text:
Psycholinguistics/Hemispheric Lateralization

Introduction
Hemispheric lateralization refers to the distinction between functions of the right and left hemispheres of the brain. If one hemisphere is more heavily involved in a specific function, it is often referred to as being dominant (Bear et al., 2007). Language is a function believed to be heavily lateralized: it is believed that certain aspects of language are localized in the left hemisphere, while others are found in the right, with the left hemisphere most often considered to be dominant. This was initially proposed by early lesion-deficit models and studies with split-brain patients, and has been shown in more recent years through tests like the Wada test and imaging studies. There have been studies which show that there are anatomic asymmetries located near and around the regions associated with language, and each hemisphere has shown to play its own but separate role in the production and comprehension of speech. The hemispheric lateralization of language functions has been suggested to be associated with both handedness, sex, bilingualism, sign-language, and a variance amongst cultures. It has also been proposed that a reorganization occurs following brain injury that involves a shifting of lateralized function, as long as the injury occurs early in life.

Jean Baptiste Bouillaud and Simon Alexandre Ernest Aubertin
French physician Jean Baptiste Bouillaud (1796-1881) was one of the earliest proponents of hemispheric language lateralization. On February 21, 1825, Bouillaud presented a paper to the Royal Academy of Medicine in France which suggested that, because so many human tasks are performed using the right hand (such as writing), that the section of the brain which is in control of that hand might be the left hemisphere; this observation implies that language, at the core of writing, would be localized in the left hemisphere. It was already known at this time that motor function was primarily controlled by the hemisphere ipsilateral to the side of the body through lesion studies. Bouillaud also proposed that speech is localized in the frontal lobes, a theory that was carried on by Bouillaud’s son-in-law Simon Alexandre Ernest Aubertin (1825-1893), who went on to work with famed French neurologist Paul Broca in 1861. Together, Aubertin and Broca examined a patient with a left frontal lobe lesion who had lost nearly all ability to speak; this case and several others similar to it became the basis behind the earliest theories of language lateralization.

Paul Broca
French neurologist Paul Broca (1824-1880) is often credited as being the first to expound upon this theory of language lateralization. In 1861, a 51 year old patient named Leborgne came to Broca; Leborgne was almost completely unable to speak and suffered from cellulitis of the right leg. Leborgne was able to comprehend language but was mostly unable to produce it. He responded to almost everything with the word “tan” and thus came to be known as Tan. Broca theorized that Tan must have a lesion of the left frontal lobe, and this theory was confirmed in autopsy when Tan died later that year (Bear et al., 2007). In 1863, Broca published a paper in which he described the eight cases of patients with damage to the left frontal lobe, all of whom had lost their ability to produce language, and included evidence of right frontal lesions having little effect on articulate speech (Bear et al., 2007). This led Broca to propose in 1864 that the expression of language is controlled by a specific hemisphere, most often the left (Bear et al., 2007). “On parle avec l’hemisphere gauche,” Broca concluded (Purves et al., 2008)- we speak with the left hemisphere.

Carl Wernicke
German anatomist Carl Wernicke (1848-1904) is also known as an early supporter of the theory of language lateralization. In 1874, Wernicke found an area in the temporal lobe of the left hemisphere, thus distinct from that which Broca had described, which disrupted language capabilities (Bear et al., 2007). He then went on to provide the earliest map of left hemisphere language organization and processing.

Lesion Studies
A good deal of what we know regarding language lateralization comes from studying the loss of language abilities following brain injury (Bear et al., 2007). Aphasia, the partial or complete loss of language abilities occurring after brain damage, is the source of much of the information on this subject (Bear et al., 2007). As shown in the studies of Bouillaud, Aubertin, Broca and Wernicke described above, lesion studies combined with autopsy reports can tell us a good deal about localization of language, which ultimately has supplied information on lateralization. Lesion studies have shown that, not only is the left cerebral hemisphere most often dominant for language, but also that the right hemisphere generally is not, as lesions in the right hemisphere rarely disturb speech and language function (Bear et al., 2007).

The dangers of using lesion studies are, of course, that they may overemphasize the relevance of particular localized areas and their associated functions. The connection between brain regions and behaviours is not usually quite so simple, and is based on a larger network of connections. This is shown in the fact that the severity of an individual’s aphasia is often related to the amount of tissue damaged around the lesion itself (Bear et al., 2007). It is also known that there is a difference in the severity of the deficit depending on whether the area was removed surgically, or was caused by stroke. This is the case because strokes affect both the cortex and the subcortical structures due to the location of the middle cerebral artery, which supplies blood to the areas associated with language, as well as the basal ganglia, and is often the cause of stroke. As such, surgically produced lesions tend to have milder effects than those resulting from stroke (Bear et al., 2007).

Split Brain Studies
Studies of patients who have had commissurotomies (split-brain patients) have provided significant information about language lateralization. Commissurotomy is a surgical procedure in which the hemispheres are disconnected by cutting the corpus callosum, the massive bundle of 200 million axons connecting the right and left hemisphere (Bear et al., 2007). Following this procedure, almost all communication between the hemispheres is lost, and each hemisphere then acts independently of the other. What is striking about split-brain patients with regards to the study of language lateralization is that a word may be presented to the right hemisphere of a patient whose left hemisphere is dominant, and when the patient is asked to name the word they will say that nothing is there, because although the right hemisphere “saw” the word, it is the left hemisphere which “speaks.” If that same word is presented to the left hemisphere, the patient is able to verbalize the response (Bear et al., 2007). As such, split-brain patients have presented substantial evidence that language function is generally lateralized in the left hemisphere.

Wada test
The Wada test was created by Juhn Wada at the Montreal Neurological Institute in 1949, and was designed specifically to study lateralization. A fast-acting barbiturate such as sodium amytal is injected into the carotid artery on one side (although current procedures prefer to use a catheter which is inserted into the femoral artery), and is then transported to the cerebral hemisphere on the opposite side. It then serves to anaesthetize that side of the brain for approximately 10 minutes, after which it begins to wear off and the functions which were disrupted by the anaesthetic gradually return, often displaying aphasic errors (Bear et al., 2007; Wada and Rasmussen, 1960). During the time in which the patient is anaesthetized, they are assessed on their ability to use language. If the left hemisphere is anaesthetized and is the dominant hemisphere, the patient loses all ability to speak, whereas if the left hemisphere is anaesthetized but the right hemisphere is dominant, the patient will continue to speak throughout the procedure (Bear et al., 2007).

In a study published in 1977, Brenda Milner used the Wada test to demonstrate that 98% of left-handed people and 70% of right handed people have a dominant left hemisphere with regards to language and speech function. Her results also showed that 2% of right-handed people have a dominant right hemisphere, which is the same percentage of patients that display aphasia following a lesion to the right hemisphere (Branch et al., 1964).

This procedure is also used prior to brain surgery in order to determine the dominant hemisphere, so as to avoid removal of an area associated with speech and language.

