Data processing: speech signal processing – linguistics – language – Speech signal processing – Application
Reexamination Certificate
2001-01-31
2003-02-18
Dorvil, Richemond (Department: 2654)
Data processing: speech signal processing, linguistics, language
Speech signal processing
Application
C434S178000, C434S185000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06523007
ABSTRACT:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates generally to educational techniques, and in particular but not exclusively, relates to computer-assisted teaching methods and systems that teach repertoires based upon psychomotor, simple, and complex cognitive learning (hereafter referred to as “skills”), such as reading, to children, youth, and adults.
2. Background Information
Reading, math, and reasoning are among the fundamental skills required in the information age. For example, to navigate the digital world, one must be able to read, and those who do not read well risk not benefiting or advancing in society. Therefore, providing high-quality instruction to all children is a priority, but is often difficult or time-consuming to accomplish practically and efficiently.
Again, using reading as an example, traditional classroom instruction, under the direction of an instructor, typically takes weeks and months to teach children how to read. These traditional methods require the teacher to interact extensively with the child, in order to give the child feedback on what to read, to indicate whether words are being spoken correctly or incorrectly, to keep the child motivated to keep reading, etc. Thus, it is the teacher, rather than the child, who does the listening, evaluating, and correcting. These are among the many reasons why traditional teaching methods are inefficient, time-consuming, and cumbersome.
Other reasons why these traditional teaching methods are not fully effective for individuals (both children and adults) include problems due to retention and problems due to movement of the instruction to later subject matter before the individual has fully mastered previous subject matter. Most individuals learn at different paces, but classroom instructions are typically conducted at a single pace. The relation between the responses that a learner makes during learning and the feedback that the learner receives is very inexact in group instruction. Children who are slower learners must keep up with the group or risk falling behind in the learning process. Conversely, children who learn faster than the pace of the classroom instruction risk getting bored or disinterested.
Some “on-line” courses or instructional modules (e.g., videotapes, audio tapes, software packages, etc.) are available outside of a traditional classroom setting to teach individuals certain subjects. These non-traditional techniques are typically used to supplement traditional classroom instruction and/or to provide instruction where traditional classroom instruction may not otherwise be available or practical.
However, many of these courses or modules assume certain fundamental learning skills, such as reading, and involve an instructor who reviews assignments and gives feedback. In some cases, feedback is not even available. This is not a practical solution where there are millions of learners. Furthermore, many of these courses or modules have a cumbersome interface, require computer disks or special equipment, all of which can be unsuitable or difficult to use with young children. Because of these limitations, it has been debated whether such non-traditional teaching methods actually teach fundamental skills more efficiently or effectively than (or at the same level as) a traditional classroom.
Another problem with both traditional classroom instruction and on-line courses is the lack of practice opportunities to master a given repertoire. This is due in part because traditional classroom instruction and on-line courses are tailored towards a group or towards a uniform teaching style, rather than being tailored and specific to the needs and progress of a particular individual. It simply is not efficient or cost effective for these teaching methods to deviate from the norm/pace and provide practice opportunities that are specifically suited for a particular individual: an on-line course module is mass-produced for a general population and would be too expensive to manufacture to include individually customized practice routines; and traditional classroom instruction do not have the time during a school year to provide sufficient customized in-class practice for each individual and instead depend on the individual to practice, if at all, via “homework.”
Accordingly, improvements are needed in teaching techniques.
REFERENCES:
patent: 5303327 (1994-04-01), Sturner et al.
patent: 5336093 (1994-08-01), Cox
patent: 6017219 (2000-01-01), Adams et al.
patent: 6022222 (2000-02-01), Guinan
patent: 6077085 (2000-06-01), Parry et al.
patent: 6120298 (2000-09-01), Jenkins et al.
patent: 6146147 (2000-11-01), Wasowicz
patent: RE37684 (2002-04-01), Shpiro et al.
