Guiding questions for the document: What does it look like to annotate with curiosity? How do we know if annotation is done well? What are the artefacts/ what is the evidence of a well-annotated article?
Good annotation practice implies an active engagement with the text. How can we tell if someone has engaged actively? Well, there will be ‘metatext’: diverse annotations and various markings indicating another reader’s presence. Some of these may include:
· A variety of annotations including questions, comments, connections, and highlights
· Use of symbols, colour-coding, or marginal notes to differentiate types of annotations
· Summaries and paraphrasing in-text (e.g. sticky notes or end-notes)
· Summaries and paraphrasing of the whole piece
Within these annotations, curiosity can be indicated by the nature of the commentary the reader provides as well as what is indicated in the choice of highlights and questions. For instance:
· Open-ended questions about the content, context, and implications of the text. (e.g. “Why did the author make these word choices/choose this example?”; “How does this concept connect to what I have experienced/read previously?”; “What are the potential applications/implications of this idea?”)
· Making connections to what we’ve talked about in class, to other texts, to lived personal and professional experiences, or to broader concepts. (e.g. “This reminds me of…”, “This is similar to…”, “This contrasts with…”)
· Making an effort to clarify complex ideas by summarising the main ideas, looking up new concepts, or paraphrasing in the reader’s own words.
Below is an attempt to codify the above thinking into assessable terms. The rubric below identifies quality annotation practices and assigns grade-point values to them.