Social Annotation

An example of Viddler’s time-line commenting capabilities in Mark Pesce‘s 2008 talk, Hyperpolitics (American Style).

The ability to interact with online resources and collaboratively engage with others around those resources may well have the most profound impact on you and your colleagues as researchers and scholars. But to take advantage of the full potential of the collaborative, sharing aspect of these environments could require a rethinking of how and with whom humanities scholars work.

This week you’ll have the opportunity to evaluate tools that make use of social annotation. How useful could they be for our students? Do you think it’s possible to have our students use these tools to learn and share collaboratively if we don’t use them ourselves to support our own learning and sharing? Do you agree with Richard Miller, who challenges us to “push ideas into our culture”, by placing them out on the web, thereby “showing the world what the university is for and that’s for ideas that belong to no one.”? 


Social Annotation

An example of Viddler’s time-line commenting capabilities in Mark Pesce‘s 2008 talk, Hyperpolitics (American Style). Please watch this 25 minute video.

YouTube has recently made available auto-captioning for your videos you’ve uploaded to YouTube and we’ll see in today’s readings two different perspectives on this latest Google innovation. Educause’s 7 Things You Should About Social Bookmarking offers a basic overview for educators and its article on calibrated peer review might be of particular interest to those of you teaching W courses or working in large lecture courses. I’d like you to read the comments posted by members of last semester’s course. What connections do you make as a result of their comments? What does this progress mean to you in light of our previous readings, discussions and your own evolving pedagogical philosophy and practice?

On Thursday we’ll be meeting in Elluminate, courtesy of LearnCentral, where we will continue our discussion on how to find, filter and evaluate online resources.

Social Annotation

On Gutenberg Galaxy by Manuel Sanfuentes

On Gutenberg Galaxy by Manuel Sanfuentes

I tend to think that the particular resources we will cover this week just may have the most profound impact on you and your colleagues as scholars and researchers. But to take advantage of the full potential of the collaborative, sharing aspect of these environments could require a rethinking of the way humanities scholars work. With that in mind, I’m going to link back to last year’s post on this topic so that you can see what students in that class had to say about these concepts. Where are you on the spectrum of viewpoints presented?

Session Eight—Social Annotation


Today’s session explores the educational application of web-based social annotation. A 2006 Learning 2.0 blog and podcast discusses the how-tos of social bookmarking that includes a set of resources and exercises to help familiarize us with the research and teaching possibilities of this tool. Nick Gonzalez shares with us some ways that we can save, mark up and share web pages. Educause summarizes the educational significance of social bookmarking and Lee and Sachi LeFever clarify its benefits in a short and informative video.

We’ll also take a look at two interesting applications for social annotation that seek to transform traditional writing venues. The Institute for the Future of the Book has created an open source application for WordPress bloggers to add paragraph by paragraph commenting, that, in their words, “turned out to be a powerful subversion of the discussion hierarchy of blogs, transforming the page into a visual representation of dialog, and re-imagining the book itself as a conversation.” Moving beyond Google Docs, the Calibrated Peer Review program housed at UCLA and freely available to other educational institutions, seeks to provide a mechanism for educators to include more frequent writing assignments in their courses without increasing their workload while also teaching students how to appropriately review others and their own written work.

Of all the social networking tools discussed thus far, the adoption of social annotation in academia will perhaps most profoundly impact research and teaching, especially in the fields of literary and cultural studies, where collaboration has not typically been the norm. Could you see yourself using any of these tools for your own research and teaching now and what, in your opinion, could prevent their widespread adoption in the next five to ten years in your field of study?

Social bookmarking appears to be crucial for research and teaching possibilities. For me organization is the most important key factor in perspective to social bookmarking in three perspectives. 1.) I can search the web more specifically than simply browsing common research engines such as google or yahoo 2.) I also enjoy the fact that I can mark and comment immediately on pages-and therefore make sure, that I do not forget an idea or miss the paper I wrote on since I have access all the time wherever I am (except that there is a blackout as last week :O)). 3.) Finally, I think it is great that I can share my findings with others and learn through their links and comments. For researchers, who work on a specific topic together this is an amazing idea, since I can send an article to my colleague that has already my comments and suggestions on it.

