Effects of induced orthographic and semantic knowledge on subsequent learning: a test of the partial knowledge hypothesis

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Suzanne Adlof ; Gwen Frishkoff ; Jennifer Dandy ; Charles Perfetti
• 关键词：Vocabulary ; Word learning ; Partial word knowledge ; Lexical quality ; Spelling
• 刊名：Reading and Writing
• 出版年：2016
• 出版时间：March 2016
• 年：2016
• 卷：29
• 期：3
• 页码：475-500
• 全文大小：1,087 KB
• 参考文献：Beck, I., McKeown, M., & Kucan, L. (2013). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
  Chaffin, R. (1997). Associations to unfamiliar words: Learning the meanings of new words. Memory & Cognition, 25(2), 203–226.CrossRef
  Chaffin, R., Morris, R. K., & Seely, R. E. (2001). Learning new word meanings from context: A study of eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(1), 225.CrossRef
  Durso, F. T., & Shore, W. J. (1991). Partial knowledge of word meanings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120(2), 190.CrossRef
  Frishkoff, G. A., Collins-Thompson, K., Perfetti, C. A., & Callan, J. (2008). Measuring incremental changes in word knowledge: Experimental validation and implications for learning and assessment. Behavioral Research Methods, 40(4), 907–925.CrossRef
  Frishkoff, G. A., Perfetti, C. A., & Collins-Thompson, K. (2010). Lexical quality in the brain: ERP evidence for robust word learning from context. Developmental Neuropsychology, 35(4), 376–403.CrossRef
  Frishkoff, G. A., Perfetti, C. A., & Collins-Thompson, K. (2011). Predicting robust vocabulary growth from measures of incremental learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15(1), 71–91.CrossRef
  Frishkoff, G. A., Perfetti, C. A., & Westbury, C. (2009). ERP measures of partial semantic knowledge: Left temporal indices of skill differences and lexical quality. Biological Psychology, 80(1), 130–147.CrossRef
  Jenkins, J. R., Stein, M. L., & Wysocki, K. (1984). Learning vocabulary through reading. American Educational Research Journal, 21(4), 767–787.CrossRef
  Kučera, H., & Francis, W. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
  Landi, N., Perfetti, C., Bolger, D., Dunlap, S., & Foorman, B. (2006). The role of discourse context in developing word form representations: A paradoxical relation between reading and learning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 94(2), 114–133.CrossRef
  Lockett, J. N., & Shore, W. J. (2003). A narwhal is an animal: Partial word knowledge biases adults’ decisions. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32(4), 477–496.CrossRef
  MacGinitie, W. H., MacGinitie, R. K., Maria, K., & Dreyer, L. G. (2002). Gates-MacGinitie reading tests (4th ed.). Itaska, IL: Riverside.
  Marcel, A. J. (1983). Conscious and unconscious perception: Experiments on visual masking and word recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 15(2), 197–237.CrossRef
  Nation, K., Angell, P., & Castles, A. (2007). Orthographic learning via self-teaching in children learning to read English: Effects of exposure, durability, and context. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 96(1), 71–84.CrossRef
  Pearson Assessment. (2009). Stanford achievement test (10th ed.). Abbreviated Battery. NY: Pearson.
  Perfetti, C. A., & Hart, L. (2001). The lexical basis of comprehension skill. In D. S. Gorfien (Ed.), On the consequences of meaning selection: Perspectives on resolving lexical ambiguity (pp. 67–86). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRef
  Perfetti, C. A., & Hart, L. (2002). The lexical quality hypothesis. In L. Verhoeven, C. Elbro, & P. Reitsma (Eds.), Precursors of functional literacy (Vol. 11, pp. 67–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef
  Perfetti, C. A., Wlotko, E. W., & Hart, L. A. (2005). Word learning and individual differences in word learning reflected in event-related potentials. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(6), 1281–1292.CrossRef
  Reichle, E. D., & Perfetti, C. A. (2003). Morphology in word identification: A word-experience model that accounts for morpheme frequency effects. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7(3), 219–237.CrossRef
  Reichle, E. D., Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (2003). The E-Z reader model of eye-movement control in reading: Comparisons to other models. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26(4), 445–476. (discussion 477–526).CrossRef
  Ricketts, J., Bishop, D. V., & Nation, K. (2009). Orthographic facilitation in oral vocabulary acquisition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(10), 1948–1966.CrossRef
  Rosenthal, J., & Ehri, L. C. (2008). The mnemonic value of orthography for vocabulary learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 175–191.CrossRef
  Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccoloto, A. (2007). E-prime 2.0. Pittsburgh: Psychological Software, Inc.
  Schwanenflugel, P. J., Stahl, S. A., & Mcfalls, E. L. (1997). Partial word knowledge and vocabulary growth during reading comprehension. Journal of Literacy Research, 29(4), 531–553.CrossRef
  Taylor, W. L. (1953). “Cloze” procedure: A new tool for measuring readability. Journalism Quarterly, 30, 415–433.
  Wiig, E. H., & Secord, W. (1990). Test of word knowledge. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.
  Wilkinson, G. S. (1993). Wide range achievement test (WRAT3). Washington, DE: Wide Range Inc.
  Williams, R., & Morris, R. (2004). Eye movements, word familiarity, and vocabulary acquisition. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16(1–2), 312–339.CrossRef
  Zeno, S., Ivens, S., Millard, R., & Duvvuri, R. (1995). The educator’s word frequency guide. Brewster, NY: Touchstone Applied Science Associates.
  
• 作者单位：Suzanne Adlof (1)
  Gwen Frishkoff (2)
  Jennifer Dandy (3)
  Charles Perfetti (3)
  
  1. University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA
  2. Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA
  3. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
  
• 刊物类别：Humanities, Social Sciences and Law
• 刊物主题：Linguistics
  Languages and Literature
  Psycholinguistics
  Education
  Neurology
  Interdisciplinary Studies
  
• 出版者：Springer Netherlands
• ISSN：1573-0905

文摘

Word learning can build the high-quality word representations that support skilled reading and language comprehension. According to the partial knowledge hypothesis, words that are partially known, also known as “frontier words” (Durso & Shore, 1991), may be good targets for instruction precisely because they are already familiar. However, studies investigating this question have produced mixed findings, and individual differences in baseline knowledge have complicated results both within and across studies. We present two studies that took a different approach, controlling both familiarity and the nature of the familiarizing episode. We controlled familiarity with novel words through pre-exposure (“pre-familiarization”) in isolation, to induce form-based familiarity, or in sentences that provided few clues to meaning, to induce partial semantic knowledge. The number of pre-exposures varied (0, 1, or 4). After the pre-familiarization phase, we presented the words in several highly informative sentences to support meaning acquisition. Participants included both adults and typically developing children, ages 9–12. Participants’ self-rated familiarity with target words, and their knowledge of the words’ meanings and orthography were each measured at baseline, immediately after learning, and 1 week later. Orthographic and semantic word learning showed contrasting effects of pre-familiarization. For orthographic learning, it was the number, rather than the type, of pre-familiarizations that mattered most. By contrast, the number of pre-familiarizations had little impact on word semantic learning; further, pre-familiarization in low-constraint sentences did not consistently boost subsequent learning. These findings suggest that familiarity with a word prior to instruction does not necessarily improve word-learning outcomes, and they highlight the importance of repeated exposures to high quality contexts for robust word learning.