FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W310026410> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W310026410 abstract "Three projects in basic research in reading were conducted. Project I consisted of three experiments which Investigated various training approaches to rule learning behavior using CAI term!nals in a simulated reading task. Ss given practice on a rule performed better on tr:.nsfer tasks of rule application than did example or example/rule combination groups when the rule was very simple, e.g. m says mmm. When the rule was moderately complex (e.g. a rule .... paralleling the ci, ce rule in reading) there was no difference in the groups studied. When the rule was more complex, e.g. a rule closely paralleling the final e rule, the group the higher order units that were exact examples of the rule did better on transfer than all other groups, i.e. a rule group, and an example group given the higher order unit in larger clusters of symbols. Project II utilized computer programs to analyze the most frequently occurring 18,000 words by outputting all bigrams, trigrams, tetragrams, pentagrams, hexagrams, and heptegrams, by gram, in an alphabetic'list with all the words each gram appears in printed and lined up with that gram. The consistency in terms of pronunciation and location of the gram in the of the most frequently occurring grams larger than bigrams was determined via frequency counts by human inspection. Project III analyzed the first eight levels of reading text of the Ginn 360 and Lippincott reading series and produced output like that of the computer in Project II. Preliminary comparisons of grams in Project II and III were made. PROBLEM AND OBJECTIVES The significance of the skill of reading in our culture is obvious. Unfortunately, the best means of teaching that skill is mysterious. Gagne's (1965, 1970) application of Miller's (1966) concept of task analysis to the educational realm offers promising potential for student mastery of reading. By asking a simple basic question, What would the individual have to know in order to be capable of doing this task when given only some instructions? one is able to break down tasks into a hierarchy of learning structures which then can be to the ready student. Readiness here simply means the individual has mastered the subordinate elements in the learning str ture essential for the task at hand. By way of illustration, suppose the task to be mastered was telling time to the nearest minute given a standard clock. Some of the subordinate skills that would aid in this task are by ones up to 12, by fives up to 55, discriminating long (big) from short (little) hands on the clock, and others that may be essential. When these have been mastered, then by using appropriate instructions, a student should be able to be taught to tell time. Much research (e.g., Caldwell and Hall, 1969, 1970; Gagne and Paradise, 1961; Hendrickson and Muehl, 1962; Jeffrey, 1958, 1966; and Jeffrey and Samuels, 1967) indicates that when tasks are more adequately analyzed humans, particularly yogng children, are able to perform at higher levels than much normative data would suggest. Probably one of the most basic skills (tasks) for reading is learning to discriminate the letters of the alphabet. Previous research has demunstrated that when this task is analyzed appropriately, four and five year old Ss perform such discrimination very well (Caldwell and Hall, 1969, 1970). The present research is concerned with a more complex task, exploring the most efficient subordinate skills necessary for learning to decode graphemes, i.e., to make verbal responses to strings of graphic symbols. Since in the reading task the reader is expected to decode many words he has never encountered graphically before and more words that he has encountered only a very few :..imes, successful reading requires a high degree of generalization or rule using behavior. The crucial question, then, is What subordinate skills are most efficient in training a reader to function as though he were using a very sophisticated set of graphemephoneme correspondence rules? The obvious and perhaps naive answer is Teach him the This approach has traditionally been called the approach. Chall (1967) refers to it as the approach and after an extensive review of the pertinent literature concluded that the code emphasis approach is better than the meaning emphasis approach. The latter has often been referred to as the word approach. In their concern for the code approach several investigators have reported on the consistencies, and lack thereof, between graphemes and phonemes in the English language, e.g., Burmeister, 1966; Clymer, 1963; Fry, 1964; Venezky, 1967, 1970; Venezky and Weir, 1966; Weir, 1964; Weir and Venezky, 1965. Burmeister (1966) phonic and structural generali2ation to 8th and 9th graders utilizing either an inductive or a deductive approach. While there was no difference in reading improvement between these two approaches to rule learning, both groups the rules performed better than a control group given no training in rules. In a carefully controlled laboratory study with college Ss, Bishop (1964) found that in a transfer situation letter training was far superior to whole training. The letter training procedure was in effect the teaching of the rules Letter x is pronounced y, where the xs were arabic letters and the ys their pronunciation. Thus considering Chall's review and the studies cited above, one is led to believe that rule learning is an efficient means of learning to decode. There is, however, evidence that humans or discover rules that aid in decoding. (When we use the phrase induce or discover rules, we mean that they function as if they knew the rule if they cannot verbalize it.) Perhaps the Ss in Burmesiter's study improved because of the many examples they encountered rather than the direct study of the rules. Also, in the Bishop study cited above, many Ss in the whole group performed very well on a transfer task because they had discovered the grapheme-phoneme correspondences. They concluded that, even though a child is presented with 'whole words' and encouraged to associate printed words as a whole with the spoken word, he still begins to perceive some regularities of correspondence between printed and spoken terms and transfers these to the reading of unfamiliar terms. Gibson (1970) argues that young children not only search for regularities and structure but also that discovery of structure is reinforcing. Further support for the notion that young Ss very complex rules comes from the studies of language development. The work of Berko (1958) demonstrated that children 4-7 years of age were very competent in using morphological rules concerned with inflections of verbs for past tense and of nouns for plurals, and possessives. Studies on syntactic development by Braine (1963) have further demonstrated the ability of children to complex rules. Similar results with adult Ss have been obtained by Foss (1968) and Palermo and Eberhart (1968). Perhaps one of the reasons the debate over the phonic vs. whole approach has been so heated is that both approaches do lead to an ability to function as though rules were being used. Thus it is possible that both the phonics approach and the whole approach are correct and that reading may be and learned most efficiently by identifying those aspects of reading which are learned better by explicit learning of rules and those aspects which may be better learned by inducing the rule by exposure to many instances of its application. A strong possibility is that such an interaction between learning approach and difficulty of the_ rule to be used exists. Thus, the utilization of very simple rules in decoding may be most efficiently produced by fairly direct learning of the rule. Thus if a student is to learn that m says mm it may be best 2 as a rule rather than via a large number of words with m in them and no direct rule learning. However, as rules become more complex a point may be reached beyond which, for rapid decoding tasks, direct rule learning is not efficient. At this point, giving many examples of words or portions of words (higher order units) may result in better rule unilization than direct rule learning. Gibson argued that the appropriate units to teach in reading are neither single letters nor whole words but higher order units. Originally she argued that these were higher order pronounceable units (Gibson, Pick, Osser, and Hammond, 1962). More recently she has suggested that the key is not pronounceability but the rules of ortho graphy. (Gibson, 1970). PROCEDURE The research consisted of three projects. Project I was composed of three experiments employing a simulated reading task designed to investigate the relationship between rule complexity, mode of presentation (deductive or inductive) and learning. Project II was designed to determine those units of learning (letter combinations) to which the results of Project I may be applied. This was done by counting the frequency of occurence of all letter combinations up to seven as they appear in the most frequently occuring words in written English. Project III was designed to determine the letter combinations that occur in two widely used reading series. In effect, it was the application of Project II procedures to two reading texts, utilizing a frequency count of the words in the texts as the input corpus. In essence Project I was concerned with how to teach and Project II with what to teach. Project III was an attempt to determine to what degree the two reading series are representative of written English." @default.
