Close Reading and Online Annotation with Scrible and Diigo

In this post, I discuss the use of two tools for supporting online reading and annotation, which can serve as powerful ways to do close reading in classrooms (Johnson, 2014): Scrible and Diigo. Both tools allow users to mimic pen and paper annotation in online environments, with some limitations. For a short screencast showing the very basics of these tools, click here.

Scrible

Scirble is an online annotation tool that allows readers to mark up articles they read online. It features sub-tools that mimic analogue instruments such as pens and highlighters, and that function similarly to those found in PDF editors. For those of you familiar with annotating in a common downloadable program like Adobe Acrobat Pro, Scrible is actually much easier to use. I’ll get into the technical features and how to set it up shortly, but first let’s cover the basics. When you open a webpage with Scrible, you get a toolbar at the bottom of the page that looks like this:

The tools contained in this image allow readers to:

• Share articles with others (presumably once they have been annotated)
• Highlight text
• Add notes in the style of a Post-It
• Change the color of text
• Underline text

Once students have finished annotating, they can save their annotated page to the Scrible library. An annotated page might look something like this:

These annotated pages can be shared with other readers, referred to as Collaborators on the Scrible site, who can make their own comments or respond to the comments of the original annotator, allowing two readers to engage in collaborative discussion or annotation of a text via the web, which can increase comprehension and understanding (Fischer & Frey, 2012).

The Scrible library allows readers to store webpages chosen for particular purposes or inquiries in its library. You might also teach students to use a tool like Evernote to export annotated texts outside of the web browser. Readers can easily access previously read sites and make comparisons between texts, either within the Scrible website or after exporting to another program.

So, how do readers access Scrible? Scrible can be added as an extension to web browsers like Chrome, or, for those who are weary of adding too many extensions, you can use an easy workaround: adding the site to your bookmarks bar (this is what I did). Either method you choose allows you to open a website on your own, and then click the Scrible button to begin annotation (sometimes you have to sign in to your Scrible account before you can annotate). Here’s what the button looks like on my bookmarks bar:

There are a few limitations to this tool, however. You can’t add text directly onto the page; the annotations are limited to highlighting, underlining, changing text color, and adding text in the form of virtual sticky notes. And while the Scrible library is passable and other tools can be used to export annotated pages, there is no built in way to, say, export an annotated page as a PDF. In a world inundated with online tools and accounts, it’s a bit of a pain to add on any more than you have to. And when you’re working with students, this can really become burdensome. Working with 150-200 kids’ accounts can get messy quickly, and depending on what other systems you have at hand, it might be easier to access documents outside of the Scrible system.

Diigo

Diigo  is a similar online annotation tool. Students can install it as a browser extension which creates a button next to their web search bar that allows annotation on a website that they're already on. In contrast to the visible toolbar in Scrible, Diigo is nearly invisible. Instead, readers use the cursor to highlight text in an article, which causes an annotation toolbar to appear:

Using this toolbar, readers can highlight text, attached virtual sticky notes, or share text to social networking sites like Twitter. Like with Scrible, readers can not, add text directly to the webpage as they would using pen and paper.

Diigo automatically saves annotations to its webpage, which can be accessed later, either by individual annotation or by pulling up the full text of a website. On the Diigo site, readers can also annotate uploaded PDFs and use outlining tools. Teachers looking at text structures could use these tools to help students identify aspects of writing online with a collapsible outlining tool that allows them to switch between reading and making comments on an outline.

Like Scrible, and like any digital tool, Diigo is not perfect. Neither tool allows readers to add their own text to a page, a severe limitation for those of us who want to use these tools to promote close reading and metacognition (it's so much easier when you can see the results of your thinking right there next to the author's text!). 

