Reflections of a lecture about leanring phonetics naturally in ChungHwa Caves Bookstore

       Over the years, English teaching has put much attention on grammar teaching. Students’ listening and speaking skills seem to be put aside. However, there is still a need to build up those skills, which the foundation is the pronunciation. 

 

       In this lecture, the speaker, also recognized as the founder English Bridge School, proposed that by teaching phonetics as she always does, students never need to memorize ways to articulate sounds, spell letters into words, and take several tests to make sure students do learn. To be honest, I was quite surprised when I heard she saying that because it is quite hard for students, nowadays, to learn effortlessly. She also stated that there are several rules of phonetics to be taught, but the most important thing is that which one goes first. In other words, with right orders of laying rules, students never forget them. And I was somehow motivated by that saying to see what she would to do in the following steps. Before starting, she confessed that she usually applies a lot of games in her classes, which she believes that students learn better than taking tests, and which I think I might have some inspirations.  

         During the presentation, as she demonstrated rules teaching steps by steps, I deeply felt that she was really an experienced teacher. Besides, following up activities and games were so many that I seldom got bored during the presentation. After two hours lecturing, the speaker still had a lot to share with, but the time was not enough. Then, for Q & A section, she serenely answered questions from other teachers, blending with her experiences. Especially when she said she would sometimes answer students’ questions by using “English is crazy, and I am sorry.” for things she cannot really explain, all of us laughed.      

       Wonderful as the presentation was, it has two major flaws which I felt quite disappointed somehow. Two flaws are the inconsistency of presented topic and the content and the ignorance of different teaching environment.

First of all, the needlessness of memorizing ways of articulation, spelling letters into words, or taking exams to facilitate learning should be the focus of the whole lecturing. However, all I could see and feel was the perfect display of Audiolingualism. Mountains of drills and repetition of rules presented by the speaker were also viewed as the key spirits of that teaching method. Besides, the speaker mentioned orders of teaching rules, which can be seen as a contradictory because there should not be any rule in terms of leaning naturally. Therefore, I do not think those techniques are equal to learning naturally, and the inconsistency of the topic and the content surfaces.

       Second, the speaker has run the cram school for many years, so she may know how to teach students that go to her place, but students in the school are totally another stories due to several factors, such as parents’ pressure, learners’ intrinsic motivation …etc. Besides, playing games throughout the whole class hours may face a big problem of being approvable. When it comes to understanding whether there are matches or mismatches between students’ and teachers’ realization of learning effects, it is usually hard to tell.

      To sum up, in the perspective of her teaching beliefs, teaching phonetics rules with the right orders, repeating rules and drilling by playing are betters ways to build up students' phonetic knowledge. It is indeed a good experience for me to know how other teacher teaching phonetics. Even though the lecture highlighted learning phonetics naturally, this is not the case actually.

 

Reflections of Doing RT Project in Chang-Te Junior High School

         After doing Reader Theater (RT) project for a month in Chang-Te Junior High School, I find that it is indeed a very good experience to meet different students in different areas.  Also, it is good to know some students were trying hard to learn while I was lecturing.  However, through this RT project, it helps me to think and rethink some questions that probably could be suggestions and further improvements for both the RT project and me.  In the following paragraph, based on different aspects of the observation of the whole RT project, questions are illustrated from the lightest to the most horrible one.

        First of all, considering the RT script, a question of whether they could do it within a month arose.  Apparently, most of them couldn’t do it.  Some students are not familiar with English alphabets, so it would be hard for them to speak out.   Then, I feel probably “i+10” was too much for them.  For the next time, “i+5” would be a good try.  Of course, the next related problem is that the RT’s schedule is too tight.  Many students probably need more time to practice and digest.

