Lec 3.5-4/ Ramini & Siegler; Blair & Raver; Karmillof Flashcards
1
Q
- L3
- attention control
- 3 main benefits
- attention control and content knowledge connection (ex. child expert chess players vs novice adults)
- x
- Exec control: 4 main domains ?
- Location:?
- How to test exec control:?
- x
- 2 life outcomes EC can predict
- marshmallow task results
- 3-6 yo strategies ?
- 3 yo –?
- 6 yo – ?
- 4 Longitudinal results
A
- Attentional control: ignore distractions
- Benefits: increase memory accuracy & efficiency; Correlated w/ academic and life success
- Attention control & content knowledge
- Ex. child chess expert can ignore noise, and remember the relevant info
- x
- Exec control: 4 main domains
- 1 control and monitor WM
- 2 inhibit response
- 3 Delay gratification
- 4 task switching easily
- Location: PFC area
- How to test exec control: Task switching test
- x
- 2 life outcomes EC can predict
- academic and life success
- marshmallow task results
- 3-6 yo: use physical strategies
- Close their eye/ turn away/ smell it only
- 3 yo – fail right off the bat
- 6 yo – they can control better
- 3-6 yo: use physical strategies
- Longitudinal results
- better coping
- better grades
- less drug abuse
- less psychopathology as adults
2
Q
- L3
- Why is there a lot of data for EC and academics achievement?
- 2 main methods
- ex for each
- Blair & Raver, 2015
- 4 Factors kindergarten teachers cite as “most important” for school readiness
- 2 things they disagree
- How does EC amplifies and regulates emo and physio arousal
- EC follows what curve
A
- Exec control and academic achievement
- Not the most important; there’s a lot of data
- Children spend a lot of time in school, often exposed to grading -> large data set
- Methods
- correlations: ex. performance of marshmallow task and grades
- Qualitative method -> Blair & Raver
- Ask kindergarten teachers: what differs b/w a successful vs not students>
- Blair & Raver, 2015
- Factors kindergarten teachers cite as “most important” for school readiness
- Physical health: rested and nourished
- Verbal communication/ sensitive to others’ children’s feelings
- Enthusiasm
- B control
- NOT mentioned:
- academic skills
- Fine motors skills (pencil/paintbrush)
- Factors kindergarten teachers cite as “most important” for school readiness
- EC amplifies and regulates emo and physio arousal
- Amplify: help us pay attention when bored
- Regulates : Focus the most when it is in ZPD
- EC follows U shape/ goldilocks effect/ ZPD
- Goldilocks story: G breaks into house to eat
- Papa (too hot), mama (too cold), bb girl (just right)
- PFC doesn’t fx well when it’s too “hot or cold”
- Goldilocks story: G breaks into house to eat
3
Q
Ramini And Siegler
- math K vs reading proficiency → which one is most predictive of LT grades?
- 2 ways of # rep
- G2 vs G4 in # rep
- 0-1000
- → reason
- 0-10
- → reason
- For 0-10 → intervention?
A
- Introduction
- Children vary in math knowledge when they enter school;
- LT cons: math knowledge now predicts math K later
- These initial differences in math knowledge hv LT cons
- Relationship is way stronger than reading proficiency LT cons
- low-income children w/ less numerical knowledge
- gap b/w low and high SES gets larger
- x
- Theory
- 2 ways ppl represent numerical magnitudes
- Log ruler: Subjective magnitude is the log fx of objective mag
- Linear ruler: linear relationship b/w subjective & objective magnitude
- x
- linear rep & numerical knowledge
- a # line estimation task: 2 #s on the line, where is this #?
- G2 has log ruler for larger #s (1-1000), linear ruler for smaller #s (1-1000); in G4 → all linear ruler
- Diff b/w G2 and G4 → experience w/ #s
- Change from log to linear representation on other estimation
- Predicts accuracy of magnitude comparison, to unfamiliar addition problems, math grades\
- What helps children have linear ruler for small #s (0-10)
- # board games
- Board games and numerical dev
- Discrepancy in # knowledge of pre-schoolers from low SES vs mid SES is due to differing experiences w/ informal learning activities (ex board games)
4
Q
Ramini and Siegler
- 5 main goals of study
- Exp 1
- goal
- 2 conditions
- prediction
- results
- Older children
- Why?