• W310026410 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W310026410 creator A5077068297 @default.
• W310026410 date "1972-08-01" @default.
• W310026410 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W310026410 title "An Investigation of the Higher Order Grapheme-Phoneme Correspondences That Occur in English and the Means of Teaching Them Efficiently. Final Report." @default.
• W310026410 cites W1687397888 @default.
• W310026410 cites W1972784059 @default.
• W310026410 cites W1991896853 @default.
• W310026410 cites W2008047132 @default.
• W310026410 cites W2009035527 @default.
• W310026410 cites W2012287293 @default.
• W310026410 cites W2043098481 @default.
• W310026410 cites W2043403528 @default.
• W310026410 cites W2056760731 @default.
• W310026410 cites W2058852942 @default.
• W310026410 cites W2072681927 @default.
• W310026410 cites W2186780112 @default.
• W310026410 cites W303951206 @default.
• W310026410 hasPublicationYear "1972" @default.
• W310026410 type Work @default.
• W310026410 sameAs 310026410 @default.
• W310026410 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W310026410 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W310026410 hasAuthorship W310026410A5077068297 @default.
• W310026410 hasConcept C10138342 @default.
• W310026410 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W310026410 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W310026410 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W310026410 hasConcept C145420912 @default.
• W310026410 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W310026410 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W310026410 hasConcept C182306322 @default.
• W310026410 hasConcept C204321447 @default.
• W310026410 hasConcept C2776779415 @default.
• W310026410 hasConcept C30080830 @default.
• W310026410 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W310026410 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W310026410 hasConcept C42360764 @default.
• W310026410 hasConceptScore W310026410C10138342 @default.
• W310026410 hasConceptScore W310026410C127413603 @default.
• W310026410 hasConceptScore W310026410C138885662 @default.
• W310026410 hasConceptScore W310026410C144133560 @default.
• W310026410 hasConceptScore W310026410C145420912 @default.
• W310026410 hasConceptScore W310026410C154945302 @default.
• W310026410 hasConceptScore W310026410C15744967 @default.
• W310026410 hasConceptScore W310026410C182306322 @default.
• W310026410 hasConceptScore W310026410C204321447 @default.
• W310026410 hasConceptScore W310026410C2776779415 @default.
• W310026410 hasConceptScore W310026410C30080830 @default.
• W310026410 hasConceptScore W310026410C41008148 @default.
• W310026410 hasConceptScore W310026410C41895202 @default.
• W310026410 hasConceptScore W310026410C42360764 @default.
• W310026410 hasLocation W3100264101 @default.
• W310026410 hasOpenAccess W310026410 @default.
• W310026410 hasPrimaryLocation W3100264101 @default.
• W310026410 hasRelatedWork W1526384581 @default.
• W310026410 hasRelatedWork W1552035019 @default.
• W310026410 hasRelatedWork W2012120532 @default.
• W310026410 hasRelatedWork W2033992026 @default.
• W310026410 hasRelatedWork W2035580338 @default.
• W310026410 hasRelatedWork W2095214367 @default.
• W310026410 hasRelatedWork W2170947378 @default.
• W310026410 hasRelatedWork W2197642837 @default.
• W310026410 hasRelatedWork W2294870026 @default.
• W310026410 hasRelatedWork W2342846674 @default.
• W310026410 hasRelatedWork W2349584357 @default.
• W310026410 hasRelatedWork W2398867685 @default.
• W310026410 hasRelatedWork W2418613653 @default.
• W310026410 hasRelatedWork W2545596629 @default.
• W310026410 hasRelatedWork W2592584157 @default.
• W310026410 hasRelatedWork W2945399664 @default.
• W310026410 hasRelatedWork W32440225 @default.
• W310026410 hasRelatedWork W80602575 @default.
• W310026410 hasRelatedWork W2107988889 @default.
• W310026410 hasRelatedWork W2843141039 @default.
• W310026410 isParatext "false" @default.
• W310026410 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W310026410 magId "310026410" @default.
• W310026410 workType "article" @default.