Week Two: Discussion 2: Entry Analysis [from Library Research Report] Must post

Week Two: Discussion 2: Entry Analysis [from Library Research Report]
Must post first.
Subscribe
Week Two: Discussion 2: Entry Analysis [from Library Research Report]
“There is no perfect time to write. There’s only now.” –Barbara Kingsolver
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, citation is complete and correct.”
If no, explain what is missing, or 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.