- # BG vs color BG
- 9 wk later
- Older children
A
- 1 Show # BG → improve # K
- 2 Examine #BG effects on 4 # tasks: line estimation, magnitude estimation, counting, identify #
- 3 See if these gains persist 9 wks post study
- Older vs younger children → who benefits more?
* Apply to head start classrooms
- Older vs younger children → who benefits more?
- playing BG outside school → more # K?
- x
- Experiment 1
- Goal: examine if # board games = intervention
- 2 conditions: # BG vs color BG
- Prediction: After # BG intervention, kids are better at linear # estimation, magnitude comparison, counting, and # identification skills; persist 9 wks later
- Results
- # identification, # magnitude comparison, counting, linear estimation
- older children better (more initial K)
- after playing #BG → better; color BG → no diff
- effects remained after 9 wk (for #BG only)
5
Q
Ramini & Siegler
- exp 2
- exp 2 goal
- method
- 3 main results
- SES & # games
- SES & type of games
- game type & #K
- Discussion
- exp 1 major finding
- exp 2 major finding
- 2 reasons why #BG help w/ mag est
A
- Experiment 2
- Old studies: Mid SES → more experience w/ BG
- Exp 1: # BG → more # knowledge
- Exp 2: SES → playing BG vs card games vs VG outside school → more # K?
- Collect self report data
-
results
- Low SES and mid SES → same # of games
- Mid SES: more BG and cards
- Low SES: more VG
- game & #K
- Using test scores from exp 1: low SES
- # BG → more # K in 4 tasks
- cards & VG names → more #K w/ 1 task only
- Children who play BG in more contexts -> more # knowledge
- Chutes and Ladders #BG → more #K
- x
- General discussion
- low SES → less #BG experience → less #K
- low SES → #BG intervention → more #K
- Goal 1: #BG → better # line estimation
- Goal 2: # BG → better counting, # identification, magnitude estimation
- # BG extend to broader range of # skills
- Goal 3: # BG gains persist after 9 wks
- Goal 4:
- older children more #K than younger
- older and younger children learn similar amount from playing # BG (Both age gps benefit from the game)
- Goal 5: more # BG experience → more #K
- esp # BG Chutes and Ladder
- cards and VG → no change in # K
- mid SES → more BG, less cards and VG
- low SES → less BG, more VG
- Future learning
- # BG → better at 4 # tasks (help future math learning)
- linear #BG helps w/ magnitude estimation (circular boards → less effective?)
- Kin cues (when moving the token)
- counting from current # (go up to higher #s)
6
Q
Blair & Raver
- 3 aspects of school readiness
- 2 things it predicts
- Purpose of mandatory schooling
- What K-teachers think school readiness is (4 things)
- What is it not about
- x
- The Neurobiology of Self-Regulation and School Readiness - theory
- Rothbart’s Psychobiological model of temperament
- 3 components - temperament → ?
- 3 networks of self regulation
- What is it activated by
- 3 fx
- Yerkes Dodson curve: 4 steps - arousal → ?
- Self Reg and school readiness: 4 steps - PFC → ?
