Joint attention has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
April 10, 2012. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that infants are so motivated to engage in
joint attention that they will turn away from interesting sights to do so? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article on Joint Attention could be greatly expanded and covers very little information.
add a section on forms of joint attention?- hand over hand, eye gaze, listening? Amae2 ( talk) 22:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Baldwin, D.A. (1995). Understanding the link between joint attention and language. In C. Moore & P. J. Dunham (Eds.) Joint attention: Its origins and role in development (pp. 131-158). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bruinsma, Y., Koegel, R. & Koegel, L. (2004). Joint attention and children with autism: A review of the literature. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 10, 169-175.
Grossberg, S. & Vladusich, T. (2010). How do children learn to follow gaze, share joint attention, imitate their teachers, and use tools during social interactions?. Neural Networks, 23, 940-965.
Kawai,N. (2011). Attentional shift by eye gaze requires joint attention: Eye gaze cues are unique to shift attention. Japanese Psychological Research, 53(3), 292-301.
Kidwell, M. & Zimmerman, D. (2007). Joint attention as action. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 592-611.
Leavens, D. & Racine, T.(2009). Joint attention in apes and humans: Are humans unique?. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 16, 240-267.
MacDonald, R., Anderson, J., Dube, W., Geckeler, A., Green, G., Holcomb, W., Mansfield, R. & Sanchez, J. (2006). Behavioural assessment of joint attention: A methodological report. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 27, 138-150.
Meins, E., Fernyhough, C., Arnott, B., Vittorini, L., Turner, M., Leekman, S. & Parkinson, K. (2011). Individual difference in infant’s joint attention behaviours with moth and a new social partner. Infancy, 16(6), 587-610.
Mundy,P., Sullivan, L.& Mastergeorge, A.(2009). A parallel and distributed-processing model of joint attention, social cognition and autism. Autism research, 2(1), 2-21.
Mundy, P. & Gomes, A. (1998). Individual differences in joint attention skill development in the second year. Infant Behavior & Development, 21(3), 469-482.
Mundy, P. & Jarrold, W. (2010). Infant joint attention, neural networks and social cognition. Neural Networks, 23, 985-997.
Osorio, A., Martins, C., Meins, E., Costa Martins, E. & Soares, I. (2011). Individual and relational contributions to parallel and joint attention in infancy. Infant Behavior & Development, 34, 515-524.
Striano, T., & Stahl, D. (2005). Sensitivity to triadic attention in early infancy. Developmental Science, 8(4), 333-343.
Tasker, S. & Schmidt, L. (2007). The “dual usage problem” in explanations of “joint attention” and children’s socioemotional development: A reconceptualization. Developmental Review, 28, 263-288.
Tomasello, M., & Farrar, J. (1986). Joint attention and early language. Child Development, 57, 1454-1463. Williams, J., Waiter, G., Perra, O., Perrett, D. & Whiten, A. (2005). An fMRI study of joint attention experience. Neuroimage, 25, 133-140.
Amae2 ( talk) 20:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Another potentially useful resource is:
Eilan, N., Hoerl, C., McCormack, T. and Roessler, J. (2005) Joint attention: Communication and other minds: Issues in philosophy and psychology. New York: Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press.
Particularly this chapter: Gomez, J-C (2005). Joint Attention and the Notion of Subject: Insights from Apes, Normal Children, and Children with Autism. In Joint attention: Communication and other minds: Issues in philosophy and psychology (pp.75-84). New York: Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press.
There are several copies of the book available through online access. There are also chapters on the mechanics of joint attention and its establishment as well as chapters on austism, pointing and the role of joint attention in language development. A good potential starting place. NadRose ( talk) 04:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
In addition to the suggestions above this article would also benefit from further elaboration on how joint attention is established in both humans and non-human primates. Information on the establishment of joint attention between deaf persons and between hearing and deaf persons would also be beneficial. Particularly, information on the establishment of joint attention between hearing mothers and deaf infants. As with the section on Autism this could be of great use to parents. Furthermore, it would be beneficial to discuss the role of joint attention in both linguistic and social-emotional development. This article has potential to be useful to both parents and the general public if expanded to include the aspects listed above and agumented with citations.
NadRose —Preceding undated comment added 23:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC).
Bibliography
Akhtar N., & Gernsbacher M. A. (2008). On privilileging the role of gaze in infant social cognition. Child Development Perspectives, 2(2), 59-65.
Bigelow A. E. (2003). The development of joint attention in blind infants. Development and Psychopathology, 15, 259-275.
Bruce S. M. (2005). The impact of congenital deafblindness on the struggle to symbolism. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 52(3), 233-251.
Dice J. L. & Dove M. K. (2011). A Piagetian approach to infant referential behaviors. Infant Behavior & Development 34, 481-486.
Scofield J. & Behrend D. A. (2011). Clarifying the role of joint attention in early word learning. First Language, 31(3), 326-341.
Sebanz N., & Bekkering H., & Knoblich G. (2006). Joint action: bodies and minds moving together. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(2), 70-76.
White P. J.& O’Reilly M., & Streusand W., & Levine A., & Sigafoos J., & Lancioni G., & Fragale C., & Pierce N., & Aguilar J. (2011). Best practices for teaching joint attention: A systematic review of the intervention literature. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5(4), 1283-1295. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LianneAnna ( talk • contribs) 04:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
LianneAnna ( talk) 18:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Here is what we talked about in class.
Explanation of what joint attention is, why it is interesting and why it is important
-Lianne — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amae2 ( talk • contribs) 18:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Add to the section already written about joint attention in chimps
(looking, touching, etc.) not convinced this is necessary - Paula
-include socio-emotional development (Nadia)
NadRose ( talk) 04:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
-Language Production (Lianne)
LianneAnna ( talk) 07:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
-Comprehension (Alison)
-Communicative Intent (Alison)
-Reading (parent to/with child)(Lianne)
LianneAnna ( talk) 07:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
-Learning of joint attention
-nativist
-ethological
(Nadia)
(Alison)
Amae2 ( talk) 22:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I think we should consider in the Joint attention in humans section changing the order of our sections. Perhaps putting comprehension first, then communicative intent, then language production and followed by reading. I think that it will make more sense and also have better flow.
Amae2 (
talk)
17:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree that does make sense.
