Coursework for this module includes two "Method Reports", listed separately as "Method Report 1" and "Method Report 2". They should address the content in Weeks 3-7 and Weeks 8-11, respectively (so Method Report 1 should address the content in Weeks 3-7). The goal of each report is for you to review a method that you have found particularly interesting--usually corresponding to one block of content in this module--and describe an original research question that you could address with that method and how you would do so.

Each 1-2 page report should include:

1. the merits of method(s) covered (Pick one method and discuss its pros and cons. Try to go beyond a summary of the content presented in lecture.)
2. examples of useful insights gained using this method (Identify 2 or 3 results which have progressed our understanding of language and bilingualism using the method you have selected)
3. a suggestion of one key new question that could be explored using this method (In a couple sentences, describe a new question and explain how you would go about using this method to address it).

When you upload your assignment, please list the relevant lecturer's name as your title; these assignments will be marked by the relevant lecturer, so failure to clearly identify them may result in marking delays.

IMPORTANT: Please do not just summarise the lectures and/or in-class experience (e.g. "At 14:00 on 29 September, 2015, in Brigantia room 342, Dr. Gary Oppenheim, PhD, asked us to name a picture of a dog. The he showed us a picture of a dog. Then we named it. Then he said, 'Wow, that was fast.' Then he said that researchers often use speed and accuracy to understand language production. Then he said..."). The point of this exercise is for you to evaluate the method yourself. So instead try imagining that you're compiling toolkit of useful research methods (because you are), and each report is a note to your future self about the most appropriate uses for a particular method.

For your final project, your task is to propose a small research project based on TWO of the methodological approaches covered in the module. You can either choose one of theoretical questions that we supply (to be provided later in the semester) OR suggest your own (contact me to confirm its suitability).

First, provide a short summary of relevant theories and empirical research that can provide a partial answer to the question (~ 600 words). Then propose TWO (2) experiments that can provide a more complete or valid answer (~550 words each). These two experiments should use TWO complementary methods that we’ve covered this semester, meaning that each should be able to address a major aspect of the question that the other cannot. Then discuss the possible results from your two experiments in terms of their implications for your theoretical question (~300 words). Please note that this should present your own original research project ideas -- not someone else's ideas, and not just summarizing existing research. You can develop an idea anew, or re-use any of the original ideas you have generated for your Method Reports. Ideally, you should be describing an experiment that you would actually like to do; this isn’t a requirement, but it seems like the most enjoyable and worthwhile use of your time. Finally, if you choose a topic that your masters dissertation is already designed to address, then the experiments that you propose here should complement the approach used in your dissertation.

Your proposal should therefore include:

1. The theoretical question(s) introduced by a short review of previous work relevant to the question(s) (i.e., a literature review that identifies an interesting gap in our knowledge that your experiments could address) ;
2. Statement of your hypotheses (WHAT do you generally expect to find with your experiment and WHY);
3. Descriptions of the experiments including examples of experimental stimuli (linguistic, non-linguistic, or both, listed in the text or presented in a table or figure);
4. Descriptions of the participants and how such participants could be approached (including any restrictions on what participants would be best suited for your design, and discussion of any ethical concerns);
5. Descriptions of your data and planned analyses (what specific contrasts will you consider and how? Do not just name a statistical test; describe the quantitative measurements that you will analyse, how you will collect them, and how you will process and analyse them to test your hypotheses);
6. Descriptions of the predicted results (describe the possible outcomes in terms of your specific quantitative measurements)
7. Implications of the potential findings and ideas for further research (what would the possible quantitative outcomes tell you about your theoretical questions? what would the next step be?).

Please write succinctly and do not exceed 2000 words (excluding bibliography).

If you need examples of the scope and format for parts 1-5, then you should look at the Introduction and Methods sections of 2-3 of the published articles that have been assigned for this module; yours should be similar, though obviously with less detail. The journal Cognition regularly publishes 3000-word Brief Articles (easy to identify because the headers say "Brief Article"; e.g. Oppenheim, 2018), so reading several of these may also help calibrate your goals.

You will write two (2) individual critiques of your classmates' Oral Project Pre-proposals. The idea is for you to get practice peer-reviewing work, and for your classmates to have the chance to improve their projects based on your suggestions. Your classmates will read these, so remember to be tactful, be direct, but above all be constructive: your first and foremost goal in writing these should be to improve the project. Please note that I've not suggested that you should be 'nice', because students often worry so much about being 'nice' that they forget to be constructive. If a classmate presents a problematic proposal, and all you say is "Good job! I really liked your font!" then you deny them the useful feedback that they could use to improve their proposal before they submit the write-up.

Very briefly describe your understanding of their research question and approach, and then offer your questions/comments/concerns, focusing on suggestions for improvement (e.g. “I don’t think fMRI is the best method to study the timecourse of lexical access; maybe another method would be more appropriate?” or “I suspect that you’d be able to draw stronger conclusions if you included a baseline condition,” or “I worry that [some confound] might be a problem in this experiment because [explanation]; you might want to think about how to address it,” ). Each critique should be about ½ - ¾ of a page, but you can write a bit more if you want to be extra helpful. Email one copy to the presenter, and then submit the other via Blackboard.

You will present this in class in the penultimate week of instruction; your slides should be uploaded to Blackboard before the beginning of the class in which they are presented.

The purpose of this assignment is for you to:

1. get feedback on your ideas before you write them up as your Final Project,
2. hone your oral presentation skills, and
3. get practice constructively reviewing your peers’ work.

Each student will have 7 to 15 minutes and no more than 5 slides to describe their research project idea.

A successful presentation will usually include:

1. a clear statement of your research questions (both the BIG theoretical question and the little operationalized questions that you’ll actually be testing),
2. a description of why your question is interesting,
3. a very brief description of how your approaches differ from previous work on the question, the experiments that you propose to do, and
4. how the methods that you've chosen will provide complementary information about your BIG question.

Coursework for this module includes two "Method Reports", listed separately as "Method Report 1" and "Method Report 2". They should address the content in Weeks 3-7 and Weeks 8-11, respectively (so Method Report 2 should address the content in Weeks 8-11). The goal of each report is for you to review a method that you have found particularly interesting--usually corresponding to one block of content in this module--and describe an original research question that you could address with that method and how you would do so.

Each 1-2 page report should include:

1. the merits of method(s) covered (Pick one method and discuss its pros and cons. Try to go beyond a summary of the content presented in lecture.)
2. examples of useful insights gained using this method (Identify 2 or 3 results which have progressed our understanding of language and bilingualism using the method you have selected)
3. a suggestion of one key new question that could be explored using this method (In a couple sentences, describe a new question and explain how you would go about using this method to address it).

When you upload your assignment, please list the relevant lecturer's name as your title; these assignments will be marked by the relevant lecturer, so failure to clearly identify them may result in marking delays.

IMPORTANT: Please do not just summarise the lectures and/or in-class experience (e.g. "At 14:00 on 29 September, 2015, in Brigantia room 342, Dr. Gary Oppenheim, PhD, asked us to name a picture of a dog. The he showed us a picture of a dog. Then we named it. Then he said, 'Wow, that was fast.' Then he said that researchers often use speed and accuracy to understand language production. Then he said..."). The point of this exercise is for you to evaluate the method yourself. So instead try imagining that you're compiling toolkit of useful research methods (because you are), and each report is a note to your future self about the most appropriate uses for a particular method.