User:Moralej2/Sheltered instruction/MoreResearchInformation Peer Review

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * 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.)

Lead
 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead does provide a general introduction to sheltered instruction, however it could be more specific. It would be more beneficial to the reader if the lead defined sheltered instruction more effectively. The lead doesn't offer anything that isn't offered in the article, but could offer a bit more.

Content


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Is the content added up-to-date? Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Sheltered instruction, and thus this article, does address an underrepresented population. English Language Learner (ELL) students have been historically underserved by schools and benefit from sheltered instruction. The 'Origin of Sheltered Instruction' section offers the reader a helpful definition of terms, including the history behind the use of the term sheltered. The authors note that sheltered instruction is synonymous to Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE). The development of either was not discussed, however. The 'Teacher Preparation' section is unfortunately lacking in specifics. The authors mention foundational knowledge and instructional deliver, but offer little insight into how those relate to sheltered instruction. The sentence discussing the No Child Left Behind Act and its funding for English Language acquisition programs would benefit from examples and detail. In the 'Strategies' section various strategies and formats are discussed, however there are citations needed on the first two paragraphs. Two of the citations used (citations 5 and 6) are test preparation books and not a research publications. A large part of this section is a copied list from a book. While this is specific and perhaps one of the more helpful sections to the reader, it is not paraphrased or explained by the authors. The section on 'Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol' is more detailed than the other sections, listing specific activities, components, and features. It is also more appropriately cited, although the same test preparation materials are reused.

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The content added is neutral. Perhaps more background on the need for sheltered instruction would highlight relevant inequalities in education and how students who are English Language learners are affected. Overall this article shies away from discussing race and ethnicity, which leaves information gaps.

Sources and References


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Are the sources current? Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Check a few links. Do they work? Multiple sources are test preparation materials, which are not ideal sources. It is difficult to confirm the accuracy of the citation content and whether it reflects the intent of the source as the test preparation materials are not publicly available. The SIOP section citations accurately reflect the source material. The same source cited in citation number 5 is used again as citation number 10. The same source is used for citations number 6 and 8. The link for Citation number 4 does not work and is misspelled. There are multiple 'citation needed' notifications in the 'Teacher preparation' and 'Strategies' sections. There is no evidence that any diverse authors were used in the citations.

Organization


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The Sheltered Instruction article does not include many grammatical or spelling errors and is easy to read. The sections of the article make sense, although all of them could have used more substance and detail.

Overall impressions


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? What are the strengths of the content added? How can the content added be improved? The reader would benefit from some research findings around Sheltered Instruction which discuss the need and perhaps some research results from studies.