User:BSI26/Mobile phone use in schools/BarbourLA Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

BSI26


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:BSI26/Mobile phone use in schools


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Mobile phone use in schools

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

Creating new sections for proponents and oppositions and removing that information for the lead gives the article a more balanced objective feel. To help with defining mobile phones the editor could consider keeping the hyperlink definitions in place.

Content

The content added is important for adding validity to the original article.

Consider keeping this sentence with negative contents and not in the lead to help keep the lead more neutral. ''“There is an acknowledgement that the use of mobile phones as a learning tool to conduct research and school related tasks does not provide the same level of distractions or issues for students. “''

An awkward incomplete sentence “920 Greek teachers were part of a study”. Could be re-written as “A study of 920 Greek teachers showed high agreement that…”

Spelling & grammar error “The cost for a ‘much” is from $15 to $30 per student.”

Tone and Balance

The content is neutral and direct in the sections on the positive and negatives. The two sections are fairly balanced.

The section “Tools used by schools” could be read as promotional because it presents only one tool and a tool that has a cost. The only citation is this section is in reference to this one product. Perhaps adding some other tools specifically those that are of the free and are more do-it-yourself in natures such and cubbies, divided boxes or hanging pocket charts.

Sources and References

Consider adding some definition links for example a link to “Cognitive theory of multimedia learning” to provide more context and detail.

If choosing to keep the tools section a link to the pouch could show it in use.

Under Positives the editor says “others” but the following citation is the same as the previous. Perhaps, “The study also found…”

The articles referenced were not hyperlinked. So that increases the work required to check sources. The articles referenced were all fairly recent but go back as far as 2012 which is considerable considering how fast technology and technology use changes.

There was one reference that was hyperlinked, and it went to a promotional business website.

There are an extra set of citation numbers in the reference section.

Organization

The article is well organized. The added Negative and Positive sections fit well within the original article giving the article a more balanced feel. I am not sure the word studies is needed before Negative and Positive Impacts in the subheadings, partly because positive impacts only cites 2 studies and the content of both reference the studies explicitly and partly because the main article already has the heading “Studies”.

Images and Media

No media or image was added.

The tools section could use a photo of the pouch and/or other tools teachers use to manage mobile phones to help the reader understand.

Overall impressions

The topic is interesting but, I am surprised to see no reference to equity or equality in access to mobile technology and the impacts of that on students.  I am also curious about how students use their personal devices in class to aid with their assignments and what effect that has on learning and attitudes in the classroom of both the teachers and the students.

Overall, I think making positive and negative impacts each a section is an excellent edit addition to the original page.