        Second of all, considering their English proficiency, what they have learned before they enter this Junior High school should be noticed.  Originally, I thought English teaching or learning has been carried out with efforts in their elementary years, but the truth is that they tend to have problems in recognizing English alphabets.  For example, I didn’t write whatever I said on the broad because I didn’t want them to overly rely on my writing, and they might not get concentrated on my lecturing for they only need to write down whatever I write.  Then, I repeated those words by spelling them three times, but some students started to ask how to write some alphabets.  For sure, I will probably need the microphone so as to let them listen precisely.  Then, some students have fallen into traps (in a more modern way, called cram schools) for at least one year.  Therefore, it is amazing to know that some of them have learned present perfect.  However, when I tried to know what they have in their heads by asking more questions, it is a pity that they got confused with all tenses and aspects.  Without doubts, a discrepancy exists between students, but they all need helps.  Probably, there is a need to know what happened to their English learning before.

        Third, concerning of the teaching project, the importance might need to be explained explicitly.  Most of students don’t realize that we, teachers, tried to teach them something, including designing good learning materials.  In students’ mind, they know RT project is not going to be a part of grades in the new semester, and they know there’s nothing if they failed to perform.  They simply want to play as if they did not graduate yet.  Therefore, probably making the whole project as a competition of the whole 7^th grade might be workable somehow.    For sure, in the summer tutoring, students are here for trying to get themselves ready as junior-high students before the new semester, but it still would be good for teachers to help them or get involved.  For example, the principle, the dean or their homeroom teachers could simply pass by to see their students or whether I should do something to adjust my teaching.  This way, students would probably realize that we do care the RT project and their learning as well.

        Forth, concerning of their learning attitude, it is very important to teach them disciplines, respects and manners.  Based on my observation, students do not really know why they are here and why they are learning this.  Some students keep their devout beliefs in their cram schools.  Furthermore, it is surprised to know that although girls are biologically and cognitively more mature than boys, some of them are arrogant and reluctant to follow up the class.  For example, while other groups were performing on the stage, one of the girls patted the head of the boy who sat in front of her, and took away his textbook, throwing it at his face.  Every time I asked her to behave herself, or I simply stared at her, she turned her face to the other side, and then went on playing when I was looking the performing group.  Besides, some girls think that they are good because of going to cram school.  Then, they turned out to believe that the purpose of staying at school is to make better use of their own times.  For instance, there is a very classic girl who took out a short Chinese horror novel (which can be bought easily at 7-11) while the first group was performing.  As I took away her novel, she took it back without asking for permission in the break.  Even worse, when she performed on the stage, she did lip-reading for the total twenty minutes.  Fortunately, they are not much, but they are annoyed.  Typically, they really don’t understand the differences between elementary school and junior high school.  Therefore, no matter what kinds of project or activities are doing, students’ attitudes should be placed in the first priority.  If necessary, I don’t mind that the dean comes into the class and does something.

        Overall the questions above, it is easy to find that they are actually interconnected.  But now, a question appears: Do they really need to be that serious in their learning?  Based on many well-known educators and publishers, it would be more suitable to teach students by understanding them, lowering their anxieties, and promoting their motivations.  However, are they that mature to realize that we are trying to help them learn English speaking, or do they simply think it is not an important class because the teacher is doing something funny?  Then, it could turn out that we are all talking but never on the same page.  Besides, it is also interesting to think the following up questions: when teachers are trying to communicate with them, are they that mature to understand teachers are trying to help them, or teachers don’t dare to be harsh at them?  Are they that mature to evaluate teachers’ teaching and teaching materials, or to think they are the boss that should be pleased?  In here, the point is not about what they are going to write, but it doesn’t help to build their characters.  For sure, there are indeed some students learning very hard.  However, is teaching or learning to comprise with students who don’t want to learn?  That is the reason why I try to push them to walk forward rather than get afraid of being ticketed.  Still, there were times I felt helpless and powerless.  In short, it is a very good experience to meet different kinds of students in different areas. 

Superman Returns (2006) VS. Superman: The Man of Steel (2013)

 

        After seeing the new version of Superman movie, I feel quite disappointed, and I got tired of those long fighting scenes.  Before going, I felt it might be good simply judging from the movie trailer.  Well, it is not that good as comparing the previous one, done by Bryan Singer, and the reasons are illustrated in the following paragraphs.

