Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 39 references

A review of annotation classification tools in the educational domain

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This review claims that educational annotation tools fall into exactly four cases according to how they classify annotations, and that 84.84% of the 38 tools examined have some classification mechanism.

desk verdict A sensible four-bucket taxonomy of annotation tools, but the paper's own 38-vs-33 count makes the central percentage unverifiable. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14976 v1 pith:D733CNJK submitted 2025-01-24 cs.CL cs.DL

Joaquín Gayoso-Cabada , Antonio Sarasa-Cabezuelo , José-Luis Sierra This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.DL
keywords annotationtoolsclassificationfolksonomyontologyeducationaltechnologycontrolledvocabularystructuredreview
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that classifying annotations is a standard, not marginal, feature of software tools for educational reading. Reviewing 38 document-annotation tools, it proposes that each tool belongs to one of four cases: no classification mechanism, a closed set of predefined tags, an open user-extensible tag vocabulary (a folksonomy), or a structured vocabulary such as a taxonomy, thesaurus, or mostly an ontology. The authors report that 84.84% of the surveyed tools provide some classification mechanism, with 39.39% using pre-established vocabularies and 24.24% using ontologies. They argue that classification matters because it is what allows teachers and students to exploit annotations to reveal content comprehension, annotation styles, and intellectual maturity.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the four-case classification of annotation tools by the structure of the vocabulary used to label annotations, ordered from no vocabulary to increasingly structured vocabulary. Each case determines what educational information can be extracted: no classification yields only raw annotations, flat controlled vocabularies allow style or semantic tagging and simple clustering, uncontrolled folksonomies measure students' creative tagging but suffer from synonymy, and structured vocabularies, especially ontologies, allow relationships among tags to be inherited and exploited, supporting recommenders, annotation models, and even extraction of new conceptual structures. This ordering is what carries the review's argument that classification, not annotation itself, is the feature that turns annotation activity into learning evidence.

What would settle it

Build a systematic, reproducible corpus of educational document-annotation tools with explicit search queries, inclusion criteria, and a coding scheme, then compare the share with no classification mechanism and the number of tools that do not fit the four cases; if the no-classification share differs substantially from 15.15% or a meaningful class of hybrid or non-document tools appears, the four-case taxonomy and its distribution are not robust.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the classification mechanisms of educational annotation tools can be organized into a small, principled taxonomy of four types. Tools without classification mechanisms (15.15% of the 38) simply record annotations; tools with pre-established vocabularies (39.39%) label annotations with a closed set of style or semantic tags; tools with extensible vocabularies (21.21%) let annotators create and share their own tags, forming folksonomies; and tools with structured vocabularies (24.24%) label annotations with concepts from taxonomies, thesauri, or, in practice, ontologies. The paper further claims that among structured vocabularies, ontologies dominate because they can be chosen to fit the content, inherit relationships through subject-predicate-object triplets, and give teachers the richest view of how students annotate.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 38 tools found by the authors' informal search are a representative and complete picture of educational annotation tools; the paper gives no search strings, inclusion or exclusion criteria, or date range, so if tools were missed, the four-case classification and the reported percentages would lose support.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Because 84.84% of the surveyed tools classify annotations, classification should be treated as a standard capability in educational annotation tools rather than an optional add-on.
  • In tools with pre-established vocabularies, the flat structure of the tags limits exploitation to clustering terms, so complex annotation models are out of reach.
  • Folksonomy tools support measuring students' creative and reflective choice of terms, but the open vocabulary makes it hard to find annotation models when different terms mean the same thing.
  • Ontology-based tools give teachers the most information, including relationships deduced from the ontology, and can reveal a student's reflective capacity and maturity.
  • As annotations become content-rich components of ebooks and interactive fiction, more semantic classification systems will be needed to exploit them.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • My inference: the four-case scheme works as a design checklist for new educational annotation tools, since choosing a vocabulary structure determines in advance what learning evidence the tool can harvest.
  • My inference: because the surveyed references stop around 2018, how these four cases play out in newer collaborative platforms and ebook ecosystems is an open empirical question that the paper does not settle.
  • My inference: the high share of ontology-based tools may reflect research prototypes rather than typical classroom adoption; the paper reports that tools exist, not how widely any of the four types is used.
  • My inference: a natural test is to apply the same four-case coding to annotation tools for non-document content (video, audio, images), which the authors explicitly leave to future work.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a review of annotation tools used in educational settings, focusing on how annotations are classified. It proposes a four-way taxonomy: tools with no classification mechanisms; tools with pre-established vocabularies (style tags and semantic tags); tools with extensible vocabularies (folksonomies); and tools with structured vocabularies (taxonomies, thesauri, and mainly ontologies). The paper assigns 38 (or, per the tables, 33) tools to these categories and reports that 84.84% of the analyzed tools use some classification mechanism, with 15.15% using no classification, 39.39% using controlled vocabularies, 21.21% using folksonomies, and 24.24% using ontologies. It then discusses the educational implications of each category and concludes that ontologies are the preferred structured vocabulary.

