Bibliography assignment

Required Resources Read/review the following resources for this activity:

· Textbook: Chapter 8, 9

· Lesson

· Link (Word doc)--- Source Evaluation Worksheet on pages 4-6

· Minimum of 5 scholarly sources

Instructions Use the Source Evaluation Worksheet to submit an annotated bibliography of 5 sources that you intend to use in your paper. Prepare a citation, annotation, and evaluation for each source.

You may collect the worksheets together as one document or you may submit a separate worksheet for each source.

Click on the following link for an example of an annotation.

Annotation Example :

Waite, L. J., Goldschneider, F. K., & Witsberger, C. (1986). Nonfamily living and the erosion of traditional family orientations among young adults. American Sociological Review, 51, 541-554.

The authors, researchers at the Rand Corporation and Brown University, use data from the National Longitudinal Surveys of Young Women and Young Men to test their hypothesis that nonfamily living by young adults alters their attitudes, values, plans, and expectations, moving them away from their belief in traditional sex roles. They find their hypothesis strongly supported in young females, while the effects were fewer in studies of young males. Increasing the time away from parents before marrying increased individualism, self-sufficiency, and changes in attitudes about families. In contrast, an earlier study by Williams cited below shows no significant gender differences in sex role attitudes as a result of nonfamily living.

Writing Requirements (APA format)

· Length: 100-150 words per source (not including title page or references page)

· 1-inch margins

· Double spaced

· 12-point Times New Roman font

· Title page

Grading This activity will be graded using the Annotated Bibliography Grading Rubric.

Course Outcomes (CO): 3, 5

Due Date: By 11:59 p.m. MT on Sunday

Rubric

Annotated Bibliography Grading Rubric - 50 pts

Annotated Bibliography Grading Rubric - 50 pts
Criteria	Ratings	Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQuantity of Sources	5.0 pts 5 or more sources 4.25 pts 4 sources 3.75 pts 3 sources 3.0 pts 2 sources 0.0 pts 1 or no sources	5.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQuality /Reliability of Sources	5.0 pts All works are from scholarly sources. 4.25 pts Most works are from scholarly sources; no more than 1 from a substantive source. 3.75 pts Some works are from scholarly sources; no more than 2 from substantive sources. 3.0 pts Sources substantive or lower in quality. 0.0 pts Few or no sources reach even substantive level; popular sources cited.	5.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRecency of Sources	5.0 pts All sources less than 5 years old; if older, historical significance explained 4.25 pts 1 source older than 5 years w/no explanation of historical significance 3.75 pts 2 sources older than 5 years w/no explanation of historical significance 3.0 pts 3 sources older than 5 years w/no explanation of historical significance 0.0 pts 4 or more sources older than 5 years old w/no explanation of historical significance	5.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting Fluency of Annotations	25.0 pts All annotations comprehensively describe scope source material; clearly conveying main idea and relationship of ideas in source to the topic and thesis of the essay and how source will be used in essay. 21.25 pts Most annotations comprehensively describe scope source material; give sense of main idea and relationship of ideas in source to the topic and thesis of the essay and how source will be used in essay. 18.75 pts Annotations are well-written but do not describe scope of source material; do not give clear idea of how source will be used in essay. 12.0 pts Annotations do not describe scope of source material and/or do not give idea of how they will be used in essay. 0.0 pts Annotations lack detail, give no idea of how they will be used in essay OR no annotations.	25.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAPA and Documentation	10.0 pts Citations are formatted correctly. 8.5 pts There are a few formatting errors. 7.5 pts There are some formatting errors. 6.0 pts There are many and/or frequent formatting errors. 0.0 pts There is little or no adherence to APA format in the document.	10.0 pts
Total Points: 50.0

Previous Next

Week 5 Source Evaluation Worksheet

First read the notes that begin on p. 2 of this handout and the table on p. 3. Then, complete the analysis for each of your sources.

1. Using APA format, identify the source and write a concise annotation that summarizes the central theme and scope of the book or article. A sample annotation can be found in the directions for this assignment.

