Interactive Annotation Technology for Teaching and Learning

 

 

David G. Lebow, Ph.D., HyLighter, Inc., United States, dglebow@comcast.net

 

Dale W. Lick, Ph.D., Florida State University, United States, dlick@lsi.fsu.edu

 

Hope J. Hartman, Ph.D., CUNY Graduate Center, United States, gravity1@mindspring.com

 

 

 

 

Abstract:  This paper describes a unique online annotation system, referred to as HyLighter, and summarizes results of evaluation efforts to date.  Online annotation systems allow readers to mark up electronic reading material in ways similar to paper and share annotations with other people over a computer network.  This includes, for example, the capacity to highlight important text and add remarks to web pages.  HyLighter builds on and goes beyond existing hypertext annotation technology with the addition of a new and unique feature:  the facility to aggregate or combine annotations from multiple readers and generate composite displays.  In effect, HyLighter makes the thinking of readers that is ordinarily hidden, become "transparent" and easily accessible for self-reflection and sharing with others.  Through a process of collaborative interactive annotation, HyLighter promotes understanding of text, develops learning how to learn skills, improves instructional quality, and increases productivity in document-centered workgroups.

 

 

Introduction

 

In the following discussion, we describe a unique online annotation system, referred to as HyLighter, and summarize results of evaluation efforts to date.  HyLighter shows promise as a way to support and enhance teaching and learning through a variety of interactive annotation practices.  Online annotation systems allow readers to mark up electronic reading material in ways similar to paper (e.g., highlight important text and add remarks) and share annotations with other people.  HyLighter differs from other annotation systems currently available in its unique user interface, which allows readers to compare their own annotations on a text with those of other readers.  By comparing their annotations with classmates and experienced readers, students are able to monitor their own learning.  Equally important, HyLighter provides instructors with insights into students' reading processes and progress.  When annotations from an individual are viewed, the instructor is able to check reading comprehension, diagnose different types of errors, take appropriate actions to help the student to overcome misconceptions, and monitor/evaluate the success of the intervention.  In effect, HyLighter makes the users' thinking that is ordinarily hidden, become "transparent" and easily accessible for consideration by students and teacher.

In their seminal essay, The Social Life of Documents, Brown and Duguid (1995) pointed out that documents not only deliver information but also build and maintain social groups.  From their perspective, the document is a medium for the negotiation of meaning, and, on this basis, they have recommended developing technology to improve the means of negotiation.  Online annotation systems support the negotiation of meaning by facilitating annotation practices that are communal in nature (i.e., in the sense that annotations are "owned" by all members of a group who share common goals).  Such shared annotation practices extend the capabilities of the document by providing readers with multiple perspectives and offering opportunities for social interactions.

A definition of annotation as "adding critical or explanatory notes and other markup (e.g., underlining, highlighting, and circling) to a text" does not adequately suggest the broad and varied territory that annotation now covers.  The many types of annotation systems currently available largely reflect the many purposes for reading itself.  Readers apply annotation practices for such purposes as studying, doing research, writing from multiple sources, reviewing a text, and editing or proofreading (O'Hara, 1996).  Annotation systems are presently in use for co-authoring and editing, online proofreading, electronic meetings and discussion groups, document management, decision support, knowledge management, product lifecycle management, and a variety of educational purposes, among others.  Prominent, commercially available products, either partly or squarely in the annotation area, include, for example:  Office XP and Microsoft 2000, Adobe Acrobat, Lotus Notes, Visual Annotate, iMarkUp, Proof-It Online, and WebCT. 

Research prototypes and university-based systems with annotation features include, among many others:  CoNote developed at Cornell, Computer Supported Intentional Learning (previously known as CSILE and now distributed as Knowledge Forum) developed at University of Toronto, Collaborative Annotation Tool (C.A.T.) developed by the Instructional Computing Group at Harvard University, and WebAnn developed at University of Washington and Microsoft Research.  Finally, W3C (an organization whose mission is to develop common protocols for the World Wide Web that promote its evolution and ensure its interoperability) has produced the Amaya Web editor, which allows users to create and update documents directly on the Web.  Amaya includes extensive annotation features, which, eventually, could become universal features of the Web.

Research suggests that shared annotation has important implications for education, yet literature addressing how best to implement annotation systems for instructional purposes is rather meager.  This is surprising for a number of reasons.  Studies show that annotation is an extremely important component of deep reading (Marshall, 1997) and that training in the use of text annotation improves students' academic performance (Nist & Simpson, 1988; Simpson & Nist, 1990).  Moreover, writing teachers themselves have noted the potential that annotation tools could have in improving students' critical reading and writing skills (Wolfe, 2001; 2002). 

