Annotated Bibliography

General Format

The format of an annotated bibliography can change depending on the assignment, but the typical format is a list of reference entries (see reference list) with each entry followed by an annotation. However, be sure to ask your instructor for any course-specific requirements that may vary from the general format.

Your annotated bibliography as a whole should follow these guidelines in formatting:

• Alphabetized by author. Just as you would in a reference list, be sure to put your sources in alphabetical order by the authors' last names.
• No headings. Because you will be discussing one reference at a time, there is no need for headings between sources or paragraphs.
• Brief. Annotations are usually one to three paragraphs. Remember, this is an annotated bibliography, not a research paper. Try to keep your annotations concise and clear.

Annotation Format

Each reference on your list should have an annotation that includes a summary, a critique or analysis, and an application. Annotations are often formatted in three paragraphs to ensure that the writer includes all three sections.

However, there are a few things to keep in mind as you write each annotation:

• No citations. You do not need to use citations within an annotation because the source of your information is clear (and listed above your annotation). Also, because each annotation is specific to only one source, you should not refer to any other sources in the annotation.
• No direct quotations. Because annotations give your summary, analysis, and application, there is no need for you to use direct quotations. An annotation is meant to be your own interpretation of the information.
• No referrals to the first or second person. Remember to be objective and remove yourself from your annotations. Annotated bibliographies do not allow for the use of I, me, my, we, our, you, or us.
• No reference list. Because your sources are already listed in reference format, there is no need for an additional list; it would be redundant.

Like all Walden assignments, annotated bibliographies should be doubled-spaced, in Times New Roman font, and use appropriate reference list formatting (including hanging indents) for the source information. 

For each source listed, you will begin with a summary of the information you found in that specific source. The summary section gives your reader an overview of the important information from that source.  Remember that you are focusing on a source's method and results, not paraphrasing the article's argument or evidence.

The questions below can help you produce an appropriate, scholarly summary:

• What is the topic of the source?
• What actions did the author perform within the study and why?
• What were the methods of the author?
• What was the theoretical basis for the study?
• What were the conclusions of the study?

Remember, a summary should be similar to an abstract of a source and written in past tense (e.g. "The authors found that…" or "The studies showed…"), but it should not be the source's abstract. Each summary should be written in your own words.

After each summary, your annotations should include a critique or analysis of each source. In this section, you will want to focus on the strengths of the article or the study (the things that would make your reader want to read this source), but do not be afraid to address any deficiencies or areas that need improvement. The idea of a critique is that you act as a critic—addressing both the good and the bad.

In your critique/analysis, you will want to answer some or all of the following questions (taken from the KAM Guidebook):

·         Was the research question well framed and significant?

·         How well did the authors relate the research question to the existing body of knowledge?

·         Did the article make an original contribution to the existing body of knowledge?

·         Was the theoretical framework for the study adequate and appropriate?

·         Has the researcher communicated clearly and fully?

·         Was the research method appropriate?

·         Is there a better way to find answers to the research question?

·         Was the sample size sufficient?

·         Were there adequate controls for researcher bias?

·         Is the research replicable?

·         What were the limitations in this study?

·         How generalizable are the findings?

·         Are the conclusions justified by the results?

·         Did the writer take into account differing social and cultural contexts?

                (A Guide to Knowledge Area Modules, 2009, p. 26)

Finally, the last part of each annotation should justify the source's use and address how the source might fit into your own research. Consider a few questions:

• How is this source different than others in the same field or on the same topic?
• How does this source inform your future research?
• Does this article fill a gap in the literature?
• How would you be able to apply this method to your area of focus or project?
• Is the article universal?

Remember, annotated bibliographies do not use personal pronouns, so be sure to avoid using I, you, me, my, our, we, and us.

In the example annotation below, the reference entry is green, the summary is purple, the critique/analysis red, and the application is blue.

     The authors described the construction and rationale of an honors

course in science and religion that was pedagogically based on

Lawson's learning cycle model. In Lawson's model, the student writes

a short paper on a subject before a presentation of the material and

then writes a longer paper reevaluating and supporting his or her views.

Using content analysis, the authors compared the students' answers in

the first and second essays, evaluating them based on Fowler's stages

of development. The authors presented examples of student writing

with their analysis of the students' faith stages. The results demonstrated

development in stages 2 through 5.

     The authors made no mention of how to support spiritual

development in the course. There was no correlation between grades

and level of faith development. Instead, they were interested in the

interface between religion and science, teaching material on ways of

knowing, creation myths, evolutionary theory, and ethics. They exposed

students to Fowler's ideas but did not relate the faith development theory

to student work in the classroom. There appears to have been no effort

to modify the course content based on the predominant stage of

development, and it is probably a credit to their teaching that they were

able to conduct the course with such diversity in student faith

development. However, since Fowler's work is based largely within a

Western Christian setting, some attention to differences in faith among

class members would have been a useful addition to the study. 

     Fowler's work would seem to lend itself to research of this sort,

but this model is the only example found in recent literature. This study

demonstrates the best use of the model, which is assessment. While the

theory claimed high predictive ability, the change process that the authors

chronicled is so slow and idiosyncratic that it would be difficult to design

and implement research that had as its goal measurement of movement

in a faith development continuum.