First Language and Literacy Acquisition - Assignment Example

First Language and Literacy Acquisition Insert your name here Insert Grade Course Insert Tutor’s Name Data of submission Question One: The phonics and whole-language approaches to reading instruction Research on phonics and whole-language approaches to reading instruction remains multifaceted. According to Salibay et al. (2016), whole language approach calls for educators to train children to focus on meaning and strategy instruction. It therefore means that educators have the role of choosing the best approach to reading instruction. Elaborating on Salibay et al. (2016) point, whole language approach is whole-word or sight word approach where the process of reading instruction is conceptualized holistically. Vellutino, 1991 adds that the teacher encourages the use of content rich materials and print rich materials. Whole-language approach remains effective owing to the fact that it is premised on children or child-centred thus allowing for implicit acquisition of language (Stahl & Miller, 1989). On the other hand, phonics takes a different approach where reading instruction is explicit and sequential. Phonics differs from whole-language in the sense that reading is learnt through the relationship of letter-sound correspondence in words. This view is supported by Vellutino (1991) who noted that phonics focuses on specific or combination letter sounds in a given word thus learning these sounds enable learners, in this case children the ability to have alphabetic code which they can use to decode texts given to them. Phonics entail a case where phoneme patters are acquired by blending, segmenting, decoding and manipulating words. The ongoing controversy spans over decades and this creates a gap in knowledge regarding the efficacy of the two approaches. However, Dahl et al. (1999) noted that whole-language approach creates a room where reading instructions is necessitated using top-down model which is turn, helps in focusing on the general meaning of the text. Phonics is on effective in the sense that it provides a room for bottom-up approach but whole-language approach is more effective when the two approaches are compared in the sense that if utilized it necessitates word analysis skills among learners (Vellutino, 1991). Question Two: Family Factor in Child’s Communicative Competence Development Every way in which family influences the development of communicative competence is pegged on the understanding of a given culture and how language is used in a given social context. Foster (2014) observed that many skills are entailed in communicative competence since children use language for different purposes however, it is the culture and family contributions that help children learn language competences such as making requests, giving orders, expressing agreements or disagreements and perhaps apologise. In contrast, studies such as Bornstein et al. (1998) have noted that family behaviors help children to learn competences such as initiation, maintenance and conclusion of conversation. This happens because children will make attempts to emulate cues and language from their families. Contrariwise, some family behaviours and linguistic input may affect how children develop competence and how they use the language in a given social contexts. That is, families where expressions such as ‘excuse me,’ ‘please’ are rarely used mean that communication competences of children is such social contexts will lack these expressions. Relating this argument with the theory of mind, social orientation and linguistic ability, much of the structure of conversation can be acquired in early interactions between caregivers (family) and infants. However, the gap in knowledge is family behaviours and linguistic input which continue to vary across different languages and cultures. Taking English speaking culture and the use of language in Saudia Arabia or Arabic speaking culture, language and thoughts are intertwined and this idea can be understood succinctly through unconscious aesthetic. English speaking culture where parents and caregivers take centre stage, would encourage the use of words such as ‘excuse me,’ ‘please’ as often as possible because cultural patterns dictates the culture’s understanding of language and how they use the language in different contexts. On the other hand, Arabic speaking culture emphasizes on the use of as ‘excuse me,’ ‘please’ and other requests but not as explicit as it is in English speaking culture. Question Three: Boys and girls acquire and use distinctive styles of communication The acquisition of communicative competence and specifically, distinctive styles of communication differs among boys and girls. However, there is exception with evidence that that gender differences are related to interactional context and boys and girls can adopt a range of styles in different situations (Hong et al. 2017). The point is, boys and girls differ in their distinctive styles of communication because as they grow up, they have communicative behaviours that are shaped differently owing to the fact that their play moments and social interactions with peers are contextually sensitive. Girls have the ability to use non-egocentric styles of communication in certain social context as compared to boys. Specifically, the study noted that girls are able to describe an object within a given social context thus giving the listener the ability to identify the object provided the description conforms