In my opinion it is a good tool to get order in the flood of daily information and insight into up to date research. Nevertheless, for me the wonderful variety of website annotation services was also sort of confusing. Even if the articles, e.g. Five ways to Mark Up the Web, and Lee and Sachi LeFever’s excellent overview explained social bookmarking and annotation services such as shiftspace, diigo, Fleck, trailfire, and stickis in theory, it was necessary for me to experience these sites myself and to try their individual possibilities. And still, I have the impression that I am on top of an iceberg. But: E lucevan le Stelle and I am eager to learn more and get more used to these research tools.

Renato on Social Annotation.
Although social annotation seems a very nice and smart tool for people who are Internet addicted, as usual I will focus on the problems I see using these tools.
First: I don’t understand how you can make a mess with your own bookmarks, unless you are bookmarking 1000 sites per minutes.
Second: the interesting thing about Social Bookmarking is the possibility to use tags, so that your search operations will be more effective. Cool! Great! But it means also that I am “freezing” my bookmark because I will be looking always at the same few web sites I selected or (worse) that other people selected for me (a fact that already makes me uncomfortable because people sometimes bookmark useless things that they don’t even read). Instead if I go to Google I will already have a chance to select my search through web sites by languages, and by country… With the new option the “Advanced Scholar Search” you can… No I am not going to tell you because this is exactly my third and last point.
Third: let’s suppose I am a good scholar and I read all the articles and pages I browse, verifying even their sources. Well, do you think after I have been working at this level for my research I will easily give it away to the first sloppy researcher who comes along and finds the work already done? I think a little bit of cynicism is a must when we talk about the Internet.


Appeal for help.

As I read the articles, I constantly get the feeling that I do not understand the validity of the Web 2.0 features. From the Gonzalez piece I followed a link to read Kirkpatrick’s analysis of Diigo and I even went to the website itself to try it out, but I honestly do not see the difference between it and any search engine (Google for instance). In the tag section of the Diigo page I inserted “Tolkien” and got a list of pages that I would have found with Google. So what is the difference? Could someone (read, Barbara) please explain it to me? What is the purpose of social bookmarking if I can browse through a greater number of Google results and bookmark whatever I want? (Lefever’s statement that personal bookmarking “becomes messy” is laughable at best: it’s the same thing as saying that we should all take buses because cars get dirty) I then went to and did understand the purpose of the website at all . Shiftspace made much more sense to me: I watched the intro video and appreciated the concept of the decentralization of the Web through the annotation of websites by previous viewers (which, I would imagine, is the purpose of Stickis and Trailfire). I had just one question regarding it: doesn’t the Shiftspace imageswap option infringe upon copyright issues? I found Calibrated Peer Review an interesting concept but again I am put off by some of the overreaching statements made: it allows the incorporation of writing assignments into courses “regardless of class size, without increasing [the] grading workload”. My constant reference is my ILCS 101, enrolment 100 with no discussion groups. It is difficult enough to get my students to do the primary readings (in English, mind you) much less have them complete on-line expository writing assignments AND provide feedback on those of others (the a priori competency of reviewers is taken far too much for granted). It could be made mandatory, but this would entail my checking and grading them (to provide a minimal incentive) which in turn would entail “increasing [my] grading workload.” I full agree that “students understand more deeply when they write about what they are learning” but with certain classes it simply becomes an unruly endeavor. After hearing the comments of Renato, Alfonso and Manuela last week, I have come to the conclusion that all of these tools must be used cum grano salis and above all with a caveat that is never explicitly stated: they function well with certain class sizes at certain levels. In our case, 200+ level courses. Once that is accepted, everything else comes easy.
Pax vobiscum.