Maandag 26 mei 2014: Mijn beoordeling van Henry'spaper

26 mei 2014 - Norrköping, Zweden

Hallo!

 Zoals ik eerder gezegd heb (22 mei) kreeg ik een vervelende paper voor de kiezen om te beoordelen. Ik heb de paper zoveel gelezen dat ik hem kan op zeggen. Het duurde even voor ik begreep wat hij probeerde te vertellen. Nadat ik ik 3 dagen op de paper heb liggen kijken "skypte" ik met mijn lieve mama. Ik liet haar de paper lezen en mijn (reeds geschreven) beoordeling. Samen zochten we naar de juiste manier om alles te verwoorden.Ik heb mijn best gedaan om het goed te verwoorden. Ik ben er trots op.

 

Name of the author: Henry Chau

Title of the paper:  Child perspective

Relevance: Is the subject of the paper relevant to the theme of the course?

This paper will discuss child perspective on a global level, the representation of children and the concept of childhood.

The subject, child perspective, is certainly relevant to the course as it plays an important role when we talk about children’s rights and participation. Child perspective is the way adults think how children experience things. It is the perception how adults suppose children are and think like.

Adults try to look after children and they do that with the help of their own knowledge. They try to imagine what a child thinks, feels, wants, needs… and with these assumptions they want to do the best for children (protection, schooling, influence …). This has an influence on the children’s rights, as we reinforce them in laws, and on the participation, as we try to note how far children can be involved and be responsible.

 

The comprehensive picture: The overall comprehension of the paper.

The introduction explains that three things will be discussed: child perspective on a global level, the representation of children and the concept of childhood. However, there are no research questions which specify the discussion or the research of this paper.

The paper starts very good with explaining the difference between child perspective and child’s perspective, as this is one of the main subjects of the paper. Next, Henry talks about the concept of childhood. I can see that he has thought about it. He wants to explain where everything is coming from. For example, giving a historical background about the development of child perspective by explaining the changes of childhood throughout the history. He wants to support his findings with examples of paintings from Renaissance and Victorian time and with stories from the Brothers Grimm. The paintings and stories can be considered as good examples for the representation of the children at that time. The Brothers Grimm collected the stories and adapted them to be appropriate for that time. Sadly nowhere in this part the concept of childhood is defined. Explaining what childhood is should be the first step as I sometimes feel that “childhood” has a different meaning for him than for me: the age between toddler and teenager. This means that the three factors contributing to childhood seem a little weird as I don’t know where it is coming from. I can imagine that those factors were the sources which made children take different roles in history: miniature adult, vulnerable human and pupil.

The part of the Scandinavian Model, Ellen Key and Jean Piaget is very well explained although I do not understand why Jean Piaget’s theory of constructivism is important for childhood or child perspective as this counts for all humans.

The paper is difficult to read and to understand as there are many quotes which use research language. I feel that these quotes take you out of your focus. While reading everything is fine until you reach a sentence that is written is the style of research literature. One needs to read it three times before one understands it. This would be no problem if the quotes were explained in his own words and placed in a context.

 

Consistency: Is there a consistent line throughout the paper? Is the paper orderly arranged with a logical structure? Do the headlines correspond to the content? Is it easy to read and understand? Are the concepts in the paper explained? Is there a list of references?

The paper is not consistent as there are logical steps missing. There is no smooth transition between the paragraphs which makes it feel like you jump from one topic to the next. There are no research questions to start the paper with and which specify the discussion or the research of this paper. Additionally, there are no headlines which show the content and help with the understanding of the topic.

As comprehension and consistency influence each other the same things apply which were mentioned earlier: defining the concept of childhood, explaining what childhood is and the large amount of quotes written in a high-level English and making the paper hard to understand.

There is a list of references present. He did not forget to put them in alphabetical order.

 

Conclusion and discussion: Does she/he discuss the subject of the paper from different angles? Does the author make any conclusions?

From the introduction it seems that the focus would be on child perspective on a global level. However the only thing said about this is in one quote from Wells, “in one sense, history and social studies suggest that there cannot be a global form of childhood”. To support the quote Henry gives one example: differences in classrooms and attitudes towards children between Australia and Sweden. This is rather weak as two countries can not represent the differences in child perspective on a global scale. He could have compared it to more places in the world: USA, West-Europe, Africa, Asia. For example:
-          Sri Lanka, where children have their own babies on the ages of 14.
-          Africa, where marriages are arranged with girls with the age of 13.
-          Vietnam, where young children have to work to help supporting their family.
-          Street children in South - America
-          Child armies in Africa
-          …

This would show very clearly that there is no global perspective of childhood. This would give the reader a better view on the differences in child perspective in the world.

First we are told that Aries emphasizes that childhood didn’t exist until the end of the Medieval Ages, but later in the paper Henry tells us that that is not sure. Trying to build up a discussion he gives us some quotes that discuss Aries finding but never explains them. Next, he tries to connect the Scandinavian Model with his discussion but this is not relevant to the changes through the centuries. The Scandinavian Model stands on its own as only a few countries apply this method. As the Scandinavian Model is very new and advanced there must be some literature that contradicts this way of child perspective.

Even though, Henry could have a more extensive discussion, he was able to achieve the right conclusion. It is a pity that Henry ends his conclusion with a quote, as a conclusion should be from your own words.

Name of opponent: Anne Buwalda