Talk:Psycholinguistics/History and Major Theories

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Peer Edit

Overall, I think you did well at discussing many of the key contributors to the study of psycholinguistics. I found that the most notable contributors were all listed and had subsections of their own. I thought that perhaps it may be important to discuss or at least list all the major contributors – both the more modern and historic contributors – in your introduction. I think that you should also note the varying schools of thought in psycholinguistics in your introduction as well. By providing this extra information in your introduction, I think your introduction would act as a more thorough overview of the rest of your work and be a more accurate abstract (which could be important for teachers combing through resources).

I think the chapter, as a whole, would benefit from reorganization of topics. It may be more organizationally appropriate to start with the schools of thought, then historic contributors (here you could include which school each contributor fell into), then the more modern contributors, and finally the connection of these contributors to the cognitive revolution. This way the information you present in earlier sections might build upon one another and read more fluidly.

I found some grammatical and spelling issues throughout and some sentences in need of restructuring. I did not want to make specific changes to the document on the internet in case these changes did not reflect your intended meaning. Instead, I highlighted things in need of alteration in yellow on a Word document and beside these highlighted portions I often put suggestions of ways to improve the yellow portions in highlighted purple. I will send this to you in an email (the formatting does not work on Wikiversity) and post a request for your email address on the class discussion board. I know your chapter covers a very broad topic and key information had to be selected and others left out, in order to produce a chapter of decent length. I think the whole work has the content it needs, however, I also think that the chapter would benefit from having you read over the material you have written once more. There are some sentences that are slightly confusing, particularly the part about Broca and Tan. The individual you are referring to needs to be clear and the issue you are addressing must always be well described. I found that at times, such as the section on Wundt, some important aspects were overlooked. This may have been due to trying to keep sections brief and not overdone, however I think at some points clarity was lost due to the brevity. Though if you can go back and reread everything this problem may be fixed on its own.

Finally, I noticed that you cited the textbook by Jay throughout your chapter. Dr. Newman mentioned that we should not reference the text itself, however if we do use a specific source cited by Jay, that we should go directly to that source and cite it instead. Dr. Newman also said to make all citations throughout your work links to the full reference in the reference section at the bottom of the page. I didn’t notice all of your sources in the reference section cited throughout the chapter, so that might be something to check before the final edition of the chapter is due.

Great Job!

Chantel 023:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)