Abstract
Social annotation tools hold great potential in facilitating students’ academic reading by transforming solitary reading tasks into collaborative experience, but little is known about how social annotations can affect students’ academic reading motivation. This study examined the use of Perusall, a social annotation tool, among students in three university classes. It specifically explored how Perusall affected the students’ motivation for curriculum-based academic reading and what factors accounted for the changes in their reading motivation. Informed by Guthrie et al.'s (2011) Motivations for reading information books school questionnaire (MRIB-S) and motivation for reading information books non-school questionnaire (MRIB-N), we devised the Motivation for Curriculum-based Academic Reading (MCAR) questionnaire to examine the students’ pre-task and post-task reading motivation. We also created prompts for both the midterm and final written reflections to elicit the students’ perspectives on using Perusall for curriculum-based academic reading. The results revealed that social annotations enhanced the students’ reading motivation, particularly extrinsic motivation, and students showed stronger preference for reading academic texts online toward the end of the study. The changes in their motivation can be attributed to multiple opportunities that Perusall affords, including peer interaction/coaching, interaction between readers and texts, and ongoing automated grading. The students appreciated the transformational role of Perusall, reflected in simultaneity of reading and discussion, the affordance of equal/wider student participation, and collaborative reading of course contents. This study sheds light on the impact of social annotation tools on students’ collaborative relationships, the growth of online learning communities, and the improvement of students’ reading motivation.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adams, B., & Wilson, N. (2020). Building community in asynchronous online higher education courses through collaborative annotation. Journal of Educational Technology, 49(2), 250–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239520946422
Adams, B., & Wilson, N. (2021). Investigating student’s during-reading practices through social annotation. Literacy Research and Instruction. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2021.2008560
Allred, J. B., & Cena, M. E. (2020). Reading motivation in high school: Instructional shifts in student choice and class time. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 64(1), 27–35.
Anderson, C. (2018). Essentials of linguistics. Open Library Pressbooks.
Barab, S., Kling, R., & Gray, J. H. (2004). Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning. Cambridge University Press.
Bartolomeo-Maida, M. (2016). The use of learning journals to foster textbook reading in the community college psychology class. College Student Journal, 50(3), 440–453.
Becker, M., McElvany, N., & Kortenbruck, M. (2010). Intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation as predictors of reading literacy: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 773–785.
Burchfield, C. M., & Sappington, J. (2000). Compliance with required reading assignments. Teaching of Psychology, 27(1), 58–60.
Cecchinato, G., & Foschi, L. C. (2020). Perusall: University learning - teaching innovation employing social annotation and machine learning. QWERTY, 15(2), 45–67.
Chen, C. M., & Chen, F. Y. (2014). Enhancing digital reading performance with a collaborative reading annotation system. Computers & Education, 77, 67–81.
Cho, B.-Y. (2014). Competent adolescent readers’ use of internet reading strategies: A think-aloud study. Cognition & Instruction, 32(3), 253–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2014.918133
Clark, C. J. (1998). Let your online learning community grow: 3 design principles for growing successful Email Listervs and online forums in educational settings. San Diego State University.
Clump, M. A., Bauer, H., & Bradley, C. (2004). The extent to which psychology students read textbooks: A multiple class analysis of reading across the psychology curriculum. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31(3), 227–232.
Cresswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. SAGE.
Crovitz, D., & Devereaux, M. D. (2017). Grammar to get things done: A practical guide for teachers anchored in real-world usage. Routledge.
Davis, M. H., Tonks, S. M., Hock, M., Wang, W., & Rodriguez, A. (2018). A review of reading motivation scales. Reading Psychology, 39, 121–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2017.1400482
Del Principe, A., & Ihara, R. (2016). “I bought the book and I didn’t need it”: What reading looks like at an urban community college. Teaching English in the Two Year College, 43(3), 229–244.
Derryberry, W. P., & Wininger, S. R. (2008). Relationships among textbook usage and cognitive-motivational constructs. Teaching Educational Psychology, 3(2), 1–11.
Dörnyei, Z., & Taguchi, T. (2010). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration and processing. Routledge.
Downes, S. (1999). Creating an online learning community. Edmonton: Virtual School Symposium. Retrieved from https://www.downes.ca/presentation/92
Folse, K. S. (2016). Keys to teaching grammar to English language learners: A practical handbook. University of Michigan Press.
