MCWP 50/125 Spring 2021 Annotated Bibliography Rubric Instructor: Grading Criteria Underprepared Developing Analysis (¶1) Misunderstands Uneven recognition and Applies the language of functions of the elements understanding of TCOR to identify the of argument, and/or argument elements; too elements of argument in the consists exclusively of reliant on summary sources included summary rather than argument analysis Assessment (¶2) No position within Uneven or simplistic Position within academic academic discussion position within discussion; source purpose, identified; does not assess discussion identified; audience, limitations; type sources or misunderstands limited source of source; publisher the task; no explanation of assessment; minimal credibility publisher credibility consideration of publisher credibility Student: Competent Identifies most parts of the argument correctly and demonstrates understanding of the text’s argument; minimal summary Positions most sources within academic discussion; applies criteria for source assessment consistently; most publishers are examined for credibility Grade: Strong Exemplary Identifies all elements of Well-articulated, correct argument correctly and identification of all parts of demonstrates strong the argument and complex understanding of the text; engagement with the almost no summary author’s text; no reliance on summary Positions all sources Clearly positions all sources within academic within discussion; robust, discussion; shows a thorough application of strong understanding of criteria for source source assessment; assessment; detailed credibility of all consideration of publisher publishers examined credibility Reflection (¶3) Sources’ contributions to the project; explanation of sources’ engagement to the other annotated sources Inadequate exploration of sources’ contributions to project; fails to reflect on relationships to other sources Minimal reflection of sources’ contributions and/or relationships to other sources Adequate reflection of contributions to the project and relationship to other sources; may have uneven coverage of areas Strong, consistent reflection of sources’ contributions to the project and sources’ relationship with other annotated sources Detailed and robust reflection of contributions to the project and connections among sources Breadth of Sources Demonstration of research techniques and type of sources Sources included indicate no research beyond initial search engine query Sources included indicate little research beyond initial database search Sources included indicate some research though breadth of sources is limited Sources included indicate serious attempts at research Sources included give strong indication of thoughtful, in-depth research MLA Documentation Bibliographic information; citations, format Omissions impede identification of sources, readability Occasional lapse of MLA requirements does not impede reader Rare lapse of MLA requirements Meets all MLA documentation, formatting requirements Mechanics Word count, language, grammar, syntax, punctuation, academic conventions Word count significantly differs from that required; mechanics interfere with communication; doesn’t follow academic conventions Most sources readable, identifiable despite errors or omissions in MLA requirements Word count consistently below or above that required; errors occasionally impede communication; uneven use of academic conventions Word count may occasionally be below or above minimum; competent use of mechanics and academic conventions Word count rarely below or exceeds assignment; few, minor errors; strong use of academic conventions Word count as assigned throughout; meaning clear with rare to no errors; use of academic conventions exemplary Minor revisions only; limited engagement in class activities, workshops, and conferences Moderate revision; consistent preparation for and participation in most activities including workshops and conferences Substantial growth in drafts; some global revision; active participant in and preparation for all activities and conferences Comprehensive growth in drafts; global revisions; strong preparation and engaged participation in all activities and conferences Participation Criteria Revision, Workshops, Readiness to Work Revision; contribution to workshops; preparation for class activities and conferences No notable changes to drafts; unprepared or unengaged in class activities and conferences Moving Forward: LAST NAME 1 MUIR 50 – PRACTICE AB ENTRY GUIDELINES Using the Russell-Brown article from our course reader, draft a practice Annotated Bibliography entry

Subject:WritingPrice:15.89 Bought3

Share With

MCWP 50/125 Spring 2021 Annotated Bibliography Rubric Instructor: Grading Criteria Underprepared Developing Analysis (¶1) Misunderstands Uneven recognition and Applies the language of functions of the elements understanding of TCOR to identify the of argument, and/or argument elements; too elements of argument in the consists exclusively of reliant on summary sources included summary rather than argument analysis Assessment (¶2) No position within Uneven or simplistic Position within academic academic discussion position within discussion; source purpose, identified; does not assess discussion identified; audience, limitations; type sources or misunderstands limited source of source; publisher the task; no explanation of assessment; minimal credibility publisher credibility consideration of publisher credibility Student: Competent Identifies most parts of the argument correctly and demonstrates understanding of the text’s argument; minimal summary Positions most sources within academic discussion; applies criteria for source assessment consistently; most