top of page

Annotation

Overview

  • Annotation tools allow a user to make notes on a document, image, or other file.

  • Annotations can be physical, such as a post-it note, but can also be electronic. Most platforms (ex. Word, Google Docs, Adobe) have some form of annotation feature, allowing you to add stamps, text comments, or highlighter to an online document.

  • Annotations can support reading comprehension and critical thinking by encouraging note-taking while reading and fostering social engagement among students.

Annotation Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzg9RFQHYDQ


Research

Archibald (2010):

  • This study investigated the effect of Social Annotation Modeling on the development of reading comprehension and critical thinking among 128 college freshmen students.

  • The authors found that students’ performance using annotations was weaker than controls in the short term, but pulled ahead of controls significantly after a one-month delay. This study cited elevated cognitive load and a need for more instructional time to adapt to using annotations.

Novak, Razzouk & Johnson (2012)

  • This literature review examined the results of 16 studies examining the use of online social annotation tools in higher education. Social annotation is an online bookmarking tool that allows users to share comments, highlights, or notes with one another.

  • The results provided evidence for the effectiveness of using social annotation tools. The authors note that social annotation programs are generally superior to personal annotations, with reasons cited being the increased motivation derived from group collaboration. However, some students cited reading annotations as distracting and overwhelming.

Slotte and Lonka (1999):

  • This study explored how differences in spontaneously taken notes are related to reading comprehension among 226 highschool graduates. While some participants were allowed to review their notes during writing tasks, others were not.

  • Results suggested that reviewing annotations during essay writing resulted in high performance on a subsequent exam assessing deep-level reading comprehension. Furthermore, students who created summaries of text in their notes performed better than those who took verbatim or sequential notes.

Wolfe (2008):

  • The aim of this study was to examine which types of annotations have greater learning value for students. To answer this question, the authors examined the effects of annotations on a reading-to-write task in two complementary studies. Study 1 and 2 tested 7 and 82 college students, respectively.

  • Overall, the results displayed that annotations are most helpful when they encourage students to consider new perspectives on the original text.

Mendenhall & Johnson (2010):

  • This paper examines an online annotation system, HyLighter, that facilitates shared annotations amongst users. It described three separate studies involving undergraduate students.

  • Overall, results indicated that user experience of HyLighter was positive, that using annotations in small groups may promote deeper comprehension, and that Hylighter may help students to think critically.

Kawase, Herder & Nejdl (2009):

  • This paper compared paper-based and online annotation systems in the workplace amongst 22 PhD students and post-doctorate students.

  • Results validate the benefits of online annotation. Furthermore, results suggested that as annotations are inherently collaborative (i.e. they involve making visual changes to work) they have been shown to positively affect the academic performance of not just the user, but the user’s peers.


Quick Facts

Advantages

  • Highly researched

  • Enhance critical thinking and comprehension

  • Social dimension enhances motivation for students

  • Usually very cheap to implement

Disadvantages:

  • Without the collaborative social dimension, positive effects are less robust

  • Best annotation tools require electronic texts

  • The impact of annotations amongst younger students is less studied

To Consider

  • Because annotations are affecting higher order skills (critical thinking, meta cognition), they are recommended for high school and older students.

  • Annotations also tend to clutter the page, which causes issues with students who suffer from distraction removal difficulties and focusing problems (such as ADHD).

Product
Price
OS Compatibility
Internet Reliance

Exact prices change frequently, which is why only approximate ranges are listed. 

$ - Under $5

$$ - Between $6 and $50

$$$ - Between $51 and $250

$$$$ - Over $250

References


Archibald, T. N. (2010). The effect of the integration of social annotation technology, first principles of instruction, and team-based learning on students' reading comprehension, critical thinking, and meta cognitive skills. PhD Dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.


Brush, A., Bageron, D., Grudin, J., Borning, A., & Gupta, A. (2002). Supporting interaction outside of class: Anchored disccusions vs. Discussion boards. Paper presented at the Proceedings of CSCL 2002.


Cabanac, G., Chevalier, M., Chrisment, C., & Julien, C. (2007). Collective annotation: Perspectives for information retrieval improvement, RIAO 2007. Pittsburgh, PA.


Davis, J., & Huttenlocher, D. (1995). Shared annotation for cooperative learning. Paper presented at the CSCL'95.


Kawase, R., Herder, E., & Nejdl, W. (2009). A comparison of paper-based and online annotations in the workplace. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning: Learning in the Synergy of Multiple Disciplines, Nice, France.


Mendenhall, A., & Johnson, T. E. (2010). Fostering the development of critical thinking skills, and reading comprehension of undergraduates using a Web 2.0 tool coupled with a learning system. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(3), 263–276.


Novak, E., Razzouk, R., & Johnson, T. E. (2012). The educational use of social annotation tools in higher education: A literature review. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 39–49, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.09.002.


Slotte, V., & Lonka, K. (1999). Review and process effects of spontaneous note-taking on text comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psycholgoy, 24, 1-20.

van Oostendorp, H. (1996). Studying and annotating electronic text. In J.-F. Rouet, J. J. Levonen, A. Dillon, & 


R. J. Spiro (Eds.) Hypertext and cognition (pp. 137–148). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Wolf, J. (2008). Annotations and the collaborative digital library: Effects of an aligned annotation interface on student argumentation and reading strategies. Computer Supported Collaborative Learning. 3, 141-164.


Wu-Yuin, H., Chin-Yu,W.,&Mike, S. (2007). A study of multimedia annotation of Web-based materials. Computers & Education, 48(4), 680–699. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.020.


Yang, S. J. H., Chen, I. Y. L., & Shao, N. W. Y. (2004). Ontology enabled annotation and knowledge management for collaborative learning in virtual learning community. Educational Technology & Society, 7(4), 70–81.


Zellweger, P., Mangen, A., & Newman, P. (2002). Authoring fluid narrative hypertexts

using treatable visualizations. Paper presented at the ACM Hypertext.

​

bottom of page