Social annotation: what are students’ perceptions and how does social annotation relate to grades?

Virginia Clinton-Lisell

doi:10.25304/rlt.v31.3050

Virginia Clinton-Lisell Educational Foundations and Research, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND, USA https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4705-2217

DOI: https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v31.3050

Keywords: social annotation, collaborative annotation, college students, motivation, representational justice

Abstract

Social annotation is a teaching and learning technique in which students post comments on electronic course materials in a shared space. The purpose of this study is to examine students’ perceptions of social annotation in the context of motivation and social justice. In addition, the connections between social annotation and course grades were examined. Students in a face-to-face course engaged in social annotation on their course textbook and completed a questionnaire on their perceptions (N = 41). Based on the findings, students had higher overall motivation for social annotation compared with quizzes. In contrast, comparisons of motivation between social annotation and individual notetaking were mixed depending on the motivational construct. Students reported average higher-than-average opportunities for representational justice with social annotation (i.e. opportunities to share experiences and speak from their identities). Regarding grades, multiple social annotation constructs were positively associated with course grades. However, only active reading time appeared to be uniquely predictive of course grades. These findings suggest that social annotations promote active reading, which may encourage better understanding of the course content. Importantly, these findings indicate that students are motivated to engage in social annotation.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Adams, B., & Wilson, N. S. (2020). Building community in asynchronous online higher education courses through collaborative annotation. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 49(2), 250–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239520946422

Author. (2023). Social annotation. Open science framework. Retrieved from https://osf.io/cf96j/?view_only=e1ab03adb51c41e2957ca0839612da20

Barker, R. (2003). The social work dictionary (5th ed.). NASW Press.

Bassett, K., Olbricht, G. R., & Shannon, K. B. (2020). Student preclass preparation by both reading the textbook and watching videos online improves exam performance in a partially flipped course. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 19(3), ar32. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-05-0094

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). https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.561

Chen, C. M., Li, M. C., & Chen, T. C. (2020). A web-based collaborative reading annotation system with gamification mechanisms to improve reading performance. Computers & Education, 144, 103697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103697

Clinton, V. (2019). Reading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Reading, 42(2), 288–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12269

Clinton-Lisell, V., & Gwozdz, L. (2023). Understanding student experiences of renewable and traditional assignments. College Teaching, 71(2), 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2023.2179591

Clinton-Lisell, V. et al. (2023) Interactive features of e-texts’ effects on learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(6), 3728–3743. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1943453

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.73.5.642

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Self-determination theory. In Van Lange, P. A. M., Kruglanski, A. W. & Higgins T. (Eds.). Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1). Sage, 416–436.

Deci, E. L., Schwartz, A. J., Sheinman, L., & Ryan, R. M. (1981). An instrument to assess adults’ orientations toward control versus autonomy with children: Reflections on intrinsic motivation and perceived competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 642–650. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.73.5.642

Deci, E. L. et al. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62(1), 119–142.

Delgado, P., Vargas, C., Ackerman, R., & Salmerón, L. (2018). Don’t throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension. Educational Research Review, 25, 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.09.003

Fraser, N. (2008). From redistribution to recognition? Dilemmas of justice in a “postsocialist” age. In, Seidman, S. & Alexander, J. C. (Eds.). The new social theory reader. Routledge, 188–196.

Gentrup, S., Lorenz, G., Kristen, C., & Kogan, I. (2020). Self-fulfilling prophecies in the classroom: Teacher expectations, teacher feedback, and student achievement. Learning and Instruction, 66, 101296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101296

Gyllen, J. G. et al. (2021). Priming productive study strategies with preparatory quizzes in an engineering course. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(1), 169–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3750

Har, F., & Ho, E. (2023). Use of Perusall for pre-class reading assignments in an English reading and writing course at the Tertiary Level: Students’ perception of a flipped approach. In, Tso, A. W. B. et al. (Eds.). The Post-pandemic landscape of education and beyond: Innovation and transformation. Springer Nature, 30–42.

Hartnett, M. K. (2015). Influences that undermine learners’ perceptions of autonomy, competence and relatedness in an online context. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1526

Heiner, C. E., Banet, A. I., & Wieman, C. (2014). Preparing students for class: How to get 80% of students reading the textbook before class. American Journal of Physics, 82(10), 989–996. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4895008

hooks, b. (2003). Teaching community: A pedagogy of hope. Routledge.

