User talk:ShawnMozeika/sandbox

Active Student Response Techniques •	Introductory Sentence: I think the first sentence is a little unclear. I feel like I only fully understood it retrospectively—i.e after reading the rest of the introduction. Maybe try to explain it differently or make the sentence a little longer to say something like “ASR are techniques such as…., utilized by teachers to elicit observable behavioral responses in students.” •	Summary: The introduction is a good summary. •	Context: The introduction is short and I think you need to add more about other things you will talk about in the body, because there are topics in the body that aren’t introduced in the lead section. •	Organization: I think you might want to consider reorganizing. I think the methods section is really well done and I understood it well, and therefore I think it should be earlier in the article. I understood most of the article retrospectively, after reading that section and then going back to the beginning so I think you should put that earlier in the article, if that makes sense. •	Content: This sentence in history confuses me: “Active student response techniques provide rapid reinforcement for desired responses, increasing the likelihood the responses will occur again.” When you say desired responses do you mean like behavioral response or like responding to a question presented in class? Also, put a wikilink on stimulus. This sentence confuses me too: So, active student response techniques aim to arrange the paradigm so the response is most correct.” Maybe it’s just me, but I keep thinking of responses as answers to a question so then I feel like it’s hard to control people having the “right” response because sometimes people are wrong, of course. I think you should make clear from the start which age group this teaching method targets, because obviously second grade classrooms differ greatly from college lecture halls. Missing a quotation in Step 4 on choral responding and response cards. •	Balance: I think you clearly favor the use of active student responses so maybe see if you can find any research discrediting it or any disadvantages. •	Tone: What you do present, while favorable of ASR, is neutral. Again, I would say present information on the disadvantages. •	Images: No images, and I don’t really think you need any. •	Citations: Add citation in the introduction, other than that everything looks like it has a valid citation. •	Sources: All of your sources look reliable •	Completeness: The references look complete •	Coverage: I think everything you have provides good coverage, but like I said before maybe address disadvantages (maybe cost could be one if you can’t think of/find research on any?) •	Article Body: The sections seem good, relevant, and logical. Hopefully this helps!! Joannaberg4 (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Overall, I think your article is very well written and I like the organization you have. However, I have a few suggestions/points that I am slightly confused on. Your lead section seems overall a little vague and lacking details. If you can elaborate a little more, that would be ideal. Also, in your first sentence, you write, "strategies to elicit observable responses from students to teacher instruction in a classroom". So are these strategies supposed to elicit responses from students and teachers or just students? That's a little unclear. In addition, you have a section titled "benefits over traditional teaching styles". I understand why you inserted it and it is effective, but at the same time, I feel it also seems to argue why ASR is the better approach, which should be avoided when writing Wikipedia articles. The rest of your article I have no major qualms over; I especially enjoy the examples you implemented in the methods section, because that really helped me understand the techniques used. Everything else seems to be fine and your article was very interesting to read so overall very good job! Exu12 (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)