Talk:Co-enrollment

Peer Review 1

Peer Review - Co-enrollment - "In the 1960s and 1970s, many schools…" were these schools the first to start adopting the co-enrollment approach - Looking at other "lead" sections it seems like they do not require a title or section heading so I would just take out "Definition" and get right into the info. - I think it would be helpful to add a hyperlink to "Bi-Bi model" directing to either an existing wiki page that defines it or an external page, as I had to go and look it up - Overall the lead section is neutral and does not show bias which is hard when talking about education so nicely done. - I think there is room for some sourcing especially when you begin to talk about dates (i.e " During the 1980s, many schools for the deaf in the United States began implementing bilingual curriculum under Bi-Bi model. During the 1980s and 1990s, this model was widely adopted around the globe") - Criteria section: a link to co-teaching model would be helpful ○ This may be something you want to ask Naomi about, but I'm not sure how beneficial the structure of this section is as opposed to a standard paragraph styling where you go into a little more depth about each criteria. - Examples section: I would rename the section to maybe "List of schools who practice this model" or something of the like ○ Again the structure here makes it hard to follow and the lack of organization can come off as daunting and trying to the reader (in other words try to make it easier for the reader to read your article!) - Benefits and Drawbacks sections need definite souring since you are making claims about how poorly/well co-enrollment is. ○ Expense --> are there statistics on the costs of this model versus more traditional models? Overall you are off to a great start considering this is a brand new page, I think just by going through and looking at random wikipedia articles you may be able to get a clearer sense of overall structure that most pages employ.Nickmillan (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

feedback

This looks good so far, I really like the topic and the things you've written. This article will benefit people looking into different education approaches for deaf children. I understand you might still be drafting this, but I'm wondering if you will add links to the information that you put under examples, benefits and drawbacks. That's my only issue with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoyalzrs (talk • contribs) 04:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer review/feedback

I agree with the feedback above. I really like this topic and think it would be great for those who are looking into different educational opportunities for Deaf children as well as CODAs and siblings of Deaf children. Sources are definitely needed but I understand that this is just a draft so you probably don't have those linked in yet. I would also hyperlink certain words to other pages on wikipedia (bi-bi, asl, schools for the deaf, CODAs, co-teaching, deaf education, etc). It might also help to define CODA in your paragraphs so people who are unfamiliar with the term understand what it means. Another thing I would suggest is to organize the information under each heading into paragraphs, especially the information that go along with the different schools that have adapted this model. It will make it easier for the reader to understand and will flow better. Overall, I think you're off to a great start and I'm looking forward to seeing the end result of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcanne (talk • contribs) 14:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review

I really like the outline you have to set up this page or add to the current wikipedia page for co enrollment. Having had experience teaching in a co enrollment program I think you really do a good job of maintaining a neutral ground thus far. I love that you will be using the Hong Kong co enrollment example to this page. I was fascinated by that program so I think you should go into detail about the teachers and the student demographics, how the school is religious affiliated as well could be something to add. I think also examining the success rate of the deaf students and hearing students that attend that school. Also, possibly posting the video that we watched in Advanced Language and the Deaf Child. Although, after watching that video it almost seemed bias towards the success of hearing students, hearing students looking for signed support if they misunderstood a question. Perhaps watch the video again to see if it would be a good link for the page. As mentioned above, I would add links to other wiki pages that are already created for CODA’s, Honk Kong Sign Language, and anything else that reference throughout your page.

I’m looking forward to your finished product!

MMcAteer608 (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review

This is a great start, very informative and well written. Your experience with this type of program I'm sure has been useful in making this page and is a great opportunity to spread awareness of this unique type of bilingual education. It's always helpful to elaborate on acronyms that the reader may not be familiar with like CODA. I think that your organization is very clear, well structured and comprehensive moving from the definition to criteria, examples, pros and cons. It seems that the content will provide many opportunities for adding links to other pages. I'm sure you will be adding citations in the future as well but have you also considered adding videos or pictures? It was really interesting to watch the Hong Kong video in our other class and be able to actually see what the education looks like during a regular day. It could be helpful in providing readers with a clearer picture as well. Awesome work!Jessblank (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)jessblank