Exploring The Challenges Of Communication And Support In First-Generation College Student Communities

2.12 Steps

Write a (250+ word) draft of your introduction.
The introduction (as described in Overview – Writing Project #2: The Annotated Bibliography) should present “key background information about the community and the problem, so that a general academic audience will understand what your annotated bibliography focuses on. Further, [it should] explain to your audience how the annotated articles, as a set, help you better understand the discourse community and problem.” In this introduction draft, you will aim to meet three (3) Criteria for Quality from the Writing Project #2 rubric (which is linked to Submit – Writing Project #2: The Annotated Bibliography, Final Draft):

Need answer to this question?

Order an original paper Now!

Order Now

We’re giving you a 15% discount on your first Order.

Discount Code: SKILNEW15

Use the above discount code during checkout

2-2: Overview – Writing Project #2: The Annotated Bibliography

Overview

For Writing Project #2, you will compose a commonly assigned academic document: an annotated bibliography. You will choose a discourse community that interests you, then choose a problem related to that discourse community. Next, you’ll find and read four (4) scholarly articles that can help you understand that problem from a scholarly perspective. For each scholarly article, you will write an annotation (a two-paragraph description and evaluation of the article). Finally, you’ll put all of your annotations together and add an introduction that explains your discourse community and problem, as well as how your annotations help you better understand both.

Photo by WindowsLinks to an external site. on UnsplashLinks to an external site.

Context

As you learned earlier in the semester, Research is Strategic. Research–especially academic research–has to be strategic, because of the intricacies involved in using sources in your writing. We could list many more reasons that academic research is difficult (for college students, in particular), but we’ll focus on two here.

It’s hard to find the best sources.
Where do you go to find scholarly articles and what do you search for when you get there? The answer to the first part of this question is usually your university’s library database, but (like academic writing) these sites can be overwhelming and disorienting. And on top of that, most college courses require you to draw upon scholarly and reliable sources. While most scholarly sources are reliable, there are plenty of reliable sources out there that are not scholarly. When should you use scholarly sources? How do you find reliable sources? Which scholars or journals should you consult? These questions will be essential to consider as you begin researching your topic and searching for sources.
It’s hard to make sense of what you find.
Once you find sources—whether scholarly, reliable, or both—how do you process them? How do you use them to support and complicate your own ideas? Academic writing can be intimidating to many audiences, especially new college students. That struggle is not, despite our insecurities, often related to our intelligence. It’s actually more related to the fact that most people (college students included) are not the intended audience. Scholarly articles are written for insider audiences. As a result, they tend to be long and complicated (sometimes overly so). What’s more, scholars often use language and writing conventions that are unique and seen in few writing situations outside of academia. Therefore, academic writing can be confusing and alienating for uninitiated readers (the general public, non-experts, students, etc.). And finally, it’s important to remember that academic writers are not perfect writers. While there are systems in place, like the academic peer review process, not every piece of published scholarship contains perfectly clear ideas—or even sentences in some cases. Yes, peer review (academic and otherwise) is meant to ensure an author’s ideas are polished, comprehensible, and that the arguments being forwarded are logical and well-supported, but reviewers don’t catch everything. Sometimes, reviewers even value obscure language or other writing moves that can make academic writing less-than-accessible. (That being said, the more you read, the easier it will get!)

To meet these challenges, many college instructors assign (and write for themselves!) annotated bibliographies. But what does that mean? A bibliography is a list of sources that are relevant to a project (much like a Works Cited page!). And an annotation is a detailed description of a source. So, an annotated bibliography is that same list of sources–but beefed up to include not only a bibliographic citation, but also a detailed description of each source. And to top it off, the annotated bibliography often includes an introduction, which ties all of the sources together. Annotated bibliographies are useful for researchers, who need to absorb and recall lots of information. They are also useful for teams of researchers who share the workload of secondary research and need to communicate with each other about sources. Finally, they are useful to learners like you, who gain valuable practice in locating, describing, and evaluating scholarly research–and, further, in storing that research to make it useful down the road!

Instructions

This writing project has several steps. There are Invention and Drafting activities in this module that will help you with each step and lead you to the final product.

Click on each tab to read the instructions for each step of this writing project.

Choose a discourse community that interests you.

Read about discourse communities in Explore – Discourse Communities. Use the Discourse Community Matrix to figure out how you might already be part of/familiar with a discourse community (based on your hobbies, interests, and passions). And, of course, to be sure that the community you choose is a discourse community!

