Annotated Bibliography: identify and briefly describe 5 information resources for your “milk snake animal” presentation
Description
identify and briefly describe five information resources for your “milk snake animal” presentation
Running head: WRITING 1 Animal Milk Snake Student Name Tutor Name Institutional Affiliation Course Date WRITING 2 Animal Milk Snake Marešová, J., Landová, E., & Frynta, D. (2009). What makes some species of milk snakes more attractive to humans than others? Theory in Biosciences, 128(4), 227-235. https://bit.ly/3sTXTl3 The reason for choosing this source is that it is a peer-reviewed source which means that it has reliable data that relates to Milk snake. The introduction is on point, highlighting a brief background of some milk snakes and why they are attractive to humans compared to others. In addition, the introduction rightly touched on the objectives set out for the study, which seeks to fill the gap of why some milk snake species are more attracted to humans than others. In terms of the methodology of the study, principal component analysis was used to evaluate the data collected in relation to the topic’s variables that are in line with the study objectives. The results showed that the attractiveness of the milk snake is due to its aesthetic value for human cognition. American Museum of Natural History. (2022). Campbell’s Milk Snake. Amnh.org. https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/lizards-and-snakes-alive/snakes/a-world-ofsnakes/campbell-s-milk-snake Being a source from a ‘.org’ is one of the reasons why it is reliable, in addition to illustrating the characteristics of a Milk snake. In addition, the features of Campbell’s Milk Snake indicate why it ensures its safety by having a camouflaging coloration of the deadly Coral Snakes, making them look alike. This source also highlights the Milk Snake’s Family called Colubridae, which have similar but varied shapes and lifestyles, where some glide in the air while others swim. WRITING 3 Milk Snake. (2022, October 19). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk_snake Even though it is essential to acknowledge that this source has data related to Milk Snake, it is challenging to measure its credibility because it is not peer-reviewed. Therefore, it has not been criticized or publicly reviewed by other scholars, which proves it is difficult to be used as a reliable source.
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | ||
| Main Postinga | 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
Supported by at least three current, credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s).
One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.
Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Post is cited with two credible sources.
Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors. |
0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.
Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.
Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Contains only one or no credible sources.
Not written clearly or concisely.
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
|
| Main Post: Timeliness | 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3. |
|
| First Response | 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
13 (13%) – 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 12 (12%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
| Second Response | 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
| Participation | 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. |
|
| Total Points: 100 | |||||