https://learnlab.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Susan-Dunlap&feedformat=atomLearnLab - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T13:21:32ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.31.12https://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=CF_June_2012&diff=12498CF June 20122012-06-25T21:24:40Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: </p>
<hr />
<div><B>Thursday, June 14, 2012</B><BR><br />
<U>Cognitive Factors Meeting</U><BR><br />
<BR><br />
Announcements:<BR><br />
Introduction of PSLC summer interns: Shaquile Coonce, Gaby Gabbard, and Zach Maher, and CMU undergraduate intern Elizabeth Davis<BR><br />
<BR><br />
Presentations by three proposed projects for next year:<BR><br />
- Is Translation a Special Scaffold? (Maxine Eskenazi, Oscar Saz, & Yibin Li)<BR><br />
- Compounding Training in Learning Chinese as a Second Language (Juan Zhang)<BR><br />
- Comparison-based Instruction in Science Education (Bryan Matlen)<BR></div>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=CF_June_2012&diff=12497CF June 20122012-06-25T21:21:06Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: </p>
<hr />
<div><B>Thursday, June 14, 2012<B><BR><br />
<U>Cognitive Factors Meeting<U><BR><br />
<BR><br />
Announcements:<BR><br />
Introduction of PSLC summer interns: Shaquile Coonce, Gaby Gabbard, and Zach Maher, and CMU undergraduate intern Elizabeth Davis<BR><br />
<BR><br />
Presentations by three proposed projects for next year:<BR><br />
- Is Translation a Special Scaffold? (Maxine Eskenazi, Oscar Saz, & Yibin Li)<BR><br />
- Compounding Training in Learning Chinese as a Second Language (Juan Zhang)<BR><br />
- Comparison-based Instruction in Science Education (Bryan Matlen)<BR></div>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=CF_June_2012&diff=12496CF June 20122012-06-25T21:14:13Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: New page: Thursday, June 14, 2012 Cognitive Factors Meeting Announcements: Introduction of PSLC summer interns: Shaquile Coonce, Gaby Gabbard, and Zach Maher, and CMU undergraduate intern Elizabeth...</p>
<hr />
<div>Thursday, June 14, 2012<br />
Cognitive Factors Meeting<br />
<br />
Announcements:<br />
Introduction of PSLC summer interns: Shaquile Coonce, Gaby Gabbard, and Zach Maher, and CMU undergraduate intern Elizabeth Davis<br />
<br />
Presentations by three proposed projects for next year:<br />
- Is Translation a Special Scaffold? (Maxine Eskenazi, Oscar Saz, & Yibin Li)<br />
- Compounding Training in Learning Chinese as a Second Language (Juan Zhang)<br />
- Comparison-based Instruction in Science Education (Bryan Matlen)</div>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Cognitive_Factors_Monthly_Meeting_Notes&diff=12495Cognitive Factors Monthly Meeting Notes2012-06-25T21:07:59Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: </p>
<hr />
<div>Notes from the monthly meetings will be posted here, along with copies of slides and handouts. Feel free to add and correct as you see fit.<br />
<br />
[[CF September 2010]] September 24, 2010, Pitt<br><br />
[[CF November 2010]] November, 16, 2010, CMU<br><br />
[[CF December 2010]] December 8, 2010, Pitt<br><br />
[[CF February 2012]], Pitt<br><br />
[[CF March 2012]], CMU<br><br />
[[CF June 2012]], Pitt<br></div>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Cognitive_Factors_Monthly_Meeting_Notes&diff=12494Cognitive Factors Monthly Meeting Notes2012-06-25T21:04:15Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: </p>
<hr />
<div>Notes from the monthly meetings will be posted here, along with copies of slides and handouts. Feel free to add and correct as you see fit.<br />
<br />
[[CF September 2010]] September 24, 2010, Pitt<br><br />
[[CF November 2010]] November, 16, 2010, CMU<br><br />
[[CF December 2010]] December 8, 2010, Pitt<br><br />
[[CF February 2012]], Pitt<br><br />
[[CF March 2012]], CMU<br><br />
[[CF June 2012}}, Pitt<br></div>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=CF_February_2012&diff=12407CF February 20122012-03-19T20:37:07Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: </p>
<hr />
<div>February 8, 2012<br><br />
Cognitive Factors Meeting<br><br />
<br />
Announcements:<br><br />
- The Advisory Board meeting is coming up next month: Tuesday & Wednesday, March 20-21. Please plan on attending both days, and also consider presenting a poster (the session will probably on the 20th) so that our thrust is well-represented.<br><br />
- Congratulations to (Dr.) Nora Presson on her successful doctoral defense!<br><br />
<br />
Brief introduction of new CF attendees:<br><br />
- Elizabeth Hirshorn (native English reading comprehension)<br><br />
- Juan Zhang (Chinese LearnLab, character learning study)<br><br />
- Zhan Wang (English LearnLab, fluency project)<br><br />
<br />
Research presentation:<br><br />
Bryan Matlen presented his proposed dissertation project on Comparison-based Learning in Science Education. The research aims to compare conditions of near and far comparisons (analogies), and near and far contrasts, with 5th-7th grade students learning the control of variables strategy (CVS).<br><br />
<br />
Next meeting:<br><br />
- Scheduling: We will try to schedule the next Cognitive Factors meeting in mid-March, prior to the Advisory Board visit. Sorry, this means probably cutting into either Pitt’s or CMU’s spring break schedule.<br><br />
- Agenda: Any necessary preparations for the AB visit will be discussed. Bruce McLaren will give a research presentation.</div>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=CF_March_2012&diff=12406CF March 20122012-03-19T20:35:56Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: </p>
<hr />
<div>March 15, 2012<br><br />
Cognitive Factors Meeting<br><br><br />
<br />
Announcements: <br><br />
- Introduction of Dr. Connie Ho, visiting from Hong Kong<br><br />
- The Advisory Board meeting is next week: Tuesday & Wednesday, March 20-21<br><br />
<br />
Overview of Cognitive Factors Projects:<br><br />
- Susan Dunlap (spelling interventions in English as a second language)<br><br />
- Ben Friedline (morphology training in English as a second language)<br><br />
- Yibin Li (REAP, assistance dilemma)<br><br />
- Wendy Chang (effect of viewing animated characters on learning to read Chinese) and Juan Zhang (effects of writing, reading, or viewing animated characters on Chinese character recognition and production)<br><br />
- Jon-Michel Seman, Jan Wang, Nel de Jong (fluency in English as a second language)<br><br />
- Bruce McLaren (teaching stoichiometry via worked examples, intelligently tutored problems, erroneous examples, and problems to solve)<br><br />
- Nora Presson and Brian MacWhinney (conjugation of regular and irregular verbs in Spanish as a foreign language)<br><br />
- Stephanie Siler (evidence of engineering goals vs. science goals in students learning control-of-variables strategy)<br><br />
- Elizabeth Hirshorn (an investigation of alternate strategies used by resilient readers of English, with low phonological skill and higher than expected reading comprehension)</div>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Cognitive_Factors_Monthly_Meeting_Notes&diff=12405Cognitive Factors Monthly Meeting Notes2012-03-19T20:34:21Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: </p>
<hr />
<div>Notes from the monthly meetings will be posted here, along with copies of slides and handouts. Feel free to add and correct as you see fit.<br />
<br />
[[CF September 2010]] September 24, 2010, Pitt<br><br />
[[CF November 2010]] November, 16, 2010, CMU<br><br />
[[CF December 2010]] December 8, 2010, Pitt<br><br />
[[CF February 2012]], Pitt<br><br />
[[CF March 2012]], CMU<br></div>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Cognitive_Factors_Monthly_Meeting_Notes&diff=12404Cognitive Factors Monthly Meeting Notes2012-03-19T20:33:11Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: </p>
<hr />
<div>Notes from the monthly meetings will be posted here, along with copies of slides and handouts. Feel free to add and correct as you see fit.<br />
<br />
[[CF September 2010]] September 24, 2010, Pitt<br><br />
[[CF November 2010]] November, 16, 2010, CMU<br><br />
[[CF December 2010]] December 8, 2010, Pitt<br><br />
[[CF February 8, 2012]], Pitt<br><br />
[[CF March 15, 2012]], CMU<br></div>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=CF_March_2012&diff=12403CF March 20122012-03-19T20:32:05Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: New page: March 15, 2012 Cognitive Factors Meeting Announcements: - Introduction of Dr. Connie Ho, visiting from Hong Kong - The Advisory Board meeting is next week: Tuesday & Wednesday, March 20-2...</p>
<hr />
<div>March 15, 2012<br />
Cognitive Factors Meeting<br />
<br />
Announcements:<br />
- Introduction of Dr. Connie Ho, visiting from Hong Kong<br />
- The Advisory Board meeting is next week: Tuesday & Wednesday, March 20-21<br />
<br />
Overview of Cognitive Factors Projects:<br />
- Susan Dunlap (spelling interventions in English as a second language)<br />
- Ben Friedline (morphology training in English as a second language)<br />
- Yibin Li (REAP, assistance dilemma)<br />
- Wendy Chang (effect of viewing animated characters on learning to read Chinese) and Juan Zhang (effects of writing, reading, or viewing animated characters on Chinese character recognition and production)<br />
- Jon-Michel Seman, Jan Wang, Nel de Jong (fluency in English as a second language)<br />
- Bruce McLaren (teaching stoichiometry via worked examples, intelligently tutored problems, erroneous examples, and problems to solve)<br />
- Nora Presson and Brian MacWhinney (conjugation of regular and irregular verbs in Spanish as a foreign language)<br />
- Stephanie Siler (evidence of engineering goals vs. science goals in students learning control-of-variables strategy)<br />
- Elizabeth Hirshorn (an investigation of alternate strategies used by resilient readers of English, with low phonological skill and higher than expected reading comprehension)</div>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=CF_February_2012&diff=12402CF February 20122012-03-19T20:29:11Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: New page: February 8, 2012 Cognitive Factors Meeting Announcements: - The Advisory Board meeting is coming up next month: Tuesday & Wednesday, March 20-21. Please plan on attending both days, and a...</p>
<hr />
<div>February 8, 2012<br />
Cognitive Factors Meeting<br />
<br />
Announcements:<br />
- The Advisory Board meeting is coming up next month: Tuesday & Wednesday, March 20-21. Please plan on attending both days, and also consider presenting a poster (the session will probably on the 20th) so that our thrust is well-represented.<br />
- Congratulations to (Dr.) Nora Presson on her successful doctoral defense!<br />
<br />
Brief introduction of new CF attendees:<br />
- Elizabeth Hirshorn (native English reading comprehension)<br />
- Juan Zhang (Chinese LearnLab, character learning study)<br />
- Zhan Wang (English LearnLab, fluency project)<br />
<br />
Research presentation:<br />
Bryan Matlen presented his proposed dissertation project on Comparison-based Learning in Science Education. The research aims to compare conditions of near and far comparisons (analogies), and near and far contrasts, with 5th-7th grade students learning the control of variables strategy (CVS).<br />
<br />
Next meeting:<br />
- Scheduling: We will try to schedule the next Cognitive Factors meeting in mid-March, prior to the Advisory Board visit. Sorry, this means probably cutting into either Pitt’s or CMU’s spring break schedule.<br />
- Agenda: Any necessary preparations for the AB visit will be discussed. Bruce McLaren will give a research presentation.</div>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Cognitive_Factors_Monthly_Meeting_Notes&diff=12401Cognitive Factors Monthly Meeting Notes2012-03-19T20:28:16Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: </p>
<hr />
<div>Notes from the monthly meetings will be posted here, along with copies of slides and handouts. Feel free to add and correct as you see fit.<br />
<br />
[[CF September 2010]] September 24, 2010, Pitt<br><br />
[[CF November 2010]] November, 16, 2010, CMU<br><br />
[[CF December 2010]] December 8, 2010, Pitt<br><br />
[[CF February 2012]] February 8, 2012, Pitt<br><br />
[[CF March 2012]] March 15, 2012, CMU<br></div>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=PSLC_GradStudents&diff=11081PSLC GradStudents2010-09-29T22:03:07Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: /* 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 />
'''Cognitive Factors'''<br />
<br />
''September 24, 2010''<br />
<br />
Welcome to the new members!<br />
<br />
Send Ruth email if you (or any new collaborators, post-docs, grad students) need to be added to the cognitive factors d-list<br />
<br />
Send Jo email if you need to be added to the general PSLC d-list<br />
<br />
Advisory board dates - January 20 & 21, 2011 (Thur and Fri)<br />
<br />
Speaker Series - Rob Goldstone has agreed to come (probably before the AB)<br />
<br />
Handout: Cognitive Factors Thrust Plan, if see you see errors send them to Chuck (link to document coming soon)<br />
<br />
In general for Annual Report and Strategic Plan it is important to have non-text contributions; send screenshots/pictures of interventions and/or graphs of results as they come up<br />
<br />
Also as a general reminder, it is never too early to send bullets of exciting findings, usually collected at least once a year<br />
<br />
Talk: How does learning to write help learning to read Chinese (fMRI study) - Fan Cao Abstract Two types of instructions were given to a group of English speakers who learn Chinese as a L2. One is character writing and the other is pinyin writing. The hypothesis is that writing will facilitate the integration of orthographic, phonological and semantic representations by involving both perception and production and by emphasizing the special features of Chinese characters. fMRI scans found that sensory-motor cortex and visual-spatial representation cortex are more involved if the subject had writing experience. We also found that writing training produced more elaborated representations of orthography, phonology and semantics in the brain as compared to pinyin training.<br />
<br />
Slides here: Media:PSLC_Sep_24_1.pdf<br />
<br />
Next up: Colleen Davy will speak at the October meeting, likely the last week of Oct at CMU<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 />
| Susan Dunlap || University of Pittsburgh || Charles Perfetti || sud4@pitt.edu || My research areas include second language learning, reading, and spelling || n/a || [http://www.learnlab.org]<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 />
| Daniel Belenky || University of Pittsburgh || Timothy Nokes || dmb83@pitt.edu || I am interesting in issues of motivation and cognition. Specifically, I have been studying how achievement goals influence transfer. || N/A || [http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/index.php/Nokes_-_Dialectical_Interaction_and_Robust_Learning Dialectical Interaction and Robust Learning]<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>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=PSLC_GradStudents&diff=11080PSLC GradStudents2010-09-29T22:02:31Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: /* 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 />
