User:Genipet/Differentiated instruction/UNDRand4 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Genipet


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Genipet/Differentiated_instruction?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

1.How much scholarly evidence did the group use on the page?

'''The scholarly evidence citations are adequate and tie into the differentiated instruction section well. A suggestion to strengthen the piece would be to add another scholarly reference to the bibliography.'''

Did they include at least three in-text citations?

The author has provided two in-text citations that I can see from two references.

What was the quality of the references?

'''The first reference is a journal article which is found on Science Direct. It appears to be a valid and scholarly source. The second is a book, which is a great quality reference.'''

Were summaries from the reference appropriate? (no plagiarism!)

The summaries appear to be the author's rewording and I do not see plagiarism.

2.How effectively did the group incorporate visuals into the page?

Did they include at least two images on the page and what was the quality of the images?

'''The author has posted one image of good quality. The image is appropriate and is the author's personal image. It fits well into the section. The image summarizes the components of differentiated instruction well.'''

3.How well written was the page?

Grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure

One sentence that is quite lengthy (I believe it is from the original author) could also be re-worded possibly taking out the phrase "and more"

"Students vary in culture, socioeconomic status, language, gender, motivation, ability/disability, learning styles, personal interests and more, and teachers must be aware of these varieties as they plan in accordance with the curricula."

'''Another suggestion would be to add numbers when discussing the two levels of differentiation. "1) the administration level, which focuses on the socioeconomic status and 2) the classroom level which looks at gender."'''

'''The portion that states, "Boelens et al. (2018). On the content level, teachers adapt..." could say, "Boelens et al. (2018), explains at the content level, teachers adapt..."'''

'''There is a spelling error "differention" and some places where commas could help break up the meanings of longer sentences. There is one capitalization error that I noticed, "Beginning" can be a lowercase "b."'''

Was the page written in a way that made it accessible for the public? (No jargon)The page was written without jargon and can be understood from a reader unfamiliar with education and the topic of differentiation.

Thanks for the feedbackGenipet (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)