Submission: In D2L and on paper in class.
You must create an annotated bibliography for your project. It should include a comprehensive review of the literature for your selected topic. This is a separate document from the project proposal but should contain the same sources.
Please note, the annotated bibliography is different from the bibliography which must be a part of any written project. We will discuss this in class.
A draft copy of your annotated bibliography is due with your proposal and implementation draft on the draft due date at class time. This need not be complete but should show sufficient resources are available, and that sufficient work has been conducted to expect that the project is reasonable and can be completed.
A final copy of your annotated bibliography is due with the final copy of your paper.
Rubric: (Revised from a rubric posted at Purdue)
| Item | Weight | Outstanding | Good | Acceptable | Poor | Failing |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Source Selection | 20% | Sources cited are relevant to the topic. Sources indicate a complete review of literature. Few if any additional sources will be required. | Most sources are relevant to the topic. Additional sources may be required but a thorough investing of the literature is indicated. | Some sources are irrelevant. Additional sources are required. Relevant sources present indicate a strong literature review has begun. | Most sources are not relevant to the topic. Significant additional review of research is required. Sources present indicate trivial literature review has occurred. | Sources are not relevant to the topic. No indication of a literature review is present. |
| Credibility | 20% | All sources are from credible, scholarly material. Sources are timely. | Most sources are from credible, scholarly material. Most sources are timely. | Some sources are from credible, scholarly material. Some sources may be outdated. | Few sources are from credible, scholarly material. Sources are outdated. | Sources lack credibility. Focus on popular media, blogs or other material which has not been reviewed. |
| Annotations | 20% | All annotations succinctly and comprehensively describe the source material. Annotations offer insight into the source material. | Most annotations are succinct, and comprehensively describe source material. | Some annotations may be too short or too long. Source material is described but annotations lack insight. | Few annotations adequately describe the source material. Annotations offer little or no insight. | Annotations are trivial, missing or lack insight. Annotations do not describe the source material. |
| Evaluation | 20% | All evaluations explain why the source was chosen, demonstrate a clear understanding of the value of the source. | Most evaluations explain the selection of the source. | Some evaluations explain why the source was selected, however some sources lack critical evaluation. | Most sources lack evaluation, sources are simply listed and summarized. Evaluations are trivial. | All evaluations are trivial or missing. |
| Mechanics | 20% | The document is free from grammatical, punctuation and spelling errors. Proper citation style used (ACM or IEEE). | The document has occasional errors in grammar, punctuation or spelling. Proper citation style used (ACM or IEEE). | The document has frequent errors in grammar, punctuation and spelling. It contains minor, but consistent errors in citation style. | The document has distracting errors in grammar, punctuation and spelling. It contains inconsistent errors in citation style or an unacceptable documented citation style is used. | Significant errors render document useless. No documented citation style is used. |