Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T03:52:44.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Language in the United States’: An innovative learner-centered, asynchronous general-education course in linguistics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Paola Cépeda,
Andrei Antonenko,
Mark Aronoff,
Rachel Christensen,
Aniello De Santo,
Jennifer Jaiswal,
Ji Yea Kim,
Michelle Mayro,
Veronica Miatto and
Lori Repetti
Paola Cépeda*
Affiliation:
Washington University in St. Louis
Andrei Antonenko*
Affiliation:
Stony Brook University
Mark Aronoff*
Affiliation:
Stony Brook University
Rachel Christensen*
Affiliation:
Stony Brook University
Aniello De Santo*
Affiliation:
University of Utah
Jennifer Jaiswal*
Affiliation:
Farmingdale State College
Ji Yea Kim*
Affiliation:
Seoul National University of Science and Technology
Michelle Mayro*
Affiliation:
Stony Brook University
Veronica Miatto*
Affiliation:
Stony Brook University
Lori Repetti*
Affiliation:
Stony Brook University
*
[paola.cepeda@wustl.edu]
[andrei.antonenko@stonybrook.edu]
[rachel.christensen@stonybrook.edu]
[rachel.christensen@stonybrook.edu]
[aniello.desanto@utah.edu]
[jennifer.jaiswal@farmingdale.edu]
[jiyeakim@seoultech.ac.kr]
[michelle.mayro@stonybrook.edu]
[veronica.miatto@stonybrook.edu]
[lori.repetti@stonybrook.edu]
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

LIN 200 ‘Language in the United States’ is a large general-education course dealing with linguistic diversity in the United States. It is taught online in an asynchronous format and attracts hundreds of students each semester. The pedagogical innovations adopted in this course include the use of guest lectures by leading experts in the field, the design of discussion board activities to facilitate interaction among students and with instructors, and the organization of the material into adaptable learning modules. We adopt a learner-centered approach using the backward-design framework and applying the community-of-inquiry model. The result is a course that succeeds in achieving its main learning goals: to introduce students to the vast linguistic diversity in the United States and to the basic principles of linguistics, in particular, that human language is primarily spoken or signed (not written), that every human group has its own language, and that all languages are equally capable of expressing any human thought or emotion, although their social prestige may differ.

Keywords

asynchronous online coursesociolinguisticslanguage diversity in the USgeneral educationmodulesdiscussion boardcommunity of inquiry

Information

Type
Teaching Linguistics
Information
Language , Volume 99 , Issue 2 , June 2023, pp. e86 - e107
Copyright
Copyright © 2023 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

References

Aragon, Steven R. 2003. Creating social presence in online environments. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 100. 57–68. DOI: 10.1002/ace.119.10.1002/ace.119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biggs, John. 1996. Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education 32. 347–64. DOI: 10.1007/BF00138871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biggs, John. 2014. Constructive alignment in university teaching. HERDSA Review of Higher Education 1. 5–22. Online: https://www.herdsa.org.au/herdsa-review-higher-education-vol-1/5-22.Google Scholar
Borup, Jered, West, Richard E.; and Graham, Charles R.. 2012. Improving online social presence through asynchronous video. The Internet and Higher Education 15. 195–203. DOI: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.11.001.10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.11.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casey, Rae L., and Kroth, Michael. 2013. Learning to develop presence online: Experienced faculty perspectives. Journal of Adult Education 42(2). 104–10. Online: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1047365.Google Scholar
Dengler, Mary. 2008. Classroom active learning complemented by an online discussion forum to teach sustainability. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 32. 481–94. DOI: 10.1080/03098260701514108.10.1080/03098260701514108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Du Toit, Gawie. 2014. Quality assurance through curriculum development. European Journal of Curriculum Studies 1(2). 117–24.Google Scholar
Fan, Si, Chen, Lihua, Nair, Manoj, Garg, Saurabh, Yeom, Soonja, Kregor, Gerry, Yang, Yu; and Wang, Yanjun. 2021. Revealing impact factors on student engagement: Learning analytics adoption in online and blended courses in higher education. Education Sciences 11(10):608. DOI: 10.3390/educsci11100608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finegan, Edward, and Rickford, John R.. 2004. Language in the USA: Themes for the twenty-first century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511809880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrison, D. Randy, Anderson, Terry; and Archer, Walter. 2000. Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education 2(2–3). 87–105. DOI: 10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrison, D. Randy, Anderson, Terry; and Archer, Walter. 2010. The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. The Internet and Higher Education 13(1–2). 5–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.003.10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gobet, Fernand. 2005. Chunking models of expertise: Implications for education. Applied Cognitive Psychology 19(2). 183–204. DOI: 10.1002/acp.1110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jonassen, David H. 2008. Instructional design as design problem solving: An iterative process. Educational Technology 48(3). 21–26. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44429574.Google Scholar
Leonard, Wesley Y. 2008. When is an ‘extinct language’ not extinct? Miami, a formerly sleeping language. Sustaining linguistic diversity: Endangered and minority languages and language varieties, ed. by King, Kendall A., Schilling-Estes, Natalie, Lou, Jia Jackie, Fogle, Lyn, and Soukup, Barbara, 23–34. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Online: https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/171/oa_monograph/chapter/594356.Google Scholar
Miller, George Armitage. 1956. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 63(2). 81–97. DOI: 10.1037/h0043158.10.1037/h0043158CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richards, Jack C. 2013. Curriculum approaches in language teaching: Forward, central, and backward design. RELC Journal 44(1). 5–33. DOI: 10.1177/0033688212473293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rickford, John R., and King, Sharese. 2016. Language and linguistics on trial: Hearing Rachel Jeantel (and other vernacular speakers) in the courtroom and beyond. Language 92(4). 948–88. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2016.0078.10.1353/lan.2016.0078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rourke, Liam, Anderson, Terry, Garrison, D. Randy; and Archer, Walter. 2001. Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education/La Revue internationale du e-learning et la formation à distance 14(2). 50–71. Online: https://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/153.Google Scholar
Tamasi, Susan, and Antieau, Lamont. 2014. Language and linguistic diversity in the US. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203154960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, Ralph W. 1949. Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Whiteside, Aimee L. 2015. Introducing the social presence model to explore online and blended learning experiences. Online Learning 19(2). DOI: 10.24059/olj.v19i2.453.10.24059/olj.v19i2.453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiggins, Grant, and McTighe, Jay. 2005. Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar