Collecting and Synthesizing Sources
Title: Collecting and Synthesizing Sources
Assignment Instructions: Annotated bibliography
Be sure to include:
Adam Kotsko, “The Loss of Things I Took for Granted” (Slate)
Natalie Wexler, “The College Kids Are Not All Right” (Minding the Gap)
Steven Wolk, “School of Inquiry.”
Karen Rosenberg, \\”Reading Games: Strategies for Reading Scholarly Sources\\”
Two additional sources for your major 1301 inquire
Description
You will engage in academic inquiry by compiling the texts you have read on the topics of reading and writing and synthesizing the information in an annotated bibliography. You will write a brief introduction that explains what you have learned about reading, research, and writing so far. You will also ask two questions you might continue to explore in a future research paper. This is an individual project.
Requirements
This is a list of the minimum requirements for this assignment to receive 1 point. Requirements for 2 – 3 points can be found in the “Grading Rubric” section of this project description.
• One-page critical introduction that explains the context of the bibliography
o Introduce the context of this bibliography (i.e., these are texts you have read in your first-year college writing course)
o Discuss what all of the texts in the bibliography and your own experiences/reflections have taught you about reading, writing, or research up to this point
o Share at least two potential research questions that you now have about reading, writing, or research after reading these texts.
o Approximately 200 – 250 words, double-spaced in length
• Complete and correct MLA citations for each text in the annotated bibliography
o All citations must be listed alphabetically per MLA formatting guidelines
o All citations must follow MLA formatting
• Annotations must include a summary + analysis of the content
? your summary should briefly and accurately discuss the main points or key ideas from the text (approx. 150 words per summary)
? your analysis must discuss your interpretation of the information and your understanding of how this text informs, challenges, or contradicts what you believe about reading, writing, and/or research
? your analysis can also discuss your assessment of the credibility or rhetorical context of the text
? analysis should be approximately 250 words per source
• Texts to include:
o This bibliography should include all texts we have read in class during the first two weeks, and an additional two texts you will use for Project Two based on your inquiry.
o Sources must be listed alphabetically by author name or first available citation information
• MLA 8 or 9 citation format
o You are expected to use in-text citations in the summaries and analyses
• MLA-style document and citation formatting
Grading Rubric
When submitting your final draft, you may choose to submit additional documents separately as evidence of feedback and revision (see “Evidence of Feedback-based Revision” table below). All final drafts submitted by the original deadline are eligible for resubmission and re-evaluation. Projects that do not meet the minimum requirements will receive a score of a 0.5.
Emerging Writing
(1 point) This tier recognizes written work that demonstrates initial development of ideas and structure. The writing shows promise and potential for growth, with clear effort in responding to the writing situation.
• Final draft meets all minimum project requirements listed above and does not exceed them
Proficient Writing
(2 points) This tier is for written work that effectively responds to the writing situation, communicates ideas, and makes extra efforts to explore ideas with depth. The writing demonstrates a solid grasp of the writing situation and an attempt to engage with it beyond the minimum requirements.
• Meets all previous requirements
• Demonstrates evidence of revision from the previous drafts (invention and planning drafts, first draft, second draft, etc.)
• Demonstrates evidence of feedback-based revision including feedback from a peer
Advanced Writing
(3 points)
This tier celebrates written work that exhibits an exceptional understanding of the writing situation. The writing is highly responsive to the rhetorical context of the assignment and showcases the writer’s ability to compose a rhetorically effective response.
• Meets all previous requirements
• 2 annotations rhetorically read a text by analyzing the rhetorical context or credibility of a text
• Demonstrates evidence of feedback-based revision including feedback from the Writing Center (including any WC peer mentors)
Evidence of Feedback-based Revision
Use the table below to help you demonstrate how you made revision choices based on feedback you received from someone. Click this link to download the table and type your responses.
Original Text Feedback Notes Revised Text Rationale for Changes
Paste the original, unrevised version of your text in this column. Paste the specific feedback note you received about that section of the text in this column. If you received feedback from multiple people on this same section of text, then paste all of the relevant notes here. Paste the revised version of your text in this column. There should be notable changes between the revised text and the original text. Explain the differences between the original and revised text. Discuss what the feedback helped you see and how you believe your changes are responding to that information. Use specific examples from your text.
Paper Format: MLA
Answer preview to Collecting and Synthesizing Sources
APA
2100 WORDS
