User:TeachTESOL/English-language learner/UNDRand4 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

TeachTESOL


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TeachTESOL/English-language_learner?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?

From what I see, the reader's bolded additions included scholarly evidence.

Did they include at least three in-text citations?

The writer included more than three in text citations.

What was the quality of the references?

'''The first reference is the Cult of Pedagogy website article written by Jennifer Gonzalez. When running it through Google Scholar, there were other journal articles citing this as a reference as well. The second reference is from the EAL journal, which is a reputable reference. The third reference is a literature review from Brown University, also an acceptable source.'''

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

'''The additions to the article appear to be in the Enriching the Classroom Environment tab and the Strategies for Supporting English-Language Learners in the Classroom and Beyond headings. In the first heading, the reference summary citing Teaching Diverse Learners uses the phrase, "it is imperative" possibly suggesting a little bias. It may help to change the word imperative to "suggested." It is great that the references were added to this section as there appeared to be no previous citations in this section. The two added references are from the same source, so it might help to add another reference in the Enriching the Classroom Environment section.'''

The reference summaries for the subheading appear very well written and appropriate.

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

The visuals both appear to be at appropriate locations within the article.

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

'''There are three visuals. The first visual is a picture of US President George Bush signing the No Child Left Behind Act. The second visual is in the scaffolding section of the article and is an illustration of the Zone of Proximal Development, also in an excellent location. The third visual is a computer visual to highlight the importance of technology for teaching diverse learners. The first two visuals are verified on Wikimedia Commons and the third appears to be the work of the author.'''

3.How well written was the page?

Grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure

There do not appear to be any grammatical errors and it is well written.

Was the page written in a way that made it accessible for the public? (No jargon)

'''Overall the contributions to this article are beneficial to the reader and appear to be without bias. Well done on the additions.'''