| Assignment 2: Annotated bibliography | |
| PROJECT TYPE: | Research – 24 credit points |
| INDICATIVE DUE DATE: | Week 10 (Sunday, midnight) |
| WEIGHTING: | 35% |
| LEARNING OUTCOMES: | 1. Perform literature review to gather and analyse the state-of-art knowledge and practices in a specific area of research 2. Demonstrate advanced problem solving, analysis and design skills through a research project. 3. Apply advanced knowledge and skills in the project 4. Apply research methodology and skills and project management skills based on advanced or specialised units. 5. Demonstrate advanced skills in technical writing, documentation and presentation of technical content.
|
| DELIVERABLES: | Annotated bibliography of approximately 5000 words |
| SUBMISSION METHOD: | By email to the Projects Coordinator |
Requirements
You are required to take an evidence-based approach to your project. This means you must draw on existing evidence to inform your project.
You will write an approximately 5000 word annotated bibliography of the existing literature relevant to your research topic.
The annotated bibliography should be approximately 5000 words. Each annotation should be approximately 50-300 words in length. It requires you to not only gather resources but also to determine whether the source is relevant to your selected topic, trustworthy and worthy of inclusion. Your annotated bibliography will contribute to the literature review component of the project by allowing you to gather and assess the available material before including it in the literature review.
Your annotated bibliography document should include the following sections.
1) Search strategy:
- Describe the search strategy you adopted for gathering the sources.
- Outline your rationale for including and excluding materials – how did they address your central research question (don’t forget to mention what that question is).
- Explain why the inclusions are the most valid and reliable sources.
2) Citation:
- To cite your sources, use APA citation style.
- Citations should be organised alphabetically Organize your cited sources alphabetically.
3) Annotation:
Each annotation is approximately 50 (or even a couple of sentences) to 300 words depending on the article. You are encouraged to include critical quotes from the article.
- Each annotation should be concise. Do not write too much—remember, you are writing a summary, not an essay. Annotations should not extend beyond one paragraph unless otherwise stipulated in your assignment guidelines. As this is not an extended piece of writing, only mention significant and relevant details.
- Any information apparent in the title of the text or journal can be omitted from the annotation.
- Background materials and references to previous work by the same author usually are not included. As you are addressing one text at a time, there is no need to cross reference or use in-text citations to support your annotation.
- Unless otherwise stipulated, you should write in full sentences using academic vocabulary.
The annotation must provide:
- A summary of the main arguments or ideas presented by the author
- The findings and conclusions;
- Information about the author’s background;
- Its relationships to other studies in the field;
- The source’s strengths and weaknesses;
- An evaluation of the research methodology (if applicable);
- Why the source is relevant and credible in your field of study
- An evaluation of how useful you found the source. Assess its objectivity, reliability and bias, and compare it with other sources you have used.
- A reflection on how you used the source in your research.
- Your personal conclusions about the source (recommended).
Adapted from QUT Cite write, Writing an annotated bibliography,
http://www.citewrite.qut.edu.au/write/annotatedbibliography.jsp (accessed on 9th January, 2016)
CRITERIA SHEET: annotated bibliography
| Criteria | 7 85%-100% | 6 75%-84% | 5 65%-74% | 4 50%-64% | Refer / Fail 0%-49% | |
| SELECTION · Evidence of the use of search strategies to explore & define the annotation selections. · Evidence of rigorous & empirically grounded selection, & · justification of the selection reflecting understanding of the research focus
| 15 | · A wide variety of scholarly, topical & cross disciplinary sources have been read and annotated demonstrating skilled & creative searching strategies. · The justification of the selection demonstrates high level integration & deep understanding of the research focus. | · A variety of scholarly, evidence based sources from cross disciplinary areas have been read & annotated. · The justification of the selections demonstrates multiple relationship points & between the topic & the research focus. | · Sources include not only set text & given references but a selection of scholarly articles demonstrating some searching along conventional topic areas. ·The justification of the selection shows evidence of some straightforward linkage between different aspects of the research focus.