- Genetics and EF: feedforward vs feedback process
- Social factor and EF
A
-
School readiness includes
- self reg in attention, emo, stress
- Reflective
- +ve social interactions
- School readiness predicts ST and LT academic and b outcomes
- mandatory schooling → lv playing field b/w US locals and immigrants
- immigrants → low SES → less access to good edu, compromised Nrocog and social emo skills → low school readiness
- cons maybe reversed w/ pre-K or K edu
- x
- SELF-REGULATION AND SCHOOL READINESS: THEORY AND NEUROBIOLOGY
- Kindergarten Teachers think school readiness is: (ability to self regulation)
- Physically well-nourished and rested
- Enthusiasm
- Self reg
- +ve social interactions
- It is not strictly on academics (counting, alphabet K, etc)
- x
- The Neurobiology of Self-Regulation and School Readiness
- Rothbart’s Psychobiological model of temperament
- diff temperament → diff emo and motor reactivity
- self reg → CHANGE emo & motor reactivity
- 3 networks: Alerting, Orienting, Exec systems
- self reg/EF: activated by expected vs current event conflicts
- self/regEF fx
- holding info in WM
- Shift focus of attention
- Inhibit distractions
- self/regEF fx
- This model is applied to school readiness and achievement
- Yerkes Dodson curve:
* MP: optimal reactivity → optimal Nchem → PFC → better performance- Increase emo and physio reactivity -> more self reg; extremes = opp
- 1 arousal → stress response → Hypothalamus: corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH)
- 2 adrenal: catecholamines (NE, dop) → hypothalamic pituitary adrenal axis: cortisol (steroid)
- 3 mod lv of nrochemicals → PFC (EF) → better performance
- extreme lv of nrochemicals → less PFC activity → shit show
- Yerkes Dodson curve:
-
Self Reg and school readiness
- PFC dev (~6yo)/ Good self reg (distractions) → school readiness → sustained engagement
- x
-
Genetics and EF: cybernetic influence (feedforward and feedback)
- receptors sensitivity to catecholamines and glucocorticoids
- feed forward: more reactive receptors → more EF demands for self reg
- feedback: EF helps self reg → helps emo reg and stress lv → stress influence genes
- Allostasis/ biased homeostasis: system adapts to a new set pt to meet the demands
- Homeostasis: adjusts to remain in a specific set pt for survival (here the organism can fx adaptively
- x
-
Social/fam factors and self reg
- nurturing env → better social, emotional regulation and cog skills
- shit env → HPA activity/more cortisol → worse EF, social, emotional regulation and cog skills
7
Q
Blair & Raver
- EF/WM predicts ?
- ZPD → ? (2 more steps)
- Younger vs older kids → ?
- kids see new env → shy vs excited → (3 more steps)
- +ve emo → better relationship w/ peers → ?
- better relationship w/ teacher → ?
- explanation (Theory)
- stressful env → ?
A
- SELF-REGULATION AND SCHOOL READINESS: EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
- EF/WM predict math/literacy grades, phonemic
- better predictor than IQ
- EF & motivation and engagement
- info optimally challenging lv (ZPD) → optimal PFC/EF → do better
- same info
- younger kids/less knowledgeable → more PFC activity
- older kids/more knowledgeable → less PFC activity
- x
- Social-Emotional Competence
- emotion reg
- kids see new env → shy and anxious (-ve emo) → withdraw from ppl/situation → teacher spend less time on them → do worse at school
- kids see new env → excited (+ve emo) → approach ppl/situation → teacher spend more time on them → do better at school
- x
- Kids & peers
- +ve emo → build more social relationships → better adjusted → better grades
- Get along w/ peers → learn better
- x
- The Student-Teacher Relationship
- +ve relationship w/ teacher → better grades & more productive
- Attachment/self-determination lens
- +ve relationships w/ teachers → meet self determination needs
- stressful env → worse emo reg and EF
8
Q
Blair & Raver
- school readiness: aka 3 things
- What best predicts grades?
- EF and K bidirectional relationship
- EF vs K = ? vs ? intelligence
- EF, K
- location
- steady? declines w/ age?
- effortful? auto
- repeated use → ??
- Investment hypothesis
- x
- Dev systems approach to school readiness
- low SES → 2 things?
- 3 main adverse conditions
- what does thee brain focus on
- What does this lead to?
- what does thee brain focus on
- low SES → insensitive parenting → 2 things
- low SES + ? + ? → low school readiness
A
- A FOCUS ON SELF-REGULATION DOES NOT DETRACT FROM A FOCUS ON ACADEMIC LEARNING
- school readiness = dev of self reg /EF/WM
- math ability best predict grades
- EF → acquire knowledge + EF
- acquire K → help EF, expand ZPD
- fluid (EF) vs crystalized (acquired knowledge) intelligence
- Crystalized ability: remain steady
- Fluid ability: decline w/ age
- Reason: diff brain systems manage these 2 classes of ability
- Fluid abilities (EF): PFC
- slow to mature, faster to decline, effortful
- repeated use can deplete it
- crystallized abilities (K): temporal, parietal, and occipital lobes
- Dev fast, doesn’t decline, auto
- repeated use help perceptual processes, memory retrieval
- Fluid abilities (EF): PFC
- Investment hypothesis: fluid abilities pave the way for acquire knowledge
- x
- SELF-REGULATION MAY BE A PRIMARY MECHANISM THROUGH WHICH POVERTY AFFECTS SCHOOL READINESS
- Dev systems approach to school readiness
- High poverty → more adverse conditions → low school readiness.
