User:Rach223/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?

Public sphere pedagogy

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article to evaluate because the subject-matter relates to a similar concept I employ with my English Humanities students, which is project-based learning. As a teacher of Humanities, I work with students to draw interdisciplinary connections between literature, history, art, and music, in exploring social issues throughout time. We typically end the year with an “action-project” in which students research a social injustice happening anywhere in the world. Using their research, students then construct a tangible resistance piece they share with the Humanities student and teacher cohort. I found this article interesting because it takes this concept a step further, by asking students to engage in this kind of exercise in public community spaces outside of the classroom. My initial reaction is that this approach is interesting in considering how we can help our students develop as independent and critical thinkers, as it draws students into civic arenas through student-led inquiry and research. However, I agree with the critique that the focus of this type of process should revolve entirely around promoting student inquiry and discourse, rather than political ideology itself.

Evaluate the article

As a whole, the article is relevant to the topic of public sphere pedagogy (PDP). The author’s lead section provides the reader with a comprehensive view of the technique, with several linked terms that will help the reader better understand its objective. While these links lead to other Wikipedia articles, it is helpful in furthering the reader’s understanding of the subject’s connection to civic engagement and civic discourse. The Lead does not reference the article’s major sections, which is an addition the author may want to consider in order to further guide the reader.

After the Lead, the author’s content first outlines the origins of the philosophy before identifying examples of its implementation in academic settings. The author concludes the articles with critiques of this pedagogical approach, which contributes to a multi-faceted overview of this technique. Most items on the Reference List are from the 2013-2017 time period, with a few outliers extending as far back as 1993. In order to make this article more timely, it may be beneficial to collect information from more recent sources. For example, I wonder how this pedagogy has been implemented in recent years, and potentially been used in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the Critique section of the article, the author includes that this style, being modeled from the bourgeois public sphere, has highlighted many social inequities going back to the formation of this theory. The author includes a statement regarding that this type of discourse has long excluded female and “plebian” styles of speaking. This is something that I believe is important to address more in depth, as this could hold further implications for the use of this strategy within the classroom. The author then moves into discussing how the students’ training may in fact surpass that of the community members who attend, highlighting social inequities. Another element the author may want to add and enforce is that certain school districts (typically those in higher-income areas) have access to further resources that allow them to successfully implement this. For example, students with access to technology have an advantage in being able to research and prepare for this kind of civic discourse.

The author assumes a knowledgeable and formal academic tone throughout the entirety of this article, utilizing subject-related vocabulary. The author’s acknowledgement of the history behind and critiques of this approach lends itself to a neutral and balanced overview of this pedagogical technique. The author clearly does not take a side, as they include both its successes and its implications. Including these sections on both successful applications and its critiques allows the reader to understand the pros and cons of this approach.

In regards to sources and references, at first glance, the author cites from a variety of sources. There is a missing citation in the beginning of the article, which another editor has already marked. However, while there is an extensive list of sources, there are many links that do not lead to credible online sources. For example, all of the “California State University” sources lead to a page indicating it cannot be found. A similar issue occurred with most other popular sources in this article's Reference List, such as magazines. Links to database and academic journal sources are working, but in the editing process, the other links should be swapped out and corrected. It appears that some of the popular sources may have been blog-posts that were removed from the websites on which they were hosted, which can be common with non-official publications. Pulling from more recent and even more credible professional and academic sources will give this article advanced credibility, as those sources tend to be peer-reviewed in some capacity.

Concerning organization and writing quality, the author splits the article into well-sectioned pieces that make sense when reading it chronologically. By starting with the definition and application, the reader is then able to understand why and how it is critiqued. The author maintains a formal tone, avoiding the use of first person, contractions, and colloquialisms. Additionally, the author incorporates subject-specific vocabulary, a move that helps to further establish their credibility. The author has clearly proofread for spelling and grammar, as there do not appear to be errors throughout the piece. In terms of accessibility, the author caters to primarily educated audiences, as they employ more advanced and formal diction. The article has one image that comes from another Wikipedia page. While this image helps to illustrate what the application of this technique looks like, further images and media may assist in increasing the article’s accessibility, as data visualization is often very beneficial for readers.

The Talk page includes some of my previous points regarding further elaborating on the critiques of this philosophy. Current expansion plans include discussing more of the inequities surrounding this teaching strategy, as well as linking it to another teaching tool known as Socrates Cafe, the collegiate version of this technique. Other editors also bring up interesting points regarding further clarification on what constitutes a PSP event. This article is still under review, as it is part of the WikiProjects Education and Alternative Education. It is rated as C-class, and low-importance. The debate behind this article aligns with many of the discussions we have had in class surrounding perception and equity - while this teaching strategy may be interesting and valuable, how do socioeconomic equities and biases play into its successful (and realistic) implementation?

Overall, this article provides a basic overview of public sphere pedagogy, including its relevance to public education. The author’s organization is effective in building up to why it is critiqued, and why it should not be blindly implemented. The author’s knowledgeable tone and use of specific terminology helps to further build the reader’s understanding. Eliminating all non-working links would be the first step in addressing some of these areas for improvement. Additionally, adding in more media and images to further supplement the piece would be highly advantageous in furthering readers’ understanding. Additionally, more current research would be highly beneficial in further advancing this piece. For example, what are some ways in which this strategy has been implemented in more recent years? What has the public’s reaction been to it? What do teachers and students think of it?