Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-4ct9c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-01-06T22:26:16.370Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Furthering Student Engagement: Lab Sections in Introductory Linguistics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Kaitlyn Harrigan ,
Anya Hogoboom  and
Leslie Cochrane
Kaitlyn Harrigan*
Affiliation:
William & Mary
Anya Hogoboom*
Affiliation:
William & Mary
Leslie Cochrane*
Affiliation:
William & Mary
*
[kharrigan@wm.edu]
[ahogoboom@wm.edu]
[lecochrane@wm.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article describes a pedagogical innovation implemented in our introductory linguistics course. We supplement classic theory building with a series of labs, deployed through a co-requisite ‘lab’ course that meets weekly. This builds on two previously established teaching strategies: the implementation of hands-on activities in linguistics classrooms, and the lab sections traditionally utilized in the natural sciences. The labs aim to fulfill three goals: (i) to better represent the field of linguistics in our introductory course, (ii) to help students solidify theories and connect them to the real world, and (iii) to teach practical skills for linguistics research and more broadly.

Keywords

pedagogyteachinglab courseproblem-based learning (PBL)process-oriented guided inquiry learning (POGIL)introduction to linguistics

Information

Type
Teaching Linguistics
Information
Language , Volume 98 , Issue 4 , December 2022 , pp. e199 - e223
Copyright
Copyright © 2022 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

We are grateful to many individuals who contributed to the development and execution of the labs presented in this article. First, the Linguistics Program at William & Mary, who have been supportive of this restructuring of our introductory course. We are especially thankful to Dan Parker, Talbot Taylor, and Rachel Varra, who helped to develop and/or run several of the lab activities described here. We are also extremely thankful to the students who have served as lab teaching assistants, without whom we could not have executed this innovation: Megan Rouch, Rebecca Smyder, Abram Clear, Kate Weis, Elizabeth Maneval, Alex Johnson, Alice Benjamin, and Caitlin McCaslin. We are also grateful to the Charles Center and the Center for the Liberal Arts and William & Mary for providing the opportunity to participate in the ‘May Seminar’ program in the summer of 2019, which allowed us time and space to develop several of the lab activities presented here. Finally, we are thankful to all of the students who have participated in the introductory linguistics course over the past six semesters, whose feedback, comments, questions, and enthusiasm have helped us improve the labs over this time. We are also thankful to several people who contributed to the development of this article. We are thankful to the audience at the Linguistic Society of America's 2021 annual meeting for their helpful comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this work. We would like to thank Winnie Hogoboom, whose thorough comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript led to a much stronger version of the paper. Finally, we are grateful to two anonymous referees and the editorial team at Language for their incredibly helpful comments and suggestions on several drafts of this manuscript.

