“Early Childhood Education Benefits” Peer Review

“Early ChildhoodEducation Benefits” Peer Review

“Early Childhood Education Benefits” Peer Review

  1. The report “Early Childhood Education Benefits” begin by giving examples of early childhood education centers. Unfortunately, I am not drawn in within the first few sentences. This is because the writer failed to use more captivating information, but instead focusses more on the examples that are obvious. The writer used an expository writing style, which is, a style that explains a concept or idea in question.

  2. The report does not have a thesis at the end of the paragraph, and that the author should be aware of this.

  3. From the paper, I considered children that received early childhood education in this centers to be more advanced both developmentally and socially, to be a statement that standout and persuasive. I also identified one problem area in the report to be that of funding. There is a misconception that children funded well in terms of education tend to outpace those that are less funded. The body paragraphs of the paper does not auger well with the thesis statement since the introduction did not give clear thesis statement. It instead went directly to the content.

  4. The report does not give a clear concluding paragraph. It fails to draw attention from the ready, and instead bring the reader to an end without up important points throughout the report. What the author could have done is to go back and summary all the main ideas given about early childhood education. Of important could be to avoid the repetition of ideas, but instead mention the ideas and points in other words.

  5. The parenthetical reference within the report did not follow correct MLA in-text citation. For example (NEA, 2015) is not the correct format. This is because MLA citation requires the use of pages instead of years, for example (NEA 14). Again, commas are not required in MLA styles. In the “Works Cited Page”, the format did not correspond to correct rules of MLA. What the author could have done is cite them in this format: Name, alphabetically listed (Surname first), for example, Levy David M., title in italics (capitalize each word in the title), the publisher and location, year, and page.

  6. The report is written in third person and with formal diction. The report is also free from slang and shortcuts. However, there are instances of unnecessary and too much wording, and long sentences. Additionally, there are no personal opinions, experiences, and characters. However, the author needs to improve on giving additional information, which is unnecessary. For example, in paragraph 4 and 5, the author gave statistical representation of the children, but did not mention the country it represents.

  7. All the sources in the report are dated and are published within the last five years. However, it fails to follow the MLA style of citation as stated above.

  8. In regard to page layout, the report is correctly written. The paper is double spaced page headers are numbered correctly, and with 1-inch margins. However, the username and page number are typed in “Calibri (body)” with font 11 instead of “Times New Roman” 12 font.