{"id":1616,"date":"2026-09-29T17:16:01","date_gmt":"2026-09-29T16:16:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/clt\/?p=1616"},"modified":"2026-09-29T17:16:01","modified_gmt":"2026-09-29T16:16:01","slug":"reflection-from-a-trial-in-social-annotation-with-hypothes-is","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/clt\/2026\/09\/29\/reflection-from-a-trial-in-social-annotation-with-hypothes-is\/","title":{"rendered":"Reflection from a trial in social annotation with Hypothes.is"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Social annotation offers a way to turn reading from an individual activity into a more collaborative one. Tools such as <a href=\"https:\/\/web.hypothes.is\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Hypothes.is<\/a> allow students to highlight, comment on and respond to digital resources directly alongside the material itself.<\/p>\n<p>In higher education, this creates opportunities for students to engage with texts, video transcripts, webpages and images while also seeing how their peers are interpreting the same material. Rather than reading in isolation and then moving elsewhere to discuss a resource, students can contribute to a conversation in context.<\/p>\n<p>We recently trialled Hypothes.is to explore how this kind of activity might work in practice and what value it could offer to staff and students.<\/p>\n<p>See <a href=\"https:\/\/web.hypothes.is\/education\/examples-of-classroom-use\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">examples of classroom practice<\/a> from the product website.<\/p>\n<h2>Why use social annotation?<\/h2>\n<p>There are several potential benefits to incorporating social annotation into teaching.<\/p>\n<p>It can encourage active reading, prompting students to question, interpret and respond to material rather than simply consuming it. As a result of students seeing each other's comments, it can also support collaborative learning, exposing them to different perspectives, questions and interpretations. Research on social annotation in higher education has similarly associated these activities with reading comprehension, critical analysis and communication between students, while emphasising that the value of the technology depends on the way it is embedded within learning activities (Novak, Razzouk and Johnson, 2012).<\/p>\n<p>For teaching staff, annotation can provide a useful window into student understanding. Comments can highlight areas of uncertainty or disagreement and make students' thinking more visible. The resulting annotations also create a persistent record of engagement that students can revisit later.<\/p>\n<p>Social annotation activities could be used in a variety of ways, including:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>guided reading activities based around instructor questions or prompts;<\/li>\n<li>collaborative annotation in which students pose questions or observations for their peers;<\/li>\n<li>group reading activities followed by a synthesis of key themes or takeaways;<\/li>\n<li>whole-class annotation of video transcripts, webpages or images;<\/li>\n<li>critical review activities based on research papers, proposals, case studies or other discipline-specific materials.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>How Hypothes.is was used in the trial<\/h2>\n<p>Hypothes.is can be integrated into Moodle as an LTI tool, allowing teaching staff to add annotation activities directly within a Moodle space.<\/p>\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"aligncenter wp-image-1618 size-full\" src=\"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/clt\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/135\/2026\/09\/hypothesis_in_moodle.png\" alt=\"Moodle activity chooser, showing the Hypothesis activity.\" width=\"696\" height=\"424\" srcset=\"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/clt\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/135\/2026\/09\/hypothesis_in_moodle.png 696w, https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/clt\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/135\/2026\/09\/hypothesis_in_moodle-300x183.png 300w, https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/clt\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/135\/2026\/09\/hypothesis_in_moodle-353x215.png 353w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 696px) 100vw, 696px\" \/><\/p>\n<p>The trial included activities using journal articles as well as a mock research proposal. In one example, Hypothes.is was used with a cohort of Professional Doctorate postgraduate taught students across two units.<\/p>\n<p>The learning goal was to give students an opportunity to practise and demonstrate their ability to critically review research proposals and published research. The member of staff involved felt that the activity gave students a good opportunity to demonstrate their critical thinking skills.<\/p>\n<p>Hypothes.is can support a range of resource types, including:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>text-based materials such as journal articles, reports and case studies in PDF format;<\/li>\n<li>YouTube videos, using the automated transcript as the material for annotation;<\/li>\n<li>webpages containing selectable text;<\/li>\n<li>image-based material such as diagrams, graphs or photographs, where particular areas can be selected and discussed.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>One practical limitation identified during the trial was that PDFs need to contain selectable text. In one activity, the text within a PDF had been embedded as an image, which meant students could not highlight individual passages in the usual way.<\/p>\n<h2>What did students think?<\/h2>\n<p>Student survey responses were very limited, with only two students responding, so the feedback should be treated as indicative rather than representative.<\/p>\n<p>Both students reported that they had experienced no difficulties using Hypothes.is. Their views differed on whether the activity itself helped them engage more deeply with the resource, but both agreed that reading their peers' annotations broadened their perspectives.<\/p>\n<p>They also agreed that they felt comfortable sharing ideas with their cohort and that the activities encouraged them to complete the readings more carefully than they otherwise might have done.<\/p>\n<p>One student commented that the activity would work better if more students participated, an important point for any collaborative learning activity, where much of the value depends on reaching a sufficient level of participation.