One pedagogical finding that has gained recent attention is the utility of active, effortful retrieval practice in effective learning. Essentially, humans learn best when they are asked to actively generate/recall knowledge for themselves, rather than receiving knowledge passively. In this paper, we (a) provide a framework for both practice and assessment within which students can organically develop active study habits, (b) share resources we have built to help implement such a framework in the linguistics classroom, and (c) provide some examples and evaluation of their success in the context of an introductory phonetics/phonology course.

This paper reflects on a project-based curriculum employing constructed languages to teach linguistics, with a focus on phonology. In a special topics linguistics course, nine students were led through the construction of a language. While students in introductory linguistics courses sometimes struggle with phonology, active engagement with a semester-long language construction project endowed these students with the practical motivation to understand (1) what phonology is, (2) how phonological rules work, and (3) why rules surface in the first place. They readily captured generalizations based on natural classes of sounds, recognizing the systematicity of their constructed phonology. Student performance and engagement in this course support the use of constructed languages as a pedagogical tool in linguistics. Because an ongoing project builds in problem-solving opportunities and processual thinking, highlighting relationships among key concepts, students achieve a more comprehensive understanding of core areas in the broader linguistic picture.

This article addresses the teaching and learning of language attitudes within the context of a combined graduate/undergraduate Applied Linguistics course. Throughout the course, students critically discussed academic and research articles related to language attitudes towards some of the languages spoken by the students in the course (French, Spanish and Mandarin) and participated in a guided digital storytelling workshop. This article addresses the following research questions: (1) how do students embody their language attitudes through reflective storytelling? and (2) what do students gain in terms of learning outcomes from digital storytelling projects related to language attitudes? Common themes that emerged include (1) learning from others’ stories, (2) thinking creatively, (3) providing a platform for their voice, and (4) learning the connections between identity, language, and heritage. Digital storytelling can be used in other linguistics or problem-based courses as an alternative to final papers, with guidance that facilitates new understanding through collection of knowledge.

In addition to representing a main source of data in linguistic research, example sentences are a core vehicle for linguists in teaching a wide range of phenomena to our students. However, the content of these sentences often reflects the biases of the researchers who construct them: referents are typically given Anglocentric proper names like John and Mary, reflecting (at least implicitly) dominant white culture and conformity to heteronormative gender roles. To support linguists in shifting these practices, we present the Diverse Names Database, a database of 78 names from a variety of languages and cultures, confirmed with native speakers. We outline the goals for the project, introduce our process of developing and adjusting the design, and present some additional issues and reflections for consideration, such as how to use the database as one component of an affirming, anti-racist, and gender-equitable linguistics pedagogy. We aim to generate meta-level discussions about disciplinary conventions and canons, and to challenge the idea that underlying linguistic structures are, or should be, the only things of relevance when constructing example sentences. How we teach linguistics is part of how we practise it, and how we do both matters to the composition and direction of the field.

Linguistics faculty are sometimes reluctant to provide explicit writing instruction in their courses. One major point of hesitancy is that there is not enough time to “add” writing to the curriculum. We argue, in contrast, that spending strategic time on writing reinforces and enriches the linguistics curriculum, rather than detracting from it. When students apply linguistics to the real world through relevant writing assignments, linguistics becomes more meaningful, which increases student engagement and improves the perception of linguistics. Explicit writing instruction is beneficial for all students, but especially marginalized students. Teaching students how to write also provides them with transferable skills that they can take with them to their future careers.