Epstein, R., Creativity Theory and Creativity, Cognition, Creativity, and Behavior: Selected “Essays”, 1996, pp. 13-35, Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT.
Holland, J.G. et al., “The analysis of behavior in planning instruction”. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1976. Unit 9, 16.
Markle, S. M., Designs for instructional designers. 3rdEdition, 1990, pp. 1-207, Stipes Publishing Company, Champaign, IL.
Schiller, P. H., “Innate motor action as a basis of learning”. Instinctive behavior: The Development of Modern Concept, 1957, pp. 264-287. Internationial Universities Press, Inc., New York.
Skinner, B.F., Verbal behavior. Ch. 2 (pp. 13-34), 4 (pp. 52-80), 11 (293-309); 1957, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Vanasse, S. et al., Flexgames: Flexible game formats for improving learning and performance. International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI) vol. 37, No. 2, www.ispi.org.
Terrance, H.S., Errorless Transfer of a Discrimination Across Two Continua, Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1963, 6, 223-232.
Tiemann, P.W. et al., Analyzing instructional content: A guide to instruction and evaluation. Fourth Edition, pp. 1-281, Stipes Publishing Company, Champaign, IL.
Alessi, G., “Generative strategies and teaching for generalization,” The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 1987, pp. 15-27, vol. 5.
Andronis, P. T., et al., “Contingency adduction of ‘symbolic aggression’ by pigeons,” The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 1997, pp., 5-17, vol. 14.
Binder, C., “Behavioral Fluency: Evolution of a new paradigm,” The Behavior Analyst, 1996, pp. 163-197, vol. 19.
Dempster, F. N., “The spacing effect: A case study in the failure to apply the results of psychological research,” American Psychologist, 1988, pp. 627-634, vol. 43.
Engelmann, S., et al., “Teach your child to read in 100 easy lessons,” 1983, Simon & Schuster, NY., pp. 7 to 34.
Engelmann, S., et al., “Decoding strategies,” 1978, Science Research Associates, Chicago, pp. 2 to 8.
Ericsson, K. A., et al., “The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance,” Psychological Review, 1993, pp. 363-406, vol. 100.
Ferster. C. B., “The use of the free operant in the analysis of behavior,” Psychological Bulletin, 1953, pp. 263-274, vol. 50.
Gilbert, T. F., “Mathetics: The technology of education,” The Journal of Mathetics, 1962, pp. 7-73, vol. 1.
Goldiamond, I., “Machine definition of ongoing silent and oral reading rate,” JEAB, 1962, pp. 363-367, vol. 5.
Goldiamond, I. et al., “Reading as operant behavior,” The Disabled Reader: Education of the Dyslexic Child, 1966, Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, MD, pp. 93 to 115.
Haughton, E.C., “Aims: Growing and sharing,” Let's try doing something else kind of thing, 1972, pp. 20-39, Council on Exceptional Children, Arlington, VA.
Haughton, E.C., “Practicing practices: Learning by activity,” Journal of Precision Teaching, 1980, pp. 3-20, No. 1.
Johnson, K. R., et al., “Breaking the structuralist barrier: Literacy and numeracy wtih fluency,” American Psychologist, 1992, pp. 1475-1490, No. 47.
Johnson, K. R., et al., “The Morningside Model of Generative Instruction,” Behavior analysis in education: Focus on measurably superior instruction, 1994, pp. 173-197, Brooks-Cole Publishing Company, Belmont, California.
Johnson, K. R., et al., “On terms and proceedures: Fluency,” The Behavior Analyst, 1996, pp. 281-
Ford Victoria
Gilbert Marilyn R.
Johnson Kent R.
Layng Michael P.
Layng Terrence V.
Dorvil Richemond
Fenwick & West LLP
Headsprout, Inc.
Lerner Martin
LandOfFree
Teaching method and system does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Teaching method and system, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Teaching method and system will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-3182865