Electrical stimulation, TMS and Imaging
Electrical stimulation was pioneered by Wilder Penfield and his colleagues at the Montreal Neurological Institute in the 1930’s, and helped to identify certain lateralized areas associated with speech and language. Electrical stimulation is the application of an electrical current directly to the cortical tissue of a patient who is conscious. Penfield found that stimulating the left frontal or temporal regions of the left hemisphere with an electrical current accelerated the production of speech (Penfield, 1961). He also found that stimulation can cause inhibition in complex functions like language, as applying a current to the areas associated with speech production in the left hemisphere while the patient is engaged in speech serves to disrupt this behaviour. This procedure is performed during surgery when the skull is removed, and as such it is not a commonly used method of assessment.

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) is a non-invasive procedure, often combined in studies with MRI, which has helped to map the regions associated with speech, showing lateralization to be dominant in the left hemisphere. TMS has also shown that, following brain injury, it is more likely that it is the tissue surrounding the lesion that acts in a compensatory way rather than the opposite hemisphere providing compensation (Kolb and Whishaw, 2009). The major drawback of TMS is, of course, the fact that the magnetic stimulation must pass through the scalp, skull, and meninges before stimulating the brain region of choice (Kolb and Whishaw, 2009).

Imaging studies have proven to be incredibly useful in determining lateralization of language abilities. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) have been able to show the complex circuitry associated with speech and language, and have also proven to be consistent with the findings from previous lesion studies, as well as Penfield’s electric stimulation (Bear et al., 2007). There has been some controversy regarding bilateral activation shown in fMRI studies, the reasons unknown, however it has been suggested that perhaps the right hemisphere is involved in aspects of speech that are not measured by such tests as the Wada procedure (Bear et al., 2007). A significant finding is that fMRI results during developmental years show activation during speech and the use of language mainly in the left hemisphere, providing further evidence in support of left hemisphere dominance (Bear et al., 2007).

Cerebral Dominance and Language Functions of the Left and Right Hemispheres
The left hemisphere is, in most people, dominant in terms of the capacity for speech. It is thought that areas involved in speech production and comprehension are both localized in the left cerebral hemisphere, around the Sylvian fissure. This may be the result of subtle anatomical asymmetries, discussed in more detail below.

The left hemisphere has been shown to be dominant in speech production and comprehension, represented physiologically in the areas known as Broca's and Wernicke's regions. Electrophysiological recording from George Ojemann and his colleagues at the University of Washington show that the perisylvian cortex of the left hemisphere is involved in language production (localized in Broca's region, at the left end of the left hemisphere's Sylvian fissure, in the inferior frontal gyrus) and comprehension (localized in Wernicke's region, in the right end of the left hemisphere's Sylvian fissure, in the temporal lobe) (Purves et al., 2008). Roger Sperry and his colleagues’ split-brain studies have shown that the left hemisphere is also responsible for lexical and syntactic language capabilities (grammatical rules, sentence structure), writing, and speech (Purves at al., 2008). Other aspects of language which are thought to be governed in most people by the left hemisphere include audition of language-related sounds, recognition of letters and words, phonetics and semantics.

The right hemisphere, though generally not dominant in terms of linguistic ability, has its role in the use of language. Although the right hemisphere has no “speech,” it is still able to understand language through the auditory system, the evidence of which can be found in split-brain studies, and also has shows a small amount of reading ability and word recognition. It is suggested that pitch perception is dependent on areas in the right hemisphere (Zatorre et al., 2002), which plays an important role in the understanding of prosody and emotion in language. Lesion studies of patients who have right hemisphere lesions show a reduction in verbal fluency and deficits in the understanding and use of prosody, indicating tha such functions are likely lateralized in the right hemisphere. Patients who have had their right hemisphere surgically removed (hemispherectomy) show no aphasia, but do show less obvious deficiencies in areas such as verbal selection and understanding of metaphor. It has thus been concluded that the right hemisphere is most often responsible for the prosodic and emotional elements of speech and language (Purves et al., 2008).

It has been suggested by Zatorre et al. (2002) that auditory information is processed in stages, with both cerebral hemispheres contributing to different aspects. Their study (2002)proposes that phonetic decisions are made in Broca's area in the left hemisphere, following which phonetic analysis and comprehension of phonetic segments is made in the left posterior temporal region. Phonetic processing is suggested to occur in the left supramarginal gyrus. According to their study, the right hemisphere controls the judgment of pitch.

Anatomical Asymmetries
The structural differences between the right and left hemisphere may play a role in the lateralization of language. In the nineteenth century, anatomists observed that the left hemisphere’s sylvian fissure is longer and less steep than that of the right (Bear et al., 2007). In 1980, Graham Ratcliffe and his colleagues used evidence of this asymmetry of the sylvian fissure, shown in carotid angiogram, with results of Wada testing and found that those with speech regions located in the left hemisphere had a mean difference of 27 degrees in the angle of the blood vessels leaving the posterior end of the sylvian fissure, while those with language located in the right hemisphere had a mean angle of zero degrees (Kolb and Whishaw, 2009).

In the 1960s, Norman Geschwind and his colleagues at Harvard Medical School found that the planum temporal, the superior portion of the temporal lobe, is larger in the left hemisphere in almost two thirds of humans, an observation with was later confirmed with MRI (Bear et al., 2007; Purves et al., 2008). This asymmetry exists even in the brain of the human fetus (Bear et al., 2007). The correlation of this asymmetry with the left hemisphere’s language dominance is refuted by many due to the fact that 67% of people show this structural asymmetry, while 97% show left hemispheric dominance.

Handedness
The correlation between handedness and hemispheric lateralization is described in the results of the Wada test, described above. The majority of the population is right handed (approximately 90%), and the Wada test results propose that 93% of people’s left hemisphere is dominant for language (Bear et al., 2007). But correlation does not necessarily imply causation, and it is believed that there is no direct relationship between handedness and language, as the majority of left-handers also have their language lateralized in the left hemisphere (Purves et al., 2008). It is, however, a physical example of functional asymmetry, and it is certainly possible that a more substantial connection between handedness and language will be found.

Sex Differences
The tendency for women to score higher than men on language-related tasks is perhaps the result of the fact that women also tend to have a larger corpus callosum than men, indicating more neural connections between the right and left hemispheres (Jay, 2003). fMRI studies show that women have more bilateral activation than men when performing rhyming tasks, and PET studies show that women have more bilateral activation than men during reading tasks (Jay, 2003). Perhaps the bilateral activation implies the use of what are thought to be right hemisphere language abilities, such as prosody and intonation. Research has also shown that women have a greater ability to recover from left hemisphere brain damage; the evidence provided by the imaging studies in combination with the results of recovery following injury have led to the controversial suggestion that language is more unilateral in men than in women (Jay, 2003).

Sign Language and Bilingualism
Sign language has shown to be lateralized in the left hemisphere of the brain, in the left frontal and temporal lobes. This is known through the use of lesion studies in which the patient had left hemisphere lesion in the areas associated with language which impaired their ability to sign, while right hemisphere lesions in the same areas show no linguistic deficit (Purves et al., 2008). Lesions in the right hemisphere of signers did, however, show a limited use of spatial information encoded iconically (which is when the sign is similar looking to its referent) (Jay, 2003). This is in keeping with the belief that visuo-spatial ability is a right hemisphere function and suggests that the role of the right hemisphere in sign language is in the non-linguistic features of sign language (Jay, 2003).

