Note: At the end of this assignment, attach on a separate page a statement of about 250-300 words detailing how you revised this assignment in a substantive way, and explaining how your final draft is different from and better than your first draft.

This assignment will prepare your to write your final research paper for this class , and will document your research into secondary sources related to one or more of the texts we’ve explored in class. Your research should include only academic sources, and should be centered on an idea you have about the work(s) you are interested in. This should be an arguable idea—your goal here is not to simply gather and present information. Your goal should be to gather and think about various perspectives relevant to your thesis, perspectives that can inform, help you to develop, and help you argue that thesis. These should be substantial and reliable sources (e.g., books, journal articles, etc.) These should be primarily peer-reviewed or edited articles found through Galileo. Avoid blogs and popular websites where publication entails no process of editing or review. Also avoid websites designed for students who do not read assigned texts.

It is important that you begin with a working thesis that you can explore through research. Your thesis should be arguable and focused, but you should not necessarily consider it final. Anticipate that as you become more familiar with your research sources, your thesis will likely develop into something more refined and sophisticated. You will encounter complexity, and should embrace it.

Be sure to include your thesis statement above the bibliography. Again, this should not be a generic statement of topic that seems to “cover” all of the sources you are writing about. It should be a statement of a specific and arguable statement that has evolved from your research

For each item, write a note (250 words or so —though you may want to write at somewhat greater length) Your notes should be substantive and give a clear idea of the exact content of each item in your bibliography, and the purpose each item helps to illuminate and support your thesis. You should also acknowledge how it informs or provides contrast with other sources that appear in your bibliography. Successful annotated bibliographies indicate how sources relate to and may interact with one another. It should be easy for the reader to relate each of your sources to this thesis statement.

Note that you should not simply provide an account of the conclusions your sources argue, but how they argue to arrive at those conclusions. Convince me that your sources are good by focusing on the arguments that the authors make. Avoid discussions of your personal experience of reading the source material (e.g. “this article took me a long time to read because of the complicated language, etc.).; such discussions aren’t pertinent to how you will use the source to make your argument.

In addition to describing your articles (or the parts of them that you wish to use), you will need to provide additional information relevant to your purpose. Here are some questions to think about as you write the annotation for each item in your bibliography Remember that not all questions may be applicable, and that simply listing answers for these questions is, well, lame.

follow instructions (HOme work topic social media0 PLEASE THESE WORK IS FOR ANGELISA ONLY.
Surname 6 Student’s Name; Stephen Ngulefac Date 03/21/17 Annotated Bibliography Thesis Statement: Arguably, despite that technology has had positive impact on private life, the negative effects outweigh the positive ones. Carr, Nicholas. “Is Google making us stupid?.” Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education 107.2 (2008): 89-94. Nicholas Carr, a well-known researcher who has written various works on now technology has affected our brains, especially our thinking. Nicholas discusses how technology has changed the culture of humanity. Carr acknowledges the fact that the internet as an aspect of technology has been the primary source of information for people. Nevertheless, he explains that it affects the ability of an individual to read books and other long works of art. He maintains that even though internet technology has led to knowledge efficiency, it affects a person’s brain. Thus, he says that the internet technology flattens the learning experience of the mind. Carr goes further to discuss that internet technology can help person make money and how attention spans of and thinking skills are degraded in the process. Carr concluded his argument of what an individual loses when he or she turns uses internet technology as the primary source of information. As he opens the article, Carr discussed the scene on a Space Odyssey when he identifies with the computer scene, and he seems to pass a point that the internet technology will make a person lazy and unwilling to use his or her imagination skills. The main point that is discussed from the article is that technology affects the critical thinking of an individual and affects individual’s ability to concentrate. This article will be used in the final paper to support the claim made on the effect of technology on private life. I will use it o substantiate the claims made in my thesis. Roberts, James A., and Meredith E. David. “My Life Has Become A Major Distraction From My Cell Phone: Partner Phubbing And Relationship Satisfaction Among Romantic Partners.” Computers in Human Behavior 54 (2016): 134-141. Web. James Roberts, (Ph.D.), Ben Williams a marketing professor and Meredith David who is a marketing professor and a holder of Ph.D. published their article on how mobile technology has affected romantic relations and led to high levels of depression. In their study, they conducted two surveys in the United States to assess the impacts of “phubbing.” Roberts, Ben, and Meredith defined “Phubbing” as the extent to which a person id distracted or uses a mobile phone when he or she is in the company of the lover. Their study revealed that phubbing led to conflicts and reduced relationship satisfaction. The first survey that was conducted involved 308 adults and Roberts, Ben and Meredith developed a “Partner phubbing scale.” The scale had statements of how partners claimed that the other placed the cell phone where they could see it when together, how others kept holding the cell phones when with the other partner, glancing at the cell phone when communicating, and how others constantly checked their phones if there was a lull conversation. The second survey had 145 adults, and the authors were interested in measuring the extent of phubbing among the romantic couples. The results of the study indicated that 46.3% of the individuals surveyed were phubbed by the other romantic partner, 22.6% of the respondents claimed that phubbing led to conflicts in the relationship, while 33.6% argued that it led to depression. Only 32% of the respondents claimed that they were satisfied. Roberts, Ben, and Meredith concluded that the cell phones cause distractions in romantic relationships, lowers satisfaction and may lead to depression and this is one of the adverse impacts of technology on private life. This is a helpful source because it has coherent arguments, evidence, and statistics and this will help me validate my argument Kraut, Robert, et al. “Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being?.” American Psychologist 53.9 (1998): 1017 Kraut and others in their article “Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being” discuss the puzzle whether technology affects private life by reducing psychological well-being and social engagement. The authors begin their work by explaining how the internet could have an impact on the average citizens just as what the television and telephone did in the 20th century. According to them, there is still a disagreement between the social critics and the researchers as to whether the internet is harming or improving social relationships and community life. A study was carried out to look whether the internet technology had an impact on the community life and the social relationships. As such, 163 individuals from 73 households were surveyed to determine whether technology had any impact during their initial 1-2 years online. Longitudinal data was used to ascertain the impact of the internet on psychological well-being and social involvement. In this study, the internet was used widely for communication purposes. Nevertheless, extensive use of the internet was discovered to have an effect on individual’s communication with other family members, the decline in socialization and the size and social circle, and increase in loneliness and depression. The research found in this article relates to Roberts, Ben, and Meredith’s article because they both found that technology increases the levels of depression among individuals. This source is a good source because to it will be used to support the point that technology has affected social life regarding socialization, causing loneliness and depression, and also the effect it has on an individual’s communication. Works Cited Carr, Nicholas. “Is Google making us stupid?.” Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education 107.2 (2008): 89-94. Roberts, James A., and Meredith E. David. “My Life Has Become A Major Distraction From My Cell Phone: Partner Phubbing And Relationship Satisfaction Among Romantic Partners.” Computers in Human Behavior 54 (2016): 134-141. Web. Kraut, Robert, et al. “Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being?.” American Psychologist 53.9 (1998): 1017