Hypothes.is

    

    Hypothes.is is a fascinating tool that I was not aware existed. The main difference between this tool and anything on Google is that users can work and build upon content that has already been created by other authors. To be clear, none of the documents that you work with in Hypothes.is can be changed, but users can annotate, comment, and therefore, collaboratively analyze work. I see this being particularly useful during discussions on articles, books, or webpages. Students can read through a document and make notes at certain points. Other students may create their own notes or comment on other notes generated by peers. Comments can be sorted by age or location, can be searched, and can be shared. Conversations can be public with other hypothes.is users or can be private among a group. 

    I find this tool to be more effective than a comment section that we typically see on webpages. In comment sections, it is easy for conversations to become convoluted or lost in a sea of comments. Hypothes.is allows these comments to be given context by having an associated highlight and can be viewed while reading the document. Comment sorting and organization allows for more in depth conversations to form without overpopulating the annotation section. In addition, hypothes.is is readily available as an extension on the webpage menu bar. This means that I can go to any webpage that is compatible with the app and start a hypothes.is thread. Students may find interesting articles, share them with peers, and establish a dialogue as they read through. This could be incredibly valuable for enhancing student research opportunities. Frequently we see research as an independent activity, particularly when we consider articles. This tool brings collaboration to a new level. In classrooms, students can now work together on what may have been seen as seemingly boring articles. This also allows for students to excite other students by bringing up related ideas that others can build upon. Now, instead of just reading and reporting about an article, students can actively discuss a topic. In my opinion, this is a more effective form of learning. Instead of memorization, students can discuss their thoughts and ideas that stem from the content of the article.