Skip to main content

English II Myth Busters: Home

Myth Busters

You will conduct research on the validity of a myth or conspiracy theory. Your job is to prove whether the myth or conspiracy theory  YOU choose is true or false (and to what extent…).

Databases A-Z

Passwords for Home

How do I access the databases from home?

1. Select the link below

2. When asked for a password ask Mrs. Hyden or Mrs. Koski or think of cheering on your mascot :)

3. Once open you will have a list of all database usernames and passwords

Noodletools

You must use Noodletools to cite your sources for any type of report.  You can also use it to keep your notes.  If you used the site last year, your user name and password is still valid.  If you have forgotten them, check with the library staff.

Annotated Bibliography

Instructions on what needs to be included in your annotation:

For each source, you must write a concise annotation about the source. The paragraph (concise annotation) must include:
i.       Summary of the source
ii.      Evaluation of the source (a) evaluate the authority or background of the author, (b) comment on the intended audience
iii.     Reflection of the source (a) compare or contrast this work with another you have cited, and (b) explain how this work illuminates your research topic​
 
Examples:
 
Gilbert, Pam. “From Voice to Text: Reconsidering Writing and Reading in the English Classroom.” English
          Education 23.4 (1991): 195-211. Print.
          
Gilbert provides some insight into the concept of “voice” in textual interpretation, and points to a need to move away from the search for voice in reading. Her reasons stem from a growing danger of “social and critical illiteracy,” which might be better dealt with through a move toward different textual understandings. Gilbert suggests that theories of language as a social practice can be more useful in teaching. Her ideas seem to disagree with those who believe in a dominant voice in writing, but she presents an interesting perspective.
 
Greene, Stuart. “Mining Texts in Reading to Write.” Journal of Advanced Composition 12.1 (1992): 151-67. Print.
         
This article works from the assumption that reading and writing inform each other, particularly in the matter of rhetorical constructs. Greene introduces the concept of “mining texts” for rhetorical situations when reading with a sense of authorship. Considerations for what can be mined include language, structure, and context, all of which can be useful depending upon the writer’s goals. The article provides some practical methods that compliment Doug Brent’s ideas about reading as invention.
 
Murray, Donald M. Read to Write: A Writing Process Reader. Fort Worth: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1987. Print.
         
Murray’s book deals more specifically with the ways writers read other writers, particularly the ways in which writers read themselves. Read to Write provides a view of drafting and revising, focusing on the way a piece of writing evolves as an author takes the time to read and criticize his or her own work. Moreover, the book spotlights some excellent examples of professional writing and displays each writer’s own comments on their own creations, in effect allowing the student reader to learn (by reading) the art of rereading and rewriting as exemplified by famous authors.
 
Newell, George E. “The Effects of Between-Draft Responses on Students’ Writing and Reasoning About
          Literature.” Written Communication 11.3 (1994): 311-47. Print.
         
This study reflects the advantage of teacher responses on student papers. When reflected upon as “dialogue” questions to the student, these comments can lead to further interpretation and deeper understanding of a text. Newell found that responses which prompted students to work from their initial drafts brought about more final papers than teacher responses that led them away from their initial drafts with “directive” remarks.