to specific cultural orientation. Within the same social context, requests are common among boys and girls especially in English speaking culture but boys have comprehension of indirect requests where words such as “it is noisy here” while girls would express direct requests such as “do you mind helping me that book.” A possible reason from these studies is that the study of culture and communication resonates around the varying cultural ideologies which are created differently among boys and girls depending on their social context of play and categories inherent in their cognitive classification of communication. However, styles of communication such as taking turns have been found to be common among boys and girls irrespective of culture (Levine et al. 2016). Question Four: Two possible treatments for aphasia While researching on constraint-induced therapy of chronic aphasia after stroke Pulvermüller et al. (2001) provided conventional aphasia therapy (CAT) and constraint-induced (CI) aphasia therapy as two possible treatments for aphasia. Accordingly, CI is the process realized in an environment where there is an elaborate communicative therapeutic environment that constrains patients to practice well-organised speech acts where they have difficulties (De Jong-Hagelstein et al., 2011). CAT on the other hand is an intensive therapeutic model premised on the forced adoption of verbal oral language as the only channel of communication while at the same time other forms of communication such as gesturing or pointing are controlled or prevented but still under CIT (Pulvermüller et al., 2001). Researches have continued to document evidence-based researches regarding the effectiveness of the CAT and CI. Pulvermüller et al. (2001) noted that CI therapy led to improvements on different standard clinical tests. Specifically the study observed that the model improved communicative effectiveness in everyday life. Other benefits associated with CI include language performance and patients’ verbal communication on day to day activities (Marangolo et al. 2016). Prior clinical studies from scholars such as Lee and Cherney (2016) have found that CI is effective approach in dealing with people with chronic aphasia as the approach improves their naming ability especially when naming tests are offered accordingly. De Jong-Hagelstein et al. (2011) found that CAT improves different aspects of languages including tests, expressions and different narrative discourse measures. This finding was also captured in Boyle (2017) randomised clinical study that found that CAT improves complex, high order behavior in communication. Question Five: CHILDES database of child language Part a: How old is Abe in these two transcripts The transcript Abe001.cha shows that Abe is about 28 month24 days. The communication from the father and the mother and the subsequent response Abe gives indicate that she is in the stage of language (stage two of Brown’s category with mean MLU range of 2.25) development that are signaled by emergence of symbolic communication and words as such as “a brown one!” in Abe001.cha line 62. This stage comes out clearly in Abe when she says, “a camel “, in line 54, and “that’s a camel” in line 69. The transcript Abe040.cha shows that Abe is about 33months, 19 days of age because statements she gives shows that she is at three-word period. An example of such statement is when she says, “I like my friends at mine school also” in line 41, “oh what is it a picture of?” in line 88. Additionally, this age allows the child to produce longer utterances. Part b: Changes in the child’s MLU with the child’s age Between 14-24 months as can be seen in Abe001.cha Abe is having mean length of utterance (MLU) about 1.75 (MLU 3.3-3.4) morphemes but her MLU gradually increase as she is exposed to more language from the mother and father. At the beginning, she has learned to use "ed" past tense with an example as follows: “he falled again” in Abe001.cha line 464. Other aspect of MLU included in her speech are the use of “-ing" endings on her verbs with examples such as “playing game” and “playing game” in Abe002.cha line 132 with present progressive verbs are acquired very early. Part c: Two examples of an adult’s language behaviour One noticeable language behavior that directly influences Abe is the sounds from the mother and father. Through different requests that the parents are making to her she has also developed these behaviors and can request however, she does this by using gestures and vocalization to requests objects and at some points, actions. The example provided below further indicates that her age, she has been influenced by her parents’ directives and further develops a language that responds to such directives. Languages behaviors from the parents that influenced Abe: Father: “do you like that boat?” Abe001.cha line 31. Mother: “okay beg” in Abe001.cha line 39. Languages behaviors that Abe developed: “what that for?” in Abe002.cha line 84 “I wanna eat popcorn” Abe002.cha line 393 Part d: Three morphosyntactic features of child language These include definiteness, tense and aspect. The three are inherent in omission of function morphemes and meaning being built compositionally. Part e: Qualitative change in the child’s morphosyntactic development Looking at Abe’s development from Abe001.cha to Abe002(040).cha there is change in number of words that Abe can construct and this further include the number of verbs and nouns that can be found in a given sentence. Examples