Hey there. Well, mainly looks good. For some obvious editing targets, there are some wording errors (related to usage) to fix. For example, in the first paragraph, try "clear" rather than "vivid" -- they seem the same, but "vivid" usually refers to an image or colour, and just by conventional usage doesn't work here (that's not something that would be obvious from, say, a thesaurus, unfortunately!) Similarly, in the penultimate paragraph, you say, "In an attempt to scrape these challenges..." Try "meet" or "handle" or so on -- scrape is just wrong. Not sure where that came from.
Sticking with that passage, for content, it would be nice to see a further exploration of that problem. You continue by saying "...the teachers should be ready to demonstrate the effectiveness of active participation in the classroom. For instance, the teacher should clarify that participation is the basis of long-term understanding of class concepts." Sure, but little kids, even without developmental problems, won't always be able to value this kind of long-term thinking. Frankly, a lot of adults don't really grasp it, ha ha!!! Anyway, how might teachers *practically* get kids to participate when they don't want to and can't, ironically, understand the value of "long-term understanding"? What could that teacher *actually* do in that situation? A bit of this sort of detail would really help bring your point out of the realm of theory and into fact.
There are some other, obvious little things to polish. Have a Works Cited page that starts on the top of the page. Use a proper Page Break, not just white space, to get to the separate page -- delete all that white space and just "Insert Page Break" after the end of your paper, before the Works Cited. Also, don't put a period after "Works Cited" on the actual page. Put a space after "Neuwirth" in the attribution -- so you get "(Neuwirth 45)" and not "(Neuwirth45)". Use a proper full heading (it's right in the RAP Guidelines.) Etc. Watch for similar errors as listed here.
As for the big stuff -- all the major bits look like they're in place. The "disadvantages" bit comes rather later than usual, but that's because you combined the explanation of your solution with the advantages of your solution -- that's not the "stock" way to do this, but you've got all the parts, so I'm fine with it.
Mainly, watch for wording problems like the ones I noted, and sort out the heading thing and so on (it's good practice.)
User_10859 | Apr 17, 2017, 00:38 AM