You are on page 1of 3

Peer Review of Paper #2- Attachment Theorist vs.

Behaviorists: Views on Daycare This paper reviews an essay on behaviorist and attachment theorists perspectives regarding daycare. The paper under review discusses their different approaches and views with respect to the structure of childcare programs, hours of daycare attendance, advice regarding responsiveness to a childs crying, child/caregiver separation, and the importance of peer interactions. The papers introduction provides a good preview of what is to come later on in the paper and it thoroughly addresses the main points in the assigned prompt. The introduction also gives the reader a good understanding of what the paper is about. The introduction does not, however, address why its important to study the differences between the two theorists views on daycare. Lastly, the introduction incorporates the use of the word would often and awkwardly. The next two paragraphs following the introduction provide overviews of attachment theory and behaviorism respectively. The descriptions are lengthy and some of the information provided is superfluous to the purpose of the paper. For example, the different attachment styles discussed in the paragraph describing attachment theory were not incorporated significantly anywhere else in the paper. The writer also mentioned, attachment was a construct that was not observable but rather inferred, which again did not add to the purpose of the paper. In the paragraph regarding behaviorism, a good example of superfluous information was when the writer included these sentences: The child seen isreactive. Being reactive entails that you respond to the environment and you focus on controlling the environment. The overviews of the theorists take up almost half of the papers length and most of the information was not incorporated meaningfully in the following paragraphs.

The paragraph regarding the number of hours of childcare attendance adequately addressed attachment theorists beliefs about hours spent in daycare. The writer sufficiently illustrated their negative views surrounding childcare. The writer, however, left out a critical piece of information in his or her description of behaviorists views of hours spent in daycare. The writer did not include the reinforcement of desired behaviors in his or her description of reinforcement contingencies. The paragraph about the theorists views regarding child/caregiver separation provided unnecessary information regarding the use of different conditioning techniques. The discussion of operant and classical conditioning does not appropriately address the explanation that the prompt sought out with respect to child/caregiver separation. The writer focused on the application of separation and the use of separation as a tool rather than their view of the impact of child/caregiver separation. The writer also included a false piece of information in this paragraph, which can damage writer credibility. The writer said, The children with a secure attachment will have the most trouble separating from their primary care giver. The sentence is vague and is misleading. The paragraph overall did not provide a sufficient explanation of each theorists views regarding separation. The next paragraph regarding how each theorist views parent responsiveness with respect to a childs crying is very brief. It could have gone into more detail especially for how behaviorists would advise parents when a child cries. The writer did not incorporate the concept of reinforcement in his or her description of a behaviorists advice. Lastly, a large portion of the conclusion was the writers opinion. The writer incorporated the word I, and the information provided in the conclusion was based on his or her experience and not on objective facts or information.

Overall, the paper had good transitions between paragraphs and addressed most of the topics in the prompt. However, the writer completely left out how behaviorists and attachment theorists would differ in the structure of a childcare program. The paper also did an adequate job of covering both sides of each argument but didnt go into the necessary amount of depth for any of the topics. The paper also contained too much false information to be a credible source of knowledge. Lastly, it was not evident in the paper that a controversy even existed. Suggestions for improvement include: providing factual or credible evidence-based information from class lecture or the text, more elaboration on each of the papers main topics, reducing the amount of superfluous background information and increasing the amount of introductory information that could add to the purpose of the paper or the writers main points, and revising the paper for awkward sentencing and diction. Lastly, the paper should not include information based on opinion and subjective experience.