Talk:Word recognition

Bouma is only a very small part of word recignition. The article has just been created. In its fully formed version, it will cover many other things besides Bouma. The fact that at present, Bouma happens to be one the few things in the article means nothing.--Coin945 (talk) 12:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try again when you have at least enough for a usable stub ready - as it stood it was pretty much just a copy of a few words from Bouma, and not suitable as an article yet. If it's going to take some time to get to at least stub status, you could work on it in your userspace -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All articles start out as a stub. I am ont the most experienced person in the field but I do know that it is a very important article so I made a basic stub. I am leving it to more experienced people to build on the article. That is the point of Wikipedia articles - they are supposed to grow over time. What's the point in getting rid of an article a few hours after it was created? Besides, even that tiny stub contained some infomation that isn't in Bouma. I think you should reinstate the article and give it a chance to grow instead of making a rash decision.--Coin945 (talk) 14:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be more than just the duplication of a few sentences copied from another article - at the very least it would need to have the wider context made clear. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't actually copy anything from any Wikipedia article. Everything I got (not much, I know, hence the term "basic stub") was from sources I found in GoogleBooks etc.--Coin945 (talk) 14:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it might not have been an actual copy, but it just restated a small amount of what is already at Bouma. Just a few words about "Bouma" that we already have covered elsewhere does not make a suitable stub for a more abstract article - such a stub would, as I say, need to at least set the context for the wider article. What you had created would perhaps have been a suitable stub for an article about Bouma, but as we know we already have one of those - and it was not a suitable stub with the wider topic of "Word recognition" in general -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough... how's this?--Coin945 (talk) 14:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Word recognition (part 2)[edit]

Word Recognition, according to LINCS is "the ability of a reader to recognize written words correctly and virtually effortlessly". It is sometimes referred to as "isolated Word Recognition" because it involves a reader's ability to recognize words individually from a list, that is, without needed similar words for contextual help.^[1] The article continues to say that "Rapid and effortless Word Recognition is the main component of fluent reading" and explains that these skills can be improved by "practic[ing] with flash cards, lists, and word grids".

The article "The Science of Word Recognition" says that "evidence from the last 20 years of work in cognitive psychology indicate that we use the letters within a word to recognize a word".

However, it also says that "we recognize words from their word shape [which] modern psychologists call...the ‘Bouma shape'".

Other factors such as: Serial Letter Recognition, Parallel Letter Recognition, Saccadic eye movements, and the Linear relationship between letters available in moving window and reading rate also affect the way we recognise words.^[2]

An article in ScienceDaily suggets that "early word recognition is key to lifelong reading skills".^[3]

Flash Cards created for words that appear at a high frequency is considered to be a skills for overcoming dyslexia.^[4]

It has been argued that prodosy, the patterns of rhythm and sound used in poetry, can improve word recognition.^[5]

Word recognition has been described as "an optimal Baysian decision process"^[6]

References[edit]

That might work[edit]

That might work, but it isn't really much more than a series of quotes from other sources at the moment, and Wikipedia tends to frown on that style of writing (though I guess it's not finished yet). But if you want to try it, give it a go - I'll leave it to someone else to decide -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help. I put all those random sentences into one paragraph so... at least it looks more cohesive.--Coin945 (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

I am working on updating this page for my college Psychology class, Psychology of Language. As changes are made I will post them to this page for editing and feedback. I look forward to expanding the depth of this topic on Wikipedia. Hhoff12 (talk) 04:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generel orientation of article[edit]

Don't you have the feeling that an article called "Word recognition" should also mention something about spoken word recognition and not only visual WR? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.120.44.80 (talk) 10:54, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Work to be done[edit]

The citations in the opening paragraph are now dead links, so I've added the More Citations Needed banner. I added the citation to Marilyn Jager Adams' work; more citations of significance would be of benefit, as would more recent citations.

I also feel there's a need for a re-organisation and copy-editing of much of the material here to present a more coherent entry for the reader.

Smilingpolitely (talk) 00:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://lincs.ed.gov/readingprofiles/MC_Word_Recognition.htm

[2] ttp://www.microsoft.com/typography/ctfonts/wordrecognition.aspx

[3] ttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090506093952.htm

[4] ttp://specialed.about.com/od/Dyslexia/ss/Activity-for-word-recognition.htm

[5] tp://128.46.154.21/harper/muri/Chen_PDSR_SP04.pdf

[6] ttp://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/people/dennis.norris/personal/BayesianReader.pdf

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]