Active Reading Strategies
Annotating and HIghlighting
Annotating vs Highlighting
What’s the difference?
Highlighting ● Highlighting involves marking
specific portions of a text with a
(underlining) colored marker or digital
highlighter to visually emphasize
or draw attention to key words,
phrases, or sentences.
● Highlighting is a relatively simple
and quick method for marking
text, but it doesn't provide much
space for detailed commentary
or analysis.
Annotating ● Annotations are notes,
comments, or remarks made in
the margins of a text or in a
separate notebook while reading.
● Annotations provide a deeper
layer of engagement with the
material and allow for critical
thinking and analysis.
● Annotations offer more flexibility
in terms of the types of
comments and responses you
can add to the text, whereas
highlighting is limited to marking
text.
Types of annotation
● Margin Notes ● Summarization
○ Writing comments, questions, or ○ Writing concise summaries of paragraphs or
reflections in the margins of a text. sections to distill the main ideas and key
● Symbols and Icons information.
○ Using symbols or icons (e.g., ● Questioning
asterisks, arrows, exclamation ○ Formulating questions about the text, its content,
marks) to mark specific elements in or its author's intent.
the text. ● Connecting Ideas
● Bracketing and Parentheses ○ Drawing arrows or lines to connect related ideas,
○ Placing brackets [ ] or parentheses ( concepts, or themes within the text.
) around sections of text to group ● Color-Coding
related information or to indicate ○ Assigning specific colors to different types of
your thoughts and interpretations. information (e.g., definitions, examples,
counterarguments)
Semi-automatic text analysis involves manual inspection of text. Often, different text
annotations (like part-of-speech or named entities) are indicated by using distinctive text
highlighting techniques. In typesetting there exist well-known formatting conventions,
such as bold typeface, italics, or background coloring, that are useful for highlighting
certain parts of a given text. Also, many advanced techniques for visualization and
highlighting of text exist; yet, standard typesetting is common, and the effects of
standard typesetting on the perception of text are not fully understood. As such, we
surveyed and tested the effectiveness of common text highlighting techniques, both
individually and in combination, to discover how to maximize pop-out effects while
minimizing visual interference between techniques. To validate our findings, we
conducted a series of crowd-sourced experiments to determine: i) a ranking of nine
commonly-used text highlighting techniques; ii) the degree of visual interference
between pairs of text highlighting techniques; iii) the effectiveness of techniques for
visual conjunctive search. Our results show that increasing font size works best as a
single highlighting technique, and that there are significant visual interferences between
some pairs of highlighting techniques. We discuss the pros and cons of different
combinations as a design guideline to choose text highlighting techniques for text
viewers.
Semi-automatic text analysis involves manual inspection of text. Often, different text
annotations (like part-of-speech or named entities) are indicated by using distinctive text
highlighting techniques. In typesetting there exist well-known formatting conventions, such
as bold typeface, italics, or background coloring, that are useful for highlighting certain
parts of a given text. Also, many advanced techniques for visualization and highlighting of
text exist; yet, standard typesetting is common, and the effects of standard typesetting on
the perception of text are not fully understood. As such, we surveyed and tested the
effectiveness of common text highlighting techniques, both individually and in combination,
to discover how to maximize pop-out effects while minimizing visual interference between
techniques. To validate our findings, we conducted a series of crowd-sourced experiments
to determine: i) a ranking of nine commonly-used text highlighting techniques; ii) the
degree of visual interference between pairs of text highlighting techniques; iii) the
effectiveness of techniques for visual conjunctive search. Our results show that increasing
font size works best as a single highlighting technique, and that there are significant visual
interferences between some pairs of highlighting techniques. We discuss the pros and cons
of different combinations as a design guideline to choose text highlighting techniques for
text viewers.
Explanation
The main idea of the text is about evaluating the effectiveness of different text highlighting
techniques and understanding their impact on text perception.
Supporting arguments include the mention of manual inspection in semi-automatic text analysis, the
use of distinctive text highlighting techniques for annotations, and the existence of well-known
formatting conventions for highlighting in typesetting.
The text also discusses the research approach, which involves surveying, testing, and conducting
crowd-sourced experiments to determine the effectiveness of various techniques and their visual
interferences.
The conclusion states that increasing font size is found to work best as a single highlighting technique,
and it highlights the importance of considering the pros and cons of different combinations when
choosing text highlighting techniques for text viewers.
Manual inspection
Semi-automatic text analysis involves manual inspection of text. Often, refers to human
different text annotations (like part-of-speech or named entities) are indicated involvement in text
analysis.
by using distinctive text highlighting techniques. In typesetting there exist
well-known formatting conventions, such as bold typeface, italics, or
background coloring, that are useful for highlighting certain parts of a given
text. Also, many advanced techniques for visualization and highlighting of text
exist; yet, [standard typesetting is common], and the effects of standard
typesetting on the perception of text are not fully understood. As such, we Evaluated common
text highlighting
surveyed and tested the effectiveness of common text highlighting techniques, techniques for
both individually and in combination, to discover how to maximize pop-out pop-out effects and
effects while minimizing visual interference between techniques. To validate minimal visual
interference
our findings, we conducted a series of crowd-sourced experiments to
determine: i) a ranking of nine commonly-used text highlighting techniques; What are the most
commonly used text
ii) the degree of visual interference between pairs of text highlighting highlighting
techniques; iii) the effectiveness of techniques for visual conjunctive search. techniques?
Our results show that increasing font size works best as a single highlighting To what degree do
technique, and that there are significant visual interferences between some certain text highlighting
pairs of highlighting techniques. We discuss the pros and cons of different techniques interfere
with each other?
combinations as a design guideline to choose text highlighting techniques for
text viewers.
