Recent Bits of Language and Learning Goodness
June 8, 2009 at 2:26 pm | In Recent Research | Leave a CommentTags: bilingual babies, language news, preschool language, recent language research, Richard Nisbett
Bilingual Babies and Executive Function – A study recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that early exposure to multiple languages increases abilities in executive function. The researchers looked at infants in their home city of Trieste, an Italian city with a history of being at the crossroads of multiple cultures. Babies from bilingual homes did better at tasks of executive function in the study – basically meaning that they demonstrated precocious abilities to switch attention compared to control babies. You are more than welcome to go to this story from the Economist for more on the study.
Preschoolers Language Skills Partly Tied to Classmates’ Language Skills – A research team from Virginia and Ohio State longitudinally looked at over 1800 preschoolers to obtain their results, which are generally self explained from the headline. The researchers mentioned the Matthew Effect in stating the importance of focusing on early childhood language skills. They also described research demonstrating the correlation between receptive language and classroom attention (strong and very important). A short synopsis of the study is here. A more comprehensive report is here.
Richard Nisbett and Environmental IQ – Nisbett, a prominent cognitive psychologist, has been getting good reviews for his book – Intelligence and How to Get it; Why Schools and Culture Count. Nisbett counters hereditarian claims that roughly 75 to 80% of IQ is inherited with his own view that the number is probably less than 50%. In addition to multiple other points, Nisbett points out the mistake often made in drawing erroneous conclusions from twin studies, such as those that find that the IQs of separated adopted twins correlate higher than twins living with biological parents. We now better understand that the homes of adoptive parents themselves correlate extremely highly with rich, nurturing environments in which to raise children. This book review from the NY Times, gives a real good feel for Nisbett’s book.
Scientific Consensus on How the Brain Processes Speech – Scientists may be reaching a consensus on how the brain processes speech. Josef Rauschecker, from Georgetown University, claimed that his studies of primate and human brain imaging confirm his decade old theory that speech is processed roughly along pathways traveling from lower to higher functioning neural regions. These pathways parallel similar visual pathways, but run from regions around the auditory cortex to regions in brain’s outer cortex. This report from Science Daily, on Raushecker’s report in Nature Neuroscience, provides more info.
Not news or research, but here is an interesting recent Q and A in Newsweek on memory with a Harvard psychologist.
Should Children Watch TV?
June 5, 2009 at 1:22 pm | In Recent Research | Leave a CommentNow that I’m back, I’m planning on starting off with some brief bits concerning language and learning that I probably would have posted on over the past month or two, had I been here all along.
First this: New findings from researchers at the University of Washington strengthen a suspected link between early childhood TV exposure and delayed language development. The study looked at 329 children and found that an increase in TV time correlated negatively with both attempts to speak from the children, and words used by their caregivers. This one has been reported in various places, such as USA Today, this link at LiveScience and in this link from ABC News.
Interestingly, a study published in the March issue of Pediatrics seemed to 
arrive at an opposite conclusion, while criticizing the widespread nature of the American Academy of Pediatric’s (AAP) often repeated recommendation that children should not watch any TV before age two. Their conclusion was that duration of TV watching has no cognitive effects on children under two. This study, from researchers at the Center on Media and Child Health at Children’s Hospital Boston, surveyed 872 mothers on their childrens’ viewing habits. After controlling for maternal age, income, education, language vocabulary scores, marital status, child’s age, gender, birth weight for gestational age, breastfeeding duration, race or ethnicity, primary language, and average sleeping duration, the researchers found no correlation (negative or positive) between TV watching and scores on tests of cognition and language. More on this less reported study can be found here.
So, what to make of these seemingly contradictory studies? Actually, both studies do add support to the advice many pediatricians have already been giving parents. Because it may be unreasonable to expect that parents will completely turn off the TV for two years, the content and type of TV viewing is essential. It may be more practical to advise parents to watch educational shows, and more importantly, watch these shows together, and talk about what it is that they are seeing.
Well, that post went longer than expected, so my brief accounts of other recent language and learning interest will have to come next.
