Social Annotation: Promising Technologies and Practices in Writing

Abstract

The act of annotation is intimately associated with reading, thinking, writing, and learning. From book marginalia to online commentary, this centuries-old practice has flourished in contemporary educational contexts thanks to recent advances in digital technologies. New computational affordances, social media platforms, and digital networks have changed how readers–as writers–participate in acts of annotation. Of particular interest is social annotation (SA), a type of learning technology that enables the addition of notes to digital and multimodal texts for the purposes of information sharing, peer interaction, knowledge construction, and collaborative meaning-making. This chapter reviews prominent SA technologies, functional specifications, key products, and insights from research, with particular attention to the use of SA in writing studies and composition. The chapter concludes by discussing implications for writing studies and suggests SA technologies can make a critical impact on student reading and writing practices.

Full text

Social Annotation: Promising
Technologies and Practices in Writing
Justin Hodgson, Jeremiah Kalir, and Christopher D. Andrews
Abstract The act of annotation is intimately associated with reading, thinking,
writing, and learning. From book marginalia to online commentary, this centuries-
old practice has flourished in contemporary educational contexts thanks to recent
advances in digital technologies. New computational affordances, social media plat-
forms, and digital networks have changed how readers–as writers–participate in acts
of annotation. Of particular interest is social annotation (SA), a type of learning
technology that enables the addition of notes to digital and multimodal texts for
the purposes of information sharing, peer interaction, knowledge construction, and
collaborative meaning-making. This chapter reviews prominent SA technologies,
functional specifications, key products, and insights from research, with particular
attention to the use of SA in writing s tudies and composition. The chapter concludes
by discussing implications for writing studies and suggests SA technologies can
make a critical impact on student reading and writing practices.
Keywords Annotation ·Higher Education ·Online Learning ·Social
Annotation ·Writing Studies
1Overview
Annotation is the addition of a note to a text. This deceptively simple writing
practice is associated with a rich history of literature and literary studies (Barney,
1991; Jackson, 2001), is relevant to many humanities and social science disci-
plines (Siemens et al., 2017; Unsworth, 2000), and affords the practices of multi-
modal composition expressed by a range of material and digital technologies
(Davis & Mueller, 2020; Jones, 2015). From rubricated medieval manuscripts to
J. Hodgson (B) · C. D. Andrews
Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, USA
e-mail: hodgson@indiana.edu
J. Kalir
University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO, USA
© The Author(s) 2023
O. Kruse et al. (eds.), Digital Writing Technologies in Higher Education,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-36033-6_9
141

142 J. Hodgson et al.
book marginalia, underlined words to marked up blogs on the Web, annotation is
a genre of communication (Kalir & Garcia, 2021) that synthesizes reading with
writing (e.g., Wolfe, 2002a, 2002b), private response with public engagement (e.g.,
Marshall & Brush, 2004), and cognition with composition (e.g., Traester et al., 2021).
In this chapter, we consider annotation as a writing practice that has often been, and
continues to be, expressly social (e.g., Kalir, 2020; Sprouse, 2018), as indicated
by readers who write and exchange their notes with one another, make meaning
together, and use interactive media to construct knowledge about shared texts and
contexts. More specifically, we borrow and build upon a definition from Novak
and colleagues (2012) that defines social annotation (SA) as a type of learning tech-
nology enabling the addition of notes to digital and multimodal texts for the purposes
of information sharing, peer interaction, knowledge construction, and collaborative
meaning-making (e.g., Eryilmaz et al., 2013; Gao, 2013; Kalir et al., 2020; Zhu et al.,
2020).
Given technological developments, pedagogical insights, and enthusiastic use of
SA within both composition and literature courses (e.g., Allred et al., 2020; O’Dell,
2020;Sievers, 2021; Upson-Saia & Scott, 2013;Walker, 2019), it is pertinent to
review how SA is relevant to writing studies. In this chapter, we first examine the
core idea of SA technologies and practical specifications. We then identify key SA
technologies, offering a brief examination of specific affordances and constraints.
Finally, we offer insight into existing SA research in–and adjacent to–writing studies,
and critically explore the implications of SA technologies for writing pedagogy and
practice. Much contemporary research about SA emerges from educational studies,
and specific domains like the learning sciences and literacy education. There are a
few investigations about SA within writing studies which, appropriately, we review
later in this chapter. Nonetheless, SA scholarship has primarily advanced SA as a
learning technology–and not just a writing technology–and has provided formative
insights on the purpose, pedagogy, and potential of SA technologies and practices.
In writing about SA technologies as relevant to writing studies, we recall Bryant’s
(2002) emphasis on the “fluidity” of written texts; namely, that processes of compo-
sition, revision, publication, reading, analysis, and discussion are fundamentally
collaborative endeavors. Readers are writers, their writing is often social, and SA
practices exemplify how textual collaboration can thrive across formal and informal
learning environments. Moreover, SA technologies facilitate a range of meaningful
feedback loops–from instructor to student, and among learners–that are critical to
writing pedagogy (Sommers, 2006), invite students to serve in multiple roles (e.g.,
as tutor, expert, motivator, mentor, and collaborator), and that help develop dynamic
learning communities in courses.