'''Cognitive Factors'''<br />
<br />
''September 24, 2010''<br />
<br />
Welcome to the new members!<br />
<br />
Send Ruth email if you (or any new collaborators, post-docs, grad students) need to be added to the cognitive factors d-list<br />
<br />
Send Jo email if you need to be added to the general PSLC d-list<br />
<br />
Advisory board dates - January 20 & 21, 2011 (Thur and Fri)<br />
<br />
Speaker Series - Rob Goldstone has agreed to come (probably before the AB)<br />
<br />
Handout: Cognitive Factors Thrust Plan, if see you see errors send them to Chuck (link to document coming soon)<br />
<br />
In general for Annual Report and Strategic Plan it is important to have non-text contributions; send screenshots/pictures of interventions and/or graphs of results as they come up<br />
<br />
Also as a general reminder, it is never too early to send bullets of exciting findings, usually collected at least once a year<br />
<br />
Talk: How does learning to write help learning to read Chinese (fMRI study) - Fan Cao Abstract Two types of instructions were given to a group of English speakers who learn Chinese as a L2. One is character writing and the other is pinyin writing. The hypothesis is that writing will facilitate the integration of orthographic, phonological and semantic representations by involving both perception and production and by emphasizing the special features of Chinese characters. fMRI scans found that sensory-motor cortex and visual-spatial representation cortex are more involved if the subject had writing experience. We also found that writing training produced more elaborated representations of orthography, phonology and semantics in the brain as compared to pinyin training.<br />
<br />
Slides here: Media:PSLC_Sep_24_1.pdf<br />
<br />
Next up: Colleen Davy will speak at the October meeting, likely the last week of Oct at CMU<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 />
| Susan Dunlap || University of Pittsburgh || Charles Perfetti || sud4@pitt.edu || My research areas include second language learning, reading, and spelling || || [http://www.learnlab.org]<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 />
| Daniel Belenky || University of Pittsburgh || Timothy Nokes || dmb83@pitt.edu || I am interesting in issues of motivation and cognition. Specifically, I have been studying how achievement goals influence transfer. || N/A || [http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/index.php/Nokes_-_Dialectical_Interaction_and_Robust_Learning Dialectical Interaction and Robust Learning]<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>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=File:Phase1results.jpg&diff=9554File:Phase1results.jpg2009-06-02T16:27:09Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Orthography&diff=9553Orthography2009-06-02T16:26:56Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Lexical Quality of English Second Language Learners:<BR>Effects of Focused Training on Orthographic Encoding Skill==<br />
<br />
==Authors:== <br />
Susan Dunlap, Benjamin Friedline, Alan Juffs, Charles A. Perfetti<br />
<br />
==The Research Problem:==<br />
Arabic L1 students of ESL have poorer orthographic representations (i.e., spelling) than other L1 backgrounds (e.g., Korean, Chinese, Spanish). This difference cannot be accounted for by L1 writing system, L1 orthographic depth, or L2 vocabulary knowledge/fluency.<BR><br />
Phase 1 -<BR><br />
Can we statistically confirm teacher observations of L1 background differences in spelling ability of ESL students?<BR><br />
Phase 2 -<BR><br />
Can an intervention using focused, meaning-based encoding increase the quality of lexical representations for these learners?<BR><br />
<br />
==Background and Significance:==<br />
<br />
==The Intervention Design:==<br />
Subject (between-subjects) Variables -- L1; ESL Level<BR><br />
Independent Variable (within-subjects) -- training condition (form only, form+meaning)<BR><br />
Dependent Variables -- accuracy on audio dictation and spelling recognition tasks; gains from pre-test to post-test<br />
<br />
==Results:==<br />
Results of Phase 1 show that:<BR><br />
- Arabic L1 group makes more errors compared to other L1 groups; this difference persists through Level 5<BR><br />
- Vowel errors were the most prevalent for Arabic L1<BR><br />
- For all L1 groups, errors decrease from Level 3 to Level 5<BR><br />
[[Image:phase1results.jpg]]<br />
<BR><br />
Results of Phase 2 show that:<BR><br />
- There was some improvement from pre-test to post-test scores on audio dictation (spelling) and spell check (lexical decision) tasks.<BR><br />
[[Image:Slide7.jpg]]<br />
<br />
==References:==</div>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=File:Slide7.jpg&diff=9552File:Slide7.jpg2009-06-02T16:26:02Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Orthography&diff=9551Orthography2009-06-02T16:24:43Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Lexical Quality of English Second Language Learners:<BR>Effects of Focused Training on Orthographic Encoding Skill==<br />
<br />
==Authors:== <br />
Susan Dunlap, Benjamin Friedline, Alan Juffs, Charles A. Perfetti<br />
<br />
==The Research Problem:==<br />
Arabic L1 students of ESL have poorer orthographic representations (i.e., spelling) than other L1 backgrounds (e.g., Korean, Chinese, Spanish). This difference cannot be accounted for by L1 writing system, L1 orthographic depth, or L2 vocabulary knowledge/fluency.<BR><br />
Phase 1 -<BR><br />
Can we statistically confirm teacher observations of L1 background differences in spelling ability of ESL students?<BR><br />
Phase 2 -<BR><br />
Can an intervention using focused, meaning-based encoding increase the quality of lexical representations for these learners?<BR><br />
<br />
==Background and Significance:==<br />
<br />
==The Intervention Design:==<br />
Subject (between-subjects) Variables -- L1; ESL Level<BR><br />
Independent Variable (within-subjects) -- training condition (form only, form+meaning)<BR><br />
Dependent Variables -- accuracy on audio dictation and spelling recognition tasks; gains from pre-test to post-test<br />
<br />
==Results:==<br />
Results of Phase 1 show that:<BR><br />
- Arabic L1 group makes more errors compared to other L1 groups; this difference persists through Level 5<BR><br />
- Vowel errors were the most prevalent for Arabic L1<BR><br />
- For all L1 groups, errors decrease from Level 3 to Level 5<BR><br />
[[Image:Slide1.jpg]]<br />
<BR><br />
Results of Phase 2 show that:<BR><br />
- There was some improvement from pre-test to post-test scores on audio dictation (spelling) and spell check (lexical decision) tasks.<BR><br />
[[Image:Slide7.jpg]]<br />
<br />
==References:==</div>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Orthography&diff=9550Orthography2009-06-02T16:19:48Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
==Lexical Quality of English Second Language Learners:<BR>Effects of Focused Training on Orthographic Encoding Skill==<br />
<br />
==Authors:== <br />
Susan Dunlap, Benjamin Friedline, Alan Juffs, Charles A. Perfetti<br />
<br />
==The Research Problem:==<br />
Arabic L1 students of ESL have poorer orthographic representations (i.e., spelling) than other L1 backgrounds (e.g., Korean, Chinese, Spanish). This difference cannot be accounted for by L1 writing system, L1 orthographic depth, or L2 vocabulary knowledge/fluency.<BR><br />
Phase 1 -<BR><br />
Can we statistically confirm teacher observations of L1 background differences in spelling ability of ESL students?<BR><br />
Phase 2 -<BR><br />
Can an intervention using focused, meaning-based encoding increase the quality of lexical representations for these learners?<BR><br />
<br />
==Background and Significance:==<br />
<br />
==The Intervention Design:==<br />
Subject (between-subjects) Variables -- L1; ESL Level<BR><br />
Independent Variable (within-subjects) -- training condition (form only, form+meaning)<BR><br />
Dependent Variables -- accuracy on audio dictation and spelling recognition tasks; gains from pre-test to post-test<br />
<br />
==Results:==<br />
Results of Phase 1 show that:<BR><br />
- Arabic L1 group makes more errors compared to other L1 groups; this difference persists through Level 5<BR><br />
- Vowel errors were the most prevalent for Arabic L1<BR><br />
- For all L1 groups, errors decrease from Level 3 to Level 5<BR><br />
[[Image:phase1results.BMP]]<br />
<BR><br />
Results of Phase 2 show that:<BR><br />
- There was some improvement from pre-test to post-test scores on audio dictation (spelling) and spell check (lexical decision) tasks.<BR><br />
[[Image:phase2results.BMP]]<br />
<br />
==References:==</div>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Orthography&diff=9515Orthography2009-05-21T11:24:35Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: /* Results: */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Lexical Quality of English Second Language Learners:<br />
<br />
<br />
==Lexical Quality of English Second Language Learners:<BR>Effects of Focused Training on Orthographic Encoding Skill==<br />
<br />
==Authors:== <br />
Susan Dunlap, Benjamin Friedline, Alan Juffs, Charles A. Perfetti<br />
<br />
==The Research Problem:==<br />
Arabic L1 students of ESL have poorer orthographic representations (i.e., spelling) than other L1 backgrounds (e.g., Korean, Chinese, Spanish). This difference cannot be accounted for by L1 writing system, L1 orthographic depth, or L2 vocabulary knowledge/fluency.<BR><br />
Phase 1 -<BR><br />
Can we statistically confirm teacher observations of L1 background differences in spelling ability of ESL students?<BR><br />
Phase 2 -<BR><br />
Can an intervention using focused, meaning-based encoding increase the quality of lexical representations for these learners?<BR><br />
<br />
==Background and Significance:==<br />
<br />
==The Intervention Design:==<br />
Subject (between-subjects) Variables -- L1; ESL Level<BR><br />
Independent Variable (within-subjects) -- training condition (form only, form+meaning)<BR><br />
Dependent Variables -- accuracy on audio dictation and spelling recognition tasks; gains from pre-test to post-test<br />
<br />
==Results:==<br />
Results of Phase 1 show that:<BR><br />
- Arabic L1 group makes more errors compared to other L1 groups; this difference persists through Level 5<BR><br />
- Vowel errors were the most prevalent for Arabic L1<BR><br />
- For all L1 groups, errors decrease from Level 3 to Level 5<BR><br />
<BR><br />
Results of Phase 2 show that:<BR><br />
- There was some improvement from pre-test to post-test scores on audio dictation (spelling) and spell check (lexical decision) tasks.<BR><br />
[[Image:brown bag 2-11-09.ppt]]<br />
<br />
==References:==</div>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Orthography&diff=9514Orthography2009-05-21T11:22:54Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: /* Effects of Focused Training on Orthographic Encoding Skill */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Lexical Quality of English Second Language Learners:<br />
<br />
<br />
==Lexical Quality of English Second Language Learners:<BR>Effects of Focused Training on Orthographic Encoding Skill==<br />
<br />
==Authors:== <br />
Susan Dunlap, Benjamin Friedline, Alan Juffs, Charles A. Perfetti<br />
<br />
==The Research Problem:==<br />
Arabic L1 students of ESL have poorer orthographic representations (i.e., spelling) than other L1 backgrounds (e.g., Korean, Chinese, Spanish). This difference cannot be accounted for by L1 writing system, L1 orthographic depth, or L2 vocabulary knowledge/fluency.<BR><br />
Phase 1 -<BR><br />
Can we statistically confirm teacher observations of L1 background differences in spelling ability of ESL students?<BR><br />
Phase 2 -<BR><br />
Can an intervention using focused, meaning-based encoding increase the quality of lexical representations for these learners?<BR><br />
<br />
==Background and Significance:==<br />
<br />
==The Intervention Design:==<br />
Subject (between-subjects) Variables -- L1; ESL Level<BR><br />
Independent Variable (within-subjects) -- training condition (form only, form+meaning)<BR><br />
Dependent Variables -- accuracy on audio dictation and spelling recognition tasks; gains from pre-test to post-test<br />
<br />
==Results:==<br />
Results of Phase 1 show that:<BR><br />
- Arabic L1 group makes more errors compared to other L1 groups; this difference persists through Level 5<BR><br />
- Vowel errors were the most prevalent for Arabic L1<BR><br />
- For all L1 groups, errors decrease from Level 3 to Level 5<BR><br />
<BR><br />
Results of Phase 2 show that:<BR><br />
- There was some improvement from pre-test to post-test scores on audio dictation (spelling) and spell check (lexical decision) tasks.<BR><br />
<br />
==References:==</div>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=File:Brown_bag_2-11-09.ppt&diff=9513File:Brown bag 2-11-09.ppt2009-05-21T11:19:22Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: Phase 1 results graph</p>
<hr />
<div>Phase 1 results graph</div>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Orthography&diff=9512Orthography2009-05-21T11:16:27Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: /* Results: */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Lexical Quality of English Second Language Learners:<br />
<br />
==Effects of Focused Training on Orthographic Encoding Skill==<br />
<br />
==Authors:== <br />
Susan Dunlap, Benjamin Friedline, Alan Juffs, Charles A. Perfetti<br />
<br />
==The Research Problem:==<br />
Arabic L1 students of ESL have poorer orthographic representations (i.e., spelling) than other L1 backgrounds (e.g., Korean, Chinese, Spanish). This difference cannot be accounted for by L1 writing system, L1 orthographic depth, or L2 vocabulary knowledge/fluency.<BR><br />
Phase 1 -<BR><br />
Can we statistically confirm teacher observations of L1 background differences in spelling ability of ESL students?<BR><br />
Phase 2 -<BR><br />
Can an intervention using focused, meaning-based encoding increase the quality of lexical representations for these learners?<BR><br />
<br />
==Background and Significance:==<br />
<br />
==The Intervention Design:==<br />
Subject (between-subjects) Variables -- L1; ESL Level<BR><br />
Independent Variable (within-subjects) -- training condition (form only, form+meaning)<BR><br />
Dependent Variables -- accuracy on audio dictation and spelling recognition tasks; gains from pre-test to post-test<br />
<br />
==Results:==<br />
Results of Phase 1 show that:<BR><br />
- Arabic L1 group makes more errors compared to other L1 groups; this difference persists through Level 5<BR><br />
- Vowel errors were the most prevalent for Arabic L1<BR><br />
- For all L1 groups, errors decrease from Level 3 to Level 5<BR><br />
<BR><br />
Results of Phase 2 show that:<BR><br />
- There was some improvement from pre-test to post-test scores on audio dictation (spelling) and spell check (lexical decision) tasks.<BR><br />