Criteria for Evaluation

Your submission will be evaluated based on how closely it meets the following expectations:

It includes an introduction, which is 250+ words in length.
It includes four (4) or more annotations, each of which is 250+ words in length and annotates a single academic article. (Note: Citations do not count towards the minimum annotation word count.)
It cites properly and consistently.
- Include 4+ APA or MLA citations (one for each annotated article). Your citations should always precede the annotation and be properly formatted. Within annotations, MLA and APA in-text citations conventions should be consistently followed.
Its introduction is informative, connected, and accurate.
- Your introduction should clearly identify the discourse community, problem, and necessary background information. Explains how each source provides a scholarly perspective on the discourse community and/or problem. As a whole, the introduction should makes its points clearly and show somewhat deep consideration of the topic and of the audience’s values and prior knowledge.
Its structure is purposeful, sensible, easy-to-follow, and genre-appropriate
- The submission begins with an introduction. Annotations are presented in proper alphabetical order (sorted by author last name). Annotations begin with a descriptive paragraph and end with an evaluative paragraph. As a whole, the submission explicitly and consistently signals how ideas are related to each other.
Its descriptive paragraphs are informative, accurate, neutral and academic in tone, articulate, concise, and focused.

- The descriptive paragraphs offer key information about the article’s context, goals, and use of support. As a whole, these paragraphs are accurate, neutral and academic in tone, articulate, concise, and focused. As a whole, the paragraphs demonstrate that the researcher has studiously read the source.
Its evaluative paragraphs are informative, academic, accurate, well supported, specific, articulate, concise, and focused.
- The evaluative paragraphs share the researcher’s personal take on the source’s success and usefulness. As a whole, these paragraphs are academic in tone, accurate, well supported, specific, articulate, concise, and focused. As a whole, the paragraphs demonstrate that the researcher has considered the source’s successes and its relationship to the project at hand.

You can see the full rubric for details on how your final draft will be evaluated in “Submit – Writing Project #2: The Annotated Bibliography, Final Draft.”

Relevance

Why Is this Assignment Relevant?

This assignment asks you to become familiar with and engage in academic discourse, a writing and communication genre that is essential to succeeding in college. Scholarly writing often alienates new college students because of the complex (and often unique) ways that scholars forward arguments, use support, and employ discipline-specific language. Writing Project #2 will help get you comfortable with such writing conventions, giving you a base knowledge for what academic writing is and how it is used in the university. Furthermore, Writing Project #2 asks you to conduct college level research. This assignment will prompt you to not only effectively use sources in your work, but to also create a strategy for finding, organizing, and evaluating these sources. Said differently, the work you do in Writing Project #2 will prepare you to approach any research-heavy project–in and beyond the university. Finally, you will utilize Wordtune, a generative AI program, to revise your work. Your ability to effectively use generative AI to complete tasks will certainly give you an advantage in the workforce.

How to Make this Assignment Relevant to You and Others

While Writing Project #2 is clearly relevant for your college career, it will also help you develop some of the critical thinking and reasoning skills essential to many professions. This is especially true for the work you will do with sources in this project. While your profession will most likely not ask you to use scholarly research, many professions expect employees to be able to find, organize, and evaluate various forms of information. Further, the research strategies you develop for this project will help you to plan and implement common workplace tasks like creating business reports, collecting and organizing important information, and supporting ideas with reliable sources.

Common Questions and Tips

Below, find answers to questions that learners have historically posted about this assignment. If you have other questions, please ask them in the Help Forum. (If your questions are of a personal nature, ask them in the Private Questions space.)

Can I see an example of what a good Writing Project #2 looks like?

For examples of annotated bibliographies, see Explore – Crafting Annotations. Note that these examples won’t be perfect, but they do many things well! One of the learner examples can even be used as a template for formatting.

What is a “bibliographic citation”?

This is simply the citation that you would normally put in a “Works Cited,” “References,” or “Bibliography” list.

What is a “scholarly article?”

You’ll learn more about this topic in Explore – Defining Academic Writing and Scholarly Sources, but essentially, a “scholarly article” is an article published in a scholarly journal. A scholarly journal is a periodical (a piece of work published on a regular schedule–like a magazine or newspaper) in which scholars publish their research for other scholars to read.

What is a scholarly discipline?

A scholarly discipline is something like a “major.” It’s a group of scholars who all study a similar thing–e.g., Literature, Composition, Biology, Statistics, Health Sciences, etc. For a reminder of what scholarly disciplines are, reference Karen Rosenberg’s chapter in Explore – Academic Writing. For a handy list of many, many scholarly disciplines, check out this Wikipedia article, “Outline of Academic DisciplinesLinks to an external site..”