LianneAnna ( talk) 05:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I think that is a good idea in terms of ordering.Additionally, am I responsible for the entire section on theory? Not a problem if I am, just clairifying so as to not research and write aboutthe wrong thing. NadRose ( talk) 04:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I think at this point, yes to doing the whole theoretical section...If it becomes to much then we can break it up between us. Amae2 ( talk) 16:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Is there any reason the domain general/domain specific argument should work its way into this article? Or have I just been reading too many of my class notes? If it's important I will attempt to work it in, but if not I'd really rather not go there NadRose ( talk) 04:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello all, Great content. Thanks for all this work. Now I'll just jump to my suggestions regarding editing. They seem to have disappeared in the page redirect.
Why say "interactionally-achieved" can't we just say achieved? My guess is the group hasn't written the lead at all yet. This would be a good idea before the DYK submission.
I'm not sure how wise it is to start the article by a dispute about what it should be called. I'd just go with the dominant view and cite the appropriate source. A general reader isn't likely interested in what it isn't or who once called it something else.
This sentence "Despite the variety of perspectives..." is confusing. There are weird cites in the middle of it and the punctuation is strange. Also, please use full words and no symbols" & is a symbol not a word. Also please type out joint attention, don't use an acronym for the key term in the article. Perhaps you could use find and replace.
The sense I get from this first bit is that some people think apes and humans are the same and some don't. Is that it? Does this warrant a heading "Theoretical Perspectives"? Can this information just be included in a lead paragraph that defines (positively) joint attention and desribes the relevance of the term to research in both populations. The dispute itself can likely be acknowledged under the section on non-human primates.
Joint attention in humans "both attend to some part of the world". I don't really think linking to world is helpful here. Nor do I think it is the right choice of word. Consider object or event in their environment. You may have inherited this from the original, but I'd change it.
The second para is chat to each other and belongs on a talk page not on the article page. This needs to be removed post haste. And while you can keep track of the quote there, it will end up in your own words on the actual page. Right?
Bizarrely, most of the work that is on this article about humans falls under the non-humans heading. I have moved it, but perhaps not how you intend, so do have a look at the whole organization.
Joint attention in non-humans adding references does not negate the need for punctuation. Please use periods to end sentences. Find out whether the wiki standard is before or after citations and then stick to it throughout.
Marentette ( talk) 04:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Here is the chunk from the article page that I deleted (I thought I put it here, but it disappeared). This is conversation between editors so belongs on the talk page, not the article page.
"In accordance with some prior research showing that infants engage in some joint attention skills (e.g. gaze follow) before the end of the first year (i.e. D’Entremont, 2000; Hood, Willen, & Driver, 1998), we found that many infants passed some triadic social tasks before 9 months of age." AND "the current research suggests that joint attention skills do not develop in an abrupt fashion and not at 9 months of age." [1] Unsure where this should fit but I thought it might be relevant NadRose (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Perhaps with my added section on stages of Joint Attention (at the bottom of the page), the whole thing would probably fit well right here at the end of this section. LianneAnna (talk) 03:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC) That sounds good to me. NadRose (talk) 05:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Marentette (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
We are well into the page before we get to the definition. Shouldn't this come first? And be very attentive to the wording, this is likely the most critical piece of the article. Also there is quite a bit of redundancy between the first para under Joint Attention in Humans and the first para under Identifying Joint Attention. This should be collated into one piece. What does "under a description for that person" mean? Also, the bullet points are not grammatically parallel.
Possessive markers please!
I don't understand "can be identified using three stages". Is this the process a researcher/parent goes through to determine if a child is using joint attention? "and is moved" physically? to another location? On the whole the stages section doesn't inform me about anything. I don't see three different levels of attention and I don't see how they are stages of identification.
Comprehension - of what? "to extract information" from what? "provides children with a great deal of information" about what? The bit from Bruner needs interpretation. Explain the point, this is not friendly writing for a general reader. Perhaps a parent has been told their child is autistic and has trouble with joint attention. What do they need to know?
"By 14 months ... " this sentence is a fragment, it must be connected to the next to make sense. Fix it to maximize intelligibility, don't just remove the period in between!
complimentary (nice hat) // complementary (two things that fit together to make a whole) - I fixed it but please use them correctly.
Following Gaze I need some help about why this is not the same as joint attention... "At 6 months infants respond to shifting in gaze (whose?) by shifting their own gaze"
Re the many approaches to gaze following: which of these is key to joint attention? Is this material about gaze really a separate article? Is there already an article on Wikipedia that addresses this? The problem is that the general reader likely doesn't care. What do they need to know about gaze to understand joint attention? Give them that, and cite the appropriate resources. They probably don't need this much detail (though you do to write about it effectively).
This really summarizes the work that needs to happen in this whole section: get rid of the redundancy and the unnecessary detail. Think about how to present this clearly to a general reader. Put in the appropriate sources. Move to synthesis of the material for a general reader rather than trying to adequately represent the details of the things you read.
How is social referencing different than joint attention?
I removed the heading about reading. The intention to cover this is included on the talk page. I don't think we should leave place holders in the article itself.
I assume the language production part hasn't been added yet. I'm hoping it will show up quickly as at present there are only notes and not citations. Developmental Disabilities I would consider removing what you have now to the talk page until you have something much more substantial to say about autism and joint attention. I'm sure it is just there as a placeholder right now, but it gives the idea that the most relevant thing about this topic has to do with "parental psychopathology", which is nonsense. Until you are finished that section I'd just move it.
Stages: this is the second time I've seen this in the article. It makes more sense but I'm not sure why it is at this spot.
Here is my suggestion for re-organization:
Lead: define and describe briefly why the skill of interest. Briefly outline the contents of the article
1. Joint Attn in Humans
-detailed definition and developmental progression -role of eye gaze -role of intention
Role of JA in language production
Role of JA in socio-emotional dev't
significance of JA in development of children with disabilities (autism, deafness, blind) - but only if you have tight coherent things to say.
2. Joint Attn in non-human (primates?)
Right now things are scattered. I realize that you likely know that and may not have been ready for me to look, but now is when I can comment. Take what is useful, ignore what you already knew. Paula Marentette ( talk) 04:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
— Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
-Lead
-Definition Section
-Gaze
-Intention
-Humans
-Non-humans Amae2 ( talk) 18:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I rearranged a number of sections. Including some that you guys were in charge of because I didn't want to leave it as a complete mess (not trying to take over your pages). I also linked to joint attention from a couple of related language wiki pages. Does the new layout look alright?
LianneAnna ( talk) 20:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to add a see also section.