Let's talk about the libraries these pages get saved to for a minute. In contrast to Scrible’s drab but clear library page, Diigo’s is more colorful and busy, showing readers some of their annotations from the moment the page is opened:

While this previewing of annotations may serve useful to some students, I found that it cluttered up the page and made it more difficult to organize multiple documents. If you are thinking of using this tool to promote online inquiry or comparing documents, I would advise trying them out for yourself (or having your students test-drive them) and making a call based on what seems to work best in your context.

As with Scrible, readers using Diigo can not easily export full versions of their annotated documents to formats like PDF, Word, or Google Docs. They can easily tweet or e-mail links to these documents in Diigo, but the tools works to keep you functioning within its ecosystem.

To me, these limitations prevent either tool from functioning as fully as they could throughout a writing process, and make it more difficult for readers and students to integrate the work and learning they do annotating webpages with other documents like PDFs, photographs, or scanned pages. However, online reading takes many forms, and either Diigo or Scrible can be used to support active, close reading in online spaces, allow readers to save articles that might otherwise be lost to time after a webpage is closed, and consequently, to return to, re-read, and compare documents, all aspects of close reading advocated by teacher-scholars (Fischer & Frey, 2013).

Reading Response 2: Online Reading and New Literacies

LABELING AND DEFINING LITERACY IN 2018

As scholars have come to see literacy as embedded within social contexts, the term has broadened from a previous emphasis on the reading and writing of printed text to include other types of knowledge (Lankshear and Knobel, 2008). As we begin to conceptualize literacy or reading within their sociocultural contexts, we might see that texts and our work with texts are parts of these contexts, these lived situations, which of course involve much more than just print and decoding. As Lankshear and Knobel (2008, p. 13) explain:

From a sociocultural perspective, it is impossible to separate out from text-mediated social practices the ‘bits’ concerned with reading or writing (or any other sense of ‘literacy’) and to treat them independently of all the ‘non-print’ bits, like values and gestures, context and meaning, actions and objects, talk and interaction, tools and spaces.

Literacy, then, comes to include the construction of meaning in contextualized situations (Hammerberg, 2004), including practices, ways of knowing, being, or maneuvering within these contexts. Given the multitude of contexts and situations, there are many of these ways of constructing meaning, and the term literacies (rather than literacy) emerges to suggest the multitude of these ways of making sense of things within social contexts (Hammerberg, 2004, p. 649):

Ways of being literate, then, change depending upon the cultural practice one is engaged in, making a notion of "multiple literacies" possible (Scribner & Cole, 1981; Street, 1984). Because literacies are seen as multiple, changing on the basis of the social and cultural context in which communication occurs, sociocultural theories see identity as fluid and changing too.

New literacies are described as “new” in a number of ways and for a number of different reasons. They could be said to be technologically new in the sense that digital texts and communications have allowed for different types of text that often include, but are not limited to, alphabetic print. These digital texts often mix modalities and incorporate features such as hyperlinks (Johnson, 2014). At the same time, we might say that such features are not exclusively new or relegated to the digital realm; texts that include non-print features have been around for thousands of years (Siegel, 2006) and might be said to be “new” even if they are not digital or are in fact quite old.

A second way of discussing new literacies is to emphasize the types of practices surrounding texts, both online and offline texts, that are developing in our era. These might include a more widely distributed creation and publication model, interaction between authors and readers, greater collaboration, and, to bring this topic explicitly into the classroom, publication for audiences beyond teachers. These are the types of activities referred to by Lankshear and Knobel as the new “ethos” (2008, p. 25) of new literacies.

I agree with the general viewpoint and description of literacy practices taken by scholars within New Literacy Studies. While I am more apt to emphasize, alongside online texts, the ways in which non-digital texts can function in these “new” ways, and to dwell on the arts and aesthetic experience (Dewey, 1934) when thinking about these practices, I see this difference more as a different area of emphasis rather than a disagreement, although, as I’ve mentioned before, this is an area I am still exploring.

Is there any benefit to talking about these processes as online reading comprehension or digital inquiry, or does it create more confusion?