How do I find scholarly articles about my topic? Why would scholars care about my topic?

If you can’t imagine why a scholarly discipline might care about your discourse community or problem, try plugging some keywords into Google ScholarLinks to an external site. and seeing what kinds of articles pop up! For example, if I plugged in “skateboarding,” I’d see that journals like Sports Medicine and The Journal of Urban Design have published highly cited articles on skateboarding. By looking up those journals’ “About Us” pages, I can learn what disciplines they represent, like urban design! And then by doing a quick Wikipedia review.Links to an external site. of the field of Urban Design, I can get a good sense of why it might care about skateboarding.
Keep in mind: you can also look for disciplines that care about your chosen problem! For example, if you want to better understand unequal treatment of women in skateboarding discourse communities, you might look towards disciplines that study gender.

What if I can’t access articles behind paywalls?

Many scholarly journals require paid subscriptions to be able to access articles. Luckily for many, university libraries have already paid many, many of those subscriptions for us–as long as we’re logged in through our university accounts. If, for some reason, you don’t have access to a university library, you should try open access journals! Check out the Directory of Open-Access JournalsLinks to an external site. (DOAJ). Open-access journals don’t have paywalls! That means that you can access these articles for free–without having something like an ASU Libraries account. Here’s the catch, though: you’ll need to vet these journals a bit more stringently. ASU Libraries lets you know when a journal is “peer reviewed” (the easiest way to make sure a journal is reputable). If you find a journal through the DOAJ, you’ll want to go to that journal’s website, read its “About Me,” and make sure it is peer-reviewed.

What if I annotate more than four sources?

We’ll grade/give feedback on your best four! (Note: Please don’t submit an excessive amount of annotations.)

Do I include in-text citations in my annotations?

You don’t need to do in-text citations unless you’re directly quoting materials–in which case, you’d need to include a specific page number. In the course in general, the grading team will differ in terms of in-text citations. Here are your main goals:
- Make your citations navigable: Readers should be able to use your in-text citations to (a) link to a specific text in your Works Cited and (b) find the desired information within that source.
- Make your citations signal authorship: In-text citations should help readers differentiate between your ideas and the source’s ideas.

Should I be using direct quotes, or should I paraphrase more?

A good rule of thumb is to use paraphrasing most of the time. When paraphrasing, be sure to signal when you’re summarizing the authors’ idea (e.g., “according to Melzer…”). Another good rule of thumb is to use quotes sparingly. The best time to quote (rather than paraphrase) is…

when you couldn’t have said it better yourself; and/or
when you’re commenting on how the quote was actually worded.

Can I use “I”?

Absolutely! This is research that interests you after all. Keep in mind, though, that for the Annotated Bibliography, you should rarely be talking about yourself. The focus should be on the discourse community, problem, and articles. Note: first-person pronouns (like “I”) will probably be most appropriate in your evaluation paragraphs.

💡 Click the Next button (below) to continue to the next page. Click on Modules (left) to access all course content.

Previous Next

2-10: Submit – Invention Activity: Discourse Community Matrix

Start Assignment

Due Apr 1 by 11:59pm

Points 10

Submitting a file upload

File Types doc, docx, and rtf

Attempts 0

Allowed Attempts 2

Available until Apr 3 at 11:59pm

Overview

After completing the readings from Explore – Discourse Communities, you should have a good idea of what makes a discourse community. And, hopefully, you already have ideas of discourse communities you’re a part of or interested in. If not, that’s okay! This assignment is designed to help you find a discourse community to write about and to home in on a problem related to that discourse community. For this assignment, you will choose three of your hobbies, interests, or passions to plug into the linked Discourse Community Matrix. For each of your choices, you will answer the questions in the chart. You will then tell us what discourse community you plan to research for Writing Project #2: The Annotated Bibliography. Finally, you will compose a reflective paragraph about some problems in that discourse community. In doing so, you’ll begin painting a more detailed picture of three discourse communities.

💬 What Is a Matrix?

At this point in the course, you should be familiar with the unfamiliar. Said another way, the previous modules have presented you with new ideas about writing (Big Ideas #1-3), asked you to write in unfamiliar genres (Writing to Locate), and employ new, and possibly unexpected, tools (Writing AI like Wordtune). While the main purpose of this assignment is to help you think expansively about how discourse operates in the communities you are involved in, this assignment also introduces you to another unfamiliar tool: the course’s first matrix assignment.

Put simply, a matrix is an environment where something develops. It is a space that pushes us to ask questions–questions that lead to critical thinking. In this particular assignment that “environment” is the Discourse Community Matrix (the document itself and its different criteria, sections, and boxes) and that “something that develops” is your perspective on your hobbies, interests, and passions and how communities form around them through discourse.

