Initial post: Carefully review the Week Two Library Research Report assignment.

Initial post: Carefully review the Week Two Library Research Report assignment.

Initial post: Carefully review the Week Two Library Research Report assignment. Identify one source you can write about for your report (maybe one you found while completing the Journal Databases Activity? ) and draft one (1) entry for your Library Research Report (citation and write-up). Share your work with your classmates on this board. Also include a copy of your research question so that your classmates will be able to understand your write-up in relation to your larger project.
This entry is just a draft, so it’s okay if it’s a bit rough. But do put forth as much effort as your mid-week schedule allows, as this will increase the odds of your getting genuinely helpful feedback from peers. Also, if you’re aware of a problem with your draft entry and just didn’t have time yet to address it, go ahead and let your peers know–be as specific as possible–in a brief introductory note.
To make viewing easier and faster for the group, please copy and paste your work into the box (rather than attaching it). Don’t forget to include your research question at the top!
Replies: Respond to two classmates’ drafts. In each of your two responses to peers, answer the questions below. (Remember to respond first to posts that have not yet been responded to by others.)
Source Identification.
Identifying sources clearly and concisely is tricky. Find the part of your classmate’s entry that identifies the background/credentials of the source’s author/s. Now, do one (1) of the following:Try to rewrite your classmate’s source identification using fewer words, but without sacrificing essential information. Copy your experimental rewrite into your response as item #1.(If you’re not sure about what you’re recommending, go ahead and say so. Even tentative recommendations are better than not offering any potentially helpful suggestions at all.)
Is the original source identification already so concise that you see no possibilities for shortening? If so, consider whether there is enough information here for readers to understand the nature of the source. For example, is the source identified merely as a “professor” or as a “researcher” with no additional information about these credentials? If so, point this out. Explain why you think more explanation of the source may be needed.
If you see no opportunities to further strengthen the source identification, just copy and paste the entry’s sentence containing the source identification into your response as item #1.
Alignment between entry and research question. Does any part of the source write-up seem unrelated, or tangentially related, to the main research question?
If yes, identify that content, and explain.
If no part of the entry seems unrelated or tangentially related, then identify one sentence in the entry that illustrates the tight connection between the entry content and the research question, and copy that sentence into your response as item #2.
Presence of summary of support for claims. Does the entry explain how the source author/s arrived at the conclusions that are being summarized in this entry? Copy the sentences that address the HOW? question as item #3. If discussion of “how” appears throughout the entry, you can copy the entire entry as item #3 and boldface all of the parts that address the HOW? question.
Quantity of information on “how.”
Does the entry possibly provide too much information, or too little information, about how the source supports its claims?If yes, explain.
If no–i.e., the entry seems to you to provide just the right amount of information–then explain why you find the amount to be just right. (For example, “the entry explains that the researchers surveyed teenagers, but it doesn’t include unnecessary details about the survey.”)
Accessible language. Our goal in these reports is to make specialized source material accessible to a general audience. Does the entry include any specialist language that might not be accessible to non-specialist readers?If yes, copy and paste 1-2 examples into your response as item #5.
If no, identify one sentence in which a specialized idea is presented in clear, accessible language, and copy that sentence into your response as item #5
Citation. Is the citation complete and correct?
If yes, just write “Yes, the citation is complete and correct.”
If no, explain what is missing, what is unclear, or what is not formatted correctly. But note: don’t worry about things like missing italics or hanging indent format, as these are often lost simply as a result of work being copied and pasted into a Discussion forum. Week Two Assignment: Library Research Report
Hide Assignment Information
Instructions
Library Research Report Assignment: Detailed InstructionsPlease be sure to review the rubric for this assignment before submitting your work: Grading Rubric for Library Research ReportPlease submit your work as an attachment (rather than copying and pasting).
Hide RubricsRubric Name: ILR260: Grading Rubric for Library Research Report [15 points]
PrintCriteriaProficientSatisfactoryDevelopingNeeds ImprovementUnsatisfactoryCriterion Score
Source SelectionSource selection meets assignment requirements; sources are strong and skillfully chosen for direct relevance and for the substance and complexity they bring to the inquiry.Source selection meets assignment requirements; sources are strong and relevant to the inquiry.Source selection meets assignment requirements; sources are strong and relevant to the inquiry.Sources mostly meet assignment requirements, but a significant percentage of the sources exhibit problems such as insufficient currency, relevancy, or depth.Sources mostly do not meet assignment requirements. Many source-selection problems.Sources are listed but none meet assignment requirements./ 2.5
Source IdentificationWho? question is addressed clearly, concisely, and accurately.Who? question is addressed clearly and accurately.Who? question is, for the most part, addressed clearly and accurately.Who? question is addressed unclearly or inaccurately in several parts of the report.Who? question is addressed unclearly or inaccurately in most parts of the report.Who? question is mentioned but not addressed./ 1.5
Source Relevance to Research QuestionWhat? and So What? are addressed clearly, concisely, and accurately.What? and So What? are addressed clearly and accurately.What? and So What? are, for the most part, addressed clearly and accurately.What? and So What? are addressed unclearly or inaccurately in several parts of the report.What? and So What? are addressed unclearly or inaccurately in most parts of the report.What? and So what? questions are mentioned but not addressed./ 1.5
Evaluation of Evidence QualityHow? question is addressed clearly, concisely, and accurately.How? question is addressed clearly and accurately.How? question is, for the most part, addressed clearly and accurately.How? question is addressed unclearly or inaccurately in several parts of the report.How? question is addressed unclearly or inaccurately in most parts of the report.How? question is mentioned but not addressed./ 2
Alignment of Sources to Research QuestionRelationship between entries and research question is unambiguous; strong alignment between sources and inquiry.Relationship between entries and research question is sufficiently clear; good alignment between sources and inquiry.Relationship between entries and research question is unclear in places; some apparent misalignment between sources and inquiry.Relationship between entries and research question is unclear in places and cannot be easily inferred; significant misalignment between sources and inquiry.Relationship between entries and research question is unclear for most of the report; report content mostly does not align with inquiry as expressed in the research question.Entries are listed but none are in alignment with research question, or research question is not mentioned./ 2.5
Use of Standard EnglishConfidence in use of Standard English, language reflects a practiced and/or refined understanding of syntax and usage.Conveys a good understanding of Standard English; the writer is clear in his/her attempt to articulate ideas, but may demonstrate moments of “flat” or unrefined language.Presence of sentence-level errors and awkwardness of expression, but not of such frequency and severity as to significantly impede understanding.Awkward expression and sentence-level errors occur frequently, often impeding understanding.Awkward expression and sentence-level errors occur throughout the report and significantly impede understanding.Report contains mostly quoted or paraphrased content; original use of English is mostly incomprehensible./ 2.5
APA/MLA Citation FormattingAdheres to APA citation format (MLA for arts/humanities majors)Adheres to APA citation format (MLA for arts/humanities majors); occasional citation errors are minor and are at the level of presentation.Evidence of attempt to adhere to APA citation format (MLA for arts/humanities majors), but with a few errors in presentation and content that could create some difficulty for readers trying to understand or locate sources.Insufficient adherence to APA citation format (MLA for arts/humanities majors); significant/communication-impeding errors in presentation and content of source citations.Major deviations from APA or MLA citation format.Neither APA nor MLA citation formatting are recognizably present, or only sporadically so.

× How can I help you?