- adverse conditions:
- no preschool that help dev self reg
- fam does not promote self reg
- change brain physiology → worse self reg/EF
- brain’s focus: adapt to aversive context, not school demands
- brain cannot adapt to school demands → worse grades
- low SES → insensitive parenting → children high cortisol → low EF
- low SES + ESL + immigrant → low school readiness
9
Q
Blair & Raver
- low SES: 2 main disadv
- higher quality care → ?
- better self reg → 3 outcomes
- early intervention programs: focus?
- Results: children improve in 2 things?
- x
- other intervention programs focus on math and literacy
- dialogic reading
- results of this intervention
- 2 types of math intervventions
- result
- improve literacy & math → improve ?
- X
- 2 factors that affect self reg & school readiness
- Old interventions focus
- new intervention focus
A
- FOSTERING SELF-REGULATION IS A PRIMARY WAY OF FOSTERING SCHOOL READINESS
- low SES → fewer learning opportunities + less support for self reg that helps learning
- early-interventions
- high-quality care → better grades
- better self reg → better employment, relationships; lower criminality
- So early intervention programs focus on improving EF/SR
- Ex. Chicago School Readiness Project (CSRP)
- Focus: improving EF/self reg
- 1 teacher trained in classroom management strategies → provide self reg support
- Ex. reward +ve b, redirect -ve b
- 2 place disruptive low SES children in this intervention
- Results: children had better self reg/EF
- less withdrawn/disruptive
- → better grades
- Ex. REDI project: Research based, dev informed
- Focus: improving EF/self reg
- Findings
- better EF and K
- Follow up: effects were sustained
- Ex. Tools of the Mind
- Focus: improving EF/self reg; Vygotskian theory/zpd
- ESL children
- Results: better EF & Eng
- x
- SELF-REGULATION AS A FRAMEWORK FOR EFFECTIVE TEACHING PRACTICES IN READING AND MATH
- focus: literacy and math
- Dialogic reading: reading method; adult is the listener, asks qs to prompt child reflect on story; similar to dialogue/convo
- low SES → read-aloud interventions (ex. dialogic reading) → help literacy de
- low SES → math games/ introduce math in daily experiences → Moree #K
- improve literacy & math → better EF
- x
- Conclusion
- biology, SES → affect self reg → affect school readiness
- New interventions: dev programs that improve self reg
- old intervention: only focus on academic skills
10
Q
- Karmillof
- Discourse
- 2 features
- What do children learn b4 they talk?
- week 1: 2 things they do?
- Speech acts
- Q&A
- 1-3 yo
- How do mom’s help children attune to convo?
- 2 yo: 3 things they know?
- 3 characteristics
- 3 yo: 3 things they do
- 4 yo: 1 thing
- 5 yo: 2 things
- 1-3 yo
- Convos
- 1-3 yo: 4 things
- 4 yo: 2 things
- 5+ yo: 4 characteristics
A
- Discourse: dialogic exchanges, monologues like storytelling
- 2 main features of discourse
- 1 shared knowledge; can infer based on knowledge
- Ex. Jimmy stepped on a nail, and went to ER
- Conclusion: Jimmy got hurt
- We infer this based on our knowledge
- Ex. Jimmy stepped on a nail, and went to ER
- 2 Shortcut responses (esp in dialogue exchanges)
- Ex. Speaker A: Where are you going after school?
- Speaker B: Home
- It’s odd to say the full sentence; gotta judge how much to say
- Ex. Speaker A: Where are you going after school?
- Learning about dialogue
- Children learn pragmatics (rules) before they even talk
- 1st week: turn taking; initiate interaction (Ex. Da)
- Speech acts: understand the fx of the utterance; respond accordingly
- Fx of a question: initiate a response
- 1-3 yo: vague initiation/response
- mothers help children attune to convo structure (ex. qs → response)
- x
- 2yo: intonation, proto-imperatives (qs: what where), and port-declaratives (point out)
- mainly actions repetitions, semantically incorrect, has form
- Ex. Dad: Do you want to go in the car?
