Skip to Main Content

ENG 101: Composition I (Dunn): Home

ENG 101: Composition I (Jason Dunn)

An introduction to writing that concentrates on developing expository techniques through summaries and essays incorporating analysis, synthesis, argument, and critical thinking skills. The course also teaches research skills, and a major documented paper is required. Mastery of standard English usage and principles of composition is determined through departmental examination and evaluation.

Contact Us


Make an appointment with a Librarian 

Make an appointment with a Tutor 


Follow us on:


Annotated Bibliography Examples

Ceci, Stephen J., and Wendy M. Williams. “Who Decides What is Acceptable Speech on Campus? Why Restricting Free Speech is Not the Answer.” Perspectives on Psychological Science, vol. 13, no. 3, May 2018, pp. 299–323. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1177/1745691618767324.
In “Who Decides What is Acceptable Speech on Campus?” (2018), Ceci and Williams explore both sides of the free speech argument: freedom of expression versus potential hate speech. They frame these opposing viewpoints within psychological research but admit that legal and philosophical approaches must also be considered. They draw upon examples of recent protests that have led to violence and the cancellation of controversial speakers. Ceci and Williams offer a set of principles in order to help guide administrators when considering university policies that ensure freedom of expression within their campus communities.

Collier, Daniel A., et al. “Americans ‘Support’ the Idea of Tuition-Free College: An Exploration of Sentiment and Political Identity Signals Otherwise.” Journal of Further & Higher Education, vol. 43, no. 3, Apr. 2019, pp. 347–362. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/0309877X.2017.1361516.
In “Americans ‘Support’ the Idea of Tuition-Free College” (2019), Collier et al. discuss whether or not the general populace supports the America’s College Promise policy that would make community colleges “tuition-free.” They focus on Facebook conversations and use a Bag of Words technique to track the communication styles and common language of those posting to media pages. They explore the relationships between a person’s gender, race, age, and political leaning and whether they respond in a civil manner or attack fellow commentators who disagree with them. They also link their findings to political identity theory in order to determine the likelihood that someone would participate in a conversation containing controversial topics.

Friesen, Steven J. “Guns Will Change the Character of Higher Education.” Guns: Conceal and Carry, edited by Anne Cunningham, Greenhaven Publishing, 2018, pp. 57-63.
In “Guns Will Change the Character of Higher Education” (2018), Steven J. Friesen explores the impact of campus carry on higher education and their conflicting ideologies. He argues that the historical approach of higher education embraces critical thinking, questioning orthodoxy, and resolving disagreement by debate, whereas the campus carry movement embraces traditional authority and resolving disagreements by force (59). As a professor of religious studies at the University of Texas at Austin, Friesen shares his personal experience with the legalization of campus carry in Texas, both in dealing with students and his fellow faculty members. Some have chosen to censor themselves while others have retired in order to avoid any possible fallout from the legalization of campus carry. Friesen warns that there could be a serious struggle beyond the ideological conflict of higher education and campus carry, one that is literally a matter of life and death (63).

Shepperd, James A., et al. “Gun Attitudes on Campus: United and Divided by Safety Needs.” Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 158, no. 5, Sept. 2018, pp. 615–624. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/00224545.2017.1412932.
In “Gun Attitudes on Campus” (2018), Shepperd et al. examine people’s conflicting viewpoints on guns: whether guns are perceived as a threat or a means of protection. They surveyed a college campus that prohibits guns and divided respondents into three categories—those who own a gun for protection, those who own a gun for non-protective reasons (e.g., hunting), and those who do not own a gun—in order to determine whether there was correlation between gun ownership and attitudes towards gun control. Shepperd et al. found that those who owned a gun for non-protective reasons aligned more with non-owners, suggesting that the reasons for gun ownership provided a better indication of someone’s opinion towards gun control than the mere act of owning a gun.