LianneAnna ( talk) 16:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I think that a section on infant development and joint attention may be useful. Instead of having various developments spread throughout the article we could place it all together. It may be good for parents of autistic children so they can compare their child's development to what we have found in the research? I will start one in a sandbox. Amae2 ( talk) 20:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
We also need to be careful to make sure that everything is being cited and citations are staying with what is moved. "The empirical approach to joint attention assumes that infants follow an adult's gaze because it is likely to lead something interesting. This approach assumes that another person's gaze is a cue for where rewarding events might occur. They believe that social learning leads to joint attention."- Has no citation.... But I would like to use if someone has it. Amae2 ( talk) 21:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
What type opf joint attention do apes engage in? I was looking at the definition section and I think we should clairify and add it in. NadRose ( talk) 22:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Additionally what do we mean by "The significance of this is that joint attention promotes and maintains dyadic exchanges and learning about the nature of social partners" ? NadRose ( talk) 22:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Wow, impressive work here people! This is in much better shape that a few days ago.
I have made a few straightforward edits myself (possessive!) but will note a few things here that likely need your discussion (or your technical expertise, I thought I had sorted referencing but apparently I'm not there yet!)
Para 2 and 3 in Def'n of JA have a problem with referencing [1]. They aren't properly linked and when I tried to fix it I made it worse.
Paula
Marentette (
talk)
00:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
•I really like the new lead, I think it is both clear and inclusive of multiple species, which is important in this area.
Gaze
Intention
Comprehension
Production
Socio-emotional dev't
Disabilities
Paula Marentette ( talk) 01:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Primates
Finally, as I'm sure you can see, there is a problem with reference #12!
This is looking very good, in my humble opinion. I hope that we get some experienced wikipedians by shortly to give some suggestions about what else is needed before GA submission. Thanks for all your work!
Paula
Marentette (
talk) 02:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
One more thing. I see that Mr. Stradivarius changed all the heading in Vocab Dev't to non caps. So I expect that is the standard we should use here too. I'll leave it to someone else as I am reviewing the other article now. Just putting the note here for reference. Paula
Marentette (
talk)
02:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
We are adding a section on infants and development. This will consist of what aspects of joint attention should be occurring at specific ages. LianneAnna ( talk) 02:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC) + Amae2 + NadRose
I was unsure of where to put it in the article or what to title it but alas here it is. NadRose ( talk) 20:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC) Futherrmore if anyone knows how to make the entire table appear (as opposed to stopping at 9 months) please feel free to fix it. Thank you NadRose ( talk) 20:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Approximate Age of Infant | Joint Attentional Behavior |
---|---|
2 Months |
|
3 Months |
|
6 Months |
|
8 Months |
|
9 Months | |
12 Months |
|
15 Months |
|
18 Months | |
2 Years |
|
Amae2 ( talk) 21:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC) I Would put it under Socio-Emotional Development and title it .....or something like that? Amae2 ( talk) 21:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I made some changes above with spelling and trying to create parallel grammatical structure. There is an editing issue in that some entries (9mos) appear twice. There are two copies of the table in the edit view but only one on the Talk page. Not sure about that. I agree with Amae2 re placement. Paula Marentette ( talk) 22:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I believe that my references are now in order. I will now begin copy editing. Paula, are my comments on deaf infants under the disabilities section alright? I don't want it to sound accusatory of hearing parents and their deaf children. LianneAnna ( talk) 00:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
There are a couple of sentences under definitions that require citations (I believe they are your articles Nadia).
And is the second citation: Peter Mundy, Lisa Sullivan, Ann M Mastergeorge, A parallel and distributed-processing model of joint attention, social cognition and autism. Autism research Volume: 2, Issue: 1, Pages: 2-21, 2009 left over from the original article, I don't think its formatted properly.
Alison are you going to add a little more about JA and autism before we submit for good article status?
LianneAnna ( talk) 02:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Table officially added. I'm not sure what you wanted me to do Lianne. Glad to fix it if only I knew what it was. I'll take one last shot at copy editing in the meantime. NadRose ( talk) 22:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
References
Reddy
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Heal
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Woodward
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Here are my thoughts on the article as it stands. It looks very good and I think is ready for GA submission. I am hoping that will bring more wikipedians by so we can find out whether we have hit the mark in terms of format and level of coverage.
A few thoughts:
Consider this as way of integrating the two portions:
Furthermore, mothers who were unable to successfully establish regular joint attention with their child rated that infant lower on scales of social competence.[3] These judgements were made as early as 18 months of age. Deaf children of hearing parents or blind children of sighted parents may struggle to establish joint attention in the face of sensory loss. As a consequence these children are often rated as less socially competent than their peers by parents.</ref>Nowakowski, Matlida E. 2009</ref>
Joint attention in individuals with disabilities Several studies have shown that problems with joint attention are associated with developmental processes. Deaf infant are able to engage in joint attention similarly to hearing infants, however, the time they spend engaged in joint attention is often reduced in deaf infants born to hearing parents. [3] Hearing parents of deaf infants are less likely to respond and expand on the initiations and communicative acts of their deaf infants.[3] Deaf infants of Deaf parents do not show reduced time spent in joint attention.[3] This suggests that auditory input is not critical to joint attention but that shared modes of communication and understanding are vital.[3] In blind infants, joint attention may be delayed compared to sighted infants.[4] Joint attention may be established by means of auditory input or feeling another person's hand on an object.
Difficulties in establishing joint attention may partially account for differences in social abilities of children with developmental disorders (i.e. Autism).[2][26] ✓
I have one additional point about your sources. Why don't you just cite what you read rather than cite something you didn't read and using "cited in"? This is really best left for sources that can't actually be retrieved (e.g., personal communication, an oral paper at a conference, things like that). If it is a book or article either get it or just cite what you read. Other than addressing these few points, and possibly inserting the table, I'd say submit. You have all done great work. Paula Marentette ( talk) 02:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Here are some good refs for the question about dogs. I think the issue is that these researchers (many of whom are also involved with the primate research) don't discuss the dogs' capacities in terms of joint attention. I worry it would be original research for us to do so.
Paula Marentette ( talk) 17:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I looked for some sources that speak to the history of Joint attention but I have not been able to access any of them online or through the library. Many are pointing towards the early work of Bruner particularly "Joint Attention: Its Origins and Role in Development By Chris Moore", or Bruner's original works. I am not sure where we want to look next, or how we could get some of these sources. In particular the one article I would really like to get would be Bruner, J. (1977), 'Early social interaction and language acquisition', in H.R Schaffer (ed.), Studies in Mother-Infant Interaction. New York: Academic Press, 271-89. The reference made to prediction in Comprehension is cited as coming from this source in the book I located it in. I have not been able to find an example or explanation elsewhere.
