read

References

Citekey: @Su2010

Su, A. Y. S., Yang, S. J. H., Hwang, W.-Y., & Zhang, J. (2010). A Web 2.0-based collaborative annotation system for enhancing knowledge sharing in collaborative learning environments. Computers & Education, 55(2), 752–766. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.03.008

Notes

An independent implementation of an interesting web annotation system. This paper focuses on evaluating students’ acceptance of the system and how the use of web annotations have helped students learn.

The use of annotations in this study, and in many others, has been focused on knowledge sharing, especially in the process of consuming or making sense of shared readings. How could annotations be pulled together to advance group knowledge building with creation as a goal, and across a variety of documents, could be a next-step challenge.

Highlights

A limitation of current Web-based collaborative learning is the restricted ability of students to create and share individual annotations with annotated documents. (p. 752)

This study designed a personalized annotation management system 2.0 (PAMS 2.0) for managing, sharing, and reusing individual and collaborative annotations as well as providing a shared mechanism for discussion about shared annotations among multiple users. (p. 752)

The purposes of this study are three-fold: (1) to understand students’ perceived attitudes toward the use of PAMS 2.0; (2) to investigate the effects of different annotation sharing scenarios on quantity of annotation and its influence on learning achievements; and (3) to examine the relationship between learning achievements and quantity of annotation. (p. 752)

The latest Web 2.0 technology has provided more opportunities to develop Web-based collaborative learning systems attracted learners to participate in collaborative learning context to learn from their collaborators (Barak, Herscoviz, Kaberman, & Dori, 2009; Jones, Blackey, Fitzgibbon, & Chew, 2010). (p. 752)

From the socialecultural activity theory, the latest Web 2.0 technology can play a role as mediator for enriching technical courses with learning teams (Nardi, 1996). In fact, in Web 2.0-based systems, cross-platform environments and synchronous or/and asynchronous are all proper functions that provide learners with more equal opportunities for sharing information, retrieving information, and active interaction with other learners and instructors (Barak et al., 2009). (p. 752)

In traditional teaching and learning context, learners used to make marks on paper-based textbooks or handouts. Taking notes on textbooks or handouts is a common learning behavior. Furthermore, annotation offers a useful tool to increase deep reading of textual resource (Marshall, 1997, 1998), this is, the annotation causes a learner to think about the content that they are about to annotate (p. 752)

Robert (2009) mentioned that annotation made based on the profile of learners can be very useful in knowledge sharing and knowledge sharing in a collaborative environment can be drawn. (p. 753)

Learners catch the attention of group members using annotations to help them focus on specific document content. Learners can also organize the document content with annotations, and use indexes or reminders for later reference. By reviewing others’ thoughts in the form of annotations, learners can collaboratively explore and exploit valuable knowledge. (p. 753)

  1. Literature review (p. 753)

2.1. Theories of collaborative and Web-based collaborative learning (p. 753)

2.2. Annotation and annotation systems (p. 753)

To avoid duplication and reinvention wherever possible, the proposed annotation model is derived from the Dublin Core. (p. 753)

Much annotation systems have been proposed during the last decade. The Word Wide Web Consortium has proposed a Web-based annotation system called Annotea (2001). Annotea improves collaboration by sharing annotations, bookmarks, and their combinations. (p. 754)

LeeTiernan and Grudin (2001) proposed a prototype that allows viewers of audio and video to create and share textual annotations that are synchronized with the multimedia. Researchers found that group practices can increase engagement and system use, and also suggest possible further improvement to the annotation system. Nokelainen, Kurhila, Miettinen, Floreen, and Tirri (2003) proposed a document-based annotation system for shared their own annotations. The usefulness of the annotation system was evaluated in a real-life collaborative learning context. Yang et al. (2004) proposed a personalized annotation management system. Researchers also demonstrated that personalized annotation enhances knowledge sharing and learning in students’ online learning activity. The overall results indicated that learners who are willing to do real task with the tools provided by the annotation system, and are able to elaborate what they are doing, produce both highest quality annotations and learning achievements. (p. 754)

Recent studies pointed out the usefulness of annotation systems on facilitating learning. Nokelainen et al. (2003) indicated that annotation systems can bring about students’ learning motivation, and they want to use the systems elaborated more about their tasks. Hwang et al. (2007) designed several sharing activities in which annotation increase students’ learning efficiency. Researchers believe that it is not easy to underhand annotation systems for learning without considering their interaction with annotation sharing strategies. Marshall and Brush (2004) also suggested that knowledge sharing strategies provide an opportunity to facilitate making individual knowledge to public ones. Thus, knowledge accumulated its value when it is shared. (p. 754)