Bilingualism is thought to be an overlapping of populations of neurons corresponding to each language, all of which are located in the frontal and temporal regions of the left hemisphere associated with speech comprehension and speech production (Jay, 2003).

Culture and Language Lateralization
When thinking of language there is a tendency to focus on that language in which you think, however it has been proposed that lateralization of language functions can vary from culture to culture. Asian languages show more bilateral activation during speech than European languages, likely because Asian languages employ a far greater use of right hemisphere abilities, for example prosody, and the use of spatial processing for the more “pictorial” Chinese characters; Native American languages also show a good deal of bilateral activity (Kolb and Whishaw, 2009).

Reorganization following brain injury
Studies have been done following brain injury to determine the level of recovery of language and speech ability, and whether or not recovery is based on lateralized function. Bryan Woods and Hans-Leukas Teuber looked at patients with prenatal and early postnatal brain injury located in either the right or left hemisphere and drew several conclusions. First, if the injury occurs very early, language ability may survive even after left hemisphere brain damage. Second, they found that an appropriation of language regions by the right hemisphere is responsible for the survival of these abilities, but because of this there is a tendency for visuo-spatial ability to be diminished. Third, right hemisphere lesions have the same effect in prenatal and early postnatal patients as they do in adults (Kolb and Whishaw, 2009). Brenda Milner and Ted Rasmussen used the Wada test to determine that early brain injury can cause either left, right or bilateral speech dominance, and that those who retained left hemisphere dominance had damage that was not in either the anterior (Broca’s) or posterior (Wernicke’s) speech zone (Kolb and Whishaw, 2009). Those whose dominance shifted to the right hemisphere most often had damage to these areas. Milner and Rasmussen also found that brain damage which occurs after the age of 5 does not cause a shift in lateralization but rather reorganizes within the hemisphere, potentially employing surrounding areas to take responsibility for some aspects of speech (Kolb and Whishaw, 2009).

In patients who have had hemispherectomy of the left hemisphere, the right hemisphere can often gain considerable language ability. When performed in adulthood, speech comprehension is usually retained (though speech production suffers severe deficits); reading capability is small, and there is usually no writing capability at all (Kolb and Whishaw, 2009).


text:
Psycholinguistics/Gesture

Introduction
In the words of Edward Sapir, gestures are "an elaborate and secret code that is written nowhere, known to none, and understood by all." It is extraordinary that humans have such a complicated, underlying communication system parallel with verbal speech that is so taken for granted.

The study of speech production must not be limited to verbal production; after all, speech as a whole includes lexical, emotional, semantic, phonological, syntactic, and motoric/gestural aspects. This non-verbal expression or gestural communication is largely unconscious, but makes up an important aspect of language production.

Are gesture and language really so interconnected? The evidence strongly points toward "yes"; though we may not notice our own actions, gesture appears to serve many functions, including more efficient and better communication of meaning, facilitated speech production and assisted language education. Even from a young age gesture is integral to language formation and its production. Clearly, the relationship between gesture and spoken language is more reciprocal and significant than one might intuitively think.

Information Communication
There are two main hypotheses of what role gesture plays in speech, one of which is to aid in the communication of meaning or information and to allow the transfer of supplementary information other than that presented in linguistic output. For example, when verbally describing how large a structure is, a person may also concurrently make hand motions that detail the shape. This hypothesis is also known as the Mutually Adaptive Modalities hypothesis, or MAM.

Research suggests that gesturing is beneficial for communication. When one is faced with ambiguity in speech, possibly due to background noise, incomprehensible requests, or unintelligible speech, a listener tends to rely on gestural input to provide extra information. In cases of when speech is comprehensible, studies have shown that participants still exhibit a more accurate understanding of instructions or narratives when speech is paired with gestures.

Wu and Coulson (2007) found that when participants were shown pictures congruent with both speech and gesture, smaller N300 and N400 Event-Related Potentials were elicited than when the pictures were only congruent with speech. In other words, pictures were easier to understand when gestures were combined with speech. This indicates that, corresponding with previous research, co-speech gestures allow for the better interpretation of spoken meaning.

In addition, co-speech gesture has been shown to facilitate the learning of new words in a foreign language, and young children may be able to understand the meaning of novel verbs when presented with gestural information and no speech.

So it appears that gesture could not only relieve speech ambiguity and supply additional meaning, but it could also aid in the understanding of novel words in both familiar and foreign languages.

Lexical Access
The second hypothesis of why we use gesture is to facilitate lexical access, or in different terms, to aid working memory in word retrieval during speech. When we speak of gesture assisted speech it becomes necessary to mention lexical affiliates; these are defined as the word a specific gesture is hypothesized to facilitate.

The reasoning behind the lexical access premise comes from studies that have found a link between cognitive tasks and motor movements. For instance, when told to imagine the shape of an inverted “S”, one may furrow their brow, change their gaze, and gesticulate. Physical movement has also been found to occur during mental arithmetic, the consideration of visual presentations , and during the course of memory processes. With this connection in mind, further research has demonstrated that motor movements may perform a supporting function for a few cognitive tasks.

During the course of speech it is well documented that gesturing occurs, and knowing that speech is a cognitive process, it stands to reason that there is another motive for co-speech gesture than just information communication; gesture may also assist lexical access. Krauss (1998) proposed that because human memory represents knowledge using many different dimensions (e.g. visuo-spatial and motoric), and the same memory may be stored in multiple domains, gesticulation (which reflects spatio-dynamic features), may aid in the activation of other memory formats, therefore assisting the lexical access.

Wesp, Hesse, and Keutmann (2001) also suggested that gestures help to maintain spatial representations in working memory; they found that when participants were asked to describe a painting from memory, they tended to gesture almost twice as much compared to when describing a painting in their immediate environment. In another study, this was further supported when participants exhibited more muscular activity in their dominant arm during memory retrieval of concrete and spatial words, i.e. those that can be more expressed in visual format.

A study by Morrel-Samuels and Krauss (1992) indicates that gestures occur extremely near to their lexical affiliates, and a gesture's duration is closely related to how long it takes a speaker to retrieve a word. Conjointly, it appears that more lexical gestures occur during spontaneous compared to rehearsed speech, indicating that gestures may be more prevalent in more hesitant speakers, and are performed to facilitate word retrieval. Continuing this line of research, Rauscher, Krauss, and Chen (1996) showed that when gesture was constrained, participants spoke more slowly, but only when the content of speech was spatial in nature; this supports the idea that gestures may maintain spatial representations and assist in memory retrieval.

These results have been further supported by Pine, Bird, and Kirk (2007) when they found that, during a naming task, children could name more words correctly and complete more 'tip-of-the-tongue' tasks when allowed to gesture than when their movements were restricted. Altogether, this research supports the lexical access hypothesis, and suggests that gestures are also important for speech production as well as information communication.

These two hypotheses have the most support and evidence, but a few newer ideas include that gesture may work to decrease cognitive load during language processing, and aid conceptual processes before speech. It is possible that gesture fills all of these roles, contributing in an important, yet subtle way to spoken language.