        First of all, The movie titled as Superman: The Man of Steel, featuring the famous director of Batman series － Christopher Nolan as the story writer and producer, is said to have realism throughout the film.  This has motivated people to pay for the movie tickets.  Unquestionably, people are expecting a better super hero movie and hope to see something deeper.  However, after watching the movie, having realistic style and providing deeper exploration or thinking of the film are totally two different things.  In the movie － Superman: The Man of Steel, it indeed provided the audience with a more complete story of the background of Clark Kent, known as superman.  Also, it was good to see that by using flashing back of events happened in his young age, the audience’s emotion toward the film is piling up as the Clark background was explored gradually.  Of course, with Kevin Costner (as Clark’s father on earth), Cooper Timberline (as 9-year-old Clark) and Dylan Sprayberry’s (as 13-year-old Clark) extraordinary performances (especially those two kids), Superman’s background turned to be vivid in front of the audience.  Their performances in this film were considered to be the best of all since they acted so spontaneous and amazing that their every word touched my heart, and they shared the same heartbeats with mine.  The struggling of self-identity between father and son has deepened the film and presented the idea of realism.  But, I am afraid that those are all the things that match the idea of using realism to deepen the film.

        In the movie, Russell Crowe, acted as Jor-El and the father of Superman in Krypton, always spoke serious lines with amazing moral meanings to Superman, which makes me feel awkward for two reasons.  For one thing, changes between scenes were fast, and it seemed that there were no bridges to link between fighting scenes and those lightening words scenes.  For the other, there was an inconsistency between what Clark has been taught by two different fathers, and how the Superman would struggle between them.  What’s more, the struggling of the superman’s doubts of who to trust were not deep into the superman's personality as well because they simply said it and negotiated it.  I think those negotiations were more like a young man living in the modern society and saying whatever they want, and then, everything is cool after that, which almost makes me laugh my head off.  Backing to the main point, it is somehow the realistic style, but I don’t really think it has deepened the film, and of course, I don’t believe that problems would be that easy to solve either.

        Finally, the long fighting scenes with General Zod showed that this movie still wanted to fulfill most of the audience’s desire of seeing an action movie.  Merely looking at the box office, it succeeded somehow but another problem came out.  Originally, superman is hoped to be people’s protector, then in the scenes, he fought like a young lad and smashed all the way he’s been to, which I sometimes really wondered what happened to those citizens.  In the end, he destroyed a remote controlled jet which was used to discover who is superman, showing that he was somewhat thoughtless as well.  Probably, for the first day of the new job, he’s doing just fine, and he has a lot to learn in the future.  And, back to the point of using realism to deepen the film, for those fighting actions, they were purely realistic, but to the whole picture, it looked like too exaggerated.  However, comparing the film － Superman Returns (2006), it has partial realistic only, which was put onto superman’s love.

        In that one, the director － Bryan Singer, is said to be good at dealing with characters’ relationships, which can be seen it the film.  Throughout the whole movie, even though the setting seemed to be old-fashioned, the charming atmosphere simply makes the audience feel enjoyable.  Besides, a gesture, an eye contact, or even a pause all makes the scenes intensely interesting, especially the interaction between Louis and Clark or Superman.  Besides, superman is more mature that he considered he had the responsibility to protect people on earth, which presented a kind of transcendence of love.  In other words, as a god of human races, I believe it would be more reasonable for superman to be mature.  In this film, I saw the realism that is the love behavior of superman, and the struggling between his role as a hero and Clark, a normal journalist, who loved Louis deeply.  In this way, the realistic feature indeed enhances the quality of the film and deepens the idea of the film.

        In conclusion, the realism used in the both superman films created two different effects.  Obviously, the degree of using realistic feature should be reconsidered because sometimes it is hard to explain everything, and very possible, the more the story wants to explain, the more obscured things there would be.

Summary and Critique on Noticing through Input Enhancement: Does it Affect Learning of the Conditionals?

