jack mostow, jessica nelson, martin kantorzyk, donna gates, and joe valeri project listen

22
Carneg ie Mellon Carneg ie Mellon How does the amount of context in which words are practiced affect fluency growth? Experimental results Jack Mostow, Jessica Nelson, Martin Kantorzyk, Donna Gates, and Joe Valeri Project LISTEN www.cs.cmu.edu/~listen Carnegie Mellon University 1 This work was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305A080628 to Carnegie Mellon University. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Institute or U.S. Department of

Upload: holt

Post on 18-Feb-2016

36 views

Category:

Documents


5 download

DESCRIPTION

How does the amount of context in which words are practiced affect fluency growth? Experimental results. Jack Mostow, Jessica Nelson, Martin Kantorzyk, Donna Gates, and Joe Valeri Project LISTEN www.cs.cmu.edu/~listen Carnegie Mellon University. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

PowerPoint Presentation

How does the amount of context in which words are practiced affect fluency growth? Experimental resultsJack Mostow, Jessica Nelson, Martin Kantorzyk, Donna Gates, and Joe Valeri Project LISTENwww.cs.cmu.edu/~listenCarnegie Mellon University

1This work was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305A080628 to Carnegie Mellon University. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Institute or U.S. Department of Education.

Carnegie MellonCarnegie Mellon1Connected text builds fluency better than reading isolated words. Why? which reading processes transfer to new text? 2ContextProcesses enabledIsolationDecoding, word recognition BigramParafoveal lookahead at 2nd wordPhrase Syntactic parsing Sentence Intra-sentential comprehensionCarnegie MellonMorph into similar table for 5 words preview and outcome sentence2Within-subject, within-story experiment designBefore story, preview 5 hardest new wordsPreview = 1. Tutor shows; 2. Child reads; 3. Tutor reads.Hardest = longest (# letters)New = word root not seen before in Reading TutorIndependent variable: amount of contextNo-exposure control; isolation; bigram; phrase; sentenceRandomize assignment of word to treatment and orderOutcome: first encounter of word in storyHelp = whether child clicks on word to hear it or a hintLatency = pause before wordProduction = time to say word3Carnegie Mellon(Simulated) example (starring you!)

4Carnegie MellonInstructions5

Carnegie Mellon

Preview in isolation6

AnswersCarnegie Mellon

Preview in sentence

7whiteCarnegie Mellon

Preview in phrase8

bellCarnegie Mellon

Preview in bigram9

pulledCarnegie Mellon

Read story (yes, you!)10

Carnegie MellonOutcome = encounter word in story11

Carnegie Mellon12

Outcome = encounter word in storyCarnegie Mellon13

Outcome = encounter word in storyCarnegie Mellon14

Outcome = encounter word in storyCarnegie MellonSummary of 5 trials in exampleTreatmentPreview word before storyRead word in story contextControl[no preview]Will NOBODY answer this bell?IsolationAnswersWill NOBODY answer this bell?BigramHe pulledI have pulled day and night.Phrase As soon as the bell ringsWill NOBODY answer this bell?Sentence Get your free white paper today.Till my hair has grown white,15Carnegie MellonAnalysis of 3958 completed trials(112 2nd and 3rd graders, 332 distinct target words)Outcome measures% accepted by ASR as read correctly% child clicked for help% latency > 10 ms | accepted without helpLog latency per letter if > 10 msLog production time per letterPredictors in linear mixed effects regressionsTreatment (fixed)Word (random)Child (random)Time (7 to 1274 seconds) since preview (fixed)16Carnegie Mellon16Results from 3958 completed trials(112 2nd and 3rd graders, 332 distinct target words)Outcome measures% accepted by ASR as read correctly% child clicked for help% latency > 10 ms | accepted without helpLog latency per letter if > 10 msLog production time per letterPredictors in linear mixed effects regressionsTreatment (fixed)Word (random)Child (random)Time (7 to 1274 seconds) since preview (fixed)17: n.s. (98-99%): bigram, phrase?, sentence: n.s.: n.s.: lower for phraseCarnegie Mellon17% child clicked for help18Preview in phrase or sentence reduced help requests at first encounter in story Carnegie Mellon% latency > 10 ms when no help19Preview in bigram, phrase, or sentence reduced likelihood of hesitations Carnegie MellonLatency per letter when > 10 ms20 but preview was n.s. for hesitation durationCarnegie MellonConclusionsfor 1st encounter of hard word in story:Preview in phrase or sentence reduced help requests.Preview in bigram, phrase, or sentence reduced hesitations but not their duration.Rosow Hypothesis: if retrieval fails, just decode.21Carnegie MellonWhat future work?-- resolve vs. isolated-- effects of story identity/difficulty-- suggestions?21Questions?

22Carnegie Mellon