Significance. The taxonomic framework is simple and could be useful to researchers and practitioners as an initial orientation to annotation-tool design. The paper's qualitative descriptions of individual tools are informative, and the four categories are intuitively meaningful. However, the contribution is primarily descriptive: the central quantitative claim (84.84%) is not currently verifiable because the sample size is inconsistent, the search protocol is not described, and some tools mentioned in the text are not counted in the tables. If the sample and counts are corrected, the distribution claim may still hold, but as written the paper does not provide enough evidence for its headline numbers.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 1 vs Section 6 and Tables 1-5] Section 1 states that '38 different tools have been considered,' but the percentages reported in Section 6 (15.15%, 39.39%, 21.21%, 24.24%) correspond exactly to 5/33, 13/33, 7/33, and 8/33, and the rows in Tables 1-5 sum to 33 tools. The five-tool discrepancy is never resolved. Because the paper's central claim is that 84.84% of tools use some classification mechanism, the denominator matters: if the sample is 38, all percentages must be recomputed; if it is 33, the '38' in Section 1 is wrong. Please provide a complete list of all tools considered, with their category assignments, and ensure that the counts, tables, and percentages are consistent.
  2. [Section 1 (search protocol)] The description of the search ('an exhaustive bibliographic search in several current reviews of this topic was conducted, as well as searches in repositories of academic articles') provides no search strings, date range, inclusion/exclusion criteria, or coding rules. Without this information, the reader cannot judge whether the sample is representative or complete, and the reported distribution is not reproducible. Please add a methodology paragraph or appendix detailing the search process, the screening criteria, and the rules used to assign tools to categories.
  3. [Section 5 and Section 7] Section 5 states that the paper 'focuses on the tools that use ontologies' among structured vocabularies, yet Section 7 concludes that 'of the possibilities available (taxonomies, thesauri, and ontologies), ontologies are preferably used.' If the search deliberately limited the structured-vocabulary category to ontologies, the conclusion about preference is not supported; if the search covered all three types and found only ontologies, that should be stated explicitly. Please clarify the scope and adjust the conclusion accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Tables] Table labels are inconsistent: the semantic-tag table is labeled 'Table 2' (should be Table 3), the folksonomy table is labeled 'Table 4', and the ontology table is labeled 'Table 3' (should be Table 5). Please renumber all tables and update in-text references.
  2. [Section 3.1] Section 3.1 mentions PDF Annotator and the clustering tool of Chang et al. (2015) as examples of style-tag tools, but neither appears in Table 2; clarify whether these are included in the counts and, if so, add them to the table or explain their omission.
  3. [Bibliography] The bibliography contains duplicate entries (e.g., Kawase et al. 2009, Jan et al. 2016, Chen et al. 2014, Hwang et al. 2007 appear twice) and inconsistent citation formats; please deduplicate and normalize.
  4. [Language] There are several typos and stylistic errors, e.g., 'users them to highlight' (Section 3.1), 'which makes it possible allows to classify' (Section 4), and 'about the focus is placed' (Section 6); a thorough language edit is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the taxonomy is an empirical grouping of external tool descriptions, and the 84.84% figure is arithmetic on category counts, with the 38/33 discrepancy being an internal consistency issue rather than a circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper is a descriptive review rather than a derivation. Its four-category taxonomy (no classification mechanisms, pre-established vocabularies, extensible vocabularies, structured vocabularies) is presented as an empirical grouping of tools based on reported features, and no category is defined in terms of the paper's own conclusions. The headline claim that 84.84% of analyzed tools use some classification mechanism is obtained by arithmetic on category percentages (39.39% + 21.21% + 24.24%), not by fitting a parameter to a target quantity. There are no equations, fitted parameters, or uniqueness theorems in the paper. The only self-citation, Gayoso-Cabada et al. (2018), is explicitly described as a preliminary version of the same study and is not used as evidence to justify any load-bearing claim. The mismatch between the 38 tools claimed in Section 1 and the 33 tools implied by the Section 6 percentages is a real sampling/consistency problem that affects the reliability of the reported distribution, but it is not circularity: the categories and counts come from external tool descriptions rather than from the conclusion itself. Therefore no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities are introduced; the paper's claims rest on domain assumptions about the representativeness of the tool sample and the adequacy of published descriptions for classification.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The set of tools collected through the informal search is representative of annotation tools used in education.
    Section 1 says 'an exhaustive bibliographic search' and '38 different tools have been considered', but no selection protocol is given, so the sample's representativeness is assumed.
  • domain assumption Published descriptions of the tools are sufficient to determine whether and how they classify annotations.
    The paper assigns each tool to a category based on cited papers and tool descriptions without a documented coding or validation procedure.
  • ad hoc to paper The four proposed categories are mutually exclusive and exhaustive for annotation classification mechanisms.
    The taxonomy is defined by the authors without comparison to other annotation classification frameworks; exhaustiveness is asserted, not demonstrated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A review of annotation classification tools in the educational domain." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D733CNJK