Documentation

Rashtchi, M & Lili, G. (2010). Noticing through Input Enhancement: Does it Affect Learning of the Conditionals? Journal of Language and Translation, 1(1), 19-27.

 

Summary

        The study aimed to investigate whether noticing through input enhancement had any impact on the acquisition of English conditional sentences in Iranian EFL learners.  Two classes were participated, including a total number of 52 female students.  A proficiency test was administered and showed that two classes were homogeneous.  A standardized achievement pretest was administered to indicate that the two groups were unfamiliar with the target structures.  Among two groups, one received enhanced texts that were underlying, bolding, italicizing, and changing of the font; while, the other one received normal instruction.  The target structures applied in the study were five types of conditional sentences.  During the instruction, the enhanced group had communicative activities to integrate with input enhancement, and they were required to complete certain tasks.  The unenhanced group had comprehension questions after reading passages and did grammar exercises.  Then, the posttest was administered, and a questionnaire was given to the enhanced group to see whether they had noticed the visual enhancement during the reading task.  The results showed that the enhanced group outperformed the unenhanced group on the achievement posttest.  About the questionnaire, a total number of 26 students in the enhanced group reported that they had noticed some kind of visual enhancement, and they could provide examples of what was enhanced.  In the end, the result of this study was lined up with Schmidt’s (1995) claim that noticing is necessary and effective in language learning.  For pedagogical implication, noticing and awareness of the target forms are suggested as learning grammatical forms.

 

Critique

        After reading the article, there are pros and cons, illustrated as below.  For advantages, first of all, the article provided complete information in the introduction and literature section.  Second, it is good for the researcher to double test participants’ homogeneity and unfamiliarity of the target structures.  Third, it is good to see that the researcher compare the result of the present study to previous study in the discussion section.  Finally, it is good to see that the researcher provided pedagogical implications in the end of the study.  For disadvantages, firstly, the methodology section was somewhat unclear.  The reader might not know what those tests looked like and what the scoring criteria are about.  Second, instructional packages for two groups seemed to have some overlaps.  Both enhanced and unenhanced groups were required to read passages.  However, the point was that no matter the target structures were enhanced or not, they all received authentic materials and the unenhanced even had rule explanations and explicit grammar exercises.  In the view of this, the unenhanced group should outperform other than the enhanced group.  Third, surprisingly, the results showed that the enhanced group did better because they had noticed the enhanced texts.  Then, the reader might wonder what the tests looked like, which was mentioned in the first drawback.  And, the researcher did not show us what kinds of examples were given by the interviewees.  Forth, based on the drawback mentioned in the third point, their noticing to the target structures did not really equal to their understanding or knowledge of the target structures.  So, what the tests were about is the key point.  Finally, the limitations of the study should be provided.

Professor Farzad Sharifian: English as an International Language (EIL) 2011 Lecture

Lecture Reflections

 

The Lecture:

Professor Farzad Sharifian: English as an International Language (EIL) 2011 Lecture

 

        In the lecture, Pro. Sharifian provided the historical background of the paradigm of English as an International Language.  Then, he pointed out several issues regarding to renationalization of English, use of English as a lingua franca, politics of EIL, identity and EIL, attitude towards EIL, ownership of English, teaching EIL, proficiency in EIL, and native-speakerism.  Based on those issues, Pro. Sharifian also provided reviews of others’ works to further elaborate those topics.

First of all, Pro. Sharifian stated that we used to apply English as a tool to connect the inner circle countries.  However, English is now used to express cultures from outer circles countries as well as expanding circles countries.   And, English as an international language serves as a new paradigm, which has linked to the world.  Since English is no longer connected to specific countries, Countries, such as China, are undergone through the process of being renationalized.  Even though a few researchers argued that renationalization causes people using English to express the wrong cultural values, people continues to use varieties of English to express their local identity to others and to communicate at the international level so as to project their global identity.

