Phonological Mean Length of Utterance as an indicator of typical and impaired phonological development in children acquiring Finnish

The aim of this study was to examine the applicability of the Phonological Mean Length of Utterance (pMLU) method to the data of children acquiring Finnish, for both typically developing children and children with a Specific Language Impairment (SLI). Study I examined typically developing children at the end of the one-word stage (N=17, mean age 1;8), and Study II analysed children s (N=5) productions in a follow-up study with four assessment points (ages 2;0, 2;6, 3;0, 3;6). Study III was carried out in the form of a review article that examined recent research on the phonological development of children acquiring Finnish and compared the results with general trends and cross-linguistic findings in phonological development. Study IV included children with SLI (N=4, mean age 4;10) and age-matched peers. The analyses in Studies I, II and IV were made using the quantitative pMLU method. In the pMLU method, pMLU values are counted for both the words that the children targeted (so-called target words) and the words produced by the children. When the child s average pMLU value was divided with the average target word pMLU value, it is possible to examine that child s accuracy in producing the words with the Whole-Word Proximity (PWP) value. In addition, the number of entirely correctly produced words is counted to obtain the Whole-Word Correctness (PWC) value. Qualitative analyses were carried out in order to examine how the children s phoneme inventories and deficiencies in phonotactics would explain the observed pMLU, PWP and PWC values. The results showed that the pMLU values for children acquiring Finnish were relatively high already at the end of the one-word stage (Study I). The values were found to reflect the characteristics of the ambient language. Typological features that lead to cross-linguistic differences in pMLU values were also observed in the review article (Study III), which noted that in the course of phonological acquisition there are a large number of language-specific phenomena and processes. Study II indicated that overall the children s phonological development during the follow-up period was reflected in the pMLU, PWP and PWC values, although the method showed limitations in detecting qualitative differences between the children. Correct vowels were not scored in the pMLU counts, which led to some misleadingly high pMLU and PWP results: vowel errors were only reflected in the PWC values. Typically developing children in Study II reached the highest possible pMLU results already around age 3;6. At the same time, the differences between the children with SLI and age-matched peers in the pMLU values were very prominent (Study IV). The values for the children with SLI were similar to the ones reported for two-year-old children. Qualitative analyses revealed that the phonologies of the children with SLI largely resembled the ones of younger, typically developing children. However, unusual errors were also witnessed (e.g., vowel errors, omissions of word-initial stops, consonants added to the initial position in words beginning with a vowel). This dissertation provides an application of a new tool for quantitative phonological assessment and analysis in children acquiring Finnish. The preliminary results suggest that, with some modifications, the pMLU method can be used to assess children s phonological development and that it has some advantages compared to the earlier, segment-oriented approaches. Qualitative analyses complemented the pMLU s observations on the children s phonologies. More research is needed in order to verify the levels of the pMLU, PWP and PWC values in children acquiring Finnish.

Interest in university studies : Its role and relation to other motivational variables

This dissertation empirically explored interest as a motivational force in university studies, including the role it currently plays and possible ways of enhancing this role as a student motivator. The general research questions were as follows: 1) What role does interest play in university studies? 2) What explains academic success if studying is not based on interest? 3) How do different learning environments support or impede interest-based studying? Four empirical studies addressed these questions. Study 1 (n=536) compared first-year students explanations of their disciplinary choices in three fields: veterinary medicine, humanities and law. Study 2 (n=28) focused on the role of individual interest in the humanities and veterinary medicine, fields which are very different from each other as regards their nature of studying. Study 3 (n=52) explored veterinary students motivation and study practices in relation to their study success. Study 4 (n=16) explored veterinary students interest experience in individual lectures on a daily basis. By comparing different fields and focusing on one study field in more detail, it was possible to obtain a many-sided picture of the role of interest in different learning environments. Questionnaires and quantitative methods have often been used to measure interest in academic learning. The present work is based mostly on qualitative data, and qualitative methods were applied to add to the previous research. Study 1 explored students open-ended answers, and these provided a basis for the interviews in Study 2. Study 3 explored veterinary students portfolios in a longitudinal setting. For Study 4, a diary including both qualitative and quantitative measures was designed to capture veterinary students interest experience. Qualitative content analysis was applied in all four studies, but quantitative analyses were also added. The thesis showed that university students often explain their disciplinary choices in terms of interest. Because interest is related to high-quality learning, the students seemed to have a good foundation for successful studies. However, the learning environments did not always support interest-based studying; Time-management and coping skills were found to be more important than interest in terms of study success. The results also indicated that interest is not the only motivational variable behind university studies. For example, future goals are needed in order to complete a degree. Even so, the results clearly indicated that it would be worth supporting interest-based studying both in professionally and generally oriented study fields. This support is important not only to promote high-quality learning but also meaningful studying, student well-being, and life-long learning.