References

Armbruster, Peter, Patel, Maya, Johnson, Erika; and Weiss, Martha. 2009. Active learning and student-centered pedagogy improve student attitudes and performance in introductory biology. CBE Life Sciences Education 8(3). 203–13. DOI: 10.1187/cbe.09-03-0025.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arthurs, Leilani A., and Kreager, Bailey Zo. 2017. An integrative review of in-class activities that enable active learning in college science classroom settings. International Journal of Science Education 39(15). 2073–39. DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2017.1363925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateman, Nicoleta. 2019. Linguistics in middle school: Incorporating linguistics into project-based learning. Language 95(2). e300–e326. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2019.0044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernardini, Silvia. 2002. Exploring new directions for discovery learning. Teaching and learning by doing corpus analysis: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Teaching and Language Corpora, Graz, 19–24 July 2000, ed. by Kettemann, Bernhard and Marko, Georg, 165–82. Amsterdam: Brill. DOI: 10.1163/9789004334236_015.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul, and Weenink, David. 2022. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. Online: http://www.praat.org/.Google Scholar
Bowers, W. G. 1924. The advantages of laboratory work in the study of elementary chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education 1(11). 205–9. DOI: 10.1021/ed001p205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bransford, John D. 2000. How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. DOI: 10.17226/9853.Google Scholar
Brown, Roger. 1973. A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DOI: 10.4159/harvard.9780674732469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruck, Laura B., Towns, Marcy; and Bretz, Stacey Lowery. 2010. Faculty perspectives of undergraduate chemistry laboratory: Goals and obstacles to success. Journal of Chemical Education 87(12). 1416–62. DOI: 10.1021/ed900002d.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberlein, Thomas, Kampmeier, Jack, Minderhout, Vicky, Moog, Richard S., Platt, Terry, Varma-Nelson, Pratibha; and White, Harold B.. 2008. Pedagogies of engagement in science: A comparison of PBL, POGIL, and PLTL. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education 36(4). 262–73. DOI: 10.1002/bmb.20204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filimonova, Valentyna. 2020. Problem-based learning in introductory linguistics. Language 96(1). e1–e21. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2020.0012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, Scott, Eddy, Sarah L., McDonough, Miles, Smith, Michelle K., Okoroafor, Nnadozie, Jordt, Hannah; and Wenderoth, Mary Pat. 2014. Active learning increases performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(23). 8410–01. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1319030111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harlen, Wynne, and James, Mary. 1997. Assessment and learning: Differences and relationships between formative and summative assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 4(3). 365–79. DOI: 10.1080/0969594970040304.Google Scholar
Keller, George E. III. 2002. Using problem-based and active learning in an interdisciplinary science course for non-science majors. The Journal of General Education 51(4). 272–81. DOI: 10.1353/jge.2003.0013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1986. The social stratification of (r) in New York City department stores. Dialect and language variation, ed. by Allen, Harold B. and Linn, Michael D., 304–29. Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William, Ash, Sharon; and Boberg, Charles. 2008. The atlas of North American English: Phonetics, phonology and sound change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110167467.Google Scholar
Lee, Horng-Yi. 2014. Inquiry-based teaching in second and foreign language pedagogy. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 5(6). 1236–64. DOI: 10.4304/JLTR.5.6.1236-1244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian. 2000. The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. DOI: 10.4324/9781315805672.Google Scholar
Marin, Joseph W. 1992. The representation and processing of derived words: Exploration of a morpheme recognition task. Bethlehem, PA: Lehigh University master's thesis. Online: https://preserve.lib.lehigh.edu/islandora/object/preserve%3Abp-3100585.Google Scholar
McConnell, David A., Steer, David N.; and Owens, Kathie D.. 2003. Assessment and active learning strategies for introductory geology courses. Journal of Geoscience Education 51(2). 205–16. DOI: 10.5408/1089-9995-51.2.205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakhleh, Mary B., Polles, John; and Malina, Eric. 2002. Learning chemistry in a laboratory environment. Chemical education: Towards research based practice, ed. by Gilbert, John K., De Jong, Onno, Justi, Rosária, Treagust, David F., and Van Driel, Jan H., 69–94. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI: 10.1007/0-306-47977-X_4.Google Scholar
Prince, Michael. 2004. Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education 93(3). 223–31. DOI: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynders, Gil, Suh, Erica, Cole, Renée S.; and Sansom, Rebecca L.. 2019. Developing student process skills in a general chemistry laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education 96(10). 2109–91. DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoet, Gijsbert. 2010. PsyToolkit: A software package for programming psychological experiments using Linux. Behavior Research Methods 42(4). 1096–1104. DOI: 10.3758/BRM.42.4.1096.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stoet, Gijsbert. 2017. PsyToolkit: A novel web-based method for running online questionnaires and reaction-time experiments. Teaching of Psychology 44(1). 24–31. DOI: 10.1177/0098628316677643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, J. D., Cotner, Sehoya H., Baepler, Paul M.; and Decker, Mark D.. 2008. A delicate balance: Integrating active learning into a large lecture course. CBE Life Sciences Education 7(4). 361–67. DOI: 10.1187/cbe.08-02-0004.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Welch, Katie. 2021. Discovery learning in the sociolinguistics classroom: Using boojie to teach American English history. American Speech 96(2). 253–65. DOI: 10.1215/00031283-9089626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Harrigan et al. supplementary material

Harrigan et al. supplementary material
Download Harrigan et al. supplementary material(File)
File 1.3 MB