Running head: ANNOTATING DIGITAL TEXTS FOR READING COMPREHENSION

Annotating Digital Texts for Reading Comprehension

Alan J. Reid

Old Dominion University

Fall 2010
ANNOTATING DIGITAL TEXTS FOR READING COMPREHENSION
2

Introduction

Since the advent of the electronic book, there has been discussion of a revolution in
the way we consume information through newspapers, magazines, books, and
journal articles. For some, this discussion has evolved into an immediate reality, and
for others, the electronic reader (e-reader) has not yet impacted their reading
habits. But in academia, because of the volume of texts and literature students are
required to purchase and transport each semester, and because of their affordability
($100-$200), e-readers have become a viable, money (and lower back) saving
option. In fact, “while we are already seeing the beginning of a shift to e-books on
many campuses, higher education has probably up to five years to prepare for
significant 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-reader”
will refer to a portable device, which at the most basic level, is capable of reading
digital texts and may or may not also contain other computing powers.

Furthermore, it is important to note that smartphones such as the iPhone and

Android may also constitute an e-reader. With dozens of e-reader applications
available for the iPhone, accessing e-books via a mobile device is an untapped
resource for most educators. Having course-related digital texts in students’ pockets
at all times means learning is constantly and literally at their fingertips. Mobile
learning, or m-learning, is a resource that can provide students convenience and
flexibility for just-in-time learning. I will differentiate between e-readers and
smartphones with e-reader applications by referring to the former strictly as e-
readers, and the latter more specifically as mobile-readers. This distinction is
significant because mobile-readers are more portable than the larger e-readers, and
more 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 engrain
mobile-readers into mainstream society.

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

The Problem

In 2010, 48% of graduating high school seniors did not meet the college readiness
benchmark 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 they
possess basic literacy skills, in which nearly half of them are deficient. Because of
this disconnect, students are often set up to fail by asking them to perform a task
ANNOTATING DIGITAL TEXTS FOR READING COMPREHENSION
3

such as processing a text when they lack the fundamental skill set to do so. College
students are often given the task of reading narrative and expository material, but
many of them do not read actively for comprehension. In fact, “college freshmen
typically use memorizing, rereading, and ‘looking over’ to read and study
text”(Simpson & Nist, 1990). Thus, reading becomes an empty activity and
inherently worthless when meaningful learning does not occur. So, in order to
promote literary understanding, and to save time, the reader should become an
active participant by interacting with the text through the use of generative learning
strategies, namely, annotation.

The majority of e-readers and mobile-readers include an annotating function in

which the learner can easily select, organize, and integrate material from the text
into his own constructs of knowledge and formulate his own questions, thereby
enhancing understanding through creating mental models and representations (See
appendix). Again, the aim of this research is not to compare the benefits of e-readers
to traditional paper and pen annotations, but to demonstrate the generative
strategies that should be applied to reading in order to achieve comprehension and
understanding of expository text. Annotating a text has been proven beneficial for
reading comprehension (Harris, 1990; Hynd, Simpson, & Chase, 1990; Nist,
Simpson, & Olejnik, 1985; Simpson & Nist, 1990), and this should continue to be the
case regardless of the medium.

Conceptual framework

This research will explore the function of annotation mainly as a generative learning
strategy, through employing Merlin C. Wittrock’s models of generative learning
(1974), and the teaching of comprehension (1991), and Richard E. Mayer’s (1996)
SOI theory. By building textual representations into mental models and schemata, a
deeper 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 Adler’s

essay “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 is
annotation: “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 of
major points right through the books” (Adler, 1942). Annotating requires the
learner to synthesize textual information as he reads. This is beneficial for a number
of reasons: identifying important concepts eliminates the need for re-reading,
ANNOTATING DIGITAL TEXTS FOR READING COMPREHENSION
4

