Anotační praktiky vědců: analýza kognitivní práce

Variant title
Annotation practices of scholars: analysis of cognitive work
Author: Lorenz, Michal
Source document: ProInflow. 2021, vol. 13, iss. 1, pp. [2]-36
Extent
[2]-36
  • ISSN
    1804-2406 (online)
Type
Article
Language
Czech
License: CC BY 3.0 CZ
Abstract(s)
Účel – Anotační praktiky vědců představují jeden ze základních prvků vědecké práce napříč vědními obory. Ve srovnání s praktikami čtení a psaní textů velmi málo prozkoumán. Studie je založena na formativním paradigmatu designu HCI a sociokognitivním paradigmatu informačního chování. Ve výzkumné studii představujeme výsledky zkoumání anotačních praktik vědců pracujících s tištěnými vědeckými texty. Výzkum zaměřujeme na interakce člověka s textem (Human–Text Interaction) s cílem popsat kognitivní práci vědců při anotování a identifikovat její omezení. Výzkumu se zúčastnilo celkem 20 vědců. Zastupují humanitní, společenské a přírodní vědy (lingvistiku, psychologii, geografii) a interdisciplinární výzkum s různým stupněm odbornosti – nováčci (doktorandi), pokročilí (postgraduální výzkumníci), odborníci (docenti a profesoři). Kognitivní práce byla analyzována při anotování vědeckých článků, monografií a diplomových prací. Design/metodologie/přístup – Výzkum byl proveden metodou analýzy kognitivní práce. Design výzkumu byl přirozený – vědci četli ve svém přirozeném prostředí texty dle vlastního výběru s úkolem vytvářet si anotace pro svoji další práci. Každý typ textu četli 15 minut. Během interakce s textem nahlas mluvili o své činnosti. Získané zvukové a obrazové záznamy byly zpracovány pomocí analýzy verbálních protokolů a analýzy abstraktní hierarchie. Výsledky – Celkem bylo pomocí abstraktní hierarchie analyzováno 829 základních anotačních elementů odpovídajících jednoduchému aktu anotování. Podle typu a místa interakce s textem byla vytvořena typologie anotací s 13 kategoriemi. Analýza anotačních praktik odhalila vzorce spoluvýskytu anotačních elementů, některé z nich se vyskytují pravidelně společně v jedné kombinaci. Akty anotování se vyskytují buď izolovaně, nebo se skládají do souborů na sebe navazujících činností, které jsou stopami prohlubujícího se porozumění textu. Vedle aktů a činností anotování se vyskytují také anotační praktiky označované jako metaanotace, které jsou anotacemi k již vytvořeným anotacím, a makroanotace uspořádávající anotace napříč textem a sloužící orientační funkci v textu. Získané výsledky kognitivní práce při anotování naznačují topologické napětí mezi kognitivními funkcemi a nástroji pro psaní poznámek, což má důsledky pro design nástrojů pro čtení a poznámkování elektronických odborných textů. Originalita/hodnota – Příspěvek přináší vhled do anotačních praktik vědců při interakci s odborným textem založený na empirickém výzkumu. Zjištění lze využít při designování anotačních nástrojů elektronických textů. Design anotačního editoru by měl zabránit narušování kognitivních procesů a soustředění vědců přeorientováním jejich pozornosti od textu k výběru anotačního nástroje pro realizaci anotačního aktu. Takový design zajistí přímou interakci člověka s textem místo interakce s anotačním editorem.
Purpose – Annotation practices of scholars represent one of the basic elements of research work across scientific disciplines. Compared to the practices of reading and writing texts, it is very little explored. The study is based on the formative paradigm of the HCI design and the social-cognitive paradigm of information behavior. In our research study, we present the results of examining annotation practices of scholars working with printed scientific texts. Our research focuses on human-text interaction in order to describe the cognitive work of scholars in annotating and to identify its limitations. A total of 20 scholars participated in the research. They come from the fields of humanities, social sciences and natural sciences (linguistics, psychology, geography) as well as interdisciplinary research with varying degrees of expertise – novices (doctoral students), advanced (postgraduate researchers), experts (associate professors and professors). Cognitive work was analysed during annotating scientific papers, monographs, and diploma theses. Design/Methodology/Approach – The research was carried out using the method of analysis of cognitive work. The design of the research was natural – researchers were reading texts of their own choice in their natural environment with the task of creating annotations for their further work. They were reading each type of text for 15 minutes. During the interaction with the text, they were speaking aloud about their activity. The acquired audio and video recordings were processed using verbal protocol analysis and abstraction hierarchy analysis. Results – In total, 829 basic annotation elements, corresponding to a simple act of making an annotation, were analysed using an abstraction hierarchy. A typology of annotations with 13 categories has been created based on the type and place of interaction with the text. The analysis of annotation practices has revealed patterns of co-occurrence of annotation elements, some of which occur regularly together in one combination. Annotation acts occur either in isolation or form sets of consecutive activities as traces of deepening understanding of the text. In addition to annotation acts and activities, there are also annotation practices known as meta-annotations, which are notes on already created annotations, and macro-annotations, which organise annotations across the text and serve an indicative function in the text. The obtained results of cognitive work in annotating indicate a topological tension between cognitive functions and tools used for making notes; this has impact on the design of tools for reading and taking notes on electronic scientific texts. Originality/Value – The paper provides insight into the annotation practices of scholars during their interaction with scientific texts based on empirical research. The findings can be used for designing annotation tools for electronic texts. The design of the annotation editor should prevent disruption of cognitive processes and the concentration of scholars due to refocusing their attention from the text to the selection of the annotation tool in order to perform the annotation act. Such a design will ensure direct human interaction with the text instead of interacting with the annotation editor.
Note
  • Prezentovaný výzkum vznikl v rámci projektu TL02000530 Interaktivní odborné knihy – redefinice elektronického publikování v oblasti non-fikce, díky finanční podpoře Technologické agentury ČR v programu ÉTA.
Document
References:
[1] ADLER, A., A. GUJAR, B. L. HARRISON, K. O'HARA a A. SELLEN (1998). A Diary Study of Work-Related Reading: Design Implications for Digital Reading Devices . In CHI '98: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Los Angeles, California, USA, April 18-23, 1998, 241–248. DOI 10.1145/274644.274679. | DOI 10.1145/274644.274679

