This study examined the use of annotation tools to support knowledge building discourse in an undergraduate education course involving 31 pre-service teachers. Quantitative analysis found that annotations accounted for about 1/3 of total contributions and increased over the semester as notes decreased. Social network analysis found that annotation networks had similar density to note networks, indicating annotations provided similar interaction and community-building. Qualitative analysis identified 16 purposes for annotations, most commonly expressing opinions, misunderstandings, and commenting on facts. The annotation tool allowed brief contributions to build on ideas without overloading the discussion space.

1. The Use of Annotation Tool
to Support Knowledge Building
Discourse
Derya Kici,
Ahmad Khanlari

2. • Knowledge Forum, the second generation of
CSILE, is designed to
make advanced knowledge processes accessible
to all participants,
foster the creation and continual improvement of
public artifacts or community knowledge
(Scardamalia, 2002)
provide a community space for carrying out this
knowledge building work collaboratives”
(Scardamalia, 2004, p.1).

3. • In the design of KF, tools are designed in order to serve
in Knowledge Building process and keep the discourse
of participants within interaction and collaboration
(Scardamalia, 2004).
• In the specific design of KF, each tool provides
complementary support to encourage individuals to
communicate and collaborate with each other in
specific ways and Annotation was one of these tools in
the early versions of KF.
• This study aims to focus on the use of annotation tool
for different purposes and examine its impact on
Knowledge Building discourse.

4. Annotation Tool
• By using annotation tool, the users
were able to write short notes to
other authors.
• Unlike notes and build-ons, an
annotation was not stored
separately; rather, it was added to
the original note. Thus, it could be
used to address directly and
exclusively a specific piece of
work.
Images reference is Kwok-Wing Lai 2012

5. Annotation Tool
• The aim of the annotation is not building-on an idea
but rather
– giving praise, correcting spelling, simply and
quickly commenting on a fact, expressing an
opinion, noting a spelling error, expressing
misunderstandings and so on (KF Guide).
• The annotations were also useful for meta-
discourse and keep the Knowledge Building
discourse sustained.

6. Research Questions
• To what extend did the participants use
annotation tool in Knowledge Building
process?
• For what purposes did the participants use
annotation tool in Knowledge Building
process?

7. Participants and Procedure
• The data set was collected during the Summer
2014 semester from an undergraduate course
entitled “Instructional Technologies and
Material Development” at the Faculty of
Education, Istanbul/Turkey.
• Participants were 31 pre-service teachers (28
Female and 3 male) who were studying eight
different programs.

8. Method
Mixed method research design
• Quantitative analysis
• Social network analysis
• Qualitative analysis

9. Findings - Quantitative Analysis

10. Findings - Quantitative Analysis

11. Findings - Quantitative Analysis

12. Findings – Social Network Analysis
• In order to compare the note networks and the annotation
networks, we compared their density.
• Density is the actual number of edges in a network, expressed
as a proportion of the maximum possible number of edges
(Coulon, 2005).
• Density is a strong indicator for measuring the connectedness
of a network and represents the power of networks; “if a
system is very loosely coupled (low density) not much power
can be exerted; in high density systems there is the potential
for greater power” (Hanneman & Riddle, 2005, para 2).

13. Findings – Social Network Analysis

14. Fig 4. a) network of the notes posted in PofU1 b) network of the
annotations posted in PofU1 c) network of the notes posted in
PofU2 d) network of the annotations posted in PofU 2 e) network
of the notes posted in PofU3 f) network of the annotations posted
in PofU3 g) network of the notes posted in PofU4 h) P network of
the annotations posted in PofU4 i) network of the notes posted in
Finale j) network of the annotations posted in Finale.

15. Findings - Qualitative Analysis
• 226 annotations were read by the researcher and a content analysis
was employed.
• Each annotation was categorized on the basis of different purposes of
use. As a result of the content analysis, 16 themes were identified.

