WritingProject2:TheAnnotatedBibliography

BackgroundandOverview

Conductingresearchdoesnotmerelyrefertocollectinginformationanddata;italsoincludesmanaging
thatinformationanddata.Afterall,itisonethingtoreadhundredsofpagesortolistentohoursand
hoursofinterviews,anditisquiteanotherthingtomakethatinformationordatauseable.Creatingan
annotatedbibliographycanhelpresearcherstocondensetheirresearchinwaysthatmakeitmore
usefultothem.Additionally,anannotatedbibliographycanalsohelpotherreaderstogainaquicksense
ofwhattheresearchsays.

Inthissecondwritingprojectyouwillwriteanannotatedbibliographyforyourresearchproject.This
bibliographywillhelpyouorganizeandthinkabouttheresearchthatyouhaveconductedandwillusein
yourpersuasiveessay(WritingProject3).

RequirementsandDeliverables

Inbroadstrokes,thisassignmentasksyoucreate58annotationsofsources.Eachannotationwillbe
formattedforwebpublicationandincludeanMLAWorksCitedcitationfollowedbyafewparagraphs.
Eachentryshould:

1. annotationincludeanMLAWorksCitedcitationthatisappropriatelyformattedforthetypeof
source;
2. discussthesourcescredibility(whyisthesourcescreatorsomeonewhocan/shouldtalkabout
theparticularsubject);
3. summarizethesourceinyourownwords(whatisthesourcepresenting?Ifitisanimage,what
doestheviewersee?Ifitisawrittentext,whatdoesitsay?);
4. takeastanceontheauthorspurposeincreatingthesource(whatistheauthortryingto
accomplishinthesource);
5. provideexamplesofstrategiesthattheauthorusestoachievetheirpurpose(particularword
choices,certainexamplesorwaysofarguing,data/statistics,charts,graphs,compositional
techniques,andsoforth)andhowthosestrategiesworkormightworkwiththeauthors
audience;
6. discusshowthesourceseemstobesituatedwithinaconversation,community,genre,or
disciplineisthesourcedoingsomethingreallynew,attackingalongheldposition,expandinga
lineofinquiryorresearch,clarifyinganissueorsetofissues,andsoforth;
7. articulatehoweachsourcemighttalktoatleastoneothersourceinyourannotated
bibliography(doesonesourcebuilduponanother,explainit,expandit,complicateit,opposeit,
andsoforth);
8. evaluatethesource(isitagoodsource,abadsource,andwhy?);
9. discusshowyoumightusethisarticleinyourresearchproject.


***NOTES:
Annotatedbibliographieswillvaryinlength,butadetailedannotatedbibliographywillprobably
beatleast350wordsperentry.
Youmayincludeavarietyoftypesofsources.Youmightfindthatanappropriatesourceisa
scholarlyarticle,asacredtext,aninterview,orevenanimageormovie.Asyouselectsources,
themostimportantthingisnotthesourceitself,buthowyouplantousethesourceandhow
youjustifyyouruseofthesource.

ProjectSubmission

RoughDraft:YourroughdraftshouldbepostedtoyourePortfolio,andyoushouldprovidea
webaddresstoitintheedXsubmissionsystemtoenablepeerreview.Besuretofollowallpeer
reviewsubmissioninstructionscarefully.
RevisedDraft:YourreviseddraftshouldbepostedtoyourePortfolio(i.e.,youshouldreviseyour
AnnotatedBibliographypage),andyoushouldprovideawebaddresstoitintheedXsubmission
system.
NOTE:inordertoreceivecreditforyourfinaldraft,youmustsubmitawebaddressthroughedX
intheproperplaceforthefinaldraftsubmission.

Tips:

Getstartedearly.
Reviewthisweeksmaterialsanddiscussions.
PaycloseattentiontotheePortfoliocoursesite@http://gfaeng102.weebly.com
Setawriting/researchscheduleandsticktoit.

Annotated Bibliography Assessment Rubric

1 = needs significant work, 2 = needs some work, 3 = satisfactory, 4 = excellent
Criteria
Each annotation includes an MLA Works Cited
citation that is appropriately formatted for the
type of source.
Outcomes: Knowledge of Conventions
Discusses each sources credibility
Outcomes: Rhetorical Knowledge; Critical
Thinking, Reading, and Composing
Summarizes each source
Outcomes: Rhetorical Knowledge; Critical
Thinking, Reading, and Composing; Processes;
Knowledge of Conventions
Takes a stance on each sources purpose
Outcomes: Rhetorical Knowledge; Critical
Thinking, Reading, and Composing; Knowledge
of Conventions
Provides strategies from each source and
explains how those strategies might work with
each sources audience
Outcomes: Rhetorical Knowledge; Critical
Thinking, Reading, and Composing; Processes;
Knowledge of Conventions
Situates each source within a conversation,
community, genre, or discipline
Outcomes: Critical Thinking, Reading, and
Composing; Knowledge of Conventions
Articulates how each source might talk with
at least one other source in the annotated
bibliography
Outcomes: Rhetorical Knowledge; Critical
Thinking, Reading, and Composing; Knowledge
of Conventions
Evaluates each source
Outcomes: Critical Thinking, Reading, and
Composing; Knowledge of Conventions
Discusses how each source might be used in
the larger research project
Outcomes: Rhetorical Knowledge; Critical
Thinking, Reading, and Composing; Processes;
Knowledge of Conventions
Overall