Amae2 (
talk)
19:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Amae2, the mother-infant interaction book is on its way. I should have it by Thursday, possibly Wed aft. Paula Marentette ( talk) 20:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I activated the CitationBot that worked on the vocabulary development page and these are the results that I got, I am not sure if it finished, or worked...(my guess is that it didn't work like it did for them). I will ask the Bots operator to figure out what I should do. LianneAnna ( talk) 05:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Activated by LianneAnna Expanding 'Joint attention'; will commit edits. Revision #418 [00:00:00] Processing page 'Joint attention' — edit—history
- switch to cite id format is supported. * Looking for bare references... * Tidying reference tags... - No duplicate references to combine. - No duplicate references to combine. ** No changes required. # # #
End of output
# # #
LianneAnna - Perhaps this bot can only effectively run on a citation list formatted as the one in Vocab Dev't? Thanks for trying.
Amae2 - the book by Moore is currently out to another user. Since the pages you need aren't on Google Books I've requested it but it could be two weeks or more.
Paula
Marentette (
talk)
15:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes I think I may have to manually edit the citations, I am not sure, I left another message on his talk page (two other people left very speedy comments last time and I am hoping they will again). When I figure out how to run this Bot, ISBN's will be added by the Bot. I will comment here when I figure out how to run it because while it runs, I think we will want to avoid making changes to our citations (there seemed to be a slight problem with this on the Vocabulary development article). LianneAnna ( talk) 16:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Apparently the references need ISBN's now.....There is a banner in our reference section. Amae2 ( talk) 16:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC) LianneAnna and I think that the bot will add them. She has a plan for making it work. If not, we'll go the by hand route I guess. ISBN is only for books. I have no idea what a PMID is, but I suppose we'll find out soon! Perhaps it is like DOI. Paula Marentette ( talk) 19:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Although this wasn't submitted under "Culture, sociology and psychology" in the Good article section, it does fall under psychology and needs to follow WP:MEDRS, as stated in the Good article section for "Culture, sociology and psychology". Also, you should provide the PMID, DOI etc. for journal articles. This way the reviewer can check your sources. Thanks, MathewTownsend ( talk) 16:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Canoe1967 ( talk · contribs) 06:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC) Looks fine. The lead may be a liitle long. You may consider moving some of the more detailed information in the lead to lower sections to further improve it.
Anyone who has seen a child interact with an adult doesn't proof that the sky is blue.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 22:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not saying this is a bad article. It's a psychology article that needs to have the sources evaluated by WP:MEDRS criteria. I'm saying that it was superficially evaluated by an editor with a total of 963 edits, who not familiar with the subject who says it looks good so it's a GA. That's my concern.
Regards, MathewTownsend ( talk) 17:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)
(example of combining information from different sources, resulting in some confusion to the reader)
I hope you find these suggestions helpful. Please feel free to provide feedback or ask me questions.
MathewTownsend ( talk) 00:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
MathewTownsend,
Thank you, we will indeed need the whole week to respond to these comments. Students don't return to campus until Tuesday. Classes end at the end of next week, so we will really focus our efforts over those few days.
I am thinking hard about OR (a rule I understand quite well) and synthesis. I'll reflect a bit more before I respond to your concerns about the table.
It is the case that the literature reviewed in books on chimpanzees or other great apes is relevant to the literature on human children, since that is the comparator for great apes. It is in these books that people are most clear about definitions that apply across species. Hence their frequency in the reference list.
As a class we struggled with whether to split this article into two. We thought we should start by just expanding the stub, which integrated across species. We can certainly do further work to be more precise about which claims apply to which species. I am not sure who decides, or how one decides to split an article. We would appreciate any advice.
Paula
Marentette (
talk)
20:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
We have made many edits to the article in response to the GA Reassessment above. It is ready for another review. We have
Do we need to resubmit for GA review or can we continue the Reassessment started above? Thank you for your work on this review. Paula Marentette ( talk) 19:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
MathewTownsend ( talk) 20:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
There are comments below here on the talk page, but I can't seem to find get below them in the edit box, so I'll keep writing in the middle of the page...
Response to Good Article Reassessment (please do not divide up the page with headers)
Is the reviewer concerned that one of the other sources used in the article contradicts the time line presented at one point in the article.? [3]
In addition, some domesticated animals such as dogs and horses show some ability to follow gaze. {{cite journal |last1=Itakura |first1=S. |title=Gaze Following and Joint Visual Attention in Nonhuman Animals |journal=? |year=? |pages=?|isbn=?|
"Dyadic joint attention can be thought[by whom?] of as a conversation-like behavior that individuals engage in. This is especially true for human adults and infants who engage in this behavior starting at two months of age. - this is cited to an article on chimpanzees (16 citation go to this article).
If we remove the citations from the lede paragraph would that reduce the confusion? I used information from different sources in order to make the lede paragraph as explanatory as possible. Very basic sources that describe the general concept of joint attention didn't provide the details I was looking for and more specific articles didn't provide a description that was general enough to serve as the only source for the lede paragraph. This is why I chose to use multiple references for the lede.
This whole section is a mixture of children, adults, apes, humans in no particular order.
Humans and non-human layout
Sources
LianneAnna ( talk) 02:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
This article has recently been edited by students as part of their course work for a university course. As part of the quality metrics for the education program, we would like to determine what level of burden is placed on Wikipedia's editors by student coursework.
If you are an editor of this article who spent time correcting edits to it made by the students, please tell us how much time you spent on cleaning up the article. Please note that we are asking you to estimate only the negative effects of the students' work. If the students added good material but you spent time formatting it or making it conform to the manual of style, or copyediting it, then the material added was still a net benefit, and the work you did improved it further. If on the other hand the students added material that had to be removed, or removed good material which you had to replace, please let us know how much time you had to spend making those corrections. This includes time you may have spent posting to the students' talk pages, or to Wikipedia noticeboards, or working with them on IRC, or any other time you spent which was required to fix problems created by the students' edits. Any work you did as a Wikipedia Ambassador for that student's class should not be counted.