[2] AGOSTI, M., G. BONFIGLIO-DOSIO a N. FERRO (2007). A historical and contemporary study on annotations to derive key features for systems design . International Journal on Digital Libraries. 8(1): 1-19. DOI s00799-007-0010-0. | DOI 10.1007/s00799-007-0010-0

[3] ALBRECHTSEN, H., PEJTERSEN, A. M. a B., CLEAL (2002). Empirical work analysis of collaborative film indexing . In BRUCE, H., FIDEL, R., INGWERSEN, P. a P. VAKKARI. Emerging frameworks and methods. Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS4). Greenwood Village: Libraries Unlimited.

[4] BAUER, M. a A. ZIRKER (2017). Explanatory Annotation of Literary Texts and the Reader: Seven Types of Problems . International Journal of Humanities & Arts Computing: A Journal of Digital Humanities. 11(2): 212-232. DOI 10.3366/ijhac.2017.0193. | DOI 10.3366/ijhac.2017.0193

[5] BLAIR, A. M. (2010a). Too Much to Know . New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

[6] BLAIR, A. M. (2010b). The Rise of Note-Taking in early Modern Europe . Intellectual History Review. 20(3): 303-316. DOI 10.1080/17496977.2010.492611. | DOI 10.1080/17496977.2010.492611

[7] BOCH, F. a A. PIOLAT (2005). Note taking and learning: A summary of research . Writing Across the Curriculum.16: 101–113. DOI 10.1002/acp.1086. | DOI 10.1002/acp.1086

[8] BONNER, J. M. a W. G. HOLLIDAY (2006). How college science students engage in note‐taking strategies . Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 43(8): 786-818. DOI 10.1002/tea.20115. | DOI 10.1002/tea.20115

[9] BUSH, V. (1945). As we may think . The Atlantic monthly. 176(1): 101–108. Dostupné z: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1945/07/as-we-may-think/303881/.

