Successful classroom deployment of a social document annotation system
Open accessAbstract
NB is an in-place collaborative document annotation website targeting students reading lecture notes and draft textbooks. Serving as a discussion forum in the document margins, NB lets users ask and answer questions about their reading material as they are reading. NB users can read and annotate documents using their web browsers, without any special plug-ins. We describe the NB system and its evaluation in real class environment, where students used it to submit their reading assignments, ask questions and get or provide feedback. We show that this tool can be and has been successfully incorporated into a number of different classes at different institutions. To understand how and why, we focus on a particularly successful class deployment where the instructor adapted his teaching style to take students' comment into account. We analyze the annotation practices that were observed - including the way geographic locality was exploited in ways unavailable in traditional forums - and discuss general design implications for online annotation tools in academia.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Collaborative note-taking enhances class participation and learning efficiency.
“We also explored the possibility of applying collaborative note-taking to PNTP, which is known to enhance class participation and learning efficiency [16].”
From EmoBridge: Bridging the Communication Gap between Students with Disabilities and Peer Note-Takers Utilizing Emojis and Real-Time Sharing (2024) · cites this paper as [51]
The Broad Participation and Findings sections report extensive student annotation and discussion, supporting increased participation. The Significant Discussion and Learning section describes timely peer answers and students’ perceived gains in understanding, but Adoption versus Learning Outcomes says the authors assessed adoption rather than learning outcomes. The paper therefore does not establish that collaborative note-taking enhances learning efficiency (page numbers unavailable in our copy). (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- Anderson, R. J., Hoyer, C., Wolfman, S. A., and Anderson, R. A study of digital ink in lecture presentation. In Proceedings of CHI '04, ACM (New York, NY, USA, 2004), 567-574.
- Bernheim Brush, A. J., Bargeron, D., Grudin, J., Borning, A., and Gupta, A. Supporting interaction outside of class: Anchored discussion vs. bulletin boards. In Proceedings of CSCL 2002 (2002), 425-434.
- Blitzer, D. The wide world of computer-based education. Advances in computers 15 (1976), 239-283.
- Chickering, A. W., and Gamson, Z. F. Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin (1987).
- Graham, R., Knuth, D., and Patashnik, O. Concrete Mathematics: A Foundation for Computer Science, 2nd ed. Addison-Wesley, 1994.
- Guzdial, M., and Turns, J. Effective discussion through a computer-mediated anchored forum. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 9, 4 (2000), 437-469.
- Sellen, A., and Harper, R. The Myth Of The Paperless Office. MIT Press, 2001.
- Taylor, E. F. Guest comment: Only the student knows. American Journal of Physics 60, 3 (1992), 201-202.
- Thomas, M. Learning within incoherent structures: The space of online discussion forums. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 18, 3 (Sept. 2002), 351-366.
- van der Pol, J. Facilitating Online Learning Conversations. PhD thesis, Universiteit Utrecht, 2007.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Lee, Y., Chung, J. J. Y., Song, J. Y., Chang, M., & Kim, J. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445222 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Understanding How Programmers Can Use Annotations on Documentation
Horvath, A., Liu, M. X., Hendriksen, R., Shannon, C., Paterson, E., Jawad, K., Macvean, A., & Myers, B. A. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3502095 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
New Methods for Confusion Detection in Course Forums: Student, Teacher, and Machine
Geller, S. A., Gal, K., Segal, A., Sripathi, K., Kim, H. G., Facciotti, M. T., Igo, M., Hoernle, N., & Karger, D. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies · doi:10.1109/tlt.2021.3123266 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Self-citationSong, H., Shin, M., Chu, H., Hong, J., Lee, J., Eun, J., & Lim, H. (2024) · The 26th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility · doi:10.1145/3663548.3675629 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“Further, a large body of research has explored the use of digital technologies to facilitate collaborative note-taking, as a form of mobile apps [35, 36] or web-based tools [34, 51].”
BackgroundInfluential
- Authors
- Zyto, S., Karger, D., Ackerman, M., & Mahajan, S.
- Affiliations
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- University of Michigan (US)
- Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2012-05-05
- Pages
- 1883-1892
- OpenAlex
- W2010950062
- Cited by
- 90
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 49.30
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Licence
- Locations
- CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
- DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology in Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Keywords
- document annotation, collaborative annotation, online forums, classroom deployment, student feedback, lecture notes, annotation practices, geographic locality, online annotation tool, web-based annotation, design implications
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