Second, the issue of English as a lingual franca lies on politics of EIL.  Robert Phillipson (1992), published a book called Linguistic Imperialism, which mainly talks about how English is used as a tool for imperialism and how English becomes a threat with the spread of certain ideologies.  In addition, he argued that English teaching used to reinforce the dominance of English in the world.  For the questions of attitude, most of people have positive attitudes toward English, which results from people glorify native speaker as identities they want to be.  Then predictably, some people have negative attitudes due to viewing English as a product from western country. 

Later on, Pro. Sharifian proposed the question of the ownership of English.  The question of the ownership of English, meaning that people who have use English as an international communicative language, and who have the right to change it, rises when concerning the majority of communication has the right to change the language, which they don’t wait for clarification, and which is what is happening.  According to David Crystal, as long as English is used, especially by non-native speakers, they feel unnecessary to check whether they use the correct features of English or not. 

Furthermore, that issue leads to another controversial issue that is the necessity of standardization of English, and for sure, that would have an influence on English teaching.  Then, the proposal of using lingual franca as a model will form a new set of committee strategies, which yet comes up with other debatable such as, the necessity of the model, the success of adapting this model, and the way to instruct learners by using this model.  Based on speaker’s suggestion, ideologically, people develop their own varieties of English, and a teacher should get students to exposure in such variations and teach them that they exist actually.  Besides, since native speakerism as an ideology disadvantages students, two competences are need which one is the multidialectal competence that should be used to understand the variety of English, and the other one is the metacultural competence that would be used to express various systems of cultural conceptualizations.

In conclusion, in this lecture, there are a few important points that as a future teacher should be aware of.  First of all, English as an international language is no longer a statement or a saying, but a phenomenon that is actually happening around the world.  Then, a teacher needs to not only catch up this trend but also provide students with ideas of EIL.  Secondly, it is important for teachers to teach students to have positive and open-mined attitudes toward accented English.  In fact, it is also a great chance to break the myth that the value of Standard English has a higher status than accented English.  In terms of multiculturalism, they should share the same value.  Furthermore, the way that is used to measure learners’ competence should be modified as well.  Because learners nowadays are facing people from different culture with different accent, the intercultural communication ability should gain much attention rather than the ability we used to focus on.  Finally, the key point to those issues is to change.  In other words, putting theories or ideas into practice are far more important than knowing or understanding about it.  Probably, it has something to do with the countries’ policy of education or simply unwilling to change.  However, the fact is that the world is changing, and could anyone stand still so as to stop it?

 

References

Crystal, D.(1997). English as a global Language. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). World Englishes: Implications for international communication and English language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nuclear Power

Over the years, nuclear power plants were built or have been built to generate electricity form the nuclear power for the purpose of saving world's resources.  Then, the danger of the nuclear power can not be ignored as well.  The most horrible nuclear accident in twenty-five years in Japan, Fukushima Daiichi, 2011 has forced people to consider such issue seriously.  That accident displaced fifty thousand people's houses the moment the radiation emitted into the air, soil, and the ocean.  Later on, the results of the examination of the radiation turned out that it is forbidden  shipments of vegetable and fish.  Thus, even though some people approve the constant construction of nuclear power plants, I tend to oppose nuclear power plants as concerning of its radioactive waste, reactor safety, and huge costs.

 

        First of all, the biggest problem with the nuclear power plants is the radioactive waste generated during the production of energy, which, to every people, is an undesirable and dangerous by-product.  The radioactive waste produced from nuclear power plant is harmful because it is almost impossible to dispose of without destroying or harming the environment.  As long as the emissions of the radioactive materials from nuclear power plants are released outside of the power plants, they go into the air, water, and soil; thus, they are influential to all living things in the environment and are detrimental as well.  Moreover, solid waste products generated from the nuclear reactor that are radioactive too, cause long-term problems.  In this point of view, radioactive nuclear wastes are usually put inside tangible constructions and buried under the ground because by this manner, it is found to be efficient at containing radioactivity.  Then, these locations to contain radioactivity must be taken care of for thousands of years to make sure that the toxic wastes are not set free by mistake as that could contaminate the whole planet.  The action described above all actually, would be an endless process unless there are better ways to get rid of those radioactive waste.  Because, by the time the radioactivity from today's nuclear wastes are poured down, there would be new radioactive waste to dump from tomorrow's nuclear plants, posing the fact that the radioactive and dangerous remaining lasts for thousands of years, and eventually making them virtually a permanent hazard.  In short, nuclear power plants are damaging toward the environment in the perspective of their radioactive wastes. 

