Talk:LEAD-K

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2019 and 29 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ophmac, Halled. Peer reviewers: Jennagc, Kimcastillo, Abucklin.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

LEAD-K Peer Review

The Lead Section is easy to understand, and clearly indicates the position of the LEAD-K campaign. In this section, I suggest also mentioning that other organizations have opposing points of view and refer to the “Responses” section of the article for more information.

The article structure is clear, and includes opposing points of view. This helps the neutral tone of the article by outlining varying points of view without telling the audience what to think.

The article uses reliable sources, but most of them are primary sources such as the websites of the organizations being discussed. I understand why some information would need to come from these sources, but if there are other articles that talk about LEAD-K or opposing views without being published by those organizations themselves, it would be great to include those.

The “Approach” section only has one citation at the bottom of the section. For clarity, add a citation to each paragraph, even if it is the same citation as the one at the bottom of the section.

I like the inclusion of the “Current State Action” section, but I would like to know more detail. For example, what steps were taken prior to several states signing the LEAD-K bill, and what the next steps are to follow up on the bill? Has the legislation become law in any states? Why did some states chose not to sign the bill? It would also be useful to have an explanation of what a “National Campaign State Team” is. What do they do, and are they making progress?

In the “Responses” section, it states that AG Bell historically opposes “groups like LEAD-K” – are there examples of other groups similar to LEAD-K that you can include, which they have opposed? How did LEAD-K and AG Bell make their information unbiased What did they include or exclude? Did both organizations change their literature, or only LEAD-K? The section also mentions that ACIA disagrees that access to ASL is important to language acquisition for deaf/hard of hearing children. Why do they disagree? What is their argument? Is there any research they are basing this opinion on?

I think this is a great start to the LEAD-K article. The best way to improve the article is to add more information, and add citations from sources unaffiliated with any of the discussed organizations if possible. I might also suggest adding a section on the differing research: which studies were used by LEAD-K to develop their position, and which studies were used by the opposing organizations? Jennagc (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

LEAD-K Peer Review - Abbey Bucklin

I think that the overall structure of the article is very good. I liked how you split up the approach section into awareness and legislation, because it makes it clear that LEAD-K is not just about passing legislation, but also spreading broader awareness.

I think that adding the responses section was a good touch. It made the article much more objective, as it gave some of the opposing views that people have to LEAD-K and their mission, which is necessary.

Overall, I think that this is a great start for an article. I think it could benefit from more information from more diverse sources. The current state action section, for example, is pretty slim and simply lists states. Adding more background information to this section about what it means for the states that have singed the bill, or explaining more about what the national campaign state teams do, or explaining more about what LEAD-K is doing to get the states who have not signed the bill on board. This would be ver beneficial. In the awareness section, adding more sources that talk about how LEAD-K works to spread awareness could also be very good. I think that the biggest thing to work on is just added a lot more "meat" to each of the sections and keep finding more sources to add information! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abucklin (talk • contribs) 01:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Kim Peer Review

The format of this page looks great and is very easy to follow! For the lead, try looking into when this campaign officially started and by whom. The first time you mention “Kindergarten Readiness,” I think you should link it to the Wikipedia article for that topic. Even though you give a great definition, it’s easier for people to access more information if they are interested in learning more about it. Under legislation, it would be interesting to see more details on the 12 subsections of the model legislation. I don’t think it’s necessary to go into depth about all 12, but maybe you can highlight a few of the most important ones. I think showing the different perspectives was a great way to inform the reader about the opposing views without being biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimcastillo (talk • contribs) 04:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Note from Betsy

Hi- I am trying to link the Deaf Education page to yours but I am not able to because it is entitled "Lead-K" and not "LEAD-K". This does seem to make a difference for linking purposes and may be something to think about.Bbeck3 (talk) 04:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

It can be linked while looking different visually like so: LEAD-K. But since it stands for something (that is, it's an acronym, not a stylization), a move discussion could be warranted... - Purplewowies (talk) 08:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I've just boldly moved it. If boldness wasn't desired here, the move should probably be reverted and a proper discussion done. - Purplewowies (talk) 08:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Suggestions

You might think about defining language deprivation a little more in the introduction. Perhaps something like: 1) The primary risk of deafness/hearing loss is being cut off from language. This is particularly problematic if children are born deaf or lose their hearing before learning language. 2) Deaf children can access language via early exposure to sign language, hearing devices, and various speech and language interventions. 3) Lack of access to language during early childhood can have lasting effects, and the longer the delay the more severe the effects, so early intervention is critical. 4) When children have restricted access to language, there can be harmful consequences for many aspects of development (e.g., cognitive development, socio-emotional wellbeing, academic outcomes). Spoken language outcomes even under the best circumstances are highly variable and unpredictable. Some 50% of deaf children have spoken language skills below the 16th percentile during early elementary school. If these children are not fluent in sign language, they are at serious risk of language deprivation syndrome.

See this paper for some ideas for citations. You should find citations for all of the above points there. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0142723719834102?journalCode=flaa Ncaselli (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)