Brief Break
April 18, 2009 at 12:27 pm | In Uncategorized | Leave a CommentLife calls, so I need to take a break from new posts for a short time. I fully expect to be posting again in May, so please check back in a few weeks. Some future topics that I’m planning include posts on Nicaraguan sign language, feral children, the reading-language link, and making language learning fun. And as always, I’ll include language research updates, with commentary, implications, and links. See you soon…
The Implications of Williams Syndrome
April 7, 2009 at 5:04 pm | In Extra Stuff, Language Disability | 1 CommentTags: annette karmiloff-smith, language, SLI, specific language impairment, steven pinker, williams syndrome
Williams Syndrome is a rare genetic disorder, first identified in 1961, that is characterized by, among other things, outgoing personalities and deficits in processing and adaptive behavior skils. These individuals frequently have comparatively low IQs with comparatively high language skills. While initially the facts of the preceding sentence were eagerly seized by proponents of the separation of intelligence and language, the accumulation of research has (as it so often does) muddied the picture. Williams Syndrome and Specific Language Impairment (SLI) have frequently been used as converse examples of evidence to support the dissociation between cognition and language. The cognitive scientist, Steven Pinker, has made this argument in several popular books. In 1999 he wrote,
Overall, the genetic double dissociation is striking, suggesting that language is both a specialisation of the brain and that it depends on generative rules that are visible in the ability to compute regular forms. The genes of one group of children [SLI] impair their grammar while sparing their intelligence; the genes of another group of children [WS] impair their intelligence while sparing their grammar.
Subsequent assertions by Pinker leaning more toward an inextricable relationship between genes and environment seem not to have been as widely read as his earlier work.
Comparisons of SLI and Williams Syndrome hinge on the notion that SLI is inherited. While the research does suggest that at least a predisposition toward SLI is inherited, the complexity of its causes makes any comparisons like that of apples and oranges. The exact cause of Williams Syndrome is known: it is the result of missing genetic material on chromosome seven. SLI is likely the result of a stew of ingredients, with varied recipes, and varied results. Individuals with Williams Syndrome are gregarious. They enjoy talking. Is it any wonder that they may become relatively proficient at something they enjoy? As with other human behaviors and skills, language acquisition will likely never be reduced to one cause. Similarly, the fact that these individuals are poor puzzle solvers is more likely related to visual-spacial deficits than an impairment in some “puzzle solving” gene.
People with Williams Syndrome are often outgoing...and smiling.
Anette Karmiloff-Smith has done a lot of great work on Williams Syndrome, much with a focus on accurately describing its characteristic language skills and deficits. Many of her publications are available for download on her personal web site. Language log has published an interesting post on the science and state of language research in Williams Syndrome, found here: Language Log link.
A Few Facts About… Incidental Teaching
March 29, 2009 at 3:08 pm | In A Few Facts About... | Leave a CommentTags: autism, incidental teaching, low functioning language, manipulating the environment, sabotaging environment
Incidental teaching involves manipulating a student’s environment to promote the natural use of educational objectives. While it can be used for a variety of language goals, incidental teaching is particularly effective in promoting initiation. Incidental teaching can be looked at as having four main features:
- The environment is arranged to set occasion for student response
- Teacher waits
- If necessary, student is prompted
- Student response
The reinforcer is whatever the child needs or wants, such as crayons, juice, or a toy. Incidental teaching contrasts with discrete trial teaching, in that while the one encourages responses, the other expects it. Each has its place, and each is better at teaching different skills.
Planning, prompting, and waiting are three critical aspects of incidental teaching. Planning may start with an observation of a child’s current initiation level, as well as determining child’s unique interests. Ways that low functioning children initiate include looking at desired objects, moving toward them, pointing, grabbing, or taking care-giver’s hand. When prompting, the child should be encouraged to produce a slightly more complex language skill than the current ability, using a developmental hierarchy. When waiting, 3-5 seconds between the event and response is often the most effective interval between prompts.
Incidental teaching is often thought of as “sabotaging the environment.” Some specific examples of how to do this include…
- controlling access to materials
- using items of special interest
- setting up repetitive routines
- starting a favorite activity, and then stopping
- looking at materials, then student, then pausing
Much of my information comes from a seminar presented at the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association 2008 convention by the New England Center for Children. Their website is here. Additional information can be found at the Interactive Collaborative Autism Network.
Unexpected Outcomes Help Learning – Recent Research
March 25, 2009 at 1:17 pm | In Recent Research | Leave a CommentTags: expectations, learning research, Penn, rewards
Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania have used direct recordings of neuronal activity in the human brain to demonstrate that specific neurons fire more frequently in response to unexpected rewards over unexpected losses. No differences were observed in the study between expected rewards and losses.
