User:Kbarlow18/sandbox

Peer Review 1: Educational Psychology

Follow their lead

·      Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? Yes, this is very well written

·      Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? Yes

·      '''Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant?'''

No I think the lead is the best part of the article, it is very clear and gives great information to the reader. Draws the reader in.

A Clear Structure

·      '''Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?'''

I think the article is organized perfectly, it starts with how educational psychology was invented and then continues on with what it entails which I think is a great way to do it.

A Balancing Act


 * Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? I personally think there is too much information about the inventors of this type of psychology, it seems to take away from what the article is about and puts to much information on them. I think if those sections were shortened, it would help the article to flow a lot better.
 * Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? No I do not think anything is missing.
 * Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No it does not.

Neutral content

·      Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? No I feel like this article is very neutral

·      '''Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y."'''

This article does have a few "most" words in it but it is mostly about the inventors of educational psychology and not about the subject itself so I do not feel like it is make a personal conclusion that would be inappropriate for the neutrality of the article.

·      '''Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..."''' No I did not see anything like that.

·      '''Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.''' I do not feel like anything is too negative or too positive about the article and the subject while reading it.

Reliable Sources


 * Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? There are a lot of sources to back up this article and from what I can tell, they all come from journal articles and reliable sources.
 * Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. Like I said above, this article has a lot of different sources and some of the sources are used more than once in the article but I feel like it is very well balanced.
 * Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! No I did not see anything that was sourced incorrectly.

Peer Review 2: Sensory Rooms

Follow their lead

·      Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? It is short but it is clear about the importance of the subject.

·      Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? I feel like more could be added to lead about what it will be talking about in the article. It is very short and doesn't give all the information that will be discussed.

'''·      Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant?''' Yes, like I stated above, much more could be added in the lead to draw the reader in and to inform them what is going to be talked about throughout the rest of the article.

A Clear Structure

·      '''Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?''' There needs to be more organization to this article, perhaps more paragraph headings so we know when they are referring to a knew thing. There is not really a necessary order it needs to have, it just needs to be more organized for easier reading.

A Balancing Act


 * Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? The main problem with this article is its length. So much information can be added to each paragraph, they are too short and not informative enough.
 * Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? I am sure there is a lot of research done about the effectiveness or the negatives of sensory rooms that could be talked about in this article. It is very lacking in credible sources.
 * Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No, there is not enough information in the article so far to possibly take a stance.

Neutral content

·      Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? No

'''·      Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y."''' No

·      '''Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..."''' No not in that way but it definitely needs more sources in general.

'''·      Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.''' No

Reliable Sources


 * Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? The sources don't seem very reliable, they seem to all be from websites and not so much published journal articles.
 * Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. No, but they will need to keep adding more reliable sources as they add more information to this article.
 * Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! Yes, they need a lot more sources to show that the stuff they are saying is true.

Peer Review 3: Virtual Reality

Follow their lead

·      Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? Yes the lead is very well written and very engaging.

·      Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? Yes, I believe it is very informative.

·      '''Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant?''' I think the biggest thing that could be shortened is the "History" section. It kind of takes over the article and I believe that the other sections are more important to the overall article.

A Clear Structure

·      '''Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?''' Yes, I think that the sections are organized just fine, there is no certain way an article like this should be organized so I think it can stay the way it is.

A Balancing Act


 * Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? Yes, Like I state above, I believe that the history section could be shortened because it is very long and I feel like it is not as essential to this article as the other sections are.
 * Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? I believe this article did a great job in covering what it should have about the topic of virtual reality.
 * Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No it does not.

Neutral content

·      Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? No it feels very neutral.

·      Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y."

·      '''Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..."''' None that I found.

·      '''Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.''' No it doesn't.

Reliable Sources


 * Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? They seem to all come from reliable sources/journals.
 * Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. I see that only a few articles are used more than once on this page but I don't feel like it is unbalanced because of it.
 * Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! This article has many sources so I don't see any statements that are not accurately sourced.