Please rate the amount of time spent as follows:
Please also add any comments you feel may be helpful. We welcome ratings from multiple editors on the same article. Add your input here. Thanks! -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) ( talk) 20:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Joint attention has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
April 10, 2012. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that infants are so motivated to engage in
joint attention that they will turn away from interesting sights to do so? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article on Joint Attention could be greatly expanded and covers very little information.
add a section on forms of joint attention?- hand over hand, eye gaze, listening? Amae2 ( talk) 22:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Baldwin, D.A. (1995). Understanding the link between joint attention and language. In C. Moore & P. J. Dunham (Eds.) Joint attention: Its origins and role in development (pp. 131-158). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bruinsma, Y., Koegel, R. & Koegel, L. (2004). Joint attention and children with autism: A review of the literature. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 10, 169-175.
Grossberg, S. & Vladusich, T. (2010). How do children learn to follow gaze, share joint attention, imitate their teachers, and use tools during social interactions?. Neural Networks, 23, 940-965.
Kawai,N. (2011). Attentional shift by eye gaze requires joint attention: Eye gaze cues are unique to shift attention. Japanese Psychological Research, 53(3), 292-301.
Kidwell, M. & Zimmerman, D. (2007). Joint attention as action. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 592-611.
Leavens, D. & Racine, T.(2009). Joint attention in apes and humans: Are humans unique?. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 16, 240-267.
MacDonald, R., Anderson, J., Dube, W., Geckeler, A., Green, G., Holcomb, W., Mansfield, R. & Sanchez, J. (2006). Behavioural assessment of joint attention: A methodological report. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 27, 138-150.
Meins, E., Fernyhough, C., Arnott, B., Vittorini, L., Turner, M., Leekman, S. & Parkinson, K. (2011). Individual difference in infant’s joint attention behaviours with moth and a new social partner. Infancy, 16(6), 587-610.
Mundy,P., Sullivan, L.& Mastergeorge, A.(2009). A parallel and distributed-processing model of joint attention, social cognition and autism. Autism research, 2(1), 2-21.
Mundy, P. & Gomes, A. (1998). Individual differences in joint attention skill development in the second year. Infant Behavior & Development, 21(3), 469-482.
Mundy, P. & Jarrold, W. (2010). Infant joint attention, neural networks and social cognition. Neural Networks, 23, 985-997.
Osorio, A., Martins, C., Meins, E., Costa Martins, E. & Soares, I. (2011). Individual and relational contributions to parallel and joint attention in infancy. Infant Behavior & Development, 34, 515-524.
Striano, T., & Stahl, D. (2005). Sensitivity to triadic attention in early infancy. Developmental Science, 8(4), 333-343.
Tasker, S. & Schmidt, L. (2007). The “dual usage problem” in explanations of “joint attention” and children’s socioemotional development: A reconceptualization. Developmental Review, 28, 263-288.
Tomasello, M., & Farrar, J. (1986). Joint attention and early language. Child Development, 57, 1454-1463. Williams, J., Waiter, G., Perra, O., Perrett, D. & Whiten, A. (2005). An fMRI study of joint attention experience. Neuroimage, 25, 133-140.
Amae2 ( talk) 20:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Another potentially useful resource is:
Eilan, N., Hoerl, C., McCormack, T. and Roessler, J. (2005) Joint attention: Communication and other minds: Issues in philosophy and psychology. New York: Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press.
Particularly this chapter: Gomez, J-C (2005). Joint Attention and the Notion of Subject: Insights from Apes, Normal Children, and Children with Autism. In Joint attention: Communication and other minds: Issues in philosophy and psychology (pp.75-84). New York: Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press.
There are several copies of the book available through online access. There are also chapters on the mechanics of joint attention and its establishment as well as chapters on austism, pointing and the role of joint attention in language development. A good potential starting place. NadRose ( talk) 04:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
In addition to the suggestions above this article would also benefit from further elaboration on how joint attention is established in both humans and non-human primates. Information on the establishment of joint attention between deaf persons and between hearing and deaf persons would also be beneficial. Particularly, information on the establishment of joint attention between hearing mothers and deaf infants. As with the section on Autism this could be of great use to parents. Furthermore, it would be beneficial to discuss the role of joint attention in both linguistic and social-emotional development. This article has potential to be useful to both parents and the general public if expanded to include the aspects listed above and agumented with citations.
NadRose —Preceding undated comment added 23:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC).
Bibliography
Akhtar N., & Gernsbacher M. A. (2008). On privilileging the role of gaze in infant social cognition. Child Development Perspectives, 2(2), 59-65.
Bigelow A. E. (2003). The development of joint attention in blind infants. Development and Psychopathology, 15, 259-275.
Bruce S. M. (2005). The impact of congenital deafblindness on the struggle to symbolism. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 52(3), 233-251.
Dice J. L. & Dove M. K. (2011). A Piagetian approach to infant referential behaviors. Infant Behavior & Development 34, 481-486.
Scofield J. & Behrend D. A. (2011). Clarifying the role of joint attention in early word learning. First Language, 31(3), 326-341.
Sebanz N., & Bekkering H., & Knoblich G. (2006). Joint action: bodies and minds moving together. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(2), 70-76.
White P. J.& O’Reilly M., & Streusand W., & Levine A., & Sigafoos J., & Lancioni G., & Fragale C., & Pierce N., & Aguilar J. (2011). Best practices for teaching joint attention: A systematic review of the intervention literature. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5(4), 1283-1295. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LianneAnna ( talk • contribs) 04:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
LianneAnna ( talk) 18:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Here is what we talked about in class.
Explanation of what joint attention is, why it is interesting and why it is important
-Lianne — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amae2 ( talk • contribs) 18:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Add to the section already written about joint attention in chimps
(looking, touching, etc.) not convinced this is necessary - Paula
-include socio-emotional development (Nadia)
NadRose ( talk) 04:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
-Language Production (Lianne)
LianneAnna ( talk) 07:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
-Comprehension (Alison)
-Communicative Intent (Alison)
-Reading (parent to/with child)(Lianne)
LianneAnna ( talk) 07:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
-Learning of joint attention
-nativist
-ethological
(Nadia)
(Alison)
Amae2 ( talk) 22:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I think we should consider in the Joint attention in humans section changing the order of our sections. Perhaps putting comprehension first, then communicative intent, then language production and followed by reading. I think that it will make more sense and also have better flow.
Amae2 (
talk)
17:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree that does make sense.