Social Annotation: Promising Technologies and Practices in Writing 143
2 Core Idea of the Technology
SA is a type of learning technology predicated on two ideas about annotation as
a writing practice. First, readers are writers who, for centuries, have added both
informal and scholarly notes to their texts: manuscript glosses and scholia, book
marginalia, and other forms of written commentary (Jackson, 2001; Nichols, 1991;
Stauffer, 2021). Second, readers in our contemporary era have, not surprisingly,
brought their everyday and academic writing practices to the Web so as to mark up
electronic texts, online resources, and other features of digital environments (Cohn,
2021; Kalir & Garcia, 2021; Piper, 2012). From blog posts to wikipedia entries
to social media updates, there are many ways that readers write online and often
do so in direct response to other texts, topics, and social contexts. Indeed, the first
Web browser, Mosaic, included annotation functionality that was intended to support
social reading and writing practices (Carpenter, 2013). But our scope is necessarily
more narrow. Whereas, for example, wikis are social technologies that encourage
groups to read shared documents, there are categorical and pedagogical differences
between the composition of new texts and commentary added to existing texts. We
approach SA as a learning technology that directly “anchors” (Gao et al., 2013)
written notes to digital primary sources, thereby creating a more proximal and contex-
tual environment for reader response, peer interaction, and shared meaning-making
(e.g., Chan & Pow, 2020; Mendenhall & Johnson, 2010). As we review below, there
are a range of SA technologies (e.g., Murphy, 2021), as well as extensive use of SA
in both scholarly publishing (e.g., Staines, 2019) and transparent qualitative inquiry
(e.g., Kapiszewski & Karcher, 2021), with implementations that span elementary,
primary, and secondary education. In this chapter we are concerned with the use of
SA in formal, higher education contexts and, specifically, writing and composition
courses.
3 Functional Specifications
From a technical standpoint, SA technologies operate as browser extensions or appli-
cations, with those applications also serving the purposes of formal coursework
within Learning Management Systems (LMS; e.g., Canvas, Blackboard). Broadly,
SA technologies work with Web-based texts that allow users to select key elements
(primarily text) and add multimodal comments. SA tools are dynamic as they allow
for shared access to the same text-based artifact, adding layers of interactivity to
reading practices. In addition to adding notes to a text, readers can also reply to
comments, create t hreaded discussions, and anchor individual comments and discus-
sion threads within the text. This adds layers of interactivity to reading practices and
shifts reading from a solitary activity into one that is social, “Support[ing] social
reading, group sensemaking, knowledge construction and community building” (Zhu
et al., 2020, p. 262).

144 J. Hodgson et al.
Zhu and colleagues (2020) provide the most comprehensive summary, to date, of
the social, technical, and pedagogical affordances of SA technologies. With concern
for the use of SA in both K-12 and higher education contexts, the authors reviewed
39 relevant studies and identified five types of activities that are s upported by SA.
These include processing domain-specific knowledge, supporting argumentation and
knowledge construction (e.g., Morales, Kalir, Fleerackers, & Alperin, 2022), prac-
ticing literacy skills, assessment and (peer) feedback, and connecting learning across
online spaces. Perhaps more critically, however, is that SA technologies enable rich
parallels between the act of reading and the values championed in the teaching of
writing, as with process-oriented pedagogy, peer-to-peer focused engagement, and
other practices rooted in the social epistemic frame. SA technologies render the
act of reading visible among a group, thereby enabling socially situated “first draft
thinking” practices for learners to read and write together (Kalir, 2020).
While functional specifications and pedagogical affordances characterize many
SA technologies, not all are created equal. Indeed, some social reading technologies
can be used to surveil student reading (Cohn & Kalir, 2022) or inadvertently exac-
erbate inequitable power relations (Bartley, 2022). In the next section, we explore
prominent SA technologies with a focus on those used in writing studies. Admit-
tedly, different SA technologies have different functional affordances. For example,
Hypothesis allows readers to add hyperlinks and embed visual media in annotations,
and to determine whether annotations are public or private. Others, like Perusall,
include AI-powered functions, like automated grading. There are also other anno-
tation applications (like Adobe Acrobat Pro or PowerNotes) that are SA adjacent;
they feature social functionality despite other primary tool uses. In these cases, SA-
adjacent annotation technologies may include a range of additional features (e.g.,
editing annotated artifacts, downloading notes with annotated texts), but often with
less dynamic social functionality that does not readily integrate within a LMS.
4 Main Products
In a recent review, Murphy (2021) noted that SA, also commonly referred to as collab-
orative annotation, has increased in popularity in the past few years. The advent of
cloud-based technologies, improvements in network structures, and greater degrees
(and ease) of access–as well as increased options within the technologies–have aided
in SA technologies being adopted across a range of instructional contexts (Ghadirian
et al., 2018; Murphy, 2021; Seatter, 2019). Moreover, there is a wide array of SA (and
SA-adjacent) technologies, stemming from a distributed history of production, from
university-supported designs, to non-profit tools, to commercial applications. These
technologies collectively feature a range of technical and social affordances, with
educators deploying various and complementary teaching strategies. It is prudent,
then, to categorically organize SA technologies to help identify core elements and
associated practices. Accordingly, we employ Murphy’s (2021) tripartite structure of
SA technologies–Open Web Collaborative Annotation tools; Document-based; and

