User talk:Abbyjayne2/sandbox

Overall the article looks good and encompasses a balanced, well-rounded representation. However, there is a section on gendered participation that sounds like a lot of opinion. Some of the research may be opinionated but it should be more fact-based rather than conjecture. Another thing I noticed was in the portion titled Participation Gap, a direct quote from Jenkins was placed there. My understanding is that there should be no direct quotes in Wikipedia but that everything should be put into the poster's own words.

There are also some sections that should be enhanced and better developed. Those include ethics challenge, transparency problem, potential in education, forms of participatory culture and history.

After searching for this subject in the Gonzaga University Library and was able to find a few sources directly related to the subject. So, I moved my search to Google where I found more material but mostly websites. I then searched Amazon where I was able to find a lot of work by Henry Jenkins. So, I looked through the current article's references and found that Jenkins' work had already been cited. I plan on using Jenkins as a source as he seems to have done much work on the subject but also plan on using the following sources:

Abbyjayne2 (talk) 03:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Participation gap
This category is linked to the issue of the digital divide, the concern with providing access to technology for all learners. The movement to break down the digital divide has included efforts to bring computers into classrooms, libraries, and other public places. These efforts have been largely successful, but as Jenkins et al. argue, the concern is now with the quality access to available technologies. They explain:

"What a person can accomplish with an outdated machine in a public library with mandatory filtering software and no opportunity for storage or transmission pales in comparison to what [a] person can accomplish with a home computer with unfettered Internet access, high band-width, and continuous connectivity.(Current legislation to block access to social networking software in schools and public libraries will further widen the participation gap.) The school system's inability to close this participation gap has negative consequences for everyone involved. On the one hand,those youth who are most advanced in media literacies are often stripped of their technologies and robbed of their best techniques for learning in an effort to ensure a uniform experience for all in the classroom. On the other hand, many youth who have had no exposure to these new kinds of participatory cultures outside school find themselves struggling to keep up with their peers. (Jenkins et al. pg. 15)"

The difference between students' access to older technologies with limited capacites that are being phased out and will soon become obsolete to newer, updated home based systems that offer unlimited, uninterrupted and speedy access. Without access, the participation gap is widening and many of the students are falling behind. Having access inside and outside of the classroom levels the playing field and standardizes the level of competency that students should have attained.

Passing out the technology free of charge is not enough to ensure youth and adults learn how to use the tools effectively. Most American youths now have at least minimal access to networked computers, be it at school or in public libraries, but "children who have access to home computers demonstrate more positive attitudes towards computers, show more enthusiasm, and report more enthusiast and ease when using computer than those who do not (Page 8 Wartella, O'Keefe, and Scantlin (2000)). As the children with more access to computers gain more comfort in using them, the less tech-savvy students get pushed aside. It is important to note that it is more than a simple binary at work here, as working-class youths may still have access so some technologies (e.g. gaming consoles) while other forms remain unattainable. This inequality would allow certain skills to develop in some children, such as play, while others remain unavailable, such as the ability to produce and distribute self-created media.

avanschoorl-hodge (talk) I appreciate the thought you've put into this adaptation of the original article. I honestly do not have a ton of feedback because this has been great but I will caution that some of the quotes can border on seeming to be more opinion than fact. One that stands out is the first Jenkins quote/section. —Preceding undated comment added 05:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I did notice a lot of quotes in the article that seem more opinion than fact as well as direct quotes. In addition, there seemed to be a lot of repetition of information as well as a lot of "fluff" as opposed to facts. I plan on simplifying the content and scaling it back some to make it more concise and clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbyjayne2 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Article Review
The article I read was Communication studies. It was a relatively short article that did not include much information. To be more informative, it could have included such information as the classes that would be required in a communications program as well as the career possibilities that might be available to a person who earned a degree in communication studies. The article was neutral in tone. There was nothing that made it seem like there was any hidden agenda beyond presenting the facts. The history of communications studies was not adequate and didn't include much background. The sources and links worked and represented what was there but there seemed to be quite a long list of professional communication associations and I'm just not sure where exactly that was supposed to fit it. The talk pages did not include much input and the effort in general seemed lacking in content and participation. Overall, it was not a helpful or informative article. It looked like it was possibly the beginning of an effort to write an article but fell short. Abbyjayne2 (talk) 04:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)