DOC PREVIEW
Research questions and approach

This preview shows page 1-2-3-4-5 out of 14 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 14 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 14 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 14 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 14 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 14 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 14 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

Refined Micro-analysis of Fluency Gains in a Reading Tutor that ListensResearch questions and approachProject LISTEN’s Reading Tutor: Rich source of guided oral reading dataReading speeds up with practice: exampleLearning curve for mean reading time of first 20 encounters, excluding top 50 wordsFour types of word encountersPredictor variablesExponential model of word reading timeAnalysisOverall resultsEffects of proficiencyConclusion: type of practice matters!Predictive models of word reading in textOutcome variable1CarnegieMellonMostow & Beck, Project LISTEN 01/14/19Refined Micro-analysis of Fluency Gains in a Reading Tutor that Listens Jack Mostow* and Joseph BeckProject LISTEN (www.cs.cmu.edu/~listen)Carnegie Mellon University* Consultant and Scientific Advisory Board Chair, Soliloquy LearningSociety for the Scientific Study of Reading13th Annual Meeting, July, 2006Funding: National Science Foundation, Heinz Endowments2CarnegieMellonMostow & Beck, Project LISTEN 01/14/19Research questions and approachGuided oral reading builds fluency [NRP 00]Typically repeated oral reading… but how do its benefits vary?How good is repeated vs. wide reading?How good is massed vs. spaced practice?How do the answers vary with student proficiency?Approach: micro-analyze oral reading dataMassive: hundreds of childrenLongitudinal: entire school yearFine-grained: word by word3CarnegieMellonMostow & Beck, Project LISTEN 01/14/19Project LISTEN’s Reading Tutor: Rich source of guided oral reading dataMassive650 students age 5-14Mostly grades 1-4Longitudinal2003-2004 school year55,000 sessionsFine-grained6.9 million words“Heard” by recognizerVideo at www.cs.cmu.edu/~listen4CarnegieMellonMostow & Beck, Project LISTEN 01/14/19Initial encounter of muttered:I’ll have to mop up all this (5630 ms) muttered Dennis to himself but how 5 weeks later (different word pair in different sentence):Dennis (110 ms) muttered oh I forgot to ask him for the moneyWord reading time = latency + production time  1/fluencyHow does word reading time change in general?Reading speeds up with practice: example5CarnegieMellonMostow & Beck, Project LISTEN 01/14/19Learning curve for mean reading time of first 20 encounters, excluding top 50 words946.0401.021.1timeReading2)494.0(Rex Do some types of encounters help more than others?6CarnegieMellonMostow & Beck, Project LISTEN 01/14/19Four types of word encountersNew context?First time today?1. Read muttered in a new story. Wide Spaced2. Read muttered in another sentence. Wide Massed3. On a later day, reread sentence 1. Reread Spaced4. Then reread sentence 2. Reread MassedPredict reading time for 770,858 type 1 encountersfrom prior encounters of all 4 types.7CarnegieMellonMostow & Beck, Project LISTEN 01/14/19Predictor variablesNumber of word encounters so far of each typeWide vs. rereadSpaced vs. massedWord difficulty# of letters# of past help requests (controls for difficulty for that student)Student proficiencyWRMT Word Identification grade-equivalent score, e.g. 2.3Interpolated for each encounter from pre- and post-test scores8CarnegieMellonMostow & Beck, Project LISTEN 01/14/19Exponential model of word reading time= L * # letters + (P * proficiency + constant A) * e - learning rate B *ExposureDefine weights for each type of encounterr for rereading vs. 1 for wide readingm for massed vs. 1 for spacedh for help requestsExposure = weighted sum of # of word encounters so far1 * # of wide, spaced encounters+ r * # of reread, spaced encounters+ m * # of wide, massed encounters+ r * m * # of reread, massed encounters+ h * # of help requests[Beck, J. Using learning decomposition to analyze student fluency development. ITS2006 Educational Data Mining Workshop, Taiwan.]9CarnegieMellonMostow & Beck, Project LISTEN 01/14/19AnalysisUse SPSS non-linear regression to fit parametersCaveat: 770,858 trials are not independentSo be conservative:Split 650 students into 10 groupsFit r, m, … for each groupFrom the 10 estimates of each parameter, compute:Mean ± standard errorDiffers significantly from 1?10CarnegieMellonMostow & Beck, Project LISTEN 01/14/19Overall resultsWide reading beats rereadingr = .68 ± .13r < 1 (p = .007)2 new stories ≈ 3 old storiesSpaced beats massed practicem = .67 ± .13m < 1 (p = .007)2 spaced encounters ≈ 3 massed encountersDo these results vary by proficiency?11CarnegieMellonMostow & Beck, Project LISTEN 01/14/19Effects of proficiencyBottom third Middle third Top thirdWord ID GE 1.8 (0-2.3) 2.7 (2.3-3.1) 4.5 (3.1-10.2)Reread (r) .93 ± .23 .99 ± .23 .79 ± .25 Massed (m) 1.73 ± .46 * .41 ± .08 ** .41 ± .21 **When does wide reading beat rereading?Maybe only for high readers?Seeing a word again the same dayMay help low readers more than waiting (p = .058)Helps higher readers less than seeing it later (p < .01)12CarnegieMellonMostow & Beck, Project LISTEN 01/14/19Conclusion: type of practice matters!Wide reading beats rereadingAt least for higher readersAdvantage of spaced practice varies with proficiencyLow readers: seeing a word again the same day may help moreHigher readers: better to waitFluency growth is slow (learning curve is gradual)So differences in practice quality are hard to detectBut possible by micro-analysis of massive, longitudinal, fine-grained dataFuture workClarify interaction with proficiencyRefine model of fluency practiceTest correlational results experimentallyThank you! Questions?See papers & videos at www.cs.cmu.edu/~listen13CarnegieMellonMostow & Beck, Project LISTEN 01/14/19Predictive models of word reading in textSSSR2005 SSSR2006Predict Growth from word encounter i to i+1Performance at encounter i+1Outcome Reading time speedup Reading time, errors, help requestsPredictor Encounter i of word Encounters 1..iModel Linear Exponential14CarnegieMellonMostow & Beck, Project LISTEN 01/14/19Outcome variableCombine reading time, errors, help requestsCap reading time at 3 seconds (0.1% of data)Treat error as 3 secondsTreat help request as 3


Research questions and approach

Download Research questions and approach
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Research questions and approach and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Research questions and approach 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?