The most promising uses of technology promote changes in students' study techniques and attitudes toward learning and help students and faculty monitor changes.  HyLighter is distinguished from other online annotation systems by its unique user-interface, which enables a new form of collaborative interactive annotation practice.  This practice supported by Hylighter offers the potential of a low cost, expandable way to (a) help students develop the ability to gain knowledge from text and other critical learning to learn skills and (b) assist faculty in improving instructional quality across the curriculum.

 

 

The HyLighter System

 

.  HyLighter has the unique ability to display the generally overlapping sets of annotations from multiple readers of a selected document through color-coded highlighting.  The colors and what they indicate are as follows: 

  1. When a reader wishes to see where a group of readers' interests are distributed in a document, the reader selects the group view feature.  Shades of gray highlighting indicate the number of readers who highlighted each area or text fragment.  Mousing over the highlighted text reveals the number of readers who "voted" for that text fragment.
  2. When a reader wishes to see differences and similarities between a particular reader's view and that of a selected group of readers, the reader selects the compare feature:

a.          Yellow highlighting indicates text fragments highlighted by a selected reader but not highlighted by others in a group of readers.

b.          Shades of blue highlighting indicates text fragments highlighted by one or more group members but not by the selected reader.

c.          Shades of green highlighting (i.e., yellow and blue combined) indicates text fragments highlighted by the selected reader and members of the group.

  1. All highlighted text fragments link to the corresponding remarks in the context of the composite display.

 

Figure 1and 2 are screen displays from the HyLighter prototype.  Figure 1 shows a comparison view of highlighting between a selected reader and group members.  Excerpts highlighted by the selected reader but not the other group members appear in yellow; excerpts not highlighted by the selected reader, but marked by one or more group members, appear in shades of blue (the darker the shade of blue, the more "votes" for that text fragment); and excerpts highlighted by both the reader and one or more group members appear in various shades of green (the darker the shade of green, the more votes for that text fragment).  In Figure 2, clicking on the green area opens a second browser window, showing remarks of Kathy (the selected reader) and two other group members.

For an analogy, consider the Waag Society's Amsterdam RealTime project (http://www.waag.org/realtime/).  The project tracked 75 volunteers using global positioning technology for 40 days as they walked, cycled, bussed, and drove around Amsterdam.  The data is displayed (initially in real time, and later cumulatively) on maps in such a way that the more traveled a route, the brighter it glows (Scanlon, 2003).  Similarly, HyLighter is an attempt to create a cumulative map of multiple readers' intellectual travels through a document, and, additionally, to single out an individual's journey and compare it with the whole or with the paths of the most experienced travelers.

 

 

 

 

 

yellow®

 

 

blue®

 

 

green®

Figure 1.  HyLighter screen shot showing a comparative view of three readers.

                  Green highlighting indicates overlap or agreement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

yellow®

 

 

blue®

 

 

green®

 

Figure 2.  Clicking the green area links to readers' remarks.

 

HyLighter can support diverse instructional approaches that reflect a range of educational philosophies and preferred instructional models, methods, and strategies.  Uses depend on how it is embedded into the task environment and integrated with surrounding physical and social resources, including other technologies.  As Salomon (2002) has emphasized in assessing the value of new media for teaching and learning, the pedagogical way that educators use the technology is what makes the difference in results, not the medium itself.

 

 

The Basic Approach

 

Interactive annotation supported by HyLighter makes readers' thinking visible (i.e., collects traces of readers' thinking while reading), models how and when to use strategies in realistic academic tasks, and provides forums for reflective discourse.  The model, as described shortly below, reflects the Vygotskian (1978) view that the limits of an individual's development are defined as the distance between independent problem solving and what a person can accomplish under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers (referred to as the zone of proximal development).  In its standard or generic form, interactive annotation supports sharing of multiple perspectives, social construction of knowledge, and metacognitive thinking through a five-step process:

1.        Instructor provides an introductory training sequence.

2.        Instructor distributes assigned reading material including explicit reading instructions.

3.        Participants read and annotate (i.e., highlight and comment on) material.

4.        Participants compare views of annotation and generate group views.

5.        Instructor performs assessment activities, leads whole class discussion, models active reading strategies, provides feedback to students, and modifies instruction as necessary.

Step 1 requires the instructor to match the training sequence to the entry behaviors and characteristics of the students.  With less mature learners, clear instructions telling students to highlight important ideas and write intelligible comments is insufficient for getting students started as practitioners of annotation.  Instead, students require explicit and direct strategy instruction and opportunities to practice.  How elaborate and for what duration depends on the group.  Simpson and Nist (1990) suggest that a training sequence for college freshmen include the following five elements:  (a) motivation activities, (b) strategy explanation and rationale, (c) strategy talk-through,

(d) guided practice with student questions and verbal feedback, and (e) independent practice with written feedback. 

