Talk:Psycholinguistics/Teaching Reading

From Wikiversity
Jump to: navigation, search
  • I made some minor edits to the actual chapter itself, mostly just typos and little spelling/grammar mistakes

Hilaryy 20:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review[edit]


A good variety of academic and government-issued sources was used throughout the chapter, and I thought it was evident that the topic had been thoroughly investigated. There were a few occasions when pioneers in reading education were mentioned, and I thought this chapter could have benefitted from going back and citing their original work instead of a subsequent review of their studies (e.g. Huey, Webster). I think the reader would benefit from more detail on the reading programs mentioned, such as Kumon and Sylvan, and what they aim to do and the different ways they go about addressing reading problems.


The chapter flowed nicely, and I thought overall it progressed logically, answering questions as they seemed to naturally occur to the reader. The only suggestion I would make in terms of organization is to consider moving the ‘Roles of a Teacher’ section and making it section 5, just before ‘Assessing Reading Ability’. The teacher section could also be grouped with the section on teacher intervention, so that all of the discussion about teachers and reading occurs at the same point. I would also suggest adding a Conclusion or Summary in subsequent drafts to revisit the key points of the chapter and revisit the questions that were asked in the Introduction. Overall, I think the chapter was divided into appropriate sections that made the material more manageable for the reader. The pictures along the side were perfect, although I would suggest adding one or two more so they run the length of the paper. They really help keep the reader engaged, and I’m impressed by the html formatting they required!

Answers Questions/Makes Arguments[edit]

I thought the section `Which is the Best Methodology` may benefit from some restructuring. It almost seemed to get distracted half way through, and I don`t think it answered the question at hand. I think the second half of the section on teacher observation may fit better towards the end of the chapter with the teacher intervention section. I think that while the question of the best methodology may not have a definitive answer, it could still benefit from a little more development or exploration.

Writing Style[edit]

I thought the overall tone of the chapter was very professional and academically appropriate. I did struggle a little bit with the amount of rhetorical questions that popped up throughout the chapter. I think some of the weight of the academic material is lost because of the number of questions, and I think the paper would come across as more authoritative if some of them were reworked. In my opinion, the section on writing styles would benefit from a table with examples of how the different writing styles would approach a simple sentence or word differently. I found it hard to keep track of the differences between the different approaches. This was a first draft, and it was evident that there were some sections that will flow better once they have been further developed. I think that the inevitable revisions will only keep improving the flow of the paper.

Hilaryy 04:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)