- Bb: Car
- mainly actions repetitions, semantically incorrect, has form
- 3 yo: better semantics and pragmatics, respond to qs (“why” and “when”)
- use connectives (and) and ellipsis (respond to request – yes, I will)
- 4 yo: children can answer most qs
- 5 yo: they can initiate and sustain well-structure convos
- x
- 1-3yo: short exchanges, no openings, no convo links, new convo is unrelated to past convo
- 4 yo: connect to early utterances to maintain convo
- Use tags “isn’t it, aren’t they”*****
- 5-6 yo: Convo skills take off
- respond w/ multiple things; initiate more
- Use auxiliary ellipsis (implicit answers)
- Q: Do u think it will rain tonight? – It might
- understands speaker’s intention and knowledge
11
Q
- Karmillof
- Narrative vs dialogue
- dialogue has ?
- Ex
- Narrative has → ?
- fx
- ex
- dialogue has ?
- Narrative coherence vs cohesion
- coherance
- cohesion
- x
- Narrative coherence
- 2 types of story telling
- Narrative hierarchy
- 2 things at the top of hierarchy
- Narrative has structure: 5 levels
- 3 yo story type
- 2 issues w/ 1-5 yo’s story
- 7-8 yo: 2 things in their story
- x
- narrative cohesion
- 3 types of devices
- Dietic use of devices
- define
- age gp
- anaphorically
- Presupposition: 2 ways this is used
- Grounding info: fx
- 2 indicators of narrative status
- ? + ? = well structure narrative
- Ex: Narratives can be coherent, not cohesive
- Ex: Narratives can be coherent, not cohesive
A
- Learning about narrative
- Narrative is diff from dialogue
- Convo: hv cues (ex. eye movement → target)
- Narrative: pronouns refer back to what was mentioned (anaphoric reference)
- Ex She/her: Jenny is very smart. She went to the best school in the country
- Narrative needs coherence and cohesion
- Coherence: content is held together and elaborated
- Cohesion: linguistic devices used to link sentences; relate old info w/ new info
- x
- Narrative coherence
- Story telling –
- Can be own experiences, fiction
- narrative parts have hierarchy
- Top of hierarchy
- Setting and episode
- Setting: name
- Episode: events
- initiating event → action plan → outcome
- Narrative has structure; no structure → make no sense
- 1 intro to protagonist
- 2 protagonist goal
- 3 Overt action done
- 4 outcomes
- 5 sum up outcome
- 3 yo: only follow structure when narrative real life events
- real life events → emo involved
- don’t need to create stories from scratch
- complex stories → worse
- 1-5 yo: stories lack goal + coherence
- 5+ yo: more coherence
- Reason: making a fake story is hard; don’t have the linguistic devices
- Their solution: use only 1 protagonist
- 7-8 yo: have multiple protagonist; fiction story
- 5+ yo: more coherence
- X
-
Narrative cohesion: linguistic devices that link sentences together
- Ex. pronouns (ex hi, she, they it),
- Ex. temporal and causal connectives (and, then, next, while)
- Ex. ellipsis
- At first, children use these markers deictically (i.e. when you can point out the object)
- Ex. “dog” is used when the animal is present
- Anaphorically: object/dog must be mentioned in the prior linguistic context
- Presupposition: used 2 ways
- Mutually shared knowledge (ex. elevator man was hurt -> presuppose we both know who he is)
- Info set up (ex. a man came to fix the elevator last night, and he got hurt)
- -> indication of narrative status
- Grounding info: speakers indicate what is primary focus vs subsidiary in discourse
- Ex. while I was speaking on the phone, J had her bb
- J had her bb is the primary focus
- -> another indication of narrative status
- x
- Cohesive use of pronouns + coherence -> well structured narrative
- Narratives can be coherent, not cohesive
- Character properly introduced
- (no causal links, sequence)
- Narratives can be coherent, not cohesive
- Coherent w/ beginning, dev, outcome, and judgement
- Verb tenses, “the boy” -> error
- Narratives can be coherent, not cohesive
12
Q
- Karmillof
- Frog story study
- Results: eng speakers → used more ?
- younger: used more?
- older: used more?
- Picture bk study
- Method
- the ambiguous situation
- zero anaphor
- definition
- example
- Results
- 4-5 yo: how they use pronouns
- content? cohesion?