[10] CALLISON, D. (2003). Note-taking: Different Notes for Different Research Stages . School Library Media Activities Monthly. 19(7): 33-37+.

[11] CARTER, J. F. a N. H. Van MATRE (1975). Note Taking Versus Note Having . Journal of Educational Psychology. 67(6): 900-904. | DOI 10.1037/0022-0663.67.6.900

[12] CRAWFORD, C. C. (1925a). Some Experimental Studies of the Results of College Note-Taking . The Journal of Educational Research. 12(5): 379-386. Dostupné z: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27523191. | DOI 10.1080/00220671.1925.10879612

[13] CRAWFORD, C. C. (1925b). The Correlation between College Lecture Notes and Quiz Papers . The Journal of Educational Research. 12(4): 282-291. Dostupné z: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27523171. | DOI 10.1080/00220671.1925.10879600

[14] ČSN ISO 214 (2001) Dokumentace – Abstrakty pro publikace a dokumentaci . Praha: Český normalizační institut.

[15] FIDEL, R. (2012). Human information interaction: An ecological approach to information behavior . Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

[16] FIDEL, R. a A. M. PEJTERSEN (2004). From information behaviour research to the design of information systems: the Cognitive Work Analysis framework . Information Research. 10(1). Dostupné z: http://InformationR.net/ir/10-1/paper210.html.

[17] FIDEL, R., BRUCE, H., PEJTERSEN, A. M., DUMAIS, S., GRUDIN, J. a S. POLTROCK (2000). Collaborative Information Retrieval (CIR) . New Review of Information Behaviour Research. 1: 235-247.

[18] FROMMHOLZ, I. et al. (2003). Document-Centered Collaboration for Scholars in the Humanities – The COLLATE System . In: KOCH, T. and I.T. SøLVBERG (Eds.). Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries. ECDL 2003. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2769. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. DOI 10.1007/978-3-540-45175-4_40. | DOI 10.1007/978-3-540-45175-4_40

[19] HANDSCHUH, S. a S. STAAB (Eds.) (2003). Annotation for the Semantic Web . Amsterdam: IOS Press.

[20] HUNTER, J. (2009). Collaborative Semantic Tgging and Annotation Systems . Annual Review of Information Science and Technology. 43: 1-84. DOI 10.1002/aris.2009.1440430111. | DOI 10.1002/aris.2009.1440430111

[21] HYLAND, K. (2004). Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing . Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

[22] CHI, M.T.H. (1997). Quantifying Qualitative Analyses of Verbal Data: A Practical Guide . Journal of the Learning Sciences. 6(3): 271-315. DOI: 10.1207/s15327809jls0603_1. | DOI 10.1207/s15327809jls0603_1

[23] CHIARCOS, Ch., FATH, Ch. a F. ABROMEIT (2020). Annotation Interoperability for the Post-ISOCat Era . In Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2020)//. Marseille: European Language Resources Association, 5668–5677. IDE, N. (2007). Annotation Science: From Theory to Practice and Use. In REHM, G., A. WITT,

[24] LEMNITZER, L. (Eds). Data Structures for Linguistic Resources and Applications . Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Dostupný z: http://www.cs.vassar.edu/~ide/papers/GLDV.pdf.

[25] JACKSON, H. J. (2001). Marginalia: readers writing in books . New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

[26] JACKSON, H. J. (2005). Romantic Readers: The Evidence of Marginalia . New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

[27] KAPTELININ, V. a B. A. NARDI (2009). Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design . Cambridge: The MIT Press.

[28] KATOPOL, P. F. (2007). "Just Enough" Information: Information Behaviour, Organizational Culture, and Decision Making in Municipal Government . Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science. 31(3): 233-247.

