Strengths and Weaknesses of Article Writing
Developing a reading culture is essential for all age groups. The recommendation is for parents to begin reading for their children from the time they are born. This paper presents the strengths and weaknesses of the document that discusses the above issues. One of the advantages evident in the article is in its heading. The heading is direct to the point and gives the reader a glimpse of what they expect in the paper. The ambiguity of a title may mislead the reader earlier on and cause a bit of confusion as they try to interpret its relation to the content. In this case, it is directly related to the audience since it talks about ‘your child,’ meaning that it can attract the attention of parents who would like to know the benefits of reading to their children’s brain. However, there is a slight problem when it comes to this, narrowing down the audience may limit the writer in such a case. This is evident later on when the article feels as if it is not only fit for the parents. For instance, when the article talks about a research team looking into aspects that contribute to the stimulation of children’s brain activities. It is also speaking to other audiences such as pre-school teachers (since the study targets children from birth to 5 years) and researchers who seek to enter into that field.
A good paper should have convincing rather than perceptive evidence. Storrs (2016), states that “Researchers looked at children ages 3 to 5 who underwent brain scans called functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) while listening to a pre-recorded story.” This statement is already evidence that the article does not only rely on perceptions, but they have evidence as back up to the claim. The use of professional researchers tends to give the reader of the article the confidence they need to believe in the truthfulness of the matter. Additionally, the report provides a natural explanation after every research finding. The implication of this is making the article friendly to parents from all backgrounds. Whether they have a strong or a little understanding of terms related to the report, they are bound to understand it with ease. For instance, Storrs (2016) says that “The researchers saw that, when the young children were being told a story, several regions in the left part of the brain became active.” If the writer were to leave this statement at that point, a reader would be left hanging and asking questions on the relevance of the left side of the brain. However, Storrs (2016), continues to explain that, “these are the areas involved in understanding the meaning of words and concepts and also in memory.” The statement acts as a reinforcement, and therefore the reader understands better the intention of the article. Summarily, the writer has achieved the objective of explaining keywords and critical details, which makes the piece more interesting.
The article is also written chronologically. However, there is a slight offset when it comes to sticking to the topic which the reader first intended. While the title is about reading to the child and the effects it has on the brain; the writer seems to go out of it by discussing literacy friendly homes. Further, the writer moves on to aspects that contributed the most to the stimulation of brain activity (Storrs, 2016). The implication of this is causing the reader to wander away from the main focus of the study. It may even bring confusion to the reader at one point or another. Thus, there is a need to exhaustively cover the topic initially intended for the article before delving into other issues.