Social Annotation: Promising Technologies and Practices in Writing 145
Publishing Platforms–complemented by our original commentary and reference to
relevant examples.
Open Web Collaborative Annotation tools allow readers to publicly and
privately annotate the Web. These technologies usually layer a minimal interface on
top of Web content and require browser plugins to access annotation layers. These SA
technologies bring annotation to an object to be annotated. The most common tools
in this category are Diigo and Hypothesis. Research about Diigo found that under-
graduate students prefered this SA technology to conventional discussion forums (in
an LMS), as SA practices guided learners’ attention to specific textual features and
created more focused peer interaction (Sun & Gao, 2017). Hypothesis is of particular
interest as both the technology and non-profit organization have actively shepherded
efforts toward creating the open annotation standard and interoperability between
annotation tools (Whaley, 2017). What makes Hypothesis of additional interest, as
Kalir (2019) has demonstrated, is that it supports readers’ multimodal expression,
turns texts into discursive contexts, provides users with an accessible information
infrastructure, and can help l earners visualize cognition and social interaction (see
also Morales et al., 2022). Hypothesis easily integrates with other open educational
initiatives and integrates well with Canvas, Blackboard, and Moodle, among other
LMS.
Document-based SA technologies allow annotators to upload files, such as PDFs,
into the technology whereby documents are converted for annotation. In contrast to
those in the former category, document-based SA technologies require users to bring
the object-to-be-annotated to the technology. Common tools in this category include:
Perusall, which is primarily used in higher education contexts (e.g., Miller et al.,
2018;Walker, 2019); NowComment, which supports K-12 literacy education (e.g.,
Fayne, Bijesse, Allison, & Rothstein, 2022); and HyLighter, which operates in both
educational and commercial settings. HyLighter uses data analytics to help annotators
make sense of annotations in context, as well as across contexts, allowing notes to be
brought together from multiple sources. Perusall, much like Hypothesis,integrates
with major LMS, such as Canvas and Blackboard. This integration (as with Open
Web Hypothesis above) can help reduce instructor and student onboarding, make
documents more easily accessible, and aid the coordination of SA activities.
Publishing Platforms, particularly scholarly publishing platforms, are a third
category of SA technology that allows readers to participate in peer review activities
associated with books (e.g., Fitzpatrick, 2011) and journal articles (e.g., Staines,
2018). Publishing platforms that offer SA functionality are similar to document-
based SA technologies, but the annotation features are built into the online platform:
requiring that both the annotator and the object-to-be-annotated go to the platform.
Common tools in this category include MITs PubPub platform used to support open
peer review of Data Feminism (D’Ignazio & Klein, 2020) and Open Knowledge
Institutions (Montgomery et al., 2021).
Complementing Murphy’s categories, there are several other reviews of SA tech-
nologies and research. For example, Ghadirian, Salehi, and Mohd Ayub (2018) track
the rise in research publications that focus on SA technologies, offer a critical distinc-
tion between text annotation tools like Microsoft Word and Adobe Acrobat versus

146 J. Hodgson et al.
SA technologies, and offer a thorough overview of HyLighter, Margelina, and Diigo.
Seatter (2019)reviewed Annotation Studio, Hypothesis, NowComment, Prism, and
Google Docs, evaluating each in terms of flexibility, usability, and sociality to assess
usefulness and applicability to pedagogical activities. Of additional note, Seatter
called for an increased focus on universal design and accessibility with open SA tech-
nologies, seeing more inclusive features as helping make Open Web SA technologies
“more objectively open technologies” (p. 10).
5 Research
Having identified a range of SA scholarship across disciplines, this section focuses
on research in writing studies. There is a rich history of scholars in composition
calling attention to the importance of reading (e.g., Haas & Flower, 1988; Horning,
1987; Joliffe, 2003, 2007;Wolfe, 2002b, 2008) and there has been renewed interest
in recent years (Carillo, 2015; Horning & Kraemer, 2013; Joliffe, 2017; Salvorti &
Donahue, 2016; Sullivan et al, 2017;). But the specific turn to SA practices and
technologies is relatively new, with only a handful of works fundamentally rooted in
SA considerations and/or their implications for student writing in composition and
English courses. Although we do not present a formal literature review, we identified
the following studies as being representative of recent efforts to incorporate SA in
writing studies. These collective works offer insight into:
•the “multiple reading lenses” students employ in first-year composition (Sprouse,
2018),
•the impact of SA on student writing and course outcomes (Walker, 2019),
•how SA technologies and practices alter students’ perceptions of reading and
writing (O’Dell, 2020),
•how SA technologies create opportunities for readerly-writing practices and allow
for textual amplification through readerly additions (Davis & Mueller, 2020)
•how SA technologies foster active collaboration among students and leave visual
traces of critical reading practices (Traester et al., 2021), and
•how SA technologies can help students s ituate writing in relation to knowledge
building practices (Sievers, 2021).
Sprouse (2018) identified reading as critical for students in composition but noted
that the practices students employ while reading remain invisible. Consequently, she
integrated Hypothesis into a first-year composition course and examined “multiple
reading lenses” that students employed to guide textual engagement. Analyzing more
than 1200 annotations generated by 18 students, Sprouse identified four reading
purposes in student annotation: reading for ideas, or understanding and use of ideas
in a text; rhetorical reading, or analyzing rhetorical choices and genre conventions;
critical reading, or cultural values in sociopolitical contexts; and aesthetic reading,
or personal connection to the text. She found that students often enacted multiple
and “overlapping” reading purposes in attending to complex reading, particularly in

