.

id - last 4draft proposal - 25 ptsfinal proposal - 25 pointspaper 1 - 50paper 2 - 75draft ppt- 25final paper - 125presentationannotated bib - 50Paper Total - 400Book Review - 100DL - 100Participation - 150Readings - 150 totalTOTALPercentageGradecomments on annotated bibliography

.

*03592525 252580100140125

.

*0753251540252580100140100

.

*08332501525 100140120

.

*0847252550602511525253509010015013582591.67%3.90Generic abstracts do not show how material related to this paper; citation errors (lack of URLs); insufficient (6) scholarly sources.

.

*1185252545752512525453909010015016589599.44%4.00Minor citation errors throughout; abstracts clearly link to paper; sufficient scholarly sources

.

*1421252075251252550395100100150190935103.89%4.00Abstracts clearly link to paper; sufficient scholarly sources

.

*143225255065251252550390100100150165905100.56%4.00Abstracts clearly link to paper; sufficient scholarly sources

.

*21772525252580100130125

.

*22652520457020120254036580100150205900100.00%4.00Minor citation errors; only 9 academic/scholarly sources; abstracts clearly link to research

.

*26802525456520110254035590100150230925102.78%4.00Minor grammatical and citation errors; abstracts clearly link to paper; sufficient academic/scholarly sources

.

*4478252040651511525253308010015020586596.11%4.00Annotations informal but, in the main, link to the paper; citation errors (databases, retrieve dates, formatting); insufficient (6) scholarly sources.

.

*4485252550602511525503758010015016587096.67%4.00Abstracts clearly link to paper; sufficient scholarly sources

.

*6520251540252580100140150

.

*68162520507525125255039590100150165900100.00%4.00Abstracts clearly link to paper; sufficient scholarly sources

.

*7015252040752511525253509010015016585595.00%4.00Over-reliance on wikipedia (10/30) and general (not specific content page) website links (9/30) ; insufficient (only 5 of 10 required) scholarly sources

.

*728225204075251252545380100100150180910101.11%4.00Abstracts clearly link to paper; sufficient scholarly sources; missing info on databases used to access journal articles

.

*7405251550602511525503657010014018586095.56%4.00Abstracts clearly link to paper; sufficient scholarly sources

.

*7449252050752512525453907010015017588598.33%4.00Minor citation style issues; abstracts clearly link to paper; sufficient scholarly sources

.

*7458251545702512525403708010013019087096.67%4.00Minor citation errors; abstracts well-written but do not clearly link to research

.

*850125204560159525203059010014017080589.44%3.70Annotations missing; citation errors throughout; generic abstracts do not clarify how resource used in paper.

.

*86762515456525115255036510010015018089599.44%4.00Abstracts clearly link to paper; sufficient scholarly sources

.

*8911252040702012025503709010014016586596.11%4.00Abstracts clearly link to paper; sufficient scholarly sources

.

*8932251045601511025203108010013014576585.00%3.50Annotations missing; citation errors; insufficient scholarly sources.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.