To me, when considering the benefits of terms such as “online reading comprehension” or “digital inquiry” in relation to new literacies, each term emphasizes different aspects of literacies in our current context. Any term that includes words like “digital” or “online” of course emphasizes literacies connected to computers (of one sort or another), while broader terms like “new literacies” might be said to be less descriptive or precise, but perhaps more inclusive. Particularly given the ongoing buzz in school districts surrounding technology, "online reading comprehension" seems to offer within the term a way to keep the conversation focused on student literacies rather than the technology itself.

Similarly, "digital inquiry" has implications for curriculum and instruction that suggest what for many would be a “new” way of thinking about teaching. The term suggested by Castek et al.’s (2015) piece on internet reciprocal teaching, “new literacies of online research” highlights both the newness of new literacies as well as the research and inquiry aspect of reading online, which positions online reading as more of a distinct activity from reading comprehension. Ultimately, I think something is gained and something is lost with each term. Literacies are so complex, multifaceted and interconnected that perhaps we are bound to need a family of terms that could be used to emphasize different aspects of multiple literacy practices that are undertaken in new and continually changing ways.

As I try to make sense of the landscape of research on new literacies, I do find often find myself confused and asking questions about the use of different terms within overlapping schools of thought. For example, what are the overlaps and differences between multimodal theory, multiliteracies, social semiotics, and New Literacy Studies? If I wasn’t trying to put together a larger picture of literacy research though, I don’t think terms like “online reading comprehension” or “digital inquiry” would add to that confusion – it only becomes confusing for me when trying to parse how so many different writers are using these terms.

As a teacher thinking about practice (rather than as an emerging researcher trying to understand a field of inquiry and research), I think these terms provide fairly straightforward connections to things I am familiar with; moreover, each term has implications for curriculum and instruction built in. For teachers, there is an endless amount that could be learned about teaching and very little time to do it in, so terms that connect to things we already know and have implications for our work can certainly make it easier to understand and make connections to pedagogy.

Considering the way that Leu et al. (2013) use the terms uppercase and lowercase new literacies both clarify and muddy the waters. It is helpful to read the authors’ descriptions, as it has been helpful to read a number of articles in this course that help clarify the landscape of research surrounding new literacies. At the same time, the variability of the terminology used, combined with the overlap in the terminology – Lankshear and Knobel (2008), for example, refer to new literacies using both uppercase and lowercase letters separately, but in a different way than is described by Leu et al. (2013) – can be confusing. In some ways, I think these overlaps and differences between authors are the inevitable consequence of using the same language, the same sets of words, to describe concepts that we all think about in slightly different ways. But particularly as a field is emerging and when things are changing so quickly, I imagine this fluidity of terms is greater.

IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING

No matter what you call them, do you think the online reading/digital literacy skills, strategies, practices, and mindsets outlined in your readings from Week 5 and 6 are more, less, or equally important for today’s students compared to those related to offline reading comprehension, vocabulary, and/or fluency (as discussed in reading from Weeks 1-4)? Please explain your reasoning. How might your new thinking about these ideas impact the way you design and implement your instruction of digital literacy and/or online reading comprehension?

Wow – what a difficult question! I would love to avoid it and say that I think all of these are important. If I had to choose only one thing kids could learn though, I would have to come down on the side of kids learning offline reading comprehension (as opposed to online reading comprehension). My reasoning is that offline reading comprehension seems to provide a foundation for many, though not all (Coiro, 2003) of the things we do when reading online. I would imagine it would be easier to learn online comprehension skills if you were building on strong offline reading comprehension skills, as many of us have done in our own lives, and I imagine it would be more difficult to be a strong comprehender of online text without skills in reading offline. Although, as we saw in the video from Dr. Coiro’s presentation (2013), the two are certainly not the same.

