User:IntlEd Matt/Culturally relevant teaching/MoreResearchInformation Peer Review

Peer review Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects: Lead Guiding questions: Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Content Guiding questions: Is the content added relevant to the topic? Is the content added up-to-date? Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Tone and Balance Guiding questions: Is the content added neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Sources and References Guiding questions: Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Are the sources current? Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Check a few links. Do they work? Organization Guiding questions: Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Images and Media Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Are images well-captioned? Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? For New Articles Only If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above. Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Overall impressions Guiding questions: Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? What are the strengths of the content added? How can the content added be improved? Examples of good feedback A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. Peer review of "Homemaking" Peer review of this article about a famous painting Additional Resources Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)

Link to draft you're reviewing

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes

(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead has not been updated recently.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead in the culturally relevant teaching article does include two introductory sentences summarizing the topic and describing its importance.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead does not describe the article's major sections.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The information in the lead is present in the article.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise, perhaps too much so.

Content

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Is the content added up-to-date? Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • The 'historical context' section does a fairly good of providing a theoretical backdrop to CRT and appropriately connects constructivism in education. The focus on multicultural education and the description of Banks' (2004) 5 dimensions of multicultural education may be a bit overexplained as they are only examples of CRT, not elements of CRT itself. The end of the Historical Context section does a good job of bringing in the equity discourse around CRT, however the beginning of the section could be stronger in this regard. In the 'Characteristics' section, one more sentence per characteristic would be helpful for the reader to have a more complete vision. In the 'Priniciples of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy' (CRP) section, two citations used in this section are from the late 1990s and the third is from 2008. This doesn't discount their relevance but perhaps a more recent citation could bolster this section. The 'Associated Teaching Practices' section is helpful to the reader, but could be filled out more. Many citations don't have links to the bibliography. The 'Maintaining relationships' section is an important subtopic to highlight and speaks to one of the most important aspects of CRT. The 'Challenges to CRT' section misses many of the challenges iterated earlier in the article and has a lot of room to expand. The connection of the cited demographic statistics is not fully connected to the description of the fear educators have of addressing racism in their classrooms. The examples within the 'Examples of CRT programs' section don't contain full contextualization within the CRT topic.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Race, multiculturalism, and gender are discussed broadly in this article and the CRT itself grounded in addressing equity gaps. Perhaps more specific examples and investigations could be added to address this more effectively.

Tone and Balance

• Is the content added neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The content is neutral and without personal opinion statements. Specific data regarding gender, race, and other diversities in the educational context are needed. One example is a lack of research on the experiences of LGBTQ students and how they may be affected by CRT.

Sources and References

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The references are from reliable sources.
• Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Most content is accurately cited, however the sentence preceding citation 10 should be rewritten to include more detail about perceptions of cultural deficiency as the sentence is too reductive to communicate this important context.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Missing is the relevant book Culturally Responsive Teaching and The Brain (Hammond). Also, while she is appropriately referenced heavily, Gladson-Billings' Culturally Relevant Pedagogy: Asking a Different Question (2021) is missing.
• Are the sources current? Reference 1 cites the 2nd edition (2010) of Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, Research, and Practice (Gay), however there is a 3rd edition (2018). The vast majority of often cited sources are more than 10 years old, indicating a need for updated sources. No sources is less than 5 years old.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
• Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
• Check a few links. Do they work? The link for citations 8 and 11 do not work.

Organization

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is fairly well written with some sentences that could be more clear. Some of the paragraphs are too long and should be divided.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are a fair amount of grammatical errors and awkwardly worded sentences (e.g., the first paragraph of Historical Context section)
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Perhaps the 'Maintaining relationships' section belongs under the other sections (e.g., Principles of CRP or Characteristics). If the 'Priniciples of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy' section is meant to be an overview of the historical foundation, perhaps this section belongs as a subsection of the 'Historical Context' section.