Instructions

As you read these steps, we highly recommend opening this excellent example of a Discourse Community Matrix, which was submitted by a former English 102 learner. Reading the instructions alongside the example should help you not only better understand the instructions, but also see what a richly developed Discourse Community Matrix can do!

Click on each tab to read the instructions for each step of this assignment. You will submit one file that includes all of your work.

Make a copy of the Discourse Community Matrix.
Simply open this Google DocLinks to an external site. and select “Make a copy.” (Click for PDF

Actions

and Word versions.)

Criteria for Evaluation

Your submission will be evaluated based on how closely it meets the following expectations:

It answers each question in the Matrix. (You may answer “Not sure,” but you MUST explain why you are not sure, or why the discourse community does not meet a particular criteria.)
It includes a 250-word reflection that explains which of your three choices you are going to work with for Writing Project #2.

Note: Your answers should clearly relate to the questions.

See the rubric below for details on how your work will be evaluated.

Note: If you accidentally submit the wrong assignment, or if your file is not accessible to the grading team or not submitted in the required format, you may resubmit the correct assignment only until the assignment closes. You are allowed two submissions per assignment specifically so you can correct such errors.

Be sure to submit your work correctly by uploading a .doc or .docx file. Submissions that cannot be accessed will not be graded.

Rubric

Discourse Community Matrix Rubric

Discourse Community Matrix Rubric
Criteria	Ratings	Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDiscourse Community 1	2 ptsMeets ExpectationsEach question in the Matrix is answered. All “Not sure” responses include an explanation of why you are not sure.1 ptsApproaches ExpectationsMost questions in the Matrix are answered. Some “Not sure” responses do not include an explanation of why you are not sure.0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsSeveral questions in the Matrix are answered. No “Not sure” responses include an explanation of why you are not sure.	2 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDiscourse Community 2	2 ptsMeets ExpectationsEach question in the Matrix is answered. All “Not sure” responses include an explanation of why you are not sure.1 ptsApproaches ExpectationsMost questions in the Matrix are answered. Some “Not sure” responses do not include an explanation of why you are not sure.0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsSeveral questions in the Matrix are answered. No “Not sure” responses include an explanation of why you are not sure.	2 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDiscourse Community 3	2 ptsMeets ExpectationsEach question in the Matrix is answered. All “Not sure” responses include an explanation of why you are not sure.1 ptsApproaches ExpectationsMost questions in the Matrix are answered. Some “Not sure” responses do not include an explanation of why you are not sure.0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsSeveral questions in the Matrix are answered. No “Not sure” responses include an explanation of why you are not sure.	2 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeReflection	4 ptsMeets ExpectationsReflection is 250+ words in length and explains which of your three choices you are going to work with for Writing Project #2.2 ptsApproaches ExpectationsReflection is 100-249 words in length and explains which of your three choices you are going to work with for Writing Project #2. Or, reflection is 250+ words in length but does not clearly explain three choices to work with for Writing Project #2.0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsReflection is less than 100 words in length. The reflection may or may not clearly explain three choices to work with for Writing Project #2.	4 pts
Total Points: 10

Previous Next

2-14: Submit – Writing Project #2: The Annotated Bibliography, Final Draft

Start Assignment

Due Apr 12 by 11:59pm

Points 100

Submitting a file upload

File Types doc, docx, and rtf

Attempts 0

Allowed Attempts 2

Available until Apr 14 at 11:59pm

Submit Your FINAL Draft of Writing Project #2: The Annotated Bibliography

Here, you’ll submit the final draft of annotated bibliography. You can review the project description here: Writing Project #2: The Annotated Bibliography.

How You’ll Be Evaluated

See the rubric below for specific criteria.

Be sure to submit your work correctly by uploading a .doc or .docx file. Submissions that cannot be accessed will not be graded.