@misc{pith2026250114976,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A review of annotation classification tools in the educational domain},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D733CNJK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14976}
}
read the original abstract

An annotation consists of a portion of information that is associated with a piece of content in order to explain something about the content or to add more information. The use of annotations as a tool in the educational field has positive effects on the learning process. The usual way to use this instrument is to provide students with contents, usually textual, with which they must associate annotations. In most cases this task is performed in groups of students who work collaboratively. This process encourages analysis and understanding of the contents since they have to understand them in order to annotate them, and also encourages teamwork. To facilitate its use, computer applications have been devel-oped in recent decades that implement the annotation process and offer a set of additional functionalities. One of these functionalities is the classification of the annotations made. This functionality can be exploited in various ways in the learning process, such as guiding the students in the annotation process, providing information to the student about how the annotation process is done and to the teacher about how the students write and how they understand the content, as well as implementing other innovative educational processes. In this sense, the classification of annotations plays a critical role in the application of the annotation in the educational field. There are many studies of annotations, but most of them consider the classification aspect marginally only. This paper presents an initial study of the classification mech-anisms used in the annotation tools, identifying four types of cases: absence of classification mechanisms, classification based on pre-established vocabularies, classification based on extensible vocabularies, and classification based on struc-tured vocabularies.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [5]

    A unified structure preserving scheme for a multi-species model with a gradient flow structure and nonlocal interactions via singular kernels

    u-Annotate: An Application for User-Driven Freeform Digital Ink Annotation of E-Learning Content. In: proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Advanced Learning Tech- nologies (ICALT'06), Kerkrade, The Netherlands, pp. 1039-1043. doi: 10.1109/ICALT.2006.1652624 Pereira, N-B., Kawase R., Dietze S., Bernardino-de-Campos, G.H., Nejdl W. 2012 Anno...

    work page Pith review arXiv

  2. [12]

    doi: 10.1108/10650740410529501 Lin, S.J., Chen, H.Y., Chian, Y-T., Luo, G.H., Yuan, S.M

    Collaborative annotation system environment (CASE) for online learning, Campus -Wide Information Systems, 21(2), 72-80. doi: 10.1108/10650740410529501 Lin, S.J., Chen, H.Y., Chian, Y-T., Luo, G.H., Yuan, S.M

    work page doi:10.1108/10650740410529501

  3. [13]

    In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Ubi-Media Computing (U-MEDIA’14), Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, pp 309-321

