Language Development Study at Harvard

Fig.1: Recruitment poster for study

ABSTRACT

Background: Last week, Junior and I participated in a Language Development Study. The study's goal: to check for the correlation between vocabulary and speed of learning new words. The study's subjects: babies ages 16 months to 2 years old, and their parental unit/s.

Methods: The study was divided into three parts: a game between the research assistant (RA) and the subject; the parent reading a story and teaching a new word to the subject; and the subject watching videos and identifying the correct object via voice prompts. The primary endpoint was the subject's ability to accurately learn new words.

Results: Junior learned the new words, but only after two or three errors.

Conclusions: We got a First 100 Words book out of the deal, so now he'll learn even more words! Also, a baby's having a large vocabulary (i.e. 30+ single words) may be predictive of the ability to quickly learn new words.

INTRODUCTION

Junior has been contributing to science from a very young age. So far, he has been a very obliging control infant in a longitudinal allergy study at Healing Peanuts, Inc., and a grumpy and unwilling one for a baby MEG (magnetoencephalography) study, also at HPI. His latest adventure took him across the river, to my old stomping grounds of Harvard Square. This study promised to be more interactive, if less remunerative.

The Language Development Study is conducted by the Rowe Lab, which focuses on "the role of social interactions in children’s cognitive development, primarily language and literacy development from birth to age five." (source: Rowe Lab website) Their offices are large and equipped with child toys and furniture, and the RAs who worked with us were clearly very experienced at working with kids. I had to stop Junior several times from wandering off to follow one of the RAs or from checking out all the toys stashed in various offices.

METHODS

Patient population

Babies ages 16-24 months are recruited for the study. They must be from households that speak English at least 50% of the time. 

Study Management

At the beginning of the study, parents complete a 10-minute questionnaire about demographic information, words known by their baby, and an intriguing set of questions about which quality they valued more in children (e.g. independence versus respect for elders, being considerate versus being well-behaved). During this time, the RAs establish rapport with the baby by pointing out objects in the room such as the animal stickers on the wall -- testing the subject's vocabulary in the process.

Then the study proper begins, composed of three parts. Part 1A consists of a game between an RA and the child. The RA hides a sticker under one of three different-colored cups, and the subject must choose the correct cup to retrieve the prize. In Part 1B, the RA literally adds another layer to the game by covering the cups in a scarf, then taking it off before asking the subject to select the right cup. Meanwhile, the other RA records the proceedings in another room.

During Part 2, the RA leaves after giving the parent a book with instructions to read it to the baby ("In English, please, so we understand," I was told), and to teach the little one a new word. It's a made-up word attached to a picture of Jigglypuff, although it would have been extremely entertaining to teach Junior how to say the Pokemon's actual name. I suspect "jee-puh" is what would have resulted.

Anyway, Part 2 takes 8 minutes, the book has no words so the parent has to explain the story on the fly, and the whole thing is also recorded.

In Part 3A, the dyad is taken to another room with a chair and a wall TV mounted with a webcam. The parent puts on shades so as not to lead the baby's gaze with his/her own. The baby, on the parent's lap, looks at the screen and is shown two objects. A voice prompts the baby to look at one of the objects, and accuracy is tracked using eye movements.

After 5 minutes of video, Part 3B begins. Both RAs come in to introduce two new objects to the subject using oddly-shaped stuffed toys. One is "Pimo" and the other is "Moku," and both come out of a box one at a time. After several repeated showings of each object, a long board with five stuffed toys velcroed to it -- including a Pimo and a Moku -- is shown to the subject, who is asked to pick out one of the new objects s/he has just been taught about, and to hand it to the RA. This continues until the baby consistently matches the object and the name.

Part 3C is the same as 3A, but with Pimo and Moku added to the video. This last part only takes 2 minutes.

Statistical Analysis

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

RESULTS

In Part 1A, Junior was able to find the sticker 2 times out of 4 (50%). In Part 1B, the sticker was also found twice during 4 attempts (50%).

In Part 2, Junior demonstrated his learning of the new word by speaking it after prompting from the RA.

Quantitative results for Parts 3A and C are unavailable at this time (since I had my eyes covered), but both RAs were very impressed by Junior's ability to sit still during the entire run of both videos.

For Part 3B, Junior was able to pick out Pimo and Moku after 2 failed attempts.

DISCUSSION

Junior came into the study with a large vocabulary, which I deduced from the initial questionnaire that asked me to check the boxes next to words he already knew. He was able to learn new words after a few errors, which seems indicative of a positive correlation between size of vocabulary and speed at learning new words.

More importantly, both RAs gushed that Junior was the absolute best participant they've had so far, and could he please come back, which morally obligated me to take some of their fliers and post it in my building to help their recruitment efforts.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was supported in part by the MBTA, which took us to the test site and this time did not subject us to elevators that smelled of pee.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES

None.

---

TL;DR: Junior and I had a lot of fun at the Language Development Study!

This post brought to you by perfect spring weather!

Don't Join the Harvard Club

Do you have standards? Then don't join the Harvard Club.

Sure, the Downtown Club offers beautiful views of the Charles River and downtown Boston. Yes, the food is delicious and the service is unparalleled. And I'm sure the Main Clubhouse is a veritable hall of delights.

But their member services staff can't get their act together. Allow me to expound.