2. Use the following criteria to evaluate each source:

a. How current is this the source you are using? (If not current – explain why information is still applicable)

b. How authoritative, credible, reliable? (For example: recognized expert; peer-reviewed journal; trusted site such as .edu, .gov, .mil; experienced and knowledgeable in the field; information consistent across several sources, etc.)

c. Briefly state specifically how this source provides evidence that strongly supports your conclusion. For example, “the article discusses significant evidence that this diet provides all essential nutrients and supports my view that the diet is healthy” “this study shows that this diet is deficient in vitamin D and supports my point that this diet is not healthy” “this survey revealed that obesity is on a rapid rise among all demographic groups and supports my view that obesity is epidemic”

d. If the information is “popular” or if it is from a blog, from a marketing site, or is persuasive in nature (i.e., an editorial or opinion piece, or a publication of a special interest group such as a trade organization, union, etc.) explain why you are using the source and why you cannot use a more substantive or scholarly source.

Evaluating Sources – Notes

1. Rate your journal and periodical sources (whether you are looking at hard copy or on-line) as scholarly, substantive or popular. The Table “Distinguishing between Scholarly and Non-scholarly Periodicals” will work for evaluating either print or on-line journals, newspapers, and periodicals.

2. Beware of bias in any specific article. Determine if the source is authoritative, credible, reliable, current and unbiased. (If not current, then information can be rated “valid, regardless of age,” -- i.e., a 1999 web-based article on the American Civil War is not “current”, but can be “valid regardless of age.”) All sources should be authoritative, credible, reliable, current and unbiased. If bias is found, state if bias may or may not affect the credibility and reliability of the information you will use and how you will compensate for possible bias.

3. For websites, generally speaking, .gov and .mil sites are acceptable sources in academic papers. Most .edu websites will be acceptable, but analyze under the criteria in 2 above.

4. If the website is a .com, .org or .biz website, you must further evaluate for authority, reliability and credibility. Never use a .com, .org or .biz site without evaluating across these criteria. Be especially careful about blogs – generally speaking, don’t use them. Many newspaper and magazines also publish to websites; evaluate those just as you would a journal or periodical.

a. Authoritative

· Who are the author(s)?

· Are they recognized experts in their field? – check the <About> column or google the author’s name?

· What is the level of education of the author? Experience? Knowledge of the subject?

· Is the information at a level appropriate to an upper-level academic paper?

b. Credible

· How does the information compare to other, similar information? Always look for more than one source – verify that all points of view are represented

c. Reliable

· Is it timely?

· Does it come from a trusted source?

Distinguishing Between Scholarly and Non-Scholarly Publications

	SCHOLARLY	SUBSTANTIVE	POPULAR
Examples	American Journal of Nursing JAMA New England Journal of Medicine American Journal of Kidney Diseases	National Geographic Psychology Today NY Times The Atlantic	Time Vanity Fair Huffington Post USA Today
Purpose & Use	· Knowledge dissemination · Reports of original research · in-depth topic analysis · Statistical information	· For profit · Current events and news · Introduces a subject · Interviews · Analysis and opinion	· For profit · Current events and news · Overview of topic · Entertainment · Sell products
Audience	· Reader knows the field (e.g., specialists)	· General audience	· General audience
Authors	· Researchers · Academics · Scholars	· Journalists · Freelance writers · Specialists or scholars	· Freelance writers · Staff writers · Journalists
Content & Language	· Description of research methods with conclusions · Objective · Assumes knowledge of language and specialist jargon · Article may have a specific structure · Usually peer-reviewed	· Explanation of a subject · Interpretation of a research article · May or may not be objective · Use of non-technical vocabulary · Shorter articles than in scholarly publications	· May be biased toward a particular point of view · Less depth · Everyday language · Often written like a story
Publishers	· Professional organizations · University or scholarly presses · Research institutions	· Commercial entities · Trade and professional organizations	· Commercial entities · Trade organizations
Sources	· Includes bibliography and/or notes · Includes extensive citation of sources · Includes author credentials	· Sometimes includes sources · May / may not include author credentials	· Rarely includes citations of sources · Rarely includes author credentials
Graphics	· Includes graphs, charts, and tables · Advertising is very rare	· Illustrated, often with photographs · Advertising is present	· Heavily illustrated · Lots of advertising