annotating digital texts for reading comprehension

8/8/2019 Annotating Digital Texts for Reading Comprehension

1/14

Running head: ANNOTATING DIGITAL TEXTS FOR READING COMPREHENSION 1

Annotating Digital Texts for Reading Comprehension

Alan J. Reid

Old Dominion University

Fall 2010


2/14

ANNOTATING DIGITAL TEXTS FOR READING COMPREHENSION2

Introduction

Since the advent of the electronic book, there has been discussion of a revolution inthe way we consume information through newspapers, magazines, books, andjournal articles. For some, this discussion has evolved into an immediate reality, and

for others, the electronic reader (e-reader) has not yet impacted their readinghabits. But in academia, because of the volume of texts and literature students arerequired to purchase and transport each semester, and because of their affordability($100-$200), e-readers have become a viable, money (and lower back) savingoption. In fact, while we are already seeing the beginning of a shift to e-books onmany campuses, higher education has probably up to five years to prepare forsignificant e-book adoption on campus at least in the area of course materials,such as textbooks (Nelson, 2008). In the context of this paper, the term e-readerwill refer to a portable device, which at the most basic level, is capable of readingdigital texts and may or may not also contain other computing powers.

Furthermore, it is important to note that smartphones such as the iPhone andAndroid may also constitute an e-reader. With dozens ofe-reader applicationsavailable for the iPhone, accessing e-books via a mobile device is an untappedresource for most educators. Having course-related digital texts in students pocketsat all times means learning is constantly and literally at their fingertips. Mobilelearning, or m-learning, is a resource that can provide students convenience andflexibility for just-in-time learning. I will differentiate between e-readers andsmartphones with e-reader applications by referring to the former strictly as e-readers, and the latter more specifically as mobile-readers. This distinction issignificant because mobile-readers are more portable than the larger e-readers, andmore common. In terms of popularity, wired.com anticipates that iPhone sales will

reach 100 million by the end of 2011 (Chen, 2010), and this will only further engrainmobile-readers into mainstream society.

This shift towards e-readers and mobile-readers ushers in a new set of challengesand hurdles, but also, a new set of opportunities. The intent of this paper is not toevaluate the technical challenges and advantages of e-readers and mobile-readers,but instead to investigate the use of generative learning strategies in terms ofannotations and their facilitation or hindrance of reading comprehension throughthe use of these devices specifically.

The Problem

In 2010, 48% of graduating high school seniors did not meet the college readinessbenchmark for Reading as indicated by the American College Testing (ACT)examination (ACT Profile Report - National: graduating class of 2010 , 2010).Consequently, students arrive on college campuses with the expectation theypossess basic literacy skills, in which nearly half of them are deficient. Because ofthis disconnect, students are often set up to fail by asking them to perform a task


3/14


such as processing a text when they lack the fundamental skill set to do so. Collegestudents are often given the task of reading narrative and expository material, butmany of them do not read actively for comprehension. In fact, college freshmentypically use memorizing, rereading, and looking over to read and studytext(Simpson & Nist, 1990). Thus, reading becomes an empty activity and

inherently worthless when meaningful learning does not occur. So, in order topromote literary understanding, and to save time, the reader should become anactive participant by interacting with the text through the use of generative learningstrategies, namely, annotation.

The majority of e-readers and mobile-readers include an annotating function inwhich the learner can easily select, organize, and integrate material from the textinto his own constructs of knowledge and formulate his own questions, therebyenhancing understanding through creating mental models and representations (Seeappendix). Again, the aim of this research is not to compare the benefits of e-readersto traditional paper and pen annotations, but to demonstrate the generative

strategies that should be applied to reading in order to achieve comprehension andunderstanding of expository text. Annotating a text has been proven beneficial forreading comprehension (Harris, 1990; Hynd, Simpson, & Chase, 1990; Nist,Simpson, & Olejnik, 1985; Simpson & Nist, 1990), and this should continue to be thecase regardless of the medium.

Conceptual framework

This research will explore the function of annotation mainly as a generative learningstrategy, through employing Merlin C. Wittrocks models of generative learning(1974), and the teaching of comprehension (1991), and Richard E. Mayers (1996)SOI theory. By building textual representations into mental models and schemata, adeeper level of understanding and processing of the text is enabled.

The learner population focuses specifically on post-secondary students.

What is annotation?

Annotating a text for understanding is not a recent development. Mortimer Adlersessay How to mark a book, first appeared in a magazine in 1940, and defines seven

devices for marking a book intelligently and fruitfully. One of these methods isannotation: Writing in the margin, or at the top or bottom of the page, for the sake of:recording questions (and perhaps answers) which a passage raised in your mind;reducing a complicated discussion to a simple statement; recording the sequence ofmajor points right through the books (Adler, 1942). Annotating requires thelearner to synthesize textual information as he reads. This is beneficial for a numberof reasons: identifying important concepts eliminates the need for re-reading,


4/14


annotations serve as an external mechanism (Frazier, 1993), and the readerobtains a deeper level of understanding through developing elaborate questionsfrom the text.