Neuropsychological Evidence
We know that gesture most likely serves a function of assisting lexical retrieval and/or communicating information, but speech also has other inherent connections with gesture. According to the evidence, one of the primary roles of gesture is lexical retrieval, so it would follow that those with neuropsychological damage would have this word access affected. Correspondingly, research on stroke patients has provided evidence that those with anomic aphasia (deficits in word naming and retrieval abilities with normal comprehension), exhibit more gestures during a narration than typical patients or those with visuo-spatial deficits. In addition, those with Wernicke's aphasia (deficits in comprehension with satisfactory levels of object naming and repetition) do not gesture as much as those with anomia or conduction aphasia (deficits in object naming and repetition with alright comprehension).

Rose and Douglas (2001) conducted a study in which they had patients with aphasia participate in a naming task; when instructed to point, visualize, and gesture, those with phonological access, storage, or encoding difficulties displayed significant improvement with iconic gesture. This research indicates that an underlying neurological connection between speech and gesture may be at work, and gestures may aid in the recovery of patients with aphasia due to their ability to promote lexical access.

Development

Gesture and spoken language appear to be highly interrelated in the brain; and this translates to the importance of gestural role in adult speech, but gesture also plays a central role during language development.

Gestures usually begin early, before speech, and are accordingly referred to as prelinguistic gestures; most infants begin gesturing between 6 and 10 months of age as a critical communication method. Another important step in language is learning the appropriate response to parental gestures, and this occurs around 9 and 12 months of age.

Zammit and Schafer (2010) found that the use of iconic gestures by mothers, controlling for maternal labeling and volubility, reliably predicted noun acquisition and comprehension. This indicates that joint attention between parents and infants serves to facilitate language acquisition. It appears that because gestures are synchronized with speech, it aids infants in deducing the meaning behind spoken words.

Up until verbal communication takes over, infants too use their own individual gestures to facilitate communication with parents; as children grow older, gestures remain, but take on a more subtle role. Gestures used by infants and children are referred to as deictic (pointing, references gestures) and representational (both referential and semantic content, e.g. waving goodbye or opening and closing the hand to refer to a fish. Colletta, Pellenq, and le Guidetti (2010) found a strong correlation between age, narrative complexity, and gesture use. This supports the hypothesis that as we age not only does our linguistic discourse grow more complex, but our co-speech gestures develop as well, from only deictic and representational to more complex gesticulation, in the context of narrative and social activity.

The link between cognition, language, and gestures is further expanded by other investigators, including Fenson and Ramsey (1980), who found that along with the first two word combinations, two or more gestures combined into one functional movement occur near the same time, during Piaget's final stage of sensorimotor intelligence, around 20 months of age. Furthermore, significant correlations have been found between multi-word speech and multi-combinational gestures. This indicates that as speech progresses through development, so does gesticulation in a similar fashion.

So, gestures appear to be necessary in the development of language through parental input and social interaction, and as speech develops and becomes more complex throughout life, so does gesture.

Gesture - Inclusive Models
Comprehensive models of speech production incorporate speaking with co-speech gestures, in an attempt to understand language; here are the three main models:

The McNeill Integrated Model
In the McNeill integrated model, it has been proposed that gestures share a computational, or comprehension, stage with speech, thereby developing simultaneously as a part of the same underlying psychological processes to respond to external agents concurrently. This psychological source of a synchronous verbal gestural unit is called a 'growth point'. Additionally, because they occur together, gestures and speech most likely have the same or similar semantic information to communicate; this is especially true for iconic gestures. The focus is placed on iconic gestures, because they are visuo-spatial in nature and the Integration model concentrates on spatial information. This hypothesis would predict that when communicating in a noisy room, and when spatial information is being communicated over the phone, more gestures (mostly iconic with the phone) would be used.

McNeill (1985) illustrated his model by comparing the gestures and speech of five different people on describing a narrative involving a character entering and climbing up inside a drainpipe. On inspection, not only was the recorded spoken language similar, but so were the iconic gestures:

 * “...he tries going up inside of the drainpipe...” while the hand rises and points upward.

 * “...he tries climbing up in the drainspout of the building...” while the hand rises and starts to point up.

 * “...and he goes up through the pipe this time...” while the hand rises and the fingers form a basket.

 * “...this time he tries to go up inside the raingutter...” while the hand points and rises quickly.

 * “...as he tries climbing up the rain barrel...” while the hand flexes back and then upwards.

As these examples demonstrate, gestures occurred at the same point as speech, and described the same semantic information (spatial in nature). Furthermore, complex multi-combinational gestures tend to have pauses between semantic units which correspond with speech. This indicates that gestures mirror speech, and it is especially poignant since gestures, like language, are similar between speakers.

In this model, there are slight changes in meaning during co-speech gestures, and taken together with concurrent spoken word, a single complex meaning is derived from a lone cognitive growth point. An implication of this model is that imagistic thinking, aided through gesture, plays a central role is speech and its conceptualization.

The Sketch Model
The Sketch Model is a processing model for gesture and speech developed by Jan Peter de Ruiter (2006). It is based on the gesture-inclusive McNeill model of language, in that it incorporates the idea of simultaneous growth points (here referred to as a conceptualization stage) and the hypothesis of shared semantic information into a more specific representation.

This model attempts to account for evidence for growth points provided by McNeill by proposing a single cognitive ‘conceptualizer’ that synchronizes gesture with speech plans and subsequently leads to overt production of both at once.

The Krauss Autonomous Model
The Krauss model differs from the previous ones in that it sees gesture and speech as non-integrated; in this way, gestures may serve to communicate some meaning, but their primary role is to facilitate lexical retrieval. So this model focuses on the ‘lexical access’ role of gestures while the McNeill and Sketch models focus on the ‘information communication’ role.

The Krauss and McNeill models are similar in that they both assume gestures occur very close to their lexical affiliates and may share a common origin at some point; in addition, they both concentrate on the idea that gestures more so reflect spatio-dynamic, or visuo-spatial, features of speech. Contrarily, this model assumes that there is no shared semantic conceptualization stage. This is based on evidence from tip-of-the-tongue (TOT) tasks like that of Frick-Horbury and Guttentag (1998) ; this study restricted the participant ability to gesture during TOT tasks and found that preventing gesticulation interfered with word retrieval. This has been further supported by others such as Pine, Bird, and Kirk (2007). Retrieval failures in these TOT tasks were mostly phonological so it was inferred that not only do gestures and speech not share a conceptualization stage, gestures must reflect phonological more than semantic encoding.

It was concluded that instead of gesture and speech being related at a semantic level during a conceptualization stage, it is much more likely that the influence of gestures on speech is with their ability to aid word retrieval in a spatio-dynamic fashion during phonological encoding. So in that way, speech and gesture diverge and run parallel to each other from the same point in working memory to meet at the overt production point. Some gestures may be intended for information communication purposes (such as emblematics), but most are solely produced for lexical retrieval.

Conclusion
Finally, research into language must include gesticulation in its repertoire; as one studies the role of gesticulation in speech it becomes more and more apparent of just how important it really is: gesture serves to help the development of language in children, aid communication of information, facilitate lexical access and possibly much more. In this, gesture acts in a subtle, yet complex manner to reinforce human communication and bring us closer together.

Learning Exercises
{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="margin:0em 0em 1em 0em; width:70%"
 * style="width:70%; vertical-align:top; border:1px solid DarkGrey; background-color:lightsteelblue;" |

Quiz Yourself!

