Indirect discussion and interaction in social annotation

Written by Jamie Wood, Professor of History and Education, University of Lincoln

While social annotation can be an effective means of engaging students in reading collaboratively, I have noticed that they can be reluctant to discuss readings with one another. Instead, there is a tendency to interact more indirectly, for which I propose a number of reasons. I close by observing that the discursive practices of students in social annotation are not unlike those that are observable in face-to-face classes and suggest that more explicit training is a potential means of increasing direct interaction. 

Introduction: what’s social about social annotation?

In common with many others who have tried it, I have found that social annotation, an approach to teaching and learning in which students post comments on readings in a shared space, can have a positive impact on engagement and learning (Clinton-Lissell, 2023). Social annotation encourages peer learning (Kalir et al., 2020), active reading, and is well adapted to asynchronous working. Because social annotation platforms enable students to share their comments with one another (and with tutors), they create a space for different interactions to take place. 

Over the past few years, I have conducted research with colleagues into student reading habits in online spaces, particularly into student and lecturer perceptions and experiences of social annotation. Yet, we haven’t devoted as much attention to looking at what students actually do in online spaces when they engage with texts.  

When we asked academics in one of our surveys what they thought students were doing when they engaged in reading tasks during social annotation activities, they said that very little discussion went on. Similarly, some of the educational technologists with whom I have spoken have expressed disappointment at the low levels of discussion in platforms that seem to be tailor made for collective knowledge construction. 

What is indirect discussion?

The more I’ve thought about it, I’ve come to the conclusion that something more complicated is going on. Looking at how students engage in discussion on social annotation platforms reveals a phenomenon that I can only describe as indirect discussion. Students cluster comments around particular points of interest in a text rather than engaging in direct discussion with one another by responding to each other’s comments. This is perhaps best illustrated by an (anonymised) screenshot taken from a reading uploaded to the Talis Elevate platform (one among many social annotation tools) on a final-year undergraduate module.    

As you can see from the highlighting and comments above, attention is focused on the same part of the text, with student M referring back to student S’s comment, then student T seeming to expand on what student M had written. This sort of activity is quite frequent and, I think, deserves consideration for what it reveals about social annotation platforms, and, more importantly, about students’ engagement with their reading and with each other. 

Why do students discuss indirectly? 

There are a number of potential (and potentially overlapping) reasons why students do not always engage in direct discussion when engaging in social annotation. 

• Functionality: the platform may not clearly signal to students that they can reply to earlier comments on text that has been highlighted. Similarly, the use of pin-drops on mobile devices can militate against direct interaction because the comments are not directly connected to the text (e.g. by highlighting). 
• Assessment: in the module from which the screenshot above was taken, the fact that I was assessing students’ engagement with the activity probably motivated them to ensure that their posts were distinct from each other’s in order to make their contributions easily identifiable. 
• Pedagogy: the students may not have been taught to engage directly with one another or were not told by the tutor that this is what they are expected to do. It is also possible that task instructions or questions encourage the dispersal of comments rather than concentrating them, thereby closing off opportunities for discussion. 

I’m sure this list could be extended further without much difficulty, but it seems to me that these are some key issues. 

What’s the value of social annotation?

When we asked students, they said that they learnt a great deal and gained in confidence from being able to see one another’s annotations. They saw social annotation as a valuable means of building knowledge together because it simultaneously had the potential to reinforce their learning (if their peers had written something similar) or to open their eyes to alternative interpretations (if they differed). 

Students’ positivity about being able to see the comments of others is reflected in the following table, which also indicates that they are somewhat less comfortable sharing their thoughts with others. Put bluntly, students like to see what other people think about readings, but are less keen on sharing their own views. 

Figure: Students’ rating of the value of sharing their thoughts about reading compared to being able to see the thoughts of others (Chandler et al., 2022)

Why might students be reluctant to discuss directly? 

Students are acutely aware that they are in a “public” space when engaging in social annotation. This makes students reluctant to engage and a minority reported ongoing anxiety about posting comments that their peers could see (even when given the opportunity to do so anonymously). In one interview, we were surprised to discover that a very strong student who was an active annotator felt continued anxiety (East, Warriner-Wood and Wood, 2022). This leads me to wonder if indirect discussion is one way of alleviating some of the anxiety caused by operating in a shared space – it perhaps feels less high stakes than responding directly to a fellow student, especially if you don’t agree with them. 

Conclusion: what is indirect discussion? 

Finally, my colleagues and I have reflected that indirect discussion is in many ways more like what goes on in many in-person classes, where students develop their understanding in response to questions or activities posed by tutors by taking turns rather than by responding directly to one another (Barrett, Fitzgibbons, Vescovi and Wood, 2023). Certainly, direct interaction between students is much less common in whole class scenarios than it is in small group work (which is less public). 

Perhaps, therefore, we should be much more deliberate in how we prepare students to engage in online discussion of readings, for instance by providing examples of good practice, modelling desired behaviours for them, and/or emphasising the importance of active engagement. The provision of specific guidance, advice and training would be useful starting points for encouraging students to engage productively with activities that can provide a boost to learning. In doing so, we can hopefully enhance not only our students’ discussion literacy, but also our own. 

————–

Further resources:

My colleagues and I produced a series of advice sheets for students which might be of interest. For example, “How collaborative reading can work for you”, outlines 5 benefits of reading together online  and offers students some tips on how to do so effectively (https://makingdigitalhistory.co.uk/files/2022/08/QAA_poster_How_collaborative_reading.pdf).  

————–

References:

Barrett, Graham, Matt East, Jonathan Fitzgibbons, Michele Vescovi, and Jamie Wood (2022). “Reading through the Pandemic: Promoting Active Digital Engagement with Text-Based Resources.” IMPact: e-Journal of Higher Education Research 6, 2, 1-30. Online: https://repository.lincoln.ac.uk/articles/journal_contribution/Reading_through_the_Pandemic_Promoting_Active_Digital_Engagement_with_Text-Based_Resources/24876483 

Jon Chandler, Matt East, Anna Rich-Abad, and Jamie Wood (2022). Active Online Reading – Final Report. Online: https://www.qaa.ac.uk/membership/collaborative-enhancement-projects/learning-and-teaching/active-online-reading# 

Clinton-Lisell, Virginia (2023). “Social annotation: what are students’ perceptions and how does social annotation relate to grades?.” Research in Learning Technology 31. Online: http://dx.doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v31.3050 

East, Matt, Leah Warriner-Wood, and Jamie Wood (2022). “Reading online during lockdown: insights from History and Heritage’. In: M. G. Jamil and D. Morley, eds., Agile Learning Environments amid Disruption: Evaluating Academic innovations in Higher Education during Covid-19 (Palgrave-Macmillan), 461-78.
Kalir, J. H., Morales, E., Fleerackers, A. and Alperin, J. P. (2020). “‘When I saw my peers annotating’: Student perceptions of social annotation for learning in multiple courses”. Information and Learning Sciences 121, 3/4, 207-30. Online: https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-12-2019-0128