Social Annotation: Promising Technologies and Practices in Writing 147
accounting for “writerly choices and their effects on readers” (p. 48). Sprouse’s case
documented how SA practices helped her, as the instructor, better assess the ways in
which students took up reading practices. Implications from her study suggest that
the visibility of student reading practices via SA allowed for better instruction and
responsive feedback, made students aware of their reading lenses, and strategically
oriented them to the ways in which they made sense of and used content from course
texts.
While Sprouse (2018) investigated student reading practices, Walker (2019)
studied the impact of SA technologies on student writing and course outcomes.
Over two academic years, Walker included Perusall in four sections of sophomore-
level English. Her study included 125 undergraduate students; 75 were in two course
sections that included SA activities, and 54 were in the control sections. Walker
collected data from Perusall (through the LMS) and from student surveys. The study
goal was to determine the degree to which artificial intelligence (AI) elements in
Perusall operated as pedagogical learning agents and helped students engage with
course readings. Her view was that the more students engaged in course readings,
the better they would be at leveraging those readings in their writing. While there are
some concerns with this study (e.g., no substantive critique of “AI-robo” tools with
heavy reliance on algorithms; little statistical difference in course outcomes given
AI-based grading), the main gesture of Walker’s findings suggests a positive correla-
tion between students’ use of Perusall and their final course grades. Walker’s findings
also echo related studies of SA technologies used in other disciplinary contexts (e.g.,
Gao, 2013; Kalir et al., 2020; Nokelainen et al., 2005) that demonstrate students’
positive statements about SA activities and technology in narrative reflections about
their learning.
O’Dell (2020) sought to better understand how SA technologies “alter student
perceptions of reading and writing” (p. 2), and, moreover, how this technology
impacted creative and collaborative writing practices in composition courses. From
2016–2019, O’Dell deployed Genius in five First-Year Writing Seminars, choosing
the tool because it was accessible, operated with an attractive, aligned interface
(i.e., Wolfe, 2008), encouraged collaboration, and mirrored social media practices
familiar to students. O’Dell replaced traditional reading responses with low-stake
Genius activities and encouraged students to “write down what they noticed and
what interested them [in a reading], t o bring in sources, to discuss their thoughts
with others, and to ultimately use these insights to help create an argument for their
essays” (p. 16). SA practices helped students to engage in close reading and gather
textual evidence and information they could consolidate and integrate into “long-
form writing” (ibid). Her analysis of survey data found that students perceived Genius
favorably; the tool made “it easier [for students] to organize and communicate their
ideas” (p. 2). O’Dell also discusses considerations for bringing digital technologies
into the composition classroom and provides a nuanced frame for thinking about the
inclusion of annotation technologies in writing courses.
Davis and Mueller’s (2020) essay considers the history of the page and the multi-
modality of texts as central to students’ composition practices. They argue that shifts
in materiality–and the means of textual production over the past 500 years–gradually