Annotating is also referred to as encoding because the learner selects important ideas,

processes it cognitively, and constructs meaning from the text in the margin (Nist,Simpson, Olejnik, & Mealey, 1991). Thus, annotating a text is more involved thanmerely highlighting words and writing ideas in the margin. It is a cyclical process asproposed by the model of annotation for reading comprehension (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Model of Annotation for Comprehension in narrative text.

The art of annotating a text is not simply highlighting, underlining, or the emphasismarking of words (Marshall, 2000). Effective annotation involves two steps: (1)highlighting (or underlining) important and relevant material, and (2) marginalia, orproducing germane notes in the margin of the text. Marginalia is derived fromgenerative learning strategies as proposed by Merlin C. Wittrock.

Models of Generative Learning Theory

M. C. Wittrock first proposed his generative model of learning in his classic 1974article Learning as a generative process in which he states, the generative modelpredicts that learning is a function of the abstract and distinctive, concreteassociations which the learner generates between his prior experience, as it isstored in long-term memory and the stimuli. In terms of reading comprehension,generative learning supposes the reader is an active participant in the text.


5/14


Annotating a text is a useful strategy to initially engage the reader with the text, andbridge the information in the text with prior knowledge and associations. Accordingto Wittrocks model of generative learning, reading comprehension occurs whenreaders build relationships (1) between the text and their knowledge andexperience, and (2) among the different parts of the text(Linden & Wittrock, 1981).

When readers make these connections to the text, comprehension and retention offacts in the text is more likely, and this builds knowledge upon which the learner canexpound.

Wittrocks model of generative teaching of comprehension extends his generativemodel of learning by including two desired factors in teaching readingcomprehension: (1) students knowledge base and preconception, (2) motivation,(3) attention [italics added], and (4) generation(Wittrock, 1991). E-readers andmobile-readers provide an aspect of novelty, which could increase student attentionand motivation, thus facilitating task completion.

Generative learning strategies consist of two types families: organization andintegration. Organizational strategies build relationships between parts of the textand can be understood through summaries, concept mapping, and creating titles,among others. Integrated strategies require higher levels of cognitive processing,and result in a higher level of understanding such as paraphrasing, drawinginferences, and constructing examples (Volk & Ritchie, 1999). Though both familiesof generative learning strategies are encouraged through annotation, integrating thereaders ideas with the narrative text promotes a more meaningful interaction, andsubsequently, a higher likelihood of comprehension.

SOI Model

Richard Mayers SOI model for guiding cognitive processes in knowledgeconstruction is closely related to Wittrocks generative theory. Although it pertainsmainly to expository material, it can be applied to narrative text as well. The SOImodel constructs a cognitive architecture of new information through three stages:selecting, organizing, and integrating.

Selecting: The differentiation between important and unimportant material in thetext is imperative for the reader to gain understanding. This strategy intends toguide the readers attention (Mayer, 1996).

Organizing: After the significant information is selected, it is then organized in acoherent structure that accommodates the key pieces of information(Mayer,1996). This information is constructed in short-term memory in preparation for thefinal step.

Integrating: Finally, information is related to prior knowledge and experiencesthrough integrating the new material with what the learner already knows.


6/14


Mayer (2010) associates the SOI process with Wittrocks generative learning:

Wittrock (1992) focused on generative learning processesto selectivelyattend to events [corresponding to what I call selecting]and generatingrelations both among concepts [corresponding to what I call organizing] and

between experience or prior learning and new information [correspondingto what I call integrating].

By annotating a text, the learner selects the relevant and important information,organizes it into coherent and meaningful knowledge structures, and integrates itinto existing ideas and preconceptions.

The von Restorff Effect

On a psychomotor level, the von Restorff effect supposes that highlighting an itemagainst a contrasted background will inadvertently increase the recall of that item.

Much of the research indicates that this is indeed the case (Nist & Hogrebe, 1985;Wittrock, 1974). Though recall is a generative strategy and may be appropriate forcertain educational objectives, recalling information does not necessarily translateinto comprehension or understanding of the text. Therefore, the von Restorff effectis somewhat irrelevant to digital annotation research except in the case ofincreasing recognition and familiarity of words, ideas, and concepts in the material.

What the research has to say

Literature specific to the effects of annotation on reading comprehension is scarce.And, the effects of annotation on reading comprehension via a digital text are non-existent. The collection of research on reading comprehension and annotation canbe categorized into three main areas: (1) Textmarking as a method for recall, (2)Student-generated vs. Experimenter-generated annotations, and (3) Annotation andits impact on student achievement. The first two areas of research deserverecognition because they do, in fact, lay groundwork for the focus of the suggestedresearch: the function of digital annotations in terms of comprehension.

