ARTICLE Critical Analysis

ARTICLE Critical AnalysisHW1Read the two articles about single sex schooling.Using an academic tone, write a one–pagecritical analysis of the two articles. Think about and discuss the following items, but write aboutthem in paragraph form:?Purpose?Audience?Thesis?Tone?Style?Theauthor’s use of Ethos, Pathos and Logos?Compare and contrast the articles:?What are the strong points??What are the weak points??What is missing?Use quotations, paraphrases and summaries as needed. Don’t forget to cite! (You do not,however, need to include a references page).Typed, 12–pt. Times New Roman, double–spaced, 1–inch margins~~Here is some informationfrom the OWL website to help with your citations~~Unknown Author:If the work does not have an author, cite the source by its title in the signalphrase or use the first word or two in the parentheses. Titles of books and reports are italicizedor underlined; titles of articles, chapters, and web pages are in quotation marks.A similar study was done of students learning to format research papers (“Using APA,”2001).Sources Without Page Numbers:When an electronic source lacks page numbers, you shouldtry to include information that will help readers find the passage being cited. When anelectronic document has numbered paragraphs, use theabbreviation “para.” followed by theparagraph number (Hall, 2001, para. 5). If the paragraphs are not numbered and the documentincludes headings, provide the appropriate heading and specify the paragraph under thatheading. Note that in some electronic sources, like Web pages, people can use the Findfunction in their browser to locate any passages you cite.According to Smith (1997), … (Mind over Matter section, para. 6).Note:Never use the page numbers of Web pages you print out; different computersprint Webpages with different pagination.Retrieved from: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/03/the articles are belowSingle–sex educationBy–The Washington Times–Saturday, September 13, 2003Single–sex education is taking public school students to a new level, providing them with agreater variety of academic opportunities. More importantly, studies show that single–sexeducation vastly improves students’ reading scores, their overall grades and their acceptanceinto college.Benjamin Wright, outgoing principal of Thurgood Marshall Elementary School in Seattle, sayshis students improved significantly when he began offering single–sex classrooms three yearsago. The average boys’ score in reading went from the 10th percentile to the 66th percentileafter single–sex education was implemented, Mr. Wright said at a recent forum sponsored bythe National Association for Single Sex Public Education (NASSPE). Discipline referrals weredramatically reduced, from an average of 30 per day to fewer than two per day. Other benefitsinclude an improvement in student morale, the doubling of the number of students going tocollege and a reduction in teen pregnancies.In Washington, Moten Elementary School began offering single–sex programs in 2001. Prior tothe change, the performance of the students on standardized tests at Moten was among theworst in the District. By the end of the school year, the percentage of the math portion of theStanford 9 test wentfrom 49 percent to 88 percent. The reading scores also shot up from 50percent to over 91 percent. The discipline problems among the students dramaticallydecreased by 99 percent. These results ranked Moten, which is located in one of the city’spoorest neighborhoods, alongside some of the top public and private schools in the District.Some critics believe single–sex education is “strange” and “old–fashioned,” not in tune with thereality that men and women have to live and work together. They also contend that single–sexeducation, instead of breaking down gender stereotypes, reinforces them, creating a wider gulfbetween the sexes.However, the opposite is true. Single–sex education helps break down gender stereotypes bygiving students greater freedomin taking a wider variety of classes. Says psychologist andNASSPE founder Leonard Sax, “girls who attend single sex schools are more likely to takecourses in computer science and physics,” while boys “are more likely to study non–gender–traditional subjects such as art, music, dance, drama and culinary arts.”Single–sex education has bipartisan support. Two years ago, four senators—Republicans SusanCollins and Kay Bailey Hutchison, Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barbara Mikulski—craftedsingle–sex education legislation that now is part of President Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act.The legislation is “a solution to a problem that we have seen over many years: that is, obstaclesput in a place against public schools being able to offer single–sex classrooms and single–sexschools,” Mrs. Hutchison told us.Currently, there are only 62 single–sex programs in public schools. As the school–choicemovement gains broader acceptance, we urge educators to develop more single–sex programsto boost student achievement.Retrieved from:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/sep/13/20030913–112113–5901r/The case against single–sex schoolingJune 4, 2012,The Washington Post Answer SheetBy Rebecca Bigler and Lise EliotThiswas written by Rebecca Bigler and Lise Eliot. Bigler is a professor of psychology andwomen’sand gender studies at the University of Texas at Austin, and Eliot is associate professorof neuroscience at the Chicago Medical School of Rosalind Franklin University. Both are co–authors of“The pseudoscience of single–sex schooling” published in the journal Science lastSeptember.Educators