Understanding Source Integration

Understanding Source Integration

Index

What is an Annotated Bibliography?

What Articles Should You Include?

Why Write an Annotated Bibliography?

From Annotated Bibliography to Paper

What is an Annotated Bibliography?

An annotated bibliography is a list of sources in appropriate format (APA) that cover a specific area of interest. Each source is followed by a descriptive, yet brief paragraph about the source called an “annotation.”

• Most annotations will be a blend of description and evaluation.

• Depending on what you are using the annotations for, they may be more or less detailed.

+ INFO

+ INFO

What articles should you include?

Articles that will structure your argument

Foundational work in your area

Recent studies in your research area

Why write an Annotated Bibliography?

Summary of important findings in your own language.

Annotation

Relevancy of work to your own ideas.

Your own critique of the study.

Article Abstract

Key information that will be useful for your own paper.

How do these compare?

+ INFO

Branham, D. (2004). The wise man builds his house upon the rock: The effects of inadequate school building infrastructure on student attendance. Social Science Quarterly, 85(5), 1112-1128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0038-4941.2004.00266.x

Return

SUMMARY

Branham (2004) explores the relationship between school infrastructure and student outcomes and provides evidence that infrastructure matters for student success. The 226 schools comprising the analytic sample are located within the Houston Independent School District (HISD), a district with wide variety in school infrastructure quality. This sample provides an appropriate balance of specificity (one district) and variation, enhancing the study’s validity. Branham (2004) uses two dependent variables to measure student performance: school year attendance percentages and drop out percentages. Independent variables relating to infrastructure include amount of temporary spaces used by the school, whether the school needs structural repair, size of custodial staff in relation to school size, and amount of building space per student. Branham (2004) finds that three of the four infrastructure variables, temporary space usage, need of structural repair, and number of custodial staff, have a statistically significant coefficient in the Tobit model of school attendance. The same infrastructure variables (all but building space per student) are statistically significantly related to school drop-out rates. These findings demonstrate that students attending schools with structural damage, temporary building structures, and small custodial staff are less likely to attend school and more likely to drop out. This study adds nuance to the school resources debate by using the individual school (as opposed to district or state level studies) as the unit of analysis to address how specific school-level circumstances are affected by resources.

Branham, D. (2004). The wise man builds his house upon the rock: The effects of inadequate school building infrastructure on student attendance. Social Science Quarterly, 85(5), 1112-1128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0038-4941.2004.00266.x

Return

RELEVANCY

Branham (2004) explores the relationship between school infrastructure and student outcomes and provides evidence that infrastructure matters for student success. The 226 schools comprising the analytic sample are located within the Houston Independent School District (HISD), a district with wide variety in school infrastructure quality. This sample provides an appropriate balance of specificity (one district) and variation, enhancing the study’s validity. Branham (2004) uses two dependent variables to measure student performance: school year attendance percentages and drop out percentages. Independent variables relating to infrastructure include amount of temporary spaces used by the school, whether the school needs structural repair, size of custodial staff in relation to school size, and amount of building space per student. Branham (2004) finds that three of the four infrastructure variables, temporary space usage, need of structural repair, and number of custodial staff, have a statistically significant coefficient in the Tobit model of school attendance. The same infrastructure variables (all but building space per student) are statistically significantly related to school drop-out rates. These findings demonstrate that students attending schools with structural damage, temporary building structures, and small custodial staff are less likely to attend school and more likely to drop out. This study adds nuance to the school resources debate by using the individual school (as opposed to district or state level studies) as the unit of analysis to address how specific school-level circumstances are affected by resources.

Branham, D. (2004). The wise man builds his house upon the rock: The effects of inadequate school building infrastructure on student attendance. Social Science Quarterly, 85(5), 1112-1128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0038-4941.2004.00266.x

Return

CRITIQUE

Branham (2004) explores the relationship between school infrastructure and student outcomes and provides evidence that infrastructure matters for student success. The 226 schools comprising the analytic sample are located within the Houston Independent School District (HISD), a district with wide variety in school infrastructure quality. This sample provides an appropriate balance of specificity (one district) and variation, enhancing the study’s validity. Branham (2004) uses two dependent variables to measure student performance: school year attendance percentages and drop out percentages. Independent variables relating to infrastructure include amount of temporary spaces used by the school, whether the school needs structural repair, size of custodial staff in relation to school size, and amount of building space per student. Branham (2004) finds that three of the four infrastructure variables, temporary space usage, need of structural repair, and number of custodial staff, have a statistically significant coefficient in the Tobit model of school attendance. The same infrastructure variables (all but building space per student) are statistically significantly related to school drop-out rates. These findings demonstrate that students attending schools with structural damage, temporary building structures, and small custodial staff are less likely to attend school and more likely to drop out. This study adds nuance to the school resources debate by using the individual school (as opposed to district or state level studies) as the unit of analysis to address how specific school-level circumstances are affected by resources.