below provide the case in point: In Abe001.cha Abe said, “he falled again” in Abe001.cha line 464. In Abe002.cha Abe said, “I wanna eat popcorn” Abe002.cha line 393 Question Six: Theoretical approaches to the understanding of language development This study takes on information processing approach. Beginning with the summary of the principle underlying the approach, it is premised on cognitive paradigm of language learning where the learner is taken though an experiment oriented on perception, memory and problem solving. This approach is based on both function and structure in learning language but when dealing with novice the approach should be approached in a novel way. The main aim of the principle underlying the approach is to inculcate in language learners aspects such as learning functions which again entail language features such as requesting, establishing topicality and identification of a location. There have been growing research-based evidences that support the validity of information processing approach as a tool that enhance language development. Recent study from Hart (2013) noted that information processing approach helps in addressing language performance at any time, including different developmental stages of children. Citing morphosyntactic features of child language further noted that integration of information processing approach in teaching languages was a recipe for ‘explicit language performance’ (p. 106). That point the author developed by explicit language performance’ was that through this approach, child’s language production and comprehension will be enhanced since the approach is targeting their cognitive abilities to grasp the language. Differently, Boyle (2017) found that this approach offers learners new systems of learning in the sense that they develop patterns like formation of plurals. A possible similarity between information processing approaches with social interaction approach is that both approaches view children as beneficiaries of the language development that entail stages which each stage defining the role of caregivers. Studies have noted that the two approaches view understanding of language development from behavioral perspective where children are passive beneficiaries. Contrariwise, one notable difference between the two approaches is that while information processing approach sees children as active as well as specialized language processors, social interaction approach on the other hand sees children as the ones who cue their parents on their developmental stages (Boyle 2017). References Bornstein, M. H., Haynes, M. O., & Painter, K. M. (1998). Sources of child vocabulary competence: A multivariate model. Journal of child language, 25(02), 367-393. Boyle, M. (2017, February). Semantic Treatments for Word and Sentence Production Deficits in Aphasia. In Seminars in Speech and Language (Vol. 38, No. 01, pp. 052-061). Thieme Medical Publishers. Dahl, K. L., Scharer, P. L., Lawson, L. L., & Grogan, P. R. (1999). Phonics instruction and student achievement in whole language first‐grade classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(3), 312-341. De Jong-Hagelstein, M., Van de Sandt-Koenderman, W. M. E., Prins, N. D., Dippel, D. W. J., Koudstaal, P. J., & Visch-Brink, E. G. (2011). Efficacy of early cognitive–linguistic treatment and communicative treatment in aphasia after stroke: a randomised controlled trial (RATS-2). Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 82(4), 399-404. Foster, S. H. (2014). The communicative competence of young children: a modular approach. Routledge. Hart, R. A. (2013). Children's participation: The theory and practice of involving young citizens in community development and environmental care. Routledge. Hong, H., Keith, K., Moran, R. R., & Jennings, J. L. (2017). Using Imagination to Bridge Young Children’s Literacy and Science Learning: A Dialogic Approach. Journal of Childhood Studies, 42(1), 11-22. Lee, J. B., & Cherney, L. R. (2016). Computer-Based Treatments for Aphasia: Advancing Clinical Practice and Research. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 1(2), 5-17. Levine, D., Strother-Garcia, K., Golinkoff, R. M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2016). Language development in the first year of life: What deaf children might be missing before cochlear implantation. Otology & Neurotology, 37(2), e56-e62. Marangolo, P., Fiori, V., Sabatini, U., De Pasquale, G., Razzano, C., Caltagirone, C., & Gili, T. (2016). Bilateral transcranial direct current stimulation language treatment enhances functional connectivity in the left hemisphere: preliminary data from aphasia. Journal of cognitive neuroscience. Pulvermüller, F., Neininger, B., Elbert, T., Mohr, B., Rockstroh, B., Koebbel, P., & Taub, E. (2001). Constraint-induced therapy of chronic aphasia after stroke. Stroke, 32(7), 1621-1626. Salibay, M., Canizares, A., & Alberto, R. P. (2016). Whole Language Approach in Teaching Reading Among Kindergarten 3 Bilingual Learners in Samutprakarn, Thailand: A Case Study. Stahl, S. A., & Miller, P. D. (1989). Whole language and language experience approaches for beginning reading: A quantitative research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 59(1), 87-116. Vellutino, F. R. (1991). Introduction to three studies on reading acquisition: Convergent findings on theoretical foundations of code-oriented versus whole-language approaches to reading instruction. Journal of educational psychology, 83(4), 437. Read More