Research on the effects of highlighting (and underlining) as a study technique provides evidence that many students are not skilled at identifying what is relevant in a text.  Several studies have found that students in high school and the freshmen level of college generally make poor choices in deciding what information to highlight or underline (Peterson, 1992; Schellings & Van Hout-Wolters, 1995).  Curiously, an analysis of used textbooks selected from a used book bin at a college bookstore showed that highlighting is ubiquitous (Marshall, 1998).  In sum, many student practitioners do not use highlighting effectively, even though highlighting is an especially common study technique. 

Step 2 requires the instructor to provide explicit reading instructions or a clear task-perspective statement.  This statement is intended to establish a common orientation to reading an assigned article.  This step provides opportunities for the instructor to embed practice with a variety of learning strategies into the process.  The task-perspective statement may direct students to perform a variety of activities, other than identify and summarize main ideas.  For example, the instructor could assign a question generation and answer elaboration activity, require student-generated elaborations of important points in the text, or, as occurred in field trials discussed later, identify and comment on claims, supports, and logical fallacies in argumentative essays.

In Step 3, students read the article and use the HyLighter software component to add highlighting and related remarks (consistent with the reading instructions) to the article.  Generally, the task of the reader is to create a layer of annotation, which represents the reader's "mapping" of the purpose for reading the material.

 In Step 4, once students have annotated and submitted the article, they have a number of options for collaboration, feedback, and learning, supported by HyLighter, which allow participants to compare views.  Students meet in small, cooperative groups, either face-to-face or virtually (synchronously or asynchronously) to:  (a) discuss and reconcile differences in highlighting and comments, (b) make connections from the text to their own prior knowledge (both well-founded and misconceived), (c) pursue further inquiry to fill knowledge gaps or resolve differences, (d) assess their understanding of connections and interrelationships among important ideas in the text, and (e) compare their views to the instructor's view or benchmark.

In Step 5, the instructor uses HyLighter to assess students' performance in carrying out the assigned task (i.e., highlighting assigned text and adding remarks relevant to a specified purpose for reading), leads whole class discussion, models active reading strategies (e.g., by doing a "think aloud" in order to reveal the reasoning behind the instructor's own thinking), points to additional resources to fill knowledge gaps, and provides students with feedback.  In this context, annotations are viewed as a direct reflection of the reader's engagement with the text and constructive, meaning-making process.  The practice of annotating a document is seen as a type of authentic performance, which provides an indicator or correlate of understanding of the text.  Information about selection strategies, evaluations, and interpretations of particular readers reveals sources and characteristics of comprehension failures, points to strategies for overcoming misconceptions, and provides a basis for monitoring and evaluating changes in performance (Hartman, 2001; Marshall, 1998).

 

 

The Major Goals

 

The main goal of the HyLighter project is to develop, evaluate, and disseminate uses of HyLighter to broadly support the goals of general education in higher education (i.e., a core curriculum of fundamental knowledge, skills, and values that an institution sees as essential for academic success and lifelong learning).  Researchers in the science of learning have identified key characteristics of expert learners and basic principles for the design of learning environments and the role of teachers.  Summative assessments of new approaches to instruction based on such advances are encouraging (National Research Council, 2000).  Generally, however, educators have not changed their practices to reflect new knowledge gained from cognitive science over the last three or four decades.  This mismatch between predominant teaching approaches and scientific understanding of human learning has widened the gulf between what secondary and postsecondary education provides and what society requires.  Unprecedented technological innovation coupled with an explosion of information is creating increasing demand for educational services that better prepare students to become effective learners capable of adjusting to the ever-changing demands of our knowledge-based economy.

The goals of the HyLighter project reflect our conviction that new and innovative technologies based on recent advances in cognitive science have the potential to greatly improve instructional quality and learning outcomes in higher education.  By introducing HyLighter across the curriculum at 2- and 4-year colleges, we will provide a feasible way for the entire faculty to assume shared responsibility for helping students become effective, lifelong learners.  Other goals include development of annotation performance assessment instruments for authentic learning and assessment activities and exploration of HyLighter in K-12 settings and document-centered work domains.

Interactive annotation supported by HyLighter moves instruction away from predominantly content-centered instruction characterized by didactic teaching strategies and reception learning toward more process-oriented approaches characterized by cooperative group learning and self-regulated knowledge construction.  HyLighter promotes instructional activities that are highly interactive and well-informed by the teacher's metacognitive thinking.  Teaching metacognitively requires reflecting on and planning for teaching in order to meet the specific needs of the students.  It includes teacher awareness of the sources and characteristics of students' misconceptions, selection of instructional strategies to overcome students' misconceptions, and monitoring/ evaluating the extent to which important misconceptions have changed in productive ways (Hartman, 2001).

