External Generalizability of Inquiry Involving Artificial Orthography

Knafle, June D.; Legenza, Alice

doi:10.2307/1162471

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This conclusion is tempered somewhat by the findings of Knafle and Legenza (1978) that 1-and 2-inch stimuli are easier to learn than V* -inch stimuli. A replication of the present study with normal size print couldresolve this question.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Two Letter Discrimination Sequences: High-Confusion-Alternatives First versus Low-Confusion-Alternatives First

Carnine

1980

Journal of Reading Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The procedure of sequencing visual discriminations (the letters b, d, p, and q) in an easy to difficult progression was investigated. In a low-confusion-alternatives first sequence only one choice in an inital match-to-sample task was similar to the target letter. In a high-confusion-alternatives first sequence all the choices in the initial task were similar to the target letter. Twenty preschoolers were randomly assigned to either a lowconfusion-alternatives first or a high-confusion-alternatives first group. The preschoolers who began with the low-confusions alternatives reached criterion on a subsequent successive match-to-sample task in significantly fewer trials, M = 31.0 versus 69

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Two Letter Discrimination Sequences: High-Confusion-Alternatives First versus Low-Confusion-Alternatives First

Carnine

1980

Journal of Reading Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A small cluster of studies emerged in the 60s and 70s using novel symbols (for a review, see Knafle & Legenza, 1978) but these tended to focus on single symbol-sound correspondences, rather than symbol sequences forming words (see also Byrne, 1984;Byrne & Carroll, 1989). This was also the case in some more recent neuroimaging studies examining changes in brain activity pre-and post-training on previously unknown orthographic symbols (Callan, Callan, & Masaki, 2005; Artificial Orthography 6 Hashimoto & Sakai, 2004).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of consistency, frequency, and semantics on learning to read: An artificial orthography paradigm.

Taylor¹,

Plunkett²,

Nation³

2011

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments explored learning, generalization, and the influence of semantics on orthographic processing in an artificial language. In Experiment 1, 16 adults learned to read 36 novel words written in novel characters. Posttraining, participants discriminated trained from untrained items and generalized to novel items, demonstrating extraction of individual character sounds. Frequency and consistency effects in learning and generalization showed that participants were sensitive to the statistics of their learning environment. In Experiment 2, 32 participants were preexposed to the sounds of all items (lexical phonology) and to novel definitions for half of these items (semantics). Preexposure to either lexical phonology or semantics boosted the early stages of orthographic learning relative to Experiment 1. By the end of training, facilitation was restricted to the semantic condition and to items containing low-frequency inconsistent vowels. Preexposure reduced generalization, suggesting that enhanced item-specific learning was achieved at the expense of character-sound abstraction. The authors' novel paradigm provides a new tool to explore orthographic learning. Although the present findings support the idea that semantic knowledge supports word reading processes, they also suggest that item-specific phonological knowledge is important in the early stages of learning to read.

show abstract

“…While the strategies from the present study could possibly be added to other sequencing and practicing procedures that have been found useful in reducing student difficulty in learning letter-sound correspondences (Carnine & Silbert 1979, Carnine, 1979 caution is appropriate. Knafle and Legenza (1978) found that results from training studies using modified orthography (or even larger than normal letters) were not necessarily replicable when natural orthography of normal size was used. Although initial research on instructional procedures, such as was done in this study, might use artificial training stimuli to control for learner knowledge confounds, results do not necessarily generalize to a specific subject area domain.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Reducing Training Problems Associated with Visually and Auditorily Similar Correspondences

Carnine¹

1981

J Learn Disabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Experimental figures and labels were selected that theoretically approximate the difficult discriminations encountered by young children in school (e.g., b vs d). Following pretraining on three figures, the children were randomly assigned to one of four experimental groups to investigate different methods of integrating a new, similar symbol into a set of familiar symbols. The new symbol was visually similar and its label auditorily similar to one of the three familiar symbols. The results supported Carnine's (1976) hypothesis that similar correspondences should be separated from each other whenever possible. That is, training conditions that provided for initial separation of similar elements (either in shape or name), required fewer training trials than conditions that did not provide such separation. Teaching implications are discussed.

show abstract

External Generalizability of Inquiry Involving Artificial Orthography

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

Two Letter Discrimination Sequences: High-Confusion-Alternatives First versus Low-Confusion-Alternatives First

Two Letter Discrimination Sequences: High-Confusion-Alternatives First versus Low-Confusion-Alternatives First

The influence of consistency, frequency, and semantics on learning to read: An artificial orthography paradigm.

Reducing Training Problems Associated with Visually and Auditorily Similar Correspondences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About