Rubric

Writing Project #2: The Annotated Bibliography (3)

Writing Project #2: The Annotated Bibliography (3)
Criteria	Ratings	Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWord Count (Introduction)	6 to >4.0 pts Meets Expectations The introduction is 250+ words in length 4 to >2.0 pts Approaches Expectations The introduction is 150-250 words in length 2 to >0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations The introduction is 150 words or less in length	6 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWord Count (Annotations)	6 to >4.0 pts Meets Expectations All 4 annotations are 250+ words in length 4 to >2.0 pts Approaches Expectations 2-3 annotations are 250+ words in length 2 to >0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations 1 or fewer annotations are 250+ words in length	6 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCitations	8 to >7.5 pts Exceeds Expectations There are 4+ APA or MLA citations (one for each annotated article). Always, citations precede the annotation and are properly formatted. Within annotations, MLA and APA in-text citations conventions are consistently followed. 7.5 to >6.0 pts Meets Expectations There are 4+ APA or MLA citations (one for each annotated article). Usually, citations precede the annotation and are properly formatted. Within annotations, MLA and APA in-text citations conventions are usually followed. 6 to >4.5 pts Approaches Expectations There are 2-3 APA or MLA citations (one for each annotated article). Sometimes, citations precede the annotation and are properly formatted. Within annotations, MLA and APA in-text citations conventions are sometimes followed. 4.5 to >0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations There are 1 or fewer APA or MLA citations (one for each annotated article). Rarely, citations precede the annotation and are properly formatted. Within annotations, MLA and APA in-text citations conventions are rarely followed.	8 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIntroduction	8 to >7.5 pts Exceeds Expectations The introduction identifies the discourse community, problem, and necessary background information. It explains how each source provides a scholarly perspective on the discourse community and/or problem. As a whole, the introduction almost always makes its points explicitly and clearly and shows deep consideration of the topic and of the audience’s values and prior knowledge. 7.5 to >6.0 pts Meets Expectations The introduction identifies the discourse community, problem, and necessary background information. It explains how each source provides a scholarly perspective on the discourse community and/or problem. As a whole, the introduction makes its points clearly and shows somewhat deep consideration of the topic and of the audience’s values and prior knowledge. 6 to >4.5 pts Approaches Expectations The introduction identifies the discourse community, problem, and some necessary background information. It discusses how the sources generally provide a scholarly perspective on the discourse community and/or problem. As a whole, the introduction makes its points somewhat vaguely and shows moderate consideration of the topic and of the audience’s values and prior knowledge.4.5 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsThe introduction does not identify the discourse community and/or problem. It provides little to no necessary background information. It does not discuss how the sources generally provide a scholarly perspective on the discourse community and/or problem. As a whole, the introduction makes its points vaguely and shows shallow consideration of the topic and of the audience’s values and prior knowledge.	8 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeStructure	8 to >7.5 pts Exceeds Expectations The submission begins with an introduction. Annotations are presented in proper alphabetical order (sorted by author last name). Annotations begin with a descriptive paragraph and end with an evaluative paragraph. As a whole, the submission explicitly and consistently signals how ideas are related to each other. 7.5 to >6.0 pts Meets Expectations The submission begins with an introduction. Annotations are presented in proper alphabetical order (sorted by author last name). Annotations begin with a descriptive paragraph and end with an evaluative paragraph. As a whole, the submission usually signals how ideas are related to each other. 6 to >4.5 pts Approaches Expectations The submission begins with an introduction. Annotations are presented in improper alphabetical order (not sorted by author last name). Annotations begin with a descriptive paragraph and end with an evaluative paragraph. As a whole, the submission occasionally signals how ideas are related to each other. 4.5 to >0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations The submission begins with an introduction. Annotations are presented in improper alphabetical order (not sorted by author last name). Annotations begin with a descriptive paragraph and end with an evaluative paragraph. As a whole, the submission rarely signals how ideas are related to each other.	8 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnnotation #1: Descriptive Paragraph	8 to >7.5 pts Exceeds Expectations The annotation offers key information about the article’s context, goals, and use of support. As a whole, the paragraph is almost always accurate, neutral and academic in tone, articulate, concise, and focused. As a whole, the paragraph demonstrates that the researcher has deeply read the source. 7.5 to >6.0 pts Meets Expectations The annotation offers key information about the article’s context, goals, and use of support. As a whole, the paragraph is usually accurate, neutral and academic in tone, articulate, concise, and focused. As a whole, the paragraph demonstrates that the researcher has somewhat deeply read the source. 