Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Transcript of Annotated Bibliography
What's in an Annotated bibliography
Description/summary of the work
Evaluation of the work (ethos, pathos, logos)
Commentary on how the work fits with your project.
Consult Purdue OWL (http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/08/)
Richards, Thomas Karr. "Provisional Fixity in James Joyce's 'Proteus'." James Joyce Quarterly 20.4 (1983): 385-98.
Richards considers previous reading about the characters of Ulysses as problematic, suggesting that coherent readings of characters are problematic. In “Proteus,” Richards sees the existence of both idealist and empirical notions of identity as proof that Ulysses refuses definitive statements about its characters.
By closely reading the first five paragraphs against prevailing definitive statements about Stephen, Richards offers “provisional fixity” as ways in which Joyce misleads readers. In following Stephen’s thought, Richards concludes that ambiguity and disjointedness remain as the most prevalent features of Stephen’s mind and suggests that the interpreters read different philosophical discourse as Stephen’s own.
Description/Summary of the Work
Evaluation of the Source
Major Claim made here: You're researched your "topic" as a critical situation. So, tell us how the source functions to present a 360-degree view of your topic (hint: this is NOT Pro/Con)
Contextualize the source for your purpose
Read this article http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/03/nina-simone-face/472107/
In groups write an annotation.
Imagine that your critical situation is "Race in Hollywood"
I highlighted the
summary in purple
Here, you need to be specific and tell us why the source was
credible enough for you to use it.
Look up author's credentials
Say something about the data/research
Say something about the stakeholder/community's voice where the source comes from
If the sources is over 10 years old explain WHY it is still credible.
Tell your audience how the source fits into your project. Every source is
useful for a different researcher for a different reason. Tell us why/how the source is useful for you.
Does it represent a specific stakeholder (or multiple stakeholders)?
Does it give you more context (i.e. background or history of your critical situation)?
Does it explain a key event?
Does it explain the major developments within the critical situation?
Does it theorize or imagine the future of your critical situation?
Remember, be specific here. Don't just say,
"The source is useful for me because it represents a stakeholder." Which stakeholder?
And what info about that stakeholder?
Major claim made here: the source is credible.
Major claim made here: Summary of the article's main points and major claims.
"Quote" (Author's last name page #).
"I like pie" (Smith 27).
**Webtexts will not have page numbers**
Limit your use of quotes to ONE SENTENCE make sure that sentence is important. These annotations should come from your own words.