EN 12 Guidelines for Compiling an Annotated Working Bibliography

1. Cast each entry in MLA bibliographical format. Strictly follow the MLA Stylesheet in Chapter 5 of MLA Handbook (7th
edition). We will practice doing this in subsequent class sessions through open-notes quizzes.

2. Add a 3-5 sentence summary or “annotation” to each entry. An annotation is an evaluative summary of the source. For
this requirement, you don’t need to have deeply read the source to be able to write an annotation. You must learn the
skill of appraising a source in five minutes or less, the purpose of which is to identify whether or not you must read that
source later on. The annotated working bibliography is therefore a shortlist of sources that you will read in depth later
on when you take down notes for your paper, which also means to say that irrelevant sources are already weeded out in
the list.

3. Keep your annotations short but succinct and substantial: an annotation may state what is important about the source, its
argument/angle/perspective and/or your response to it, a critical detail that can serve as basis for your own point, how
relevant it is to your topic, or its limitations for your topic. However, if you think 3-5 sentences is not enough to
elaborate on the value of the source, feel free to add sentences, just don’t add sentences for the sake of padding up the
annotation.

4. Write high-quality annotations by using clear and SPECIFIC language.

 Avoid vagueness, ambiguity, or empty sentences that merely state the topic but provide no specific angle or
point. Don’t just write “The book is about feminism and collects essays written by black feminists.” This gives the
impression that the student didn’t read beyond the blurbs of the book. Write instead about what’s the common
point made by these black feminists that justifies the selection of their articles in the book—this, on the other hand,
proves that the student has skimmed the source for its potential value to the research project.

 Avoid stating the obvious. Note the problem with this sentence: “I agree with what the author says about the lack
of infrastructure as one reason why students are not motivated to study. Who would want to study in a dirty
environment, anyway?” Apparently the student contented himself/herself with finding a singular point in the
source’s argument, without checking for context or possible nuances and supports.

 Specify as much as possible. For example, don’t generalize “youth,” but specify age range, nationality,
geographic scope, gender, etc. Don’t generalize “media,” specify instead what type of media, what purpose, etc.

Look at this sentence that at first appears to be saying something, but in fact ends up saying nothing: “A unique
way of looking at the topic of miseducation of Filipinos. Useful in my research on the quality of higher education
in the Philippines. The article looks at the curriculum content of core courses in Philippine colleges, and gives a
summary of many other problems.” Note that it lacks specifics: what “unique way of looking at the topic”? how
“useful in my research”? what “summary of problems” specifically? It’s all terribly vague.

5. Minimum of 15 sources for topics that are narrowly focused or under-researched (i.e., expected low number of valid
sources). I expect up to 25 or more sources for topics that are broader in scope, or a rather well-studied topic with a lot
of scholarly sources.

6. Grading: 30% proper formatting; 30% quality of selected sources (appropriateness to topic; reliability for research);
40% quality of annotations. As this is a major requirement, the policy on late submissions applies.

7. Format: A4 paper, Times New Roman pt.9, 1.5 spacing.

Note: the sources below are fictional. For format reference only.

Name:
Section:
Tentative Topic/Focus/Thesis:
Annotated Working Bibliography

Liden, John. “Class Struggle.” The Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal, 20 Oct. 1997. Web. 1 Nov. 2001. Presents
factual evidence for the deteriorating state of Philippine education due largely to the government’s poor
bureaucratic and budget management. As a result, change is slow in coming and, economically, the country is
being left behind by its Asian neighbors.
---. (In)Equality in Learning. Pasig City: Anvil, 1998. Print. Enumerates the problems of public school education in the
Philippines, with statistical data taken from the results of the government’s Project TAO (Teachers’ Assistance for
Optimum Well-Being). Largely focuses on teachers’ ridiculously low salaries and lack of sustained training.
“Literacy and Politics.” The Philippine Education Forum 97.1 (2000): 4-20. Print. An investigation on the observation that
“Filipinos are not readers,” citing as possible reasons the lack of motivation to read, poorly equipped public
libraries, and low book publishing figures. Underlying all these is the lack of a strong vision for educational reform
in terms of quality of teacher training and infrastructure in the public schools, and the lack of political will to
address red tape in the highly profitable textbook publishing industry.
Perez, Raul. “The Miseducation of the Filipino.” Inquirer.net. Philippine Daily Inquirer, 14 July 2000. Web. 15 July 2000.
Discusses the Philippines’ poor standing in the Asiaweek survey of Asian universities and cites this reason for the
inadequacy: poor quality of basic education. However, on the social level, there is also the political and economic
elite’s indifference since they can afford to send their own children to private schools or schools abroad. The
“miseducation” thus not only refers to the shortchanged quality in public school education for the low-income
groups, but also to the lack of empathy among members of the high-income groups and lack of concern about the
widening gap between the rich and poor.
Zamora, May. “The Book Market and the Reading Public.” Philippine Book Culture. Ed. Grace Panganiban Cruz. Manila: U
of Santo Tomas P, 2001. 30-45. Print. The article follows the history of book publishing in the Philippines from
the colonial period to the present, identifying the best-sellers and analyzing why they became popular among
Filipinos. It argues that Filipinos are—have always been—readers, contrary to the popular complaint that Filipinos
are generally not predisposed to reading compared to other cultures.