Talk:Good language learner studies

Rewrite

The entire "A good language learner" section is basically unsourced, and reads more like a how-to than an encyclopedia article. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with you that it is unsourced. (Maybe the sources were added after you left this comment?) On the contrary, it appears to be well-sourced and well-written. I do agree that it is not written like an encyclopaedia entry though. It reads like a good academic essay, and reading it I think that the people who wrote it are familiar with language pedagogy and SLA. The trouble is that academic essay writing is not allowed by Wikipedia policies, specifically that of allowing no original research. I agree that all the parts that recommend a specific course of action need to either be removed, or be attributed to published authors.

In addition, I think the section is exceeding the scope of this page. The good language learner studies were a specific group of studies dealing with the properties that "good" language learners exhibit. I originally wrote this page as a description of these specific studies, and I used a reliable published source to determine which studies were regarded as being within this category. It is really outside Wikipedia's remit for us to decide by ourselves which studies were GLL studies - we really need to stick to the sources to decide how much this article can cover. I see that a lot of the new content is about motivation. Maybe the authors of the content would be open to moving some of that content to the article that we already have, motivation in second language learning? I'll also be happy to answer any questions people might be have about Wikipedia policy and how it relates to this material. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, there were no sources when I said that. It still doesn't make the section any more encyclopedic. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)