Howard, J. L., Chong, J. X. Y., & Bureau, J. S. (2020). The tripartite model of intrinsic motivation in education: A 30-year retrospective and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality, 88(6), 1268–1285. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12570

Junco, R., & Clem, C. (2015). Predicting course outcomes with digital textbook usage data. The Internet and Higher Education, 27, 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.06.001

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., & Dean, J. (2018). Web annotation as conversation and interruption. Media Practice and Education, 19(1), 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/14682753.2017.1362168

Kalir, J. H. et al. (2020). “When I saw my peers annotating”: Student perceptions of social annotation for learning in multiple courses. Information and Learning Sciences, 121(3/4), 207–230. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-12-2019-0128

Kolpikova, E. P., Chen, D. C., & Doherty, J. H. (2019). Does the format of preclass reading quizzes matter? An evaluation of traditional and gamified, adaptive preclass reading quizzes. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18(4), ar52. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-05-0098

Kong, Y., Seo, Y. S., & Zhai, L. (2018). Comparison of reading performance on screen and on paper: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 123, 138–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.005

Kulakow, S. (2020). Academic self-concept and achievement motivation among adolescent students in different learning environments: Does competence-support matter? Learning and Motivation, 70, 101632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2020.101632

Ladson-Billings, G. (2004). New directions in multicultural education. In, Banks, J. A. & Banks, C. A. M. (Eds.). Handbook of research on multicultural education. Jossey-Bass, 50–65.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: A.k.a. the remix. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 74–84. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.1.p2rj131485484751

Lambert, S. R. (2018). Changing our (dis)course: A distinctive social justice aligned definition of open education. Journal of Learning for Development, 5(3), 225–244. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1197463

Landrum, R. E., Gurung, R. A. R., & Spann, N. (2012). Assessments of textbook usage and the relationship to student course performance. College Teaching, 60(1), 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2011.609573

Lazzara, J., & Clinton-Lisell, V. (2022). Using social annotation to enhance student engagement in psychology courses. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000335

Miller, K. et al., (2018). Use of a social annotation platform for pre-class reading assignments in a flipped introductory physics class. Frontiers in Education, 3. Retrieved from https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2018.00008

Murphy Contributor, J. A. (2021). Collaborative annotation: Tools for enhancing learning and scholarly communication. Serials Review, 47(3/4), 157–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2021.1986917

Paris, J. Ricardo, A., & Rymond, D. (2019). Child growth and development. College of the Canyons. Retrieved from https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/750

Perusall. (2023). Accessibility statement. Retrieved from https://support.perusall.com/hc/en-us/articles/360033993894-Accessibility-statement

Razon, S. et al., (2012). Effects of a collaborative annotation method on students’ learning and learning-related motivation and affect. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 350–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.004

Reeve, J., & Cheon, S. H. (2021). Autonomy-supportive teaching: Its malleability, benefits, and potential to improve educational practice. Educational Psychologist, 56(1), 54–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1862657

Rector-Aranda, A., & Raider-Roth, M. (2015). ‘I finally felt like I had power’: student agency and voice in an online and classroom-based role-play simulation. Research in Learning Technology, 23. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v23.25569

Ross, B. et al., (2017). Print versus digital texts: Understanding the experimental research and challenging the dichotomies. Research in Learning Technology, 25. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v25.1976

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Publications.

Ryan, R. M., & Niemiec, C. P. (2009). Self-determination theory in schools of education: Can an empirically supported framework also be critical and liberating? Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 263–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878509104331

Shih, J.H. (2021). The use of individual and collaborative learning logs and their impact on the development of learner autonomy in the EFL classroom in Taiwan. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 15(3), 195–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2020.1737703

Sun, C., Hwang, G. J., Yin, Z., Wang, Z., & Wang, Z. (2023). Trends and issues of social annotation in education: A systematic review from 2000 to 2020. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 39(2), 329–350. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12764

Sun, Y., & Gao, F. (2017). Comparing the use of a social annotation tool and a threaded discussion forum to support online discussions. The Internet and Higher Education, 32, 72–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.10.001

Traxler J. (2016) Inclusion in an age of mobility. Research in Learning Technology, 24. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v24.31372

Zhu, X. et al. (2020). Reading and connecting: Using social annotation in online classes. Information and Learning Sciences, 121(5/6), 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-04-2020-0117