    Supporting Online Reading of Science Expository with iRuns annotation strategy. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Ubi-Media Computing (U-MEDIA’14), Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, pp 309-321. doi: 10.1109/U-MEDIA.2014.59 Hwang,W-Y., Wang, C-H., Sharples, M

    work page doi:10.1109/u-media.2014.59

  4. [15]

    In: Proceedings of the Ninth ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces (ITS '14), Dresden, Ger- many, pp

    Intelligent Ink Annotation Framework that uses User's Intention in Electronic Document Annotation. In: Proceedings of the Ninth ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces (ITS '14), Dresden, Ger- many, pp. 333-338. doi: 10.1145/2669485.2669542 Chang, M.H., Kuo, R., Chang, M., Kinshuk, Kung, H-Y

    work page arXiv

  5. [17]

    Annotation Studio - Digital Annotation as an Educational Approach in the Humanities and Arts. Tech. Report 110196. MIT Tseng, S-S., Yeh, H-C., Yang, S-H. 2015 Promoting different reading comprehension levels through online annotations. Com- puter Assisted Language Learning, 28(1), 41-57. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2014.927366 Kim, J-K., Sohn, W-S., Hur, K

    work page arXiv 2015

  6. [18]

    International Journal of Advanced Media and Communication, 5(2/3), 135-148

    Increasing learning effect by tag cloud interface with annotation similarity. International Journal of Advanced Media and Communication, 5(2/3), 135-148. doi: 10.1504/IJAMC.2014.060503 Bateman, S., Brooks, C., McCalla, G., Brusilovsky, P

    work page arXiv 2014

  7. [19]

    In: Proceed- ings of the 3rd Annual Scientific Conference of the LORNET Research Network (I2LOR’2006), Montreal, Canada

    OATS: The Open Annotation and Tagging System. In: Proceed- ings of the 3rd Annual Scientific Conference of the LORNET Research Network (I2LOR’2006), Montreal, Canada. 10pp. Kawase, R., Herder, E., Nejdl, W

    work page 2006

  8. [21]

    In: Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE 14th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT’14), Athens, Greece, pp 39-43

    Tsaap-Notes – An Open Micro-Blogging Tool for Collaborative Notetaking during Face- to-Face Lectures. In: Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE 14th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT’14), Athens, Greece, pp 39-43. doi: 10.1109/ICALT.2014.22 Hinze, A., Heese, R., Schlegel, A., Luczak-Rösch, M

    work page doi:10.1109/icalt.2014.22 2014

Show all 39 references
  1. [22]

    In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Librar- ies (TPDL’12), Paphos, Cyprus, pp

    User-Defined Semantic Enrichment of Full-Text Documents: Experi- ences and Lessons Learned. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Librar- ies (TPDL’12), Paphos, Cyprus, pp. 209-214. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-33290-6_23 Luczak-Rösch...

    doi

  2. [23]

    International Journal of Tech- nology Enhanced Learning, 5(1), 56-84

    WebAnnot: a learner’s dedicated web-based annotation tool. International Journal of Tech- nology Enhanced Learning, 5(1), 56-84. doi: 10.1504/IJTEL.2013.055949 Rocha, T-R., Willrich, R., Fileto, R., Tazi, S

    2013

  3. [24]

    In: Proceedings of the 9th IFIP TC 3 World Conference on Computers in Education (WCCE 2009), Bento Gonçalves, Brazil, pp

    Supporting Collaborative Learning Activities with a Digital Library and Annota- tions. In: Proceedings of the 9th IFIP TC 3 World Conference on Computers in Education (WCCE 2009), Bento Gonçalves, Brazil, pp. 349-358. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-03115-1_37 Azouaou, F. & Desmoulins, C

    2009 doi

  4. [25]

    International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life Long Learning, 16(1-2), 18-34

    Teachers' document annotating: models for a digital memory tool. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life Long Learning, 16(1-2), 18-34. doi: 10.1504/IJCEELL.2006.008915 9 Azouaou, F. & Desmoulins; C

    2006 arXiv

  5. [27]

