Preparing for in-class discussion
Everyone is expected to contribute to the class discussion. To prepare for this, you should come up with at least two questions or observations about the assigned readings. This will ensure that you have something you are comfortable discussing in class.
Before coming to class, be sure you can summarize the key points of all of the reading selections to be discussed that day. You should be able to follow the flow of logic. Keeping these questions in mind will help direct your reading:
- What is the theoretical or empirical issue being addressed?
- For theoretical selections, what are the key data points used as the foundation of the argument? Do you agree with them?
- For empirical studies, what is the method? Do you understand the figures in the paper? What do the figures represent? Are the overall conclusions supported by the data in the results section?
- What are the main results & implications of the paper? Keep in mind at least one set of data points or one figure that illustrates the main gist of the paper. How does this relate to other selections read that week, or in previous weeks? Most selections are chosen precisely because they are on the same topic as others during that week, though either from a different perspective or as an interesting extension to previous work. All of them aim to answer something about the "big picture" of language learning, so keep in mind what they're trying to tackle. Can you think of any extensions that might logically follow from the current results?
- Important: Don't get hung up on every little wrinkle. Much of this will be primary source language-learning literature, and it may have terminology you're unfamiliar with and background assumptions you don't share. Don't panic: this is what class discussion is for.
Short reading reaction papers
Writing short reaction papers will give you valuable experience critically reading original research selections and concisely stating how they relate to other work. Selections that are available for reaction papers are marked with * in the reading list on the schedule.
Each paper should briefly discuss (ideally in about 2 pages, single-spaced, 12pt)
- the goal of the research article or article series (what problem does the article claim it addresses - this should usually be found in the abstract and the introductory paragraphs of the article). This section should aim to be the introductory paragraph.
- a brief summary of the methods and findings (the level of detail should be equivalent to the "brief literature reviews" that appear in the introductory sections of some of the articles themselves, e.g. Gambell & Yang 2006, Mintz 2003, etc...) You should provide enough detail so that someone who has not read the paper knows the main experimental/computational method used, the data/stimuli tested (perhaps an example of one would be useful), and the overall results from these data/stimuli. These will usually be in the results and discussion section of the paper. Don't just state the results, though - describe what their relevance is to the problem the paper claims to address. Think about what it means if a reaction time is lower or if a model's projected response mismatches with human data. Please note that you do not have to give a blow-by-blow accounting of the methods used, or of the exact results found. (In fact, please don't.) Again, look to the articles we read in class for examples of how to concisely review (previous) work. This section should aim to be around three quarters of a page.
- a critical evaluation of the data and interpretation (this includes whether you think the article addressed the problem it said it did, if the article draws conclusions you agree with, any problems you foresee with the data or results when applied to other scenarios like different populations, or speakers of different languages, or bilingual speakers, etc.) Note that simply saying you disagree with something is not sufficient - you must provide justification for your comments. Why do you disagree precisely? Is there evidence you're thinking of, or an alternative explanation for the results you see in the paper? Feel free to also discuss useful extensions to the existing study that come to mind as you read the paper. This section should aim to be between half to three quarters of a page.
- what impact these results would have on the "big picture" of language acquisition - does the study really show something that tells us about how language acquisition in the real world works? Why or why not? How does it compare to previous studies - does it support or refute previous findings? (Hint: The paper's literature review might tell you which studies it's attempting to speak to.) This section should aim to be between a quarter and half a page.
In addition, you should cite sources for any claims, evidence, or methods you present or discuss, and include those sources in a reference section at the end of your paper. Look to the citation usage and format within the papers themselves to get a sense of how to do it within your own reaction paper. Any time you make a claim or refer to evidence or methods from a paper, for instance, cite that paper after you describe the claim, evidence, or method in your review.
Please submit your papers via email to the instructor, preferably in .doc or .docx format, since those are easier for the instructor to put comments in the document itself. If you can't generate .doc or .docx files, a pdf will be accepted.
Grading for reaction papers:
- Overall writing style (comprehensible, well-structured, proper spelling &
punctuation, etc.): 10% - Goal: 10%
- Methods & results summary: 20%
- Critical evaluation of results: 30%
- Implications of results: 20%
- Reference section at the end: 5%
- Proper citations throughout paper: 5%
Final Paper
The final paper of class will be a proposal for a language learning study (you are not expected to carry this study out by the end of the quarter, though you may wish to after the quarter is over). The paper will be short - ideally at most 6 pages, single-spaced, 12pt. You should try to model your proposal on the papers we read in class. They will give you a good idea about the level of detail to include and how to go about structuring the various sections of the proposal.
- the question you are trying to address, and its connection to native language learning
- relevant previous work on this question (look to the literature review sections of the paper we read in class - e.g. if you're building on previous studies, those studies need to be briefly summarized in this section)
- the methodology you would use (look to the methods sections of the papers we read in class - e.g. if you're building on a study and using the same experimental/computational methods, provide the same amount of detail that study does)
- possible results, and what implications each set of results would have for the question you are trying to address (for instance, if you're proposing a looking time study for word recognition, describe what it would mean if there was a significant difference found and what it would mean if there was not a significant difference found); you may also wish to include other extensions to your proposal, if relevant
- how the results would fit into the "big picture" of language acquisition (e.g. what new information would your study add w.r.t the question you aim to address)
- Meeting with instructor completed by the beginning of week 9: 5%
- Overall writing style (comprehensible, well-structured, proper spelling
& punctuation, etc.): 10% - Discussion of proposal goal: 10%
- Literature review: 20%
- Methods discussion: 20%
- Results discussion: 20%
- Conclusion: 15%
- By the beginning of week 9, you will identify a topic of interest in language learning and meet with the instructor to narrow down your area of focus. Feel free to look at all the topics, even those we haven't covered yet! Just because a topic is covered later in the quarter doesn't mean it's any more difficult than the topics covered earlier on. Note, however, that a good idea will often come from the discussion we have in class - e.g. an extension to a previous study, or correcting a perceived weakness in a previous study. An additional source of inspiration may come from the short reaction papers you write - in them, you probably discuss an extension that might improve the study you're writing the reaction paper on. One simple way to do a final paper is to write up that proposed extension.
- By week 11 at the appointed day and time noted on the schedule, the paper must be submitted to the instructor via email, in .doc or .docx format preferably, since those are easier for the instructor to put comments in the document itself. If you can't generate .doc or .docx files, a pdf will be accepted.
Your questions/observations will be due by 8am the day of class, submitted via email to the instructor. Plain text in email is strongly preferred. If your comments are late but still before class at 2pm, you will receive partial credit. Please remember to submit these (preferably on time), since they count for a reasonable chunk of your grade.