On the other hand, we don’t really have to choose just one. Online reading presents its own challenges and requires unique skills and dispositions (Coiro, 2003). Given where our schools and teachers are at in terms of familiarity with teaching different kinds of reading, and given the relative newness of new literacies, I think it might be more important at this cultural moment to emphasize the importance of teaching online reading, and to work to help more teachers understand how they can teach reading comprehension in online contexts.

As a teacher, I’ve worked and plan to continue to work to make connections between the two practices (or two sets of practices). I think both offline and online reading make different kinds of reading easier or more difficult, depending on the situation, and have different strengths. Anyone who has ever agonized over the decision to buy an ebook or physical book, or spent hours getting lost on Wikipedia can likely attest to the different processes, associations, and even physical relationships that come from reading in these different contexts and as teachers of reading and literacy, I think we really can’t ignore either one.

References

Castek, J., Coiro, J., Henry, L. A., Leu, D. J., & Hartman, D. K. (2015). Research on instruction and assessment in the new literacies of online research and comprehension, 21.

Coiro, J. (2003). Expanding our understanding of reading comprehension to encompass new literacies. The Reading Teacher, 56, 458-464.

Coiro, J. (October, 2013). Online reading comprehension: Opportunities, challenges and next steps. Keynote presentation in Medillin, Colombia.

Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. Los Angeles, LA: Tarcher Perigee.

Hammerberg, D. (2004). Comprehension instruction for sociocultural diverse classrooms: A review of what we know. The Reading Teacher, 57(7), 648-656.

Johnson, D. (2014). Reading, writing and literacy 2.0: Teaching with online texts, tools, and resources, K–8. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2008). From ‘reading’ to ‘new literacy studies. In C. Lankshear & M. Knobel, New literacies: Everyday practices and classroom learning. Berkshire, England: Open University

Leu, D.J., Forzani, E., Burlingame, C., Kulikowich, J., Sedransk, N. & Coiro, J.(2013). New literacies of online research and comprehension: Assessing and preparing students for the 21st century with Common Core Standards. In S.B. Neumann & L. Gambrell (Ed.) Quality reading instruction in the age of Common Core Standards.

Siegel, M. (2006). Rereading the Signs: Multimodal transformations in the field of literacy education. Language Arts, 84(1), 65-77.

Reading Response #1: Reading Comprehension

STRATEGIC AND ENGAGED READERS
Strategic readers are readers who have and utilize strategies at hand to navigate and make sense of text, even when the text is challenging or confusing; they utilize “the strategies and processes of good readers” (Duke & Pearson, 2002, p. 206). For example, such readers might predict, question, visualize (or use visual representations of text), summarize, or utilize their knowledge of text structure. Buehl (2014) describes processes such as inferring, determining importance, and synthesizing. I might add to these ideas I have used in my teaching: chunking information, re-reading in large and small chunks, personalized annotation strategies, and control of habits surrounding reading. In contrast to this image of a reader with a powerful and diverse toolkit to be used while making meaning from text, a less strategic reader may lack such tools and struggle to comprehend a text. I would situate each of these strategies within an awareness of one’s own comprehension; strategic readers are attentive to their own reading processes, and utilize strategies as needed to help them make sense of texts.

Across readings, particularly in Swan’s (2003) chapter, strategic reading overlaps with conceptions of engagement and motivation. It is easier to employ a strategy and work through challenges in reading when we are interested in the topic and motivated to learn more. Swan emphasizes the multifaceted aspect of engagement when she describes engaged reading as “the dynamic, recurrent process of combining motivation, strategies for reading and learning, social interaction, and knowledge about a topic” (2003, p. 1). She identifies numerous aspects of engaged reading: active learning, goal setting, asking questions, reading for information, finding answers, gaining information from others, sharing information, and using strategies, and ties engagement to both motivation and the search for conceptual knowledge, highlighting the ways in which teachers, by supporting students in their own learning goals, can help foster engaged readers.

