Case Study: Psycholinguistics

Course Overview and Goals

This case study focuses on an upper-division undergraduate psycholinguistics course (LIGN 170: Psycholinguistics) taught by Catherine Arnett in Summer 2023. This course is an elective course with only one prerequisite – LIGN 101: Introduction to the Study of Language. This course focused on production and comprehension in psycholinguistics. Starting with production, the course covered everything from the message through formulation to articulation. The comprehension portion of the course started with perception and discussed processing at various levels of representation, e.g. phonological, grammatical, and pragmatic. Throughout the course, the instructor included examples from a variety of languages, where possible, from both aural-oral and visual-manual modalities. 

Another portion of the course was dedicated to developing critical reading and writing skills. The assignments allowed students to incrementally build up the QALMRI (Question, Alternative, Logic, Method, Results, Inferences) format. Students were given opportunities to try new parts of the assignment without being graded, but with the opportunity for formative feedback. The homework assignments and the final paper required students to read journal articles, extract the key information, and critically evaluate the article and propose a follow-up experiment. 

The full list of readings, sources used for lectures, and lecture slides can be found on the public course page.

Course Content

Examples for the course were selected to include a variety of languages, both spoken and sign languages, wherever possible. Some examples of sources used for key topics in the class are given below.

Production

Planning the message/conceptualization

Lemma retrieval/evidence for lemmas

Production errors, phonological encoding

Sociolinguistic considerations for production

Comprehension

Perception

Grammatical knowledge/acceptability judgments

Sociolinguistic considerations during comprehension

Assignments

Homeworks (x4)

Each homework consisted of reading a journal article and doing a QALMRI (in the student’s own words, what are the Question, Alternatives, Logic, Methods, Results, Inferences). Please contact us if you would like more information about any of the homework assignments.

  • Homework 1:
    • Complete a QALMRI (Questions, Alternatives, Logic, Methods, Results, Inferences) of a paper 
    • Students graded on QAL only, but received formative feedback (and graded for completion) on MRI sections.
  • Homework 2:
    • Reflect on feedback from previous assignment
    • Complete a QALMRI of a paper 
    • Students graded for content on all QALMRI sections
  • Homework 3:
    • Reflect on feedback from previous assignment
    • Complete a QALMRI of a paper 
    • Do a guided critique (using some of the readings/studies mentioned in lecture)
    • Students graded for content on the entirety of the QALMRI, and received formative feedback on guided critique (graded for completion) 
  • Homework 4:
    • Reflect on feedback from previous assignment
    • Complete a QALMRI of a paper 
    • Critique the paper according to the content covered in class
    • In 1-2 paragraphs, describe how you would re-run the experiment in the paper 
    • All portions (except feedback reflection) graded for content

Reading Checks (x9)

Reading checks were short, multiple choice quizzes due before each class, which helped guide students through the reading and check for comprehension of key points.

Summative Assessment (Final Paper)

The final paper was a 1-2 page critique of a paper with a proposed follow-up experiment that addressed the critiques. 

  • QALMRI the paper 
  • What is something you think the experimenters could have done differently? Why?
  • What experiment would address this concern? 

Please contact us if you would like more information about the final paper assignment.

Extra Credit

  • Come to office hours before the end of Week 3 (1 pt) 
  • Complete study on SONA (1 pt)

Course Policies

Course policies were designed with inclusion in mind. Below are a number of course policies that were adopted.

  • Provided asynchronous options
    • Students who had to access the course remotely due to lack of housing in San Diego or sickness had access to make-up opportunities and extensions for all assignments 
    • If students missed a lecture, they could provide a lecture summary to make up the attendance grade 
  • Considered financial cost to students
    • All readings were provided on Canvas, no textbooks were required for the course 
  • Invited students to discuss any barriers to access with the instructor
    • In the first lecture, the instructor asked students to let them know if they had difficulty accessing the technology needed for the course and committed to help students find solutions 
    • For students with health-related concerns, the instructor made specific plans with individual students 
  • Included varied assignment types
    • Students were evaluated based on written assignments and multiple-choice quizzes
  • Made late work policies explicit
    • Policies about deadlines and late work were posted on the syllabus and were announced during the first lecture 
  • Noted how and when students needed to request extensions
    • According to the course policies announced on day 1, students were able to request extensions any time before the deadline via Canvas or email 
  • Considered allowing short extensions without justification or documentation
    • Each student was allowed one 48-hour extension without any justification or documentation
  • Clearly outlined how more significant extensions would be handled
    • In the first class, the instructor announced that they would work with students to find individualized solutions to any situations that make students unable to meet deadlines or come to class
  • Offered make up options
    • Any assignment or attendance grade could be made up, given an extension request or documentation of circumstances 
  • Invited students to share their accessibility needs
    • During the first class, the instructor requested students submit accommodations requests (AFA letters or informal accommodations) within the first two weeks of the class
  • Emphasized that feedback goes both ways
    • The instructor collected mid-quarter feedback requesting suggestions about any course policies or practices that could be reconsidered 
  • Provided multiple avenues for students to communicate
    • In addition to monitoring Canvas messages and emails, the instructor created a course discourse that was monitored by the instructor and the TA
    • Questions in class were taken through an anonymous mentimeter
    • Anonymous mid-quarter feedback was collected through a Google Form
  • Carefully considered whether potentially distressing content needed to be included
    • The instructor aimed to avoid include any material that could be upsetting, including politically charged content
  • Included a Land Acknowledgement
    • The instructor included a land acknowledgment on the syllabus and in their email signature