In a report published in the journal Science, the researchers described how they used a computer based card game and micro-electrodes measuring neuronal impulses during deep brain stimulation surgery to confirm their hypothesis that lucky wins are remembered better than expected wins, or unexpected or expected losses.
So, our brains are primed to learn when 
surprised. It seems like it should be common sense that variety and the unexpected should naturally engage the human mind, much more so than the expected and routine. It’s interesting to see evidence of how this is ingrained in our brains. Unfortunately, the rigid structure of the contemporary bureaucratic educational system, and the necessity of routine imposed by large classroom sizes naturally stifles the creativity necessary to take advantage of this study’s conclusion. In our current system it is far too easy to impose learning rather than to entice learning.
A nice, concise story can be found at PsychCentral at this link. This University of Pennsylvania news release also has some good info.
Brain Waves Reveal Opportunistic Language Regions – Recent Research
March 16, 2009 at 8:58 pm | In Recent Research | Leave a Comment
Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics have used studies of brain waves to show how the brain makes efficient use of tiny cues and context to rapidly anticipate and process language. The studies have shown that different areas of the brain appear responsible for different aspects of comprehension. As one example, a specific brain wave pattern called N400, located in the back of the head, has implicated that area in analyzing the meaning of sentences. The N400 is a spike that occurs when a word is heard that is unexpected or out of context. The remarkable aspect is the speed with which this spike occurs after the word – literally fractions of a second. This, and other similar studies, have shown the amazing efficiency possessed by the human brain in using expectation and anticipation to assist in using language. The study, published in the journal, Current Directions in Psychological Science, was led by Jos Van Berkum at the Max Planck Institute of Psycholinguistics in the Netherlands.
The author’s research paper can be found here along with much detailed information. A little more information can be found at this blog post. My illustration derives from BrainWaves Educational Toys, which does have some cool toys.
Language Assessment Descriptions
March 9, 2009 at 5:30 pm | In Extra Stuff | Leave a CommentTags: brief descriptions, casl, celf-4, describing, eowpvt, language assessments, language tests, owls, rowpvt, spelt, tacl, toss
The following language assessments are used for children of various ages.
Oral and Written Language Scales (OWLS) 
Ages 3-21. Assesses listening comprehension and oral expression, using both scores to provide an oral composite. Briefly assesses all domains of syntax, semantics, morphology, and pragmatics. The OWLS is good at identifying the presence of language disorder, and identifying which area or areas are delayed. If scores on the OWLS are low, additional testing can be done to obtain more specific information. There is also a version of the OWLS that tests written expression. The publisher’s site is here at Western Psychological Services.
Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language (CASL)
Two versions: Ages 3-6 and 7-21. There are 15 different subtests of the CASL; five tests in each area of semantics and syntax, four tests of supralinguistic skill measurement, and one test of pragmatic language. Three, four, or five tests make up a global, or core composite, score, which varies for each age group. The CASL can measure very specific things, and it’s not necessary to give each subtest required for a composite score. If it’s necessary to get a composite, it can be very time consuming. Research on these things has shown that the CASL is not the most specific test; in other words, the scores don’t always accurately identify the presence of a language disorder. The CASL is best used to obtain additional information in specific areas. The most useful subtests in this regard are the syntax construction, nonliteral language, and pragmatic judgment subtests. More information is here at Western Psychological Services.
Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals – 4 (CELF-4)
Two versions: Ages 5-8 and 9-21. The CELF-4 assesses expressive and receptive syntax, semantics, and morphology. There are 14 
subtests with 4 subtests required to obtain a core language standard score. Subtests include: concepts/following directions, word structure, recalling sentences, formulated sentences, word classes, word definitions, and understanding spoken paragraphs, among others. The CELF-4 is said to have good validity compared to other language tests. It can take awhile to administer, however, and because skills are combined, it can be difficult to identify specific deficits. Find more here at Pearson Assessment’s site.
Continue reading for more tests, including the TOSS, SPELT, TACL, ROWPVT, and EOWPVT.
Child Language Assessments – Basic Descriptions
March 3, 2009 at 10:40 pm | In Uncategorized | Leave a CommentWhat follows are some common language assessments used with very young children, along with basic information and descriptions of each. In my next post I plan on doing the same for tests commonly used with both younger and older children.