Certainly, teachers and librarians can create environments and experiences that support engaged reading. To the extent that success in reading comprehension and self-efficacy support engaged reading, each of the pedagogies described in Duke and Pearson’s (2002) chapter: transactional reading strategies, reciprocal instruction, and questioning the author, could support engaged reading. Moreover, employing aspects of the CORI framework such as autonomy support, strategy instruction, and interesting texts, could work in overlapping ways to foster engaged reading and create a culture of engaged reading in classrooms.

Under the 3rd question heading, I have included more detailed questions and discussions about how we define both strategic and engaged reading.

CONNECTIONS
Taken together, there seems to be a common focus in discussions on reading comprehension on metacognition and control: the ability to maintain awareness of one’s own reading comprehension and take action (by employing strategies) to be able to comprehend. Moreover, while we might discuss engagement and strategic reading separately, they appear to overlap in powerful ways: it would be difficult to function as an engaged reader without the ability to comprehend text, and the teaching of strategic reading could certainly support students’ self-efficacy (Swan, 2003). This seems particularly important given the extent to which success and engagement in any learning endeavor entail an overlap between the learner’s identity and the identities that are recognized by the learning community (Gee, 2004). In considering identity in relation to engaged reading, we might ask to what extent students feel that their identities are valued and respected by the teacher, the curriculum, and the school. Feeling confident and competent (Swan, 2003) could certainly play a role here. For example, employing the types of instructional practices described in Duke and Pearson’s (2002) chapter could help support readers in developing the strategies needed to comprehend text, which could help readers feel that they place in the endeavors of the classroom. Perhaps more directly, the support for student choice, interests, and autonomy that are so important to pedagogies like the CORI framework (Swan, 2003) could create space for students’ identities and interests to drive the curriculum.

In my own classroom, I have mixed strategies pulled from research-based practitioner texts (e.g., Bomer, 2011) with instruction built on what I have observed my students doing. In the context of a reading workshop in which students’ interests and text choices drove their reading, I would lead conferences and mini-lessons focused on reading strategies. The changes I observed in my students’ reading through these pedagogies aligns with the broad conclusion of Duke and Pearson (2002): “we can help students acquire the strategies and processes of good readers...this improves their overall comprehension of text” (p. 206). As I have shifted my practice more towards comprehension and strategic reading, I have seen what I might almost be inclined to call miracles in students’ reading as they learned to slow down, monitor their awareness, and employ specific strategies to support their comprehension. At the same time, I still feel like I’m just beginning in my journey to understand a topic as complex as the ways in which students make meaning from the world.

IMPLICATIONS/QUESTIONS/CRITIQUES

What implications do these ideas have for your work in education?
While I have experience incorporating these types of pedagogies in my own classroom, my current roles with my local school district and university lead me to wonder about the best ways for supporting strategic and engaged reading while working with inservice and preservice teachers. There is a great deal of overlap between the CORI framework and two of our district’s current emphases: problem/project-based learning, which incorporates many of the same principles, and literacy across the school day (an emphasis on reading and comprehension instruction across subject areas). I work with a team of ELA and social studies educators on an ongoing PD series focused on incorporating reading and writing across disciplines; in this respect, there are places in my work to explicitly incorporate many of the ideas and texts I am learning about/with into courses and conversations with teachers. (In fact, I’ve been kicking myself for just now getting to some of these pieces that I want to share with teachers because I really would have loved to have already shared them!) Looking forward, I am interested in looking into the research not just on these pedagogies themselves, but on teachers’ experiences shifting their practice and learning new instructional paradigms, and the ways in which teacher educators have incorporated these ideas in classroom settings.

