Foundations and Assessment of Education/Edition 1/Foundations Table of Contents/Chapter 2/Chapter FAQ/Peer Review One

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Jump to navigation Jump to search
If someone's user name appears below, this peer review has already been "claimed" or completed. Please select another peer review slot or article.

This article has been reviewed by: Hsmit022 (talk) 03:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

To evaluate this peer review, click on the Discussion tab above.

  • Use this template for your peer reviews.


  • You are required to complete TWO (2) peer reviews.
  • Please take your time and provide effective, helpful feedback. Plan to spend 1.5 to 2 hours per review!
  • Each peer review is worth 50 points and will be "graded" by the article's author. (Click on Discussion to see the rubric the author will use to grade your peer review.)
  • You may only review articles written in the current semester (no articles with BOLD titles)
  • As instructed above, be sure to sign your peer review with four tilde ~~~~. You will not receive credit for reviews that are not signed
  • To complete this assignment, we suggest having two tabs/windows open in your browser (e.g. Internet Explorer): one with this peer review template and one with the article you are reviewing

  • Starting the DAY AFTER the peer reviews are due, you may complete ADDITIONAL peer reviews for EXTRA CREDIT (25 points each). You MAY NOT complete any Extra Credit Reviews until that time.


Part 1 - Article Components
[edit | edit source]

Learning Target(s)[edit | edit source]

Answer the following questions regarding the learning targets:

  • Is/are the stated learning targets actual learning targets i.e. they state what the reader should know or be able to do after reading the article? Yes
  • Is/are the learning target(s) specific? Indeed
  • Is/are they appropriate and reasonable? (Are they too easy or too difficult for ECI 301 students?) I believe so.
  • Is/are they observable? (You wouldn't have to look inside the readers head to know if they met this target.) Yep
  • Does the article provide adequate information for readers to achieve these targets? Yes

Comment:Readers will learn different aspects of educational philosophy they might have had questions about before, such as the definition of educational philosophy or some ways to access students' progress. I'm assuming you meant assess.

Grammar and Mechanics Review[edit | edit source]

For more information and easy to understand definitions of these five main philosophies check out this website(edit:put a comma before check): "".

When looking for a simple definition of educational philosophies, I realized there isn't one! Educational philosophies are a diverse subject, with many opinions. There is not one simple, correct answer to this question. Teachers seem to work better when using a variety of educational philosophies. This is because if a teacher stays locked into just one philosophy, students are not able to grow and learn from different ideas; they are stuck with one idea and way of learning, when they might have learned better from a different method. The variety of educational philosophies is(edit:are) pulled from the five main philosophies of: Perennialism, Idealism, Realism, Experimentalism and Existentialism. For more information and easy to understand definitions of these five main philosophies check out this website: [1].(edit: redundant w/ the sidebar?)

There are several different ways of accessing (edit: assess)students’ progress. We learned about four main ways of accessing (edit: assessing)students during our in-class lecture. The four main assessment methods are selected response, extended written response, performance assessment and personal communication. Selected response would be using multiple choice, true/false, matching and fill-in-the-blank on a test. Extended written response would be having the students show all their work in an essay or math problem. Performance assessment is the ability to perform tasks/skills. Some examples are P.E., music, foreign language, speech, measuring or creating products, art, research paper, lab report, timeline, or diorama. Personal communication is writing in journals, questioning, discussions, interviewing, observations, or oral exams.

Another way to access (edit: assess)students’ progress is to use the student progress monitoring system. There is an official site for teachers and parents from The National Center on Student Progress Monitoring. There definition of progress monitoring is, “a scientifically based practice that is used to assess students’ academic performance and evaluate the effectiveness of instruction. Progress monitoring can be implemented with individual students or an entire class.” For more information about this project go to. "The National Center on Student Progress Monitoring website" (edit: I'd make this link a sidebar)

Encourage (delete one?)encourage thoughtful discussion among students.

Sources[edit | edit source]

For each source listed in the "References" section of the article, name the type of source (scholarly or popular) and the perspective it provides (research, expert opinion from educator, popular news source, parent organization, personal contact, etc.)

  1. .Garner, Randy (2005). Humor, Analogy, and Metaphor: H.A.M. it up in Teaching. Retrieved June 6, 2009, from Radical Pedagogy Web site:, expert opinion from educator
  2. .(2007). Student Progress. Retrieved June 6, 2009, from The National Center on Student Progress Monitoring Web site: popular, research
  3. .Kurtus, Ron (2001 February 26). Philosophies of Education. Retrieved June 6, 2009, Web site: popular, research
  4. .Foote, Carolyn (2009 January 19). What is the Purpose of Education?. Retrieved June 6, 2009, Web site: popular, opinion
  5. .Haugen, Lee (1998 March). Writing a Teaching Philosophy Statement. Retrieved June 6, 2009, from How to Write a Teacher Philosophy Web site: scholarly, expert opinion
  6. .Chism, Nancy Developing a Philosophy of Teaching Statement. Retrieved June 6, 2009, from Essays on Teaching Excellence Web site: ummm... same website listed as last entry.
  7. .Hanley, Susan (1994). Maryland Collaborative for Teacher Preparation. Retrieved June 6, 2009, from On Constructivism Web site: scholarly, research