Gao, F. (2013). A case study of using a social annotation tool to support collaborative learning. Internet and Higher Education, 17, 76–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.11.002
Guthrie, J. T., Cambria, J., & Wigfield, A. (2011). Motivations for reading information books school questionnaire (MRIB-S) and motivation for reading information books non-school questionnaire (MRIB-N). Retrieved January 8, 2011 from http://www.cori.umd.edu/measures/MRIBS.pdf
Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 403–422). Longman.
Huang, S. H. (2013). Factors affecting middle school students’ reading motivation in Taiwan. Reading Psychology, 34(2), 148–181.
Hwang, W.-Y., Wang, C.-Y., & Sharples, M. (2007). A study of multimedia annotation of web-based materials. Computers & Education, 48(4), 680–699.
Ihara, R., & Del Principe, A. (2018). What we mean when we talk about reading: Rethinking the purposes and contexts of college reading. Across the Disciplines, 15, 1–14.
Johnson, T. E., Archibald, T. N., & Tenenbaum, G. (2010). Individual and team annotation effects on students’ reading comprehension, critical thinking, and meta-cognitive skills. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1496–1507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.014
Kambara, H., Chen, P., Adachi, S., & Lin, Y. (2021). Validating the adult motivation for reading scale with Japanese college students. International Journal of Educational Research, 108, 101752.
Lipponen, L. (2002). Exploring foundations for computer-supported collaborative learning. In Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Foundations for a CSCL community (pp. 72–81).
Miller, K., Lukoff, B., King, G., & Mazur, E. (2018). Use of a social annotation platform for pre-class reading assignments in a flipped introductory physics class. Frontiers in Education. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00008
Nolen, S. B. (1996). Why study? How reasons for learning influence strategy selection. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 335–355.
Novak, E., Razzouk, R., & Johnson, T. (2012). The educational use of social annotation tools in higher education: A literature review. Internet and Higher Education, 15, 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.09.002
Park, J., Yang, J., & Hsieh, Y. (2014). University level second language readers’ online reading and comprehension strategies. Language Learning & Technology, 18(3), 148–172.
Razon, S., Turner, J., Johnson, T. E., Arsal, G., & Tenenbaum, G. (2012). Effects of a collaborative annotation method on students’ learning and learning-related motivation and affect. Computer in Human Behavior, 28(2), 350–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.004
Roberts, T. (2005). Computer supported collaborative learning in higher education. IGI Global.
Rothkopf, E. Z. (1988). Perspectives on study skills training in a realistic instructional economy. In C. E. Weinstein, E. T. Goetz, & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment, instruction, and evaluation (pp. 275–286). Academic Press.
Saldaňa, J. (2012). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Sage.
Sappington, J., Kinsey, K., & Munsayac, K. (2002). Two studies of reading compliance among college students. Teaching of Psychology, 29, 272–274.
Starcher, K., & Proffitt, D. (2011). Encouraging students to read: What professors are (and aren’t) doing about it. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23(3), 396–407.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Sage.
Sun, Y., & Gao, F. (2017). Comparing the use of a social annotation tool and a threaded discussion forum to support online discussions. Internet and Higher Education, 32, 72–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.10.001
Thorns, J. J., & Poole, F. (2017). Investigating linguistic, literary, and social affordances of L2 collaborative reading. Language Learning & Technology, 21(2), 139–156.
Tu, C., & Corry M. (2001). Research in online learning Community. The George Washington University. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chih-Hsiung-Tu-2/publication/26392290_RESEARCH_IN_ONLINE_LEARNING_COMMUNITY/links/542172800cf203f155c6bb8e/RESEARCH-IN-ONLINE-LEARNING-COMMUNITY.pdf
Tu, C., & Corry, M. (2002). Research in online learning community. E-Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 5(1), 1–11.
Walker, A. S. (2019). Perusall: Harnessing AI tobo-tools and writing analytics to improve student learning and increase instructor efficiency. Retrieved January 8, 2021 from https://wac.colostate.edu/docs/jwa/vol3/walker.pdf
Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. The Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 470–481.
Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for reading to the amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.3.420
Yang, G., Badri, M., Al Rashedi, A., & Almazroui, K. (2018). The role of reading motivation, self-efficacy, and home influence in students’ literacy achievement: a preliminary examination of fourth graders in Abu Dhabi. Large-Scale Assessments in Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-018-0063-0
Yang, X., Yu, S., & Sun, Z. (2013). The effect of collaborative annotation on Chinese reading level in primary schools in China. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(1), 95–111.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
Ethical approval
This study has been approved by the IRB office of Georgia Southern University. That is, the appropriate ethical approval has been received and the study conforms to recognized standards.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix A
Instructor-adjusted grading rubrics
Minimum requirements: 3 annotations for each reading assignment. (For these reading assignments, the instructor adjusted the Perusall grading components to allow students to earn full credit in different ways. Specific grading components are described below. For more details on how scoring works in Perusall, see https://www.perusall.com/hubfs/downloads/scoring-details.pdf.)
Annotation content component.
-
Annotation content score target: 70%
-
Do not allow responses for credit past the deadline
-
Do not score any late annotations
-
Maximum penalty for responses that are not distributed evenly throughout the content: 5%
Opening assignment component.
-
Opening assignment target: 30%
-
Opening assignment increment: 5%
Reading component.
-
Reading target: 30%
Active reading time component.
-
Active reading target: 30%
-
Active reading increment: 5%
Getting responses component.
-
Getting responses target: 30%
-
Getting responses increment: 1%
Upvoting component.
-
Upvoting target: 20%
-
Receiving upvotes increment: 2%
-
Upvoting increment: 1%
Appendix B
Motivation for curriculum-based academic reading (MCAR)
Intrinsic motivation:
-
1.
I enjoy reading hard-copy academic texts.
-
2.
I enjoy reading online/digital academic texts.
-
3.
I read academic texts as much as I can.
-
4.
I read academic texts because it is fun.
-
5.
The academic texts required for my coursework are interesting.
Extrinsic motivation:
-
6.
I read academic texts (either hard-copy or online) for my coursework.
-
7.
I finish reading assignments on time to get a good score.
-
8.
My classmates value my thought about the academic texts that I read.
-
9.
My teacher values my thought about the academic texts that I read.
-
10.
I like to share what I learn from academic texts with others.
Value:
-
11.
I usually learn a lot from academic texts.
-
12.
Understanding academic texts is very important to me.
-
13.
I can use the knowledge that I learn from academic texts.
-
14.
It is very important to me to be successful in reading academic texts.
-
15.
Reading academic texts is more useful than most of the other academic activities (e.g., lectures, academic writing).
Reading efficacy:
-
16.
I can understand all the academic texts that I read.
-
17.
I can explain the academic texts I have read to my classmates and others.
-
18.
I can find essential ideas and key information in academic texts that I read.
-
19.
I can understand how arguments are developed in the academic texts that I read.
-
20.
I can correctly answer questions based on academic texts that I have read.
Perceived difficulty/preference:
-
21.
The academic texts required in my coursework are hard.
-
22.
I find it difficult to read academic texts online.
-
23.
I prefer reading hard-copy academic texts to online/digital academic texts.
Appendix C
Written reflection questions
The students are asked to complete two written reflection tasks (one at the midterm and the other at the final). The prompt questions are as follows.
Mid-term Reflection (Reflection Task #1).
-
1.
Describe your experience of using Perusall to complete your reading assignments so far.
-
2.
What do you like or dislike about Perusall? Why?
-
3.
Has Perusall changed the way you read? If so, how?
-
4.
Has Perusall changed your understanding of the purpose of reading? If so, how?
******************************************************************************
Final Reflection (Reflection Task #2).
-
1.
How do you think reading and discussion through Perusall is similar to or different from more traditional forms of reading and discussion assignments, for example, reading assignments plus face-to-face classroom discussion or online discussion board assignments?
-
2.
Do you think the automated scoring in Perusall is fair and adequate? How would you compare the automated scoring with the scoring done by an instructor?
-
3.
For future students in this class, what suggestions do you have (both for using Perusall and other aspects of the class)?
Appendix D
SPSS results of the paired sample t test for questionnaire data.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Li, M., Li, J. Using Perusall to motivate students’ curriculum-based academic reading. J. Comput. Educ. 10, 377–401 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-022-00234-y
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-022-00234-y