Receptive Emergent Expressive Language Test (REEL) 
Ages birth to 3. The REEL (the latest edition is the REEL -3) is a checklist of language skills that uses a parent or guardian interview to determine expressive and receptive language function. It can also be used as an informal checklist for older children with severe language delays. It uses a language quotient that has a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. Click here for more information from the publisher, Pearson Assessments.
Preschool Language Scale – 4 (PLS-4)
Ages birth to 6. Uses pictures and objects to assess auditory comprehension and expressive communication across domains of syntax, morphology, semantics, and pragmatics. This is a thorough, comprehensive test with good validity. For a child over 6 with a very specific deficit in syntax, morphology or semantics, the CELF-4, CELF-Preschool-2, or CASL may be more sensitive. Click here for more information from the publisher, Pearson Assessments.
Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-Preschool-2 (CELF-Preschool-2)
Ages 3-6. Uses well drawn, color pictures. Good test for specific areas, and as second test for five and six year olds. The CELF tests seem to have the best validity and specificity – it accurately identifies language disorders. Core tests: Sentence Structure (Receptive); Word Structure (Expressive); Expressive Vocabulary. Additional subtests: Concepts and Following Directions (Receptive); Recalling Sentences (Expressive); Basic Concepts (Receptive); Word Classes (Receptive and Expressive). Again, the publisher is Pearson – here’s more detailed information.
Texting Aids Language – Recent Research
February 28, 2009 at 4:39 pm | In Recent Research | Leave a CommentTags: coventry university, language, texting, texting and language study
After studying 88 children between the ages of 10 and 12, researchers at England’s Coventry University concluded that contrary to 
public perception, increased texting correlates to increased reading scores. The study was published in the British Journal of Developmental Psychology, and supports similar results of other studies such as from the University of Toronto.
The study’s relevance to the larger notion of language and learning is this: no matter the form, meaningful exposure to language assists language learning. According to Dr. Beverley Plester, the study’s lead author, “The more exposure you have to the written word the more literate you become and we tend to get better at things we do for fun.” The BBC story link is here.
Around the Web – Recent Language Learning Blog Posts
February 25, 2009 at 2:09 pm | In Around the Web | Leave a CommentTags: language learning blog posts
This interesting post regarding the frequent confusion in differential diagnosis with autism and late talking comes from the Eide neurolearning blog. A reference within the post links this neuroimaging study that concludes that late talking children apparantly use their right brains more than their left brains during speech.
This post from one of my favorite blogs – Cognition and Language Lab - briefly laments the notion that language studies over-focus on nouns, ignoring the different processes involved in learning other parts of speech. To compensate they’ve set up a web based verb study.
Teach Effectively! comments here on a study that illustrates the effect of early instructional methods on adult reading strategies. Essentially, adults who’d had phonics instruction as a child relied less on vocabulary based context in reading nonwords than adults who’d had no phonics. The larger point was to emphasize the long term impact of differing instructional methods.
Jerome Bruner – Research Rehash
February 19, 2009 at 12:37 pm | In Language Teaching, Research Rehash | 2 CommentsTags: blog, cognitive revolution, Jerome Bruner, language acquisition support system, LASS, spiral curriculum
As a psychologist, Jerome Bruner has led much of modern thought among those labeled interactionists, constructionists, and cognitivists. As a professor and researcher, Bruner has taught and researched for over sixty years at Harvard, Oxford, and at his current position at New York University. He has been looked at as one of the instrumental inciters of the so called cognitive revolution, and his ideas have had great influence over the current states of psychology, education, and language.
One frequently cited idea of Bruner’s is the LASS, or Language Acquisition Support System, a term coined in response to Chomsky’s LAD, or Language Acquisition Device. The LASS refers to the importance of a child’s social support network, which works in conjunction with innate mechanisms to encourage or suppress language development. Every child has one, and particularly during the years of the language explosion (roughly ages 2 to 5), differences in the LASS significantly explain differences in language acquisition, according to Bruner’s model.
In a spiral curriculum simple subject matter is introduced at the bottom, and made increasingly complex with each revisit
Part of the LASS is another key component of Bruner’s explanation of how the most effective learning occurs – the “spiral curriculum.” Bruner used the spiral curriculum to argue against the modes of teaching that deem some subjects too difficult for learners to grasp before they’re ready, which was partially in response to Piaget’s strict stages of cogntive development. Many have come to accept Bruner’s view that learning is more successful with early exposure and subsequent scaffolding of more complex concepts that occurs over earlier developing ones.
