Annotations and the collaborative digital library: Effects of an aligned annotation interface on student argumentation and reading strategies

International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning

Volumn 3, Issue , 2008, Pages 141-164

  Wolfe, Joanna ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE   (United States)

Author keywords

Anchored discussion; Annotation; Computer supported argumentation; Digital libraries; Persistent conversation; Reading interfaces; Reading to write

Indexed keywords

EID: 42649119412     PISSN: 15561607     EISSN: 15561615     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11412-008-9040-x     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Agosti, M., Ferro, N., Panizzi, E., & Trinchese, R. (2006). Annotation as a support to user interaction for content enhancement in digital libraries. Proceedings of the working conference on Advanced visual interfaces. Venezia, Italy: ACM.
2. Brush, A., Bageron, D., Grudin, J., Borning, A., & Gupta, A. (2002). Supporting interaction outside of class: Anchored disccusionss vs. Discussion boards. Paper presented at the Proceedings of CSCL 2002.
3. Cabanac, G., Chevalier, M., Chrisment, C., & Julien, C. (2007). Collective annotation: Perspectives for information retrieval improvement, RIAO 2007. Pittsburgh, PA.
4. Charney, D. (1993). A study in rhetorical reading: How evolutionists read “the spandrels of san marco”. In J. Selzer (Ed.) Understanding scientific prose (pp. 203–230). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
5. Elbow, P. (1993). Ranking, evaluating, and liking: Sorting out three forms of judgment. College English, 55 (2), 187–206.
6. Flower, L. (1979). Writer-based prose: A cognitive basis for problems in writing. College English, 41(1), 19–37.
7. Glass, G. (2005). Marginalia. Retrieved June 20, 2007, from http://www.geof.net/code/annotation/demo/.
8. Golovchinsky, G., Price, M. N., & Schilit, B. N. (1999). From reading to retrieval: Freeform ink annotations as queries. In Proceedings of sigir ‘99 (pp. 19–25). New York: ACM.
9. Guzdial, M., & Turns, J. (2000). Effective discussion through a computer-mediated anchored forum. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 437–469.
10. Honneycutt, L. (2001). Comparing email and synchronous conferencing in online peer response. Written Communication, 18(1), 26–60.
11. Jackson, H. J. (2001). Marginalia: Readers writing in books. New Haven: Yale University Press.
12. Kaplan, N., & Chisk, Y. (2005). In the company of readers: The digital library book as “practiced place”. In Proceedings of the joint conference of digital libraries ‘05 (pp. 235–244). New York: ACM.
13. Kaufer, D. S., & Geisler, C. (1989). Novelty in academic writing. Written Communication, 6(3), 286–311.
14. Kienle, A. (2006). Integration of knowledge management and collaborative learning by technical supported communication processes. Education and Information Technologies, 11(2), 161–185.
15. Lebow, D., & Lick, D. (2002). Hylighting: A new tool for distance and distributed teaching and learning, The Eighth Sloan-C International Conference on Online Learning. Orlando, FL.
16. Lunsford, A. A., & Ruszkiewicz, J. J. (1999). The presence of others (3rd ed.). New York: St. Martin’s Press.
17. Marshall, C. C. (1997). Annotation: From paper books to the digital library. In Diginal libraries 1997 (pp. 131–140). New York: ACM.
18. Marshall, C. C. (1998). Toward an ecology of hypertext annotation. In Hypertext98 (pp. 40–49). Pittsburgh, PA: ACM.
19. Marshall, C. C., & Brush, A. J. B. (2004). Supporting personalization: Exploring the relationship between personal and public annotations. In Proceedings of the 2004 joint ACM/ieee conference on digital libraries (pp. 349–357). Pittsburgh, PA: ACM.
20. Oppenheimer, T. (1997/1999). The computer delusion. In A. A. Lunsford, & J. J. Ruszkiewicz (Eds.) The presence of others (pp. 255–285). Boston: St. Martin’s Press.
21. Ovsiannikov, I. A., Arbib, M. A., & McNeil, T. H. (1999). Annotation technology. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 50, 329–362.
22. van der Pol, J., Admiraal, W., & Simons, P. R. J. (2006). The affordance of anchored discussion for the collaborative processing of academic texts. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 339–357.
23. van Oostendorp, H. (1996). Studying and annotating electronic text. In J.-F. Rouet, J. J. Levonen, A. Dillon, & R. J. Spiro (Eds.) Hypertext and cognition (pp. 137–148). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
24. Wojahn, P. G., Neuwirth, C. M., & Bullock, B. (1998). Effects of interfaces for annotation on communication in a collaborative task. In Chi ‘98, conference proceedings on human factors in computing systems (pp. 456–463). New York, NY: ACM.
25. Wolfe, J. L., & Neuwirth, C. M. (2001). From the margins to the center: The future of annotation. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 15(3), 333–371.
26. Zellweger, P. T., Regli, S. H., Mackinlay, J. D., & Chang, B.-W. (2000). The impact of fluid documents on reading and browsing: An observational study. In Proceedings of the chi 2000 conference on computerhuman interaction (pp. 249–256). New York, NY: ACM.