Homework answers / question archive / Annotated Bibliography Directions Grant Proposal Assignment 2 Assignment Expectations Assignment 2 for your grant proposal is completing your annotated bibliography

Annotated Bibliography Directions Grant Proposal Assignment 2 Assignment Expectations Assignment 2 for your grant proposal is completing your annotated bibliography

Writing

Share With

Annotated Bibliography Directions Grant Proposal Assignment 2 Assignment Expectations Assignment 2 for your grant proposal is completing your annotated bibliography. As a reminder, you complete this assignment in the same Google doc you created for the Grant Proposal Overview assignment. An annotated bibliography provides citations (correctly formatted in APA) and brief summaries of the articles. Your bibliography must include 10 sources. • Six of the sources must be peer-reviewed journal articles • Two of the sources must also be peer-reviewed, but can include websites such as the NIH, FDA, CDC and Medscape (you can include more peer-reviewed journal articles instead if you wish) • Two sources can include other reliable sources such as news sources, etc. Complete the following for each of your 10 sources: 1. Cite the source according to APA citation guidelines (review the presentation in week two and utilize the resources below) • Link directly to the source by highlighting the URL and clicking on “link” while editing your page 2. Write a paragraph-long annotation for each source • Provide a summary in your own words of the main findings of the article in relationship to your grant proposal • Critically analyze and assess the source (the reliability of the research, what the authors do well and what they overlook, how useful the source is, etc.) • Reflect briefly on how this source will be used within your final project Tips • Visit the Purdue University Writing Center’s site for a very helpful overview of an annotated bibliography • Include research that offers opposing arguments. You can then include what is problematic/misleading/wrong about the disparaging arguments in your proposal as a means to demonstrate that you fully understand the issue and to strengthen the case that your side is “right”. • Annotations must be in your own words! Copying and pasting abstracts or even sentences from the articles is not acceptable and is plagiarism. • Bibliographies should be error-free – grammar issues, typos, citations errors will result in point deductions. • The grading rubric for the annotated bibliographies is available on the Canvas course site and in this document. When you are finished with your Annotated Bibliography, please convert your Google doc into a PDF or Word document and upload it to the Annotated Bibliography assignment in Canvas. Grading will begin once the deadline has passed. This assignment is worth 60 points. Page 2 of 2 © Regents of the University of Minnesota. This handout is provided to facilitate the learning of participants within this course. It may not be modified, reproduced and/or circulated for other means without the permission of the author. University of Minnesota College of Pharmacy. Annotated Bibliography Rubric Exemplary Satisfactory Not satisfactory Source Listed 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Sources are cited in proper APA format All sources are listed in proper APA format and include all essential information, including links to citations when appropriate. Sources are all listed haphazardly or in an incorrect format, but with enough information to find the article. No sources are listed. Source is PeerReviewed 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Article comes from a source that is peer-reviewed and/or credible All source peer-review requirements are met: 6 sources: peer-reviewed journals 2 sources: peer-reviewed, but can come from other sources such as medical association (e.g. AMA, APhA) or government (e.g. CDC NIH) websites 2 sources: no peer review requirements, but still credible (e.g. news sources, magazine such as TIME) 2 points deducted for each source that does not meet peer-review requirements No sources are listed. Annotation 30 27 24 21 18 15 12 9 6 3 0 Provides a substantive description of the article and discusses how/why the article is important to the grant proposal Writer provides a strong overview of the arguments being made in the annotated article and relates the article to the central focus of the project. The writer critically analyzes the article while discussing, at the same time, how the article fits into the argument of their grant proposal. The sources used are from varied, well researched, and credible sources. No language/grammar issues. Overall, the writer provides an overview of the articles and may look briefly at the articles through a critical lens. The relationship of the article to the grant proposal is evident, but may only be more implied, than clearly stated. The sources are from credible sources, but could, perhaps, have been more varied. Minor language/grammar issues that do not distract the reader. The articles annotated do not address a focused theme. The annotations for the articles may be brief, unclear, or seemingly unrelated to each other. The writer may rely heavily on resources that are not credible, are entirely from course materials, or irrelevant to the proposal focus. Language/grammar issues are a hindrance to understanding the annotation.