Final exam
Please use information from the readings, lectures, and in-class discussions to inform your answers. You’re welcome to look up other sources, but you should always cite anything you use (even readings from our course).
- Do not use long and/or frequent direct quotations.
- Your source citations do not count toward your maximum word count.
Note that in total you should be submitting THREE ~500-word responses as your final exam.
The peer learning debate
Statement: Peer input benefits children’s social and linguistic development.
Response 1: This statement is true
In 500 words (±150 words) convince me that this statement is true. Use the literature, discussion, and experiences from our course to argue in favor of the statement. Be as persuasive as possible, but do not exaggerate the facts.
Response 2: This statement is false
In 500 words (±150 words) convince me that this statement is false. Use the literature, discussion, and experiences from our course to argue against the statement. Be as persuasive as possible, but do not exaggerate the facts.
Methodological issues
Respond to ONE of the prompts below.
Open Science
In 500 words (±150 words) tell me what the open science movement is and how it relates to child language development research. What are the issues that provoked the movement and what are the proposals for improving the way we do our science? How does open science relate to calls for greater diversity in science? What actions can we take for the study we ran in the present course, in order to align with common principles of open science? Your answer should touch in some way on the readings from 3.2, 4.1, 7.2, and 8.1, in addition to whatever other study-specific issues you raise.
The next iteration
We have attempted a replication of an existing study. We learned a lot along the way. In 500 words (±150 words) tell me what the next step is. Imagine that, now that we have the hang of things, we can run the experiment anew, but with one critical change. For example, we could run it with a different participant population, add some new conditions, change the way we have set up the stimuli, run the experiment in a different setting, etc.—the sky is the limit. Tell me what the most important next version of this experiment looks like. Make a case that your proposal is of the highest priority for developing a better theory of peer learning. If your proposed change is not straightforward, be sure to provide enough detail that I can evaluate your ideas. The motivation, predictions, and approach should all be crystal clear.
Grading
In grading your responses, in addition to the specific requests of each prompt, I will ask myself the questions below with the following scale:
0 = grossly incomplete/not addressed
1 = needs significant work
2 = minimally fulfills requirements
3 = good effort, but with room for improvement
4 = excellent and above expectations
- Is the work original?: Show your own thinking—top scoring papers will demonstrate a capacity for information synthesis that goes beyond reporting the content of readings and lectures
- Is the content appropriate?: All cited works in the writing responses should be (a) specifically relevant to the response, (b) accurately reported on, and (c) well integrated into the text. The text should not miss citing works that are highly relevant to the response.
- Is the text clear and well organized?: Top scoring papers will demonstrate a clear informational/argumentational flow that is easy to follow and persuasive. They will be detailed but concise. And typo free :)
Submissions that score “excellent and above expectations” across the board will receive a perfect grade (A; 100/100). Submissions that score “needs significant work” across the board will receive a (C-; 70/100). I expect most submissions to fall between these two results. Grossly incomplete submissions or submissions that do not sufficiently follow the outlined tasks will maximally receive a grade of C-. Any evidence of cheating will result in a grade of F. Cheating includes representing others’ ideas as your own, which may involve lack of citation and/or basing your work off of someone else’s (including an AI’s).