IGED280 University of the District of Columbia Gains from Migration Paper it’s an assignment about IGED 280 class please see the PDF file that i attached i

IGED280 University of the District of Columbia Gains from Migration Paper it’s an assignment about IGED 280 class please see the PDF file that i attached it has the assignment and also check the word file it has the writing requirement form.the group topic is : Gains from migration please make sure you are able to deal with the assignmentTHANK YOU Annotated Bibliography Assignment
As a group, you will decide which topic you will address for the semester (in your Annotated
Bibliography, Policy Brief, and your final poster). Each of you will individually need to
complete an annotated bibliography, and upload it to Blackboard.
Core Requirements:
Find and describe five sources on your topic, according to these guidelines:
?
?
?
Two editorial or opinion pieces expressing opposite or divergent perspectives on your
issue (one of which can be written by our Brookings scholars)
Two peer-reviewed journal articles or academic book chapters on your issue
One official report by a government, think tank, or international organization
For each source, submit an APA or Chicago style citation. For help, see:
https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/apa_style/apa_formatting_and_style_guide/in_
text_citations_the_basics.html or https://www.lib.ncsu.edu/citationbuilder/)
Annotation – For each entry, be sure you clearly indicate:
1. What is the core argument, point, or finding?
2. What kind of argument is it, (Opinion, empirical, theoretical, ethical critique, synthesis of
other studies, etc.) and how does that impact the way it was written?
3. What kinds of evidence or data were used to support the argument, if any?
4. How might this source contribute to your understanding of the debate, issue, or facts?
Example:
Wilcox, L. (2017). Embodying algorithmic war: Gender, race, and the posthuman in drone
warfare. Security Dialogue, 48(1), 11–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010616657947
Prof. Wilcox argues that drone warfare does not remove the human from modern war, but
instead modifies what it means to be human while immersed in data streams, facial recognition
AI, and remotely targeted weaponry. Her argument is theoretical, since her main point concerns
how scholars of conflict and war think about bodies and embodiment, however she uses
empirical examples to ground her claims. She particularly focuses on a massacre in Afghanistan,
noting how racialized and gendered categories made those Afghans into targets as “military aged
males.” This source is an interesting theoretical and ethical inspiration for thinking about how
bodies are categorized and how those categories impact war fighting, which will shape my
thinking about drones and information warfare going forward.
Rubric for Annotated Bibliography
CATEGORY
Writing fluency
of annotations
Advanced
All annotations are thoughtful,
complete, (including the
evaluative information
included in instructions) and
well written without grammar
errors. (25)
Proficient/Acceptable
Most annotations (80%) are
thoughtful, complete, (including
the evaluative information
included in instructions) and there
are some grammar errors (4 or
less).(12-24)
Quality/Quantity/ All sources (@ least 8) cited
can be considered reliable,
Reliability of
credible and/or trustworthy.
Sources
Sources are up to date and
pertinent to the project. (15)
15 pts.
Variety & Depth At least three types of sources
are cited and the number of
of Sources
citations covers the breadth of
information and appears
informed by stakeholders,
25 pts.
reference librarian, and team
brainstorming. (25)
Most of the sources cited (@ least
6) can be considered reliable,
credible and/or trustworthy. Some
of the sources are up to date and
pertinent to the project.(8-14)
At least three types of sources are
cited and the citations generally
cover the information needed to
inform the project proposal. (1224)
Writing
Mechanics
The artifact shows high
proficiency in the use of
Academic English with
minimal errors in usage (e.g.,
subject/verb agreement,
fragments, etc.) and
mechanics (e.g., spelling,
punctuation, etc.). (15)
The artifact shows proficiency in
the use of Academic English with
some errors of one or two
patterns in usage (e.g.,
subject/verb agreement,
fragments, etc.) and mechanics
(e.g., spelling, punctuation, etc.).
(10-14)
The citations include author,
date, title, and retrieval
information.
The annotations and
bibliography are alphabetized
and correctly formatted. (20)
A few (2 or 3) citations may be
missing one of the following:
author, date, title, or retrieval
information. The annotations and
bibliography are alphabetized and
correctly formatted. (15-19)
25 pts.
15 pts.
Modified APA
Citation and
Reference/
Bibliography
20 pts.
Needs Improvement
Some (60%) annotations are
well written, but some are
lacking in completeness
(including the evaluative
information included in
instructions), thought, and/or
writing quality.(7-12)
Some sources (@ least 4) cited
can be considered reliable
credible and/or trustworthy.
(4-8)
Insufficient
Most annotations are lacking in
completeness (50%), (including
the evaluative information
included in instructions),
thought, and/or writing
quality. (0-6)
Only two types of sources were
used and more citations are
needed to cover the
information needed to inform
the project proposal. More
input is needed from
stakeholders, reference
librarian, and team to broaden
research scope. (7-12)
The artifact shows low
proficiency in format (e.g.,
title, introduction, body/
paragraphing, and conclusion;
Works Cited/Reference List
and in-text citations.) (5-9)
Only one type of source is
cited and the number of
citations is inadequate to
provide background on the
topic. (0-6)
There are many (4 or more)
and/or frequent formatting
errors in the citations. The
annotations and bibliography
are not alphabetized or
correctly formatted. (10-14)
Few sources (less than 2) cited
can be considered reliable
and/or trustworthy.
(0-4)
The artifact shows little-to-no
proficiency in the use of
Academic English with
egregious errors of multiple
patterns in usage (e.g.,
subject/verb agreement,
fragments, etc.) and
mechanics (e.g., spelling,
punctuation, etc.). (0-4)
There is little or no adherence
to the modified citation
guidelines. Elements of
assignment are missing. (0-5)

Purchase answer to see full
attachment