Three defining features comprise a community of practice:

1. Domain: This represents the “what” of the community—a shared area of interest or knowledge that members focus on. While this is evident in academic settings, it also applies to professional and other informal learning contexts.
2. Community: This refers to the “who”—the individuals who come together to engage in shared activities. Members of a community of practice contribute to and learn from one another, forming a collective identity around the domain and the process of learning.
3. Practice: The “how” of a community involves the methods and interactions that define how knowledge is produced and shared. Effective communities of practice are characterized by active engagement, collaboration, and the ongoing co-creation of knowledge. (Wenger, 1998)

Importantly, members’ identities and experiences shape their participation in the community, and their learning impacts their actions beyond the community. This interaction between identity and practice emphasizes that communities of practice are not just about knowledge acquisition but about generating deeper understanding through collective effort.

It is important to note, however, that “[n]o community can fully design the learning of another [a]nd at the same time no community can fully design its own learning” (Wenger, 1998). A key caveat in forming communities of practice is that their development cannot be fully engineered (or assigned, in the case of classroom learning) into existence, nor can they form entirely without support. The success of a community depends on the active participation and engagement of its members. This is particularly relevant in educational settings, where students must be actively involved in both their personal and shared learning experiences.

Social annotation, while not a guarantee for creating a community of practice, can significantly foster its development. Tools like Hypothes.is provide unique opportunities for engagement, especially in online and asynchronous courses. By allowing students to annotate texts, engage in discussions, and contribute additional resources such as links and images, social annotation can simulate aspects of synchronous, in-person interactions. This fosters a richer, more dynamic learning experience, but additionally allows students time and space to process and synthesize information, which in turn allows for more intentional, thoughtful reflection. Further, social annotation makes concrete and visible the idea that learning is a collaborative experience. Because students are able to see (and engage with) the ways in which their peers interpret or deconstruct a text, the text itself becomes a living artifact of the learning process. 

Jennifer Young, an instructor at UAF’s Community and Technical College, has employed Hypothes.is and social annotation in various courses. Over the past two years, Young has observed notable improvements in student engagement and performance. Specifically, the tool has led to a significant increase in regular and substantive interaction, with student posts rising by 30 to 39 annotations compared to traditional discussion boards. Additionally, failure rates have decreased by 5 to 33%, and 4 to 24% of students have seen improvements in their overall grades. She does note that the wide range of percentages is due in part to the number of students and courses taught per semester. 

These outcomes highlight that social annotation not only boosts engagement but also contributes to better academic performance and reduced withdrawal rates. The tool facilitates meaningful interactions among students and between students and instructors, fostering a more vibrant learning environment. (For specific examples of how students engage in the characteristic activities of communities of practice through social annotation, watch “Social Annotation’s Role in Building & Maintaining a Community of Practice” from the Evidence-Based Teaching Conference.) 

So how can you integrate social annotation in your classroom, and what can you do to prompt quality annotations? Jennifer Young has specific prompts and strategies that she has found to be particularly effective. First is offering two structured prompts for students: one in which they pose a question based on the text, and answer it themselves, and another in which they must provide a thoughtful response to a question she has asked through her own annotations of the text. 

The following strategies can also enhance the effectiveness of social annotation activities:

1. Seeding and Feedback: Seeding involves pre-populating texts with comments or questions to prompt student engagement. Providing feedback on student annotations by adding comments and questions helps model effective interaction and encourages further participation. This approach demonstrates what effective annotations look like and promotes a culture of active engagement.
2. Modeling and Practice: Offering robust examples of high-quality annotations can guide students in their own practices. For instance, annotating a syllabus or an example text provides students with a clear understanding of what constitutes effective annotation. By allowing students to engage with these examples, they can better grasp the expectations and apply similar techniques in their own work.
3. Agency and Choice: Providing students with options and allowing them to choose how they engage with course materials can enhance their investment in the learning process. For example, rather than mandating a fixed number of posts or types of comments, offering choices across various readings allows students to focus on areas of personal interest. This approach not only encourages deeper engagement but also helps instructors identify students’ learning preferences, which can inform future feedback and project guidance.

Social annotation can be a remarkably effective tool to support the formation of a community of practice within your classroom, which in turn can create transformative learning experiences for students, ones in which they are actively engaged in their own learning, and contributing to a collective learning experience. When used intentionally, it opens myriad possibilities for learning that is distinct, contextualized, and co-created with students, fostering knowledge and skill acquisition beyond subject matter specificity. 

References and Resources: 

Brown, M., & Croft, B. (2020). Social Annotation and an Inclusive Praxis for Open Pedagogy in the College Classroom. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2020(1), 8.DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.561

Goller CC, Vandegrift M, Cross W, Smyth DS.2021.Sharing Notes Is Encouraged: Annotating and Cocreating with Hypothes.is and Google Docs. J Microbiol Biol Educ.22:10.1128/jmbe.v22i1.2135.https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v22i1.2135

Kalir, J. H. (2020). Social annotation enabling collaboration for open learning. Distance Education, 41(2), 245–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1757413

Kalir, J. H., Garcia, A. (2021). Annotation. United Kingdom: MIT Press. https://annotation.commons.gc.cuny.edu/pedagogy/

Morales, E., Kalir, J. H., Fleerackers, A., & Alperin, J. P. (2022). Using social annotation to construct knowledge with others: A case study across undergraduate courses. F1000Research, 11, 235. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.109525.2

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, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.39–49 [online] http://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.09.002

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, E., & Wenger-Trayner, B. (2015). Communities of practice: A brief introduction. Retrieved from: https://www.wenger-trayner.com/introduction-to-communities-of-practice/