[29] KATOPOL, P. F. (2006). We don't do that here: Using cognitive work analysis to learn about organizational culture . Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 33(1), 9-11. DOI 10.1002/bult.2006.1720330104. | DOI 10.1002/bult.2006.1720330104

[30] KHAN, F. (1993). A Survey of Note-Taking Practices . Technical Report, Hewlett-Packard Laboratories. Dostupné z: https://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/93/HPL-93-107.pdf

[31] KIEWRA, K. A. (1988). Cognitive Aspects of Autonomous Note Taking: Control Processes, Learning Strategies, and Prior Knowledge . Educational Psychologist. 23(1): 39-56. DOI 10.1207/s15326985ep2301_3. | DOI 10.1207/s15326985ep2301_3

[32] KIEWRA, K. A. (1985). Investigating Notetaking a Review: A Depth of Processing Alternative . Educational Psychologist. 20(1): 23-32. DOI 10.1207/s15326985ep2001_4. | DOI 10.1207/s15326985ep2001_4

[33] KOOLEN, C., A. GARNETT a R. SIEMENS (2012). Electronic Environment for Reading: An Annotated Bibliography of Pertinent Hardware and Software . Scholarly and Research Communication. 3(4). DOI 10.22230/src.2012v3n4a71. | DOI 10.22230/src.2012v3n4a71

[34] LEONT'JEV, A. N. (1978). Činnost, vědomí, osobnost . Praha: Svoboda.

[35] LEWIS, Ch. T. a Ch. SHORT (1879). A Latin Dictionary , Oxford: Clarendon Press.

[36] LIN, M., W. G. LUTTERS a T. S. KIM (2004). Understanding the Micronote Lifecycle: Improving Mobile Support for Informal Note Taking . CHI '04: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vienna, Austria, April 24–29, 2004. S. 687–694. DOI: 10.1145/985692.985779. | DOI 10.1145/985692.985779

[37] LINTERN, G. (2013). Cognitive Work Analysis [online]. Cognitive Systems Design net [Cit. 2021-01-05]. Dostupný z: http://www.cognitivesystemsdesign.net/Tutorials/CWA%20Tutorial.pdf

[38] LUO, L., D. WEST a G. MARCHIONINI (2008). Annotations of Interlibrary Loan Process: The Transition from Analog to Electronic . Document Delivery & Electronic Reserve, 18(3): 307-324. DOI 10.1080/10723030802186298. | DOI 10.1080/10723030802186298

[39] MARCHIONINI, G. (2010). Information Concepts: From Books to Cyberspace Identities . San Rafael: Morgan and Claypool.

[40] MARSHALL, C. C. (1997). Annotation: from paper books to the digital library . In: DL 1997: Proc. ACM International conference on Digital libraries. New York. ACM Press: 131–140.

[41] MARSHALL, C. C. (1998). Toward an ecology of hypertext annotation . In: AKSCYN, R. (Ed.) Proc. ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia: links, objects, time and space—structure in hypermedia systems. New York. ACM Press: 40–49.

[42] MARSHALL, C. C. (2009). Reading and writing the electronic book . San Rafael: Morgan and Claypool.

[43] McCLELLAND, S. I. (2016). Speaking back from the margins: Participant marginalia in survey and interview research . Qualitative Psychology. 3(2): 159-165. DOI 10.1037/qup0000061 | DOI 10.1037/qup0000061

[44] PALMER, C.L. a M. H. CRAGIN (2008). Scholarship and Disciplinary Practices . Annual Review of Information Science and Technology. 42(1): 163-212. DOI 10.1002/aris.2008.1440420112. | DOI 10.1002/aris.2008.1440420112

[45] PALMER, C.L., L.C. TEFFEAU a C.M. PIRMANN (2009). Scholarly Information Practices in the Online Environment: Themes from the Literature and Implications for Library Service Development . Dublin, Ohio: OCLC Research. Dostupné z: www.oclc.org/programs/publications/reports/2009-02.pdf.

[46] PEARSON, J., G. BUCHANAN a H. THIMBLEBY (2014). Designing for Digital Reading . [San Rafael]: Morgan and Claypool.

[47] PEJTERSEN, A. M. (1989). The Bookhouse: Modelling Users' Needs and Search Strategies as a Basis for System Design . Roskilde: Risø National Laboratory.

