Eric Kratzer
Critique of Paper
The paper, A pathway to Playtime: Work, Education, and Family for Nineteenth Century Working Class Children, is an interesting and well written summary of childhood conditions for Canadian children during the Nineteenth Century. The paper has a good thesis statement and follows through on the key points made in the statement by describing the two main points of the paper: These are (1) working conditions for children, who were viewed by society as sources of income and (2) education and training opportunities that were very limited, especially among the poorer families.
I found this paper to be very interesting and easy to read and understand. It provides a good summary of working conditions in both rural and urban communities, describes what constitutes each type of community, and gives similarities and differences between the two geographical areas regarding the role of children in the workplace. The paper also does a good job of providing specifics to go with general statements. For example, when the paper discusses that children in urban areas were more likely to work for wages than children in rural areas, it provides information from the Montreal census of 1871 to support the point. Throughout the paper, use is made of statistics to provide support the comments that are made.
Another strong point of the paper is the use it makes of quotations from working children during the period. For example, in explaining that children played a major role in helping their families settle new areas o the country, the paper quotes Annie Tuttle as saying, “Early in 1851, I was taken hundreds of miles from the home of my childhood and transplanted into very different surroundings. All my little belongings were packed and we spent the next few years preparing a house and land for harvest.” The paper also does a good job of providing definitions of uncommon words used to describe conditions. For example, “stoking” is defined as the process of tying the harvested grain together. In addition, the paper also includes a good conclusion that ties the main themes of the paper together.
The paper also uses a wide variety of sources to support its thesis—a total of 26 books and journals. However, one of the paper’s weaknesses is that only two primary sources are used. The only other weaknesses of the paper are mainly mechanical errors. For example, the title of the paper does not refer to Canadian children, so it is a little confusing at first why emphasis is being placed on conditions in Canada. The paper would also be easier to follow if captions were used when it switches from one theme to another. Finally, there are a number of typos or grammatical errors. These are not serious errors that disrupt the flow of the paper, and they could be easily eliminated to improve the overall quality of the paper.
Overall, this is a very informative and interesting paper. I would give it an overall grade of A-.
Comments