List the range of publication years for all sources, e.g. 1998-2006: 1994- 2009

Answer the following questions about the sources used in the article:

  1. Did the author CITE at least 5 sources? No and use at least 2 scholarly sources? Yes
  2. Are the citations in APA format? No, the references are though.
    1. Here are two examples of citations in APA format, one for a paraphrase and one for a quotation:
      1. Constructing a title is both a science and an art, but on one fact all of the experts agree: the title must contain a colon (Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, & Starr, 2007).
      2. Unfortunately impoverished children are often attending “low-performing schools staffed by ill-equipped teachers” (Murnane, 2007, p. 34).
  3. Are all the sources listed in APA format in a Reference list labeled "References"? Yes
    1. Here is an example of a reference written in APA format:
      1. Bailey, J., & Barnum, P. (2001). The colon and its rise to prominence in the American circus. Journal of American Punctuation, 34(5), 2-3.
  4. Taken together do the 5 sources represent a good balance of potential references for this topic? Yes
  5. Does the author consider potential bias in the sources? Sure.
  6. Are most of the sources current (less than 5 years old)? No

Please make a comment about the sources. If you answered "No" to any of the questions above, please explain how the author can improve.

Comment: This isn't a final version, but the citations weren't directly in the body of the paper. There were links at the end in almost a sidebar like format, pointing out where to read more, but no APA citation. I'm not too critical about the sources being current on this topic as teaching philosophies have been floating around for a while, and there are some current ones in there.

Multiple Choice Questions[edit | edit source]

  1. What does each question assess: knowledge or reasoning (application of knowledge)?
    1. Question 1 Knowledge
    2. Question 2 Knowledge
    3. Question 3 Reasoning
    4. Question 4 Reasoning

Answer the following questions about the multiple-choice questions.

  1. Are there 4 multiple-choice questions? Yes
  2. Do they each have four answer choices (A-D)? Yes
  3. Is there a single correct (not opinion-based) answer for each question? Yes
  4. Do the questions assess the learning target? Sure.
  5. Are the questions appropriate and reasonable (not too easy and not too difficult)? Yes
  6. Are the foils (the response options that are NOT the answer) reasonable i.e. they are not very obviously incorrect answers? Yes
  7. Are the response options listed in alphabetical order? Yes
  8. Are correct answers provided and listed BELOW all the questions? Yes

Comment: You could make the reasoning inquiries a bit more drawn out and difficult, but they're adequate as is.

Part 2 - Ratings
[edit | edit source]

LIST and EXPLAIN your rating for each of the four criteria.

  • Importance:
    I rated this article 5 for importance because... Developing and understanding key philosophies is integral to adapting and being a better teacher.
  • Interest:
    I rated this article 4 on interest because...This subject has always drawn me in. It's presentation leaves a bit to be desired. I'd really like to see what the author's ideas on everything are.
  • Credibility:
    I rated this article 3 for credibility because... The sources are there, and I know that they were used– but they aren't really cited.
  • Writing skill:
    I rated this article 4 on writing because... Clear and concise for the most part.


To do this: Highlight sections with the cursor and use the BOLD icon above OR type ''' (3 apostrophes) before and after the text you want to make bold

Wiki Article Rubric[edit | edit source]