148 J. Hodgson et al.
shifted reading from a “readerly-writing” experience into more passive consumption.
However, they observe that digital technologies have “reinvigorated our attention to
the page” (p. 112), alongside related practices of interaction as with annotation.
They discuss how SA technologies have created opportunities for readerly-writing
practices and how acts of textual amplification through readerly additions invite a
reorientation of reading and writing pedagogies. But the act and space of textual
amplification itself has been amplified by SA technologies, which make “social
modes of readerly interaction” (p. 117) available and at speeds and scales never-
before encountered by the printed page. Indeed, SA tools like Hypothesis are rooted
in this idea of textual amplification by creating space (and a text-based interface), for
multiple users to extend the ideas of others’ writing, embed competing perspectives,
and enable a complexity of understanding.
Traester, Kervina, and Brathwaite’s (2021) study explored tool- and pedagogy-
based interventions as a response to “the challenges associated with critical reading
in the digital age” (p. 330). Each author integrated Hypothesis into their compo-
sition courses at three different institutional settings across the United States. The
study rejected the idea that digital mediums of reading “preclude critical reason-
ing” (p. 329). Moreover, the authors found that SA technologies can aid in students
building complex reading competencies and that annotation invites movement
between higher- and lower-order cognitive engagements. Further, SA technolo-
gies facilitate understanding, situate differing viewpoints in-text, and enable situ-
ated responses, enhancing cognitive engagement and helping to make meaningful
connections with texts/peers. Lastly, SA technologies can bridge close reading and
distant reading practices, blur the line between public and private domains, and lead
to personal reflection and to valuing reading as a way to (in)form a belief system.
Traester and colleagues (2021) further argued that the social dimension of Hypoth-
esis can “foster active and voluntary collaboration” among students, and that students
were inclined to “take on some of the more challenging tasks associated with expert
reading” (p. 346). Additionally, SA activities allowed students to leave “visible
traces” of their engagement within the text, “foreground[ing] the text in their conver-
sations,” and thereby creating a space “for more empathetic forms” of interaction
(p. 347).
Sievers’ (2021) s tudy of a general education literature course focused on the rela-
tionship of SA practices to student writing. Sievers’ case focuses on analyzed data
from a single undergraduate course in 2016. She found that SA technology Hypoth-
esis, “[w]hen used early in a student’s career” can help better habituate students to
“knowledge building through writing” and to “the collaborative, social, discursive
nature of interpretation” (p. 432). As course instructor, she observed how Hypothesis
moved up the work of interpretation and critical engagement (to “first encounters”
with a given text), allowed students to model critical reading processes for one
another, helped normalize the act of making inquiries and working through chal-
lenges (and doing so in open [i.e., public] ways), and situated knowledge making as
“a community effort” (p. 447). Further, Sievers suggests students’ SA activities influ-
enced subsequent essay writing: “Triangulating their papers with their annotations
and blog posts revealed […] close connections among these activities: their papers

Social Annotation: Promising Technologies and Practices in Writing 149
used textual quotations more and in more precise ways, drawing closely on observa-
tions and ideas first articulated in their annotations and short writing assignments”
(p. 447). Additional research should substantiate Sievers’ claim and determine how
SA activities influenced student writing; nonetheless, the overarching findings of
her study have important implications for SA technologies and practices in writing
courses.
6 Implications of this Technology for Writing Theory
and Practice
With the advent of better, faster, more accessible digital tools, applications, and
infrastructures, we have seen digital technologies have a major impact on how we
teach composition. Moreover, with an increasing attention on digital literacy and
digital creativity in higher education, there has also been a shift in what we teach
in composition, in our learning outcomes, and in the architecture of our writing
programs (Porter, 2009). This augmentation, reflective of an increasingly digital
culture, places greater emphasis on digital ways of knowing, doing, and making
(Hodgson, 2019) and invites the development of new pedagogies rooted not only
in digital forms and functions, but also with a continued (and growing) interest in
collaborative and interactive methods of learning (Kim & Bagaka, 2005). Or, as Gao
(2013) put it, we are undergoing a shift in focus in higher education: moving from
“learner-content interaction to learner-learner interaction” (p. 76). The challenge
then is not if writing teachers will embrace digital technologies in the classroom, but
rather how we come to understand the impact particular technologies have on the
range of practices, purposes, and pedagogies we employ.
To this end, there is a wide assortment of possibilities for how SA technologies may
change writing with respect to well-established characteristics and key considerations
facing writing studies and practices.
First, SA technologies are particularly well-suited for low-stakes assignments that
provide situated writing opportunities in texts as discursive contexts. Conventional
reading responses, such as posts to a discussion forum, can be replaced with SA
activities that allow students to move away from summative responses to analyze
specific details, phrases, genre-specific conventions, and authorial choices. Addi-
tionally, SA technologies do not do away with discussion forums, but rather provide
tools for anchoring threaded discussions in the text itself. This creates an opportunity
to invite more complexity in student reading and thinking, as situating writing in-
text offers a means for deeper reading engagements (O’Dell, 2020). When peers and
instructors work through student annotations, they can prompt additional exploration
by responding to an annotation, asking a question, pushing back against a particular
perspective, and constructing new insight together (e.g., Morales et al., 2022).
SA technologies, then, provide an avenue through which to invite more complexity
in student reading and thinking by (1) allowing writing teachers to situate rhetorical

