Academic literature on the topic 'Karmiloff-Smith'

The ability to acquire language is a critical part of human development. Yet there is no consensus on how the skill emerges in early development. Does it constitute an innately-specified, language-processing module or is it acquired progressively? One of Annette Karmiloff-Smith’s (1938–2016) key contributions to developmental science addresses this very question. Karmiloff-Smith persistently maintained that the process of development itself constitutes a crucial factor in phenotypic outcomes. She proposed that cognitive modules gradually emerge through a developmental process – ‘progressive modularization’. This concept helped to advance the field beyond the stale nature–nurture controversy. It enabled language researchers to develop more nuanced transactional frameworks that take seriously the integration of genes and environment. In homage to Karmiloff-Smith, the current article describes the importance of her work to the field of developmental psychology and language research. It examines how the concept of progressive modularization could be applied to language development as well as how it has greatly advanced our understanding of language difficulties in children with neurodevelopmental disorders. Finally, it discusses how Karmiloff-Smith’s approach is inspiring current and future research.

Resumo: Apresentamos e discutimos a proposta da Redescrição Representacional, teoria cognitiva desenvolvida pela psicóloga Annette Karmiloff-Smith que oferece um quadro explicativo sobre como a mente humana explora e organiza o conhecimento de tal modo a possibilitar um autoenriquecimento. Nessa proposta, o desenvolvimento de teorias-em-ação por parte do sujeito cognitivo é compreendido em termos de um processo reiterativo de reelaboração de suas representações internas, o qual nem sempre envolve a tomada de novas informações do ambiente externo. Neste artigo, após traçar um breve panorama dos estudos sobre a modelização do ponto de vista cognitivo, discutimos algumas possíveis contribuições da proposta da Redescrição Representacional para a compreensão do processo de conceitualização de modelos na Educação Científica, particularmente em relação ao papel atribuído por Karmiloff-Smith aos conhecimentos implícitos, à sobregeneralização e à flexibilidade cognitiva.

Thomas & Karmiloff-Smith (T&K-S) show that the assumption of residual normality (RN) does not hold in connectionist simulations, and argue that RN has been inappropriately applied to childhood disorders. We agree. However, we suggest that the RN hypothesis may never have been fully viable, either empirically or computationally.

Thomas & Karmiloff-Smith (T&K-S) claim that “Residual Normality” is a priori unlikely, that is, that specific cognitive deficits should not exist in developmental disorders. Here I review evidence that a specific cognitive deficit is at the core of developmental dyslexia and I provide a possible neurological account thereof.

Representational redescription (Karmiloff-Smith 1994a; 1994) translates implicit, procedural knowledge into explicit, declarative knowledge. Explicit knowledge is an enabling condition of cognitive flexibility. The articulation and inferential integration of knowledge are important in explaining flexibility. There is an interesting connection to the availability of knowledge for verbal report, but no clear explanatory work is done by the idea of knowledge that is available to consciousness.

Thomas & Karmiloff-Smith (T&K-S) correctly identify Residual Normality (RN) as a critical assumption of some theorising about mental structure within developmental psychology. However, their simulations provide only weak support for the conditions under which RN may occur because they explore closely related architectures that share a learning algorithm. It is suggested that more work is required to establish the limits of RN.

This dissertation examines the academic debate that surrounds the new field called "Evolutionary Psychology." Evolutionary psychology has emerged as the most popular successor theory to human sociobiology. Its proponents search for evolved psychological mechanisms and emphasize universal features of the human mind. My thesis is that in order to flourish evolutionary psychologists must engage other researchers on equal terms -- something they have not been doing. To show this, I examine the stances of practitioners from three other social science fields whose claims have been shortchanged by evolutionary psychology: Barbara King in biological anthropology, George Lakoff and Mark Johnson in empirical linguistics and Annette Karmiloff-Smith in developmental psychology. These researchers are also involved in cognitive science investigations that bear on evolutionary psychology's key claims about the mind and how it works. Evolutionary psychologists make three key claims about the mind. The first (1) is that the mind is massively modular; the second (2) is that this massively modular mind has been shaped by the processes of natural selection over evolutionary time; and the third (3) is that it is adapted to the Pleistocene conditions of our past. Evolutionary psychologists seek to elevate these three claims to the status of meta-theoretical assumptions making them the starting place from which our deliberations about human cognition ought proceed. These claims would constitute the framework for a new paradigm in the ultimate sense. I argue that elevating these claims to such a status is not only premature, but also unwarranted on the available evidence. This result is justified by evidence produced outside evolutionary psychology by those disciplines from which evolutionary psychologists explicitly seek to distance themselves.
Ph. D.

