Guidelines for Annotations

The aims of annotation are:

• a) to get you to digest the article sufficiently to explain the essence of it to others and its potential connections to your own interests/research; and
• b) to share the results with other students in this class and future classes (which is why it ends up on the wiki).

To decide what to write, think of these as resources you are providing for other students (current and future), who might not have time to read the article OR who might need stimulation/guidance about what they decide to make time to read.

You are encouraged to view and build on the annotations made by students in previous years. In that case, indicate what changes and additions are yours. "Build on" a previous annotation may mean improve its informativeness, or, if you have a difference of interpretation, you may indicate what both sides are.

Of course, it does nothing for your learning if you copy and paste large chunks of previous annotations into yours -- especially if this means you make the effort to digest the article.

In situations where you think the previous person did a wonderful summary, then your addition could be to connect the article to your own interests and research. The sense-making rubric is worth trying.

Your choice of additional articles to annotate might arise from:

• a) searching for recent (or overlooked) references to add to the topic or case(s) for the week; and/or
• b) making connections to your own areas of interest.

(For example, for week 6 a student might review Barker's commentary in the same edition as Davies 2006. For weeks 7 &8 topics on heterogeneity within populations and variation in health care, a student might review the July '07 report on cancer rates among Asian-Americans, http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/.) (The compilation of syllabi may serve you as a resource here.)

Students post annotations on the wordpress blog, but the link for outsiders to submit annotations is http://bit.ly/EpiContribute