LianneAnna ( talk) 05:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I think that is a good idea in terms of ordering.Additionally, am I responsible for the entire section on theory? Not a problem if I am, just clairifying so as to not research and write aboutthe wrong thing. NadRose ( talk) 04:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I think at this point, yes to doing the whole theoretical section...If it becomes to much then we can break it up between us. Amae2 ( talk) 16:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Is there any reason the domain general/domain specific argument should work its way into this article? Or have I just been reading too many of my class notes? If it's important I will attempt to work it in, but if not I'd really rather not go there NadRose ( talk) 04:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello all, Great content. Thanks for all this work. Now I'll just jump to my suggestions regarding editing. They seem to have disappeared in the page redirect.
Why say "interactionally-achieved" can't we just say achieved? My guess is the group hasn't written the lead at all yet. This would be a good idea before the DYK submission.
I'm not sure how wise it is to start the article by a dispute about what it should be called. I'd just go with the dominant view and cite the appropriate source. A general reader isn't likely interested in what it isn't or who once called it something else.
This sentence "Despite the variety of perspectives..." is confusing. There are weird cites in the middle of it and the punctuation is strange. Also, please use full words and no symbols" & is a symbol not a word. Also please type out joint attention, don't use an acronym for the key term in the article. Perhaps you could use find and replace.
The sense I get from this first bit is that some people think apes and humans are the same and some don't. Is that it? Does this warrant a heading "Theoretical Perspectives"? Can this information just be included in a lead paragraph that defines (positively) joint attention and desribes the relevance of the term to research in both populations. The dispute itself can likely be acknowledged under the section on non-human primates.
Joint attention in humans "both attend to some part of the world". I don't really think linking to world is helpful here. Nor do I think it is the right choice of word. Consider object or event in their environment. You may have inherited this from the original, but I'd change it.
The second para is chat to each other and belongs on a talk page not on the article page. This needs to be removed post haste. And while you can keep track of the quote there, it will end up in your own words on the actual page. Right?
Bizarrely, most of the work that is on this article about humans falls under the non-humans heading. I have moved it, but perhaps not how you intend, so do have a look at the whole organization.
Joint attention in non-humans adding references does not negate the need for punctuation. Please use periods to end sentences. Find out whether the wiki standard is before or after citations and then stick to it throughout.
Marentette ( talk) 04:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Here is the chunk from the article page that I deleted (I thought I put it here, but it disappeared). This is conversation between editors so belongs on the talk page, not the article page.
"In accordance with some prior research showing that infants engage in some joint attention skills (e.g. gaze follow) before the end of the first year (i.e. D’Entremont, 2000; Hood, Willen, & Driver, 1998), we found that many infants passed some triadic social tasks before 9 months of age." AND "the current research suggests that joint attention skills do not develop in an abrupt fashion and not at 9 months of age." [1] Unsure where this should fit but I thought it might be relevant NadRose (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Perhaps with my added section on stages of Joint Attention (at the bottom of the page), the whole thing would probably fit well right here at the end of this section. LianneAnna (talk) 03:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC) That sounds good to me. NadRose (talk) 05:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Marentette (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
We are well into the page before we get to the definition. Shouldn't this come first? And be very attentive to the wording, this is likely the most critical piece of the article. Also there is quite a bit of redundancy between the first para under Joint Attention in Humans and the first para under Identifying Joint Attention. This should be collated into one piece. What does "under a description for that person" mean? Also, the bullet points are not grammatically parallel.
Possessive markers please!
I don't understand "can be identified using three stages". Is this the process a researcher/parent goes through to determine if a child is using joint attention? "and is moved" physically? to another location? On the whole the stages section doesn't inform me about anything. I don't see three different levels of attention and I don't see how they are stages of identification.
Comprehension - of what? "to extract information" from what? "provides children with a great deal of information" about what? The bit from Bruner needs interpretation. Explain the point, this is not friendly writing for a general reader. Perhaps a parent has been told their child is autistic and has trouble with joint attention. What do they need to know?
"By 14 months ... " this sentence is a fragment, it must be connected to the next to make sense. Fix it to maximize intelligibility, don't just remove the period in between!
complimentary (nice hat) // complementary (two things that fit together to make a whole) - I fixed it but please use them correctly.
Following Gaze I need some help about why this is not the same as joint attention... "At 6 months infants respond to shifting in gaze (whose?) by shifting their own gaze"
Re the many approaches to gaze following: which of these is key to joint attention? Is this material about gaze really a separate article? Is there already an article on Wikipedia that addresses this? The problem is that the general reader likely doesn't care. What do they need to know about gaze to understand joint attention? Give them that, and cite the appropriate resources. They probably don't need this much detail (though you do to write about it effectively).
This really summarizes the work that needs to happen in this whole section: get rid of the redundancy and the unnecessary detail. Think about how to present this clearly to a general reader. Put in the appropriate sources. Move to synthesis of the material for a general reader rather than trying to adequately represent the details of the things you read.
How is social referencing different than joint attention?
I removed the heading about reading. The intention to cover this is included on the talk page. I don't think we should leave place holders in the article itself.
I assume the language production part hasn't been added yet. I'm hoping it will show up quickly as at present there are only notes and not citations. Developmental Disabilities I would consider removing what you have now to the talk page until you have something much more substantial to say about autism and joint attention. I'm sure it is just there as a placeholder right now, but it gives the idea that the most relevant thing about this topic has to do with "parental psychopathology", which is nonsense. Until you are finished that section I'd just move it.
Stages: this is the second time I've seen this in the article. It makes more sense but I'm not sure why it is at this spot.
Here is my suggestion for re-organization:
Lead: define and describe briefly why the skill of interest. Briefly outline the contents of the article
1. Joint Attn in Humans
-detailed definition and developmental progression -role of eye gaze -role of intention
Role of JA in language production
Role of JA in socio-emotional dev't
significance of JA in development of children with disabilities (autism, deafness, blind) - but only if you have tight coherent things to say.
2. Joint Attn in non-human (primates?)
Right now things are scattered. I realize that you likely know that and may not have been ready for me to look, but now is when I can comment. Take what is useful, ignore what you already knew. Paula Marentette ( talk) 04:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
— Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
-Lead
-Definition Section
-Gaze
-Intention
-Humans
-Non-humans Amae2 ( talk) 18:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I rearranged a number of sections. Including some that you guys were in charge of because I didn't want to leave it as a complete mess (not trying to take over your pages). I also linked to joint attention from a couple of related language wiki pages. Does the new layout look alright?
LianneAnna ( talk) 20:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to add a see also section.