Submitted by Simone Maisonave (simonemaisonave@hotmail.com) on 2016-09-08T13:26:30Z No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 0 bytes, checksum: d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e (MD5) Cristiane Silveira dos Santos_Tese.pdf: 25214198 bytes, checksum: 443b33cad98eeb6e51b716aa63bd30bd (MD5)
Approved for entry into archive by Simone Maisonave (simonemaisonave@hotmail.com) on 2016-09-08T13:26:40Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 0 bytes, checksum: d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e (MD5) Cristiane Silveira dos Santos_Tese.pdf: 25214198 bytes, checksum: 443b33cad98eeb6e51b716aa63bd30bd (MD5)
Approved for entry into archive by Aline Batista (alinehb.ufpel@gmail.com) on 2016-09-08T21:42:47Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 0 bytes, checksum: d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e (MD5) Cristiane Silveira dos Santos_Tese.pdf: 25214198 bytes, checksum: 443b33cad98eeb6e51b716aa63bd30bd (MD5)
Made available in DSpace on 2016-09-08T21:43:13Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 0 bytes, checksum: d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e (MD5) Cristiane Silveira dos Santos_Tese.pdf: 25214198 bytes, checksum: 443b33cad98eeb6e51b716aa63bd30bd (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015-11-13
Sem bolsa
Este estudo é resultado de uma investigação feita a partir da análise de produções escritas espontâneas, controladas e de entrevistas realizadas junto a dois grupos de alunos do ensino médio do IFSUL – Câmpus Pelotas Visconde da Graça (CaVG): Grupo Transversal e Grupo Longitudinal, com a finalidade de mapear, descrever e analisar os tipos de erros ortográficos produzidos. Os erros foram classificados em dois grandes grupos: motivados pela fonética/fonologia da língua ou motivados por dificuldades advindas do sistema ortográfico. Os resultados da análise dos dados produzidos pelo Grupo Transversal, composto por 273 alunos de primeiros, segundos e terceiros anos permitiu o mapeamento dos principais tipos de erros ortográficos produzidos e orientou as coletas posteriores realizadas junto ao Grupo Longitudinal, composto por 15 sujeitos acompanhados de 2011 a 2014 e divididos em três grupos, a saber,Grupo 1 (fortes), Grupo 2 (medianos) e Grupo 3 (fracos) em questões ortográficas. A hipótese inicial desta investigação foi a de que haveria relação entre o quantitativo de erros ortográficos encontrados e o formato do conhecimento ortográfico, segundo o Modelo deRedescrição Representacional (MRR) de Karmiloff-Smith (1986, 1994). Os resultados da investigação mostraram que os tipos de erros ortográficos encontrados nas coletas junto a ambos os grupos – Transversal e Longitudinal eram análogos Verificou-se, ainda, que os tipos de erros ortográficos mais recorrentes e numerosos nas produções textuais dos informantes de ambos os grupos pesquisados eram, em primeiro lugar, advindos das chamadas irregularidades do sistema ortográfico, em especial os casos de representação do fonema/s/ e do fonema/z/, seguidos dos erros ortográficos relacionados à motivação fonética da língua e dos erros ortográficos relacionados à segmentação não-convencional da escrita (hipo e hipersegmentação), sendo a hipossegmentação mais numerosa nos dados do que a hipersegmentação. Tais erros ortográficos correspondem a cerca de 75% dos dados totais desta pesquisa.Em relação aos níveis do MRR verificou-se que a hipótese levantada foi corroborada, uma vez que houve correspondência entre os três grupos (forte, medianos e fracos em questões ortográficas) e os níveis de representação do conhecimento ortográfico entre Explícito 2 (E2) e Explícito 3 Consciente Verbal (E3). Verificou-se que os informantes com menor quantidade de erros ortográficos (Grupo 1) apresentaram quase que a totalidade dos momentos da entrevista categorizados segundo o nível do MRR Explícito 3 Consciente Verbal (E3); já os informantes do Grupo 2 (medianos) embora apresentassem vários momentos da entrevista caracterizados como de E3 tiveram, na sua maioria, momentos da entrevista categorizados como de E2, ou seja, no nível do MRR caracterizado como sendo aquele em que já existe análise acerca do conhecimento, embora este ainda não possa ser verbalizado. Finalmente, os informantes do Grupo 3 (fracos) praticamente não apresentaram momentos categorizados como sendo de E3, tendo tido os momentos de sua entrevista quase todos categorizados como E2. Em relação às estratégias utilizadas pelos sujeitos para orientar suas escolhas ortográficas constatou-se que os informantes dos Grupos 1 e 2, respectivamente fortes e medianos em questões ortográficas, utilizaram estratégias tais como o acesso à memória visual ou seguiram procedimentos analógicos da língua para chegar à grafia correta das palavras. Já os informantes do Grupo 3 utilizaram esporadicamente a memória visual e os processos analógicos e, preferencialmente, utilizaram a fala como estratégia para orientar suas grafias. Observou-se, ainda, correlação positiva entre o nível E3 do MRR dos informantes com o uso de estratégias tais como ‘memória visual’ e ‘processos analógicos’ e o nível E2 do MRR dos informantes com o uso da estratégia ‘escrita apoiada na oralidade’. A conclusão deste estudo vai ao sentido de que se faz necessário, mesmo no ensino médio, lançar mão de estratégias capazes de desenvolver e consolidar o conhecimento ortográfico dos alunos.