16. Findings - Qualitative Analysis

17. Findings - Qualitative Analysis

18. Results and Discussion
• Regarding the first research question
– To what extend did the participants use annotation tool in Knowledge
Building process?
• the number of annotations is 1/3 of the total contributions.
Participants preferred to use more annotations for short
contributions.
– One possible reason for this behavior could be participants’ intention
to avoid making the views messy by creating unnecessary build ons.
– the participants probably had realized that if they create new notes for
these purposes, they create inessential notes and the view will quickly
grow and become chaotic.
• Throughout the term, the number of annotations increased while
the number of notes decreased. This does not mean that the work
of the students with the ideas decreased; instead, they had a
chance to focus more on the ideas in the notes.

19. Results and Discussion
• In terms of social network analysis,
– a comparison between the density of notes and
density of annotations demonstrates that the density
of the note networks and annotation networks is
similar in all views, except the Finale view.
– The annotation networks are as powerful as the note
networks, as they have almost the same density.
– The results of a social network analysis also show that
annotations provide interaction between students and
help to create a community as much as note
contributions.

20. Results and Discussion
• Regarding the second research question
– For what purposes did the participants use annotation tool in Knowledge
Building process?
• 16 themes were identified
• Participants mostly used annotations in order to express an opinion,
which were not so strong to develop others’ ideas; instead, they were
mostly based on a consensus with the notes which the annotations were
added to.
• participants mostly aimed to express misunderstandings, simply and
quickly comment on a fact, and give an example from individual
experience through annotations.
• They occasionally provided explanations, gave praise, noted spelling
errors, and organized group works by using annotations.
• Frequency of using annotation with the purpose of expressing consensus
or disagreement, meta-discourse, explaining misunderstandings, providing
extra information, and asking for elaboration was mediocre.
• Also, in a few of cases, participants used annotations in order to provide
an example, report a technical issue, and ask for scaffolds.

21. Limitation of the Study
• analysis of only one five-week Knowledge Building
course
• Need of investigating more data from several courses
at various levels.
• more empirical research is needed to support the
results of this study
• need more qualitative data to identify the purposes of
using annotations
• We suggest to have interviews with participants in
order to gain deeper understanding of how they take
advantage of using annotations in Knowledge Building
process.

22. References
• Baecker, R. (1997). The web of knowledge media design: Highlights of a speech given by Professor Ron Baecker at Knowledge Media
Design Institute on 23 January 1997. Retrieved from http://archive.kmdi.utoronto.ca/about/documents/baecker_web_of_kmd.pdf.
• Boettcher, J. V. (2007). Ten core principles for designing effective learning environments: Insights from brain research and pedagogical
theory. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 3(3).
• Coulon, F. (2005). The use of social network analysis in innovation research: A literature review. Division of Innovation – LTH, Lund
University: Sweden
• Federman, M. (2004, July 23). What is the meaning of the medium is the message? Retrieved from
http://individual.utoronto.ca/markfederman/article_mediumisthemessage.htm .
• Hanneman, R. A. & Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. Riverside, CA: University of California, Riverside.
Retrieved from http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/nettext/
• Knowledge Forum User’s Guide. (2003). Learning in Motion, Inc. Retrieved from
http://ikit.org/kf/46/help/basic/Knowledge_Forum_45_UG.pdf
• O’Malley, A. J., & Marsden, P. V. (2008). The analysis of social networks. Health Services & Outcomes Research Methodology, 8(4), 222–
269. doi:10.1007/s10742-008-0041-z
• Scardamalia, M. (2004). CSILE/Knowledge Forum®. In Education and technology: An encyclopedia (pp. 183-192). Santa Barbara: ABC-
CLIO.
• Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. Liberal education in a knowledge society,
67-98.
• Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The journal of the learning sciences,
3(3), 265-283.
• Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building environments: Extending the limits of the possible in education and
knowledge work. In A. DiStefano, K.E. Rudestam, & R. Silverman (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distributed learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
• Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1993). Technologies for knowledge-building discourse. Communications of the ACM, 36(5), 37-41.
• Winograd. T. (1997). From computing machinery to interaction design. Retrieved from: