{"id":12526,"date":"2024-09-17T11:45:01","date_gmt":"2024-09-17T10:45:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/altc.alt.ac.uk\/blog\/?p=12526"},"modified":"2024-09-18T08:04:34","modified_gmt":"2024-09-18T07:04:34","slug":"indirect-discussion-and-interaction-in-social-annotation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/altc.alt.ac.uk\/blog\/2024\/09\/indirect-discussion-and-interaction-in-social-annotation\/","title":{"rendered":"Indirect discussion and interaction in social annotation"},"content":{"rendered":"

Written by Jamie Wood, Professor of History and Education, University of Lincoln
\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Introduction: what\u2019s social about social annotation?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019t devoted as much attention to looking at what students actually do<\/em> in online spaces when they engage with texts.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

What is indirect discussion?<\/em><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The more I\u2019ve thought about it, I\u2019ve come to the conclusion that something more complicated is going on. Looking at how <\/em>students engage in discussion on social annotation platforms reveals a phenomenon that I can only describe as indirect discussion<\/em>. Students cluster comments around particular points of interest in a text rather than engaging in direct <\/em>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.    <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019s 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\u2019 engagement with their reading and with each other. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why do students discuss indirectly? <\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

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