- 6-7 yo: ‘’
- thematic subject constraint (TSC)
- cohesion? content?
- 8-9 yo: how they used pronouns
- differential referential expressions
- content? cohesion?
- 4-5 yo: how they use pronouns
- follow up study: All children only see pic: balloon man & boy; ice cream lady & girl
- prev vs now study
- This suggest/ implication?
- another indicator of discourse mastery → ?
- define discourse marking
- sentence ex
- discourse ex
- define discourse marking
- 4 factors for good discourse in dialogue and narrative
A
- The Dev of narrative production
- How do children learn to use cohesive devices in storytelling
- Berman and Slobin
- Frog story: showed 3-9 yo, adults
- Frog story: Boy lost frog, tries to find it
- Results: eng speakers → used more verbs
- younger: use cohesive markers
- older: use more syntactic devices
- Picture bk study
- 4-9 yo kids
- some shown the whole story, some showed 1 pic in the story
- There’s ambiguous situation: 2 main characters, both same sex
- Zero anaphor: placeholder that connective “and” and verb
- Ex Harry read the bk and went to sleep
- Zero anaphor is b/w “and” and “went”, removed “he”/”harry” here
- IOW: subject is not expressed
- Key interest: children’s unconscious decision on when to use diff cohesive markers
- 2 versions of the story
- isolated pics hv 2 interpretations (ex. take vs give ice cream; drop/ let go balloon)
- H: 4-5 yo use noun phrases and pronouns deictically (pt to referents in pics), not anaphorically (refer back to referents)
- They see no problem using the same pronoun for 2 diff story characters of same sex
- Results
- Most children in all age gps produced narratives that accurately describe content depicted in each pic
- 4-5 yo: used markers in deictically (point to character) to clarify the ambiguity
- describe pic separately
- 6-7 yo hv intralinguistic cohesion
- try to connect the pics together
- to avoid ambiguity, describe all pics in 1 perspective -> thematic subject constraint (TSC)
- worse content, better cohesion
- 8-9 yo
- Use TSC flexibly
- pronouns for main character only; Side character is referred w/ full noun → no ambuigty
- = differential referential expressions
- good content & cohesion
- 4-9 yo kids
- Follow up study
- All children only see pic: balloon man & boy; ice cream lady & girl
- Prev: children put the boy/girl as main character
- Now: woman/man = main character
- children override natural instinct to put woman/man as main character; put girl/boy as subject → make narrative more coherent
- All children only see pic: balloon man & boy; ice cream lady & girl
- MP: how children use pronouns fx → indicator of discourse mastery
- Discourse marking = learn to use existing structure in new ways (ex. pronouns)
- Sentence: choice is based on semantics (ex. pronouns refer to recent character)
- Discourse lv: based on cohesive devices (ex. pronoun reserved for main character)
- Discourse marking = learn to use existing structure in new ways (ex. pronouns)
- Conclusion
- good discourse in dialogue and narrative includes many factors
- 1 setting & events
- 2 grounding of info
- 3 prior knowledge shared by speaker and listener
- 4 cohesive devices
13
Q
L4
- Mechanisms of change
- How children get better EC
- main factor
- 2 causes
- age 5-20: gradual increase in ??
- aka
- main factor
- U-shaped pattern/ZPD: indiv D
- children’s EC matures at diff rates → ?? → problem?
- Interventions
- focus
- what they do?
- Ex. Chicago school readiness project
- method
- 3 things they train children with
- 3 main results
- 1 implication
A
- Mechanisms of change
- How children get better EC
- Physiological changes: PFC has stronger connections to other parts
- more myelination – faster speed
- Age 5-20: gradual increase in grey matter density (i.e. neural density)
- synaptic pruning = More efficient roads (highway vs sand)
- more myelination – faster speed
- Physiological changes: PFC has stronger connections to other parts
- There’s individual D
- x
- U-shaped pattern/ZPD: indiv D
- As children’s EC matures at diff rates → different ZPD
- Creates problems in classroom learning
- Most interventions focus on closing this gap (Blair and Raver)
- Increasing EC -> increase school readiness
- Ex. Chicago school readiness project
- teaching training → help low SES children on
- ER (excess -ve/+ve emo)
- EC (switch task, inhibition)
- Did NOT focus on academic skills training
- Results:
- Fewer internalizing problems (ex. MDD and GAD)
- Fewer externalizing problems (Ex. conduct disorders)
- better grades (even though no academic skills training)
- These academic skills emerge from strong exec control
- teaching training → help low SES children on
14
Q
L4
- EC can improve 2 things
- Ramini and Siegler’s intervention: ?