publishers are examined for credibility Grade: Strong Exemplary Identifies all elements of Well-articulated, correct argument correctly and identification of all parts of demonstrates strong the argument and complex understanding of the text; engagement with the almost no summary author’s text; no reliance on summary Positions all sources Clearly positions all sources within academic within discussion; robust, discussion; shows a thorough application of strong understanding of criteria for source source assessment; assessment; detailed credibility of all consideration of publisher publishers examined credibility Reflection (¶3) Sources’ contributions to the project; explanation of sources’ engagement to the other annotated sources Inadequate exploration of sources’ contributions to project; fails to reflect on relationships to other sources Minimal reflection of sources’ contributions and/or relationships to other sources Adequate reflection of contributions to the project and relationship to other sources; may have uneven coverage of areas Strong, consistent reflection of sources’ contributions to the project and sources’ relationship with other annotated sources Detailed and robust reflection of contributions to the project and connections among sources Breadth of Sources Demonstration of research techniques and type of sources Sources included indicate no research beyond initial search engine query Sources included indicate little research beyond initial database search Sources included indicate some research though breadth of sources is limited Sources included indicate serious attempts at research Sources included give strong indication of thoughtful, in-depth research MLA Documentation Bibliographic information; citations, format Omissions impede identification of sources, readability Occasional lapse of MLA requirements does not impede reader Rare lapse of MLA requirements Meets all MLA documentation, formatting requirements Mechanics Word count, language, grammar, syntax, punctuation, academic conventions Word count significantly differs from that required; mechanics interfere with communication; doesn’t follow academic conventions Most sources readable, identifiable despite errors or omissions in MLA requirements Word count consistently below or above that required; errors occasionally impede communication; uneven use of academic conventions Word count may occasionally be below or above minimum; competent use of mechanics and academic conventions Word count rarely below or exceeds assignment; few, minor errors; strong use of academic conventions Word count as assigned throughout; meaning clear with rare to no errors; use of academic conventions exemplary Minor revisions only; limited engagement in class activities, workshops, and conferences Moderate revision; consistent preparation for and participation in most activities including workshops and conferences Substantial growth in drafts; some global revision; active participant in and preparation for all activities and conferences Comprehensive growth in drafts; global revisions; strong preparation and engaged participation in all activities and conferences Participation Criteria Revision, Workshops, Readiness to Work Revision; contribution to workshops; preparation for class activities and conferences No notable changes to drafts; unprepared or unengaged in class activities and conferences Moving Forward: LAST NAME 1 MUIR 50 – PRACTICE AB ENTRY GUIDELINES Using the Russell-Brown article from our course reader, draft a practice Annotated Bibliography entry. For this exercise, you’ll only write Paragraph 1 – Analyze and Paragraph 2 – Assessment. Refer to the sample entry for more info. You must use TCR – “Making Good Arguments” (Ch. 7) to apply the course terms (do your best!) and AWR to assess source credibility. You must upload your Practice AB before the start of your section on Monday. You will also exchange Practice AB entries in a workshop during class. Paragraph 1 Analyze each source’s argument including the author’s topic or issue, main claim, kinds of subclaims/reasons, evidence, acknowledgements & responses, and warrants. This is similar to Paper #1 in MCWP 40. (125-150 words) Paragraph 2 Assess how each source fits into the academic discussion about the topic. Assessment includes the reliability of the author and information, the source’s goal and potential limitations, the audience, the purpose, and what the publication (publisher, media, date, etc.) of the source tells you about its credibility. (100-125 words) ASSIGNMENT NOTES: • Do not quote from the articles (1-3 word terms or phrases only and sparingly) • Use the course terms! Identity the elements of argument directly. “The main claim is _____”. • Do not summarize the article’s content, focus on analyzing it • Do not repeat information readily available in the citation • You may have to briefly look up additional information for the Assessment MLA FORMATTING TIPS: • Font: Times New Roman, 12-point font • Upload your document as a .doc or .docx • Include your name, instructor’s name, course title/section, and the correct date on the first page of your assignment • Use a Header with your Last Name and page # on the upper right corner • 1-inch margins on all sides, left align (not justified) text. Double space lines and do not add extra lines between paragraphs. Indent the first line of each new paragraph. • Put all AB entries in alphabetical order, one after another with no extra spaces between. USE A Writer’s Reference R-tab on Researching and MLA tab for additional assignment info and MLA conventions. LAST NAME 1 NAME Professor Guillén Muir 50 section XX DATE Assignment Title Russell-Brown, Katheryn. “Go Ahead and Shoot—The Law Might Have Your