150 J. Hodgson et al.
inquiries in-text for students and (2) letting students respond to those inquiries in
writing and, in some cases, through networked and layered media, all anchored in
textual context.
Second, SA technologies have the capacity to enable high-quality feedback and
support. Instructors can provide meaningful feedback about course readings by
engaging with students’ annotations and by situating inquiries and commentary
directly in the text for students. Doing so can prompt further consideration, refocus
analysis that may be off target, confirm lines of thought, and offer additional insight
and expertise. Moreover, while SA technologies are primarily rooted in the kinds of
reading practices students enact in writing classrooms, they can also be used among
learners to facilitate peer review of their writing, allowing reviewers to anchor their
feedback directly in the text as well.
Finally, SA technologies expand the physical margins of a text by adding a
digital layer through which student annotations can be placed in the text and into
conversation with others’ annotations. As discussed, annotations may be multi-
modal and hyperlinked to other media or resources, crafting a multimedia tapestry
for meaning making practices. SA technologies create new spaces for multimodal
writing and composition, for content engagement, and for peer-to-peer collaboration.
When thoughtfully implemented in coursework, SA technologies can effectively help
readers to focus on writing quality as a part of their annotation process. Further, the
planned pairing of SA technologies and writing practices can help students better
understand texts, aid clarity and coherence in subsequent writing activities, and can
expose students to a range of writing styles and strategies. SA technologies can make
a critical impact on student writing and reading practices and have the potential to
improve the quality and complexity of student learning.
7 List of Tools
Annotation Studio A suite of collaborative
web-based annotation
tools under development
at MIT
https://www.annotationstudio.org/
Diigo An abbreviation for
“Digest of Internet
Information, Groups and
Other stuff,” is an online
platform that is intended
to “streamline the
information workflow”
through the organization,
annotation, and sharing of
online resources
https://www.diigo.com/
(continued)

Social Annotation: Promising Technologies and Practices in Writing 151
(continued)
Genius A music encyclopedia
where users annotate
song lyrics
https://genius.com/
HyLighter A web-based annotation
tool that allows for
marking up digital texts
and sharing comments
and notes with other users
https://www.hylighter.com/
Hypothesis Open-source software
that affords “a
conversation layer over
the entire web that works
everywhere, without
needing implementation
by any underlying site.”
https://web.hypothes.is/
Marginalia An open source web
annotation system used to
enrich online discussion.
It works with various web
browsers and allows users
to highlight text and write
margin notes. The
program is a successor
created by Geof Glass to
Andrew Feenburg and
Cindy Xin’s TextWeaver
http://webmarginalia.net/
NowComment A free platform primarily
used in K-12 educational
contexts that provides a
platform “for group
discussion, annotation,
and curation of texts,
images, and videos.”
https://nowcomment.com/
Open Review Toolkit Open source software that
facilitates open review by
allowing users to c onvert
book manuscripts into a
website
https://www.openreviewtoolkit.org/
Perusall A social-reading platform
that integrates with LMS
and allows students and
teachers to digitally
annotate texts
https://perusall.com/
(continued)

152 J. Hodgson et al.
(continued)
PowerNotes A digital notetaking
platform that allows for
annotation of digital
texts, source management
practices, and
note-downloading
capabilities
https://powernotes.com/
Prism A tool for crowdsourcing
interpretation by allowing
shared mark-up and with
each being categorized:
creating a visualization of
engagement with the text
http://prism.scholarslab.org/
PubPub An open-source
publishing platform for
knowledge communities
https://www.pubpub.org/
References
Allred, J., Hochstetler, S., & Goering, C. (2020). “I love this insight, Mary Kate!”: Social annotation
across two ELA methods classes. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Educa-
tion, 20(2). https://citejournal.org/volume-20/issue-2-20/english-language-arts/i-love-this-ins
ight-mary-kate-social-annotation-across-two-ela-methods-classes
Barney, S. A. (Ed.). (1991). Annotation and its texts. Oxford University Press.
Bartley, R. (2022). Social annotation and student learning. Making Digital History. https://making
digitalhistory.co.uk/2022/04/27/social-annotation-and-student-learning/
Bryant, J. (2002). The fluid text: A theory of revision and editing for book and screen.Universityof
Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.12024
Carillo, E. C. (2015). Securing a place for reading in composition: The importance of teaching for
transfer. Utah State University Press.
Carpenter, T. A. (2013). iAnnotate—Whatever happened to the web as an annotation system?
The Scholarly Kitchen. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/04/30/iannotate-whatever-hap
pened-to-the-web-as-an-annotation-system/
Chan, J. W. W., & Pow, J. W. C. (2020). The role of social annotation in facilitating collaborative
inquiry-based learning. Computers & Education, 147, 103787.
Cohn, J. (2021). Skim, dive, surface: Teaching digital reading. West Virginia University Press.
Cohn, J., & Kalir, R. (2022). Why we need a socially responsible approach to ‘social
reading.’ The Hechinger Report. https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-why-we-need-a-socially-
responsible-approach-to-social-reading/
D’Ignazio, C., & Klein, L. F. (2020). Data feminism. MIT Press.
Davis, M., & Mueller, A. (2020). The places of writing on the multimodal page. In Pegeen Reichert
Powell (Ed.), Writing changes: Alphabetic text and multimodal composition (pp. 103–122).
Eryilmaz, E., van der Pol, J., Ryan, T., Clark, P. M., & Mary, J. (2013). Enhancing student knowledge
acquisition from online learning conversations. International Journal of Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning, 8(1), 113–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-012-9163-y
Fayne, H., Bijesse, T., Allison, P., & Rothstein, A. (2022). Multimodal literacy and creative
computing badges in a teacher quality partnership residency program: Putting P-12 students at

