Reminders for Thursday, April 28th - English 101: ACADEMIC WRITING & RESEARCH
 
Please note that individual conferences will take place Monday, April 25th and Tuesday, April 26 at my office on the catwalk. If you cannot make your appointment (or if you decide that you no longer need to come to your appointment) please let me know as soon as possible so your time slot can perhaps go to someone else.

Also, remember that Thursday's class will be an in-class drafting day. There will be no Peer Review for Project IVB. Since Easter was so late this year, the schedule was affected and I had to choose between the two.

With regards to Project IVB: please remember that the main thing I will be looking for is synthesis. In order to have a strong synthesis, think of your literature review as a report or a depiction of a conversation between the authors whose research you have read. Most of your sentences should start with an author's (or authors') name(s), should be followed by the year of publication of the article and a strong They Say/I Say verb, and end with a summary of their argument. (For example: Smith et al. (2008) argues that....Smith et al. (2008) further clarify this by saying....However, Jones et al. (2005) claim....Similarly, Grey and Shepherd (2000) believe that....) You must repeat the year every time you mention the authors -- this is a hallmark of APA writing. These authorial tags/signal phrases indicate and emphasize that you are reporting/summarizing someone else's research and not making your own argument. If you leave them off, the sentence technically indicates that you are making this claim, which should not be the case for a literature review.

The exception to this are the first and last sentences which should be sentences which summarize the entire section and which should be in your own words.

Lastly, please be aware that you should have a two-part (combined) title with a descriptive (hooking) part and an informative part. However, the informative part should have the phrase "Literature Review" in it. This tells your reader that your work is a review of the research and NOT an argument - a crucial difference.

Comments are closed.