LianneAnna ( talk) 16:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I think that a section on infant development and joint attention may be useful. Instead of having various developments spread throughout the article we could place it all together. It may be good for parents of autistic children so they can compare their child's development to what we have found in the research? I will start one in a sandbox. Amae2 ( talk) 20:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
We also need to be careful to make sure that everything is being cited and citations are staying with what is moved. "The empirical approach to joint attention assumes that infants follow an adult's gaze because it is likely to lead something interesting. This approach assumes that another person's gaze is a cue for where rewarding events might occur. They believe that social learning leads to joint attention."- Has no citation.... But I would like to use if someone has it. Amae2 ( talk) 21:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
What type opf joint attention do apes engage in? I was looking at the definition section and I think we should clairify and add it in. NadRose ( talk) 22:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Additionally what do we mean by "The significance of this is that joint attention promotes and maintains dyadic exchanges and learning about the nature of social partners" ? NadRose ( talk) 22:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Wow, impressive work here people! This is in much better shape that a few days ago.
I have made a few straightforward edits myself (possessive!) but will note a few things here that likely need your discussion (or your technical expertise, I thought I had sorted referencing but apparently I'm not there yet!)
Para 2 and 3 in Def'n of JA have a problem with referencing [1]. They aren't properly linked and when I tried to fix it I made it worse.
Paula
Marentette (
talk)
00:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
•I really like the new lead, I think it is both clear and inclusive of multiple species, which is important in this area.
Gaze
Intention
Comprehension
Production
Socio-emotional dev't
Disabilities
Paula Marentette ( talk) 01:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Primates
Finally, as I'm sure you can see, there is a problem with reference #12!
This is looking very good, in my humble opinion. I hope that we get some experienced wikipedians by shortly to give some suggestions about what else is needed before GA submission. Thanks for all your work!
Paula
Marentette (
talk) 02:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
One more thing. I see that Mr. Stradivarius changed all the heading in Vocab Dev't to non caps. So I expect that is the standard we should use here too. I'll leave it to someone else as I am reviewing the other article now. Just putting the note here for reference. Paula
Marentette (
talk)
02:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
We are adding a section on infants and development. This will consist of what aspects of joint attention should be occurring at specific ages. LianneAnna ( talk) 02:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC) + Amae2 + NadRose
I was unsure of where to put it in the article or what to title it but alas here it is. NadRose ( talk) 20:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC) Futherrmore if anyone knows how to make the entire table appear (as opposed to stopping at 9 months) please feel free to fix it. Thank you NadRose ( talk) 20:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Approximate Age of Infant | Joint Attentional Behavior |
---|---|
2 Months |
|
3 Months |
|
6 Months |
|
8 Months |
|
9 Months | |
12 Months |
|
15 Months |
|
18 Months | |
2 Years |
|
Amae2 ( talk) 21:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC) I Would put it under Socio-Emotional Development and title it .....or something like that? Amae2 ( talk) 21:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I made some changes above with spelling and trying to create parallel grammatical structure. There is an editing issue in that some entries (9mos) appear twice. There are two copies of the table in the edit view but only one on the Talk page. Not sure about that. I agree with Amae2 re placement. Paula Marentette ( talk) 22:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I believe that my references are now in order. I will now begin copy editing. Paula, are my comments on deaf infants under the disabilities section alright? I don't want it to sound accusatory of hearing parents and their deaf children. LianneAnna ( talk) 00:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
There are a couple of sentences under definitions that require citations (I believe they are your articles Nadia).
And is the second citation: Peter Mundy, Lisa Sullivan, Ann M Mastergeorge, A parallel and distributed-processing model of joint attention, social cognition and autism. Autism research Volume: 2, Issue: 1, Pages: 2-21, 2009 left over from the original article, I don't think its formatted properly.
Alison are you going to add a little more about JA and autism before we submit for good article status?
LianneAnna ( talk) 02:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Table officially added. I'm not sure what you wanted me to do Lianne. Glad to fix it if only I knew what it was. I'll take one last shot at copy editing in the meantime. NadRose ( talk) 22:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
References
Reddy
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Heal
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Woodward
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Here are my thoughts on the article as it stands. It looks very good and I think is ready for GA submission. I am hoping that will bring more wikipedians by so we can find out whether we have hit the mark in terms of format and level of coverage.
A few thoughts:
Consider this as way of integrating the two portions:
Furthermore, mothers who were unable to successfully establish regular joint attention with their child rated that infant lower on scales of social competence.[3] These judgements were made as early as 18 months of age. Deaf children of hearing parents or blind children of sighted parents may struggle to establish joint attention in the face of sensory loss. As a consequence these children are often rated as less socially competent than their peers by parents.</ref>Nowakowski, Matlida E. 2009</ref>
Joint attention in individuals with disabilities Several studies have shown that problems with joint attention are associated with developmental processes. Deaf infant are able to engage in joint attention similarly to hearing infants, however, the time they spend engaged in joint attention is often reduced in deaf infants born to hearing parents. [3] Hearing parents of deaf infants are less likely to respond and expand on the initiations and communicative acts of their deaf infants.[3] Deaf infants of Deaf parents do not show reduced time spent in joint attention.[3] This suggests that auditory input is not critical to joint attention but that shared modes of communication and understanding are vital.[3] In blind infants, joint attention may be delayed compared to sighted infants.[4] Joint attention may be established by means of auditory input or feeling another person's hand on an object.
Difficulties in establishing joint attention may partially account for differences in social abilities of children with developmental disorders (i.e. Autism).[2][26] ✓
I have one additional point about your sources. Why don't you just cite what you read rather than cite something you didn't read and using "cited in"? This is really best left for sources that can't actually be retrieved (e.g., personal communication, an oral paper at a conference, things like that). If it is a book or article either get it or just cite what you read. Other than addressing these few points, and possibly inserting the table, I'd say submit. You have all done great work. Paula Marentette ( talk) 02:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Here are some good refs for the question about dogs. I think the issue is that these researchers (many of whom are also involved with the primate research) don't discuss the dogs' capacities in terms of joint attention. I worry it would be original research for us to do so.
Paula Marentette ( talk) 17:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I looked for some sources that speak to the history of Joint attention but I have not been able to access any of them online or through the library. Many are pointing towards the early work of Bruner particularly "Joint Attention: Its Origins and Role in Development By Chris Moore", or Bruner's original works. I am not sure where we want to look next, or how we could get some of these sources. In particular the one article I would really like to get would be Bruner, J. (1977), 'Early social interaction and language acquisition', in H.R Schaffer (ed.), Studies in Mother-Infant Interaction. New York: Academic Press, 271-89. The reference made to prediction in Comprehension is cited as coming from this source in the book I located it in. I have not been able to find an example or explanation elsewhere.