6 to >4.5 pts Approaches Expectations The annotation offers some key information about the article’s context, goals, and use of support. As a whole, the paragraph is somewhat accurate, neutral and academic in tone, articulate, concise, and focused. As a whole, the paragraph demonstrates that the researcher has somewhat cursorily read the source. 4.5 to >0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations The annotation offers little to no key information about the article’s context, goals, and use of support. As a whole, the paragraph is infrequently accurate, neutral and academic in tone, articulate, concise, and focused. As a whole, the paragraph demonstrates that the researcher has cursorily read the source.	8 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnnotation #1: Evaluative Paragraph	8 to >7.5 pts Exceeds Expectations The annotation offers the researcher’s personal take on the source’s success and usefulness. As a whole, the paragraph is almost always academic in tone, accurate, well supported, specific, articulate, concise, and focused. As a whole, the paragraph demonstrates that the researcher has deeply considered the source’s successes and its relationship to the project at hand.7.5 to >6.0 pts Meets Expectations The annotation offers the researcher’s personal take on the source’s success and usefulness. As a whole, the paragraph is usually academic in tone, accurate, well supported, specific, articulate, concise, and focused. As a whole, the paragraph demonstrates that the researcher has somewhat deeply considered the source’s successes and its relationship to the project at hand. 6 to >4.5 pts Approaches Expectations The annotation offers the researcher’s personal take on the source’s success OR usefulness. As a whole, the paragraph is somewhat academic in tone, accurate, well supported, specific, articulate, concise, and focused. As a whole, the paragraph demonstrates that the researcher has somewhat cursorily considered the source’s successes and its relationship to the project at hand. 4.5 to >0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations The annotation does not offer the researcher’s personal take on the source’s success and/or usefulness. As a whole, the paragraph is rarely academic in tone, accurate, well supported, specific, articulate, concise, and focused. As a whole, the paragraph demonstrates that the researcher has cursorily considered the source’s successes and its relationship to the project at hand.	8 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnnotation #2: Descriptive Paragraph	8 to >7.5 pts Exceeds Expectations The annotation offers key information about the article’s context, goals, and use of support. As a whole, the paragraph is almost always accurate, neutral and academic in tone, articulate, concise, and focused. As a whole, the paragraph demonstrates that the researcher has deeply read the source. 7.5 to >6.0 pts Meets Expectations The annotation offers key information about the article’s context, goals, and use of support. As a whole, the paragraph is usually accurate, neutral and academic in tone, articulate, concise, and focused. As a whole, the paragraph demonstrates that the researcher has somewhat deeply read the source. 6 to >4.5 pts Approaches Expectations The annotation offers some key information about the article’s context, goals, and use of support. As a whole, the paragraph is somewhat accurate, neutral and academic in tone, articulate, concise, and focused. As a whole, the paragraph demonstrates that the researcher has somewhat cursorily read the source. 4.5 to >0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations The annotation offers little to no key information about the article’s context, goals, and use of support. As a whole, the paragraph is infrequently accurate, neutral and academic in tone, articulate, concise, and focused. As a whole, the paragraph demonstrates that the researcher has cursorily read the source.	8 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnnotation #2: Evaluative Paragraph	8 to >7.5 pts Exceeds Expectations The annotation offers the researcher’s personal take on the source’s success and usefulness. As a whole, the paragraph is almost always academic in tone, accurate, well supported, specific, articulate, concise, and focused. As a whole, the paragraph demonstrates that the researcher has deeply considered the source’s successes and its relationship to the project at hand. 7.5 to >6.0 pts Meets Expectations The annotation offers the researcher’s personal take on the source’s success and usefulness. As a whole, the paragraph is usually academic in tone, accurate, well supported, specific, articulate, concise, and focused. As a whole, the paragraph demonstrates that the researcher has somewhat deeply considered the source’s successes and its relationship to the project at hand. 6 to >4.5 pts Approaches Expectations The annotation offers the researcher’s personal take on the source’s success OR usefulness. As a whole, the paragraph is somewhat academic in tone, accurate, well supported, specific, articulate, concise, and focused. As a whole, the paragraph demonstrates that the researcher has somewhat cursorily considered the source’s successes and its relationship to the project at hand. 4.5 to >0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations The annotation does not offer the researcher’s personal take on the source’s success and/or usefulness. As a whole, the paragraph is rarely academic in tone, accurate, well supported, specific, articulate, concise, and focused. As a whole, the paragraph demonstrates that the researcher has cursorily considered the source’s successes and its relationship to the project at hand.	8 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnnotation #3: Descriptive Paragraph	8 to >7.5 pts Exceeds Expectations The annotation offers key information about the article’s context, goals, and use of support. As a whole, the paragraph is almost always accurate, neutral and academic in tone, articulate, concise, and focused. As a whole, the paragraph demonstrates that the researcher has deeply read the source.7.5 to >6.0 pts Meets Expectations The annotation offers key information about the article’s context, goals, and use of support. As a whole, the paragraph is usually accurate, neutral and academic in tone, articulate, concise, and focused. As a whole, the paragraph demonstrates that the researcher has somewhat deeply read the source. 