Branham, D. (2004). The wise man builds his house upon the rock: The effects of inadequate school building infrastructure on student attendance. Social Science Quarterly, 85(5), 1112-1128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0038-4941.2004.00266.x

KEY INFO

Return

Branham (2004) explores the relationship between school infrastructure and student outcomes and provides evidence that infrastructure matters for student success. The 226 schools comprising the analytic sample are located within the Houston Independent School District (HISD), a district with wide variety in school infrastructure quality. This sample provides an appropriate balance of specificity (one district) and variation, enhancing the study’s validity. Branham (2004) uses two dependent variables to measure student performance: school year attendance percentages and drop out percentages. Independent variables relating to infrastructure include amount of temporary spaces used by the school, whether the school needs structural repair, size of custodial staff in relation to school size, and amount of building space per student. Branham (2004) finds that three of the four infrastructure variables, temporary space usage, need of structural repair, and number of custodial staff, have a statistically significant coefficient in the Tobit model of school attendance. The same infrastructure variables (all but building space per student) are statistically significantly related to school drop-out rates. These findings demonstrate that students attending schools with structural damage, temporary building structures, and small custodial staff are less likely to attend school and more likely to drop out. This study adds nuance to the school resources debate by using the individual school (as opposed to district or state level studies) as the unit of analysis to address how specific school-level circumstances are affected by resources.

Branham, D. (2004). The wise man builds his house upon the rock: The effects of inadequate school building infrastructure on student attendance. Social Science Quarterly, 85(5), 1112-1128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0038-4941.2004.00266.x

Objective. This article looks at the effect of school infrastructure on student attendance and drop-out rates. Methods. Using the school as the unit of analysis, Tobit analysis is performed to analyze 226 Houston Independent School District schools. Results. The quality of school infrastructure has a significant effect on school attendance and drop-out rates. Students are less likely to attend schools in need of structural repair, schools that use temporary structures, and schools that have understaffed janitorial services. Conclusions. School districts who wish to maximize attendance and minimize drop-out rates should avoid temporary solutions to school building inadequacies and provide students, teachers, and administrators with quality permanent structure schools, and quality janitorial staffs to maintain those schools.

Next

Return

compare to annotation

From Annotated Bibliography to Your Paper

Original Annotation

The Paper

Use clear, succinct language with citations to begin and end a paragraph.

Mention other studies; "Studies have shown..."

Use transitions.

The Annotation

Return

Bixler, R. D., & Carlisle, C. L. (1994). Observed fears and discomforts among urban students. Journal of Environmental Education, 26(1), 24. doi:10.1080/00958964.1994.9941430​ Bixler & Carlisle (1994) identify common fears of urban students expressed while visiting outdoor learning centers. The authors recognize that most visitors of these nature parks are white, middle class, well-educated and largely male populations. Employees justifiably tailor to their clientele, but in the process neglect the experiences of a potentially less informed, wider ranging population of school-age children who visit the parks during infrequent class field trips. The authors identified 60 centers recognized by the Directory of Natural Science Centers and solicited the completion of an open-ended questionnaire in which one staff member would list observed fears over a two-week period. The authors saw the environmental educators employed by the centers as the most accurate assessors of children’s expressions of anxiety, given the limitations of young students’ memory and writing skills, though it would be most useful to compare educators’ observations with students’ perceptions. Out of 564 reported examples of students’ expressed discomforts, fear of snakes and insects were most common, followed by a fear of nonindigenous animals (i.e. well-known zoo animals such as lions, tigers, and monkeys). The authors argue that students’ pre-existing misconceptions of nature led to experiences that were not conducive to learning; instead, the authors argue for earlier intervention and exposure to nature for such students, seeing attitudes towards nature as more important than the study of nature.

Info

Critique

Relevancy

Summary

Key Info

The Paper

Return

Qualitative ethnographic studies depict students in urban settings as having varied experiences with nature (Aaron, 2011; Ramlo, 2018). Aaron (2011) collects students’ definitions of nature by asking, “What do you know about nature?” before asking students to also “Draw nature” (p. 150). Students’ responses varied; some felt in awe of nature, some feared nature, and some saw nature as something separate and unknown to themselves. Bixler and Carlisle (1994) offer an adult perspective of urban students’ perceived fears at various outdoor education centers. These adults, while only knowing students for the duration of their visit to the center, see students’ behavior as indicative of discomfort, fear, and biophobia. However, as will be explored later on, researchers’ positionality in studies such as Aaron (2011) and Bixler and Carlisle (1994) create a divide between the world of urban students and the world of nature. It can be argued that these researchers did not acknowledge that there are many ways of knowing about our natural world. If, for example, Aaron (2011) instead asked students to "Draw the nature you see on your walk to school," the study may have yielded different results. More recent studies of environmental education show that meaningful natural experiences can happen in even the most densely urbanized spaces (Bellino & Adams, 2017).