Social Annotation: Promising Technologies and Practices in Writing 153
the center right from the start. In Yi Huang (Ed.), Handbook of research on credential innovations
for inclusive pathways to professions (pp. 300–312).
Fitzpatrick, K. (2011). Planned obsolescence: Publishing, technology, and the future of the academy.
NYU Press.
Gao, F. (2013). A case study of using a social annotation tool to support collaboratively learning.
Internet and Higher Education, 17(1), 76–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.11.002
Gao, F., Zhang, T., & Franklin, T. (2013). Designing asynchronous online discussion environments:
Recent progress and possible future directions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(3),
469–483. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01330.x
Ghadirian, H., Salehi, K., & Ayub, A. F. M. (2018). Social annotation tools in higher education: A
preliminary systematic review. International Journal of Learning Technology, 13(2), 130–162.
Haas, C., & Flower, L. (1988). Rhetorical reading strategies and the construction of meaning.
College Composition and Communication, 39(2), 167–183.
Hodgson, J. (2019). Post-digital rhetoric and the new aesthetic.OhioState UP. https://doi.org/10.
26818/9780814213940
Horning, A. S. (1987). The trouble with writing is the trouble with reading. Journal of Basic Writing,
6(1), 36–47.
Horning, A. S., & Kraemer, E. W. (Eds.). (2013). Reconnecting reading and writing. Parlor Press.
Jackson, H. J. (2001). Marginalia: Readers writing in books. Yale University Press.
Jolliffe, D. A. (2003). Who is teaching composition students to read and how are they doing it?
Composition Studies, 31(1), 127–142.
Jolliffe, D. A. (2007). Learning to read as continuing education. College Composition and
Communication, 58(3), 470–494.
Jolliffe, D. A. (2017). ‘Learning to read as continuing education’ revisited: An active decade,
but much remains to be done. In Patrick Sullivan, Howard B.Tinberg, & Sheridan D. Blau
(Eds.), Deep reading: Teaching reading in the writing classroom (pp. 3–22). National Council
of Teachers of English.
Jones, B. L. (2015). Collective learning resources: Connecting social-learning practices in
deviantART to art education. Studies in Art Education, 56(4), 341–354.
Kalir, J. (2019). Open web annotation as collaborative learning. First Monday, 24(6). https://doi.
org/10.5210/fm.v24i6.9318
Kalir, J. H. (2020). Social annotation enabling collaboration for open learning. Distance Education,
41(2), 245–260.
Kalir, J. H., Morales, E., Fleerackers, A., & Alperin, J. P. (2020). “When I saw my peers annotat-
ing”: Student perceptions of social annotation for learning in multiple courses. Information and
Learning Sciences, 121(3/4), 207–230. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-12-2019-0128
Kalir, R., & Garcia, A. (2021). Annotation. The MIT Press.
Kapiszewski, D., & Karcher, S. (2021). Empowering transparency: Annotation for transparent
inquiry (ATI). PS: Political Science & Politics, 54(3), 473–478. https://doi.org/10.1017/S10490
96521000287
Kim, S. H., & Bagaka, J. (2005). The digital divide in students’ usage of technology tools: A
multilevel analysis of the role of teacher practices and classroom characteristics. Contemporary
Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(3/4), 318–329.
Marshall, C. C., & Brush, A. J. B. (2004). Exploring the relationship between personal and public
annotations. Proceedings of the 2004 Joint ACM/IEEE Conference on Digital Libraries, 2004,
349–357. https://doi.org/10.1109/JCDL.2004.1336148
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2010.
500537
Miller, K., Lukoff, B., King, G., & Mazur, E. (2018). Use of a social annotation platform for pre-
class reading assignments in a flipped introductory physics class. Frontiers in Education, 3,
1–12.