- Modular view: Math and linguistic skills ?
- True for what population?
- Not true for what pop?
- x
- risky decision making
- as we age → EC ? → decision making?
- Reasons why adol still make risky decisions
- common misconception?
- actual reason?
- Emo: is it a hinderance?
- benefit of emo in decision making?
A
- Specific skill interventions
- EC interventions improve global changes (soft skills)
- EC interventions can improve academic skills (ex. math and literacy)
- Ramini and Siegler’s intervention: # BG
- Modular view: Math and linguistic skills housed in diff areas
- Some are great in math, shit in language
- Brain damage ppl: damage language, not math
- Typical population: math and linguistic skills are highly correlated
- X
- Risky decision making
- As we age → better EC → better at decision making and grades
- But adol still make risky decisions: why?
- Ppl think they are egocentric
- Rs showed: not the case
- They know what is risky
- Due to socioemotional influences → engage risk things
- When all ppl are alone, they all make low risk decisions
- When surrounded by youths made more risk decisions than the adults
- NOTE: society sees emo as hinderance
- Emo decisional making can help us make better decisions
- This is b/c decision has emo weight (mad/sad)
- Emo decisional making can help us make better decisions
15
Q
L4
- 5 parts of language
- x
- phonemes definition
- What are they NOT?
- Can we produce all phonemes?
- when we hv ability to differentiate phonemes?
- when do we differentiate sounds in own language?
- when do we produce sounds of own language?
- x
- define morphemes
- the smallest # of phonemes to make a morpheme?
- how many phonemes in I?
- When do children start using morphemes?
- Common mistake for children
A
- Parts of language
- 5 parts (dev at diff rates/times)
- 1 Phonemes
- 2 Morphemes
- 3 Semantics
- 4 Syntax
- 5 Pragmatics
- x
- #1 phonemes
- Smallest units of sound we recognize as speech rather than random noise
- Ex. consonants, vowels, /s/
- NOT communicative sounds: coughing/sneezing/laughter/crying
- Human vocal tract can produce all of these sounds; not all languages use all phonemes
- As we age, we can’t produce sounds that we no longer use in daily life
- When do children learn them?
- Phonological (sound) dev
- B4 birth (12 wk gestation): ability to differentiate all the word’s language sounds
- Learn to specialize in their own native language
- 10 mo: can differentiate b/w sounds in own language
- (not in other languages)
- 1 yo: produce sounds of their native language halfway through the 1st year of life (ex Mandarin vs Eng bb differ in babbling)
- B4 birth (12 wk gestation): ability to differentiate all the word’s language sounds
- Learning to produce sounds cont throughout childhood
- Phonological (sound) dev
- x
- 2 morphemes= Smallest meaningful units of language
- the smallest # of phonemes to make a morpheme? ANS: 1 (ex. a. s)
- (I is 2 phonemes: a and e)
- Ex overwhelmingly = 4: Over whelm ing ly
- Ex Giraffe = 1 morpheme
- When do kids learn them?
- Preschool children begin applying morphemic result to words
- Ex. pluralizing - /s/
- Non-word: neem
- Ex. if you have 1 neem, you have 2 neem(s)
- Ex. Verb tense endings - /ed/
- Non-word: Dax
- Ex. Today I will Dax, yesterday I Dax(ed)
- These are often easy for children to learn b/c they are regular
- But this can cause overregulation, when children apply rules incorrectly to new words
- Ex. I “eated” the cake
- Ex. There’s 5 “gooses”
- Ex. pluralizing - /s/
- No increase in linguistic impairment in bilinguals
- Preschool children begin applying morphemic result to words
16
Q
- L4
-
#3 semantics
- define
- when does it begin dev?
- why?
- 6 mo ?
- 2 yo?
- 2 things
- Eng 1st words: n vs v?