Amae2 (
talk)
19:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Amae2, the mother-infant interaction book is on its way. I should have it by Thursday, possibly Wed aft. Paula Marentette ( talk) 20:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I activated the CitationBot that worked on the vocabulary development page and these are the results that I got, I am not sure if it finished, or worked...(my guess is that it didn't work like it did for them). I will ask the Bots operator to figure out what I should do. LianneAnna ( talk) 05:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Activated by LianneAnna Expanding 'Joint attention'; will commit edits. Revision #418 [00:00:00] Processing page 'Joint attention' — edit—history
- switch to cite id format is supported. * Looking for bare references... * Tidying reference tags... - No duplicate references to combine. - No duplicate references to combine. ** No changes required. # # #
End of output
# # #
LianneAnna - Perhaps this bot can only effectively run on a citation list formatted as the one in Vocab Dev't? Thanks for trying.
Amae2 - the book by Moore is currently out to another user. Since the pages you need aren't on Google Books I've requested it but it could be two weeks or more.
Paula
Marentette (
talk)
15:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes I think I may have to manually edit the citations, I am not sure, I left another message on his talk page (two other people left very speedy comments last time and I am hoping they will again). When I figure out how to run this Bot, ISBN's will be added by the Bot. I will comment here when I figure out how to run it because while it runs, I think we will want to avoid making changes to our citations (there seemed to be a slight problem with this on the Vocabulary development article). LianneAnna ( talk) 16:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Apparently the references need ISBN's now.....There is a banner in our reference section. Amae2 ( talk) 16:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC) LianneAnna and I think that the bot will add them. She has a plan for making it work. If not, we'll go the by hand route I guess. ISBN is only for books. I have no idea what a PMID is, but I suppose we'll find out soon! Perhaps it is like DOI. Paula Marentette ( talk) 19:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Although this wasn't submitted under "Culture, sociology and psychology" in the Good article section, it does fall under psychology and needs to follow WP:MEDRS, as stated in the Good article section for "Culture, sociology and psychology". Also, you should provide the PMID, DOI etc. for journal articles. This way the reviewer can check your sources. Thanks, MathewTownsend ( talk) 16:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Canoe1967 ( talk · contribs) 06:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC) Looks fine. The lead may be a liitle long. You may consider moving some of the more detailed information in the lead to lower sections to further improve it.
Anyone who has seen a child interact with an adult doesn't proof that the sky is blue.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 22:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not saying this is a bad article. It's a psychology article that needs to have the sources evaluated by WP:MEDRS criteria. I'm saying that it was superficially evaluated by an editor with a total of 963 edits, who not familiar with the subject who says it looks good so it's a GA. That's my concern.
Regards, MathewTownsend ( talk) 17:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)
(example of combining information from different sources, resulting in some confusion to the reader)
I hope you find these suggestions helpful. Please feel free to provide feedback or ask me questions.
MathewTownsend ( talk) 00:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
MathewTownsend,
Thank you, we will indeed need the whole week to respond to these comments. Students don't return to campus until Tuesday. Classes end at the end of next week, so we will really focus our efforts over those few days.
I am thinking hard about OR (a rule I understand quite well) and synthesis. I'll reflect a bit more before I respond to your concerns about the table.
It is the case that the literature reviewed in books on chimpanzees or other great apes is relevant to the literature on human children, since that is the comparator for great apes. It is in these books that people are most clear about definitions that apply across species. Hence their frequency in the reference list.
As a class we struggled with whether to split this article into two. We thought we should start by just expanding the stub, which integrated across species. We can certainly do further work to be more precise about which claims apply to which species. I am not sure who decides, or how one decides to split an article. We would appreciate any advice.
Paula
Marentette (
talk)
20:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
We have made many edits to the article in response to the GA Reassessment above. It is ready for another review. We have
Do we need to resubmit for GA review or can we continue the Reassessment started above? Thank you for your work on this review. Paula Marentette ( talk) 19:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
MathewTownsend ( talk) 20:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
There are comments below here on the talk page, but I can't seem to find get below them in the edit box, so I'll keep writing in the middle of the page...
Response to Good Article Reassessment (please do not divide up the page with headers)
Is the reviewer concerned that one of the other sources used in the article contradicts the time line presented at one point in the article.? [3]
In addition, some domesticated animals such as dogs and horses show some ability to follow gaze. {{cite journal |last1=Itakura |first1=S. |title=Gaze Following and Joint Visual Attention in Nonhuman Animals |journal=? |year=? |pages=?|isbn=?|
"Dyadic joint attention can be thought[by whom?] of as a conversation-like behavior that individuals engage in. This is especially true for human adults and infants who engage in this behavior starting at two months of age. - this is cited to an article on chimpanzees (16 citation go to this article).
If we remove the citations from the lede paragraph would that reduce the confusion? I used information from different sources in order to make the lede paragraph as explanatory as possible. Very basic sources that describe the general concept of joint attention didn't provide the details I was looking for and more specific articles didn't provide a description that was general enough to serve as the only source for the lede paragraph. This is why I chose to use multiple references for the lede.
This whole section is a mixture of children, adults, apes, humans in no particular order.
Humans and non-human layout
Sources
LianneAnna ( talk) 02:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
This article has recently been edited by students as part of their course work for a university course. As part of the quality metrics for the education program, we would like to determine what level of burden is placed on Wikipedia's editors by student coursework.
If you are an editor of this article who spent time correcting edits to it made by the students, please tell us how much time you spent on cleaning up the article. Please note that we are asking you to estimate only the negative effects of the students' work. If the students added good material but you spent time formatting it or making it conform to the manual of style, or copyediting it, then the material added was still a net benefit, and the work you did improved it further. If on the other hand the students added material that had to be removed, or removed good material which you had to replace, please let us know how much time you had to spend making those corrections. This includes time you may have spent posting to the students' talk pages, or to Wikipedia noticeboards, or working with them on IRC, or any other time you spent which was required to fix problems created by the students' edits. Any work you did as a Wikipedia Ambassador for that student's class should not be counted.
Please rate the amount of time spent as follows:
Please also add any comments you feel may be helpful. We welcome ratings from multiple editors on the same article. Add your input here. Thanks! -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) ( talk) 20:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)