Academic year 2025-2026
Postgraduate (LASC11167) Assignment brief, 2025/2026
Sole assessment: coding project plus report, due 4th December, worth 100% of course mark
The assessment has two parts:
A functioning experiment running on jspsychlearning.ppls.ed.ac.uk
A report explaining the motivation behind that experiment: i.e. the research question it is intended to answer (including briefly reviewing relevant literature and justifying that research question in terms of broader questions in the field), explanation/justification for any complex or questionable design decisions you took in designing the experiment (there’s no need to justify low-level stuff), an appraisal of weakness of your experiment or possible ways it could be improved/extended. The maximum length for the report is 1000 words.
The experiment has to be relevant to using online experimental methods to study language or language-relevant phenomena, but beyond that there are no constraints on what you tackle - please have a short conversation with me (Jenny) if you are at all unsure about what you have in mind is appropriate.
We will assess these final projects based on two components: the technical ambition and implementation of the experiment, and the quality of the accompanying report and explanation. For technical ambition / implementation we will give high marks to challenging coding problems (e.g. going beyond the template experiments we provide for practicals), and experiments that work well and look good. For the report we will give high marks to projects that are well motivated by the literature, answer interesting well-explained research questions, and demonstrate interesting critical insights on your own work (e.g. interesting thoughts on design decisions or methodological weaknesses, even if you weren’t able to resolve those in the code).
You can choose how you weight your effort across these two components, e.g. if you tackle a demanding coding project we will be satisfied with a lower-effort report (e.g. with a less thorough literature review or less extensive evaluative remarks); if you are less ambitious on the technical side (e.g. largely re-using code we provide and ‘just’ plugging in different stimuli, trial lists etc) then we would expect a more ambitious report (e.g. with a more careful and detailed literature review situating your work in the literature in a thoughtful way). Again, please have a short conversation with Kenny if you want some guidance on how you should balance up these two components or how you should make sure you are doing something at the appropriate level of ambition.
Important points on providing a working URL for your experiment:
Additional notes:
XXProject maintained by jennifer-culbertson Hosted on GitHub Pages — Theme by mattgraham