{This Gesture-Inclusive Model is based on the lexical access hypothesis + The Krauss Autonomous Model. - The Sketch Model. - The Mcneill Integrated Model.
 * type=""}

{ This is defined as the word gesticulation is hypothesized to facilitate: { Lexical Affiliates|lexical affiliates|Lexical Affiliate|lexical affiliate }
 * type="{}"}

{During early development, gesture appears to be: + Integral to communication and language development. - Useful for early noun facilitation, but not crucial for communication or language. - A natural instinct with no real use.
 * type=""}

{ What type of gesture would this be classified as? - Deictic - Beat - Cohesive + This is not a gesture
 * type="" }

{Knowing that gesture aids lexical access, which aphasia patient would gesture the least? One with: - Broca's Aphasia. + Wernicke's Aphasia. - Anomic Aphasia. - Conduction Aphasia.
 * type=""}

{When Wu and Coulson (2007) found that smaller N300 and N400 ERP's were elicited when pictures were congruent with both speech and gesture,than when the pictures were only congruent with speech, they inferred that: - Co-speech gesture aids lexical access. + Co-speech gesture allows for better interpretation of meaning. - Co-speech gesture aids both access and interpretation simultaneously. - None of the above.
 * type=""}

{ What type of gesture would this be classified as? + Deictic - Iconic - Cohesive - Metaphoric - This is not a gesture
 * type="" }

Further Exercises
1) For this exercise you will need a pencil, paper, and the help of a friend: describe the following video to them with your hands held behind your back and see how long it takes them to understand what you mean, and successfully replicate it on paper.

Had you been able to gesture, how long do you suppose it would have taken for them to understand and draw it?

Which role of gesture do you suppose this provides evidence for?

2) Observe someone in normal conversation. Make note of the types of gestures they use and in what context they use them. David McNeill (1985) postualted that most gestures occur for or in visuo-spatial contexts.

Have your observations supported this?

Why do you think they have or have not?

3) Describe iconic gestures and how they differ from the other types of gestures. Why would these gestures, and not necessarily others, aid the noun facilitation of children?

Which linguistic model incorporating gesture could use this as evidence for their hypothesis, and why?

4) What are the characteristic difficulties of those with anomia (a type of aphasia)?

Design a hypothetical therapy to help improve the speech deficits of people with anomia. Which role of co-speech gesture does your therapy focus on?

Why do you think it would work and what evidence is there that would support your therapy?

5) Using your memory only fill in the following table with "YES" or "NO" answers and check your them against the table above.

6) Watch the following video of a speech and make note of the gestures used. Observe how difficult it can be to differentiate between gestures because of how fast and effortlessly they're made.

Do you believe that, with regard to this speech, her gestures more so reflect lexical access or information communication? May their be another reason or use in this context for her gestures?
 * }

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Psycholinguistics/Gesture


text:
User talk:Eml5526.s11.team7.ZongyiYANG

 Hello Eml5526.s11.team7.ZongyiYANG, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.
 * Explore Wikiversity with the links to your left.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.
 * Follow Wikiversity on twitter (http://twiter.com/Wikiversity) and identi.ca (http://identi.ca/group/wikiversity).

You don't need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! --Ottava Rima (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Files Missing License Information
Thank you for uploading files to Wikiversity. See Media for copyright and license requirements for Wikiversity files. All files must have copyright and/or license information added to the file.

Instructions for adding copyright and/or license information are available at License tags. Files must be updated within seven days or they may be removed without further notice. See Requests For Deletion for more information.

The following files are missing copyright and/or license information:
 * File:FEA HW 5 4 BasisFunction m=6.jpg
 * File:FEA HW 5 4 Error vs m.jpg
 * File:FEA HW 5 4 uh vs u m=4.jpg
 * File:FEA HW 5 4 uh vs u m=6.jpg
 * File:FEA HW 5 4 uh vs u m=8.jpg
 * File:FEA HW 6 5 N=4 I=1.jpg
 * File:FEA HW 6 5 N=4 I=7.jpg
 * File:FEA HW 6 5 uh n=4.jpg
 * File:FEA HW5 4 BasisFunction m=4.jpg

MaintenanceBot (discuss • contribs) 03:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

title: User talk:Eml5526.s11.team7.ZongyiYANG


text:
Doctor of Philosophy

Doctor of Philosophy, abbreviated as PhD is an academic degree traditionally awarded by universities.

This is a project space to develop an equivalent that we're calling the Open and Networked PhD (ONPhD).

Work to date has made it as far as articulating an equivalence to the formal PhD stage called Candidature. Other stages to the ONPhD are yet to be developed.

Requirements
A traditional PhD requires acceptance from a University to become a PhD Candidate. There is usually a variety of processes that candidate can follow toward publishing a thesis, or similar. See a relevant University's website for their requirements.

An ONPhD does not require affiliation to a university, but does require the publication of a thesis or similar, that is assessed by peers to equivalent criteria. To date an ONPhD is not recognised as a PhD, but we do hope to establish a process where it can be shown to be equivalent to, if not an improvement on, the traditional PhD criteria and assessment.

As in a traditional PhD, an ONPhD will require:

 * 1) Candidature
 * 2) Literature review
 * 3) A question
 * 4) Coursework or documeted learning
 * 5) Research
 * 6) Publication and review

Candidature

Follow the steps below to establish your candidature for ONPhD. We have developed a set of digital badges for each of these steps. See the course on P2PU, and the manual for earning the badges.

 * 1) Describe your learning history - This is a cumulative description of all the works (formal and informal) you have completed to be considered toward your candidacy for an ONPhD
 * 2) Identify your domain of study - The described domain of study should be both broad and focused. This is to allow others to get a sense of both the knowledge domain and your focus.
 * 3) Detail your contribution - What of considerable significance are you going to contribute to your chosen subject domain of knowledge?
 * 4) Methodology - Completion of a PhD requires a significant reseach project or major contribution to your chosen knowledge domain.
 * 5) Skills and Knowledge Development - Completion of a PhD level of knowing also requires the development of other related skills and knowledge.
 * 6) Engage the community - How are you going to engage the learning community and your learning network
 * 7) Seek supervision and endorsements - Identify the people in your learning network who are going to supervise or guide your research and assist your publication.

Literature review

INCOMPLETE - Work has not commenced around the ONPhD equivalent to the literature review. Below is a suggested list of steps and we propose that those steps be developed in a similar fashion to the Candidature stage.

 * 1) Demonstrate thorough knowledge of a wide range of literature relating to your topic.
 * 2) Engage in critical appraisal of these works.
 * 3) Arrive at a question or "gap" in the literature, that you will structure your thesis around.
 * 4) Understand where your investigation sits in relation to the literature you have reviewed.
 * 5) Begin to position your thesis in terms of world view (philosophical framework), the types of methods you will use to investigate and test your ideas (methodical framework), and the way you will operate those methods (operational framework – including the definition of what is data and how it is appraised/analysed).

Forming a research proposal
Drawing from D.R. Rowland's Annotated Sample Research Proposal: Process and Product for the University of Queensland, in which 3 stages are detailed:

Preliminary sorting of ideas
Use a mind map...