In contrast, studies such as Bornstein et al. (1998) have noted that family behaviors help children to learn competences such as initiation, maintenance and conclusion of conversation. This happens because children will make attempts to emulate cues and language from their families. Contrariwise, some family behaviours and linguistic input may affect how children develop competence and how they use the language in a given social contexts. That is, families where expressions such as ‘excuse me,’ ‘please’ are rarely used mean that communication competences of children is such social contexts will lack these expressions.

Relating this argument with the theory of mind, social orientation and linguistic ability, much of the structure of conversation can be acquired in early interactions between caregivers (family) and infants. However, the gap in knowledge is family behaviours and linguistic input which continue to vary across different languages and cultures. Taking English speaking culture and the use of language in Saudia Arabia or Arabic speaking culture, language and thoughts are intertwined and this idea can be understood succinctly through unconscious aesthetic.

English speaking culture where parents and caregivers take centre stage, would encourage the use of words such as ‘excuse me,’ ‘please’ as often as possible because cultural patterns dictates the culture’s understanding of language and how they use the language in different contexts. On the other hand, Arabic speaking culture emphasizes on the use of as ‘excuse me,’ ‘please’ and other requests but not as explicit as it is in English speaking culture. Question Three: Boys and girls acquire and use distinctive styles of communication The acquisition of communicative competence and specifically, distinctive styles of communication differs among boys and girls.

However, there is exception with evidence that that gender differences are related to interactional context and boys and girls can adopt a range of styles in different situations (Hong et al. 2017). The point is, boys and girls differ in their distinctive styles of communication because as they grow up, they have communicative behaviours that are shaped differently owing to the fact that their play moments and social interactions with peers are contextually sensitive. Girls have the ability to use non-egocentric styles of communication in certain social context as compared to boys.

Specifically, the study noted that girls are able to describe an object within a given social context thus giving the listener the ability to identify the object provided the description conforms to specific cultural orientation. Within the same social context, requests are common among boys and girls especially in English speaking culture but boys have comprehension of indirect requests where words such as “it is noisy here” while girls would express direct requests such as “do you mind helping me that book.

” A possible reason from these studies is that the study of culture and communication resonates around the varying cultural ideologies which are created differently among boys and girls depending on their social context of play and categories inherent in their cognitive classification of communication. However, styles of communication such as taking turns have been found to be common among boys and girls irrespective of culture (Levine et al. 2016). Question Four: Two possible treatments for aphasia While researching on constraint-induced therapy of chronic aphasia after stroke Pulvermüller et al. (2001) provided conventional aphasia therapy (CAT) and constraint-induced (CI) aphasia therapy as two possible treatments for aphasia.

Accordingly, CI is the process realized in an environment where there is an elaborate communicative therapeutic environment that constrains patients to practice well-organised speech acts where they have difficulties (De Jong-Hagelstein et al., 2011). CAT on the other hand is an intensive therapeutic model premised on the forced adoption of verbal oral language as the only channel of communication while at the same time other forms of communication such as gesturing or pointing are controlled or prevented but still under CIT (Pulvermüller et al., 2001).

Read More