<br />
==References:==</div>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Orthography&diff=9511Orthography2009-05-21T11:13:46Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: /* Results: */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Lexical Quality of English Second Language Learners:<br />
<br />
==Effects of Focused Training on Orthographic Encoding Skill==<br />
<br />
==Authors:== <br />
Susan Dunlap, Benjamin Friedline, Alan Juffs, Charles A. Perfetti<br />
<br />
==The Research Problem:==<br />
Arabic L1 students of ESL have poorer orthographic representations (i.e., spelling) than other L1 backgrounds (e.g., Korean, Chinese, Spanish). This difference cannot be accounted for by L1 writing system, L1 orthographic depth, or L2 vocabulary knowledge/fluency.<BR><br />
Phase 1 -<BR><br />
Can we statistically confirm teacher observations of L1 background differences in spelling ability of ESL students?<BR><br />
Phase 2 -<BR><br />
Can an intervention using focused, meaning-based encoding increase the quality of lexical representations for these learners?<BR><br />
<br />
==Background and Significance:==<br />
<br />
==The Intervention Design:==<br />
Subject (between-subjects) Variables -- L1; ESL Level<BR><br />
Independent Variable (within-subjects) -- training condition (form only, form+meaning)<BR><br />
Dependent Variables -- accuracy on audio dictation and spelling recognition tasks; gains from pre-test to post-test<br />
<br />
==Results:==<br />
Results of Phase 1 show<BR><br />
- Arabic L1 group makes more errors compared to other L1 groups; this difference persists through Level 5<BR><br />
- Vowel errors were the most prevalent for Arabic L1<BR><br />
- For all L1 groups, errors decrease from Level 3 to Level 5<br />
<br />
==References:==</div>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Orthography&diff=9510Orthography2009-05-21T11:13:17Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: /* Results: */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Lexical Quality of English Second Language Learners:<br />
<br />
==Effects of Focused Training on Orthographic Encoding Skill==<br />
<br />
==Authors:== <br />
Susan Dunlap, Benjamin Friedline, Alan Juffs, Charles A. Perfetti<br />
<br />
==The Research Problem:==<br />
Arabic L1 students of ESL have poorer orthographic representations (i.e., spelling) than other L1 backgrounds (e.g., Korean, Chinese, Spanish). This difference cannot be accounted for by L1 writing system, L1 orthographic depth, or L2 vocabulary knowledge/fluency.<BR><br />
Phase 1 -<BR><br />
Can we statistically confirm teacher observations of L1 background differences in spelling ability of ESL students?<BR><br />
Phase 2 -<BR><br />
Can an intervention using focused, meaning-based encoding increase the quality of lexical representations for these learners?<BR><br />
<br />
==Background and Significance:==<br />
<br />
==The Intervention Design:==<br />
Subject (between-subjects) Variables -- L1; ESL Level<BR><br />
Independent Variable (within-subjects) -- training condition (form only, form+meaning)<BR><br />
Dependent Variables -- accuracy on audio dictation and spelling recognition tasks; gains from pre-test to post-test<br />
<br />
==Results:==<br />
Results of Phase 1 show<BR><br />
- Arabic L1 group makes more errors compared to other L1 groups<BR><br />
- This difference persists through Level 5<BR><br />
- Vowel errors were the most prevalent for Arabic L1<BR><br />
- For all L1 groups, errors decrease from Level 3 to Level 5<br />
<br />
==References:==</div>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Orthography&diff=9509Orthography2009-05-21T11:12:48Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: /* Results: */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Lexical Quality of English Second Language Learners:<br />
<br />
==Effects of Focused Training on Orthographic Encoding Skill==<br />
<br />
==Authors:== <br />
Susan Dunlap, Benjamin Friedline, Alan Juffs, Charles A. Perfetti<br />
<br />
==The Research Problem:==<br />
Arabic L1 students of ESL have poorer orthographic representations (i.e., spelling) than other L1 backgrounds (e.g., Korean, Chinese, Spanish). This difference cannot be accounted for by L1 writing system, L1 orthographic depth, or L2 vocabulary knowledge/fluency.<BR><br />
Phase 1 -<BR><br />
Can we statistically confirm teacher observations of L1 background differences in spelling ability of ESL students?<BR><br />
Phase 2 -<BR><br />
Can an intervention using focused, meaning-based encoding increase the quality of lexical representations for these learners?<BR><br />
<br />
==Background and Significance:==<br />
<br />
==The Intervention Design:==<br />
Subject (between-subjects) Variables -- L1; ESL Level<BR><br />
Independent Variable (within-subjects) -- training condition (form only, form+meaning)<BR><br />
Dependent Variables -- accuracy on audio dictation and spelling recognition tasks; gains from pre-test to post-test<br />
<br />
==Results:==<br />
Results of Phase 1 show<BR><br />
Arabic L1 group makes more errors compared to other L1 groups<BR><br />
this difference persists through Level 5<BR><br />
vowel errors were the most prevalent for Arabic L1<BR><br />
for all L1 groups, errors decrease from Level 3 to Level 5<br />
<br />
==References:==</div>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Orthography&diff=9508Orthography2009-05-21T11:10:11Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: /* The Research Problem: */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Lexical Quality of English Second Language Learners:<br />
<br />
==Effects of Focused Training on Orthographic Encoding Skill==<br />
<br />
==Authors:== <br />
Susan Dunlap, Benjamin Friedline, Alan Juffs, Charles A. Perfetti<br />
<br />
==The Research Problem:==<br />
Arabic L1 students of ESL have poorer orthographic representations (i.e., spelling) than other L1 backgrounds (e.g., Korean, Chinese, Spanish). This difference cannot be accounted for by L1 writing system, L1 orthographic depth, or L2 vocabulary knowledge/fluency.<BR><br />
Phase 1 -<BR><br />
Can we statistically confirm teacher observations of L1 background differences in spelling ability of ESL students?<BR><br />
Phase 2 -<BR><br />
Can an intervention using focused, meaning-based encoding increase the quality of lexical representations for these learners?<BR><br />
<br />
==Background and Significance:==<br />
<br />
==The Intervention Design:==<br />
Subject (between-subjects) Variables -- L1; ESL Level<BR><br />
Independent Variable (within-subjects) -- training condition (form only, form+meaning)<BR><br />
Dependent Variables -- accuracy on audio dictation and spelling recognition tasks; gains from pre-test to post-test<br />
<br />
==Results:==<br />
<br />
==References:==</div>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Orthography&diff=9507Orthography2009-05-21T11:09:42Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: /* The Research Problem: */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Lexical Quality of English Second Language Learners:<br />
<br />
==Effects of Focused Training on Orthographic Encoding Skill==<br />
<br />
==Authors:== <br />
Susan Dunlap, Benjamin Friedline, Alan Juffs, Charles A. Perfetti<br />
<br />
==The Research Problem:==<br />
Arabic L1 students of ESL have poorer orthographic representations (i.e., spelling) than other L1 backgrounds (e.g., Korean, Chinese, Spanish). This difference cannot be accounted for by L1 writing system, L1 orthographic depth, or L2 vocabulary knowledge/fluency.<BR><br />
Phase 1<BR><br />
Can we statistically confirm teacher observations of L1 background differences in spelling ability of ESL students?<BR><br />
Phase 2<BR><br />
Can an intervention using focused, meaning-based encoding increase the quality of lexical representations for these learners?<BR><br />
<br />
==Background and Significance:==<br />
<br />
==The Intervention Design:==<br />
Subject (between-subjects) Variables -- L1; ESL Level<BR><br />
Independent Variable (within-subjects) -- training condition (form only, form+meaning)<BR><br />
Dependent Variables -- accuracy on audio dictation and spelling recognition tasks; gains from pre-test to post-test<br />
<br />
==Results:==<br />
<br />
==References:==</div>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Orthography&diff=9506Orthography2009-05-21T11:09:00Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: /* The Research Problem: */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Lexical Quality of English Second Language Learners:<br />
<br />
==Effects of Focused Training on Orthographic Encoding Skill==<br />
<br />
==Authors:== <br />
Susan Dunlap, Benjamin Friedline, Alan Juffs, Charles A. Perfetti<br />
<br />
==The Research Problem:==<br />
Arabic L1 students of ESL have poorer orthographic representations (i.e., spelling) than other L1 backgrounds (e.g., Korean, Chinese, Spanish). This difference cannot be accounted for by L1 writing system, L1 orthographic depth, or L2 vocabulary knowledge/fluency.<BR><br />
<B>Phase 1<B><BR><br />
Can we statistically confirm teacher observations of L1 background differences in spelling ability of ESL students?<BR><br />
<B>Phase 2<B><BR><br />
Can an intervention using focused, meaning-based encoding increase the quality of lexical representations for these learners?<BR><br />
<br />
==Background and Significance:==<br />
<br />
==The Intervention Design:==<br />
Subject (between-subjects) Variables -- L1; ESL Level<BR><br />
Independent Variable (within-subjects) -- training condition (form only, form+meaning)<BR><br />
Dependent Variables -- accuracy on audio dictation and spelling recognition tasks; gains from pre-test to post-test<br />
<br />
==Results:==<br />
<br />
==References:==</div>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Orthography&diff=9505Orthography2009-05-21T11:08:09Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: /* The Research Problem: */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Lexical Quality of English Second Language Learners:<br />
<br />
==Effects of Focused Training on Orthographic Encoding Skill==<br />
<br />
==Authors:== <br />
Susan Dunlap, Benjamin Friedline, Alan Juffs, Charles A. Perfetti<br />
<br />
==The Research Problem:==<br />
Arabic L1 students of ESL have poorer orthographic representations (i.e., spelling) than other L1 backgrounds (e.g., Korean, Chinese, Spanish). This difference cannot be accounted for by L1 writing system, L1 orthographic depth, or L2 vocabulary knowledge/fluency.<BR><br />
Phase 1<BR><br />
Can we statistically confirm teacher observations of L1 background differences in spelling ability of ESL students?<br />
Phase 2<BR><br />
Can an intervention using focused, meaning-based encoding increase the quality of lexical representations for these learners?<BR><br />
<br />
==Background and Significance:==<br />
<br />
==The Intervention Design:==<br />
Subject (between-subjects) Variables -- L1; ESL Level<BR><br />
Independent Variable (within-subjects) -- training condition (form only, form+meaning)<BR><br />
Dependent Variables -- accuracy on audio dictation and spelling recognition tasks; gains from pre-test to post-test<br />
<br />
==Results:==<br />
<br />
==References:==</div>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Orthography&diff=9425Orthography2009-05-17T01:32:15Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: /* Background and Significance */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Lexical Quality of English Second Language Learners:<br />
<br />
==Effects of Focused Training on Orthographic Encoding Skill==<br />
<br />
==Authors:== <br />
Susan Dunlap, Benjamin Friedline, Alan Juffs, Charles A. Perfetti<br />
<br />
==The Research Problem:==<br />
Arabic L1 students of ESL have poorer orthographic representations (i.e., spelling) than other L1 backgrounds (e.g., Korean, Chinese, Spanish). This difference cannot be accounted for by L1 writing system, L1 orthographic depth, or L2 vocabulary knowledge/fluency.<BR><br />
Can an intervention using focused, meaning-based encoding increase the quality of lexical representations for these learners?<br />
<br />
==Background and Significance:==<br />
<br />
==The Intervention Design:==<br />
Subject (between-subjects) Variables -- L1; ESL Level<BR><br />
Independent Variable (within-subjects) -- training condition (form only, form+meaning)<BR><br />
Dependent Variables -- accuracy on audio dictation and spelling recognition tasks; gains from pre-test to post-test<br />
<br />
==Results:==<br />
<br />
==References:==</div>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Orthography&diff=9424Orthography2009-05-17T01:31:55Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Lexical Quality of English Second Language Learners:<br />
<br />
==Effects of Focused Training on Orthographic Encoding Skill==<br />
<br />
==Authors:== <br />
Susan Dunlap, Benjamin Friedline, Alan Juffs, Charles A. Perfetti<br />
<br />
==The Research Problem:==<br />
Arabic L1 students of ESL have poorer orthographic representations (i.e., spelling) than other L1 backgrounds (e.g., Korean, Chinese, Spanish). This difference cannot be accounted for by L1 writing system, L1 orthographic depth, or L2 vocabulary knowledge/fluency.<BR><br />
Can an intervention using focused, meaning-based encoding increase the quality of lexical representations for these learners?<br />
<br />
==Background and Significance==<br />
<br />
<br />
==The Intervention Design:==<br />
Subject (between-subjects) Variables -- L1; ESL Level<BR><br />
Independent Variable (within-subjects) -- training condition (form only, form+meaning)<BR><br />
Dependent Variables -- accuracy on audio dictation and spelling recognition tasks; gains from pre-test to post-test<br />
<br />
==Results:==<br />
<br />
==References:==</div>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Orthography&diff=9423Orthography2009-05-17T01:30:32Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: /* The Research Problem: */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Lexical Quality of English Second Language Learners:<br />
<br />
==Effects of Focused Training on Orthographic Encoding Skill==<br />
<br />
==Authors:== <br />
Susan Dunlap, Benjamin Friedline, Alan Juffs, Charles A. Perfetti<br />
<br />
==The Research Problem:==<br />
Arabic L1 students of ESL have poorer orthographic representations (i.e., spelling) than other L1 backgrounds (e.g., Korean, Chinese, Spanish). This difference cannot be accounted for by L1 writing system, L1 orthographic depth, or L2 vocabulary knowledge/fluency.<BR><br />
Can an intervention using focused, meaning-based encoding increase the quality of lexical representations for these learners?<br />
<br />
==The Intervention Design:==<br />
Subject (between-subjects) Variables -- L1; ESL Level<BR><br />
Independent Variable (within-subjects) -- training condition (form only, form+meaning)<BR><br />
Dependent Variables -- accuracy on audio dictation and spelling recognition tasks; gains from pre-test to post-test<br />
<br />
==Results:==<br />
<br />
