Implementation of an Online Social Annotation Tool in a College English Course

  • Anne MendenhallEmail author
  • Chanmin Kim
  • Tristan E. Johnson


An online social annotation tool was implemented in the context of utilizing question-answering tasks with reading documents. The tool and tasks were used in order to foster students’ cognitive development with higher-order thinking, critical analysis, and development of sophisticated arguments in English writing. The effects of the tool on students’ mental models as well as their motivation for and achievement in a college argument and persuasion course were investigated. The findings are discussed along with implications and possibilities for future studies.


Social annotation tool Question-answering English education Mental model Motivation Community college 


  1. Astin, A. W. (1999). Student Involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 40(5), 518–529.Google Scholar
  2. Campbell, J., Smith, D., & Brooker, R. (1998). From conception to performance: How undergraduate students conceptualise and construct essays. Higher Education, 36, 449–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cerdán, R., Vidal-Abarca, E., Martínez, T., Gilabert, R., & Gil, L. (2009). Impact of question-answering tasks on search processes and reading comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 19(1), 13–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. DeMott, B. (1995). Put on a happy face: Masking the differences between black and whites. Harper’s Magazine, 291(1744), 31–38.Google Scholar
  5. Dummer, P., & Ifenthaler, D. (2005). Planning and assessing navigation in model-centered learning environments. Why learners often do not follow the path laid out for them. In G. Chiazzese, M. Allegra, A. Chifari, & S. Ottaviano (Eds.), Methods and technologies for learning (pp. 327–334). Southampton, Boston: WIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Ifenthaler, D. (2006). Diagnosis of the learning-dependent progression of mental models. Development of the SMD-Technology as a methodology for assessing individual models on relational, structural and semantic levels. Freiburg: Universitäts-Dissertation.Google Scholar
  7. Keller, J. M. (2009). Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS model approach. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Keller, J. M., & Subhiyah, R. (1993). Course interest survey. Tallahassee, FL: Instructional Systems Program, Florida State University.Google Scholar
  9. Kim, C., Mendenhall, A., & Johnson, T. E. 2010. A design framework for an online English writing course. In J. M. Spector, D. Ifenthaler, P. Isaías, Kinshuk, & D. G. Sampson (Eds.), Learning and instruction in the digital age: Making a difference through cognitive approaches, technology-facilitated collaboration and assessment, and personalized communications. New YorK: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Lebow, D. G., Lick, D. W., and Hartman, H. (2009) New technology for empowering virtual communities. In M. Pagani (Ed.), Encyclopedia of multimedia and technology (2nd ed., pp. 1066–1071). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  11. Merrill, M. D., & Gilbert, C. G. (2008). Effective peer interaction in a problem-centered instructional strategy. Distance Education, 29(2), 199–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Rivera, J., McAlister, K., & Rice, M. (2002). A comparison of student outcomes & satisfaction between traditional & web based course offerings. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 5, 151–179.Google Scholar
  13. Rouet, J.-F., Vidal-Abarca, E., Bert-Erboul, A., & Millogo, V. (2001). Effects of information search tasks on the comprehension of instructional text. Discourse Processes, 31(2), 163–186.Google Scholar
  14. Schiffren, L. (1996). Gay marriage, an oxymoron. (1996, March 23). New York Times. New York, p. A21.Google Scholar
  15. Seaman, B. (2005). How bingeing became the new college sport. Time, 166(9), 80.Google Scholar
  16. Seel, N. M. (1999). Educational diagnosis of mental models: Assessment problems and technology-based solutions. Journal of Structural Learning and Intelligent Systems, 14(2), 153–185.Google Scholar
  17. Seel, N. M. (2004). Model-centered learning environment: Theory, instructional design and effects. In N. M. Seel, R. Marr, & S. Dijkstra (Eds.), Curriculum, loans and processes in instructional design (pp. 49–74). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Seel, N. M., Ifenthaler, D., & Pirnay-Dummer, P. (2009). Mental models and problem solving: Technological solutions for measurement and assessment of the development of expertise. In P. Blumschein, W. Hung, D. H. Jonassen & J. Strobel (Eds.), Model-based approaches to learning: Using systems models and simulations to improve understanding and problem solving in complex domains (pp. 17–40). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. Spector, J. M., & Merrill, M. D. (2008). Special issue: Effective, efficient and engaging learning. Distance Education, 29(2), 123–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sperber, M. (2007). On being a fan. Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(6), 19–21.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne Mendenhall
    • 1
    Email author
  • Chanmin Kim
    • 2
  • Tristan E. Johnson
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Educational Psychology Learning SystemFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA
  2. 2.University of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  3. 3.Florida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA

Personalised recommendations