Back: History, Race, Implicit Bias, and Justice in Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law.” Deadly Injustice: Trayvon Martin, Race, and the Criminal Justice System, Eds. Devon Johnson, Patricia Y. Warren, Amy Farrell, NYU Press, 2015, pp. 115-145. Begin with a simple statement identifying what the article is about. Refrain from oversummarizing. Move straight into identifying the main claim and be as precise as possible. Next, identify subclaims/reasons but do not feel as though you need to directly quote from the source, instead, focus on paraphrasing. Explain the type of evidence that the author provides – statistics? Quotations from other experts? Case studies? Interviews? Does the author acknowledge other positions or contest other scholars’ work, seem to respond directly to another commonly held view or value system? Does the author identify any areas that they did not cover in the article? Lastly, try your best to identify any warrants of the argument. This is about the amount of space you should dedicate to each first paragraph in each entry. Use TCR – “Making Good Arguments” to clarify any course terms that you may have difficult with for each entry. (125-150 words, sample here is 149) In order to explain how this source fits into the academic discussion of the topic, refrain from repeating the language of the prompt and info from the citation. This means you must consider the author’s credibility in this field. What is their specific area of expertise? What is the LAST NAME 2 goal of the source? Consider limitations: when was it written? Is it part of an active academic debate? Who is the intended audience, as in, who is likely to purchase, read, or subscribe to it? Remember, the source purpose is NOT the same as the article’s argument. Also, what is the publisher? This information is sometimes not part of the citation – look it up, it should be a university press or other reputable publisher only. (100-125 words, sample here is 123) For the Practice AB exercise, you will not include Paragraph 3. This paragraph reflects on the relationship among your sources, explain their function in your research project, and what you have learned from them. Be sure to make meaningful connections and stay away from generic language like “this source relates to the other ones on the same topic”. Try to be as precise as possible when explaining what their relationship is – is one source an extension of ideas expressed in another? Did you find this source because the scholar/expert was cited in a different one? Or does this source hold an important counter-position and you may use it as A&R in your paper? (100-125, sample here is 125) Last Name 1 NAME Professor Guillén Muir 50 section XX DATE Assignment Title and Draft # McCauley, Clark. “Constructing Terrorism: From Fear and Coercion to Anger and Jujitsu Politics.” Constructions of Terrorism: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Research and Policy, Eds. Michael Stohl, Richard Burchill, Scott Englund, University of California Press, 2017, pp. 79-90. The main claim is the United States’ response to terrorism is a form of “jiujitsu politics” meaning, it is actually based on anger rather than fear. The first subclaim challenges the definitions of “terrorism” in the US, UK, and United Nations. The second subclaim identifies four consequences of defining terrorism through fear. The last subclaim further defines the concept of “jujitsu politics”. Evidence cited includes legislation and policies such as The Patriot Act, US military manuals, and news sources about terrorist attacks against the US and Europe committed by terrorist groups including al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The author acknowledges that it may be unconventional for counter terrorist officials to reconsider how closely terrorists operate in proximity to their intended targets and then responds that it is a crucial perspective to adopt, nonetheless. One warrant is that counter-terrorist strategies must be open to change in order to maximize efficiency. (149 words) This source is a chapter from an interdisciplinary anthology on definitions of terrorism and is published by the University of California Press. McCauley is a social psychologist at Bryn Mawr College with specialization in the psychology of group identification and conflict. He has Last Name 2 published widely on the topic of terrorism from a psychological perspective and co-founded the journal, Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict: Pathways toward Terrorism and Genocide. The source’s purpose is to contribute to the interdisciplinary study of terrorism for a comparably interdisciplinary audience of scholars in public policy, political science, psychology and other fields. One limitation may be how definitions of terrorism tend to change depending on presidential administrations in the US and associated domestic and international policy changes. (120 words) Do not worry about Paragraph 3 for Draft 1. (You must include it in Draft 2 & the Final.) Thomas, Victoria E. “Gazing at ‘It’: An Intersectional Analysis of Transnormativity and Black Womanhood in Orange is the New Black.” Communication, Culture & Critique, October 2019, pp. 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1093/ccc/tcz030 The next source citation on your Annotated Bibliography should immediately follow the last paragraph of the previous entry with no line spaces in between. Your entries should all be in alphabetical order according to author’s last name in the correct MLA citation format. Refer to AWR’s entire section on MLA formatting and R3-e, do not rely on copy and pasting from online sources only. Incorrect formatting will impact your overall assignment grade.