 

 

Evaluation Efforts

 

Initial testing of a HyLighter prototype began during the Fall of 2001.  Today, field trials are expanding across the higher-education curriculum and elsewhere.  The first semester-long field-test of HyLighter took place during the Spring of 2002 in the second-semester freshmen English course, Argument and Persuasion, at Tallahassee Community College (TCC).  The main goals of the course were to develop skills in analyzing, discussing, and writing responses to argumentative essays and strengthening skills in writing persuasive arguments.  More generally, the goals were to develop active reading skills and various study techniques characteristic of successful learners, improve expository writing skills, and promote a positive orientation toward learning.  Since then, we have run field trials in a 10th grade Special Education class and an intermediate Spanish class at Florida State University (FSU).  Recently, we upgraded the HyLighter software to a user-friendly, online esystem for extensive testing in a range of educational and work-related areas.  Field trials began in January 2004 in a variety of academic disciplines and document-centered work areas.

Our experience thus far, primarily in Argument and Persuasion classes in a community college setting, suggests the following:

(c) a deeper processing of information.

From the instructor's perspective, interactive annotation overcomes some major points of resistance that faculty frequently express about technology and offers some additional advantages, including, among others:

In sum, initial field-tests in a community college and elsewhere have produced encouraging results, including improvements in critical thinking and analysis, expository writing, and student completion rates.  The fact that the ability to annotate text is itself a key skill that students may use to accomplish important goals in many different transfer settings provides a further rationale for interactive annotation as an instructional approach. 

 

 

Future Directions

 

Beginning in January of 2004, field trials of interactive annotation supported by our new HyLighter 2.0 software have begun locally in Tallahassee, Florida and at several other locations around the country.  We plan to carry out a broad-based evaluation of the approach for three main purposes: (a) establish how students have changed, become better educated and better learners as a result of interactive annotation, (b) establish how faculty have changed and become better instructors as a result of interactive annotation and how willing they are to adopt the approach, and

(c) improve the interactive annotation model and the supporting HyLighter software component by gaining knowledge about what works best under different conditions in a variety of settings.  In addition, we will develop one or more authentic assessment instruments of annotation performance and related skills based on the HyLighter software.  Also, we plan several quasi-experimental studies to begin in the fall of 2004.  Finally, as convincing evidence accumulates supporting the efficacy of the approach, we will initiate a scale-up effort from local to state to national dissemination across general education and the broader curriculum.  

 

References

Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., and Cocking, R. R., National Research Council (U.S.) Committee on Developments in the Sciences,

National Research Council (U.S.) Committee on Learning Research and Ed (2000).  How people learn:  Brain, mind, experience, and school.  Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Brown, J. S, and Duguid, P. (1995).  The social life of documents.  Retrieved

February1, 2002 from http://www.parc.xerox.com/ops/members/brown/papers/sociallife.html

Hartman, H. J. (2001b).  Teaching metacognitively.  In H. J. Hartman (ed), Metacognition, in learning and instruction: Theory,

research, and practice (pp. 149-169).  The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Marshall, C. C. (1997).  Annotation: from paper books to the digital library.  Paper presented at Digital Libraries 1997, Philadelphia, PA, 1997.

Marshall, C. C. (1998).  Toward an ecology of hypertext annotation in Proceedings of ACM Hypertext '98, Pittsburgh, PA (June

20-24, 1998) pp. 40-49.

Nist S. L. & Simpson, M. L. (1988).  The effectiveness and efficiency of training college students to annotate and underline text. 

National Reading Conference Yearbook, 37, 251-257.

O'Hara, K. (1996).  Towards a typology of reading goals.  (Technical Report EPC-1996-107).  Cambridge, UK:  Rank Xerox

Research Center.

Peterson, S. E. (1992).  The cognitive functions of underlining as a study technique.  Reading Research and Instruction, 31(2),

49-56.

Pressley, M. (2002).  Improving comprehension instruction:  A path for the future. In C. Collins Block, L. B. Gambrell, & M.

Pressley (Eds), Improving comprehension instruction:  Rethinking research, theory, and classroom practice (pp. 385-400), DE: Jossey-Bass.

Salomon, G. (2002).  Technology and pedagogy:  Why don't we see the promised revolution.  Educational Technology,

March/April, 71-75.

Scanlon, J. S. (2003, March).  Emerging Traffic.  Wired, 35.

Schellings, G. L. M. & Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (1995).  Main points in an instructional text, as identified by students and

by their teachers.  Reading Research Quarterly, 30(4), 742-756.

Simpson, M.L., & Nist, S.L. (1990).  Textbook annotation:  An effective and efficient study strategy for college students. 

Journal of Reading, 34, 122-131.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978).  Mind in society.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Wolfe, J. L. (2001).  Pedagogical uses of annotation and annotation technologies.  Dissertation Abstracts International (UMI No

3008469).

Wolfe, J. L. (2002).  Annotation Technologies: A software and research review.Computers and Composition, 19(4), 471-497.