2.3. Technology acceptance model: TAM (p. 754)

The TAM (Technology Acceptance Model) was developed by Davis (1989) to evaluate how users come to accept and use a technology. Based on user acceptance of the technology, TAM theory proposes perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use to explain a user’s attitude toward a system. (p. 754)

  1. Design and development of the PAMS 2.0 system (p. 754)

3.1. The system architecture (p. 754)

PAMS 2.0 adopts a client/server architecture, where the system architecture comprises two separate parts: an annotator side and a server side. (p. 754)

On the server side, four managers provide four system-level supporting services: an anchoring position mechanism, a document manager, an association manager, and a user manager. (p. 754)

On the annotator side, four handlers collaborate to process annotation creation, retrieval, discussion, and management. Annotators can create, edit, and retrieve their own annotations. (p. 754)

3.2. Annotation modeling (p. 754)

  1. Research objective and methodology (p. 757)

This study aims at exploring students’ annotation behavior and uncovers the relationship between relevant variables (including learning scenarios, learning achievements, and quantity of annotation). Thus, the purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of different annotation sharing scenarios on quantity of annotation and its influence on learning achievements. (p. 757)

(1) What are students’ attitudes toward the use of PAMS 2.0? (2) What are the effects of different annotation sharing scenarios on quantity of annotation and its influence on learning achievements? (3) What is the relationship between learning achievements and quantity of annotation? (p. 757)

This course involved face-to-face lectures, and used digital supplemental materials as articles. All participants were asked to study assigned articles and take course tests in different learning scenarios. (p. 757)

Fig. 4. Students discuss a science article with group members in group reading exercises. (p. 758)

4.3. Procedures (p. 759)

The students in two classes were divided into small groups with each group containing two to four students, and each group participated in the arrangement of learning scenarios as shown in Table 1. Five learning scenarios were arranged for five learning topics as well as each topic containing articles and different sharing scenarios. The three and five scenarios were used to explore the influence of the midterm and final exams on learning behavior with the annotation. (p. 759)

students in the experiment class were encouraged to make annotations directly on reading articles and to look up other collaborators’ annotations. (p. 759)

5.3. Analysis of learning achievements (p. 761)

The result showed that there was no significant difference between the post-test scores of the two classes. (p. 762)

5.3.1.2. Correlation between learning achievements and quantity of annotation. A Pearson correlation was employed to analyze the correlation between learning achievements and quantity of annotation in the experiment class. There was also no significant positive correlation (the correlation1⁄40.26, p1⁄40.81>0.05) between learning achievements and quantity of annotation (p. 762)

5.3.2.2. Correlation between learning achievements and quantity of annotation. According to the result of the Pearson correlation, there was a significant positive correlation (the correlation 1⁄4 0.337, p 1⁄4 0.022 < 0.05) between learning achievements and quantity of annotation (the quantity of annotation 1⁄4 608, mean 1⁄4 13.22, SD 1⁄4 3.04). The correlation of the second scenario is stronger than that of the first scenario. This is because students in the experiment class become familiar with PAMS 2.0, easily create individual annotation, and read the annotations of the other collaborators in collaborative learning environments. (p. 763)

5.3.3.2. Correlation between learning achievements and quantity of annotation. According to the result of the Pearson correlation, there was a significant positive correlation (the correlation 1⁄4 0.390, p 1⁄4 0.007 < 0.05) between learning achievements and quantity of annotation (the quantity of annotation 1⁄4 672, mean 1⁄4 14.61, SD 1⁄4 2.94) in the experiment class. (p. 763)

  1. Conclusions (p. 765)

This study developed a Personalized Annotation Management System 2.0 (PAMS 2.0), as a Web 2.0 collaborative annotation system, for managing, sharing, and reusing individual/collaborative annotations as well as providing a shared mechanism for discussion about shared annotations among multiple users. From the experiment results of the practical computer science course, several interesting and important findings were derived. (p. 765)

Students would like to use PAMS 2.0 in group learning scenarios because of they believe PAMS 2.0 easy to use and stable. Thus, most of students thought that PAMS 2.0 helped them think carefully about understanding collaborators’ annotations with annotated documents in collaborative learning context. (p. 765)

The analytical results of learning achievements show that the use of the PAMS 2.0 system is able to increase students’ achievements in the second and fourth scenarios, and this finding is similar to that obtained by Hwang et al. (2007). (p. 765)

Finally, according to the results of the third scenario and the fifth scenario, there is no significant difference between learning achievements of the experiment class and the control class. (p. 765)

Blog Logo

Bodong Chen


Published

Image

Crisscross Landscapes

Bodong Chen, University of Minnesota

Back to Home