    Integrating keywords and semantics on document annotation and search,

    N. Bikakis, G. Giannopoulos, T. Dalamagas, and T. Sellis, “Integrating keywords and semantics on document annotation and search,” On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems, OTM 2010, pp. 921–938,

    2010

  6. [28]

    In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (EC-TEL), Niza, France, pp

    A comparison of paper-based and online annotations in the workplace. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (EC-TEL), Niza, France, pp. 240-253. doi: 10.1007/978-3- 642-04636-0_23 Jan, J. C., Chen, C. M., Huang, P. H.,

    doi

  7. [29]

    International Journal of Human-Com- puter Studies

    Enhancement of digital reading performance by using a novel web-based collabo- rative reading annotation system with two quality annotation filtering mechanisms. International Journal of Human-Com- puter Studies. 86, 81-93. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2015.09.006 Kawasaki, Y., Sasaki...

    doi

  8. [30]

    Comput- ers & Education, 77, 67-81

    Enhancing digital reading performance with a collaborative reading annotation system. Comput- ers & Education, 77, 67-81. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.010 Hwang,W-Y., Wang, C-H., Sharples, M

    2014 doi

  9. [31]

    Computers & Educa- tion, 48, 680–699

    A study of multimedia annotation of Web-based materials. Computers & Educa- tion, 48, 680–699. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.020 Johnson, T. E., Archibald, T. N., Tenenbaum, G

    2005 doi

  10. [32]

    Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1496–1507

    Individual and team annotation effects on students' reading comprehen- sion, critical thinking, and meta-cognitive skills. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1496–1507. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.014 Mendenhall, A., & Johnson, T. E

    2010 doi

  11. [33]

    Interactive Learning Environments, 18(3), 263–276

    Fostering the development of critical thinking skills, and reading comprehension of un- dergraduates using a Web 2.0 tool coupled with a learning system. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(3), 263–276. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2010.500537 Nokelainen, P., Kurhila, J., Miettinen...

  12. [35]

    British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5), 757–770

    A shared document-based annotation tool to support learner-centred collaborative learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5), 757–770. doi:10.1111/j.1467- 8535.2005.00474.x. Su, A. Y., Yang, S. J., Hwang, W. Y., Zhang, J

    2005

  13. [36]

    Computers & Education, 55(2), 752-766

    A Web 2.0-based collaborative annotation system for enhancing knowledge sharing in collaborative learning environments. Computers & Education, 55(2), 752-766. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.03.008 Cigarrán-Recuero, J., Gayoso-Cabada, J., Rodríguez-Artacho, M-A., Romero-López, D.,...

    2010 doi

  14. [37]

    Expert Systems with Applications, 41(11), 5495-5508

    As- sessing semantic annotation activities with formal concept analysis. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(11), 5495-5508. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2014.02.036 Buendía, F

    2014 doi

  15. [38]

    In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Confer- ence on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (TEEM '16), 1005-1009

    Design of an annotation tool for educational resources. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Confer- ence on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (TEEM '16), 1005-1009. doi: 10.1145/3012430.3012639 Kalboussi A., Omheni N., Mazhoud O., Kacem A.H

  16. [39]

    In: Proceedings of the 15th IFIP TC 13 International Conference on Hu- man-Computer Interaction (INTERACT’15)

    How to Organize the Annotation Systems in Human-Computer Envi- ronment: Study, Classification and Observations. In: Proceedings of the 15th IFIP TC 13 International Conference on Hu- man-Computer Interaction (INTERACT’15). doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22668-2_11 Kalb...

    doi

  17. [40]

    Comparative study of web annotation systems used by learners to enhance educational practices: features and services. Int. J. Technology Enhanced Learning, 8(2), 129-150. doi: 10.1504/IJTEL.2016.078081 Novak, E., Razzouk,R, Johnson, J-E

    2016

  18. [41]

    The Internet and Higher Education 15(1), 39-49

    The educational use of social annotation tools in higher education: A literature re- view. The Internet and Higher Education 15(1), 39-49. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.09.002. 10 Gayoso-Cabada, J., Sarasa-Cabezuelo, A., & Sierra, J. L

    2011 doi

  19. [628]