==References:==</div>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Orthography&diff=9422Orthography2009-05-17T01:29:49Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Lexical Quality of English Second Language Learners:<br />
<br />
==Effects of Focused Training on Orthographic Encoding Skill==<br />
<br />
==Authors:== <br />
Susan Dunlap, Benjamin Friedline, Alan Juffs, Charles A. Perfetti<br />
<br />
==The Research Problem:==<br />
Arabic L1 students of ESL have poorer spelling (orthographic representations) than other L1 backgrounds (e.g., Korean, Chinese, Spanish). This difference cannot be accounted for by L1 writing system, L1 orthographic depth, or L2 vocabulary knowledge/fluency.<br />
Can an intervention using focused, meaning-based encoding increase the quality of lexical representations for these learners?<br />
<br />
==The Intervention Design:==<br />
Subject (between-subjects) Variables -- L1; ESL Level<BR><br />
Independent Variable (within-subjects) -- training condition (form only, form+meaning)<BR><br />
Dependent Variables -- accuracy on audio dictation and spelling recognition tasks; gains from pre-test to post-test<br />
<br />
==Results:==<br />
<br />
==References:==</div>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Orthography&diff=9421Orthography2009-05-17T01:28:34Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: /* The Intervention Design: */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Lexical Quality of English Second Language Learners:<br />
<br />
==Effects of Focused Training on Orthographic Encoding Skill==<br />
<br />
==Authors:== <br />
Susan Dunlap, Benjamin Friedline, Alan Juffs, Charles A. Perfetti<br />
<br />
==The Research Problem:==<br />
Arabic L1 students of ESL have poorer spelling (orthographic representations) than other L1 backgrounds (e.g., Korean, Chinese, Spanish). This difference cannot be accounted for by L1 writing system, L1 orthographic depth, or L2 vocabulary knowledge/fluency.<br />
Can an intervention using focused, meaning-based encoding increase the quality of lexical representations for these learners?<br />
<br />
==The Intervention Design:==<br />
Subject (between-subjects) Variables -- L1; ESL Level<BR><br />
Independent Variable (within-subjects) -- training condition (form only, form+meaning)<BR><br />
Dependent Variables -- accuracy on audio dictation and spelling recognition tasks; gains from pre-test to post-test</div>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Orthography&diff=9420Orthography2009-05-17T01:28:08Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Lexical Quality of English Second Language Learners:<br />
<br />
==Effects of Focused Training on Orthographic Encoding Skill==<br />
<br />
==Authors:== <br />
Susan Dunlap, Benjamin Friedline, Alan Juffs, Charles A. Perfetti<br />
<br />
==The Research Problem:==<br />
Arabic L1 students of ESL have poorer spelling (orthographic representations) than other L1 backgrounds (e.g., Korean, Chinese, Spanish). This difference cannot be accounted for by L1 writing system, L1 orthographic depth, or L2 vocabulary knowledge/fluency.<br />
Can an intervention using focused, meaning-based encoding increase the quality of lexical representations for these learners?<br />
<br />
==The Intervention Design:==<br />
Subject (between-subjects) Variables -- L1; ESL Level<br />
Independent Variable (within-subjects) -- training condition (form only, form+meaning)<br />
Dependent Variables -- accuracy on audio dictation and spelling recognition tasks; gains from pre-test to post-test</div>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Orthography&diff=9419Orthography2009-05-17T01:27:34Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: /* Lexical Quality of English Second Language Learners: */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Lexical Quality of English Second Language Learners:<br />
<br />
==Effects of Focused Training on Orthographic Encoding Skill==<br />
<br />
==Authors:== <br />
Susan Dunlap, Benjamin Friedline, Alan Juffs, Charles A. Perfetti<br />
<br />
==The Research Problem:==<br><br />
Arabic L1 students of ESL have poorer spelling (orthographic representations) than other L1 backgrounds (e.g., Korean, Chinese, Spanish). This difference cannot be accounted for by L1 writing system, L1 orthographic depth, or L2 vocabulary knowledge/fluency.<br />
Can an intervention using focused, meaning-based encoding increase the quality of lexical representations for these learners?<br />
<br />
==The Intervention Design:==<br><br />
Subject (between-subjects) Variables -- L1; ESL Level<br />
Independent Variable (within-subjects) -- training condition (form only, form+meaning)<br />
Dependent Variables -- accuracy on audio dictation and spelling recognition tasks; gains from pre-test to post-test</div>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Orthography&diff=9418Orthography2009-05-17T01:27:04Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Lexical Quality of English Second Language Learners:==<br />
==Effects of Focused Training on Orthographic Encoding Skill==<br />
<br />
==Authors:== <br />
Susan Dunlap, Benjamin Friedline, Alan Juffs, Charles A. Perfetti<br />
<br />
==The Research Problem:==<br><br />
Arabic L1 students of ESL have poorer spelling (orthographic representations) than other L1 backgrounds (e.g., Korean, Chinese, Spanish). This difference cannot be accounted for by L1 writing system, L1 orthographic depth, or L2 vocabulary knowledge/fluency.<br />
Can an intervention using focused, meaning-based encoding increase the quality of lexical representations for these learners?<br />
<br />
==The Intervention Design:==<br><br />
Subject (between-subjects) Variables -- L1; ESL Level<br />
Independent Variable (within-subjects) -- training condition (form only, form+meaning)<br />
Dependent Variables -- accuracy on audio dictation and spelling recognition tasks; gains from pre-test to post-test</div>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Orthography&diff=9417Orthography2009-05-17T01:20:48Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: </p>
<hr />
<div>Lexical Quality of English Second Language Learners:<br />
Effects of Focused Training on Orthographic Encoding Skill<br />
<br />
Authors: Susan Dunlap, Benjamin Friedline, Alan Juffs, Charles A. Perfetti<br />
<br />
The Research Problem:<br />
Arabic L1 students of ESL have poorer spelling (orthographic representations) than other L1 backgrounds (e.g., Korean, Chinese, Spanish). This difference cannot be accounted for by L1 writing system, L1 orthographic depth, or L2 vocabulary knowledge/fluency.<br />
Can an intervention using focused, meaning-based encoding increase the quality of lexical representations for these learners?<br />
<br />
The Intervention Design:<br />
Subject (between-subjects) Variables -- L1; ESL Level<br />
Independent Variable (within-subjects) -- training condition (form only, form+meaning)<br />
Dependent Variables -- accuracy on audio dictation and spelling recognition tasks; gains from pre-test to post-test</div>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Orthography&diff=9388Orthography2009-05-16T12:27:46Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: New page: Lexical Quality of English Second Language Learners: Effects of Focused Training on Orthographic Encoding Skill Authors: Susan Dunlap, Benjamin Friedline, Alan Juffs, Charles A. Perfetti</p>
<hr />
<div>Lexical Quality of English Second Language Learners:<br />
Effects of Focused Training on Orthographic Encoding Skill<br />
<br />
Authors: Susan Dunlap, Benjamin Friedline, Alan Juffs, Charles A. Perfetti</div>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Learning_the_role_of_radicals_in_reading_Chinese&diff=7558Learning the role of radicals in reading Chinese2008-03-26T20:26:30Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: /* Abstract */</p>
<hr />
<div>----<br />
Summary Table<br />
*Node Title: Semantic Radicals Study<br />
*Researchers: Susan Dunlap, Ying Liu, Charles Perfetti, Sue-mei Wu<br />
*PIs: Charles Perfetti, Ying Liu, Min Wang<br />
*Others who have contributed 160 hours or more:<br />
*Graduate Students: Susan Dunlap<br />
*Study Start Date Sep 1, 2005<br />
*Study End Date Dec 31, 2006<br />
*LearnLab Site and Courses , CMU Chinese Online<br />
*Number of Students: 20<br />
*Total Participant Hours for the study: 60<br />
*Data in the Data Shop: in progress<br />
----<br />
<br />
== Abstract ==<br />
<br />
Does providing reliable semantic information help second language learners acquire new words? Two experiments investigated whether adult learners of Chinese benefited from [[explicit instruction]] of semantic information when learning new characters. We manipulated whether semantic subcomponents were reliable cues to word meanings (reliable vs. unreliable predictors) and whether the semantic information was taught explicitly or not (explicit vs. implicit training conditions). Results showed that explicitly providing semantic cues promoted short-tem retention of target characters and aided somewhat in transferring knowledge to new characters. Reliability of cues had early effects on learning but no effect on [[long-term retention]] or on [[transfer]]. We theorize that learners benefit from explicit instruction of the connection between semantic subcomponents of words and the meanings of individual words, even when semantic cues are unreliable. However, it is still not clear whether early learners apply this knowledge when learning new vocabulary.<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
Semantic radical; [[Explicit instruction]]; [[Implicit instruction]]; [[Cue validity]]<br />
<br />
== Research Question ==<br />
<br />
Does providing reliable semantic information help second language learners acquire new words?<br />
<br />
== Background ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Previous research has shown that non-native learners of Chinese do not discern the presence of [[cue validity|helpful cues]] in the orthography unless such relationships are taught explicitly (Taft & Chung, 1999). But because semantic cues in Chinese are not always reliable predictors of word meaning (Hanley, 2005; Shu, Chen, Anderson, Wu, & Xuan, 2003), it may actually be more confusing for a beginning learner to be taught these relationships. The aim of this study was to determine how [[reliability]] of cues can affect learning. As in every language, Chinese has rules and exceptions to those rules. The written form of Chinese contains a high percentage of compound characters, which are single, one-syllable words made up of semantic and phonetic radicals. These radicals, or linguistic subcomponents, often provide cues to the character’s meaning and pronunciation. However, a reader cannot rely solely on using this strategy to decode new words in Chinese. Therefore, we wanted to ascertain whether it is helpful to teach the sometimes ambiguous relationship between linguistic subcomponents and whole word definitions.<br />
<br />
== Dependent variables ==<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Normal post-test]] measures:<br />
<br />
- accuracy and response time on lexical decision, naming, and semantic category judgment tasks with previously learned items (Experiment 1)<br />
<br />
- accuracy of definition recognition, accuracy of translating previously learned Chinese characters into English (Experiment 2)<br />
<br />
[[Transfer]] measures:<br />
<br />
- accuracy on a multiple-choice translation task with new characters (Experiments 1 and 2)<br />
<br />
== Independent variables ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Training condition was either explicit (information was provided about the semantic radical’s meaning in relation to meaning of the character) or implicit (no additional information was provided). Being explicit about the radical is an instance of [[feature focusing]] [[instructional method]]. Each semantic radical was either reliable (its meaning was associated with the meaning of the characters) or unreliable (its meaning was unrelated to the meaning of the character in which it appeared).<br />
<br />
== Hypothesis ==<br />
<br />
<br />
We predict an interaction between [[reliability]] and [[explicit instruction|explicitness]], such that learners will perform better on items studied in the explicit condition compared to the implicit condition, and this effect will be greater for characters with reliable semantic radicals than characters with unreliable semantic radicals.<br />
<br />
== Findings ==<br />
In Experiment 1, we found a main effect of reliability, such that participants had higher accuracy on the lexical decision and semantic judgment tasks for items with reliable semantic cues relative to items with unreliable semantic cues. However, we found no effect of training on post-test transfer items.<br />
<br />
In Experiment 2, we found a main effect of reliability, such that participants learned the meanings of words with reliable semantic cues better than words with unreliable semantic cues. We also found a main effect of instruction, such that explicit instruction led to more accurate recognition of definitions than implicit instruction. Again, there was no evidence of transfer to new items.<br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In Experiment 1, initial learning was better for items with reliable rather than unreliable semantic cues. However, once students were explicitly shown a special characteristic of L2, they could apply it to learning new examples. Our within-subjects design allowed application of the explicit strategy to implicit items. In Experiment 2, we used a block design to separate effects of learning before and after explicit instruction. Again, learners did best with reliable items and explicit instruction.<br />
<br />
We theorize that learners benefit from explicit instruction of the connection between semantic subcomponents of words and the meanings of individual words, even when semantic cues are unreliable. However, it is still not clear whether early learners apply this knowledge when learning new vocabulary.<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
The '''descendents''', which lists links to descendent nodes of this one, if there are any<br />
<br />
None yet.<br />
<br />
== Further information ==<br />
A '''further information''' section that points to documents using hyper links and/or references in APA format. Each indicates briefly the document's relationship to the node (e.g., whether the document is a paper reporting the node in full detail, a proposal describing the motivation and design of the study in more detail, the node for a similar PSLC research study, etc.)<br />
<br />
None yet.</div>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Learning_the_role_of_radicals_in_reading_Chinese&diff=7557Learning the role of radicals in reading Chinese2008-03-26T20:26:07Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: /* Abstract */</p>
<hr />
<div>----<br />
Summary Table<br />
*Node Title: Semantic Radicals Study<br />
*Researchers: Susan Dunlap, Ying Liu, Charles Perfetti, Sue-mei Wu<br />
*PIs: Charles Perfetti, Ying Liu, Min Wang<br />
*Others who have contributed 160 hours or more:<br />