criteria 5 4 3 2 1
How important was the information presented on this topic to you as a teacher education student?
  • Covers key ideas crucial for future teachers to know
  • Based on researched information.
  • Highly relevant to current educational practice (*this description may be less applicable for some topics such as history of education)
  • Provides an excellent overview of the topic including relevant research, educational practice, laws and litigation. Includes in-depth discussion of at least a few selected key issues.
  • Includes ideas relevant to future teachers
  • Mostly based on researched information.
  • Applicable to today’s schools
  • Provides a good general overview with relevant information and discussion of a few key ideas
  • A couple useful points; some irrelevant information
  • About half of the information is the author’s opinion.
  • Some out-dated information; may not reflect current practice
  • Good information is included but the paper yields a partial /incomplete understanding of the topic or key issues
  • One useful point
  • A few facts but mostly the author’s opinion.
  • Most of the information is irrelevant in today’s schools.
  • Focused on unimportant subtopics OR overly general with few specifics. Important information is missing.
  • Information is not relevant to future teachers.
  • Information is entirely the author’s opinion.
  • The information is obsolete.
  • Only irrelevant details or common knowledge. Lacks any substantive information.
criteria 5 4 3 2 1
How interesting was the article to read?
  • Sidebar includes new information that was motivating to read/view
  • Visuals (headings, colors, fonts, pictures, etc.) enhance the article by making it easier or more inviting to read
  • Multiple perspectives are considered and discussed
  • Mostly new information/ideas
  • Insightful interpretation & analysis are evident throughout the article; a clearly stated conclusion synthesizes all of the material presented.
  • Points are clearly made and elaborated on with compelling examples.
  • Sidebar includes new information that enhances understanding of the topic
  • Visuals add to the article
  • At least two perspectives were presented
  • About half of the information/ideas are new
  • Interpretation and analysis is provided for 3-4 points in the article; a reasonable conclusion based on this information is stated
  • Some good points are made and explained.
  • Sidebar includes new information related to the topic.
  • Visuals are included but have minimal effect
  • One interesting or new perspective is presented
  • A couple (2-3) new ideas or pieces of information
  • Interpretation/ analysis is included for a few (1-2) individual sections, but there is not a conclusion that synthesizes the information presented.
  • Points are made but may not always be adequately supported or explained.
  • Sidebar repeats what is already in the article
  • Visuals are somewhat distracting or not included
  • Only the “typical” view or one biased perspective is presented.
  • One new idea or bit of information
  • Information presented with minimal analysis or interpretation; no conclusion or the conclusion is not based on the information presented
  • At least one clear point is made and supported.
  • No side bar included.
  • Visuals are offensive and completely detract from the content
  • No perspective is acknowledged.
  • Nothing new.
  • No analysis or interpretation included
  • No clear points are made or points appear pasted from other sources without any explanation.
criteria 5 4 3 2 1
How credible do you think the information is?
  • Required sources are properly cited and included in a reference list in APA format.
  • Information from diverse sources representing multiple perspectives is included. Several reputable and current sources are cited. The author acknowledges potential bias in sources where appropriate.
  • Author clearly identifies his own ideas, biases and opinions
  • Required sources are included; a couple of formatting errors
  • Information from a variety of sources is included. Most sources are reasonably reputable; bias is acknowledged in others.
  • It is clear when the author is presenting his own opinion; he doesn’t try to pass if off as fact.
  • Required sources are included; APA format is not used or has many errors.
  • A variety of sources is listed but the information primarily reflects a single viewpoint. Sources are reasonable.
  • The author occasionally (1-2 times) states his own opinion as fact.
  • Only 4 sources are cited/listed in the references or only 1 scholarly source was used
  • Sources lack diversity OR information from divergent sources is only superficially mentioned. Some sources are untrustworthy or biased and not acknowledged as such.
  • Author routinely (3-4 times) states her opinion as fact, ignores own biases.
  • Missing two or more sources OR sources used but not cited or listed.
  • All sources and information reflect a single viewpoint. Most sources are untrustworthy or biased and not acknowledged as such.
  • The entire article is biased and opinion-based without acknowledgment of this perspective.
criteria 5 4 3 2 1
How well do you think this article was written?
  • Multiple-choice questions (2 application & 2 knowledge) align with the learning targets, assess key points, and are written according to guidelines (see R4)
  • Specific, appropriate and observable learning targets are stated; the content is clearly organized to help the reader achieve these goals
  • Captures and maintains attention throughout
  • All or almost all of the cited information is introduced, elaborated on and explained
  • Writing is organized, easy to read, and contains few to no mechanical errors.
  • Multiple-choice questions (2 application & 2 knowledge) align with the learning targets, and assess key points.
  • Specific and reasonable learning targets are stated; the content aligns with these goals
  • Captures attention initially and periodically throughout
  • Most of the cited information is discussed or explained.
  • The article flowed pretty well and there were just a few mechanical errors.
  • Multiple-choice questions (2 application & 2 knowledge) assess key points
  • Reasonable learning targets are stated; the content relates to these goals
  • Parts of the article capture attention
  • About half of the cited information is discussed
  • A few areas were hard to follow, confusing or oddly organized. There were a few distracting errors.
  • 4 multiple-choice questions are included.
  • Learning targets generally related to the content are stated
  • At least one part of the article is interesting
  • Information is “pasted” together with minimal explanation.
  • Organization was difficult to follow, sentences were awkward and/or there were several distracting errors.
  • Questions are missing or not multiple-choice.
  • Learning target is missing or unrelated to content or is/are not actual learning targets
  • Nothing in the article grabs the reader’s attention
  • Article is entirely “pasted” together from other sources.
  • Poor organization, sentence structure and/or grammatical errors made it very difficult to understand the content.

Part 3 - "2+2"
[edit | edit source]

List TWO compliments and TWO suggestions about the article content

  • Hints:
    • Focus on the work, not the person
    • Describe "There is...", "I see.." rather than judge "You didn't..."


  1. . Good job of synthesizing information for a FAQ.
  2. . Effective breakdown of constructivism.


  1. . Perhaps break down a few more teaching philosophies in such a manner, and expand the article?
  2. . Work on citations.