Your Own Critique: Notice how the annotator synthesized multiple sources with similar perspectives. They then offer a critique of this perspective.

Info

The Paper

Return

Qualitative ethnographic studies depict students in urban settings as having varied experiences with nature (Aaron, 2011; Ramlo, 2018). Aaron (2011) collects students’ definitions of nature by asking, “What do you know about nature?” before asking students to also “Draw nature” (p. 150). Students’ responses varied; some felt in awe of nature, some feared nature, and some saw nature as something separate and unknown to themselves. Bixler and Carlisle (1994) offer an adult perspective of urban students’ perceived fears at various outdoor education centers. These adults, while only knowing students for the duration of their visit to the center, see students’ behavior as indicative of discomfort, fear, and biophobia. However, as will be explored later on, researchers’ positionality in studies such as Aaron (2011) and Bixler and Carlisle (1994) create a divide between the world of urban students and the world of nature. It can be argued that these researchers did not acknowledge that there are many ways of knowing about our natural world. If, for example, Aaron (2011) instead asked students to "Draw the nature you see on your walk to school," the study may have yielded different results. More recent studies of environmental education show that meaningful natural experiences can happen in even the most densely urbanized spaces (Bellino & Adams, 2017).

Topic sentence gives the general theme of the paragraph; concluding sentence moves the writing forward by giving a preview of what is to come.

Info

The Paper

Return

Qualitative ethnographic studies depict students in urban settings as having varied experiences with nature (Aaron, 2011; Ramlo, 2018). Aaron (2011) collects students’ definitions of nature by asking, “What do you know about nature?” before asking students to also “Draw nature” (p. 150). Students’ responses varied; some felt in awe of nature, some feared nature, and some saw nature as something separate and unknown to themselves. Bixler and Carlisle (1994) offer an adult perspective of urban students’ perceived fears at various outdoor education centers. These adults, while only knowing students for the duration of their visit to the center, see students’ behavior as indicative of discomfort, fear, and biophobia. However, as will be explored later on, researchers’ positionality in studies such as Aaron (2011) and Bixler and Carlisle (1994) create a divide between the world of urban students and the world of nature. It can be argued that these researchers did not acknowledge that there are many ways of knowing about our natural world. If, for example, Aaron (2011) instead asked students to "Draw the nature you see on your walk to school," the study may have yielded different results. More recent studies of environmental education show that meaningful natural experiences can happen in even the most densely urbanized spaces (Bellino & Adams, 2017).

Mention other studies

Info

The Paper

Qualitative ethnographic studies depict students in urban settings as having varied experiences with nature (Aaron, 2011; Ramlo, 2018). Aaron (2011) collects students’ definitions of nature by asking, “What do you know about nature?” before asking students to also “Draw nature” (p. 150). Students’ responses varied; some felt in awe of nature, some feared nature, and some saw nature as something separate and unknown to themselves. Bixler and Carlisle (1994) offer an adult perspective of urban students’ perceived fears at various outdoor education centers. These adults, while only knowing students for the duration of their visit to the center, see students’ behavior as indicative of discomfort, fear, and biophobia. However, as will be explored later on, researchers’ positionality in studies such as Aaron (2011) and Bixler and Carlisle (1994) create a divide between the world of urban students and the world of nature. It can be argued that these researchers did not acknowledge that there are many ways of knowing about our natural world. If, for example, Aaron (2011) instead asked students to "Draw the nature you see on your walk to school," the study may have yielded different results. More recent studies of environmental education show that meaningful natural experiences can happen in even the most densely urbanized spaces (Bellino & Adams, 2017).

Transitions!! Are there places in this paragraph where transitions are missing?

Info

An evolution of ideas

Concurrently, research trajectories grounded in a deficit-based perspective on urban students’ experience of nature promote ideas that urban students are uncomfortable, fearful, and generally do not participate in appropriate interactions with nature (Bixler & Carlisle, 1994; Witt, 2011). These researchers describe an “extinction of experience” (Soga & Gaston, 2016) that leaves urban (read: minoritized and low-income) populations ill-equipped for the human-as-visitor-to-pristine-nature experience described by Muir and the Wilderness Act. However, more recently, these ideas and research trajectories have been complicated by researchers interested in taking a critical lens on how ideas of nature are used and abused in our society and our schools (Thorton et al., 2021; Taylor, 2017).

EXPLORE

This was a paper the annotator wrote more than a year after reading and creating an annotation for Bixler and Carlisle (1994). Old annotations will still prove useful as your ideas evolve! Do you notice a shift from the original paper to this one?

END

THANK YOU!