Well, I have finally bitten the bullet and completed a Diigo annotation of one of my posts and shared it with the group. Unsure exactly what this should look like, I endeavoured to the example David provided; however, I was not able to view any of the annotations on the page? I could see the Diigo dots to the side but was unable to view any of them, so in approaching the annotation of my post I just used the 4 points contained within the ‘As a student’ criteria.
In reflecting on this, as David encouraged us to do, I am not to sure how valuable just using the criteria would be in terms of providing constructive feedback. I can see that such an approach provides a clear justification, based on evidence, for grading but feel that the real value of using Diigo in terms of self-reflection and/or peer feedback would come from provided more specific and detailed comments pertaining to improvement and/or validation of the content of the post. Perhaps this is what has been done on David’s post, as I can see that there are quite a few annotations…only wish I could read them!
Considering how I might use this within a classroom setting,the benefits of Diigo’s use with online published work are clear. I can also see how Diigo might be applied in note-taking, including the validating of sources, but also as a tool to critic specific genres and elements of writing. For example, if you are teaching paragraph writing, student could choice a website and using the different colours of the Diigo annotation tool highlight the topic and concluding sentence in one colour and the three pieces of supporting evidence within the paragraph using the three remaining colours. The application to poetry analysis is also clear, students could use the Diigo annotation tool to identify different part of speech used within the poem. This could also easily be done also as a collaborative activity with the contributions of each student represented by a different colour. Lots of applications, aside from self and peer reflection.