scholarly journals A Machine-Level Interpretation of Deductive Rules on Enact I and Enact II Model Theorems.

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Theorem Proving ◽  
Research Proposal ◽  
Reading And Writing ◽  
Axiom Schema ◽  
Deduction Rules ◽  
Kleene Theorem

This research proposal is on provable forms based on s yntactic theorem using Kleene Axiom schema. Enact model I and II of propositional formulas from enactment logic are proven in terms of theorems based on deductive rules. Work proves by deduction rules that Enact Model I and II are model theorems[1] in machinelevel interpretation. Enactprover is a machine program for reading and writing Kleene theorem proving axioms based one enactment logic.

scholarly journals Report on engineering for system development on Enactprover

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank Appiah
Keyword(s):  
Theorem Proving ◽  
System Development ◽  
Reading And Writing ◽  
Axiom Schema ◽  
Deduction Rules ◽  
Kleene Theorem

This research poster is on provable forms based on syntactic theorem using Kleene Axiom schema. Enact model I and II of propositional formulas from enactment logic are proven in terms of theorems based on deductive rules. Work proves by deduction rules that Enact Model I and II are model theorems in machine- level interpretation. Enactprover is a machine program for reading and writing Kleene theorem proving axioms based on enactment logic.

scholarly journals A Machine-Level Interpretation of Deductive Rules on Enact I and Enact II Model Theorems.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank Appiah
Keyword(s):  
Research Proposal ◽  
Axiom Schema ◽  
Deduction Rules

This research proposal is on provable forms based on s yntactic theorem using Kleene Axiom schema. Enact model I and II of propositional formulas from enactment logic are proven in terms of theorems based on deductive rules. Work proves by deduction rules that Enact Model I and II are model theorems[1] in machinelevel interpretation. Enactprover is a machineprogramforreadingandwritingKleenetheoremprovingaxiomsbased onenactment logic.

Writing in Aphasia Rehabilitation: Cursive vs Manuscript

1976 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 523-529 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel R. Boone ◽  
Harold M. Friedman
Keyword(s):  
Correct Response ◽  
The Other ◽  
Read Aloud ◽  
Writing Style ◽  
Reading And Writing ◽  
Manual Responses ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Written Form ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Read Number

Reading and writing performance was observed in 30 adult aphasic patients to determine whether there was a significant difference when stimuli and manual responses were varied in the written form: cursive versus manuscript. Patients were asked to read aloud 10 words written cursively and 10 words written in manuscript form. They were then asked to write on dictation 10 word responses using cursive writing and 10 words using manuscript writing. Number of words correctly read, number of words correctly written, and number of letters correctly written in the proper sequence were tallied for both cursive and manuscript writing tasks for each patient. Results indicated no significant difference in correct response between cursive and manuscript writing style for these aphasic patients as a group; however, it was noted that individual patients varied widely in their success using one writing form over the other. It appeared that since neither writing form showed better facilitation of performance, the writing style used should be determined according to the individual patient’s own preference and best performance.

Research on Reading: What SLPs Want (or Need) to Know

2009 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 65-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judy Montgomery
Keyword(s):  
Spoken Language ◽  
Cognitive Skill ◽  
Language Intervention ◽  
Reading Teachers ◽  
Successful Therapy ◽  
Speech Language Pathologists ◽  
Reading Research ◽  
Reading And Writing ◽  
Language Problems

Abstract As increasing numbers of speech language pathologists (SLPs) have embraced their burgeoning roles in written as well as spoken language intervention, they have recognized that there is much to be gained from the research in reading. While some SLPs reportedly fear they will “morph” into reading teachers, many more are confidently aware that SLPs who work with adult clients routinely use reading as one of their rehabilitation modalities. Reading functions as both a tool to reach language in adults, and as a measure of successful therapy. This advanced cognitive skill can serve the same purpose for children. Language is the foundational support to reading. Consequently spoken language problems are often predictors of reading and writing challenges that may be ahead for the student (Juel & Deffes, 2004; Moats, 2001; Wallach, 2004). A targeted review of reading research may assist the SLP to appreciate the language/reading interface.

Toward a Theory of Spatial Thinking: A Research Proposal

1991 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Eliot ◽  
Judith Wenig ◽  
Greg Wenig ◽  
Heinrich Stumpf
Keyword(s):  
Research Proposal ◽  
Spatial Thinking

Developing Scramble-Based Learning Method to Increase Students’ Reading and Writing Comprehension

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 16
Author(s):  
Dani Gunawan
Keyword(s):  
Pilot Study ◽  
Elementary Students ◽  
First Grade ◽  
Learning Method ◽  
Reading And Writing ◽  
Learning Technique ◽  
Increasing Trend

This study was directed to develop a learning technique, to analyze the obstacles faced by teachers in implementing the lesson, and to overcome the problems faced by teachers in enhancing elementary students’ reading and writing comprehension. In order to fulfill the mentioned goals, this study tried to use scramble-based learning technique. It was cconducted at SDN Gentra Masekdas 1, Kecamatan Tarogong Kaler involving 32 first grade students. A pilot study was conducted on 9 March 2017 for about 35 minutes. The first cycle started on 18 April 2017, while the second one was on 24 April 2017. It was found that there was an increasing trend after the implementation. The analysis proccess generated data as followed: during pilot study, eight students succeeded to reach the standard indicator with percentage of 25%. Cycle I generated 15 students with learning completion percentage of 46.8.%. And, during second cycle, there were 27 students who succeeded in reaching completion standard with completion percentage of 84.3%.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document