So how does a spiral curriculum differ from a traditional one? Traditionally subjects are taught in big chunks to everyone at the same time. Spiral curriculums are broken up into smaller chunks which are revisited, moving from exposure to more in-depth understanding with each revisit. Optimally,this gives greater flexibility for learner’s individual differences, while providing the more opportunities for challenge, creativity, and advanced mastery of subjects.
And, it mimics how we naturally learn language. A child doesn’t learn his first words in one day sections devoted to each word. A “Today we’re going to learn the word, doggy.” day would not be as effective as how kids naturally learn the word doggy. Initial exposures are added to with repeated revisits, increasing a word’s understanding with each revisit. The most effective learning of subsequent words occurs in the same manner.
Bruner went on to write more on the significance of cultural influences in education. For more on Bruner and his work, click here or here. A good article on the spiral curriculum can be found here.
Recent Research – Baby Vocab and Gestures Linked
February 16, 2009 at 5:00 pm | In Recent Research | Leave a CommentTags: baby gesture, education, income, vocabulary
According to a study published in the February 13th issue of Science Magazine, researchers found that the babies of parents with higher education levels and income had both higher use of gesture and higher 
vocabulary. While its not clear if the chicken or egg comes first in this case, the established link between these three things (socioeconomic status, vocabulary, gesture use) is an important step toward future research. The story, linked here from US News and World Reports suggests that the next step may be trying to determine if increasing gestures in babies may lead to later vocabulary growth. One element that may also contribute to this link is motivation – a child who is more motivated to communicate in general may be likely to use whatever means necessary, whether gesture or language. Gesture is also often an important foundation for oral language, as children not motivated to speak frequently need the motivation to communicate that pointing and other gestures can provide.
Commentary – In Language, Form Follows Function
February 11, 2009 at 7:41 pm | In Commentary | Leave a CommentTags: description, form follows function, language
Skyscraper or Groundgrazer?
American architectural great Louis Sullivan adopted this now famous phrase in the 19th century to help bring about a revolution in building design. A change was necessary in part because changing tastes of the time no longer called for the traditional ornamentation that had been habitually maintained. While language certainly can possess its own form of ornamentation, such as flowery prose, lyrical cadences, and stylistic fiction, the language of communication owes its existence to function. Anything that consistently exists in language exists to assist.
Take for example, the use of categories. It is possible to form categories in a great many ways where words possess feature overlap. We do this when it serves our purposes. By classifying trees into deciduous and evergreen we can better understand and describe trees. For instance,
Husband: “I planted a new tree in front of the house today.”
Wife: “What kind?”
Husband: “An arborvitae. It’s an evergreen.”
Wife: “Good. We’ll have something to screen our front window year round.”
There are two main ways of describing this aspect of the husband’s new tree. If he didn’t understand the classification of trees into deciduous and evergreen, he could have said “I bought an arborvitae. It does not lose its foliage for much of the year like some trees do.” Here is one instance of where a category has saved time, effort and potential confusion. Because any two words that share features can potentially be categorized, and that some words are and some aren’t, demonstrates our power over language. We could categorize all tall buildings as skyscrapers, which we have done, but only recently. This categorization was not helpful before the 19th century, and was not done even though “tall” buildings did exist. We could just as easily give some label to short buildings (groundgrazer?) but we have not found it in our interests to do so.
All of this has implications for where words come from, and consequently where language comes from. The existance of language has been explained in a myriad of ways, from nativism, universal grammar, statistical computation, connection, behaviorism, and so on. All of these explanations exclude a particularly human element, that of human ingenuity, creativity, and motivation. These attempts to systematically explain language may touch upon key linguistic aspects, but any one that omits the human element, ignores something critical.
More on this topic can be found in this earlier post.
Recent Research – Body Language and SES
February 7, 2009 at 12:23 pm | In Recent Research | Leave a CommentStudy shows link between body language and socioeconomic status (SES). – Researchers at UC-Berkeley used videotaped sessions of various people in one-on-one interviews to confirm their hypothesis that people use nonverbal cues to communicate their SES. These behaviors included disengagment behaviors, such as doodling and fidgeting, and engagment behaviors, such as eye contact, head nodding, and laughing. Their results showed that individuals from higher SES groups displayed more disengagment behaviors, and that observers were able to identify the SES of study participants after looking at 60 second clips of their interviews. The researchers surmised that wealthy folks depend on others less, something which is reflected in their nonverbal communication.
