(1) 

In annotation method one I used multiple types of annotation: chunking, highlighting of claims, general comments/questions, and boxing in of key quotes. In this rather complex method, I fond the highlighting of claims to be helpful when reviewing the text to find evidence for my paper because I didn’t have to reread the text to find the ideas I was searching for. The chunking I did not find especially helpful. It could be just specific to this text because it as a rather complicated piece in which I had difficulty determining where concepts change. In annotation method two, I underlined quotes I felt were important, circled words I didn’t understand, and made general comments/questions. Specifically, I found circling words I didn’t understand helpful because I could go back and look up these words when reviewing to help me gain a stronger understanding. As well as underlining specific quotes because it was easier to go back and pull them for evidence. The con of this method is the simplicity of it – using highlighting or color coding can be more clear and help to better engage with the text. I define strong annotation practice as annotation that displays engagement with the text and is useful for the reader. Meaning that when looking back the annotator can identify important quotes or ideas, concepts they didn’t understand, and ways to connect it to other sources.