This short article gives some information what a young social competence child looks like. It talks about how social skills can be extremely vital to a child's growth:
"Recent research (Hartup & Moore, 1990; Kinsey, 2000; Ladd & Profilet, 1996; McClellan & Kinsey, 1999; Parker & Asher, 1987; Rogoff, 1990) suggests that a child's long-term social and emotional adaptation, academic and cognitive development, and citizenship are enhanced by frequent opportunities to strengthen social competence during childhood.
Hartup (1992) notes that peer relationships in particular contribute a great deal to both social and cognitive development and to the effectiveness with which we function as adults. He states that "the single best childhood predictor of adult adaptation is not school grades, and not classroom behavior, but rather, the adequacy with which the child gets along with other children. Children who are generally disliked, who are aggressive and disruptive, who are unable to sustain close relationships with other children, and who cannot establish a place for themselves in the peer culture are seriously at risk" (Hartup, 1992, p. 1). The risks are many: poor mental health, dropping out of school, low achievement and other school difficulties, and poor employment history (Katz & McClellan, 1997). "But mainly it gives a checklist of attributes of socially component child. Things such as:
- "[Child] is usually in a positive mood."
- "[Child] Is not excessively dependent on adults."
- "[Child] Approaches others positively."
While analyzing this source I feel that the authors intent is to inform it's reader's of the importance being socially competent at an early age. I believe their audience is directed toward people who interested developmental growth, children's growth, parents, etc. They give indicators what a socially competent child looks like and they cite many different sources which makes their discussion creditable.
Looking at the source, I feel like maybe things have changed since 2001 when this article was published. But I do believe that having these social skills are extremely important. Interdependence is extremely important in life, you have to rely on people. Having good social skills helps strengthen this.
Overall I feel like this article is pretty straight-forward. I ask myself can a not-social young child be social later in their life? People who have loners in life, is that because of a lack of social at a younger age?
Hi Alberto:
ReplyDeleteYou're doing some good exploratory research (I respond to both of your extended bibliography entries, along with your in-class freewrite, here). The journalists article you found seems to provide a good narrative account of the challenges people in poverty face. At the same time, McClellan speaks toward the difficulty (?) of assessing students' social skill. Do you feel these two articles are inter-related in some way? (Eg, that poverty and social skill might be related?) Or that they could be?
I think you're on the right track, especially considering that right now we're just in an exploratory phase of research. Later down the line, you'll want to focus your area of concern and researchable question in some way (just to keep things manageable). Otherwise, keep it up.
One note, I think I suggested you incorporate more quotation/paraphrasing in to your extended bibliography entries. The idea is to give just enough information for your reader to latch on to, while at the same time preventing your sources from overpowering your own perspective/words. It's a difficult balancing act. Just keep this in mind as you continue to find sources and write responses.
I appreciate the hard work! :)
To start, your works-cited entry looks great! You also did an excellent job of summarizing your source in the beginning. Short and sweet, the reader knows what they'll be reading about. The way you summarized this source was very easy for the reader to read and understand. However, you could work on improving having more of a conversation in your bibliography about your source. I don't mean with expressing your opinions, but by adding to your paraphrases/quotes/summaries by elaborating on the main ideas aka the assumptions of the piece.
ReplyDeleteI think you really chose some great quotes from your source to add here because I feel I know the main points even though I haven't read the paper. You also provided a very nice flow through your bibliography. The quotes weren't just crammed in there. You did a great job of giving them structure. However, your summary is mostly all quotes. As Jeremy said, it is a balancing act. The author makes a claim, a main idea. Evidence, the quotes you added, support this claim. Both are needed to get the author's idea across. So providing all evidence, quotes, wont create the strongest argument. Think of a quote as a statistic. You state it, but then you need to explain why you are using it and why it is important. As it says on pg.219 (writing analytically) it say "stop.. stringing together citations.. Instead, explain to your readers what the quotation, paraphrase, or summary of the source means."
Another important piece on pg. 220 says, "quote sources if the actual language that they use is important to your point." All that means is focus on the BIG sentences in the source that characterize the main point you want to get across in your bibliography.
So that was crazyness, sorry. But I hope it helps because you know what your talking about, and you back it you great- esp. in your analysis! This stuff will hopefully just help you focus in on the main points the author makes that you want to make your main points. :)
(Your formating for your paraphrases/summaries/ quotes looks wonderful!)
Keep rocking it!