This study is the result of thorough analysis of spontaneous and controlled writing productions and interviews carried out with two groups of high school students from IFSUL – Câmpus Pelotas Visconde da Graça (CaVG): Transversal Group and Longitudinal Group, aiming to map, analyze and describe the types of orthographic mistakes present in both groups’ writing. These mistakes were arranged in two groups: those of phonetic/phonological motivation and those related to difficulty to grasp the rules and irregularities of the orthographic system.The Transversal Group was comprised of 237 students from all of the institution’s high school grades, and the data analysis of their writing allowed the identification and mapping of the most common types of orthographic mistakes, data which then oriented the following data gatherings with the Longitudinal Group, consisting of 15 subjects who were monitored from 2011 to 2014 and divided in three groups: Group 1 (strong), Group 2 (average), Group 3 (weak) regarding orthographic knowledge. The original hypothesis suggested that the amount of orthographic mistakes found and the type of orthographic knowledge would be correlated, according to Karmiloff-Smith’s Representational Redescription Model (RR) (1986, 1994).The results of this investigation showed that the types of orthographic mistakes found in both groups’ – Transversal and Longitudinal - writing productions were analogous.It was also noticed that the most recurring types of orthographic mistakes in the subjects’ writing, from both groups analyzed, were mainly related to the so called irregularities of the orthographic system, particularly in cases when the phonemes /s/ and /z/ are represented, followed by orthographic mistakes of phonetic motivation and mistakes relating nonconventional segmentation of the written word (hipo and hipersegmentation), the cases of hiposegmentation being more numerous than those of hipersegmentation. Such mistakes constitute approximately 75% of the overall research data.The original research hypothesis was, in the end, confirmed since correspondence was found between the three groups (strong, average and weak regarding orthographic knowledge) and their representation levels of orthographic knowledge which ranges from Explicit 2 (E2) to Explicit 3 (E3) Verbally Aware. It was noticed that the subjects who made less orthographic mistakes (Group 1) showed in their interviews a higher level of verbal awareness (Explicit 3 Verbally Aware, according to the RR model definitions); subjects belonging to Group 2 (average) showed overall orthographic awareness but couldn’t articulate it, placing them in the E2 category. Finally, Group 3 (weak) subjects were also placed in the E2 category, showing virtually no signs of unawareness in their interviews. Regarding the subjects’ strategic choices, it was noted that those from Groups 1 and 2 – strong and average regarding orthographic knowledge, respectively – relied on strategies such as accessing their visual memory or followed similar procedures to find the correct writing whereas subjects from Group 3, rather than relying on their visual memory, would use their speaking competence as a guide to their writing. It was noted still a positive correlation between RR level E3 subjects and the use of visual memory, as well as E2 level subjects and oral-based writing strategies. The conclusion drawn buy this study is that it is necessary, as soon as high school, to devise strategies to consolidate and further the student’s orthographic knowledge.

Representational flexibility is usually assessed in the graphic domain by whether children can innovate canonical drawings. According to the Karmiloff-Smith’s RR Model (RRM 1990), flexibility is acquired with a marked discontinuity at 8-9 years, when routine drawings are overcome once and for all. RRM, though, is inherently recursive, implying that innovation entertains a continuous trade-off with graphic conservatism along development. In this regard, a less recent model by van Sommers (1984) suggests that pictorial conservatism coexist with flexibility, even in adulthood, and that continuity models fit better flexibility development. This study aims at comparing the two models and their ability to predict the relationship between conservatism and flexibility during development. 75 children (5, 7, 9, 11 year-olds) and 20 adults were asked to draw two similar and two different houses (administration order balanced across the sample). Drawings were coded with a 5 point scale for 6 aspects (e.g. house’s structure and details). Results show that linear trends fit flexibility development in all aspects. Adults draw canonical houses more than older children, although score highly in the differentiation task. Results suggest that flexibility coexist with some conservatism even in adults, lending support to van Sommers’s model, in these regards.