<\/p>\n<p>Encouragingly, both students said that they would be interested in taking part in further activities using Hypothes.is.<\/p>\n<h2>What did teaching staff think?<\/h2>\n<p>Staff feedback highlighted both the benefits of the approach and the challenges created by uneven participation.<\/p>\n<p>One lecturer involved described Hypothes.is as intuitive to use and felt that it made student contributions easier to engage with and review. In previous teaching, a Moodle discussion forum might have been used for a similar activity, but Hypothes.is was seen as a more natural way of connecting comments directly to particular sections of a resource. This distinction between annotation and a conventional discussion forum is also reflected in Cecchinato (2022), who found that social annotation discussions tended to focus more closely on specific parts of the study material, while Moodle forum discussions centred more on general topics and opinions.<\/p>\n<p>The lecturer commented that it was difficult to determine whether the tool had improved students' overall understanding, particularly because the cohort already demonstrated a high level of understanding. However, Hypothes.is did make it easier to see and assess students' understanding and critical thinking.<\/p>\n<p>They also indicated that they would like Hypothes.is to be available as a permanent teaching tool, while noting that they would use it selectively rather than for every reading activity.<\/p>\n<p>In another teaching context, Hypothes.is was used to give students a structured way of engaging with weekly reading and developing their understanding of key concepts before lectures. Where students engaged consistently, the lecturer felt that the activity supported deeper engagement with the literature, collaborative knowledge construction and better-prepared discussion in teaching sessions. Students worked within established learning groups, so active participation could generate useful critical dialogue around the reading. Elmi (2025) similarly describes social annotation as a useful complement to lectures when inquiry-based activities are intentionally designed to help students connect new material with existing knowledge.<\/p>\n<p>Engagement, however, was mixed across the first-year and second-year cohorts. Where some group members contributed little or not at all, opportunities for collaborative learning were reduced and some students questioned the value of contributing when responsibility for the activity was unevenly shared. From a teaching perspective, inconsistent completion also meant that sessions could not assume students had undertaken the preparatory activity, limiting how far teaching could build directly on the annotated readings or move into higher-level discussion and application.<\/p>\n<h2>What did participation look like?<\/h2>\n<p>Participation varied considerably between activities and between the two teaching contexts included in the trial.<\/p>\n<table width=\"100%\">\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"10%\"><strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n<td width=\"12.85%\"><strong>Activity<\/strong><\/td>\n<td width=\"12.85%\"><strong>Active students<\/strong><\/td>\n<td width=\"12.85%\"><strong>Posters<\/strong><\/td>\n<td width=\"12.85%\"><strong>Responders<\/strong><\/td>\n<td width=\"12.85%\"><strong>Posting rate<\/strong><\/td>\n<td width=\"12.85%\"><strong>Response rate<\/strong><\/td>\n<td width=\"12.85%\"><strong>Grading<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td rowspan=\"3\" width=\"71\">Lecturer 1<\/td>\n<td width=\"71\">Activity 1<\/td>\n<td width=\"74\">10\/16<\/td>\n<td width=\"62\">3<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">3<\/td>\n<td width=\"84\">30%<\/td>\n<td width=\"78\">30%<\/td>\n<td width=\"70\">No<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"71\">Activity 2<\/td>\n<td width=\"74\">5\/16<\/td>\n<td width=\"62\">3<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">1<\/td>\n<td width=\"84\"><strong>60%<\/strong><\/td>\n<td width=\"78\">20%<\/td>\n<td width=\"70\">No<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"71\">Activity 3<\/td>\n<td width=\"74\">5\/16<\/td>\n<td width=\"62\">1<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">1<\/td>\n<td width=\"84\">20%<\/td>\n<td width=\"78\">20%<\/td>\n<td width=\"70\">No<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td rowspan=\"4\" width=\"71\">Lecturer 2<\/td>\n<td width=\"71\">Activity\u00a01<\/td>\n<td width=\"74\">27<\/td>\n<td width=\"62\">4<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">2<\/td>\n<td width=\"84\">15%<\/td>\n<td width=\"78\">7%<\/td>\n<td width=\"70\">No<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"71\">Activity\u00a02<\/td>\n<td width=\"74\">26<\/td>\n<td width=\"62\">12<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">2<\/td>\n<td width=\"84\"><strong>46%<\/strong><\/td>\n<td width=\"78\">8%<\/td>\n<td width=\"70\">Yes<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"71\">Activity\u00a03<\/td>\n<td width=\"74\">19<\/td>\n<td width=\"62\">9<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">1<\/td>\n<td width=\"84\"><strong>47%<\/strong><\/td>\n<td width=\"78\">5%<\/td>\n<td width=\"70\">Yes<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"71\">Activity\u00a04<\/td>\n<td width=\"74\">12<\/td>\n<td width=\"62\">4<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">0<\/td>\n<td width=\"84\">33%<\/td>\n<td width=\"78\">0%<\/td>\n<td width=\"70\">Yes<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>One feature available in Hypothes.is is automatic grading, which can be used to recognise or reward students for contributing to an activity.<\/p>\n<p>For the second lecturer, grading was introduced from Activity 2 onwards. The proportion of active students posting rose from around 15% in the ungraded first activity to approximately 46\u201347% in the next two graded activities, before falling to 33% in Activity 4.<\/p>\n<p>This is an interesting pattern, but the trial was too small to conclude that grading itself caused the increase. Differences in the activity, cohort expectations, timing and whether participation was regarded as optional or required may all have affected participation.