Comments

Criterion:
Each annotation includes an MLA
Works Cited citation that is
appropriately formatted for the type
of source.
Outcomes: Knowledge of
Conventions

Comments

4: excellent

There is no more than one error pattern in source citation

3: satisfactory

There are no more than two error patterns in source citation

2: needs some work

There are no more than three error patterns in source citation

1: needs significant
work

There are four or more error patterns in source citation

Criterion:
Discusses each sources credibility
Outcomes: Rhetorical Knowledge;
Critical Thinking, Reading, and
Composing

Comments

4: excellent

Clearly and concretely discusses each sources credibility

3: satisfactory

Discusses each sources credibility

2: needs some work

Ambiguously discusses each sources credibility

1: needs significant
work

Does not discuss each sources credibility

Criterion:
Summarizes each source
Outcomes: Rhetorical Knowledge;
Critical Thinking, Reading, and
Composing; Processes; Knowledge of
Conventions

Comments

4: excellent

Each sources summary is clear and well-focused

3: satisfactory

Each sources summary is generally clear but lacks some focus

2: needs some work

Each sources summary is somewhat ambiguous and unfocused

1: needs significant
work

Sources are not summarized

Criterion:
Takes a stance on each sources
purpose
Outcomes: Rhetorical Knowledge;
Critical Thinking, Reading, and
Composing; Knowledge of
Conventions

Comments

4: excellent

Takes a well-defined stance on each sources purpose

Describes each sources purpose in detail

3: satisfactory

Takes a stance on each sources purpose

Describes each sources purpose with some details

2: needs some work

Takes an ambiguously-defined stance on each sources purpose

Describes each sources purpose with little or no details

1: needs significant
work

Does not take a stance on each sources purpose

Describes each sources purpose with little or no details

Criterion:
Provides strategies from each source
and explains how those strategies
might work with each sources
audience
Outcomes: Rhetorical Knowledge;
Critical Thinking, Reading, and
Composing; Processes; Knowledge of
Conventions

Comments

4: excellent

Provides two or more strategies from each source

Clearly and concretely explains how those strategies might work with each
sources audience

3: satisfactory

Provides one or more strategies from each source

Explains how those strategies might work with each sources audience

2: needs some work

Provides at least one strategy from each source

Ambiguously explains how those strategies might work with each sources
audience

1: needs significant
work

Does not provide at least one strategy from each source

Does not explain how strategies might work with each sources audience

Criterion:
Situates each source within a
conversation, community, genre, or
discipline
Outcomes: Critical Thinking,
Reading, and Composing; Knowledge
of Conventions
4: excellent

Comments

Clearly and concretely situates each source within a conversation, community,

genre, or discipline
Clearly and concretely explains what the source is doing within that conversation,
community, genre, or discipline

3: satisfactory

Situates each source within a conversation, community, genre, or discipline

Explains what the source is doing within that conversation, community, genre, or
discipline

2: needs some work

Ambiguously situates each source within a conversation, community, genre, or

discipline
Ambiguously explains what the source is doing within that conversation,
community, genre, or discipline

1: needs significant
work

Does not situate each source within a conversation, community, genre, or

discipline
Does not explain what the source is doing within that conversation, community,
genre, or discipline

Criterion:
Articulates how each source might
talk with at least one other source
in the annotated bibliography
Outcomes: Rhetorical Knowledge;
Critical Thinking, Reading, and
Composing; Knowledge of
Conventions

Comments

4: excellent

Clearly and concretely articulates how each source might talk with at least one
other source in the annotated bibliography

3: satisfactory

Articulates how each source might talk with at least one other source in the
annotated bibliography

2: needs some work

Ambiguously articulates how each source might talk with at least one other
source in the annotated bibliography

1: needs significant
work

Does not articulate how each source might talk with at least one other source
in the annotated bibliography

Criterion:
Evaluates each source
Outcomes: Critical Thinking,
Reading, and Composing; Knowledge
of Conventions

Comments

4: excellent

Clearly and concretely evaluates each source

Provides a rationale for the evaluation that the reader can follow with no
difficulty

3: satisfactory

Evaluates each source

Provides a rationale for the evaluation that the reader can follow with little
difficulty

2: needs some work

Ambiguously evaluates each source

Provides a rationale for the evaluation that the reader can follow with moderate
difficulty

1: needs significant
work

Does not evaluate each source AND/OR

Provides a rationale for the evaluation that the reader is unable to follow

Criterion:
Discusses how each source might be
used in the larger research project
Outcomes: Rhetorical Knowledge;
Critical Thinking, Reading, and
Composing; Processes; Knowledge of
Conventions

Comments

4: excellent

Clearly and concretely discusses how each source might be used in the larger
research project

3: satisfactory

Discusses how each source might be used in the larger research project

2: needs some work

Ambiguously discusses how each source might be used in the larger research
project

1: needs significant
work

Does not discuss how each source might be used in the larger research project