annotations serve as an “external mechanism” (Frazier, 1993), and the reader

obtains a deeper level of understanding through developing elaborate questions
from 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 than
merely highlighting words and writing ideas in the margin. It is a cyclical process as
proposed 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 “emphasis
marking” of words (Marshall, 2000). Effective annotation involves two steps: (1)
highlighting (or underlining) important and relevant material, and (2) marginalia, or
producing germane notes in the margin of the text. Marginalia is derived from
generative 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 1974
article “Learning as a generative process” in which he states, “the generative model
predicts that learning is a function of the abstract and distinctive, concrete
associations which the learner generates between his prior experience, as it is
stored in long-term memory and the stimuli.” In terms of reading comprehension,
generative learning supposes the reader is an active participant in the text.
ANNOTATING DIGITAL TEXTS FOR READING COMPREHENSION
5

Annotating a text is a useful strategy to initially engage the reader with the text, and
bridge the information in the text with prior knowledge and associations. According
to Wittrock’s model of generative learning, “reading comprehension occurs when
readers build relationships (1) between the text and their knowledge and
experience, and (2) among the different parts of the text”(Linden & Wittrock, 1981).
When readers make these connections to the text, comprehension and retention of
facts in the text is more likely, and this builds knowledge upon which the learner can
expound.

Wittrock’s model of generative teaching of comprehension extends his generative

model of learning by including two desired factors in teaching reading
comprehension: “(1) student’s knowledge base and preconception, (2) motivation,
(3) attention [italics added], and (4) generation”(Wittrock, 1991). E-readers and
mobile-readers provide an aspect of novelty, which could increase student attention
and motivation, thus facilitating task completion.

Generative learning strategies consist of two types families: organization and

integration. Organizational strategies build relationships between parts of the text
and 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, drawing
inferences, and constructing examples (Volk & Ritchie, 1999). Though both families
of generative learning strategies are encouraged through annotation, integrating the
reader’s ideas with the narrative text promotes a more meaningful interaction, and
subsequently, a higher likelihood of comprehension.

SOI Model

Richard Mayer’s SOI model for guiding cognitive processes in knowledge

construction is closely related to Wittrock’s generative theory. Although it pertains
mainly to expository material, it can be applied to narrative text as well. The SOI
model constructs a cognitive architecture of new information through three stages:
selecting, organizing, and integrating.

Selecting: The differentiation between important and unimportant material in the

text is imperative for the reader to gain understanding. This strategy intends to
guide the reader’s attention (Mayer, 1996).

Organizing: After the significant information is selected, it is then organized in a

“coherent structure that accommodates the key pieces of information”(Mayer,
1996). This information is constructed in short-term memory in preparation for the
final step.

Integrating: Finally, information is related to prior knowledge and experiences

through integrating the new material with what the learner already knows.
ANNOTATING DIGITAL TEXTS FOR READING COMPREHENSION
6

Mayer (2010) associates the SOI process with Wittrock’s generative learning:

Wittrock (1992) focused on “generative learning processes…to selectively

attend to events [corresponding to what I call selecting]…and generating
relations both among concepts [corresponding to what I call organizing] and
between experience or prior learning and new information [corresponding
to 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 it
into existing ideas and preconceptions.

The von Restorff Effect

On a psychomotor level, the von Restorff effect supposes that highlighting an item
against 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 for
certain educational objectives, recalling information does not necessarily translate
into comprehension or understanding of the text. Therefore, the von Restorff effect
is somewhat irrelevant to digital annotation research except in the case of
increasing 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 can
be categorized into three main areas: (1) Textmarking as a method for recall, (2)
Student-generated vs. Experimenter-generated annotations, and (3) Annotation and
its impact on student achievement. The first two areas of research deserve
recognition because they do, in fact, lay groundwork for the focus of the suggested
research: the function of digital annotations in terms of comprehension.

