Assignment 3 Overview: The Reflective Annotated Bibliography

APA format
Overview:

A reflective annotated bibliography is an expanded version of a traditional annotated bibliography, which only asks you to summarize/annotate and cite your sources. The reflective annotated bibliography goes beyond this and works as a research device. It asks you to:

create a list of terminology/keywords for each source
reflect on the usefulness of each source
create a list of quotations from each source that you might use in a draft of a research paper.
These additional sections help you differentiate between summary (where you offer an “objective” review of the source’s main points) and analysis (where you offer your “subjective” idea about the source). It also acts as a mnemonic device to help you retain terminologies, key terms and phrases, and useful quotes. 

Full Directions:

Reflective Annotated Bibliography

A reflective annotated bibliography (RAB) is an expanded version of a traditional annotated bibliography (AB), which only asks you to summarize/annotate and cite your sources. The RAB goes beyond this and works as a research device; it asks you to also create a list of terminology/keywords for each source, to reflect on the usefulness of each source, and to create a list of quotations from each source that you might use in a draft of a research paper. These additional sections help you differentiate between summary (where you offer an “objective” review of the source’s main points) and analysis (where you offer your “subjective” idea about the source). It also acts as a mnemonic device to help you retain terminologies, key terms and phrases, and useful quotes. 

For this assignment, you need to do the following for THREE of the five sources you found:

Bibliographic Entry/Citation:  Cite the source as you would for an APA References page. 

Keywords: List 5-8 keywords from the source that connect to your research topic. 

Annotation: Provide a one-paragraph summary of the source. Do not offer your options and do not quote from the sources. Simply provide a one-paragraph overview of the source that includes the following:

The source’s primary and supportive claims;

The thesis or argument being forwarded;

The methods (if applicable) used in the study being discussed;

The type evidence (anecdotal, analysis, statistics, etc). being used to support the thesis;

The point or conclusion offered by the source. 

Reflection: Offer a one-paragraph reflection on this source. Specifically, discuss your thoughts about this source by answering these questions within the reflection:

Do you agree or disagree with claims? Do you find its evidence and analysis convincing? 

How will you use this source in your paper? 

What elements is the source missing (for your purposes); in other words, what information do you wish it contained? 

What don’t you understand about this source? What other information do you need to look up to better understand this article?  

What additional research do you need to do to fill in the whole(s) left by this source?

Quotables: List 3-5 direct quotations and 3-5 paraphrases that you think you might use in your Research Paper (if you were actually going to write one). Make sure you include the page number(s) where each quote/paraphrase information can be found and that you place quotation marks around any direct quotes.

The question regarding this research is “Why might the lack of police accountability affect the way society views the police, so any source that has to do with that would suffice.

Example:

SAMPLE Reflective Annotated Bibliography Entry

This is a sample Reflective Annotated Bibliography entry that you can use as a general guide as you construct the LSA #3 for our course. Remember: you need to complete all of these items for three of your chosen sources. 

1. Fitzgerald, Jill.  “Research on Revision in Writing”  Review of Educational Research. 

(Winter 1987): 481-506.*

Terminology/Key Words:

Participant-Observer Method

Problem-Solving View

Process-Tracing Method

Simulation-by-Intervention Method

Stage Model

Annotation:

From a two-decade period, his author compiles research studies, perspectives, and re-definitions about revision and its role in the improvement of writing.  According to the author, these last twenty years of revision studies have reshaped the definition of meaningful revision to move beyond editorial actions.  As the author states, “This paper presents a brief historical perspective on the development of the meaning of revision, presents findings from research on revision, and, finally, discusses limitations of the research” (481).   Moreover, this survey of revision research considers various aspects of revision decision-making, including age, grade-level, expertise, and instructional response (aka, response to drafts). After summarizing and analyzing the revision studies an limitations, the author suggests further research studies that future composition/rhetoric researchers should pursue.  

Reflection: 

This article provides an historical viewpoint for my articles albeit one which needs updating since 1987.  Along with articles from 1987 to the present, this information provides a framework to discuss revision and the types of assessment systems in which productive revision—beyond editorial actions (aka: surface characteristics such as spelling, punctuation, and sentence correction)—can take place.  The point accrual system that I suggest offers students a course policy system in which they can take control of their earned grade and see the value in revisionary efforts. By reviewing these methodologies of tracking revision habits, I can make a better argument for the types of classroom policies we might put in place to encourage, even instigate, revision. If American public schools ask students to do little revision (and most of my students come from public schools) then incoming freshmen must be “unlearned” of the counter-productive habits that they were taught about revising in high school.  If conditioned for twelve years not to revise, the freshman year composition course must place some re-conditioning structures in place to induce students to alter their normativized habits of textual-stagnation. 

Quotables:  

“[T]heory has not always mirrored the practitioner’s belief that revision has a central role in writing.  Early views of revision were theoretically dry and uninteresting” (481).

“Most recently, Scardamalia and Bereiter (1986) coined the term “reprocessing” to refer to the mental aspects of revision […] Reprocessing “spans everything from editing for mistakes to reformulating goals.  Revision is a special case of reprocessing, applied to actual texts” (790).

“Revision means making any changes at any point in the writing process.  It involves identifying discrepancies between intended and instantiated text, deciding what could or should be changed in the text and how to make desired changes, and operating, that is, making the desired changes.  Changes may or may not affect meaning of the text, and they may be major or minor.  Also, changes may be made in the writer’s mind before being instantiated in written text, at the time the text is first written, and/or after text is first written [list of authors contributing to this definition]” (484).

“Research on cognitive aspects of the problem-solving view of revision has focused on reasons for breakdowns.  Several reasons are plausible.  First, one break-down may occur if a writer does not clearly establish intentions for text” (489).

“Expert professional writers made one meaning-related revision for every two surface changes; advanced college student writers made one for every three; and inexperienced college student writers made one for every seven” (492)”