*Graduate Students: Susan Dunlap<br />
*Study Start Date Sep 1, 2005<br />
*Study End Date Dec 31, 2006<br />
*LearnLab Site and Courses , CMU Chinese Online<br />
*Number of Students: 20<br />
*Total Participant Hours for the study: 60<br />
*Data in the Data Shop: in progress<br />
----<br />
<br />
== Abstract ==<br />
<br />
Does providing reliable semantic information help second language learners acquire new words? Two experiments investigated whether adult learners of Chinese benefited from [[explicit instruction]] of semantic information when learning new characters. We manipulated whether semantic subcomponents were reliable cues to word meanings (reliable vs. unreliable predictors) and whether the semantic information was taught explicitly or not (explicit vs. implicit training conditions). Results showed that explicitly providing semantic cues promoted short-tem retention of target characters and aided somewhat in transferring knowledge to new characters. Reliability of cues had early effects on learning but no effect on long-term retention or on transfer. We theorize that learners benefit from explicit instruction of the connection between semantic subcomponents of words and the meanings of individual words, even when semantic cues are unreliable. However, it is still not clear whether early learners apply this knowledge when learning new vocabulary.<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
Semantic radical; [[Explicit instruction]]; [[Implicit instruction]]; [[Cue validity]]<br />
<br />
== Research Question ==<br />
<br />
Does providing reliable semantic information help second language learners acquire new words?<br />
<br />
== Background ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Previous research has shown that non-native learners of Chinese do not discern the presence of [[cue validity|helpful cues]] in the orthography unless such relationships are taught explicitly (Taft & Chung, 1999). But because semantic cues in Chinese are not always reliable predictors of word meaning (Hanley, 2005; Shu, Chen, Anderson, Wu, & Xuan, 2003), it may actually be more confusing for a beginning learner to be taught these relationships. The aim of this study was to determine how [[reliability]] of cues can affect learning. As in every language, Chinese has rules and exceptions to those rules. The written form of Chinese contains a high percentage of compound characters, which are single, one-syllable words made up of semantic and phonetic radicals. These radicals, or linguistic subcomponents, often provide cues to the character’s meaning and pronunciation. However, a reader cannot rely solely on using this strategy to decode new words in Chinese. Therefore, we wanted to ascertain whether it is helpful to teach the sometimes ambiguous relationship between linguistic subcomponents and whole word definitions.<br />
<br />
== Dependent variables ==<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Normal post-test]] measures:<br />
<br />
- accuracy and response time on lexical decision, naming, and semantic category judgment tasks with previously learned items (Experiment 1)<br />
<br />
- accuracy of definition recognition, accuracy of translating previously learned Chinese characters into English (Experiment 2)<br />
<br />
[[Transfer]] measures:<br />
<br />
- accuracy on a multiple-choice translation task with new characters (Experiments 1 and 2)<br />
<br />
== Independent variables ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Training condition was either explicit (information was provided about the semantic radical’s meaning in relation to meaning of the character) or implicit (no additional information was provided). Being explicit about the radical is an instance of [[feature focusing]] [[instructional method]]. Each semantic radical was either reliable (its meaning was associated with the meaning of the characters) or unreliable (its meaning was unrelated to the meaning of the character in which it appeared).<br />
<br />
== Hypothesis ==<br />
<br />
<br />
We predict an interaction between [[reliability]] and [[explicit instruction|explicitness]], such that learners will perform better on items studied in the explicit condition compared to the implicit condition, and this effect will be greater for characters with reliable semantic radicals than characters with unreliable semantic radicals.<br />
<br />
== Findings ==<br />
In Experiment 1, we found a main effect of reliability, such that participants had higher accuracy on the lexical decision and semantic judgment tasks for items with reliable semantic cues relative to items with unreliable semantic cues. However, we found no effect of training on post-test transfer items.<br />
<br />
In Experiment 2, we found a main effect of reliability, such that participants learned the meanings of words with reliable semantic cues better than words with unreliable semantic cues. We also found a main effect of instruction, such that explicit instruction led to more accurate recognition of definitions than implicit instruction. Again, there was no evidence of transfer to new items.<br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In Experiment 1, initial learning was better for items with reliable rather than unreliable semantic cues. However, once students were explicitly shown a special characteristic of L2, they could apply it to learning new examples. Our within-subjects design allowed application of the explicit strategy to implicit items. In Experiment 2, we used a block design to separate effects of learning before and after explicit instruction. Again, learners did best with reliable items and explicit instruction.<br />
<br />
We theorize that learners benefit from explicit instruction of the connection between semantic subcomponents of words and the meanings of individual words, even when semantic cues are unreliable. However, it is still not clear whether early learners apply this knowledge when learning new vocabulary.<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
The '''descendents''', which lists links to descendent nodes of this one, if there are any<br />
<br />
None yet.<br />
<br />
== Further information ==<br />
A '''further information''' section that points to documents using hyper links and/or references in APA format. Each indicates briefly the document's relationship to the node (e.g., whether the document is a paper reporting the node in full detail, a proposal describing the motivation and design of the study in more detail, the node for a similar PSLC research study, etc.)<br />
<br />
None yet.</div>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Learning_the_role_of_radicals_in_reading_Chinese&diff=7556Learning the role of radicals in reading Chinese2008-03-26T20:25:09Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: /* Abstract */</p>
<hr />
<div>----<br />
Summary Table<br />
*Node Title: Semantic Radicals Study<br />
*Researchers: Susan Dunlap, Ying Liu, Charles Perfetti, Sue-mei Wu<br />
*PIs: Charles Perfetti, Ying Liu, Min Wang<br />
*Others who have contributed 160 hours or more:<br />
*Graduate Students: Susan Dunlap<br />
*Study Start Date Sep 1, 2005<br />
*Study End Date Dec 31, 2006<br />
*LearnLab Site and Courses , CMU Chinese Online<br />
*Number of Students: 20<br />
*Total Participant Hours for the study: 60<br />
*Data in the Data Shop: in progress<br />
----<br />
<br />
== Abstract ==<br />
<br />
Does providing reliable semantic information help second language learners acquire new words? Two experiments investigated whether adult learners of Chinese benefited from explicit instruction of semantic information when learning new characters. We manipulated whether semantic subcomponents were reliable cues to word meanings (reliable vs. unreliable predictors) and whether the semantic information was taught explicitly or not (explicit vs. implicit training conditions). Results showed that explicitly providing semantic cues promoted short-tem retention of target characters and aided somewhat in transferring knowledge to new characters. Reliability of cues had early effects on learning but no effect on long-term retention or on transfer. We theorize that learners benefit from explicit instruction of the connection between semantic subcomponents of words and the meanings of individual words, even when semantic cues are unreliable. However, it is still not clear whether early learners apply this knowledge when learning new vocabulary.<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
Semantic radical; [[Explicit instruction]]; [[Implicit instruction]]; [[Cue validity]]<br />
<br />
== Research Question ==<br />
<br />
Does providing reliable semantic information help second language learners acquire new words?<br />
<br />
== Background ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Previous research has shown that non-native learners of Chinese do not discern the presence of [[cue validity|helpful cues]] in the orthography unless such relationships are taught explicitly (Taft & Chung, 1999). But because semantic cues in Chinese are not always reliable predictors of word meaning (Hanley, 2005; Shu, Chen, Anderson, Wu, & Xuan, 2003), it may actually be more confusing for a beginning learner to be taught these relationships. The aim of this study was to determine how [[reliability]] of cues can affect learning. As in every language, Chinese has rules and exceptions to those rules. The written form of Chinese contains a high percentage of compound characters, which are single, one-syllable words made up of semantic and phonetic radicals. These radicals, or linguistic subcomponents, often provide cues to the character’s meaning and pronunciation. However, a reader cannot rely solely on using this strategy to decode new words in Chinese. Therefore, we wanted to ascertain whether it is helpful to teach the sometimes ambiguous relationship between linguistic subcomponents and whole word definitions.<br />
<br />
== Dependent variables ==<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Normal post-test]] measures:<br />
<br />
- accuracy and response time on lexical decision, naming, and semantic category judgment tasks with previously learned items (Experiment 1)<br />
<br />
- accuracy of definition recognition, accuracy of translating previously learned Chinese characters into English (Experiment 2)<br />
<br />
[[Transfer]] measures:<br />
<br />
- accuracy on a multiple-choice translation task with new characters (Experiments 1 and 2)<br />
<br />
== Independent variables ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Training condition was either explicit (information was provided about the semantic radical’s meaning in relation to meaning of the character) or implicit (no additional information was provided). Being explicit about the radical is an instance of [[feature focusing]] [[instructional method]]. Each semantic radical was either reliable (its meaning was associated with the meaning of the characters) or unreliable (its meaning was unrelated to the meaning of the character in which it appeared).<br />
<br />
== Hypothesis ==<br />
<br />
<br />
We predict an interaction between [[reliability]] and [[explicit instruction|explicitness]], such that learners will perform better on items studied in the explicit condition compared to the implicit condition, and this effect will be greater for characters with reliable semantic radicals than characters with unreliable semantic radicals.<br />
<br />
== Findings ==<br />
In Experiment 1, we found a main effect of reliability, such that participants had higher accuracy on the lexical decision and semantic judgment tasks for items with reliable semantic cues relative to items with unreliable semantic cues. However, we found no effect of training on post-test transfer items.<br />
<br />
In Experiment 2, we found a main effect of reliability, such that participants learned the meanings of words with reliable semantic cues better than words with unreliable semantic cues. We also found a main effect of instruction, such that explicit instruction led to more accurate recognition of definitions than implicit instruction. Again, there was no evidence of transfer to new items.<br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In Experiment 1, initial learning was better for items with reliable rather than unreliable semantic cues. However, once students were explicitly shown a special characteristic of L2, they could apply it to learning new examples. Our within-subjects design allowed application of the explicit strategy to implicit items. In Experiment 2, we used a block design to separate effects of learning before and after explicit instruction. Again, learners did best with reliable items and explicit instruction.<br />
<br />
We theorize that learners benefit from explicit instruction of the connection between semantic subcomponents of words and the meanings of individual words, even when semantic cues are unreliable. However, it is still not clear whether early learners apply this knowledge when learning new vocabulary.<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
The '''descendents''', which lists links to descendent nodes of this one, if there are any<br />
<br />
None yet.<br />
<br />
== Further information ==<br />
A '''further information''' section that points to documents using hyper links and/or references in APA format. Each indicates briefly the document's relationship to the node (e.g., whether the document is a paper reporting the node in full detail, a proposal describing the motivation and design of the study in more detail, the node for a similar PSLC research study, etc.)<br />
<br />
None yet.</div>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Learning_the_role_of_radicals_in_reading_Chinese&diff=7555Learning the role of radicals in reading Chinese2008-03-26T20:22:00Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: /* Background */</p>
<hr />
<div>----<br />
Summary Table<br />
*Node Title: Semantic Radicals Study<br />
*Researchers: Susan Dunlap, Ying Liu, Charles Perfetti, Sue-mei Wu<br />
*PIs: Charles Perfetti, Ying Liu, Min Wang<br />
*Others who have contributed 160 hours or more:<br />
*Graduate Students: Susan Dunlap<br />
*Study Start Date Sep 1, 2005<br />
*Study End Date Dec 31, 2006<br />
*LearnLab Site and Courses , CMU Chinese Online<br />
*Number of Students: 20<br />
*Total Participant Hours for the study: 60<br />
*Data in the Data Shop: in progress<br />
----<br />
<br />
== Abstract ==<br />
<br />
Does providing reliable semantic information help second language learners acquire new words? Two experiments investigated whether adult learners of Chinese benefited from explicit instruction of semantic information when learning new characters. We manipulated whether semantic information was a reliable cue to word meaning and whether predictability was taught [[explicit instruction|explicitly]]. We measured learning outcomes with translation and semantic judgment tasks.<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
Semantic radical; [[Explicit instruction]]; [[Implicit instruction]]; [[Cue validity]]<br />
<br />
== Research Question ==<br />
<br />
Does providing reliable semantic information help second language learners acquire new words?<br />