Suggestibility

Children have a developing mind that is constantly being filled with new information from sources all around them. This predisposes children towards higher levels of suggestibility, and as such children are an important area of suggestibility investigation. Researchers have identified key factors, both internal and external, that are strong markers for suggestibility in children.

Internal[edit source]

 * Age: Children have a remarkable ability to remember events in their lives. The real variability between ages in suggestibility is the amount of detail provided for an event. Memory detail will be great for older children. Some younger children may need help recalling past events with the help of an adult. The problem as it relates to suggestibility is when children, and even adults, blend previous knowledge of similar experiences into their recollection of a single event. Children, particularly younger children, are prone to including details that are similar yet unrelated to the specific event showing that the age of a person is critical in their susceptibility to influence.
 * Prior knowledge: As mentioned before, the possession of prior knowledge that relates to an event can be particularly dangerous when dealing with child suggestibility. Prior knowledge, as it relates to suggestibility is the use of past experiences to help reconstruct past or current events. Prior knowledge of an event can actually be effective at producing accurate recall of a particular situation, but can also be equally as effective at producing false memories. Research showed that when presented with a previously familiar situation, children were likely to falsely recall events as if they had happened.
 * Gist extraction: Although children are extremely likely to recall false memories when past events are similar to a current event, they will also recall false memory details that are seemingly unrelated to the event. Researchers named this phenomenon global gist, which is a representation that identifies connections across multiple events. Children will falsely recall information that fits with their representation of the events around them.

External[edit source]

 * Interviewer bias: Interviewer bias is the opinion or prejudice on the part of an interviewer, which is displayed during the interview process and thus affects the outcome of the interview. This happens when interviewers pursue only a single hypothesis that supports what they already think, and ignore any details that counter their hypothesis. The goal is not to get the truth, but to simply corroborate what is already believed. Interviewer bias is commonly experienced when extracting information from children.
 * Repeated questions: It has been shown that asking children the same question over and over again in an interview will often cause the child to reverse their first answer, especially in yes or no questions. It is the child's belief that since the question is being repeated that they must have not answered correctly and need to change their answer.
 * Interviewer's tone: Children are extremely perceptive of people's tones, especially in an interview situation. When an interviewer's tone dictates the questioning, a child is likely to construct memories of past events when they actually have no memory of that event. An example would be that when a positive tone is used, it has shown to produce more detailed accounts of events. However, it has also been shown to produce false information intended to appease the interviewer.
 * Peer interactions: Children's accounts of events can be greatly distorted by information from their peers. In some cases, children who were not present for an event will later recall witnessing the event as well as details about the event. This information come from hearing about the event as described by their peers. These children may speak up in order to feel included.
 * Repeating misinformation: Repeating misinformation is simply when an interviewer gives a child incorrect details of an event. This technique is used over several interviews and occurs several times within a single interview. It has been shown to have a great effect on the accuracy of a child's recollection of an event, and eventually, the misinformation will be included in the child's account of a given event.

Extreme events[edit source]
In extreme events such as sexual abuse, extreme anxiety or mistreatment, children can in fact be greatly subjected to suggestibility. It is possible that a child may recall something that didn't actually happen or they are so traumatized that they do not want to think about what actually happened.

Little research has been carried out into the effects of anxious mood at the time of either the encoding of misleading post‐event information or the time of its possible retrieval, on subsequent suggestibility. Memory accuracy for non‐suggestible items was unaffected by the anxious mood induction. With respect to suggestibility, there was a strong effect of misleading information. This is just one example of how a highly emotional situation such as an anxiety attack can create suggestibility misconception.

Another example of research is that memory, suggestibility, stress arousal, and trauma-related psychopathology were examined in 328 3- to 16-year-olds involved in forensic investigations of abuse and neglect. Children's memory and suggestibility were assessed for a medical examination and venipuncture. Being older and scoring higher in cognitive functioning were related to fewer inaccuracies. In addition, cortisol level and trauma symptoms in children who reported more dissociative tendencies were associated with increased memory error. This again proves how a stressful or traumatic experience in young children can be affected by suggestibility.