Annotating a Peer-­-Reviewed Research Article

1. Read the article and take notes

• Does the publication meet the course criteria for research? In other words, determine if the author

o poses a question/concern,

o collects data designed to address the question,

o analyzes and interpret that data, and

o uses that analysis to address the question/concern.

• Is the publication peer reviewed? How do you know?

An article is considered to be "peer reviewed" if other people evaluate it before it is published and make recommendations for it to be

1) rejected,

2) accepted with revisions, or

3) published as is. In other words, the work is vetted and publication is not automatic.

The reviewers need to be specialists in the field who do not work for the publication.

The article needs to meet both of these criteria (research AND peer reviewed). If it does not, find another article. If the article meets the criteria, continue on to consider the following questions and take notes:

• What research question or problem was the study intended to address?

• How was the research set up? What did methods did they use (i.e., qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods)? What were the research strategies (e.g., survey, test, case study, interview, observation)?

How many people were involved (e.g., number of students surveyed)?

• What were the findings? What did the data indicate?

• How do the authors interpret the findings (e.g., conclusions, recommendations)?

2. Write the annotation

Begin with an APA format citation. After the citation, write 3 paragraphs, drawing on the prompts below. Note that if you answered each and every question, the annotation would need to be more than three paragraphs long! Use your judgment to distill and synthesize the piece into a concise, substantive, and thoughtful annotation (aim for under 300 words).

• Paragraph 1 -­- Summary: What problem, question, or concern is the author trying to address? Is there an explicit hypothesis, or is the investigation open-­-ended? Where was the research conducted?

How was the research set up, what methods did they use, how large was the sample (e.g., number of people or institutions involved), and what was the duration of the research? What were the findings, how did the author interpret the findings? Were there specific recommendations for practice (e.g., improving learning and teaching, institutional structure, or policies)?

• Paragraph 2 -­- Assessment: After summarizing a source, write a short assessment of the positionality and validity of the piece. Who is the author and how might her/his background

influence her perspective? Where is he/she positioned in the field (e.g., in a place of power or at the grassroots level, operating in direct relationship with learners or in the administration)? Why do you think the topic is important to the author?

What are the author's motivations? Does the author have sufficient familiarity with the topic or expertise to conduct a rigorous and valid study?

Does the research strategy align with the question or concern that is being investigated (e.g., would you consider the measures to be valid)? Why? What is the author's argument?

How do the ideas connect? How does the author use data to construct the argument? In other words, what is the positionality of the piece?

• Paragraph 3 -­--­- Reflection: Once you've summarized and assessed a source, you need to ask how it fits into your research. To what extent is the source useful to you, and how does it compare with other sources in your bibliography?

How does it help you shape your understanding of the issue or controversy?

Has it changed how you think about your topic? Was this source helpful? How might you draw on this source to inform or improve your work?

To support your advocacy for change in relationship to the issue (at work, within your institution, within your community)?