<br />
== Background ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Previous research has shown that non-native learners of Chinese do not discern the presence of [[cue validity|helpful cues]] in the orthography unless such relationships are taught explicitly (Taft & Chung, 1999). But because semantic cues in Chinese are not always reliable predictors of word meaning (Hanley, 2005; Shu, Chen, Anderson, Wu, & Xuan, 2003), it may actually be more confusing for a beginning learner to be taught these relationships. The aim of this study was to determine how [[reliability]] of cues can affect learning. As in every language, Chinese has rules and exceptions to those rules. The written form of Chinese contains a high percentage of compound characters, which are single, one-syllable words made up of semantic and phonetic radicals. These radicals, or linguistic subcomponents, often provide cues to the character’s meaning and pronunciation. However, a reader cannot rely solely on using this strategy to decode new words in Chinese. Therefore, we wanted to ascertain whether it is helpful to teach the sometimes ambiguous relationship between linguistic subcomponents and whole word definitions.<br />
<br />
== Dependent variables ==<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Normal post-test]] measures:<br />
<br />
- accuracy and response time on lexical decision, naming, and semantic category judgment tasks with previously learned items (Experiment 1)<br />
<br />
- accuracy of definition recognition, accuracy of translating previously learned Chinese characters into English (Experiment 2)<br />
<br />
[[Transfer]] measures:<br />
<br />
- accuracy on a multiple-choice translation task with new characters (Experiments 1 and 2)<br />
<br />
== Independent variables ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Training condition was either explicit (information was provided about the semantic radical’s meaning in relation to meaning of the character) or implicit (no additional information was provided). Being explicit about the radical is an instance of [[feature focusing]] [[instructional method]]. Each semantic radical was either reliable (its meaning was associated with the meaning of the characters) or unreliable (its meaning was unrelated to the meaning of the character in which it appeared).<br />
<br />
== Hypothesis ==<br />
<br />
<br />
We predict an interaction between [[reliability]] and [[explicit instruction|explicitness]], such that learners will perform better on items studied in the explicit condition compared to the implicit condition, and this effect will be greater for characters with reliable semantic radicals than characters with unreliable semantic radicals.<br />
<br />
== Findings ==<br />
In Experiment 1, we found a main effect of reliability, such that participants had higher accuracy on the lexical decision and semantic judgment tasks for items with reliable semantic cues relative to items with unreliable semantic cues. However, we found no effect of training on post-test transfer items.<br />
<br />
In Experiment 2, we found a main effect of reliability, such that participants learned the meanings of words with reliable semantic cues better than words with unreliable semantic cues. We also found a main effect of instruction, such that explicit instruction led to more accurate recognition of definitions than implicit instruction. Again, there was no evidence of transfer to new items.<br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In Experiment 1, initial learning was better for items with reliable rather than unreliable semantic cues. However, once students were explicitly shown a special characteristic of L2, they could apply it to learning new examples. Our within-subjects design allowed application of the explicit strategy to implicit items. In Experiment 2, we used a block design to separate effects of learning before and after explicit instruction. Again, learners did best with reliable items and explicit instruction.<br />
<br />
We theorize that learners benefit from explicit instruction of the connection between semantic subcomponents of words and the meanings of individual words, even when semantic cues are unreliable. However, it is still not clear whether early learners apply this knowledge when learning new vocabulary.<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
The '''descendents''', which lists links to descendent nodes of this one, if there are any<br />
<br />
None yet.<br />
<br />
== Further information ==<br />
A '''further information''' section that points to documents using hyper links and/or references in APA format. Each indicates briefly the document's relationship to the node (e.g., whether the document is a paper reporting the node in full detail, a proposal describing the motivation and design of the study in more detail, the node for a similar PSLC research study, etc.)<br />
<br />
None yet.</div>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Learning_the_role_of_radicals_in_reading_Chinese&diff=7554Learning the role of radicals in reading Chinese2008-03-26T20:21:46Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: /* Independent variables */</p>
<hr />
<div>----<br />
Summary Table<br />
*Node Title: Semantic Radicals Study<br />
*Researchers: Susan Dunlap, Ying Liu, Charles Perfetti, Sue-mei Wu<br />
*PIs: Charles Perfetti, Ying Liu, Min Wang<br />
*Others who have contributed 160 hours or more:<br />
*Graduate Students: Susan Dunlap<br />
*Study Start Date Sep 1, 2005<br />
*Study End Date Dec 31, 2006<br />
*LearnLab Site and Courses , CMU Chinese Online<br />
*Number of Students: 20<br />
*Total Participant Hours for the study: 60<br />
*Data in the Data Shop: in progress<br />
----<br />
<br />
== Abstract ==<br />
<br />
Does providing reliable semantic information help second language learners acquire new words? Two experiments investigated whether adult learners of Chinese benefited from explicit instruction of semantic information when learning new characters. We manipulated whether semantic information was a reliable cue to word meaning and whether predictability was taught [[explicit instruction|explicitly]]. We measured learning outcomes with translation and semantic judgment tasks.<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
Semantic radical; [[Explicit instruction]]; [[Implicit instruction]]; [[Cue validity]]<br />
<br />
== Research Question ==<br />
<br />
Does providing reliable semantic information help second language learners acquire new words?<br />
<br />
== Background ==<br />
A '''background''' and significance section that briefly summarizes prior work on the research question and why it is important to answer it<br />
<br />
Previous research has shown that non-native learners of Chinese do not discern the presence of [[cue validity|helpful cues]] in the orthography unless such relationships are taught explicitly (Taft & Chung, 1999). But because semantic cues in Chinese are not always reliable predictors of word meaning (Hanley, 2005; Shu, Chen, Anderson, Wu, & Xuan, 2003), it may actually be more confusing for a beginning learner to be taught these relationships. The aim of this study was to determine how [[reliability]] of cues can affect learning. As in every language, Chinese has rules and exceptions to those rules. The written form of Chinese contains a high percentage of compound characters, which are single, one-syllable words made up of semantic and phonetic radicals. These radicals, or linguistic subcomponents, often provide cues to the character’s meaning and pronunciation. However, a reader cannot rely solely on using this strategy to decode new words in Chinese. Therefore, we wanted to ascertain whether it is helpful to teach the sometimes ambiguous relationship between linguistic subcomponents and whole word definitions.<br />
<br />
== Dependent variables ==<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Normal post-test]] measures:<br />
<br />
- accuracy and response time on lexical decision, naming, and semantic category judgment tasks with previously learned items (Experiment 1)<br />
<br />
- accuracy of definition recognition, accuracy of translating previously learned Chinese characters into English (Experiment 2)<br />
<br />
[[Transfer]] measures:<br />
<br />
- accuracy on a multiple-choice translation task with new characters (Experiments 1 and 2)<br />
<br />
== Independent variables ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Training condition was either explicit (information was provided about the semantic radical’s meaning in relation to meaning of the character) or implicit (no additional information was provided). Being explicit about the radical is an instance of [[feature focusing]] [[instructional method]]. Each semantic radical was either reliable (its meaning was associated with the meaning of the characters) or unreliable (its meaning was unrelated to the meaning of the character in which it appeared).<br />
<br />
== Hypothesis ==<br />
<br />
<br />
We predict an interaction between [[reliability]] and [[explicit instruction|explicitness]], such that learners will perform better on items studied in the explicit condition compared to the implicit condition, and this effect will be greater for characters with reliable semantic radicals than characters with unreliable semantic radicals.<br />
<br />
== Findings ==<br />
In Experiment 1, we found a main effect of reliability, such that participants had higher accuracy on the lexical decision and semantic judgment tasks for items with reliable semantic cues relative to items with unreliable semantic cues. However, we found no effect of training on post-test transfer items.<br />
<br />
In Experiment 2, we found a main effect of reliability, such that participants learned the meanings of words with reliable semantic cues better than words with unreliable semantic cues. We also found a main effect of instruction, such that explicit instruction led to more accurate recognition of definitions than implicit instruction. Again, there was no evidence of transfer to new items.<br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In Experiment 1, initial learning was better for items with reliable rather than unreliable semantic cues. However, once students were explicitly shown a special characteristic of L2, they could apply it to learning new examples. Our within-subjects design allowed application of the explicit strategy to implicit items. In Experiment 2, we used a block design to separate effects of learning before and after explicit instruction. Again, learners did best with reliable items and explicit instruction.<br />
<br />
We theorize that learners benefit from explicit instruction of the connection between semantic subcomponents of words and the meanings of individual words, even when semantic cues are unreliable. However, it is still not clear whether early learners apply this knowledge when learning new vocabulary.<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
The '''descendents''', which lists links to descendent nodes of this one, if there are any<br />
<br />
None yet.<br />
<br />
== Further information ==<br />
A '''further information''' section that points to documents using hyper links and/or references in APA format. Each indicates briefly the document's relationship to the node (e.g., whether the document is a paper reporting the node in full detail, a proposal describing the motivation and design of the study in more detail, the node for a similar PSLC research study, etc.)<br />
<br />
None yet.</div>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Learning_the_role_of_radicals_in_reading_Chinese&diff=7553Learning the role of radicals in reading Chinese2008-03-26T20:21:16Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: /* Dependent variables */</p>
<hr />
<div>----<br />
Summary Table<br />
*Node Title: Semantic Radicals Study<br />
*Researchers: Susan Dunlap, Ying Liu, Charles Perfetti, Sue-mei Wu<br />
*PIs: Charles Perfetti, Ying Liu, Min Wang<br />
*Others who have contributed 160 hours or more:<br />
*Graduate Students: Susan Dunlap<br />
*Study Start Date Sep 1, 2005<br />
*Study End Date Dec 31, 2006<br />
*LearnLab Site and Courses , CMU Chinese Online<br />
*Number of Students: 20<br />
*Total Participant Hours for the study: 60<br />
*Data in the Data Shop: in progress<br />
----<br />
<br />
== Abstract ==<br />
<br />
Does providing reliable semantic information help second language learners acquire new words? Two experiments investigated whether adult learners of Chinese benefited from explicit instruction of semantic information when learning new characters. We manipulated whether semantic information was a reliable cue to word meaning and whether predictability was taught [[explicit instruction|explicitly]]. We measured learning outcomes with translation and semantic judgment tasks.<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
Semantic radical; [[Explicit instruction]]; [[Implicit instruction]]; [[Cue validity]]<br />
<br />
== Research Question ==<br />
<br />
Does providing reliable semantic information help second language learners acquire new words?<br />
<br />
== Background ==<br />
A '''background''' and significance section that briefly summarizes prior work on the research question and why it is important to answer it<br />
<br />
Previous research has shown that non-native learners of Chinese do not discern the presence of [[cue validity|helpful cues]] in the orthography unless such relationships are taught explicitly (Taft & Chung, 1999). But because semantic cues in Chinese are not always reliable predictors of word meaning (Hanley, 2005; Shu, Chen, Anderson, Wu, & Xuan, 2003), it may actually be more confusing for a beginning learner to be taught these relationships. The aim of this study was to determine how [[reliability]] of cues can affect learning. As in every language, Chinese has rules and exceptions to those rules. The written form of Chinese contains a high percentage of compound characters, which are single, one-syllable words made up of semantic and phonetic radicals. These radicals, or linguistic subcomponents, often provide cues to the character’s meaning and pronunciation. However, a reader cannot rely solely on using this strategy to decode new words in Chinese. Therefore, we wanted to ascertain whether it is helpful to teach the sometimes ambiguous relationship between linguistic subcomponents and whole word definitions.<br />
<br />
== Dependent variables ==<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Normal post-test]] measures:<br />
<br />
- accuracy and response time on lexical decision, naming, and semantic category judgment tasks with previously learned items (Experiment 1)<br />
<br />
- accuracy of definition recognition, accuracy of translating previously learned Chinese characters into English (Experiment 2)<br />
<br />
[[Transfer]] measures:<br />
<br />
- accuracy on a multiple-choice translation task with new characters (Experiments 1 and 2)<br />
<br />
== Independent variables ==<br />
The '''independent variables''', which are typically include instructional environment, activity or method, and perhaps some student characteristics, such as gender or first language<br />