Research involving annotation tends to get lumped into a broader category oftextmarking. There has been ample research that measures the von Restorff effect,in terms of highlighting and/or underlining for recall and comprehension (Hartley,

Bartlett, & Branthwaite, 1980; Johnson & Wen, 1976; Rickards & August, 1975;Silvers & Kreiner, 1997; Wallace, 1965), but the objective of annotation is togenerate deeper levels of understanding through the development of elaborateideas and connections to the text and prior knowledge, not to simply recall prose.

The second area of research that is commonly associated with the use ofannotations in narrative text is a comparison between student-generatedannotations and experimenter-generated annotations in terms of student


7/14


performance. Much of the literature is contradictory in the sense that some researchhas shown the significance of student-generated annotations over experimenter-generated annotations on test performance (Rickards & August, 1975), while otherstudies did not find statistical significance between the two types of annotations(Nist & Hogrebe, 1985).

While there is no known research on the effect of annotations (as generated on e-readers and mobile-readers) on reading comprehension and student achievement,some research has been conducted on the impact of student-generated, paper andpen based annotations on test performance. These findings are viewed as beingrelevant and applicable to digital readers. Sherrie Nist and Michele Simpson of theUniversity of Georgia are the most prolific researchers on annotation, and havefound significant results. Nist, Simpson, and Olejnik (1985) found that of six majorstudy variables (annotating/underlining, recitation, vocabulary, test planning, andlecture note format and content), annotating/underlining was more highlycorrelated with test performance among college students than any other

variable(Frazier, 1993). In fact, a 1990 study found significant data that suggestedan increase of student performance when annotations are employed.

Simpson and Nist (1990) studied sixty college students enrolled in a developmentalstudies course who had problems in processing lengthy texts. The students weresplit into two groups: the annotation group, and the preview-question group. Theannotation group was provided extensive training on how to annotate effectively,and then asked to read and annotate a 3,000-word text on psychology, history, orsociology. The preview-question group was instructed to preview the readingmaterial, and generate and answer their own test questions based on concepts fromthe text. The data was measured in terms of test performance, and amount of time

spent studying. The group using annotations performed significantly better than thepreview-question group in both test performance and in terms of efficiency instudying time. The preview-question group spent 77% more time in learning thematerial than did the annotation group(Simpson & Nist, 1990).

However, in a subsequent study conducted by Nist, Simpson, Olejnik, & Mealey(1991), participants were given instruction on a variety of study strategies such asencoding (annotating), word meaning, organization, and executive control, thengiven a test over chapters on three different areas: geography, political science, andcommunications. A correlation was drawn between the study strategies selected bythe student and their resulting test performance. The analysis did not reveal a

consistently superior study strategy. Instead, it was concluded there is no onespecific generic strategy that works in all studying situations(Nist et al., 1991).

Additionally, it should be noted that in prior research, the material being analyzed isexpository in nature. In contrast, this paper is proposing that annotation is a viable,effective generative strategy for comprehending digital, narrative text on mobiledevices (see Appendix).


8/14


Heuristics

Annotation is an effective generative learning strategy, but not in isolation, and not

for every student. Previous research also maintains that this strategy is onlyeffective when instruction is provided on how to properly annotate. Simply tellingthe learner to annotate a text will not improve comprehension and understanding;in fact, identifying irrelevant material in the text may confuse the reader and diverthis or her focus from important concepts (Bell & Limber, 2010; Rickards & August,1975). In order for annotation to be an effective strategy, direct instructions on howto properly annotate should be provided first. This direct instruction should take thelearners level of ability into account as well. Low-skilled readers require moreguidance on selecting relevant concepts from the text, and they are more likely torely more heavily on the interaction with the text than high-skilled readers (Bell &Limber, 2010). A thorough learner analysis should be performed before prescribing

generative strategies.

Using annotation as a generative learning strategy should encourage the learner todevelop a relationship between incoming information, and pre-existing knowledgeand experiences. As proposed by the model of generative learning, the focus inlearning is on generating relations, rather than on storing information(Wittrock,1992). The third level of Mayers SOI model is to integrate new information withwhat the learner already knows. Forging this relationship with prior knowledgeproduces meaningful learning.

Recommendations for further research

Digital readers have shaped the way we read and interact with text. Unfamiliarwords can be defined with the tap of a finger. Annotations of text can be indexed,organized, and shared with others in the blink of an eye. Though these functions arenovel and timesaving, they should not be confused with the crux of the issue:annotating text as a function of generative learning. The current body of researchexamines annotation as a strategy for recall and retention, but more research isnecessary to investigate the effects of annotation on reading comprehension andunderstanding. Further research is also needed to investigate the differencesbetween low-ability readers and high-ability readers when this strategy is

employed. Furthermore, research on the use of annotations in expository text iscommon, but in terms of comprehending narrative text, additional research isneeded.


