User talk:CRMStudent1/sandbox

Feedback on article contribution

These comments are in no particular order:

Great article - really useful resource - as we discussed
It is relevant to the section and really gives you something to say that is grounded in serious research.
Publication year is 2016 rather than 2015
Since you amended your draft to reflect behavior as a major predictor over ideology, the syntax and grammar of the draft are wonky.
The language was a bit dense to begin with, reflecting the article's tone and word choice, of course. The contribution could be made more meaningful and more clear, if you rephrase it in your own words, language that most Wikipedia readers could easily grasp. For example, a parent's "ideology" sounds a bit remote from most people's experience of parenting. How would you define "ideology?" What phrase would mean the same thing and communicate more quickly and more clearly. Likewise, gendered "behaviors" might come across more meaningfully, if you talk about what children see their parents do around the house.
I've also spent some more time with the article itself to try and figure out how you and I came to such different assessments of it. One reason for confusion I think, is that the researchers are attentive to nuance in their results (a good thing), and they report their results with attention to these details. So - I've pulled out a list of quotes here in order to help us both focus as you revise and move toward a final draft of this contribution. I still think these ideas will be more accessible in your words, but these points seem important.
Overall, mothers’ and fathers’ behaviors were better predictors of children’s gender-role attitudes than parents’ ideology.
mothers and fathers played unique roles in their sons’ and daughters’ acquisition of knowledge about gender stereo- types.
It is notable that fathers’ behavior and ideology had little influence on girls’ outcomes.
Social cognitive theory supports the idea that modeling plays a crucial role in children’s ability to understand and apply their knowledge regarding differences between males and females (Bussey and Bandura 1999; Martin and Ruble 2009), and this process appears to explain how girls observe and model their mothers’ feminine behavior.
In short, the more traditional behavior mothers performed during the first year, the more their children expressed interest in traditionally gendered careers.
Perhaps the finding that more traditional mothers tend to have sons with less knowledge of masculine gender stereotypes has less to do with mothers’ behavior, and more to do with a lack of knowledge about fathers’ behavior. If traditional mothers are married to men who perform more traditionally gendered behavior (e.g., spending more time in paid labor), boys’ lack of knowledge about masculine gender stereotypes might be better explained by the absence of consistent exposure to their fathers.
In apparent contrast to the "Overall" finding above, father's ideology when children are very young seemed to have an important sub-effect as noted here: children’s knowledge of gender stereotypes about the opposite gender. Importantly, fathers’ early ideology was the only significant predictor of children’s scores on this measure. Specifically, boys demonstrated more knowledge of feminine stereotypes when their fathers held more traditional ideology during the first year, and less knowledge of feminine stereotypes when their fathers were more egalitarian.

If you can rephrase these findings in your own words, I think you will be in good shape. If you decide not to include ALL of the detail, that's fine. It's still an important and useful contribution to the article.Jagrif02 (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]