    AeroDAML: Applying Information Extraction to Generate DAML Annotations from Web Pages,

    doi: 10.1109/ITHET.2006.339677 P. Kogut and W. Holmes, “AeroDAML: Applying Information Extraction to Generate DAML Annotations from Web Pages,” in First International Conference on Knowledge Capture KCAP 2001 Workshop on Knowledge Markup and Semantic Annota- tion, 2001, vol. 21, p

    2006

  20. [1999]

    International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 50(4), 329-362

    Annotation technology. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 50(4), 329-362. 10.1006/ijhc.1999.0247 Tanioka, T., Okuno, K., Gokita, K., Nakagawa, M., Inokuchi, M., Kojima, K

    1999

  21. [2003]

    In: Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT’03), Athens, Greece, pp

    Evaluating the role of a shared document-based annotation tool in learner-centered collaborative learning. In: Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT’03), Athens, Greece, pp. 200-203. doi: 10.1109/ICALT.2003.1215056 Nokela...

    arXiv

  22. [2004]

    In: Proceedings of the working conference on Advanced visual interfaces (AVI '04), Gallipoli, Italy, pp

    MADCOW: a multimedia digital annotation sys tem. In: Proceedings of the working conference on Advanced visual interfaces (AVI '04), Gallipoli, Italy, pp. 55-62. doi: 10.1145/989863.989870 Chen, C. M., Chen, F. Y

  23. [2005]

    In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '05), Portland, Ore- gon, USA, pp

    Livenotes: a system for cooperative and augmented note-taking in lectures. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '05), Portland, Ore- gon, USA, pp. 531-540. doi: 10.1145/1054972.1055046 Chatti, M.A., Sodhi, T., Specht, M., Klamma, ...

  24. [2006]

    In: Proceedings of the 36th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, San Diego, CA, USA, pp

    Classroom Presentations Using Tablet PCs and WriteOn. In: Proceedings of the 36th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, San Diego, CA, USA, pp. 1-5. doi: 10.1109/FIE.2006.322336 Liao C., Guimbretière F., Anderson R., Linnell N., Prince C., Razmov V

    2006

  25. [2007]

    In: Proceedings of the 11th IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT’07) Part II, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, pp

    PaperCP: Exploring the Integration of Physical and Digital Affordances for Active Learning. In: Proceedings of the 11th IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT’07) Part II, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, pp. 15-28. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-74800-7_2 Pearson, J., Buchana...

    doi

  26. [2008]

    Technologies to Scaffold, Structure, and Transform Teacher Reflection

    Video Annotation Tools. Technologies to Scaffold, Structure, and Transform Teacher Reflection. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 52-67. doi: 10.1177/0022487108328486

    doi

  27. [2012]

    Interacting with Computers, 24(5), pp

    The Digital Reading Desk: A lightweight approach to digital note-tak- ing. Interacting with Computers, 24(5), pp. 327-338. doi: 10.1016/j.intcom.2012.03.001 Kam, M., Wang, J., Iles, A., Tse, E., Chiu, J., Glaser, D

    2012 doi

  28. [2013]

    Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(2), 161-171, doi: 10.14742/ajet.159 Glover, I., Hardaker, G., Xu, Z

    Examining students' use of online annotation tools in support of argumentative reading. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(2), 161-171, doi: 10.14742/ajet.159 Glover, I., Hardaker, G., Xu, Z

    doi

  29. [2015]

    In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Ubi-Media Computing (UMEDIA’15), Colombo, Sri Lanka, pp

    Online Annotation System and Student Clustering Platform. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Ubi-Media Computing (UMEDIA’15), Colombo, Sri Lanka, pp. 202-207. doi: 10.1109/UMEDIA.2015.7297455 Lebow, D.G & Lick, D.W. HyLighter: An Effective Interactive Annot...

    2015

  30. [2017]

    doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2017.07.630

    An Intraoperative Educational Annotation Sys- tem For Endoscopic Surgery, Journal of the American College of Surgeons, 225(4), e42. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2017.07.630. P-J. Rich & M. Hannafin

    2017 doi

  31. [2018]

    In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-2018)

    PDFAnno: a Web-based Linguistic Annotation Tool for PDF Documents. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-2018). Deng, L., Li, S. C., & Lu, J

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.