 

        Second, a nuclear accident that resulted in controlling and manipulating the reactors wrongly would be happened easily.  The danger here is that the heat the reactor produced would go beyond the ability of the reactor coolant to contain, causing the nuclear reaction.  Typically, a cooling system is created to remove the heat from the core of the reactor and transport the heat to another area of the nuclear power plant, where the boiling energy can be constantly produced electricity or did other work.  In other words, the hot coolant is used as a heat source for a boiler, and the steam from that  boiler powers is under the pressure; then, one or more steam turbine driven electrical generators.  Sometimes, the heat of the reactor would get out of control.  And, this could cause system failures, and then the radioactivity would be released into the environment.  Even worse, according to Edwin Thomas, "the reacting nuclear material burns or melts through its containment vessel into the ground, and then into the water table.  This would throw a huge cloud of radioactive steam and debris into the atmosphere.  Accidents of this type have the potential to release radioactivity over an immense area."  Similarly, Stephanie Cooke reported that "the reactors themselves were enormously complex machines with an huge number of things that could go wrong."  Having a look into the terrible nuclear accident occurred at Three Mile in 1979, which resulted from an unexpected chain reactions of many mistakes.  In other words, one reaction affected another one until the reactor itself cooled down.  To find out the reason, Charles Perrow (1984) in his book Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies, concluded that " the failure at Three Mile Island was a consequence of the system's immense complexity. Such modern high-risk systems were prone to failures however well they were managed.  It was inevitable that they would eventually suffer normal accident. Therefore, we might do better to contemplate a radical redesign, or if that was not possible, to abandon such technology entirely."  In brief, according the reasons illustrated above, reactors are considered dangerous either in the view of how they work or how they are manipulated.

       

        Third, the expense is very high as concerning the construction of the nuclear power plant, the life time of a nuclear reactor, and the way of generating electricity.  Building the nuclear power plant is the first huge cost.  According to the 2005 federal Energy Policy Act, several larger subsidies should be included when concerning of building a nuclear power plant.  For one thing, two billion would be paid to companies for any costs on getting the license and replacing new reactors, which the money could buy six reactors.  And, that payment includes days of the delay by Nuclear Regulatory Commission or litigation.  For another, almost eighty percent of the cost of a nuclear power plant is from loaning.  Then, if three nuclear power plants are unable to pay their debts, six billion dollars, due to Congressional Budget Office's calculation, would be the total cost.  Still another, in the first eight years of the nuclear power plant's operation, five hundred and seventy million would be provided for liability insurance and tax credit.  The other one is that two hundred and ninety million for research and development.  In other words, the construction would not be financially feasible without those subsidies.  Besides, nuclear reactors' life time are short and break down easily, and they are costly to be replaced.  Usually, a nuclear reactor only lasts for about forty to fifty years, so it is extremely productive.  According to a staff at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, he reported that "building a new 1,000 megawatt (MW) reactor could cost up to $7.5 billion."  In the view of that fact, it is horrible to imagine how incredible the expenses will be if reactors break down one by one.  Moreover, the nuclear power is considered to be more expensive when generating electricity.  According to the United States Department of Energy, when all costs are factored in, nuclear power costs an estimated $59.30/MWH.  This is expensive when compared to other means of generating electricity, such as, clean wind power is $55.60/MWH; coal $53.10/MWH; and natural gas $52.50/MWH.  In short, due to the previous-mentioned aspects, the expenditure of the nuclear power is tremendously high.

       

        In conclusion, it is obvious that although nuclear energy remains one of the most important technologies of the present, the many drawbacks might make it be replaced in the future.



