Peer Review, Annotations

I peer reviewed both Cailan and Maurices annotations. Both used great academic sources and did their citations very well but just forgot to put the URLs and date of accessed at the end. They both had all three well written paragraphs for the first annotation. But Cailan forgot to do a 2nd and 3rd paragraph for her second annotation. Both of their first paragraphs were written very well, they both made sure to include the main idea, the authors and the thesis. There second paragraphs were written well also, however Maurice forgot to add in direct quotes from the text. The third paragraph is where most of the problems lie. Cailan had trouble relating her article back to a specific source and instead related it back to all of them instead. Maurice also had trouble with relating his source to another source. He used his third paragraph more to tell about how he was planning to use this certain article in his text and why this article is important. Together both annotations were written very well but could use some adjustments to make them better.

Here is one of Cailans Sources I peer review:

Haskins, Ron and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn. "Trouble in the Land of Early Childhood Education?"

Future of Children (2016): 1-6. . (Need URL link and date of access)

This article written by Ron Haskins and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn to review of the Tennessee pre-K program and its faults on the academic readiness of its children. Jeanne Brooks-Gunne is a professor teaching Child Development at Columbia University and Ron Haskin is a Political Scientist. The authors portray a concern for the academic success for children from preschool and on. The research explains the study from Tennessee's Statewide pre-k program children compared to children who did not attend the program. This source relates to the research topic because they discuss how pre-k programs may need to focus on social development of the children instead of academic.

The source explains the Tennessee pre-k program scenario as being quite a surprise to the public. The preschoolers seemed to have excelled in kindergarten but by the time they were in third grade, students who hadn't gone through that program were doing better than the children that had. After explaining and analyzing the study, the article points out big unanswered questions, "One of the biggest is whether it might be fruitful to back off on academic skills in favor of developing social skills through play-like activities, and offer more choices of activities to the children themselves." This quote brings my research question into play, adhering to the importance of social skills in a preschooler's development.

This source relates to others in its questioning of what makes a good preschool program. I would say the authors of this article would agree with "Social Development a major aspect of preschool learning" in its first-hand accounts how there are cognitive benefits from socialization in the preschool community. The article comes across pretty aggressive when discussing the Tennessee pre-k program's faults but calms down when looking at the big picture of this community. This source relates to Chuck Mason's article "Social Development a major Aspect of Preschool Learning" by…

1. Yes, she has three paragraphs.

2. Yes, the first paragraph clearly addresses the article and its thesis of the source.

3. Yes, In her second paragraph she briefly summarizes the source, adds in a quote and then ties the quote back to her research question. Maybe include a quick summary of how the study was conducted to help the reader understand it more.

4. The third paragraph relates back to the source, however it is related back to all the sources or “other”, it does not mention one specific source. I liked how she restated the articles main idea and the authors opinion again in the third paragraph it really helped tie it all together

I thought the annotation was written very well. It stated the main idea an gave lots of information and even talked about the research question. In the first paragraph I wouldn’t change anything it clearly addresses the source, thesis and authors. In the second paragraph was also written very well but I would add information about the actual study itself and how it was conducted. In the third paragraph I would instead of relating it to all of the sources, I would relate it back to one specific source that you are also using in the article.