FIS 1311 - Review Assignment

Review Assignment

To contextualize the material in this course, it is useful to see what kind of research is being published in journals relevant to:

Choose an article from either D-Lib or ARIADNE Magazines. In D-Lib, eligible articles are called "main articles"; in ARIADNE, these are called simply "articles." (These articles should be from the last six years or so --not too far in the past.)
After reading the article, write a short (1000 words) review. This report should not only give a brief overview of the article's contents, but should also contextualize it in some way, and articulate a response to it. You can contextualize the article reviewed in terms of what you have learned thus far in the course (from readings or other students' project profiles, or from your own research into related sources). Your response to the article can be critical or positive, or can suggest further areas for research: but whatever your response, please back it up or support it. This support can take the form of evidence from your own experience or from a quality source. This evidence can also take the form of an argument that you are developing in the review.
Post your review to your blog, and send a copy to colin.furness@utoronto.ca.
Read others' project write-ups, and comment on them (at least two others projects/comments). Your postings can ask questions about the project that might be raised for you, or can draw connections between projects that you have learned about.
Respond to any comments or questions that you receive on your write-up.

Write your review using APA format. For instructions on this, see: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/research/r_apa.html

	Information Seeking/Selecting and Evaluating	Analysis	Synthesis	Documentation	Product/Process
A+ to A 18-20/ 20	Student(s) gathered information from a variety of quality sources, Sources are relevant and balanced readings relating to the thesis or problem.	Student(s) carefully analyzed the information collected and drew appropriate and inventive conclusions supported by evidence. Voice of the student writer is evident.	Student(s) developed appropriate structure for communicating content, incorporating variety of quality sources. Information is logically and creatively organized with smooth transitions.	Student(s) documented all sources. Sources are properly cited, both in-text/in-product and on Works-Cited/Works-Consulted pages/slides. Documentation is error-free.	Student(s) effectively and creatively used appropriate communication tools to convey their conclusions and demonstrated thorough, effective research techniques. Product displays creativity and originality.
A- to B+ 15-17 / 20 _____	Student(s) gathered information from a variety of relevant sources.	Student (s) product shows good effort was made in analyzing the evidence collected	Student(s) logically organized the product and made good connections among ideas	Student(s) documented sources with some care, Sources are cited, both in-text/in-product and on Works-Cited/Works-Consulted pages/slides. Few errors noted.	Student(s) effectively communicated the results of research to the audience.
B to B- 12-14 / 15	Student(s) gathered information from a limited range of sources and displayed minimal effort in selecting quality resources.	Student(s) conclusions could be supported by stronger evidence. Level of analysis could have been deeper.	Student(s) could have put greater effort into organizing the product	Student(s) need to use greater care in documenting sources. Documentation was poorly constructed or absent.	Student(s) need to work on communicating more effectively
FZ 7/15 or less	Student(s) gathered information that lacked relevance, quality, depth and balance.	Student(s) conclusions simply involved restating information. Conclusions were not supported by evidence.	Student(s) work is not logically or effectively structured.	Student(s) clearly plagiarized materials.	Student(s) showed little evidence of thoughtful research. Product does not effectively communicate research findings.