Outline in Terms of Focus Questions
Addresses the significance of the research
 * Introduction
 * 1) What have been the drivers of the calculus reform movement at the tertiary level?
 * 2) What are the motivations for introducing modeling as part of this reform?
 * 3) Why do reform approaches need a sound research base in general, and why in particular does using modeling as a reform approach need a sound research base?
 * 4) What then is the broad aim of the proposed research?

Addresses questions about originality + uses previous research as a foundation for further research
 * Previous research
 * 1) What research has already been done in this area? What deficiencies or gaps need addressing?
 * 2) What other research in related areas has been done that could inform research on the proposed problem?

What theories about learning guided the directions taken by the research and in particular, the hypotheses to be tested?
 * Theoretical framework and hypotheses
 * 1) What assumptions about student learning framed this research?
 * 2) What theories about student learning were believed to be of potential use and what hypotheses came out of these theories?

 * Methods
 * 1) What methodological issues needed to be addressed by this research?
 * 2) How were the hypotheses tested? Why use multiple methods?
 * 3) How was the sample chosen and does this choice pose a threat to external validity?
 * 4) How were the findings validated?
 * 5) What ethical issues are raised by the proposed approaches and how will these be addressed?

Write the proposal! (And revise the organizational framework)
Argument mapping

See D.R. Rowland's Annotated Sample Research Proposal: Process and Product for an annotated example proposal.

Coursework and learning
INCOMPLETE - Work has not commenced around the ONPhD equivalent to the development of courses to support people in their projects. We propose that relevant courses be developed across Wikiversity and listed here.

 * 1) Sport research
 * 2) Open educational resources
 * 3) Social media
 * 4) Other suggestions
 * 5) Your course here

Research
INCOMPLETE - The work included here has been gathered from available content on Wikiversity that is deemed relevant. Further work to customise this to ONPhD has not yet taken place. We suggest that this section be developed into steps as with previous sections, to guide a candidate through all necessary considerations about developing and conducting a research plan.

All research is pivotal on methods – which requires sound alignment between: (philosophical framework)
 * World view
 * Epistemology
 * Ontology

(methodical framework)
 * Methodical approach
 * Qualitative research and Qualitative research
 * Quantitative research
 * Mixed methods research

(operational framework – including the definition of what is data and how it is appraised/analysed).
 * Methods
 * What is research?
 * Research design
 * Finding research
 * Critiquing the literature
 * Validity and reliability of data
 * Ethics
 * Data analysis and visualisation
 * Writing
 * Getting published
 * Grant applications
 * Presenting your work

Steps are needed for guiding a candidates consideration of the ethics of research, and how to obtain an equivalent to ethical clearance of research that is normally offered by a research university.
 * Ethics

Publication and review
INCOMPLETE - We suggest that this section be developed as a list of optional courses, that guide people in the publication of their research findings.

 * The Directory of Open Access Journals
 * Thesis
 * /Thesis structure/ - By Dr Mary Walsh

Communications and support
To stay in contact with others who are openly documenting and networking their PhD work, please consider the following:

 * The email forum on GoogleGroups: Open and networked PhDs
 * tag onphd = Twitter, G+
 * tag openphd
 * The participant's list here on Wikiversity:PhD

Assessment Criteria for ONPhD
INCOMPLETE - We suggest that this section be developed as a list of steps and courses, that guide people in the assessment of particular approaches to ONPhDs. The steps are universal and the courses are for unique assessment needs. We propose the following steps be universal:

 * 1) Original research
 * 2) Thesis is situated within a linage of philosophy, theory and/or research
 * 3) Data openly accessible online
 * 4) Thesis is developed and published iteratively (by publication)
 * 5) Continuous or iterative peer to peer review that is openly documented
 * 6) Manuscript or similar is freely accessible online

Examples of PhDs and candidates using Wikiversity

 * User:Jtneill/PhD - completed
 * User:Cormaggio/Thesis - completed
 * User:Leighblackall/PhD - in progress
 * User:Peterrawsthorne/PhD - in progress
 * User:SarahStewart/EdD - in progress
 * User:Steelemaley/PhD - in progress
 * User:Alexanderhayes/PhD - in progress
 * User:Yvessimon1/PhD - in progress

title: Doctor of Philosophy


text:
Talk:Doctor of Philosophy

Participants

 * 1) Leighblackall 22:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Peterrawsthorne 16:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Steelemaley 18:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Back in November 2010 I posted a message about my project on open PhD and now I see a group of people networking together to get this done. My congratulations for starting this group and I would like to join you in this endevour. I look forward to hearing from you. User:Opriter/PhD August 14 2011 -- Good to hear from you Opriter, I hope you found your way into the email forum... over time, I think our group will slowly grow. Leighblackall (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Your name

Communications

 * email forum
 * Twitter list (I'm a bit unsure on twitterlists, I've created one under my username space.. is there a way to create one in its own name space that anyone can join? And it might be better to call it onphd for open and networked doctor of philosophy) Leighblackall 23:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Peer assessment, badges, institution assessment
--Leighblackall (talk) 12:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * On 18 April 2012, #### introduced himself by email to Peter Rawsthorne and Leigh Blackall, explaining that he was interested in making an effort toward an #onPhD
 * Leigh encouraged #### to join the email forum and mentioned that Charles Darwin University has a PhD-by-publication program that assesses work created prior to enrolling. Peter explained his intension to looking into Badges, as a possible way of furthering his interests in empowering peer to peer assessment.
 * On 11 July 2012 #### made contact with Leigh and Peter again, citing a Google+ link Leigh had posted that contained a link to the CDU PhD-by-publication process. #### Was following up the suggestion of finding a CDU based supervisor if the CDU process was to be possible, and asking Leigh to find out how much assessment of a PhD thesis would cost.
 * Leigh replied asking #### to provide a link to a web page of publications or works in progress that he would like to present for consideration. Peter challenged Leigh and #### to instead focus on peer review and badging before going to the institutions. Leigh and #### agreed.
 * On 13 July 2012 (UTC+10) Leigh contacted Thomas Steele-Maley on Twitter to check if he also had work ready to present. This conversation went to email, including Peter, so that Thomas could catch up on the conversation that had lead to an agreement to focus on peer to peer badging. Thomas posted to Twitter an endorsement of the peer to peer badging concept, using the #onPhD tag. Peter suggested that Wikiversity become an open badge issuer, and asked what the criteria for onPhD badge might be. Leigh suggested "original, formatted, situated, open data(?), reviewed, reviews actioned, iterative, all process documented" and that the group work up the criteria on the WIkiversity page for PhD. Peter updated the Wikiversity page with info about open badges. Thomas brought Mary Anne Reilly and Robert Greco into the Twitter exchange, suggesting to Mary Anne that she would make a good mentor. Mary Anne seemed to like the peer to peer badging concept, and Robert suggested contact with Matt Hern and The Institute for Social Ecology. Leigh suggested a get together on email or Google Hangout. American time zones went into night.
 * Leigh posted to the onPhD email forum, an update on the conversation, and a link to these notes

