Highlighting Strategy with Add-on Tool¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 4 claims (3 for, 1 mixed) · 8 studies (3 causal, 2 quant-synthesis, 2 review, 1 associational), q2–q4 · 1 of 8 report an effect size · 2 claims rest on one study

Description¶

Students use a Google Doc add-on tool to create individualized highlighters in different colors over a shared text. For example, all text supporting "Argument #1" might be highlighted red, evidence for "Argument #2" green, and so on. Highlights can be exported by color into a table that gathers all ideas in each category; students then add a column in which they write summaries of everything in that highlighted category, converting an attention-directing act into a generative one.

Design Implications¶

Highlighting is best understood as an attention strategy, not a learning strategy in itself: emphasis directs attention to relevant information Emphasis and relevance cues direct attention during reading. [+M], but learning gains come from what students do next. Unstructured highlighting is one of the least effective study techniques Student-generated underlining is often no better than experimenter-provided underlining and can produce illusions of competence. [~M]; the add-on workflow improves on plain highlighting by (a) imposing a category scheme before reading, (b) making the highlighting visible and exportable, and (c) requiring a written summary per category, which adds the generative processing that highlighting alone lacks Self-explanation improves conceptual understanding beyond re-reading. [+S].

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Access to Google Docs and a highlighting add-on (e.g., Highlight Tool), plus time for reading, highlighting, and summarizing
• A teacher- or student-defined category scheme (color legend) established before reading — categories should map to the analytical goal (claims, evidence, counterarguments, rhetorical moves)
• A text complex enough to warrant categorization but within learners' reading range
• A summarization step; export tables without the added summary column leave students with sorted text but little learning

Constraints¶

• Highlighting alone is a low-utility technique: students who only highlight tend to treat selection as learning and show poor inference-making Student-generated underlining is often no better than experimenter-provided underlining and can produce illusions of competence. [-M] — the summary column is not optional
• Over-highlighting (marking more than roughly 20–30% of the text) eliminates the attention-directing benefit Emphasis and relevance cues direct attention during reading. [-M]
• Novices often highlight what looks important (topic sentences, bold terms) rather than what serves the analytical goal; without a category scheme and modeling, colors become decorative
• Requires device access and add-on installation permissions, which some school IT environments restrict

Implementation Variability¶

• Teacher-defined vs. student-defined categories: begin with a given legend; as expertise grows, have students devise their own categories — a shift from Scaffolding toward independence
• Collaborative highlighting: groups highlight a shared document, then compare and defend divergent selections in discussion
• Cross-text synthesis: students highlight multiple sources with the same color scheme, then use the exported tables to compare evidence across texts
• Analog tools: the same color-code-then-summarize sequence works with physical highlighters and a three-column chart when devices are unavailable

Target Learners¶

• Middle school, high school, and adult learners building reading comprehension and analysis skills
• Students who highlight indiscriminately and need an external structure to force selective, goal-directed marking Emphasis and relevance cues direct attention during reading. [+M]
• Multilingual learners, when paired with Accessible Vocabulary & Syntax in text selection — the color legend doubles as a language scaffold
• Less beneficial for advanced readers who already categorize fluently; for them the table export may feel like busywork Student-generated underlining is often no better than experimenter-provided underlining and can produce illusions of competence. [~W]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Reading comprehension: identifying and organizing key information in expository or argumentative text
• Analysis: distinguishing claim types, evidence, and rhetorical functions within a text
• Summarization and synthesis: producing category-level summaries from exported highlights Self-explanation improves conceptual understanding beyond re-reading. [+S]
• Metacognition: making students' selection decisions visible and discussable

Instructions¶

1. Set the category scheme. Define 3–5 colors mapped to analytical categories (e.g., red = claim, green = supporting evidence, blue = counterargument). Fewer categories keep working memory load manageable Chunking reduces working memory load. [+M]
2. Model the strategy. Demonstrate highlighting one paragraph aloud, explaining why a sentence earns a color and why a tempting one does not (Think-Aloud)
3. Read and highlight. Students apply the legend to the shared Google Doc using the add-on's individualized highlighters
4. Export by color. Use the add-on to generate a table of all highlights grouped by category
5. Summarize each category. Students add a column and write a summary of the ideas in each color — this is where learning happens Self-explanation improves conceptual understanding beyond re-reading. [+S]
6. Discuss and compare. Students compare highlight patterns with peers; divergent selections become the basis for Class Discussion
7. Provide feedback. Review highlights and summaries for accuracy and completeness (Assess Performance)

Related Strategies¶

• "Headings and Highlight" Strategy — the same text-marking logic using document structure instead of color categories
• Annotating — the broader principle this strategy instantiates; highlighting is annotation constrained to a category scheme
• 3-Source Rule — pairs well when students highlight across multiple texts with a shared legend

Examples¶

• Argument analysis in ELA: students highlight a persuasive essay (claims / evidence / counterarguments), export by color, and write a per-category summary that becomes a draft of an analytical paragraph
• Primary-source work in history: a shared document of excerpts from multiple sources, color-coded by perspective; exported tables let students compare how each source frames the same event
• Highlight Tool (Google Workspace Marketplace) — the add-on that provides individualized color sets and export-to-table functionality

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. (2022). Study activities that foster generative learning: Notetaking, graphic organizer, and questioning. Journal of Educational Research — see also Ponce, H. R., Mayer, R. E., et al. (2020). Study activities that foster generative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (digital highlighting and note-taking research)
• Chi, M. T. H., et al. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18(3), 439–477. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1803_3
• Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 261–292. doi:10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5 }