<\/p>\n<p>Another noticeable pattern was that replying to peers was much less common than posting an initial annotation. This suggests that asking students to annotate a resource does not automatically lead to sustained peer discussion. If interaction between students is an important learning goal, activities may need to include more explicit prompts or expectations around responding to others.<\/p>\n<h2>What did we learn?<\/h2>\n<p>Although this was a small-scale trial, the experience suggests that Hypothes.is could provide a useful addition to the range of collaborative learning activities available within Moodle.<\/p>\n<p>Both staff and students recognised benefits in being able to discuss material directly in context. Students particularly valued seeing their peers' interpretations, while the member of staff involved found it easier to review student thinking than through a conventional discussion forum.<\/p>\n<p>The trial also highlighted an important point about social annotation more generally: the technology can make interaction easier, but the design of the activity still matters. Clear prompts, appropriate resources and expectations around participation are likely to have a significant influence on how successfully students engage. This is consistent with the wider literature: Novak, Razzouk and Johnson (2012) emphasise the importance of instructional support and appropriate activity design, while Elmi (2025) argues that intentionally designed discussion is central to fostering engagement and collaborative reasoning.<\/p>\n<p>Grading or other incentives may help encourage initial contributions, but if the aim is to generate dialogue between students, teaching staff may also need to explicitly design for replies, questions and discussion.<\/p>\n<p>More broadly, the trial raises a familiar challenge in higher education: how to support students in moving from passive receipt of information towards more proactive, self-directed learning. Tools such as Hypothes.is can create useful opportunities for active engagement, but participation may still be shaped by whether students see a direct connection to assessment. An important area for future development is therefore the clarity of how we communicate the relationship between these activities and the knowledge, critical thinking and academic skills that underpin success in assessment and future professional practice.<\/p>\n<h2>Where might Hypothes.is work well?<\/h2>\n<p>Hypothes.is is unlikely to be appropriate for every reading activity, and there is a risk that overusing annotation could make it feel routine. Used selectively, however, it appears particularly well suited to activities where students need to examine material closely, compare interpretations or demonstrate critical thinking.<\/p>\n<p>Possible applications might include critical appraisal of research papers, analysis of policy documents, reviewing case studies, commenting on research proposals, analysing visual material or collectively examining a video transcript.<\/p>\n<p>The key benefit is relatively simple: students can have the discussion where the learning material is, rather than having to move away from the resource to talk about it somewhere else. Based on this limited trial, that appears to be a promising approach worth exploring further.<\/p>\n<p>The trial was funded via a TDF bid and ended in July 2026, and a big thank you to the academics who participated and provided feedback. If a department has questions about its use, please contact <a href=\"tel@bath.ac.uk\">Yvonne Moore<\/a> in the TEL team.<\/p>\n<h2>References<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>Cecchinato, G. (2022). 'Threaded Forums and Social Annotation in Higher Education: A Comparison in Supporting Collaborative Knowledge Construction', in G. Casalino et al. (eds), Higher Education Learning Methodologies and Technologies Online. CCIS 1542, pp. 3-15. Springer. <a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-030-96060-5_1\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-030-96060-5_1<\/a><\/li>\n<li>Elmi, C. (2025). 'Fostering students' inquiry aptitudes and collaborative reasoning in higher education science courses with social annotation tools and collaborative platforms', School Science and Mathematics, 125(3), pp. 288-297. <a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/ssm.18316\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/ssm.18316<\/a><\/li>\n<li>Novak, E., Razzouk, R. and Johnson, T.E. (2012). 'The educational use of social annotation tools in higher education: A literature review', The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), pp. 39-49. <a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.iheduc.2011.09.002\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.iheduc.2011.09.002<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Social annotation offers a way to turn reading from an individual activity into a more collaborative one. Tools such as Hypothes.is allow students to highlight, comment on and respond to digital resources directly alongside the material itself. In higher education,...<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":496,"featured_media":1620,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[87,11,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1616","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-online-learning","category-teaching","category-tel"],"acf":[],"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pd4Piw-q4","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/clt\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/135\/2026\/09\/social_chat_small.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/clt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1616","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/clt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/clt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/clt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/496"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/clt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1616"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/clt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1616\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/clt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1620"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/clt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1616"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/clt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1616"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/clt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1616"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}