6 to >4.5 pts Approaches Expectations The annotation offers some key information about the article’s context, goals, and use of support. As a whole, the paragraph is somewhat accurate, neutral and academic in tone, articulate, concise, and focused. As a whole, the paragraph demonstrates that the researcher has somewhat cursorily read the source. 4.5 to >0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations The annotation offers little to no key information about the article’s context, goals, and use of support. As a whole, the paragraph is infrequently accurate, neutral and academic in tone, articulate, concise, and focused. As a whole, the paragraph demonstrates that the researcher has cursorily read the source.	8 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnnotation #3: Evaluative Paragraph	8 to >7.5 pts Exceeds Expectations The annotation offers the researcher’s personal take on the source’s success and usefulness. As a whole, the paragraph is almost always academic in tone, accurate, well supported, specific, articulate, concise, and focused. As a whole, the paragraph demonstrates that the researcher has deeply considered the source’s successes and its relationship to the project at hand. 7.5 to >6.0 pts Meets Expectations The annotation offers the researcher’s personal take on the source’s success and usefulness. As a whole, the paragraph is usually academic in tone, accurate, well supported, specific, articulate, concise, and focused. As a whole, the paragraph demonstrates that the researcher has somewhat deeply considered the source’s successes and its relationship to the project at hand. 6 to >4.5 pts Approaches Expectations The annotation offers the researcher’s personal take on the source’s success OR usefulness. As a whole, the paragraph is somewhat academic in tone, accurate, well supported, specific, articulate, concise, and focused. As a whole, the paragraph demonstrates that the researcher has somewhat cursorily considered the source’s successes and its relationship to the project at hand. 4.5 to >0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations The annotation does not offer the researcher’s personal take on the source’s success and/or usefulness. As a whole, the paragraph is rarely academic in tone, accurate, well supported, specific, articulate, concise, and focused. As a whole, the paragraph demonstrates that the researcher has cursorily considered the source’s successes and its relationship to the project at hand.	8 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnnotation #4: Descriptive Paragraph	8 to >7.5 pts Exceeds Expectations The annotation offers key information about the article’s context, goals, and use of support. As a whole, the paragraph is almost always accurate, neutral and academic in tone, articulate, concise, and focused. As a whole, the paragraph demonstrates that the researcher has deeply read the source. 7.5 to >6.0 pts Meets Expectations The annotation offers key information about the article’s context, goals, and use of support. As a whole, the paragraph is usually accurate, neutral and academic in tone, articulate, concise, and focused. As a whole, the paragraph demonstrates that the researcher has somewhat deeply read the source. 6 to >4.5 pts Approaches Expectations The annotation offers some key information about the article’s context, goals, and use of support. As a whole, the paragraph is somewhat accurate, neutral and academic in tone, articulate, concise, and focused. As a whole, the paragraph demonstrates that the researcher has somewhat cursorily read the source. 4.5 to >0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations The annotation offers little to no key information about the article’s context, goals, and use of support. As a whole, the paragraph is infrequently accurate, neutral and academic in tone, articulate, concise, and focused. As a whole, the paragraph demonstrates that the researcher has cursorily read the source.	8 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnnotation #4: Evaluative Paragraph	8 to >7.5 pts Exceeds Expectations The annotation offers the researcher’s personal take on the source’s success and usefulness. As a whole, the paragraph is almost always academic in tone, accurate, well supported, specific, articulate, concise, and focused. As a whole, the paragraph demonstrates that the researcher has deeply considered the source’s successes and its relationship to the project at hand. 7.5 to >6.0 ptsMeets Expectations The annotation offers the researcher’s personal take on the source’s success and usefulness. As a whole, the paragraph is usually academic in tone, accurate, well supported, specific, articulate, concise, and focused. As a whole, the paragraph demonstrates that the researcher has somewhat deeply considered the source’s successes and its relationship to the project at hand. 6 to >4.5 pts Approaches Expectations The annotation offers the researcher’s personal take on the source’s success OR usefulness. As a whole, the paragraph is somewhat academic in tone, accurate, well supported, specific, articulate, concise, and focused. As a whole, the paragraph demonstrates that the researcher has somewhat cursorily considered the source’s successes and its relationship to the project at hand. 4.5 to >0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations The annotation does not offer the researcher’s personal take on the source’s success and/or usefulness. As a whole, the paragraph is rarely academic in tone, accurate, well supported, specific, articulate, concise, and focused. As a whole, the paragraph demonstrates that the researcher has cursorily considered the source’s successes and its relationship to the project at hand.	8 pts
Total Points: 100

