National History Project

NHD Rubrics: Position Paper and Annotated Bibliography

CHECKLIST for posting the Paper and Annotated Bibliography

_Did you submit the WIW report to Mrs. Sidor?

_Is the Position Paper and Annotated Bibliography posted on Moodle?
  • course: National History Day (enrollment key “nhd”)
  • click “National History Day Position Papers 2012

_Is the database record accurately completed?
  • Click “ADD ENTRY”—complete all parts of the record Including the ABSTRACT.

_Did you upload the Position Paper and Annotated Bibliography in a Word document?
Save and create a file name with your name: "NHD Paper Graham Devine"

Writing an Abstract
When you post your paper and annotated bibliography on the National History Day moodle site, you will be asked to write an “ABSTRACT”. The following is an explanation of the purpose and a description of what to include in your abstract.

PURPOSE: An abstract is a short summary of your completed research. If done well, it makes the reader want to learn more about your research.

COMPONENTS: These are the basic components of an abstract in any discipline:

1) Motivation/problem statement: Why do we care about the problem? What practical, scientific, theoretical or artistic gap is your research filling?

2) Methods/procedure/approach: What did you actually do to get your results? (e.g. consulted 12 credible primary and secondary sources, analyzed 3 opposing arguments, interviewed 2 experts)

3) Results/findings/product: As a result of completing the above procedure, what did you learn?

4) Conclusion/implications: What are the larger implications of your findings? How do you recommend this controversy be resolved?

ABSTRACT MODEL: (for Mrs. Orloff’s position paper)

This paper examines the role of social networking sites in the current context of censorship on the internet. Sites such as Facebook, Twitter and MySpace revolutionized the way we communicate while challenging us to apply our First Amendment rights to a new medium. Today, conflicts among individual users, organized political groups, and the governments that regulate speech have sparked a dialogue about what we can and cannot say online. To explore the role of social networking sites, especially Facebook in regulating online speech, the author analyzes all the perspectives of three groups: hate speech victims, the underage, and governments. By doing so, the author makes a case for parental (not governmental) involvement and fair use policies among all countries. Primary and secondary sources, both in print and on scholarly databases were examined. This paper advocates limited government involvement and the creation of an international group that would foster open, appropriately-monitored internet use.