Folksonomy

 * tag = onphd Use it in delicious, youtube, blog posts, etc, and we can each subscribe to the RSS feeds for that tag and track each other's work at a distance. - Leigh, why didn't you suggest openphd as the tag? -- Peterrawsthorne 16:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Pete, because I stupidly polluted that tag field with bookmarks to do with my PhD, rather than openphd generally, and after monitoring it for nearly a year, it seems no one is using it. I thought we may as well start a fresh, with onphd standing for open and networked - where the networked part is VERY important IMO Leighblackall 04:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, the open and networked makes complete sense. Actually, I see the networked part more important than the open part... but then it would become nophd. Then of course, isn't that what we are working on, a nophd. Peterrawsthorne 08:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've changed my mind! I think I'm going to start using nophd as my hashtag for a Networked and Open PhD. It makes more sense, from 1. a lifelong learning perspective and 2. how the PhD is a brand "owned" by academia. I know this now more than ever, what I am perusing has nothing to do with the academic credential of a PhD. And I have no desire to have the PhD for reputation or employment. I do not want to be an academic or a researcher. I want to follow my bliss and life-long learn (this base attachment is essential for completion). I want to share this with those who care to follow, I want to empower people with skills and knowledge in how to be a life-long learner for themselves within this connected world. I want to work on "NO PhD". Sorry for the rant, just emotionally connecting to the idea - Peter Rawsthorne 20:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm with you Pete. Its also a bit like the unconference trend in internet circles. Instead of unphd, we're saying no phd. I especially react negatively towards the credential inflation (not to mention, conflict of interest) that some Universities partake in by requiring their staff to all have PhDs.. which is what has compelled me into this space. I see that sort of policy as only diminishing the value of a PhD, as people scramble to get one not because that truly want or respect the process, but because they want to preserve their income. Completely understandable - its the policy at fault, not the individuals. So, my own decision to attempt nophd, is in many ways to reject that, and preserve the integrity of the PhD. Doing it not for job security, but for genuine interest and desire to learn the skills of a researcher. Leighblackall 00:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I can here the chorus and possible rancor around the point I am going to make but I really do not like the tag nophd as it seems to be an oxymoron that I still do not understand--and am open to deliberate fully. My biggest issues revolve around positives and negatives and the power of symbols: onphd or Open and Networked PhD tells the story aptly...What does Open mean to all here and why is it an issue?....I do not seek the official knowledge of institutions and their social schooling and hierarchical colonial....but if we are to use the PhD at all I would rather associate this with the tag onphd which captures the spirit of my work and helps to redesign the terminology....Leigh mentions an interest in preserving the PhD, I agree wholeheartedly and I see this group providing space for the new and next in PhD....folksonomy is important and for this we have acronyms and thus this conversation is of import. Looking forward to the deliberation, I offer that onphd is better for this community...Steelemaley 18:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Steelemaley, I think I went away and thought about your points, and forgot to post back. Over time I've come to agree with you, and #onPhD has similar cheeky meaning to #noPhD.. we're switching 'on'. I see it has caught on in Twitter a little, so I'm happy to keep using that tag. Leighblackall (talk) 12:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Steelemaley & Leigh, I've grown... I've let go of my disruptive tendencies. I'm going with the #onphd, I'm turning 'on' and tuning in ;) The Open and Networked PhD is a powerful acronym and doesn't have the negative slant of the nophd. So we continue with #onphd, and when we want to plant our tongue deeply in our cheek we have the #nophd as the anti-tag (Peter Rawsthorne (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC))

Leigh and Thomas Skype conversation 31 May 2011
So good to meet.
 * General Discussion: Appropriation of terms and praxis, ethics and the critique of learning with internet based tools.
 * How is technology critiqued and what impact does this have on research in the field? Thomas suggested Mander, J.In absence of the sacred and Four Arguments for Elimination of Television as sources. and Leigh suggested Bowers: False Promises of Constructivism http://leighblackall.blogspot.com/2011/05/summary-of-chet-bowers-false-promises.html
 * the discussion turned to Anarchism and Thomas brought up Colin Wardand the ideas/praxis of "mutual aid" see Kropotkin
 * On Design Based Research (Thomas will generate book list), Leigh suggested Teemu Leinonen (Helsinki) practices design based research
 * On polity v local knowledge and sharing much discussion about the role of the UN in education and culture Thomas suggested UESCO and specifically that One Man Biosphere Projectrepresents a culturally relative UN project. Leigh spoke of  Free University of San Francisco and the discussion of learning and culture in this movement and suggested more examples in Ubiquitous Learning paper... Thomas brought up the salience of human self determination and suggested the work of Taiaiake Alfred Leigh underscore the import that any polity "can be reigned in at any moment" if interfering with human self-determination, research for human collective future. Thomas suggested reading Boulding 1998 Culture
 * On developing ethical frameworks/design for NO/ONPhD Leigh wanted to explore permaculture principles for ethical research and praxis in on/nophd. Thomas brought up walking Historians/sociologists/anthropologists which Leigh likened to Participatory Action Researchers. Leigh suggested we approach on/nophd as autoenthographic researchers, asking NO/ON PhD participants to write position statements focused on ethics and and/as an introduction
 * Leigh is going to create a page on WV PhD - as relates Wikipedia, is to make sure that the range of approaches to PhD are documented, Thomas is LOOKING FORWARD to reading this or having a tag to research.

Steelemaley 18:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Badging ONPhD
I think we need to work out how to set up a Hangout as an open invite, and first in gets a seat at the table.

Peter Rawsthorne I met and agreed that, with regard to Badging an Open and Networked PhD, we need a process for people to demonstrate eligibility as a candidate (Joelle, I think we need your help here). A PhD Candidate is someone who has been accepted by a university. Many people put this acceptance on their CVs and the like, that they are a PhD Candidate (meaning a PhD project is in progress). We think ONPhDs need an equivalent to this, a process that can enable them to declare they are prepared to undertake an ONPhD project. We thing P2PU is a good venue for this. Peter and I are going to start a P2PU "course", based on a range of application forms and processes we have studied in formal universities, and hopefully Joelle's close guidance. The aim is to develop a P2PU "course" that serves as a guide for getting people prepared and articulate for setting themselves up for an ON PhD. The course would include things like:

 * Identifying and listing past research projects and publications - or equivalent
 * An expression of intent to undergo an ON PhD that demonstrates an understanding for the criteria for an ON PhD (documented online, openly, iteratively, etc (needs development)
 * An outline of the intended project for the ON PhD, and evidence that the candidate knows the present situation and context for their project (acknowledges prior work, has the seeds of a question and its justification - such as understanding the projects epistemological and ontological bases)
 * Evidence of ready offers of supervision from qualified researchers. Letters supporting their plan, evidence of reviews given on prior work, etc
 * Evidence of a preparedness to follow ethical boundaries in research work, with a process that obtains formal clearance deemed ideal

Peter is going to start the P2PU course, I'll follow him in when it's set up. Leighblackall (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

