Bodong Chen

Crisscross Landscapes

Notes: Hwang. (2007). A study of multimedia annotation of Web-based materials



Citekey: @Hwang2007

Hwang, W.-Y., Wang, C.-Y., & Sharples, M. (2007). A study of multimedia annotation of Web-based materials. Computers & Education, 48(4), 680–699. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.020



We describe a Web-based tool for creating and sharing annotations and investigate the eVect on learning of its use with college students. First, an annotation tool was designed and implemented for the research. Second, learning support mechanisms, including full and group annotation sharing, were developed to promote students’ motivation for annotation. Lastly, experiments with individual and shared annotation were conducted and the results show that the inXuence of annotation on learning performance becomes stronger with the use of sharing mechanisms. (p. 680)

In this paper, we describe an attempt to provide an assistant annotation tool called VPen which enables readers make marks on Web-based reading materials. We have utilized this tool as part of an undergraduate course to study its usefulness and eVectiveness in learning. (p. 681)

  1. Literature review (p. 681)

2.1. Annotation and annotation systems (p. 681)

Marshall (1997) proposed a division of annotation types into inexplicit and explicit. Explicit annotations (such as text) convey more meaning than inexplicit ones (such as highlight, underline, asterisk, arrow, and graphics). (p. 681)

Many annotation systems have been proposed during the last decade. The major Annotea project is supported by the Worldwide Web Consortium as part of its Semantic Web development ( Annotea enhances collaboration by sharing annotations, bookmarks, and their combinations. (p. 681)

Davis and Huttenlocher (1995) proposed a system called CoNote that enables a group of people to communicate via shared annotations on a set of electronic documents. They found that shared annotations of documents provide a richer communications forum than electronic media such as newsgroups, bulletin boards and email distribution lists. (p. 681)

LeeTiernan and Grudin (2001) proposed a prototype that allows viewers of audio and video to create and share text annotations that are synchronized with the multimedia. (p. 681)

Ovsiannikov, Arbib, and Mcneill (1999) stated three ways in which annotation increases learning eYciency: it promotes memorization, thinking and clariWcation. (p. 681)

2.2. Characteristics of learner (p. 682)

According to Witkin et al., Weld-independent learners (FIs) tend to analyze, organize, and reorganize the location they perceive, whereas Weld-dependent learners (FDs) prefer structural instructional methods (Witkin and Goodenough, 1981). (p. 682)

In this research, we have investigated the correlation between FI/FD cognitive styles and annotation behavior in a Web-based learning environment. A well-known educational FI/FD test called GEFT was proposed by Witkin et al in 1971 (Witkin, Oltman, Raskin, & Karp, 1971) and it is employed to assess the FI/FD cognitive styles of students in this research. (p. 682)

2.3. Technology acceptance model: TAM (p. 682)

The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) was developed by Davis (1986) to evaluate how users come to accept and use a technology. Based on user acceptance of the technology, TAM theory proposes perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEOU) to explain a user’s attitude toward a system. (p. 682)

2.4. Theories of collaborative and cooperative learning (p. 682)

(1) What are the students’ perceived attitudes toward VPen system after their usage? (2) What are the eVects of diVerent cognitive styles on annotation? (3) What are the eVects of diVerent annotation sharing scenarios on quantity of annotation and its inXuence toward learning achievements? (4) What is the relationship between quantity of annotation and learning achievements? Is there a signiWcant diVerence in quantity of annotation between high achievement students and low achievement ones? (p. 683)

Other features of VPen system are as follows: (1) VPen is compatible with HTML-based materials, so no extra eVort is required during the process of material design. Once HTML-based materials are loaded through a loader program provided by the system, all annotation functionalities of the system are automatically embedded in the materials. (2) The system can automatically store annotation information made by students to an external database. (p. 687)

3.5. Research variables (p. 688)

The independent variables of this research are: (1) FI/FD cognitive styles and (2) learning scenarios. The dependent variables are (1) quantity of annotation and (2) learning achievements. (p. 688)

4.3. Results of questionnaire analysis (p. 689)

most of the students think that the annotation system did improve their online reading performance; that is, the annotation was useful for them. Most of the students also perceived that it was easy to use the annotation system. (p. 689)

In order to explore this supposition, some Web log data are further extracted and analyzed. (p. 696)

  1. Conclusion and discussion (p. 697)

Second, according to the results of GEFT test, there was no signiWcant diVerence between Weldindependent and Weld-dependent cognitive style students on quantity of annotation. (p. 697)

The results of the analysis show that use of the VPen annotation system can raise students’ learning achievements in most scenarios, and the proposition “those who have the will to utilize the annotation tools in online reading materials make higher achievements in learning” proposed by Nokelainen et al. was supported. (p. 697)

Lastly, it was found that in a particular scenario (Wnal examination), the high motivation of students to study for Wnal exams produced results for the control class (learning without annotation system) that were similar to those of the experiment class (learning with annotation). (p. 697)

a ceiling eVect due to high motivation to study for Wnal exams no matter what kind of tools or scenarios were provided. (p. 698)