Annotating Texts¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 5 claims (2 for, 2 mixed, 1 against) · 10 studies (4 causal, 3 review, 2 quant-synthesis, 1 theoretical), q1–q4 · 3 of 10 report an effect size · 1 claim rests on one study

Description¶

Annotating texts is a reading strategy in which learners actively mark up a text while reading — highlighting or underlining key ideas, writing margin notes, coding with symbols, posing questions, or summarizing passages in their own words. It converts passive reading into generative processing: the reader must decide what matters, why it matters, and how it connects to prior knowledge. Annotation can be learner-generated or instructor-provided (e.g., pre-annotated exemplars or embedded prompts), and ranges from simple marking to structured schemes (claim/evidence/question codes).

Design Implications¶

Annotation works because it forces selection and organization of ideas rather than verbatim rereading, but its effectiveness depends on how learners annotate: marking alone is weak, while annotation that requires elaboration (paraphrasing, questioning, connecting) is strong Ponce et al. (2020) meta-analysis [+M]. Instructor-provided highlighting can help novices by modeling what experts select, but learners who construct their own annotations generally show deeper comprehension than those given pre-made ones Learner-constructed graphic organizers outperform provided ones. [+M]. Underlining and highlighting as practiced by students is among the least effective study techniques when used without elaboration Dunlosky et al. (2013) [-S] — the marking itself must be paired with generative written response to pay off.

Context¶

Requirements¶

• A text worth annotating: dense enough that selection matters, and reusable (print, PDF, or annotation-capable platform)
• An explicit annotation scheme or rubric, especially for novices — what to mark, how many marks, and what written notes should do
• Instruction or modeling of expert annotation before independent use (Think-Aloud demonstration of an expert marking a passage)
• A follow-up use for the annotations (discussion, writing, exam prep) so learners see them as functional, not decorative
• A text worth engaging with closely (dense, concept-laden, or argumentative)
• Explicit instruction in annotation moves: what to mark, how to code, what to write in margins
• A purpose or task that the annotation serves (discussion prep, writing, problem-solving)
• For social annotation: a platform and norms for responding to peers' notes

Constraints¶

• Untrained highlighting is near-useless or harmful: learners mark too much, confuse emphasis with understanding, and reread highlighted text instead of self-testing Dunlosky et al. (2013) [-S]
• Over-marking eliminates the selection benefit — if everything is highlighted, nothing is Experimenter underlining can be effective when selective, but student underlining often is not. [~M]
• Annotation adds cognitive load for novices who lack the background to judge relevance; without a scheme, marking competes with comprehension Chunking reduces working memory load. [~M]
• Copying or paraphrasing annotations from provided notes without engaging the text produces shallow processing [~M]
• Over-marking eliminates the selection benefit — if everything is highlighted, nothing is prioritized; visual salience effects are unreliable guides to importance Marking text based on salience does not reliably improve learning of the marked content. [~W]
• Novices often highlight details rather than main ideas, because they cannot yet distinguish them
• Heavy annotation demands can overload working memory for difficult texts or struggling readers Cognitive overload from excessive concurrent demands degrades comprehension. [-M]

Implementation Variability¶

• Structured codes: claim/evidence/question or +/!/ ? schemes that standardize what marks mean
• Margin summarization: one-sentence gist per paragraph or section, a generative form with stronger evidence than marking alone [+M]
• Instructor-provided annotation: pre-highlighted or annotated exemplars as models, faded over time
• Social annotation: shared annotation layers (e.g., Perusall, Hypothesis) where learners read and respond to each other's margin notes
• Digital annotation: tools like Hypothesis, Perusall, and Kindle notes enable search, aggregation, and reuse of marks
• Structured codes: symbols for claim/evidence/question/confusion (e.g., "Say Something" or SOAPStone protocols)
• Question-annotating: learners write questions in margins rather than statements, priming discussion
• Social annotation: shared markup where learners see and reply to peers' annotations (Perusall, Hypothesis)
• Teacher-modeled annotation: instructor annotates a short passage live, thinking aloud, before learners annotate independently
• Annotation as assessment: graded annotation quality replaces reading quizzes

Target Learners¶

• Intermediate readers who can decode fluently but need to learn disciplinary selection criteria; complete novices need a provided scheme first [~M]
• Students preparing for writing or discussion tasks, where annotations serve as raw material
• Less beneficial for beginning readers, for whom annotation competes with decoding for limited working-memory resources [~M]
• Adolescent and adult readers with decoding fluency, who can devote working memory to comprehension strategies Automatic word recognition frees resources for comprehension strategies. [+M]
• Students preparing for discussion, writing, or exams who need a durable record of engagement
• Less suitable as an untaught expectation: learners must be trained in annotation moves before independent use

Target Learning Goals¶

• Comprehension and retention of expository text: identifying main ideas and supporting detail [+M]
• Disciplinary reading practices: learning what experts in a field notice and question
• Preparation for synthesis tasks: annotations as scaffolding for essays, Class Discussion, and Argument Construction
• Comprehension and close reading of complex texts
• Self-regulated learning: monitoring understanding and flagging confusion
• Preparation for discussion, argumentation, and evidence-based writing

Instructions¶

1. Model the practice: annotate a short passage on a shared display, thinking aloud about selection criteria (Think-Aloud).
2. Provide a simple scheme (e.g., underline = main idea; margin ? = confusion; margin ! = surprising or important) and a quota (e.g., no more than 10–15% marked) to force selection.
3. Require a generative component: a margin paraphrase, question, or connection for each marked passage — marking alone is insufficient [-S].
4. Have learners use the annotations within 24–48 hours for a discussion, summary, or self-quiz, converting marks into retrieval practice.
5. Fade the scheme: shift from instructor-specified codes to learner-designed annotation as expertise grows, and compare learner annotations against an expert-annotated exemplar to calibrate.

Related Strategies¶

• Close Reading — annotation is the primary tool of close reading; the scheme here supplies its method
• Self-Questioning — margin questions are annotation in its most generative form
• Summarization — margin gists are micro-summaries; both force selection and restatement
• Retrieval Practice — annotations become prompts for later self-testing, which is where retention gains materialize
• Close Reading protocols — annotation is the core move in most close-reading routines
• Reciprocal Teaching — shares the predict/question/clarify/summarize moves that annotation externalizes
• Marginalia discussion — social annotation as the discussion medium itself

Examples¶

• Perusall (https://www.perusall.com) — social annotation platform where students annotate course readings collaboratively and AI-scored annotation quality feeds into grading; used widely in flipped and large-enrollment courses.
• Hypothesis (https://web.hypothes.is) — open web annotation layer used in LMS-integrated reading assignments, enabling instructor-seeded annotation prompts.
• AP/IB disciplinary reading protocols — history and English courses using claim/evidence/question annotation codes on primary sources before seminar discussion.
• Reading Apprenticeship (https://readingapprenticeship.org) — WestEd professional-development framework that trains teachers to model metacognitive text annotation across disciplines.
• Perusall — social annotation platform where students annotate course readings collaboratively and the system scores annotation quality; widely used in higher-ed STEM courses.
• Hypothesis — open web annotation used in LMS-integrated reading assignments.
• AP/Dual-enrollment English classrooms — structured annotation of rhetoric (SOAPStone: Speaker, Occasion, Audience, Purpose, Subject, Tone) as preparation for argument analysis essays.

Key Sources¶

• Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students' learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58. doi:10.1177/1529100612453266
• Ponce, H. R., Mayer, R. E., & Méndez, E. E. (2020). Effects of learner-generated highlighting and instructor-provided highlighting on learning from text: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 34(2), 989–1024. doi:10.1007/s10648-021-09654-1
• Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243. doi:10.1080/00461520.2014.965823
• Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

• Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students' learning with effective learning techniques. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58. doi:10.1177/1529100612453266
• Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M.-H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18(3), 439–477. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1803_3
• Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Zywica, J., & Gomez, K. (2008). Annotating to support learning in the content areas: Teaching and learning science. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(2), 155–165. doi:10.1598/JAAL.52.2.6