Here’s the journal reference: Kraus et al. Signs of Socioeconomic Status: A Thin-Slicing Approach. Psychological Science, 2009; 20 (1): 99 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02251.x The Science Daily report is here. A PsychCentral commentary is here.
How Many Words Should A Child Know?
February 2, 2009 at 12:13 pm | In Extra Stuff, Language Acquisition | Leave a CommentTags: studies, vocabulary estimates, vocabulary size
Comparing Estimates of Vocabulary Acquisition
Many estimates of vocabulary size exist, with variability being their one constant. The difficulties inherent in measuring vocabulary size have not stopped multiple researchers from coming up with their own numbers, some of which I’ve summarized below.
Despite the almost inevitable variation, the studies that support these estimates have told us some important things, such as…
- School age language acquisition occurs primarily through incidental experience more than formal teaching.
- Word learning shifts from concrete and functional to abstract and unusual. This shift occurs gradually from third grade through the high school years.
- Environment matters. Extreme environments extremely matter.
There are many more of these studies than even what I’ve listed, and while I’m not saying I’ve seen it happen, it is possible that people could cherry pick ones that most support the point trying to be made. Also, there is no consensus among anyone really, of what exactly counts for a word in these studies. Does examine, examines, examined, etc. count as different words or variations of the same word? Ultimately the numbers themselves aren’t as important as are examining what’s possible and what’s actually occurring. We know from these studies that it is possible to learn many, many words – at rates of up to 14 words a day according to at least two sources. Methods of teaching vocabulary – such as teaching categories, word webs, and using reading to facilitate vocabulary acquisition – can be helpful, but ultimately nothing works like an enriched experience.
Keep reading for more information about the sources of these studies.
Following Directions
January 27, 2009 at 7:16 pm | In A Few Facts About..., Activity Information | Leave a CommentTags: addressing following directions, comprehension, following directions, language, processing, receptive language, therapy, work
One of the most common complaints of teachers and parents involves difficulty with following directions. So, how do we help these kids? Despite its prevalence, there often is a lack of a coherent strategy of dealing with direction following, and its close cousin, language processing. Many things are needed to follow directions – thus, addressing these difficulties should often start with first finding manageable components, before then combining these components in ways that look like the directions themselves.
Following directions involves using short term memory to hold known information while manipulating this information using language. Some types of words appear more frequently in directions than others – conjunctions, negatives, adjectives, and prepositions, for example, are often used in directions. Nearly every test item on one of the most commonly used assessments of following directions, the CELF-4’s Concepts and Following Directions subtest, uses some combination of conjunctions, negatives, and prepositions. These concepts are particularly critical in academic directions. The ability to follow any specific direction depends upon the ability to comprehend the specific words within the direction. Not all one step directions are created equal. For example, a one step direction containing a negative is often more difficult than one with a similarly placed adjective.
Here is an example of how a developmental hierarchy might look for direction following:
Obviously, following directions also requires aspects outside the domain of language, such as motivation, interest, and attention. Increasing proficiency in language should provide a natural boost to these overlapping aspects. For some specific activity ideas, please take a look at this link from my other web site, Freelanguagestuff.com.
Around The Web – Language in the News
January 25, 2009 at 2:25 pm | In Around the Web, In the News | Leave a CommentTags: language news, new york times, reading study, steven pinker, time language review
This link courtesy of USA Today – 1 in 7 adults in America can’t read material more challenging than a children’s picture book. 
While some states, such as Mississippi actually made gains since the last similar federal study from 1992, many larger states saw increases in illiteracy. Undiagnosed learning disabilities, immigration, and high school dropout rates are listed as the main culprits.
Time Magazine reviews two related books here. One book, by Hanna Holmes, details the many ways that humans are really just animals with fancier language skills. While Holmes attempts to describe humans using language normally reserved for animals, Temple Grandin does just the opposite. Grandin, a skilled author noted for her autistic background, describes animals using language normally reserved for humans. Both books seem interesting; the article itself is a good read.