154 J. Hodgson et al.
Montgomery, L., Hartley, J., Neylon, C., Gillies, M., Gray, E., Herrmann-Pillath, C., Huang, C.,
Leach, J., Potts, J., Ren, X., Skinner, K., Sugimoto, C. R., & Wilson, K. (2021). Open knowledge
institutions: Reinventing universities. MIT Press.
Morales, E., Kalir, J. H., Fleerackers, A., & Alperin, J. P. (2022). Using social annotation to construct
knowledge with others: A case study across undergraduate courses. F1000Research, 11(235).
Murphy, J. A. (2021). Collaborative annotation: Tools for enhancing learning and scholarly
communication. Serials Review, 1–6,. https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2021.1986917
Nichols, B. (1991). Representing reality: Issues and concepts in documentary. IU Press.
Nokelainen, P., Miettinen, M., Kurhila, J., Floréen, P., & Tirri, H. (2005). A shared document-based
annotation tool to support learner-centered collaborative learning. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 36, 757–770.
Novak, E., Razzouk, R., & Johnson, T. E. (2012). The educational use of social annotation tools in
higher education: A literature review. Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 39–49.
O’Dell, K. (2020). Modern marginalia: Using digital annotation in the composition classroom.
Computers and Composition, 56,. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2020.102570
Piper, A. (2012). Book was there: Reading in electronic times. The University of Chicago Press.
Porter, J. E. (2009). Recovering delivery for digital rhetoric. Computers and Composition, 26 (4),
207–224.
Salvatori, M. R., & Donahue, P. (2016). Reading [Special issue]. Pedagogy: Critical Approaches
to Teaching Literature, Language, Composition, and Culture, 16 (1).
Seatter, L. (2019). Towards open annotation: Examples and experiments. KULA: Knowledge
Creation, Dissemination, and Preservation Studies, 3(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.5334/kula.49
Siemens, R., Arbuckle, A., Seatter, L., El Khatib, R., & El Hajj, T. (2017). The value of plurality
in ‘The network with a thousand entrances.’ International Journal of Humanities and Arts
Computing, 11(2), 153–173.
Sievers, J. (2021). Writing between the lines: Teaching Digital Reading with Social Annotation in
an Introductory Literature Course. Pedagogy, 21(3), 427–453.
Sommers, N. (2006). Across the drafts. College Composition and Communication, 58 (2).
Sprouse, M. L. (2018). Social annotation and layered readings in composition. Proceedings of the
2018 Computers & Writing Conference, 39–52.
Staines, H. (2018). Hypothesis and the center for open science collaborate on annotation.
Hypothes.is. https://web.hypothes.is/blog/cos-launch/
Staines, H. (2019). What’s happening with open annotation? Discoverability, engagement, commu-
nity. Learned Publishing, 32(2), 177–180.
Stauffer, A. M. (2021). Book traces: Nineteenth-century readers and the future of the library.
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Sullivan, P., Tinberg, H. B., & Blau, S. D. (Eds.). (2017). Deep reading: Teaching reading in the
writing classroom. National Council of Teachers of English.
Sun, Y., & Gao, F. (2017). Comparing the use of a social annotation tool and a threaded discussion
forum to support online discussions. The Internet and Higher Education, 32, 72–79.
Traester, M., Kervina, C., & Brathwaite, N. H. (2021). Pedagogy to disrupt the echo chamber: Digital
annotation as critical community to promote active reading. Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to
Teaching Literature, Language, Composition, and Culture, 21(2), 329–349.
Unsworth, J. (2000, May 13). Scholarly primitives: What methods do humanities researchers have in
common, and how might our tools reflect this. Paper presented at the Symposium on Humanities
Computing: Formal Methods, Experimental Practice at King’s College. Accessed 1 October,
2022. https://www.people.virginia.edu/~jmu2m/Kings.5-00/primitives.html
Upson-Saia, K., & Scott, S. (2013). Using iAnnotate to enhance feedback on written work. Journal
of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 43–59.
Walker, A. S. (2019). Perusall: Harnessing AI robo-tools and writing analytics to improve student
learning and increase instructor efficiency. Journal of Writing Analytics, 3, 227–263.
Whaley, D. (2017, February 24). Annotation is now a web standard. Hypothesis. https://web.hyp
othes.is/blog/annotation-is-now-a-web-standard/

Social Annotation: Promising Technologies and Practices in Writing 155
Wolfe, J. (2002a). Annotation technologies: A software and research review. Computers and
Composition, 19(4), 471–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/S8755-4615(02)00144-5
Wolfe, J. (2002b). Marginal pedagogy: How annotated texts affect a writing-from-sources task.
Written Communication, 19(2), 297–333.
Wolfe, 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(2), 141–164.
Zhu, X., Chen, B., Avadhanam, R. M., Shui, H., & Zhang, R. Z. (2020). Reading and connecting:
Using social annotation in online classes. Information and Learning Science, 121(5/6), 261–271.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-04-2020-0117
Justin Hodgson is Associate Professor of Digital Rhetoric in English at IU Bloomington and
founding editor of the Journal for Undergraduate Multimedia Projects (jumpplus.net). His research
explores the intersections of rhetoric and writing studies, digital learning and digital pedagogy,
play and game theory, and art and aesthetics, and his monograph, Post-Digital Rhetoric and
the New Aesthetic (Ohio State University Press) examines how shifts in the human-technology
assemblage invite different approaches to the study and teaching of writing. His scholarship has
appeared in Kairos, Composition Studies, and Enculturation, among other journals.
Jeremiah Kalir is an Associate Professor of Learning Design and Technology at the Univer-
sity of Colorado Denver School of Education and Human Development. His research—which
spans literacy education, the learning sciences, and teacher education—examines how annota-
tion facilitates social, collaborative, and justice-directed learning. Kalir’s monograph, Annota-
tion (MIT Press), introduces annotation as a genre that is significant to scholarship and everyday
life. His scholarship has appeared in the Journal of Literacy Research, Information and Learning
Sciences, Research in the Teaching of English, Distance Education, and English Journal, among
other journals.
Chris Andrews is a PhD Candidate in the Learning Sciences program at Indiana University—
Bloomington. His dissertation research focuses on how college instructors use the collaborative
annotation software, Hypothesis, within their online courses and the processes and contexts that
influenced their decision-making regarding annotation use. Prior to his doctoral studies, he taught
high school media and technology classes (i.e., video production, TV broadcasting, digital media,
and photography) for seven years in Utah.
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.