<br />
Training condition was either explicit (information was provided about the semantic radical’s meaning in relation to meaning of the character) or implicit (no additional information was provided). Being explicit about the radical is an instance of [[feature focusing]] [[instructional method]]. Each semantic radical was either reliable (its meaning was associated with the meaning of the characters) or unreliable (its meaning was unrelated to the meaning of the character in which it appeared).<br />
<br />
== Hypothesis ==<br />
<br />
<br />
We predict an interaction between [[reliability]] and [[explicit instruction|explicitness]], such that learners will perform better on items studied in the explicit condition compared to the implicit condition, and this effect will be greater for characters with reliable semantic radicals than characters with unreliable semantic radicals.<br />
<br />
== Findings ==<br />
In Experiment 1, we found a main effect of reliability, such that participants had higher accuracy on the lexical decision and semantic judgment tasks for items with reliable semantic cues relative to items with unreliable semantic cues. However, we found no effect of training on post-test transfer items.<br />
<br />
In Experiment 2, we found a main effect of reliability, such that participants learned the meanings of words with reliable semantic cues better than words with unreliable semantic cues. We also found a main effect of instruction, such that explicit instruction led to more accurate recognition of definitions than implicit instruction. Again, there was no evidence of transfer to new items.<br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In Experiment 1, initial learning was better for items with reliable rather than unreliable semantic cues. However, once students were explicitly shown a special characteristic of L2, they could apply it to learning new examples. Our within-subjects design allowed application of the explicit strategy to implicit items. In Experiment 2, we used a block design to separate effects of learning before and after explicit instruction. Again, learners did best with reliable items and explicit instruction.<br />
<br />
We theorize that learners benefit from explicit instruction of the connection between semantic subcomponents of words and the meanings of individual words, even when semantic cues are unreliable. However, it is still not clear whether early learners apply this knowledge when learning new vocabulary.<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
The '''descendents''', which lists links to descendent nodes of this one, if there are any<br />
<br />
None yet.<br />
<br />
== Further information ==<br />
A '''further information''' section that points to documents using hyper links and/or references in APA format. Each indicates briefly the document's relationship to the node (e.g., whether the document is a paper reporting the node in full detail, a proposal describing the motivation and design of the study in more detail, the node for a similar PSLC research study, etc.)<br />
<br />
None yet.</div>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Learning_the_role_of_radicals_in_reading_Chinese&diff=7552Learning the role of radicals in reading Chinese2008-03-26T20:20:58Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: /* Dependent variables */</p>
<hr />
<div>----<br />
Summary Table<br />
*Node Title: Semantic Radicals Study<br />
*Researchers: Susan Dunlap, Ying Liu, Charles Perfetti, Sue-mei Wu<br />
*PIs: Charles Perfetti, Ying Liu, Min Wang<br />
*Others who have contributed 160 hours or more:<br />
*Graduate Students: Susan Dunlap<br />
*Study Start Date Sep 1, 2005<br />
*Study End Date Dec 31, 2006<br />
*LearnLab Site and Courses , CMU Chinese Online<br />
*Number of Students: 20<br />
*Total Participant Hours for the study: 60<br />
*Data in the Data Shop: in progress<br />
----<br />
<br />
== Abstract ==<br />
<br />
Does providing reliable semantic information help second language learners acquire new words? Two experiments investigated whether adult learners of Chinese benefited from explicit instruction of semantic information when learning new characters. We manipulated whether semantic information was a reliable cue to word meaning and whether predictability was taught [[explicit instruction|explicitly]]. We measured learning outcomes with translation and semantic judgment tasks.<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
Semantic radical; [[Explicit instruction]]; [[Implicit instruction]]; [[Cue validity]]<br />
<br />
== Research Question ==<br />
<br />
Does providing reliable semantic information help second language learners acquire new words?<br />
<br />
== Background ==<br />
A '''background''' and significance section that briefly summarizes prior work on the research question and why it is important to answer it<br />
<br />
Previous research has shown that non-native learners of Chinese do not discern the presence of [[cue validity|helpful cues]] in the orthography unless such relationships are taught explicitly (Taft & Chung, 1999). But because semantic cues in Chinese are not always reliable predictors of word meaning (Hanley, 2005; Shu, Chen, Anderson, Wu, & Xuan, 2003), it may actually be more confusing for a beginning learner to be taught these relationships. The aim of this study was to determine how [[reliability]] of cues can affect learning. As in every language, Chinese has rules and exceptions to those rules. The written form of Chinese contains a high percentage of compound characters, which are single, one-syllable words made up of semantic and phonetic radicals. These radicals, or linguistic subcomponents, often provide cues to the character’s meaning and pronunciation. However, a reader cannot rely solely on using this strategy to decode new words in Chinese. Therefore, we wanted to ascertain whether it is helpful to teach the sometimes ambiguous relationship between linguistic subcomponents and whole word definitions.<br />
<br />
== Dependent variables ==<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Normal post-test]] measures:<br />
<br />
- accuracy and response time on lexical decision, naming, and semantic category judgment tasks with previously learned items (Experiment 1)<br />
<br />
- accuracy of definition recognition, accuracy of translating previously learned Chinese characters into English (Experiment 2)<br />
<br />
[[Transfer]] measure:<br />
- accuracy on a multiple-choice translation task with new characters (Experiments 1 and 2)<br />
<br />
== Independent variables ==<br />
The '''independent variables''', which are typically include instructional environment, activity or method, and perhaps some student characteristics, such as gender or first language<br />
<br />
Training condition was either explicit (information was provided about the semantic radical’s meaning in relation to meaning of the character) or implicit (no additional information was provided). Being explicit about the radical is an instance of [[feature focusing]] [[instructional method]]. Each semantic radical was either reliable (its meaning was associated with the meaning of the characters) or unreliable (its meaning was unrelated to the meaning of the character in which it appeared).<br />
<br />
== Hypothesis ==<br />
<br />
<br />
We predict an interaction between [[reliability]] and [[explicit instruction|explicitness]], such that learners will perform better on items studied in the explicit condition compared to the implicit condition, and this effect will be greater for characters with reliable semantic radicals than characters with unreliable semantic radicals.<br />
<br />
== Findings ==<br />
In Experiment 1, we found a main effect of reliability, such that participants had higher accuracy on the lexical decision and semantic judgment tasks for items with reliable semantic cues relative to items with unreliable semantic cues. However, we found no effect of training on post-test transfer items.<br />
<br />
In Experiment 2, we found a main effect of reliability, such that participants learned the meanings of words with reliable semantic cues better than words with unreliable semantic cues. We also found a main effect of instruction, such that explicit instruction led to more accurate recognition of definitions than implicit instruction. Again, there was no evidence of transfer to new items.<br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In Experiment 1, initial learning was better for items with reliable rather than unreliable semantic cues. However, once students were explicitly shown a special characteristic of L2, they could apply it to learning new examples. Our within-subjects design allowed application of the explicit strategy to implicit items. In Experiment 2, we used a block design to separate effects of learning before and after explicit instruction. Again, learners did best with reliable items and explicit instruction.<br />
<br />
We theorize that learners benefit from explicit instruction of the connection between semantic subcomponents of words and the meanings of individual words, even when semantic cues are unreliable. However, it is still not clear whether early learners apply this knowledge when learning new vocabulary.<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
The '''descendents''', which lists links to descendent nodes of this one, if there are any<br />
<br />
None yet.<br />
<br />
== Further information ==<br />
A '''further information''' section that points to documents using hyper links and/or references in APA format. Each indicates briefly the document's relationship to the node (e.g., whether the document is a paper reporting the node in full detail, a proposal describing the motivation and design of the study in more detail, the node for a similar PSLC research study, etc.)<br />
<br />
None yet.</div>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Learning_the_role_of_radicals_in_reading_Chinese&diff=7551Learning the role of radicals in reading Chinese2008-03-26T20:19:32Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: /* Dependent variables */</p>
<hr />
<div>----<br />
Summary Table<br />
*Node Title: Semantic Radicals Study<br />
*Researchers: Susan Dunlap, Ying Liu, Charles Perfetti, Sue-mei Wu<br />
*PIs: Charles Perfetti, Ying Liu, Min Wang<br />
*Others who have contributed 160 hours or more:<br />
*Graduate Students: Susan Dunlap<br />
*Study Start Date Sep 1, 2005<br />
*Study End Date Dec 31, 2006<br />
*LearnLab Site and Courses , CMU Chinese Online<br />
*Number of Students: 20<br />
*Total Participant Hours for the study: 60<br />
*Data in the Data Shop: in progress<br />
----<br />
<br />
== Abstract ==<br />
<br />
Does providing reliable semantic information help second language learners acquire new words? Two experiments investigated whether adult learners of Chinese benefited from explicit instruction of semantic information when learning new characters. We manipulated whether semantic information was a reliable cue to word meaning and whether predictability was taught [[explicit instruction|explicitly]]. We measured learning outcomes with translation and semantic judgment tasks.<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
Semantic radical; [[Explicit instruction]]; [[Implicit instruction]]; [[Cue validity]]<br />
<br />
== Research Question ==<br />
<br />
Does providing reliable semantic information help second language learners acquire new words?<br />
<br />
== Background ==<br />
A '''background''' and significance section that briefly summarizes prior work on the research question and why it is important to answer it<br />
<br />
Previous research has shown that non-native learners of Chinese do not discern the presence of [[cue validity|helpful cues]] in the orthography unless such relationships are taught explicitly (Taft & Chung, 1999). But because semantic cues in Chinese are not always reliable predictors of word meaning (Hanley, 2005; Shu, Chen, Anderson, Wu, & Xuan, 2003), it may actually be more confusing for a beginning learner to be taught these relationships. The aim of this study was to determine how [[reliability]] of cues can affect learning. As in every language, Chinese has rules and exceptions to those rules. The written form of Chinese contains a high percentage of compound characters, which are single, one-syllable words made up of semantic and phonetic radicals. These radicals, or linguistic subcomponents, often provide cues to the character’s meaning and pronunciation. However, a reader cannot rely solely on using this strategy to decode new words in Chinese. Therefore, we wanted to ascertain whether it is helpful to teach the sometimes ambiguous relationship between linguistic subcomponents and whole word definitions.<br />
<br />
== Dependent variables ==<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Normal post-test]] measures:<br />
- accuracy and response time on a semantic category judgment task with previously learned items (Experiment 1)<br />
<br />
- accuracy of translating previously learned Chinese characters into English (Experiment 2)<br />
<br />
[[Transfer]] measure:<br />
- accuracy on a multiple-choice translation task with new Characters (Experiments 1 and 2)<br />
<br />
== Independent variables ==<br />
The '''independent variables''', which are typically include instructional environment, activity or method, and perhaps some student characteristics, such as gender or first language<br />
<br />
Training condition was either explicit (information was provided about the semantic radical’s meaning in relation to meaning of the character) or implicit (no additional information was provided). Being explicit about the radical is an instance of [[feature focusing]] [[instructional method]]. Each semantic radical was either reliable (its meaning was associated with the meaning of the characters) or unreliable (its meaning was unrelated to the meaning of the character in which it appeared).<br />
<br />
== Hypothesis ==<br />
<br />
<br />
We predict an interaction between [[reliability]] and [[explicit instruction|explicitness]], such that learners will perform better on items studied in the explicit condition compared to the implicit condition, and this effect will be greater for characters with reliable semantic radicals than characters with unreliable semantic radicals.<br />
<br />
== Findings ==<br />
In Experiment 1, we found a main effect of reliability, such that participants had higher accuracy on the lexical decision and semantic judgment tasks for items with reliable semantic cues relative to items with unreliable semantic cues. However, we found no effect of training on post-test transfer items.<br />
<br />
