User talk:A reynolds/sandbox

Peer Review
Hey Abbie, looks good from what I can see. The only thing I can see is try italicizing the "d"s when you discuss effect sizes in your third paragraph. Dainaloo (talk) 01:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

A reynolds, You have a good starting reference and idea. Now, how are you going to develop it? Which major aspect of Vygotsky's work can you make a case for using EBP? You are not writing a lengthy paper, just a few paragraphs that are accurate and well cited. Propose one or two and let's have a dialog.

Also, please go to our course page and link the page you will expand in the student section at the bottom of the page.PsycTeacher (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

PsycTeacher -

This is the direction I've been researching thus far - using screeners to assess a child's ZPD then from that point using scaffolding to improve a "slow learner's" abilities. I like the idea of pairing with a more advanced peer the best. What are your thoughts? A reynolds (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

You are progressing. You had good ideas when we met the other day. Just keep working to develop a narrative in a few paragraphs to explain the application of ZPD in an applied setting.PsycTeacher (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I think your article is really well-written. However, the information is kind of complicated. Can you define/explain ZPD a little more maybe? Maybe you are already doing this, but that's really my only criticism. You explained CBM really well, and your paragraph about peer feedback is really interesting! I think you're doing a great job, Abbie. :) Hc horton (talk) 04:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Additional feedback
Hi A reynolds. Nice work on your article expansion draft. Just bear in mind that you're writing for general audiences, not specialists. A Wikipedia article is supposed to discuss the topic itself, not discuss the technical literature about the topic; when you write something like: In one study, there were strong positive effects on both the students who were being tutored (d = 0.63), and the students who were tutors (d = 0.58) you're likely to go over the head of many readers. Simply leaving out "(d = 0.63)" and "(d = 0.58)" makes that sentence much easier for the average person. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey, am I approved to move to the main page? A reynolds (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Final Review
I made some grammatical and syntax changes. You tend to use too many words and passive voice. There was a spot where I was concerned that you treated curriculum-based measures as normative measures for comparing kid to kid instead of kid to a curriculum. We can develop local norms, but that did not seem to be the context, so I changed it a bit. Nice selection of the material to include. Good references and citations. You are READY to move your content into the main article! PsycTeacher (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)