Text Marking¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · no claims cited

Description¶

Text marking asks learners to interact physically or digitally with a text while reading: underlining key claims, circling unknown vocabulary, numbering steps in an argument, or applying a symbol code (e.g., ✓ for evidence, ? for confusion, ★ for main idea). Unlike passive highlighting, effective text marking is governed by an explicit purpose or code, making it a generative activity that forces selection, evaluation, and organization of ideas Annotating.

Design Implications¶

Text marking converts reading from passive reception into generative processing: learners must decide what matters and why, which produces better comprehension and recall than re-reading or unstructured highlighting [~M]. The critical distinction is structure — unguided highlighting is among the least effective study techniques, largely because learners mark too much and confuse fluency with understanding [-S], whereas code-driven or question-driven marking that requires evaluation of the text yields reliable gains [+M].

Context¶

Requirements¶

• A clear marking purpose tied to the learning goal (find the claim, trace the argument, locate evidence)
• A limited, taught symbol code or annotation scheme — learners must be shown how to mark before being asked to do it (Modeling of an annotated text helps)
• Texts complex enough to reward marking; marking trivial texts adds effort without benefit
• A follow-up use for the marks (discussion, writing, Summarization) so annotation serves a downstream task

Constraints¶

• Unguided highlighting is weak: learners over-mark, and the motor act of highlighting creates an illusion of mastery without deeper processing [-S]
• Over-reliance on marking can substitute for the harder work of summarizing or self-explaining; marking should complement, not replace, Self-Explanation
• Excessive codes or categories overload working memory and degrade the reading itself [~M]
• Benefits shrink for skilled readers with strong domain knowledge, who already mark selectively and may find imposed codes constraining [~W]

Implementation Variability¶

• Symbol codes (e.g., Reading with Meaning routines, AVID's marking-the-text): consistent symbols for claims, evidence, transitions
• Question-driven marking: mark only what answers a given focus question
• Structured annotation protocols: sentence-level tasks such as numbering the steps of a procedure or bracketing an argument's premises and conclusion
• Digital annotation: tools like Perusall and Hypothesis add social layers, letting learners see and respond to peers' marks

Target Learners¶

• Adolescent and adult readers of disciplinary texts (science, history, legal, technical) where identifying argument structure matters [+M]
• Struggling or unselective readers who highlight everything; an imposed code forces discrimination [+M]
• Less suitable for beginning readers still decoding, for whom marking competes with basic word recognition [~W]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Comprehension monitoring and identification of text structure
• Evidence selection in support of argumentation or writing tasks
• Close-reading disciplinary practices (what counts as a claim, a warrant, a counterexample)

Instructions¶

1. Set a purpose: state the focus question or what readers should be hunting for.
2. Teach the code: show a short marked excerpt, thinking aloud about each mark (Demonstration).
3. Limit the code to 3–5 symbols to protect working memory (Cognitive Load Management).
4. Learners mark the text independently, applying the code (Annotating).
5. Use the marks: pairs compare and justify their markings, or marks feed directly into a writing or discussion task (Collaborative Learning).
6. Fade the code over time, shifting learners toward self-selected marking strategies (Fading).

Related Strategies¶

• Annotating — the broader element; text marking is a structured, code-governed form of it
• Summarization — marks provide the raw material for a summary
• Close Reading — repeated-read protocols that often embed text marking
• Reciprocal Teaching — includes predicting and clarifying moves that marking can support

Examples¶

• AVID "Marking the Text" — a college-readiness routine used across thousands of schools: number paragraphs, circle key terms, underline claims (https://www.avid.org)
• Perusall — social annotation platform where students' marks and comments on shared readings are visible to peers and graded for engagement (https://www.perusall.com)
• Hypothesis — open web annotation used in many university courses for collaborative markup of assigned readings (https://web.hypothes.is)
• AP seminar / DBQ training — students code document excerpts for sourcing and evidence before writing argumentative 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
• 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
• Ponce, H. R., Mayer, R. E., & Méndez, E. E. (2022). Effects of learner-generated highlighting and instructor-provided highlighting on learning from text: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 34, 989–1024. doi:10.1007/s10648-021-09654-1
• Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.