In Experiment 2, we found a main effect of reliability, such that participants learned the meanings of words with reliable semantic cues better than words with unreliable semantic cues. We also found a main effect of instruction, such that explicit instruction led to more accurate recognition of definitions than implicit instruction. Again, there was no evidence of transfer to new items.<br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In Experiment 1, initial learning was better for items with reliable rather than unreliable semantic cues. However, once students were explicitly shown a special characteristic of L2, they could apply it to learning new examples. Our within-subjects design allowed application of the explicit strategy to implicit items. In Experiment 2, we used a block design to separate effects of learning before and after explicit instruction. Again, learners did best with reliable items and explicit instruction.<br />
<br />
We theorize that learners benefit from explicit instruction of the connection between semantic subcomponents of words and the meanings of individual words, even when semantic cues are unreliable. However, it is still not clear whether early learners apply this knowledge when learning new vocabulary.<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
The '''descendents''', which lists links to descendent nodes of this one, if there are any<br />
<br />
None yet.<br />
<br />
== Further information ==<br />
A '''further information''' section that points to documents using hyper links and/or references in APA format. Each indicates briefly the document's relationship to the node (e.g., whether the document is a paper reporting the node in full detail, a proposal describing the motivation and design of the study in more detail, the node for a similar PSLC research study, etc.)<br />
<br />
None yet.</div>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Learning_the_role_of_radicals_in_reading_Chinese&diff=7550Learning the role of radicals in reading Chinese2008-03-26T20:17:23Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: /* Independent variables */</p>
<hr />
<div>----<br />
Summary Table<br />
*Node Title: Semantic Radicals Study<br />
*Researchers: Susan Dunlap, Ying Liu, Charles Perfetti, Sue-mei Wu<br />
*PIs: Charles Perfetti, Ying Liu, Min Wang<br />
*Others who have contributed 160 hours or more:<br />
*Graduate Students: Susan Dunlap<br />
*Study Start Date Sep 1, 2005<br />
*Study End Date Dec 31, 2006<br />
*LearnLab Site and Courses , CMU Chinese Online<br />
*Number of Students: 20<br />
*Total Participant Hours for the study: 60<br />
*Data in the Data Shop: in progress<br />
----<br />
<br />
== Abstract ==<br />
<br />
Does providing reliable semantic information help second language learners acquire new words? Two experiments investigated whether adult learners of Chinese benefited from explicit instruction of semantic information when learning new characters. We manipulated whether semantic information was a reliable cue to word meaning and whether predictability was taught [[explicit instruction|explicitly]]. We measured learning outcomes with translation and semantic judgment tasks.<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
Semantic radical; [[Explicit instruction]]; [[Implicit instruction]]; [[Cue validity]]<br />
<br />
== Research Question ==<br />
<br />
Does providing reliable semantic information help second language learners acquire new words?<br />
<br />
== Background ==<br />
A '''background''' and significance section that briefly summarizes prior work on the research question and why it is important to answer it<br />
<br />
Previous research has shown that non-native learners of Chinese do not discern the presence of [[cue validity|helpful cues]] in the orthography unless such relationships are taught explicitly (Taft & Chung, 1999). But because semantic cues in Chinese are not always reliable predictors of word meaning (Hanley, 2005; Shu, Chen, Anderson, Wu, & Xuan, 2003), it may actually be more confusing for a beginning learner to be taught these relationships. The aim of this study was to determine how [[reliability]] of cues can affect learning. As in every language, Chinese has rules and exceptions to those rules. The written form of Chinese contains a high percentage of compound characters, which are single, one-syllable words made up of semantic and phonetic radicals. These radicals, or linguistic subcomponents, often provide cues to the character’s meaning and pronunciation. However, a reader cannot rely solely on using this strategy to decode new words in Chinese. Therefore, we wanted to ascertain whether it is helpful to teach the sometimes ambiguous relationship between linguistic subcomponents and whole word definitions.<br />
<br />
== Dependent variables ==<br />
The '''dependent variables''', which are observable and typically measure competence, motivation, interaction, meta-learning, or some other pedagogically desirable outcome<br />
<br />
[[Normal post-test]] measures:<br />
- accuracy and response time on a semantic category judgment task with previously learned items (Experiment 1)<br />
<br />
- accuracy of translating previously learned Chinese characters into English (Experiment 2)<br />
<br />
[[Transfer]] measure:<br />
- accuracy on a multiple-choice translation task with new Characters (Experiments 1 and 2)<br />
<br />
== Independent variables ==<br />
The '''independent variables''', which are typically include instructional environment, activity or method, and perhaps some student characteristics, such as gender or first language<br />
<br />
Training condition was either explicit (information was provided about the semantic radical’s meaning in relation to meaning of the character) or implicit (no additional information was provided). Being explicit about the radical is an instance of [[feature focusing]] [[instructional method]]. Each semantic radical was either reliable (its meaning was associated with the meaning of the characters) or unreliable (its meaning was unrelated to the meaning of the character in which it appeared).<br />
<br />
== Hypothesis ==<br />
<br />
<br />
We predict an interaction between [[reliability]] and [[explicit instruction|explicitness]], such that learners will perform better on items studied in the explicit condition compared to the implicit condition, and this effect will be greater for characters with reliable semantic radicals than characters with unreliable semantic radicals.<br />
<br />
== Findings ==<br />
In Experiment 1, we found a main effect of reliability, such that participants had higher accuracy on the lexical decision and semantic judgment tasks for items with reliable semantic cues relative to items with unreliable semantic cues. However, we found no effect of training on post-test transfer items.<br />
<br />
In Experiment 2, we found a main effect of reliability, such that participants learned the meanings of words with reliable semantic cues better than words with unreliable semantic cues. We also found a main effect of instruction, such that explicit instruction led to more accurate recognition of definitions than implicit instruction. Again, there was no evidence of transfer to new items.<br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In Experiment 1, initial learning was better for items with reliable rather than unreliable semantic cues. However, once students were explicitly shown a special characteristic of L2, they could apply it to learning new examples. Our within-subjects design allowed application of the explicit strategy to implicit items. In Experiment 2, we used a block design to separate effects of learning before and after explicit instruction. Again, learners did best with reliable items and explicit instruction.<br />
<br />
We theorize that learners benefit from explicit instruction of the connection between semantic subcomponents of words and the meanings of individual words, even when semantic cues are unreliable. However, it is still not clear whether early learners apply this knowledge when learning new vocabulary.<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
The '''descendents''', which lists links to descendent nodes of this one, if there are any<br />
<br />
None yet.<br />
<br />
== Further information ==<br />
A '''further information''' section that points to documents using hyper links and/or references in APA format. Each indicates briefly the document's relationship to the node (e.g., whether the document is a paper reporting the node in full detail, a proposal describing the motivation and design of the study in more detail, the node for a similar PSLC research study, etc.)<br />
<br />
None yet.</div>Susan-Dunlaphttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Learning_the_role_of_radicals_in_reading_Chinese&diff=7549Learning the role of radicals in reading Chinese2008-03-26T20:15:54Z<p>Susan-Dunlap: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>----<br />
Summary Table<br />
*Node Title: Semantic Radicals Study<br />
*Researchers: Susan Dunlap, Ying Liu, Charles Perfetti, Sue-mei Wu<br />
*PIs: Charles Perfetti, Ying Liu, Min Wang<br />
*Others who have contributed 160 hours or more:<br />
*Graduate Students: Susan Dunlap<br />
*Study Start Date Sep 1, 2005<br />
*Study End Date Dec 31, 2006<br />
*LearnLab Site and Courses , CMU Chinese Online<br />
*Number of Students: 20<br />
*Total Participant Hours for the study: 60<br />
*Data in the Data Shop: in progress<br />
----<br />
<br />
== Abstract ==<br />
<br />
Does providing reliable semantic information help second language learners acquire new words? Two experiments investigated whether adult learners of Chinese benefited from explicit instruction of semantic information when learning new characters. We manipulated whether semantic information was a reliable cue to word meaning and whether predictability was taught [[explicit instruction|explicitly]]. We measured learning outcomes with translation and semantic judgment tasks.<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
Semantic radical; [[Explicit instruction]]; [[Implicit instruction]]; [[Cue validity]]<br />
<br />
== Research Question ==<br />
<br />
Does providing reliable semantic information help second language learners acquire new words?<br />
<br />
== Background ==<br />
A '''background''' and significance section that briefly summarizes prior work on the research question and why it is important to answer it<br />
<br />
Previous research has shown that non-native learners of Chinese do not discern the presence of [[cue validity|helpful cues]] in the orthography unless such relationships are taught explicitly (Taft & Chung, 1999). But because semantic cues in Chinese are not always reliable predictors of word meaning (Hanley, 2005; Shu, Chen, Anderson, Wu, & Xuan, 2003), it may actually be more confusing for a beginning learner to be taught these relationships. The aim of this study was to determine how [[reliability]] of cues can affect learning. As in every language, Chinese has rules and exceptions to those rules. The written form of Chinese contains a high percentage of compound characters, which are single, one-syllable words made up of semantic and phonetic radicals. These radicals, or linguistic subcomponents, often provide cues to the character’s meaning and pronunciation. However, a reader cannot rely solely on using this strategy to decode new words in Chinese. Therefore, we wanted to ascertain whether it is helpful to teach the sometimes ambiguous relationship between linguistic subcomponents and whole word definitions.<br />
<br />
== Dependent variables ==<br />
The '''dependent variables''', which are observable and typically measure competence, motivation, interaction, meta-learning, or some other pedagogically desirable outcome<br />
<br />
[[Normal post-test]] measures:<br />
- accuracy and response time on a semantic category judgment task with previously learned items (Experiment 1)<br />
<br />
- accuracy of translating previously learned Chinese characters into English (Experiment 2)<br />
<br />
[[Transfer]] measure:<br />
- accuracy on a multiple-choice translation task with new Characters (Experiments 1 and 2)<br />
<br />
== Independent variables ==<br />
The '''independent variables''', which are typically include instructional environment, activity or method, and perhaps some student characteristics, such as gender or first language<br />
<br />
Training condition was either explicit (information was provided about the semantic radical’s meaning in relation to meaning of the character) or implicit (no additional information was provided). Being explicit about the radical is an instance of [[feature focusing]] [[instructional method]]. Each semantic radical was either reliable (its meaning was associated with the meaning of the characters) or unreliable (its meaning was unrelated to the meaning of the character in which it appeared).<br />
<br />
== Hypothesis<br />
The '''hypothesis''', which is a concise statement of the relationship among the variables that answers the research question<br />
<br />
We predict an interaction between [[reliability]] and [[explicit instruction|explicitness]], such that learners will perform better on items studied in the explicit condition compared to the implicit condition, and this effect will be greater for characters with reliable semantic radicals than characters with unreliable semantic radicals.<br />
<br />
== Findings ==<br />
In Experiment 1, we found a main effect of reliability, such that participants had higher accuracy on the lexical decision and semantic judgment tasks for items with reliable semantic cues relative to items with unreliable semantic cues. However, we found no effect of training on post-test transfer items.<br />
<br />
In Experiment 2, we found a main effect of reliability, such that participants learned the meanings of words with reliable semantic cues better than words with unreliable semantic cues. We also found a main effect of instruction, such that explicit instruction led to more accurate recognition of definitions than implicit instruction. Again, there was no evidence of transfer to new items.<br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In Experiment 1, initial learning was better for items with reliable rather than unreliable semantic cues. However, once students were explicitly shown a special characteristic of L2, they could apply it to learning new examples. Our within-subjects design allowed application of the explicit strategy to implicit items. In Experiment 2, we used a block design to separate effects of learning before and after explicit instruction. Again, learners did best with reliable items and explicit instruction.<br />
<br />
We theorize that learners benefit from explicit instruction of the connection between semantic subcomponents of words and the meanings of individual words, even when semantic cues are unreliable. However, it is still not clear whether early learners apply this knowledge when learning new vocabulary.<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
The '''descendents''', which lists links to descendent nodes of this one, if there are any<br />
<br />
None yet.<br />
<br />
== Further information ==<br />
A '''further information''' section that points to documents using hyper links and/or references in APA format. Each indicates briefly the document's relationship to the node (e.g., whether the document is a paper reporting the node in full detail, a proposal describing the motivation and design of the study in more detail, the node for a similar PSLC research study, etc.)<br />
<br />
None yet.</div>Susan-Dunlap