The New York Times, and New York Times Magazine have hosted a couple of pieces by Steven Pinker in the last few weeks – one on how Chief Justice Roberts’ gaffe in administering the oath of office occurred precisely because Roberts is such a stickler for proper grammar. His mistake of accidentally attempting to correct the Constitution illustrates the potential dangers of nitpicking language. In the other, Pinker entertainingly digresses concerning the likely influence of genetics over our personalities. Usually these influences are more probabilistic rather than deterministic.
Study Shows Language Driven by Culture, Not Biology
January 22, 2009 at 12:24 pm | In Commentary, Recent Research | Leave a CommentTags: baldwin effect, explanation, language evolution, study, universal grammar
I like learning new things that may have future relevance. That’s why this story from Science Daily especially appealed to me. It taught me about the Baldwin Effect, an effect relevant enough to have over 9 million Google search results, and a Wikipedia entry, yet something I’d never heard of. Essentially, the Baldwin Effect can be a sort of an evolutionary short cut from learning to instinct. Animals that have a predisposition to learning anything (like language) that enhances its survivability can turn that anything into an instinct under lengthy continuous circumstances. The study authors conclude that a “universal grammar” must have arisen by societal impetus that predates the relatively recent divergence of language over the last 100,000 years.
I personally believe the univeral grammar is an invention that describes a phenomenon that occurs because of universal human needs. Because (nearly) all humans need to describe things that have happened, we get past tense, for instance. There are guys and gals in all human cultures, and they all possess things, so we get possessive pronouns. What linguistic construct exists that has been used as support for universal grammar, and is useful to one group of humans, but not another? Let me know if you come up with one.
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
The Language Fingerprint
March 19, 2009 at 8:00 pm | In Commentary | Leave a CommentTags: classroom based, Commentary, language fingerprint, language therapy, pull-out
Earlier I composed a short commentary on what I called the “Language Fingerprint” – each person’s unique language profile. It went like this: Each child demonstrates a unique “fingerprint” when it comes to the units in their language repertoire. Just as no two fingerprints are alike, no two language profiles are alike. Kids learn words, word parts, and word combinations that they’ve realized are important in their own lives, and so there are as many different language fingerprints, or language profiles, as there are word learning environments: approximately 300 million in the United States alone. The emphasis is that each one is unique. The implication is that the most effective language teaching paradigm would account for this individuality.
The notion of a language fingerprint supports why language therapists continue to use pull-out therapy in the face of mounting opposition and pressure to go into the classroom. Pull-out works because this is the only time in school that many of kids with language problems feel compelled to speak. When one person is speaking to twenty or thirty children feedback is hard enough to come by anyway. When one of those children has difficulty speaking feeback from that child becomes near impossible. Language impaired children often compensate for weak language by developing excellent skills of quietly blending into their environment.
The fewer kids there are in any given teaching situation, the greater is the possible feedback for each kid. Because kids don’t have the same language fingerprint, the more individually tailored the feedback, the greater the potential that specific needs are being addressed.
Studies have been done comparing pull-out versus classroom based models of speech and language therapy. While many of these studies have been inconclusive or incomplete (McGinty and Justice, 2006)*, the trend has been toward greater use of classroom based intervention. Justification for this trend has been supported by increased carryover, providing a natural environment for learning goals, and increased teacher involvement. (Al-Sa’bi, 2004). *
Two points seem to be missing, however. 1) While the classroom is a natural environment when compared to other classrooms, this sort of situation is relatively rare outside of school. And the setting where one leader encourages constant feedback and participation from a group under her care is uncommon even as classroom populations advance into secondary school and college. 2) Language impaired children have few times for one on one interactions with a language professional as it is. Compare the 30 or 60 minutes weekly usually given for language therapy to the thousand or more minutes during the week that the child is in class. Classroom intervention may have it’s merits, but why should it come out of the 30 or 60 minutes rather than the other large chunk of time?
Many normally developing kids have their own personal language therapist – their parents. That some parents are so effective in this role should fit right into the notion of a language fingerprint. Attentive parents know at just the right time when a word that appears in the life of their child is one not well known. These parents automatically know when a word is new to their child because they are around their children much more than teachers or any other adult. There is no better time to learn new words than in the course of everyday life. For instance a child may play hide and seek and when found (after closing the always open bathroom door) may ask “How did you find me?” An attentive parent may instinctively say, “You left evidence,” knowing that he will have to ask what evidence is in order to understand the answer. Examples like this add up exponentially over time.
Individual attention doesn’t just work well at home. What should be obvious, though, is often disregarded for reasons other than the best welfare of children.