Research involving annotation tends to get lumped into a broader category of

“textmarking.” 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 to
generate deeper levels of understanding through the development of elaborate
ideas 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 of
annotations in narrative text is a comparison between student-generated
annotations and experimenter-generated annotations in terms of student
ANNOTATING DIGITAL TEXTS FOR READING COMPREHENSION
7

performance. Much of the literature is contradictory in the sense that some research
has shown the significance of student-generated annotations over experimenter-
generated annotations on test performance (Rickards & August, 1975), while other
studies 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 and
pen based annotations on test performance. These findings are viewed as being
relevant and applicable to digital readers. Sherrie Nist and Michele Simpson of the
University of Georgia are the most prolific researchers on annotation, and have
found significant results. Nist, Simpson, and Olejnik (1985) found that of “six major
study variables (annotating/underlining, recitation, vocabulary, test planning, and
lecture note format and content), annotating/underlining was more highly
correlated with test performance among college students than any other
variable”(Frazier, 1993). In fact, a 1990 study found significant data that suggested
an increase of student performance when annotations are employed.

Simpson and Nist (1990) studied sixty college students enrolled in a developmental
studies course who had “problems in processing lengthy texts.” The students were
split into two groups: the annotation group, and the preview-question group. The
annotation 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, or
sociology. The preview-question group was instructed to preview the reading
material, and generate and answer their own test questions based on concepts from
the text. The data was measured in terms of test performance, and amount of time
spent studying. The group using annotations performed significantly better than the
preview-question group in both test performance and in terms of efficiency in
studying time. “The preview-question group spent 77% more time in learning the
material 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 as
encoding (annotating), word meaning, organization, and executive control, then
given a test over chapters on three different areas: geography, political science, and
communications. A correlation was drawn between the study strategies selected by
the student and their resulting test performance. The analysis did not reveal a
consistently superior study strategy. Instead, it was concluded “there is no one
specific 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 is
expository in nature. In contrast, this paper is proposing that annotation is a viable,
effective generative strategy for comprehending digital, narrative text on mobile
devices (see Appendix).
ANNOTATING DIGITAL TEXTS FOR READING COMPREHENSION
8

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 only
effective when instruction is provided on how to properly annotate. Simply telling
the learner to annotate a text will not improve comprehension and understanding;
in fact, identifying irrelevant material in the text may confuse the reader and divert
his or her focus from important concepts (Bell & Limber, 2010; Rickards & August,
1975). In order for annotation to be an effective strategy, direct instructions on how
to properly annotate should be provided first. This direct instruction should take the
learner’s level of ability into account as well. Low-skilled readers require more
guidance on selecting relevant concepts from the text, and they are more likely to
rely 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 to

develop a relationship between incoming information, and pre-existing knowledge
and experiences. As proposed by the model of generative learning, “the focus in
learning is on generating relations, rather than on storing information”(Wittrock,
1992). The third level of Mayer’s SOI model is to integrate new information with
what the learner already knows. Forging this relationship with prior knowledge
produces meaningful learning.

Recommendations for further research

Digital readers have shaped the way we read and interact with text. Unfamiliar
words 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 are
novel 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 research
examines annotation as a strategy for recall and retention, but more research is
necessary to investigate the effects of annotation on reading comprehension and
understanding. Further research is also needed to investigate the differences
between low-ability readers and high-ability readers when this strategy is
employed. Furthermore, research on the use of annotations in expository text is
common, but in terms of comprehending narrative text, additional research is
needed.
ANNOTATING DIGITAL TEXTS FOR READING COMPREHENSION
9

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
ANNOTATING DIGITAL TEXTS FOR READING COMPREHENSION
10

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
ANNOTATING DIGITAL TEXTS FOR READING COMPREHENSION
11

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

ANNOTATING DIGITAL TEXTS FOR READING COMPREHENSION
12

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.

ANNOTATING DIGITAL TEXTS FOR READING COMPREHENSION
13

Appendix

Using the free e-reader application, Stanza, readers have a multitude of options for
interacting with the text. The user can highlight material in the text in order to
define 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 text The
Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.

Figure 2. Figure 3.
ANNOTATING DIGITAL TEXTS FOR READING COMPREHENSION
14

Figure 4. Figure 5.

Figure 6.