Annotated Bibliography Correction Exercise

Annotated Bibliography Your Name Subject and Section Professor’s Name October 30, 2024 Bashir, R., Surian, D., & Dunn, A. G. (2018). Time-to-update of systematic reviews relative to the availability of new evidence. Systematic Reviews, pp. 7, 1–8. This paper aims to analyze the timing of updates of systematic reviews to newly available evidence: a cross-sectional study of systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in 2010. Monitoring 682 talks and systematic reviews of updates history showed that the percentage of updated lists before mid-2017 was 43%. The median took about 35 months to turn, and few reviews contained new trials or shifts in the conclusions. The results imply that the current practices in updating systematic findings may need to be sufficiently sensitive to new data insofar as the timespan of an update varies little in the existence of publication or trial completion indicators. This study underscores the importance of developing better ways to identify when one systematic review needs to be updated; this could affect how new knowledge is made available to teachers and other practitioners, including particular education specialists, on time. Consequently, this study underscores one's call for increasing practice-based teacher training tailored to the current revised classification of learning disabilities and current scientific knowledge regarding their teaching. Correction Annotation: 1 Incorrect page range format in the reference entry. Replace "pp. 7, 1–8" with "7(1), 1–8" to follow APA style for journal articles. 2 Missing explicit mention of research methodology. Clearly identify this as a "cross-sectional study" analyzing systematic reviews. 3 Irrelevant information included in the annotation, such as "teacher training" and "learning disabilities," which are unrelated to the study. Focus solely on the study's findings and implications. 4 No evaluation of the source's credibility. Include a brief assessment of the authors' expertise or the quality of the Systematic Reviews journal. 5 Missing reflection on the study's relevance. Add a note on how it informs systematic review practices or contributes to improving update timelines. De La Paz, S., & Butler, C. (2018). Promoting motivated writers: Suggestions for teaching and conducting research with students with learning disabilities and struggling learners. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 23(2). This article evaluates the connection between writing interventions and motivational results provided to learners with learning disabilities and other struggling writers. The authors analyze several works that apply structured writing instruction, including Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD), and investigate how all these interventions influence writing establishment and learner motivation. While the findings point to increased writing ability, the areas of motivation are less conclusive, depending on individual ability and person, leading to the conclusion that there may be no simple correlation between motivation and abilities. Drawing on the expectancy-value theory of motivation by Wigfield and Eccles (2000; 2001), the authors provide suggestions for educators and researchers interested in improving instructional practices that foster motivation to write. This study has immediate applications to special education because while the need for highly effective interventions that enhance learner skills must be emphasized, there is an excellent emphasis on motivational solutions targeted at learners with learning difficulties. Correction Annotation: 1 The reference entry is incomplete. The page range for the article is missing. Per APA style, it should include the full citation, such as "Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 23(2), xx–xx." 2 Missing clear identification of the methodology. The annotation does not specify how the study's conclusions were drawn or what type of analysis (e.g., literature review or empirical study) was conducted. 3 Overly lengthy and redundant phrases. Sentences such as "there may be no simple correlation between motivation and abilities" and "an excellent emphasis on motivational solutions" can be streamlined to focus on the main findings and implications. 4 No evaluation of the source's credibility. The annotation should assess the expertise of the authors or the journal's standing in the field. 5 Insufficient reflection on the study’s practical applications. While the annotation hints at its relevance to special education, it should explicitly discuss how educators or researchers can use this information to improve writing motivation and skills. Demchenko, I., Maksymchuk, B., Bilan, V., Maksymchuk, I., & Kalynovska, I. (2021). Training future physical education teachers for professional activities under the conditions of inclusive education. BRAIN. Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience, 12(3), 191-213. https://doi.org/10.18662/brain/12.3/227 This work establishes and validates procedures that can be employed to prepare future Physical Education teachers to integrate the Inclusive Education of students with Special Educational Needs. In order to help the teachers meet the identified lack in their preparedness, researchers developed a program focused on psychological, theoretical, and practical approaches. This methodology was piloted in the experimental study with 444 students majoring in physical education, such as the EG and the CG. The main aspects of the training were incorporating the normative-psycho-pedagogical approach, using the simulation modeling activity, and actively aiming at the gross motor skills reinforcement by employing the reflective practice as the final step. Results suggested the program to be helpful, with EG students' readiness for integration increasing from 28.6 percent to 47.0 percent by the end of the study. This research helps our study by presenting best practices for the effectiveness of teacher preparation for integrating diversity and the role of purposeful, guided, and coached practice for prospective teachers with children with special needs. Such findings provide valuable implications for creating integrated instructional interventions that foster the acquisition of technical and dynamic skills valuable in special education. Correction Annotation: 1 The journal title formatting in the reference entry is incorrect. In APA style, the journal title (BRAIN. Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience) should be italicized. 2 The annotation does not clearly explain the research methodology. While it mentions an "experimental study," it lacks details about how the experimental and control groups (EG and CG) were structured, making the methodology ambiguous. 3 Overly complex and verbose sentences, such as "actively aiming at the gross motor skills reinforcement by employing the reflective practice as the final step." These phrases can be simplified to improve clarity and conciseness. 4 The annotation does not critically evaluate the source’s credibility, such as the qualifications of the authors or the journal's reputation in the field of education or neuroscience. 5 Insufficient reflection on the study’s relevance. The annotation provides general insights but does not directly address how the findings are practically applicable to broader contexts or specific areas of interest in your research. Francisco, M. P. B., Hartman, M., & Wang, Y. (2020). Inclusion and special education. Education Sciences, 10(9), 238. This paper discusses the historical perspective of special education to understand how the paradigm of inclusion has been formulated regarding people with disabilities. In a historical analysis, some of the successes and still issues that the authors can pinpoint include a need for operational definitions of the principles of inclusion, the least restrictive environment, and a lack of goals for them. The paper sought to show that there are voids in the empirical literature on using inclusion for learners with disabilities and a general lack of stakeholder knowledge concerning special education laws. The authors advise that all the key stakeholders should have a consistent perception of what constitutes inclusion standards, the legal issues surrounding it, and the goals and objectives of the project to create inclusion. Such understandings are a helpful starting point for any educator and policymaker aspiring to improve inclusive learning environments and practice, especially for learners with disabilities: They bring historical depth and practical guidance. Correction annotations: 1 The reference entry is incomplete. It is missing the DOI or URL, which is required in APA style for journal articles when available. Verify and include this information for proper formatting. 2 The annotation lacks a clear summary of the methodology. While it mentions a "historical analysis," it does not explain how this analysis was conducted (e.g., types of sources reviewed or frameworks used). 3 Redundant and verbose phrases, such as "the legal issues surrounding it, and the goals and objectives of the project to create inclusion." These can be simplified to focus on the paper's core findings and recommendations. 4 No evaluation of the source's credibility. The annotation should include an assessment of the authors' expertise or the reputation of the journal (Education Sciences). 5 Insufficient reflection on the study’s practical relevance. While the annotation hints at implications for educators and policymakers, it does not explicitly connect the study’s findings to actionable strategies or its broader impact on the field. Heilporn, G., Lakhal, S., & Bélisle, M. (2021). Examining teachers' strategies to foster student engagement in blended learning i...