What questions do you have?
While I am passionately in support of the concepts and pedagogies described across these readings, I do have a number of questions I am interested in exploring, small itches that are highlighting for me places that I might be interested in diving into more research:

Do we need more sub-categories when we talk about reading comprehension strategies?
I wonder about the ways in which we think about the differences between some of the reading comprehension strategies described across articles. Some focus on features of texts themselves, while others involve activating mental actions or simply being aware of comprehension and attention while reading, while others emphasize physical activities or artifacts students could use to assist their comprehension. Should we consider all of these as reading comprehension strategies or should we endeavor to more specific categories as well? I’m imagining something like mental actions, collaborative activities, knowledge of text features, etc.

On the other hand, the overlap between these categories is important to recognize: perhaps the mix of activities categorized as comprehension strategies stems from the what the RAND report (2002) has categorized as the interaction between reader, text, and activity. Reading comprehension is such a complex and multifaceted activity that it is perhaps best to use one umbrella term. Similarly, if reading comprehension “relies on mental construction that assimilates what is on the page with what is already known” (Buehl, 2014, p. 7), then reading strategies would inherently involve actions across categories. In both descriptions (RAND and Buehl), comprehension comes from the interaction between different aspects of the reading situation, and so comprehension strategies might include several different kinds of activity.

Should we and/or how can we add nuance to our image of engaged reading/readers?
I’ve been thinking a lot about engagement over the last few months, particularly the extent to which we don’t always define it as well as we could. I recently read a collection of articles about multimodal writing, and while over twenty studies mentioned engagement as a key aspect in the classrooms they described, none gave definitions or were very clear about what they meant by the term. As I read Swan’s (2003) chapter, I appreciated the specificity with which she described engaged ready. At the same time, I had some questions about the ways in which she defined engaged reading and intrinsic motivation. While I am completely in agreement with the broad picture she paints of how teaching, reading, and learning can function in classrooms, I still feel that there is a lot more to explore. She lists numerous motivational features of engaged readers:

They read because it is fun and interesting
They read to learn something new
They read to find answers about a topic
They are reading for the sake of learning
They are reading just to read
They are reading for their own purposes
They participate in school activities
They put forth the effort to do a good job
They stick with a project until it is completed

This collection of descriptions paints an image of an engaged reader, but I wonder about readers who do not fit all of these descriptors or who may be engaged readers in ways that are not reflected in school settings. Readers may have multiple purposes for reading: some may engage in reading “for its own sake” (Swan, 2003, p. 5), while others may read because they want to bake the perfect cookie or beat the boss of the level on a Nintendo game, even if they don’t read just for the sake of reading. While these readers have differing purposes, I would see them both as engaged. While I understand the picture Swan paints and realize that it is a general image of what engaged reading could look like in a classroom, her elaboration on the concept still raised questions for me about how teachers can conceptualize engaged reading, particularly given the diversity of their students and the increasing diversity of texts and purposes for reading. Should we consider engaged reading as having multiple variants? And how is or should our ideas about engagement change as the way we think about classrooms changes (Ivey & Johnston, 2013)? I’m excited to continue exploring this topic this semester, both as it applies to offline and online reading.

Reading with multimodal texts
Lastly, I want to touch on the opening chapters of Denise Johnson’s (2014) text, even as her larger focus is on digital reading. He discussion of cueing systems across different textual forms raised questions for me about about how the research on reading comprehension applies to multimodal texts, even if they are analogue ones. How, for example, does the research described in Duke and Pearson’s (2002) report apply to the reading of picture books or graphic novels? Do we need to identify different strategies to support readers of these texts or do the same processes apply? What research has been done on reading comprehension in (offline) texts that include a mix of communicative forms? Of course, this question only becomes more important when we add digital texts in to the mix, but I’m curious about it even with offline reading.


Additional References
Bomer, R. (2011) Building Adolescent Literacy in Today’s English Classrooms. Heinemann,
Portsmouth, NH.

Gee, J.P. (2004), Situated Language and Learning: A critique of Traditional Schooling,
Routledge, London, UK.

Ivey, G. & Johnston, P. H. .(2013). Engagement With Young Adult Literature: Outcomes and
Processes. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(3), 255–275.