| · Sources largely rely on set texts, given references & limited search strategies. · The selected sources are relevant to the research focus. | · No evidence of searching beyond the set texts. · Sources cited are not scholarly. · No connection drawn to the research focus. |
| COMPREHENSION & ANALYSIS · Evidence of accurate comprehension of each article – who was involved, methodology, findings, conclusions and strengths and weaknesses, for research articles; theoretical argument or standpoint for other types of articles. · Analysis evaluates each article’s contribution to the chosen topic. | 15 | · All the annotations include accurate detailed descriptions of each article in a clear & consistent, succinct manner. · Evidence of deep understanding of each article is in the detailed & thoughtful analysis of each one & in the inclusion of questioning of specific details such as whether or not the conclusions can reliably be drawn from the research as described. · Evaluation integrates the parts of the annotations to be part of a connected whole, linking all aspects including methodology, findings, conclusions, strengths and weaknesses, theoretical argument to the topic. · The value of each source is aptly connected to the topic. · Accurate, comparative & interpretive approaches provide a complex analysis of the importance of the article.
| · All features of the annotations are present & accurately recorded in succinct detail highlighting the key points. · Evidence of understanding of each article shows in detailed analysis however there is a lack of interrogation of the reports & some details are accepted at face value. · Evaluation shows evidence of reasoned judgment & accurate, comparative & interpretive approaches which illustrate the value of each annotated article to the topic. · Evaluation lacks the complexity of a HD or misses some linkages. | · All features of the annotations are present & accurate, but may lack some detail. · Evidence of understanding of each article shows in some analysis however most comments are descriptive rather than evaluative. · There is only limited questioning of the detail of the article. · Evaluation includes limited but accurate, comparative & interpretive approaches. · Linkages between the different aspects of the annotation are limited or unclear. | · All features on the annotations are present & mainly accurate. · Evidence of understanding is limited to accurate but descriptive summaries. · Evidence of analysis & evaluation at a superficial level with little evidence of interpretive or comparative approaches. | · Many features of the annotations are not present or are inaccurate. · Very limited evaluative comment included. |
| EXPRESSION AND PRESENTATION The ability to: · use fluent language with correct grammar, spelling and punctuation · use appropriate paragraph, sentence structure · use appropriate style and tone of writing produce a professionally presented document |
5
| · Clarity promoted by consistent use of standard grammar, spelling and punctuation. · Sentences skilfully constructed: unified, coherent, forceful, varied. · Paragraph structure effectively developed. · Fluent, professional style and tone of writing. · No proof reading errors. · Polished professional appearance. · Effective ability to synthesise the information and present information required within the word limit. · No errors in any aspect of referencing, including formatting. | · Language fluent. · Grammar and spelling accurate. · A few proof reading errors. · Professional presentation. · Attempt made to synthesise the information and present information required within 10% of the word limit. · A few (≤3) referencing errors, including formatting. | · Language mainly fluent, but some minor areas that may lead to confusion. · Grammar and spelling mainly accurate. · Neat and tidy presentation. · Attempt made to synthesise the information and present information required within 15% of the word limit. · Several (3-6) referencing errors, including formatting
| · Meaning apparent, but language not always fluent. · Grammar and/or spelling contain errors. · Inappropriate vocabulary, style or tone for professional writing. · Unprofessional, untidy, or unattractive presentation. · Attempt made to synthesise the information and present information required within 20% of the word limit. · A large number (6-10) of referencing errors, including formatting
| · Meaning unclear as grammar and/or spelling contain frequent errors. · Disorganised or incoherent writing. · Little attempt to synthesise the information and exceeds/is less than the required word limit by more than 20%. · Frequent referencing errors (≥ 10), including formatting. |
| 100 |
Comments
