The DiMenna-Nyselius Library is currently closed and will reopen February 8th. Research assistance and physical item delivery is still available. To learn more about our resources and services, visit the link below
An annotation usually involves a summary and/or assessment, and may also include a reflection. This means that an annotation is more than just a summary. Within the context of an annotated bibliography, an annotation is provided for each source. The idea is that an annotation should help the reader decide whether or not to read the source.
IMPORTANT: While this is generally what's included in an annotation, assignment requirements will vary. Professors may want you to include elements other than a summary, evaluation, or reflection. When creating an annotated bibliography, please pay special attention to assignment instructions and follow them closely.
The answer to this question is almost always found within assignment instructions. Most likely, you will be asked to use APA, MLA, or Chicago. Please keep in mind that we have citation guides that can help you with formatting for any citation style you will encounter at Fairfield University. If you have any questions about citation styles and formatting, please Ask a Librarian.
The bibliographic information (the citation for a source) and annotation will be formatted according to a citation style such as APA, MLA, or Chicago. See the box above for links to citation guides that can help with the formatting of sources. The annotation is written in paragraph form, and follows the citation for the source it describes. Annotations can vary in length from a few sentences to a few pages. The usual annotation is about 3-6 sentences, or 150-250 words.
Below are the basics of formatting in APA, MLA, and Chicago. For a complete description of formatting for annotated bibliographies, please refer to the appropriate manual.
Williams, J. M. (1981). The Phenomenology of Error. College Composition and Communication, 32(2), 152–168. https://doi.org/10.2307/356689
Williams compares linguistic errors and social errors; this comparison lets us view error not as something that exists on the page of a text, but as a transactional interaction, where error is a flawed transaction between a writer and reader. Williams points out that social errors can cause big problems; linguistic errors for the most part do not. Williams proposes that, regardless of what “experts” define as an error, teachers and researchers should focus their attention on the sorts of errors that arise when we read content, rather than defining error by appealing to outside authority. This article caused me to reflect on what an 'error' is, and that the definition could be up for debate at all. I am now going to shift the focus of my research to include other perspectives to see if there are any others worth including in my annotated bibliography.
Howland, Robert. “What You See Depends on Where You’re Looking and How You Look at It: Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias.” Journal of Psychosocial Nursing, vol. 49, no. 8, 2011, pp. 13–15.The results of this study, which is objective and utilizes a strong methodology, indicates that statistically significant results have a higher likelihood of being fully reported compared to non-significant results, and a significant proportion of published articles describe outcome variables or data analyses that differ from the pre-specified trial protocol as originally conceived. These findings bring into question a number of the other studies in this annotated bibliography, and have caused me to question how I evaluate the strength of evidence.
Bizup, Joseph. “BEAM: A Rhetorical Vocabulary for Teaching Research-Based Writing.” Rhetoric Review 27, no. 1 (2008): 72–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350190701738858.
This article contends that faculty should encourage students to think about how sources are used within writing in different rhetorical situations. Bizup argues that terms like primary, secondary, and tertiary are counterproductive and proposes an alternative: Background, Exhibit, Argument, and Method (BEAM). I like this idea because it can help students think about how sources are being used instead of focusing exclusively on the information that a source provides. This article includes a thorough literature review that establishes authority and reliability. I also intend to look through this article's references to locate additional sources on this topic.