NoPhD
Perhaps by analogy to NoSQL? Anyway I think that presentation is more clear. Also, note that it has "worked" quite well in the past, for people like Dr Richard Stallman (who now has almost as many honorary doctorates as cats have lives)! I'm quite close to the end of a "real" Ph. D. so I don't want to get too distracted helping with this project, but I do have a lot of resources I could share, including this book and this paper. I did something vaguely similar for a "NoMA", which worked out OK, but I do think it would have benefitted from a bit more of a networked aspect. Arided (talk) 09:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Imitation of a real system
It seems to me, that openPh.D. is proposed as a copy of a real Ph.D. and my question here is, if we need it? I am wondering why a doctorate consists of entrance exams, passing different subjects, writing a dissertation thesis, ending exams, visiting another institution, and publishing an article or presentation at the conference. I guess the goal is to learn and demonstrate proficiency in a certain field and learn and demonstrate skills in doing research. But the question is to what degree? What should know about the Ph.D. and how does it differ from the knowledge of a docent (with academic title Doc.) or a professor (Prof.)? I am thinking about it, because the current system, at least in the Czech Republic, seems rigid, dysfunctional, and unclear, discouraging several promising scientists. Just comprehension, only 30% of Ph.D. of students complete their doctorate in the Czech Republic within the stipulated time (3 years), and I suspect that about 60 % do not complete it at all. So, to shed light on the reason why I would look for a new and better model of a doctorate with the use of modern technologies, I will present my negative experiences with the system in the Czech Republic:

 * 1) The biggest problem is, you don't have a supervisor. For my master's degree, I wanted to do ethnobotany or simply sociological research, but the supervisor who dealt with this repeatedly rejected me, so I ended up with another one and did laboratory research in a completely different field. Just after completing my master's degree, I didn't continue to Ph.D. because of the lack of money. I had to take care of my apartment and the money provided by the University, where not enough. During my studies, I wanted to study second Master's in research of Agriculture education, but I was not able to find a supervisor. Years after I still had of finding a supervisor, but I got one unfortunately without a knowledge of the topic. So I have changed University, but I cannot enroll in Ph.D. because I haven't found a supervisor for the topic I wanted to study (information science - information behavior, or artwork documentation). So I am doing research in the field, but without being backed by the university and someone asks me, why I am not doing Ph.D. - This would take me to a question, why Ph.D. candidate needs a supervisor? Probably to help with methodology, explain how to do a pier review, provide tools or finances and help to publish the first article. But I had an experience, that you may find yourself in a position, where a supervisor is providing nothing of this. So then the question is, what are the other ways, you can get these skills and opportunities?

 * 1) And secondly, concerning professional knowledge, I would say that it is possible to recharge it with a suitable offer of courses. Why would a person have to take subject exams at university and not be able to choose anywhere else? The problem is, for example, the low quality of teaching that I am experiencing during my current studies, the obsolescence of information in the given field, or the low professionalism and experience of teachers and researchers. So why not solve it with some open courses, or just an exam that verifies the student's knowledge and how he learns it is up to him? Because today you already de facto have to learn the subject yourself in your way and the school is not able to save you time and provide quality teaching.

 * 1) Third problem was finances. On the first attempt, I cannot enroll at all. On the second attempt, the supervisor was calling the research to be extended if the doctorate has been prolonged officially from 3 to 4 years, which increased the budget of the project, but the department was not providing a grant.

So, if I had to sum it up, I think that the requirements for doctors should be defined and then simple ways to meet those requirements should be suggested. It will solve. In the European Union, a semester-long stay at a research workplace in another country is now required, but it might be possible to negotiate here, because, for example, in terms of financial support, the Union also offers support for people who are not students at any school. And if we didn't want to copy even this, we can create a new standard for Ph.D., which will not strive to be included in the group of other Ph.D.s, but will gradually build its authority. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 10:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

 * @Juandev: I only recall one user doing this, and unfortunately, I can't remember who it was. They would be the one to work with on the proposal. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Doctor of Philosophy


title: File:Cw-0102.gif


text:
User talk:Aquielb

 Hello Aquielb, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.
 * Explore Wikiversity with the links to your left.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.
 * Follow Wikiversity on twitter (http://twiter.com/Wikiversity) and identi.ca (http://identi.ca/group/wikiversity).

You don't need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! Jtneill - Talk - c 23:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

 Hi , I am Percy. Nice to meet you. I love the beach, swimming, fishing, and I am currently doing some research at Wikiversity on oceanography. I am also learning to play piano. What do you like? Can I be your mascot?

title: User talk:Aquielb


title: File:Cw-0103.gif


title: File:Cw-0202.gif


title: File:Cw-0210.gif


title: File:Cw-0302.gif


title: File:Cw-0303.gif


title: File:Cw-0304.gif


title: File:Cw-0305.gif


title: File:Cw-0306.gif


title: File:Cw-0307.gif


title: File:Cw-0308.gif


title: File:Cw-0309.gif


title: File:Cw-0316.gif


title: File:Cw-0401.gif


title: File:Cw-0403.gif


title: File:Cw-0404.gif


title: File:Cw-0406.gif


title: File:Cw-0407.gif


title: File:Cw-0501.gif


title: File:Cw-0602.gif


title: File:Cw-0604.gif


title: File:Cw-0701.gif


title: File:Cw-0702.gif


title: File:Cw-0704.gif


text:
User talk:Krishnapriyagv

 Hello Krishnapriyagv, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.
 * Explore Wikiversity with the links to your left.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.
 * Follow Wikiversity on twitter (http://twiter.com/Wikiversity) and identi.ca (http://identi.ca/group/wikiversity).

You don't need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! --Leutha 00:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Krishnapriyagv


text:
User talk:Renz

 Hello Renz, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.
 * Explore Wikiversity with the links to your left.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.
 * Follow Wikiversity on twitter (http://twiter.com/Wikiversity) and identi.ca (http://identi.ca/group/wikiversity).

You don't need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! --Leutha 00:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Renz


text:
User talk:Hannibaal2

 Hello Hannibaal2, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.
 * Explore Wikiversity with the links to your left.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.
 * Follow Wikiversity on twitter (http://twiter.com/Wikiversity) and identi.ca (http://identi.ca/group/wikiversity).

You don't need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! --Leutha 00:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hannibaal2


text:
User talk:ClaireJones

 Hello ClaireJones, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.
 * Explore Wikiversity with the links to your left.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.
 * Follow Wikiversity on twitter (http://twiter.com/Wikiversity) and identi.ca (http://identi.ca/group/wikiversity).

You don't need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! --Leutha 00:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:ClaireJones


text:
User talk:WvuSara

 Hello WvuSara, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.
 * Explore Wikiversity with the links to your left.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.
 * Follow Wikiversity on twitter (http://twiter.com/Wikiversity) and identi.ca (http://identi.ca/group/wikiversity).

You don't need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! --Leutha 00:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:WvuSara


text:
User talk:Moose05

 Hello Moose05, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.
 * Explore Wikiversity with the links to your left.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.
 * Follow Wikiversity on twitter (http://twiter.com/Wikiversity) and identi.ca (http://identi.ca/group/wikiversity).

You don't need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! --Leutha 00:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Moose05


text:
User talk:Egm6341.s11.team3.ren

 Hello Egm6341.s11.team3.ren, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.
 * Explore Wikiversity with the links to your left.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.
 * Follow Wikiversity on twitter (http://twiter.com/Wikiversity) and identi.ca (http://identi.ca/group/wikiversity).

You don't need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! --Ottava Rima (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Egm6341.s11.team3.ren