At Fiancé's urging, in mid-October I electronically handed over a few hundred bucks for the privilege of eating out and name-dropping. Were I one year older, I would have had to pony up over a thousand bucks. Fortunately, I am still 30.

A couple of weeks pass by. Nothing from the Harvard Club. In November, I email a member services person. He apologizes and says the new member packet is on its way. In the meantime, I am to use the guest member number 666* to enter the premises. Fiancé and I still need to submit photo IDs every time we want to go up the Club. The guards at the front desk of One Federal have to open the turnstiles for us. Okay, no problem.

A couple more weeks go by. At that point, we'd had a dinner there and enjoyed it. I wrote to the member services person again to check in about the new member packet. No response.

The next day, I received an email from another member services person. "Dear Peter," it began. (If you do not know me, dear reader, I assure you I am not a Peter.) The email gently reminded me that since my member dues were so low, I had to spend a minimum amount at the Club every quarter.

I responded politely that I am Fragrant Elephant, the member, and I'll definitely come again to give them more of my money. I also asked when I might expect to receive my new member packet. Again, no response.

So off we went on the day before Thanksgiving. Lunch was terrific. The wait staff were as superb as ever. I asked the girl at the front desk about a new member packet, and she directed me to member services. I could not even lol at this irony. I asked about maybe getting an ID so we could just breeze in next time. She pulled out a folder, wrote my name on a card, and handed it to me.

I gave it back. "My name is not Elephant Fragrant," I told her. "It's Fragrant Elephant."

She said the system had my name wrong, and she changed it on the computer. She gave me a new card and told me to get a barcode from downstairs.

Next, I wanted to know if I could change my payment information, since I'm there already. (I had recently changed my credit card no thanks to a scam Chinese website and my own idiocy.) When you eat at the Club, they don't give you a receipt -- they bill your credit card. So they needed my new info if they wanted me to pay for the awesome lobster casserole in my stomach. "No, just do it online," said the receptionist. "Use your [REDACTED] and your [REDACTED] to log in."

I logged in and discovered that "hideous" is the aesthetic for the Harvard Club intranet design. Turns out I can only change my credit card info by authorizing the Club to automatically charge me monthly. I am leery of this option, since I just received a bill that demanded an extra thirty bucks for not meeting my minimum. I guess they didn't count our dinner, because Fiancé paid for it. Alas, chivalry! Thy days art over!

In the Harvard Club's defense, it looks and sounds really fancy. But like the University, it seems to have its share of absentminded professionals.

In conclusion: come for the food and service, flee from the management.

This rant is brought to you by Three Drinks Thursdays.

*666 is not actual member number

Harvard Shame

More like Harvard Fail. As in, I had an Epic Fail while I was at Harvard. But not when I was a student there. Nay, my life as a an MA candidate was uneventful, and I did indeed receive the coveted, oversized Latin diploma that I proudly keep in its giant red envelope under my cat's scratch lounge. Clearly, the sight of Sheba sharpening her claws in a cute little rhythm on the cardboard will deter diploma thieves. But I digress.

"What's that? You want this diploma under my scratch lounge?

Come and get it!"

A couple of years ago, I was invited to come back to campus and be part of a panel about careers that my old program, Regional Studies, was running. I was totally stoked but pretended to not care. I'd just come back from a summer stint in Bangladesh, and I figured I'd chat casually about what I do. As a result, I - DID - NOT - PREPARE. What a HUGE mistake!!!

The big day came, and I scooted excitedly to the CGIS (Center for Government and International Studies) building, where I used to take classes. I saw some folks that I'd had drinks with. Cool, cool. The other two panelists were women, like myself (honest! I'm a woman!), and once they started talking I knew I was dealing with quintessential Harvard Achievers. Worse, I was in a panel with them! One talked about knowing exactly what she wanted to do while she was in the program, and then going ahead to the Middle East and doing just that, rising to a high position rapidly through her determination and competence. The other woman was in the freaking CIA and had brought recruitment fliers. WAH! WAH!

So when my turn came, I awkwardly told the room the truth: that I had no idea what I wanted to do at all, ever, in life; that I just fell into my job; that I'd just been abroad; blah blah. Then I even more awkwardly tried to compensate by saying that school networks help out, citing my Middlebury Alumni Network (which I knew College Boyfriend used like a crazy person in his ruthless quest to become an investment banker), and the fact that a fellow Harvard alum helped me get my job. So, uh, people, um, if you ever, like, don't know what to do in life, I mean, in terms of careers, someone will help out. Don't have a plan or anything. You don't even need to, like, think about it. Someone will step in. Your connections will guarantee you placement in an office somewhere. It worked for me, right? Right?

(crickets) (unblinking Harvard students and program coordinators)

So in conclusion, I fled the room as soon as the panel finished taking questions (mostly they asked the CIA analyst about her flyers). I comforted myself later by saying that the people in my program were mostly foreign nationals already employed by their governments anyway, why did they need the career panel? My humiliation was further compounded when, in a fit of politeness, I thanked the panel moderator for the opportunity to speak -- and she didn't bother replying, she was that disgusted with my lameness.

I'm not exaggerating here. I went out for a drink with one of the people who went to the talk, and he said my job sounded "flaky" and I was switching jobs, right? I wish.

THE SHAME! THE SHAAAAAAAAAAME!!!

On the bright side: I did switch jobs! Two whole years later! And I learned two valuable lessons: one, be prepared, and two, if you're not, the world did not end, get over yourself already. Geez.

The end.