References

1. Prabhakar Pillai (2012). Advantages and Disadvantages of Nuclear Power.  Retrieved December 3, 2012, from http://www.buzzle.com/articles/advantages-and disadvantages-of-nuclear-power.html

2. Edwin Thomas (n. d.). Advantages and Disadvantages of Nuclear Technology. Retrieved December 3, 2012, from http://www.ehow.com/about_4741367_advantages-disadvantages-nuclear-technology.html#ixzz2DzvgwYsL

 

3. Wikipedia (2012). Nuclear power plant. Retrieved December 3, 2012, from                   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_facilities

 

4. Robert Vaux (n. d.). Advantages & Disadvantages on Nuclear Power. Retrieved December 3, 2012, from http://www.ehow.com/about_4780053_advantages-disadvantages-nuclear-power.html#ixzz2DzvMPTZV

5. Wikipedia (2012). Template:Nuclear power plant safety. Retrieved December 18, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Nuclear_power_plant_safety

6. the_man101 (2006) Retrieved December 3, from http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070522054924AAJ35tD

7. Ridlington E., T. Telleen-Lawton, and J. Neumann (2007). The High Cost of Nuclear Power: Why Maryland Can’t Afford a New Reactor. Baltimore: Maryland PIRG Foundation.

Summary and Critique Effects of retention intervals on receiver operating characteristics in artificial grammar learning

Documentation:

Tunney, R. J., & Bezzina, G. (2007). Effects of retention intervals on receiver operating characteristics in artificial grammar learning. Acta Psychologica, 125, 37-50.

 

summary

 

        In the past three decades, research showed that recollection and familiarity played an important role in recognition.  Indeed, they made progresses on the discovery, which is from observing memorization in AGL to understanding dual process in AGL.  However, the insight of implication in the relationship between recollection and familiarity toward AGL was not brought out.  Thus, the aim of this study, beside reviewing the past thirty years literatures, is to provide further evidence for episodic memory in AGL by examining the effects of retention intervals on recollection and familiarity.  Also, the dissociation between recollection and familiarity that involves in AGL is also examined in this study.  A experiment was administered for the purpose of this study.  In the experiment, twenty-nine people of the University of Nottingham community participated in this study.  Twenty-four were female, and five were male.  Sequences generated by the AGL were presented to participants for ten times in separated blocks.  Later on, participants would take the test by pressing either "yes, I have seen the sequence before" or "no, I have seen this before" on the computer.  And, tests were administered in three different day; that is, the immediate day the receive the knowledge, seven days after, and two weeks after.  Also, participants were asked to answer how confident they were in accuracy of their decision on a ten point scale after each tests.  After analyzing the collected data by applying ROC curves, the results showed that the findings of effects by using recollection and familiarity were the same.  Furthermore, according to the slope of zROC curves, the recognition decisions for the first tests were based on recollection more than familiarity; whereas, the last tests recognition decisions were based on familiarity more than recollection.  The limitations were discovered in the discussion part as well.

 

Critique

 

        After reading this journal article, there are still pros and cons that I am going to illustrate in the below.

 

        Basically, the value of this study can not be ignored.  Reviewing the past thirty years data is quite clear that readers would have a complete idea about the motivation.  And, there is no doubt that experiments were conducted precisely since the arrangement of the three-times tests items indeed matched the purposes of this research.  Besides, by using zROC curves, results of collected and analyzed data is presented and explained thoroughly as well as the discussion part.

 

        Still, there are some flaws needed to be improved.  First of all, the literature review part seems to be separated into two parts, which one of them was put together with the introduction part, and the other one was put into the discussion part.  This way, I find it hard to scan for key points since the article is not well-organized.  Besides, the group of participants were really too small, and the proficiency of those participants was not included in the article even if it may cause little influence to the result or the whole study.   More importantly, whether the result, done by artificial grammar task, could be put into the environment of natural language learning or not still requires further evidence because natural language is considered to be more complicated.