
| N/A<br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (total)<br />
| 80-100<br />
|-<br />
! Number of participants (treatment)<br />
| N/A<br />
|-<br />
! Total Participant Hours<br />
| ~100<br />
|-<br />
! Datashop?<br />
| Summer '09<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Abstract==<br />
<br />
This study extends the research question in a previous study by [[French gender prototypes| Presson & MacWhinney]]. In that experiment, explicit instruction led to better generalization and robustness to forgetting, compared to correct/incorrect feedback only. In the current study, explicitness is manipulated as well, with the more explicit condition the same as the previous study. However, the more implicit condition in this case is a highlighting manipulation, with no rules presented and in which participants see the relevant cue in capital letters to draw attention to the endings of words (e.g. "fromAGE" v. "fromage"). We want to know first if students are as effective at extracting cue patterns with this intervention as with strictly explicit instruction.<br />
<br />
Second, we manipulate the time pressure of the task between groups. Time pressure favors procedural and automatic performance. If the highlighting condition is less explicit and equally effective, we expect an advantage within the time pressure condition. This is important because time pressure is an essential element of naturalistic language use.<br />
<br />
==Glossary==<br />
*[[mastery]]<br />
*[[explicit instruction]]<br />
*[[cue validity]]<br />
*[[cue reliability]]<br />
*[[cue availability]]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Research question==<br />
This research is designed to discover the best method of producing robust learning of French nominal gender, as well as the factors that make this learning more difficult.<br />
<br />
==Background and significance==<br />
<br />
Tucker, Lambert and Rigault (1977) evaluated the L1 (first language) learning of cues to gender in French. More recently, Holmes and Dejean de la Batie (1999) produced the first study of the acquisition of grammatical gender by L2 learners. Holmes and Segui (2004) have extended the detail of these analyses, but so far only with native speakers.<br />
Carroll (1999) and Lyster (2006) have explored the role of [[cue validity]] and [[availability]] in predicting usage by learners. All of these studies underscore the importance of high validity cues for the general vocabulary. However, these cues are only marginally useful for the highest frequency forms, whose gender must be learned more or less by rote. These analyses are in very close accord with the claims of the [[Competition Model]] (MacWhinney 1978, 2006). <br />
<br />
In the Competition Model, each cue has a strength that is based on its reliability in signaling information (as in, for example, the use of spelling to predict grammatical gender). Some cues are more reliable than others: for instance, in the case of nouns that refer to people, semantic cues (the gender of a person) are more reliable than spelling cues. Over time, a learner picks up on these reliabilities, first acquiring the most clearly reliable cues, then later pulling apart conflicting but frequently co-occurring ones. Cue conflicts are then resolved through a process of [[competition]]. A full discussion of cue conflict is found in MacDonald and MacWhinney (1991).<br />
<br />
<br />
In the current study, we manipulate whether participants receive explicit cues to gender patterns, or merely correct / incorrect feedback with the relevant cues highlighted (through capitalization) to direct attention.<br />
<br />
==Dependent variables==<br />
<br />
Accuracy and latency in training, as well as pre-/post-test gain scores, are dependent measures. In the post-test, there are two blocks: visual presentation (as in training) and auditory presentation (a transfer task).<br />
<br />
==Independent variables==<br />
<br />
Between-groups manipulations of time pressure and explicitness produce four groups:<br />
<br />
Rule + Time Pressure<br />
<br />
Rule - Time Pressure<br />
<br />
Highlighting + Time Pressure<br />
<br />
Highlighting - Time Pressure<br />
<br />
Time pressure is operationalized by timimg out test trials after (''some interval'') ms.<br />
<br />
==Hypotheses==<br />
Because prior studies (e.g., [[French gender prototypes|Explicitness and Category Breadth]]) suggest that explicitness of instruction does not affect accuracy in training, we predict equivalent performance in the learning block. Explicit presentation of the prompt would be more robust to decay and generalization if in fact the manipulation makes the cue more salient (compared to the highlighting condition). <br />
<br />
Adding time pressure will suppress initial performance in training. We predict that this suppression will be temporary, and in fact that later performance could show a time pressure advantage, especially in the no-feedback post-test. In addition, time pressure should change the relative effectiveness of an explicit inference rule vs. noticing highlights, such that noticing is easier than inference under time pressure, therefore improving learning.<br />
<br />
==Findings==<br />
<br />
PENDING<br />
<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
PENDING<br />
==Descendents==<br />
<br />
==Annotated bibliography==<br />
*Anderson, J. R., & Fincham, J. M. (1994). Acquisition of procedural skills from examples. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 20(6), 1322-1340.<br />
*Carroll, S. (1999). Input and SLA: Adults' sensitivity to different sorts of cues to French gender. Language Learning, 49, 37-92.<br />
*DeKeyser, R. M. (2005). What Makes Learning Second-Language Grammar Difficult? A Review of Issues. Language Learning, 55(Suppl1), 1-25.<br />
*Holmes, V. M., & Dejean de la Batie, B. (1999). Assignment of grammatical gender by native speakers and foreign learners of French. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20, 479-506.<br />
*Holmes, V. M., & Segui, J. (2004). Sublexical and lexical influences on gender assignment in French. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 33, 425-457.<br />
*Lyster, R. (2006). Predictability in French gender attribution: A corpus analysis. French Language Studies, 16, 69-92.<br />
*MacDonald, J. L., & MacWhinney, B. (1991). Levels of learning: A microdevelopmental study of concept formation. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 407-430.<br />
*MacWhinney, B. (2006). A unified model. In N. Ellis & P. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Press.<br />
*Pimsleur, P. (1967). A memory schedule. The Modern Language Journal, 51(2), 73-75.<br />
*Robinson, P. (1997). Generalizability and automaticity of second language learning under implicit, incidental, enhanced, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Aquisition, 19(2), 223-247.<br />
*Segalowitz, S., Segalowitz, N., & Wood, A. (1998). Assessing the development of automaticity in second language word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 53-67.<br />
*Ullman, M. T. (2001). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: the declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4(1), 105-122.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Protected]]</div>Presson