9/14


References

ACT Profile Report - National: Graduating class of 2010. (2010). (p. 31). American

College Testing. Retrieved from http://www.act.org/news/data.html

Adler, M. J. (1942). How to mark a book. In R. S. Loomis & D. L. Clark (Eds.), Modern

English Readings (pp. 268-272). Farrar & Rinehart.

Bell, K. E., & Limber, J. E. (2010). Reading skill, textbook marking, and course

performance. Literacy Research and Instruction, 49, 56-67.

doi:10.1080/19388070802695879

Chen, B. (2010, June 18). Analyst: iPhone sales to surpass 100 million by 2011.

Gadget Lab. Retrieved October 10, 2010, from

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/06/analyst-iphone-sales-to-

surpass-100-million-by-2011/

Frazier, D. W. (1993). Transfer of college developmental reading students'

textmarking strategies.Journal of Reading Behavior,25(1), 17-41.

Harris, J. (1990). Text annotation and underlining as metacognitive strategies to

improve comprehension and retention of expository text. Presented at the

National Reading Conference, Miami, FL.

Hartley, J., Bartlett, S., & Branthwaite, A. (1980). Underlining can make a difference -

sometimes.Journal of Educational Research , 73(4), 218-224.

Hynd, C., Simpson, M., & Chase, N. (1990). Studying narrative text: The effects of


10/14


annotating vs. journal writing on test performance. Reading Research and

Instruction,29(2), 44-54.

Johnson, D., & Wen, S. (1976). Effects of correct and extraneous markings under

time limits on reading comprehension. Psychology in the Schools, 13, 454-456.

Linden, M., & Wittrock, M. (1981). The teaching of reading comprehension according

to the model of generative learning. Reading Research Quarterly, 17(1), 44-

57.

Marshall, C. (2000). The future of annotation in a digital (paper) world. In S. Harum

& M. Twidale (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th annual clinic on library

applications of data processing: successes and failures of digital libraries (pp.

43-53). Retrieved from http://www.csdl.tamu.edu/marshall/uiucpaper-

complete.pdf

Mayer, R. E. (1996). Learning strategies for making sense out of expository text: The

SOI model for guiding three cognitive processes in knowledge construction.

Educational Psychology Review, 8(4), 357-371.

Mayer, R. E. (2010). Merlin C. Wittrock's enduring contributions to the science of

learning. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 46-50.

Nelson, M. R. (2008, January 8). E-Books in higher education: Nearing the end of the

era of hype? ECAR Research Bulletin,2008(1).

Nist, S., Simpson, M., & Olejnik, S. (1985). The relationship between six study


11/14


strategies and test performance. Presented at the National Reading

Conference, San Diego, CA.

Nist, S. L., & Hogrebe, M. C. (1985). The effects of high and low relevant text

underlining on test performance (p. 20). Presented at the National Reading

Conference, San Diego, CA.

Nist, S. L., Simpson, M. L., Olejnik, S., & Mealey, D. L. (1991). The relation between

self-selected study processes and test performance.American Educational

Research Journal,28(4), 849-874.

Rickards, J. P., & August, G. J. (1975). Generative underlining strategies in prose

recall.Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(6), 860-865.

Silvers, V., & Kreiner, D. (1997). The effects of pre-existing inappropriate

highlighting on reading comprehension. Reading Research and Instruction,

36, 217-223.

Simpson, M., & Nist, S. (1990). Textbook annotation: An effective and efficient study

strategy for college students.Journal of Reading, 34(2), 122-129.

Volk, C., & Ritchie, D. (1999). Comparison of Generative Learning Strategies. In

Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Papers (p. 8). Presented at

the National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications

and Technology, Houston, TX.

Wallace, W. P. (1965). Review of the historical, empirical, and theoretical status of


12/14


the von Restorff phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 410-424.

Wittrock, M. (1974). Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist,

11(2), 87-95.

Wittrock, M. (1991). Generative Teaching of Comprehension. The Elementary School

Journal, 92(2), 170-184.

Wittrock, M. (1992). Generative learning processes of the brain. Educational

Psychologist,27(4), 531-541.


13/14


Appendix

Using the free e-reader application, Stanza, readers have a multitude of options forinteracting with the text. The user can highlight material in the text in order todefine unknown words (figures 2 & 3), make important annotations (figures 4 & 5),and search the entire text for key words/phrases (figure 6), among other functions.The following screenshots replicate from an iPod Touch, with the textThe

Adventures of HuckleberryFinn.

Figure 2. Figure 3.


14/14


Figure 4. Figure 5.

Figure 6.

annotating digital texts for reading comprehension

Documents