have spent several decades trying—and largely failing—to improve public schools.What if the solution were as easy as re–sorting students into their classrooms? Some supportersbelievesingle–sex schoolingis just such a magic bullet. But multiple lines of research show thatsingle–sex schooling is both ineffective and detrimental to children’s development. This is whywe support theAmerican Civil Liberties Union’s new effortto investigate potentially unlawfulsingle–sex programs in school districts across the country.Throughout the United States, hundreds of public schools are segregating boys and girls asyoung as kindergarten age into single–sex classrooms based on highly distorted claims aboutdifferences in their brains and mental skills. What’s worse, such schools are ignoring importantresearch showing that such segregation may actually be harmful to children.Consider the new Franklin Academy for Boys in Tampa, a public middle school whose charterapplication states that “the typical teenage girl has a sense of hearing seven times more acutethan a teenage boy,” and continues with this claim, “Stress enhances learning in males. Thesame stress impairs learning in females.”Such statements are laughable to neuroscientists, but have proven highly persuasive toparents, teachers, and school boards. Yes, researchers have identified small, group–leveldifferences between boys and girls (or more often, between male and female rats) on a varietyof brain and behavioral measures. But none of these differences justify single–sex education.Here’s why:The sex differences that have been identified are small and statistical—not a seven–fold effect.Scientists agree there is much more overlap than difference between boys and girls in theirbrains and behavior. That is, boys differ more among each other in academic and social skillsthan they differ from girls, and vice versa. Placing children into classrooms based on theirgender and—and making assumptions about theirphysiology, brains, interests, and learningability—will virtually guarantee that teachers’ expectations are biased and their gender–basedpractices are misguided for most of their students.Perhaps more importantly, the idea that “boys and girls learndifferently” is unsupported byscientific evidence. Decades of research have failed to identify reliable differences in the waymale and female brains process, store, or retrieve information. For example, the popular ideathat “boys are visual learners” and “girls are auditory learners” is simply untrue. Learning is bestaccomplished when the delivery method matches the subject matter. It is the quality ofteachers’ training, lessons, and classroom management practices—and not gender of theirstudents—that determines how much learning occurs in their classrooms.Indeed, rigorous educational research has found that, contrary to popular belief, single–sexeducation does not produce better achievement outcomes compared to coeducation. Carefulanalysis inboth the United States and from around the world demonstrates that any apparentadvantage of single–sex schools disappears when you account for other characteristics, such asstudents’ prior ability and the length of the school day. Superior schools are successful forreasons that are unrelated to the gender of their student body.While single–sex schooling does nothing unique to improve academic achievement, gendersegregated classrooms are detrimental to children in several ways. First, research indevelopmental psychology has clearly shown that teachers’ labeling and segregating of socialgroups increases children’s stereotyping and prejudice. Imagine the consequences of creatingseparate math classes for “black students” and “white students.” Even if enrollment werepurely optional, the mere existence of such classes would lead to increased racial stereotypingand prejudice. As is true for race, classroom assignment based on gender teaches children thatmales and females have different types of intellects, and reinforces sexism in schools and theculture at large.Second, research on peer relations indicates that children who interact mostly with same–gender peers develop increasingly narrow skill sets and interests. For example, boys who spendmore time with other boys become increasingly aggressive; girls who spend more time withother girls become more sex–typed in their play. Developmental research finds better mentalhealth outcomes among children who develop a mix of traditionally masculine and feminineskills and interests—like playing competitive sports and discussing emotions—compared tomore one–dimensional peers.Most importantly, single–sex schooling reduces boys’ and girls’ opportunities to learn from andabout each other. Boys and girls must learn to work together, and the classroom is the idealsetting for such practice because it is both purposeful and supervised.It is not long before the youth of today will be the parents, co–workers, and leaders oftomorrow. Rather than segregating boys and girls during this important developmental time,schools should take better advantage of coeducation to model the truly egalitarian society thatwe hope for their future.Retrieved from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer–sheet/post/the–case–against–single–sex–schooling/2012/06/03/gJQA75DNCV_blog.html?wprss=rss_answer


Last Completed Projects

# topic title discipline academic level pages delivered
6
Writer's choice
Business
University
2
1 hour 32 min
7
Wise Approach to
Philosophy
College
2
2 hours 19 min
8
1980's and 1990
History
College
3
2 hours 20 min
9
pick the best topic
Finance
School
2
2 hours 27 min
10
finance for leisure
Finance
University
12
2 hours 36 min