Classroom Discipline for Effective Teaching and Learning Laurel Tanner New York: Holt, Rinehart &amp; Winston, 1978

Kaplan, Leonard; Davidman, Leonard

doi:10.1177/002248718003100414

Cited by 10 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The haptic capacity of the mouth might progressively become more focused within the context of nutrition—specialized in supervising solid-food processing and in selecting what is ingestible. Furthermore, the taking over by the hands of object exploration starts to leave the mouth free to become an instrument of communication by means of active structuring of vocalization (babbling), which also emerges around this age (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1971). Indeed, observations on later development indicate that, in the course of the second semester, infants tend to bring fewer objects to the mouth for oral contact (McCall, 1974).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Object manipulation and exploration in 2- to 5-month-old infants.

Rochat¹

1989

Developmental Psychology

316

180

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The early development of explorarory behavior was studied. One study documents changes in free exploration of infants aged from 2 to 5 months. Another compares 3-and 4-5 month-olds when manipulating and exploring an object in the light or in the dark (no visual control over exploration). The third study compares multimodal exploration in 3-and 4-month-olds when presented with two different objects varying in multiple properties. Results show that significant changes occur between 2 and 5 months, relative to spontaneous multimodal exploration of a novel object. Object exploration becomes increasingly multimodal. Bimanual coordination is first linked to the oral system, later reorganized in reference to vision when fingering emerges by 4 months. Manipulation in 3-montholds is shown to be object-dependent. Factors controlling early object manipulation and functional changes in manual action prior to 6 months of age are discussed. When young infants are in an alert and quiet state, they display behaviors that are "exploratory" in nature because they appear to be primarily oriented toward bringing sense organs into various relations with objects in the environment. Newborns show elements of reaching with arms and hands toward an object moving close to them (Hofsten, 1982). Young infants track objects moving in their field of view with both eyes and head (Bullinger, 1984). From birth, they orient their heads in the direction of a sound source (Clifton, Morrongiello, Kulig, & Dowd, 1981; Muir & Field, 1979) and appear to selectively orient (root) their mouths in the direction of a familiar odor (Macfarlane, 1975). Contrary to the view that babies are passive spectators bombarded with stimulation, these observations indicate that from the earliest age infants are actors and, in particular, explorers of their environment. From a theoretical point of view, it is relevant to approach early behavior as involving action systems with specific adaptative functions like communication, locomotion, consumption, and exploration (Reed, 1982). Indeed, the active search for information is a basic motive-among others-guiding behavior from birth (E. J. Gibson & Spelke, 1983). Recent progress in the study of early action development shows that perceptual and motor aspects of behavior are closely intertwined, perception and action appearing as Support for the author was made possible by the Swiss National Scientific Research Foundation (FNRS) Fellowship No. 81.082-083. I would like to express my appreciation to E. S. Spelke, at Cornell University, in whose laboratory at the University of Pennsylvania the research was conducted. I thank A. Fogel at the University of Utah for his insights and advice on data analysis. 1 also thank S. J. Senders for his help in scoring, R. K. Clifton and N. A. Myers at the University of Massachusetts for their comments on a draft of this article, and H. L. Pick and the two reviewers for their constructive comments. Finally, 1 would like to express my gratitude to all of the parents and infants who participate...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Object manipulation and exploration in 2- to 5-month-old infants.

Rochat¹

1989

Developmental Psychology

316

180

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One conclusion that can be drawn from infant babbling data is that many nonspeech vocalizations and articulator movements occur well before the onset of frequent speech sounds (e.g., Kaplan & Kaplan, 1971; Oller, 1980; Sachs, 1976; Stark, 1980). In accordance with this view, the simplified babbling process in DIVA occurs in two stages: an early stage during which the sensory-motor relationships of the orosensory-to-articulatory mapping are learned in the absence of speech sounds and a later stage during which the orosensory targets for each speech sound, encoded by the weights of the phonetic-to-orosensory mapping, are learned.…”

Section: Overview Of the Diva Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Speech sound acquisition, coarticulation, and rate effects in a neural network model of speech production.

Guenther

1995

Psychological Review

379

351

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article describes a neural network model of speech motor skill acquisition and speech production that explains a wide range of data on variability, motor equivalence, coarticulation, and rate effects. Model parameters are learned during a babbling phase. To explain how infants learn language-specific variability limits, speech sound targets take the form of convex regions, rather than points, in orosensory coordinates. Reducing target size for better accuracy during slower speech leads to differential effects for vowels and consonants, as seen in experiments previously used as evidence for separate control processes for the 2 sound types. Anticipatory coarticulation arises when targets are reduced in size on the basis of context; this generalizes the well-known look-ahead model of coarticulation. Computer simulations verify the model's properties.The primary goal of the modeling work described in this article is to provide a coherent theoretical framework that provides explanations for a wide range of data concerning the articulator movements used by humans to produce speech sounds. This is carried out by formulating a model that transforms strings of phonemes into continuous articulator movements for producing these phonemes. This study of speech production is largely motivated by the following question of speech acquisition: How does an infant acquire the motor skills needed to produce the speech sounds of his or her native language? Speech production involves complex interactions among several different reference frames. A phonetic frame describes the sounds a speaker wishes to produce, and the signals that convey these sound units to a listener exist within an acoustic frame. Tactile and proprioceptive signals form an orosensory frame (e.g., Perkell, 1980) that describes the shape of the vocal tract, and the muscles controlling the positions of individual articulators make up an articulatory frame. The parameters governing the interactions among these frames cannot be fixed at birth. One reason for this is the language specificity of these interactions. For example, English listeners distinguish between the sounds /r/ and /!/, but Japanese listeners do not. Corresponding differences are seen in the articulator movements of the two groups (Miyawaki et al., 1975). Thus, despite some obvious commonalities between the phonetics of different languages (e.g., widespread use of consonants like /d/, /n/, and /s/ across the world's languages), the precise nature of mappings between acoustic goals and articulator movements depends on the lanThis research was supported in part by Air Force Office of Scientific Research F49620-92-J-0499. I would like to thank Dan Bullock and Elliot Saltzman for their insightful suggestions on an earlier

show abstract

“…I do think it fair, however, to suggest that the profession's overemphasis on psychology and aesthetics, coupled with the way those disciplines have claimed human experiences as universal, is responsible for many forms of inequality in music education. It should be noted that "aesthetics" do factor in the sociology of music (e.g., DeNora 2000) and music education (e.g., Kaplan 1966).…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Should One Expect from a Sociology of Music Education?

MANTIE

2023

ACT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on a review of the recent publication, The Routledge Handbook to Sociology of Music Education, this article seeks to problematize what might be meant by "sociology of music education." Taking a "socio-historical" approach, the article examines the historical trajectory and legacy of sociologically oriented interests in music education. Drawing on intersections between philosophy and sociology, the author emphasizes the difference between the empirical and the normative to argue for greater sociological sensitivity to music education's relationship to the political role of schooling as a state institution.

show abstract

Classroom Discipline for Effective Teaching and Learning Laurel Tanner New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1978

Cited by 10 publications

References 0 publications

Object manipulation and exploration in 2- to 5-month-old infants.

Object manipulation and exploration in 2- to 5-month-old infants.

Speech sound acquisition, coarticulation, and rate effects in a neural network model of speech production.

What Should One Expect from a Sociology of Music Education?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About