[48] PHELPS, T. A. a R. WILENSKY (1997). Multivalent Annotations . In: Peters C. a C. Thanos (Eds). Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries. ECDL 1997. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1324. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. DOI 10.1007/BFb0026734. | DOI 10.1007/BFb0026734

[49] PIOLAT, A., T. OLIVE a R. T. KELLOGG (2005). Cognitive Effort during Note Taking . Applied Cognitive Psychology. 19(3): 291-312. DOI: 10.1002/acp.1086. | DOI 10.1002/acp.1086

[50] PONCE, H. R., a R. E. MAYER (2014). Qualitatively different cognitive processing during online reading primed by different study activities . Computers in Human Behavior, 30: 121–130. DOI 10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.054. | DOI 10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.054

[51] RUVANE, M. B. (2006a). Annotation as Process: A vital Information Seeking . Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 42(1): 506-522. DOI: 10.1002/meet.14504201178. | DOI 10.1002/meet.14504201178

[52] RUVANE, M. B. (2006b). Defining Annotations: a visual (re)interpretation . Procedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 43(1): 1– 5. DOI 10.1002/meet.14504301226. | DOI 10.1002/meet.14504301226

[53] RENEAR, A., S. DeROSE, E. MYLONAS a A. van DAM (1999). An Outline for a Functional Taxonomy of Annotation . White Paper presented at Microsoft Research (Redmond, WA). Dostupupné z: http://hdl.handle.net/2142/9098.

[54] ROMAT, H., PIETRIGA, E., HENRY-RICHE, N., HINCKLEY, K. a APPERT, C. (2019). SpaceInk: Making Space for In-Context Annotations . In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST '19). New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 871-882. DOI 10.1145/3332165.3347934. | DOI 10.1145/3332165.3347934

[55] SAVOLAINEN, R. (2008). Everyday Information Practices: A Social Phenomenological Perspective . Lanham, Maryland: The Scarecrow Press.

[56] SCHATZKI, T. R. (2001). Introduction: Practice Theory . In T. R. SCHATZKI, K. Knorr CETINA a E. Von SAVIGNY (Eds.), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. London and New York: Routledge, 10-23.

[57] SCHILIT, B. N., GOLOVCHINSKY, G. a PRICE, M. N. (1998). Beyond Paper: Supporting Active Reading with Free Form Digital Ink Annotations . In CHI '98: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 249-256. DOI 10.1145/274644.274680. | DOI 10.1145/274644.274680

[58] TASHMAN, C. a EDWARDS, W. K. (2011). LiquidText: A flexible, multitouch environment to support active reading . In CHI '11: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 3285–3294. DOI 10.1145/1978942.1979430. | DOI 10.1145/1978942.1979430

[59] TOON, T. E. (1991). Dry-Point Annotations in Early English Manuscripts: Understanding Texts and Establishing Contexts . In BARNEY, S. A. (Ed.). Annotation and Its Texts. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 74-93.

[60] TRICKETT, S. B. a TRAFTON, J. G. (2009). A primer on verbal protocol analysis . In D. SCHMORROW, D., COHN, J. a D. NICHOLSON (Eds.). The PSI handbook of virtual environments for training and education: developments for the military and beyond. Westport: Praeger Security International, pp. 332–346.

[61] UNSWORTH, J. (2000). Scholarly Primitives: what methods do humanities researchers have in common, and how might our tools reflect this? Symposium on Humanities Computing: formal methods, experimental practice sponsored by King's College, London, 13 May 2000. http://www.iath.virginia.edu/~jmu2m/Kings.5-00/primitives.html.

[62] VICENTE, K. J. (1999). Cognitive Work Analysis: Toward Safe, Productive, and Healthy ComputerBased Work . Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

[63] WINGET, M. A. (2008). Annotations on Musical Scores by Performing Musicians: Collaborative Models, Interactive Mothods, and Music Digital Library Tool Development . Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(12): 1878-1897. DOI 10.1002/asi.20876. | DOI 10.1002/asi.20876