- 2 challenges of learning semantics?
- Quinean reference problem
- Context?
- 5 strategies
- x
-
#4 Syntax
- define
- mean length of utterance method describe
- 25 mo?
- 3 yo
- Stages
- Holophrastic speech
- define
- fx
- Telegraphic speech
- define
- age
- morse code analogy
- 4-word sentences = when?
- 2 times of vocal explosion: when?
- why don’t we have vocal explosion as adults?
A
- #3 semantic
- Semantics = meaning/ definition
- 1 or more morphemes combine to form semantic units or words
- Ex. “a”
- Semantics dev begin at birth!!!!!!
- They hear native language at birth (same for phonemes)
- 6 mo: understand meaning of certain common words
- Ex. you name object (dog), bb look at correct object
- 2 yo: produce words
- after they learn 1st word → nro change → vocab explosion at 1-2 yo (b/c they enter sku → learn new words from teacher, kids)
- In Eng, most 1st words are usually nouns
- Not true for verb-centric languages
- Challenges
- In bb: need segmenting of fluent speech into indiv words
- Adult: speak rapidly
- Segmenting: I…am…boo….
- Need to know where word starts or ends
- Childhood/adol: need to know what the words mean (reference)
- “Let’s meet Big Bird???
- In bb: need segmenting of fluent speech into indiv words
- Semantic dev: reference problem
- Quinean reference problem
- Hearing a word that’s presented in complex ecological scene (i.e. real world)
- You are expected to know what the word means
- Ex. Local tells you “Gavagai”
- You will think it means rabbit (most forefront stimulus)
- Strategies to know what Gavagai means
- 1 whole object bias
- When given new word (ex. gavagai), you assume it refers to the whole thing (ex. who rabbit)
- Unless you are point to the ears
- 2 mutual exclusivity bias
- False belief
- Kids tend to believe each label applies to one and only one object; each object has 1 label
- Ex. bb see a rabbit 1st time, and fam dog
- Bb knows dog = dog
- When mom says “rabbit”, bb assume mom is talking about the object that’s new
- It’s false in the sense that same object can hv several names
- We can call a rabbit, hare, bunny
- 3 Basic lv bias
- When they hear a new word, it refers to the basic lv of the word
- Nouns – 3 lvs
- Basic lv – general term (ex rabbit)
- Subordinate – specific name (ex artic hare)
- Superordinate term (ex mammal)
- Mammal includes elephants as well
- 4 Linguistic context
- Grammatical cues
- This is a gavagai
- /is/, /s/ = object
- He is gavagaying
- /ing/ = movement
- Zack daxes Mary
- /ed/ -> verb?
- Zack and Mary are daxing
- Doing smth together
- This is a gavagai
- Kids are sensitive the the cues: /ed/, /ing/, /is/
- Grammatical cues
- 5 pragmatic cues
- Pragmatics: things that surround language that help us understand better, how we use language, the context
- Ex. tone of voice, pointing, looking
- IOW: children are sensitive to parents gaze and pointing
- When we exclaim/sound excited -> child know it’s smth new
- Pragmatics: things that surround language that help us understand better, how we use language, the context
- 1 whole object bias
- Quinean reference problem
- 4 Syntax
- Aka grammar
- When do children learn syntax (put words together to form complete sentences)?
- mean length of utterance method
- record child and parent convo
- every time a child speaks, you count the words; then avg it
- 25 mo: 1-2 words
- 3 yo: some 4 words; some still 1-2
- mean length of utterance method
- Stages
- Holophrastic speech: 1 word utterances
- Ex. cookie, hungry
- Gives enough info for caretaker to know what ythey need
- Telegraphic speech: 2-3 words (2yo)
- Verb-noun pairs
- Ex. want cookie
- Sentences (simple combinations of words) emerge
- Telegraph -> communicate via morse codes
- Long distance
- Charged by each letter (longer sentence = more expensive)
- Cheaper to say want cookie rather than I want cookie
- 4-word sentences emerge 2.5 yo
- Becomes more complex
- Cont throu adol
- Holophrastic speech: 1 word utterances
- x
- There’s vocab explosion (ex 100 words/wk during toddler, early elementary school)
- Then it slows down: We are still learning words
- No vocal explosion unless they learn new language
