Annotated Bibliography Review

Some of the issues I saw in my peer's annotations are they did not exactly introduce the author well enough. That sets the stage because having a credible author is a big deal for the source to be credible. Also, they would forget to put the date accessed a lot. I thought that did really well summarizing the articles they chose. They also chose, what I thought were, credible journals and sources in which to write about in their essay so they were all academic. They all seemed really informative on the articles they were describing. They could have gone into conversation with other articles more, but they still did okay on that. Occasionally it was hard to find the thesis in a annotation, but most of the time it was really easy to see what the thesis of the article was. They were really good at using quotations to help back up their annotations.

The names of the sources i reviewed were “Beyond the Traditional Retention Data: A Qualitative Study of the Social Benefits of Living Learning Communities,” "Leadership Mindsets of First Year Undergraduate Students: An Assessment of a Leadership-Themed Living Learning Community,” “The Benefits of Music Education,” and, " This is Your Brain On Music.”

This is one of the citations I reviewed.

Arensdorf, Jill and Janett Naylor-Tincknell. “Beyond the Traditional Retention Data: A

Qualitative Study of the Social Benefits of Living Learning Communities.” Learning

Communities: Research & Practice, vol. 4, no. 1, 01 Jan. 2016. EBSCOhost.

Author. “Name of Article.” Journal name, all volume and issue numbers, year of publication, URL or DOI. Access date.- Needs the access date but other than that it looks great.