An annotated bibliography is a list of sources where each entry has a short paragraph below it. Each paragraph summarises the source and explains how relevant, credible, and useful it is for your topic.

You might write an annotated bibliography as a standalone assignment, or use one to organise your sources when working on a longer assignment.

 

What each entry should contain

Each entry has two parts: the reference and the annotation. The reference is your heading and follows your required referencing style. The annotation is typically 150–250 words, unless your brief says otherwise.

When writing your annotation, consider the following:

  • Summary

    Start your annotation with a brief explanation of what the source is about and what it found or argued. Focus on the main points and key findings.

  • Relevance

    Explain how the source connects to your topic and what it contributes to your work.

  • Credibility

    A trustworthy source is written by someone with the knowledge or experience to write on this topic. Check where the source was published and whether it has been peer-reviewed.

    For guidance on assessing source quality, go to Finding and choosing sources.

  • Strengths and limitations

    Consider how recent the source is, whether its methods are sound, and whether it studied a broad enough group of people to be reliable.

    For guidance on evaluating sources in depth, go to Reading critically.

  • Usefulness

    End your annotation with an overall judgement of how valuable this source is for your work. If your assignment sets specific criteria, make sure your judgement addresses them. Since this task involves reflective writing, check your module guidance on whether first person is appropriate here.

 

 

What to aim for

A strong annotation is concise and formal in tone. It focuses on what is relevant to your topic — only include information that relates to how credible or useful the source is. Keep your entries roughly equal in length and stay within any word limit set for the assignment.

 

 

How an annotated bibliography differs from other tasks

 

Task What it contains Does it evaluate sources? Does it compare sources?
Annotated bibliography A list of sources, each with a short evaluative paragraph. Yes, it assesses each source individually. No
Literature review A critical, organised account of published research on a topic. Yes, it comments on the strength and relevance of sources. Yes, it identifies where sources agree, disagree, and where gaps exist.
Reading/reference list A list of sources No No

 

 

Example

Assignment question

'You must produce an annotated bibliography on the pedagogical use of artificial intelligence in higher education.'

Annotation

Qian, Y. (2025). Pedagogical applications of generative AI in higher education: A systematic review of the field. TechTrends, 69(5), 1105–1120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-025-01100-1

 

This systematic review examines how generative AI tools have been used in higher education since the launch of ChatGPT in 2022. Analysing 37 peer-reviewed studies, Qian identifies three broad areas of application: feedback and assessment, learning support, and developing critical skills such as creativity and learning autonomy.1 The review is relevant to any study of AI in education because it looks at how AI is used across all higher education, rather than in one specific setting.2 Published in a peer-reviewed journal and conducted by an academic researcher at Louisiana State University, the source is credible.3 The review's methodology strengthens its reliability; it follows PRISMA guidelines and draws on three major academic databases. However, it only focuses on studies from 2023 and 2024. It also excludes conference papers and theoretical work. This may mean the review misses some significant developments.4 Qian's review is most useful for understanding current generative AI usage in higher education. It also helps to identify gaps, particularly the limited research on non-text-based AI tools and disciplines beyond education, writing, and computer science.5

 

Key

  1. Summary Back to text, note 1
  2. Relevance Back to text, note 2
  3. Credibility Back to text, note 3
  4. Strengths and limitations Back to text, note 4
  5. Usefulness Back to text, note 5

 

Notes

The PRISMA mentioned in this example refers to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. It is a set of guidelines that makes systematic reviews more transparent and reliable. For more information, go to the PRISMA statement and a definition of meta-analysis.

The small numbers in this example show how the five components fit into a single, continuous paragraph. Don't use labels or subheadings to divide your annotation.

The referencing style used here is APA 7. Your course may require a different referencing system. Check your assignment brief or module guidance to confirm which style applies to you.

Annotation

Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2024). The educational affordances and challenges of ChatGPT: State of the field. TechTrends, 68(2), 380–392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-024-00939-0

 

This systematic review examines how educators and students can use ChatGPT to support learning, and identifies the AI's key limitations. Reviewing 44 peer-reviewed studies using PRISMA principles and grounded coding, Crompton and Burke identify three educator uses: teaching support, task automation, and professional development. They also identify eight student uses, including personalised feedback, writing support, and self-assessment.1 The study is relevant to any review of AI in education as it explains how it entered educational practice in the period immediately following ChatGPT's public release.2 Both authors are academic researchers at a North American university with established expertise in educational technology. This article is published in a peer-reviewed journal indexed in Scopus and Web of Science, strengthening its credibility.3 Its main limitation is scope: by focusing exclusively on ChatGPT, it excludes the wider range of generative AI tools now in use.4 Despite this constraint, the source is useful for understanding how ChatGPT was adopted in education, and for comparing earlier patterns of use with findings from more recent research.5

 

Key

  1. Summary Back to text, note 1
  2. Relevance Back to text, note 2
  3. Credibility Back to text, note 3
  4. Strengths and limitations Back to text, note 4
  5. Usefulness Back to text, note 5

 

Notes

The PRISMA mentioned in this example refers to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. It is a set of guidelines that makes systematic reviews more transparent and reliable. For more information, go to the PRISMA statement and a definition of meta-analysis.

The small numbers in this example show how the five components fit into a single, continuous paragraph. Don't use labels or subheadings to divide your annotation.

The referencing style used here is APA 7. Your course may require a different referencing system. Check your assignment brief or module guidance to confirm which style applies to you.

Annotation

Patrick, P. M., Yip, S. Y., & Campbell, C. (2025). Artificial intelligence and higher-order thinking: A systematic review of educator and student experiences and perspectives in higher education. Higher Education Quarterly, 79(4), e70069. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.70069

 

This qualitative systematic review examines how AI affects higher-order thinking skills in higher education, drawing on the experiences and perspectives of both educators and students. The study synthesises 31 articles through reflexive thematic analysis and finds that positive experiences outweighed negative ones for both groups. Educators reported using AI to design lesson plans, while students described it as an interactive and experiential learning tool.1 The article is particularly relevant to the topic of AI in education because it considers the quality of thinking and learning that AI supports or undermines.2 The authors are based at Monash University and the study is published in Higher Education Quarterly, a peer-reviewed journal ranked in the top quarter of social sciences journals.3 The qualitative methodology captures perspectives and experiences that quantitative reviews cannot. It draws exclusively on qualitative or mixed-methods studies, making it a useful complement to studies focused on measurable outcomes. The main limitation of Patrick et al.'s approach is their exclusion of quantitative studies entirely, which means they cannot link their findings to student learning outcome data.4 The source is most useful for understanding how students and educators experience AI in relation to higher-order thinking, and for identifying areas where pedagogical guidance is still needed.5

 

Key

  1. Summary Back to text, note 1
  2. Relevance Back to text, note 2
  3. Credibility Back to text, note 3
  4. Strengths and limitations Back to text, note 4
  5. Usefulness Back to text, note 5

 

Notes

The small numbers in this example show how the five components fit into a single, continuous paragraph. Don't use labels or subheadings to divide your annotation.

The referencing style used here is APA 7. Your course may require a different referencing system. Check your assignment brief or module guidance to confirm which style applies to you.

 

 

Page last edited: 25 August 2026
Next review due: 9 August 2029