Chat with us, powered by LiveChat REDONE PEER RESPONSE 4 | Abc Paper
+1(978)310-4246 credencewriters@gmail.com
  

MY RESPONSE:
The set of articles I chose to read and write about are Does high-quality preschool benefits children? What the research shows. Education Sciences? by Morgan and the case against preschool by Wong. I chose the two articles because both tackles why parents do not warmly receive preschool education programs. For instance, the report by Morgan purports that preschool education has a lot of benefits to children. Still, parents opt out of that school program for numerous reasons like poverty (Morgan, 2019). Wong expands on the article by Morgan by explaining why most parents do not prefer preschool. According to him, albeit the preschool program is being politicized, parents decide against the program because of the high costs the program attracts (Wong, 2014). It is more expensive to be in American preschool than colleges! The other article I read through was The Research Argument For NYC’s Preschool Plan For 3-Year-Olds by Westervelt, written in 2017.  The reading strategies for the two articles differed. When reading the article by Morgan (2019), I first read the introduction and conclusion. The opening provided an overview of the obstacles that bar the preschool’s success, including its high cost. In the conclusion, I found out the author’s findings, and then I turned to the article’s body and read it. For the article by Wong (2014), I used prior knowledge on preschool status to follow the text because I had already encountered the topic after reading the Morgan article. The article that proved difficult to read was by Morgan. The author tackled the preschool issue in detail using statistics collected from various states. On the other hand, Wong’s article briefly addressed the challenges facing preschool programs.

PEERS RESPONSE: 
 I chose to read and write about the community recycling set of articles. I chose this set of articles because I felt the most interested in recycling, as well as the environment. I have always tried to be proactive with my own carbon footprint. My husband and I make sure to recycle as much as possible. He was even the environmental officer for his high school student council, and is always concerned about things like food waste, recyclable materials and conserving electricity and water. I have learned a lot from what he has done around our house. I also browsed through the food insecurities set and the health care set, but I didn’t see too much that peaked my interest in either of those areas. 
The reading strategy I chose to use when I went through the articles was the SQ3R method. This is the reading method I chose at the beginning of this course, and I wanted to see if I could apply the techniques I’ve learned to the material for this discussion. 
There weren’t really any changes I needed to make to my strategy. It was actually kind of nice to stick to the method I chose because it provided some consistency to my notes and comprehension of the articles. 
The difficult article for me to read was the second one on the list. It was titled “Digitalization for the refinery and plant for the future”. The reason I found the article to be so difficult wasn’t necessarily the reading content, as much as it was the multiple abbreviations, charts, graphs and tables that were also included in the article. All of these things combined to give me the feeling that I was reading something like a science fair display board instead of an article about the environment. 

 

Compare the types of sources you read to that of your peers. How was reading these different sources the same as or different from your peers? Share whether you read any of the same articles, even if you did not end up writing about them.

Your responses should be at least 100 words each.

error: Content is protected !!