It is currently Fri Oct 31, 2014 2:59 pm
  

All times are UTC + 1 hour





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
 Post subject: Computers v Humans for Teaching Reading
PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 10:25 am 
Offline
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:10 pm
Posts: 4864
Location: Exeter UK
Dr. Philip MacMillan* wrote the following post for the Senco forum in response to someone asking for suggestions for 'phonics software for secondary school students'. I found it so interesting that I asked if we could have it for the RRF message board. He kindly agreed - and added a lot more detail. Thank you Philip.

Quote:
Computers are fine for practice but if your students have still not acquired facility with phonological analysis and synthesis by age 11/12 then you might be better off using a competent adult who can direct attention to the articulatory process and how it relates to reading, it will also help establish connections between letters and sounds if writing (by hand) is a part of the process. The kinaesthetic activity involved in writing integrates visual, oral and aural activities, keyboarding is less effective as it uses a different part of the brain and is less fine grained. For the close to last three millennia reading has been taught hand in hand with writing. WE should stick with it.

In those with significant difficulties learning is best mediated by another more competent human being as a large component of learning involves social processes. Despite the noise around genetics and neurological investigations of reading difficulties as yet there are no genetic or neurological methods of addressing the problem. The answers lie in the cognitive realm.

The existence of mirror neurons in the human brain is now well established. Much of human learning involves ‘monkey see monkey do’, ask any old time apprentice . Expecting all to re –invent the wheel is nonsensical. Large numbers of mirror neurons seem to lie within the areas involved in the production and perception of speech. It is the areas involved in speech that light up when you read, even silently. So paying attention to speech is crucial in the learning to read process. Speech is perceived through the mechanisms of its production, that is, analysis by synthesis. In other words the listener tries to work out what he/ she would have to do to match the incoming sound. This is done at the speech motor level with speech output suppressed else it would be far too slow. Despite the huge variation in speech pitch between individuals male/ female/ young/ old/ regional accent we all (almost all) make the same sounds in the same way in the same place. The invariance in speech resides in the articulatory processes not in the frequency and pitch parameters, mother nature is always economical. If we were to match incoming voices against our own in internal models on the basis of frequency and pitch matching it would be very difficult to deal with a new voice as we would have nothing to match it against and the process would make huge demands on cognitive capacity. The incoming sound contains the information on where and how the sound was produced. Children learn to speak by listening to adult models, we seldom have to provide spoken instructions on how to form the sounds and how many would actually be able to do this? Not many.

We all lip read when listening to speech if the face is visible and in circumstances where there is ambiguity in the incoming speech signal lip reading will assist with extracting the sounds. An example of lip reading is that most of us can tell when the sound is even 50-100 ms out of sync with the mouth movements. In those with undeveloped or faulty phonological analysis, for whatever reason, there needs to be as many sources of input as possible, a disembodied voice will provide less information than a human face visible to the listener. I have yet to meet a computer that can respond to the mood state of the individual and attempt to alter it, a perceptive human will do just this and amend how they respond accordingly. Educational systems throughout the English speaking world and I can only speak of these, have expended billions in an attempt to mechanize the learning of reading via computers but to little avail as Brooks (2002, 2006) has pointed out. There are some useful ICT tools out there that can motivate some individuals but they are few and far between. There is no substitute for a competent pair of feet''


PhilipEP

Refs.

Greg Brooks (2002) What Works for Children with Literacy Difficulties? The Effectiveness of Intervention Schemes.
DfES Research Report RR380

G Brooks, JNV Miles, CJ Torgerson & DJ Torgerson (2006): Is an intervention using computer software effective in literacy learning? A randomised controlled trial, Educational
Studies, 32:2, 133-143


*Philip MacMillan is currently a Hon Research Fellow at Exeter Uni Grad School of Ed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Computers v Humans for Teaching Reading
PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 12:41 pm 
Offline
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 10:38 pm
Posts: 2989
Location: N.E England
Thank you for this, Susan.

Philip is the voice of sanity on the SENCo forum; I keep most of his very wise posts in a separate folder!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Computers v Humans for Teaching Reading
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 1:45 pm 
Offline
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:10 pm
Posts: 4864
Location: Exeter UK
Another fascinating posting by Philip on the SENCo forum

Quote:
Any theory of reading needs to be predicated on a coherent data supported theory of speech perception and production as print is speech put on paper using, in the case of our alphabet a code and a set of rules that are context defined. Speech is perceived and produced syllabically and the mechanisms behind this are in the main automatic, we are hard wired for speech, all that is required for an intact child to learn to speak is to be exposed (at the right time) to adult models of speech. We perceive speech through the means of its production, or, analysis by synthesis. The listener works out he/ she would have to do to match the utterance but with overt speech suppressed. We use up to 100 muscles in producing speech. When we read, even silently, the area of the brain that lights up is the motor cortex for speech. The speech waveform contains all the information to allow the sound to be repeated by the listener. in other words speech is a replication code.


- to read the rest go to http://lists.education.gov.uk/pipermail ... uthor.html and scroll down to 'Reading accuracy progress - Philip MacMillan'


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 

All times are UTC + 1 hour


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  



Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
greenmiles v1.1 designed by CodeMiles Team -TemplatesDragon-.