User talk:Chelscarter/sandbox

Peer Review (Mckenzie Highfill)

Overall, your draft stands out as having clear format that is easy to follow, and reliable sources that support well balanced, neutral information. There are just a few improvements that can be made to help round out the topic and make it easier to understand.

The structure, while easy to follow and seemingly well thought out, is very specific because of the case study focus. This addresses content as well, but adding more general information about Language Immersion, such as how prevalent immersion schools are, and some of the social perceptions and psychological effects of immersion would help the reader get a better idea of the topic as a whole. The Contexts sections helps fill in some of this general information, and the bullet pointed structure of this section is very easy to follow.

A positive aspect of the case study focus is that it helps add to the balanced nature of information coverage, and there seems to be a neutral point of view, because of the factual nature of the case study and evidence-based information. However, because of this factual focus, the social and psychological aspects are missing. I mentioned possibly covering the social perceptions and psychological effects, and I noticed one of your included sources is “Language and Identity in a Dual Immersion School,” so it would be great to touch on that identity aspect as well. Otherwise, the only information I would as is a brief distinction from bilingual education and dual language instruction.

Lastly, while there is a good start in your list of references, it looks like you are still in the progress with some of the in text citations, especially in the Outcomes section. I am sure you were planning on correcting this before editing the article, and all of the sources appear to be present, but make sure to add the years along with the author for the citations that are present.

McKHigh (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)McKenzie Highfill

Peer Review (Anna Lee)

In general, your draft seems to be on the right track. Your neutral language and adherence to the facts come across clearly, and do a lot to pull the draft together. Your reference list is substantial and for the most part you're doing a good job citing consistently and sticking to specific assertions (except for that one instance of "studies show...").

The opening section isn't as clear as it could be - it's bogged down by terms that are clearly important to the topic but are being used like buzzwords instead of being incorporated in support of the overview being given (ex. "Additional goals are the cognitive advantages of bilingualism"). Overall, the article would probably benefit from streamlining some of the phrasing so it sounds less like academic writing.

The sections you have so far clearly point to the fact that you're working to provide a balanced look at the topic - I get a definite sense of that even from the draft, which is good. Giving specific case studies does a lot to ground the article, and definitely makes it more engaging. At the same time, though, it's also important to synthesize that information into fuller and more general statements where you can, maybe in sections like "Background" and "Contexts." Otherwise, the emphasis on individual studies scattered around the world feels a little piecemeal. I also don't see why "Case studies" and "Cases by country" are separate sections.

Axlee (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review (Alexa Schleien)

I will first review the article as a whole, and then I will give you each section-specific feedback. I look forward to reading your lead section, once you have fully developed your article. The overall structure of your article is clear and I like the changes that you have made from the original article. The structure would benefit from a clearer distinction between "Case Studies" and "Cases by Country." The subsections are quite helpful, especially in the "Contexts" section. Additionally, the article is well balanced; you have each contributed a fair amount and the sections are relatively equal in depth. The coverage is extremely neutral and void of bias and your citations look excellent, except in one section that I have documented below.

Background - Emily Peterson

I agree with Grace that the opening sentence is difficult to understand. I would suggest rewording the sentence to read, “There are two distinct types of immersion programs. The first type of program has the goal of fostering bilingualism, while the other….” I also urge you to review the goals carefully; is the goal really to develop the L2 without preserving the L1? Furthermore, as you go into detail about the first type of immersion program, it would be best to develop a section (backed by research) about the second type of immersion experience. Once this has been accomplished, I recommend separating these three sections (introduction, Program Type 1, Program Type 2) into three distinct paragraphs for maximum clarity. You may even choose to make these subsections, depending on how much information is added.

Contexts - Chelsea Carter

The name change from “formats” to “contexts” is extremely effective. I would also rename the subsections “Type of Instruction” (perhaps “Quantity of Instruction in L2”) and “Classroom Instruction” (“Types of Classroom Instruction” is better suited here). Additionally, your in-text citations need years (ex – Cummins, 2009). The first sentence in “Instruction Abroad” should be clarified and syntactically flipped (“Study Abroad is a well known travel experience” or “Study abroad is a well known opportunity for language immersion”).

Outcomes - Natalie Protz

This section opens with an extremely vague “Studies have shown.” I took a look at the source that you have cited at the end of the paragraph and recommend that you search for the original studies that are cited at the bottom of the learnnc webpage. Once you have read this material, you can eliminate “studies have shown” and cite specific information from each study. This will not only clear up the fog, but will also help add depth to your paragraph! In your Canadian case study, begin the paragraph with the actual name of the program (ie: “Another well-known bilingual immersion program is found at the Natalie Protz Immersion School in Montreal, Canada). It may also be helpful for readers to have access to a hyperlink to the cognitive effects of bilingualism page at the end of this paragraph.

Cases by Country - Jalynn Harris

The subsections on Malawai & Zambia and Mexico are particularly effective because they incorporate research studies. I would incorporate more studies, if available, into the other sections. In “Malawai & Zambia,” I would eliminate the sentence, “Results showed several things,” and replace it with, “Results showed that there was no significant… and…” I also recommend that you include a section on the Middlebury College Programs in the US, as these are well-known (perhaps the most well-known) immersion programs in the country.

Alexasch (talk) 03:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review (Grace Gunter)

The first observation that I made about your draft as a group is that there is a good, reliable reference list in progress. It appears that your group is drawing from scholarly and reputable sources to compose your draft. In addition to your sources, I also noticed that your group has organized subsections differently than the original article, which looks much better. I found the original article hard to follow in terms of organization, so your group is on the right track.

I had some trouble following the lead section. As I began reading your draft, I found myself reading the first sentence over a few times. I don't think it flows as well as it could. Your sentence reads, "Traditionally, the term ‘immersion’ has two distinct meanings with regards to bilingual education with the main difference being the overall goal of the educational instruction: fostering bilingualism within a group or simply focusing on the development of the L2 without preserving the L1." I became stuck at "with regards to bilingual education with the main difference being..". I think that it could be an easier read if perhaps you broke your statement into two.

I like how the subsection about the age of instruction is very clear and concise, however, there may be even more that you can say add to this section. You might add another section where you explain the benefits or drawbacks of beginning instruction in each age range. In addition to your preciseness, I also think that the different types of immersion programs are clear in this way too.

Overall, I feel that your article is neutral and unbiased, and that your group is not trying to convince an audience to think one way or another. You are providing researched information without your opinion added in. I would also say that I believe your article will end up being well-balanced after your group adds all of the sections that you have intended to add. The subsection for outcomes could be a bigger section with more information. This section carries importance for your final article, and I noticed that the original article has quite a bit for outcomes. Were you planning to keep the original section and add to it, or rewrite the section?

Your group's draft is coming along nicely.

Gegunter050 (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)