Discussion Board 2 : Critical Period in Language Development | Online Homework Aiders

I’m studying for my Psychology class and don’t understand how to answer this. Can you help me study?

Discussion Board Instructions and Deadline

• minimum 350-word up to a maximum 500-word answer
• use evidence to support your opinion (MUST cite research as outlined in prompt)
• proofread your answer and use complete, grammatical sentences

Discussion Board Question #2

In chapter 2 (pp. 46-56) and the film, Secret of the Wild Child introduced the idea of a critical period to learning language. Erik Lenneberg proposed a hypothesis called the “Critical Period Hypothesis” that states there is a biologically-determined period of time during which language acquisition must occur. Attempts to learn language after puberty (around age 12), according to this hypothesis, will be more difficult and ultimately unsuccessful.
Those who argue in favor of a critical period for learning language often use children who have been deprived of language input and their inability to successfully learn language as the primary evidence (e.g., Genie).

Those who argue against the critical period for learning language often use evidence from brain development and neuroimaging studies, as well as studies of second language learning.

In your opinion, do you think Lenneberg’s critical period hypothesis is supported by research? In your response, briefly tell me what it means to be successful in learning language (i.e., what should the outcome look like with respect to the 5 basic aspects of language) and then provide at least three (3) reasons why you believe the critical period hypothesis is or is not supported by research. Your answer should appropriately use/cite research. You must use a minimum of 3 references for this prompt. These references may only be peer-reviewed journal articles, chapter, or books. You may not use either web sites or your textbook as a source.

Grading Scale

5 – well-informed, uses/cites research appropriately, complete and grammatical sentences, meets minimum word count, convincing in argument/answer to prompt.

4 – reasonably well-informed and appropriately uses/cites research, but may be less convincing in argument/answer in prompt. No issues with grammar were noted and met minimum word count.

3 – author does attempt to use/cite research in response, but may have been less convincing in argument/answer in prompt. Issues with grammar may have been noted. Author may not have met minimum word count.

2 – author does not attempt to use/cite research in response and thus, fails to convince reader of answer. Issues with grammar may have been noted. Author may not have met minimum word count.

1 – poorly written, did not meet minimum word count and was not well-informed or use/cite research in prompt. Many issues were noted.

0 – did not attempt assignment