Previous Next

Step 3

Submit your introduction and annotation drafts.
You must submit your draft as a Word (.doc or .docx) file.

Criteria for Evaluation

Your submission will be evaluated based on how closely it meets the following expectations:

It includes an introduction, which is 250+ words in length.
It includes one (1) complete annotation, which is 250+ words in length and annotates a single academic article. (Note: Citations do not count towards the minimum annotation word count.)
It includes (1) MLA or APA formatted bibliographic citation, for the academic article annotated in the draft, as well as in-text citations when necessary. All citations represent genuine attempts at proper formatting.

See the rubric below for details on how your work will be evaluated.

Be sure to submit your work correctly by uploading a .doc or .docx file. Submissions that cannot be accessed will not be graded.

💬 A Note on Grades and Feedback for Drafts

Drafts will be graded for completion, but your feedback will be based on the Criteria for Quality listed in “Instructions.” The grading team will not provide feedback on every aspect of your submission. Rather, we will focus on 2-3 priorities for revision, which we will expect you to consider before submitting the final Writing Project. In other words: earning a 100% on this draft does not mean that you will earn a 100% on the final draft. The entire rubric is linked to Submit – Writing Project #2: The Annotated Bibliography, Final Draft. Your draft should aim to meet the following Criteria for Quality:

It cites properly and consistently.
- Include 4+ APA or MLA citations (one for each annotated article). Your citations should always precede the annotation and be properly formatted. Within annotations, MLA and APA in-text citations conventions should be consistently followed.
Its introduction is informative, connected, and accurate.
- Your introduction should clearly identify the discourse community, problem, and necessary background information. Explains how each source provides a scholarly perspective on the discourse community and/or problem. As a whole, the introduction should makes its points clearly and show somewhat deep consideration of the topic and of the audience’s values and prior knowledge.
Its structure is purposeful, sensible, easy-to-follow, and genre-appropriate
- The submission begins with an introduction. Annotations are presented in proper alphabetical order (sorted by author last name). Annotations begin with a descriptive paragraph and end with an evaluative paragraph. As a whole, the submission explicitly and consistently signals how ideas are related to each other.
Its descriptive paragraphs are informative, accurate, neutral and academic in tone, articulate, concise, and focused.

- The descriptive paragraphs offer key information about the article’s context, goals, and use of support. As a whole, these paragraphs are accurate, neutral and academic in tone, articulate, concise, and focused. As a whole, the paragraphs demonstrate that the researcher has studiously read the source.
Its evaluative paragraphs are informative, academic, accurate, well supported, specific, articulate, concise, and focused.
- The evaluative paragraphs share the researcher’s personal take on the source’s success and usefulness. As a whole, these paragraphs are academic in tone, accurate, well supported, specific, articulate, concise, and focused. As a whole, the paragraphs demonstrate that the researcher has considered the source’s successes and its relationship to the project at hand.

Rubric

Drafting Rubric (Writing Project #2 Introduction and Annotation) (1)

Drafting Rubric (Writing Project #2 Introduction and Annotation) (1)
Criteria	Ratings	Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Introduction	10 to >9.0 pts Meets Expectations Introduction draft is 250+ words in length 9 to >6.0 pts Approaches Expectations Introduction draft is 100-249 words in length 6 to >0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations Introduction draft is 0-99 words in length.	10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Annotation Note: citations do not count towards the minimum annotation word count.	10 to >9.0 pts Meets Expectations The annotation draft is complete. It is 250+ words in length. It annotates a clearly academic article. 9 to >6.0 pts Approaches Expectations The annotation draft is incomplete. It is 100-249 words in length. It annotates a single article, but the article is questionably “academic.” 6 to >0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations The annotation draft is nonexistent or barely complete. The annotation is 0-99 words in length. The article is indisputably “non-academic.”	10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Citations The draft includes (1) MLA or APA formatted bibliographic citation, for the academic article annotated in the draft. It also includes formatted in-text citations when necessary. All citations represent genuine attempts at proper formatting.	5 to >4.5 pts Meets Expectations The draft includes one (1) MLA or APA formatted bibliographic citation, for the academic article annotated in the draft. It also includes formatted in-text citations when necessary. All citations represent genuine attempts at proper formatting. 4.5 to >3.0 pts Approaches Expectations The draft includes EITHER (1) MLA or APA formatted bibliographic citation, for the academic article annotated in the draft OR formatted in-text citations when necessary. Most citations represent genuine attempts at proper formatting. 3 to >0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations The draft includes NEITHER (1) MLA or APA formatted bibliographic citation, for the academic article annotated in the draft NOR formatted in-text citations when necessary. Citations represent cursory attempts at proper formatting.	5 pts
Total Points: 25

Previous Next