Pandemic Pedagogy: Annotation as Close Reading

One of my central pedagogical goals is to cultivate thoughtful discussion about primary sources. I model nuanced and creative practices of close reading from the front of the classroom, but this is a skill that students develop only by doing. As a result, I regularly devote classroom time to guided exercises that interpret artifacts (coins, monuments, mosaics, etc.) and translated primary texts. I encourage students to ask questions of the sources, to make observations, to disagree respectfully with one another, and to investigate the implications of their interpretations. This rewarding back-and-forth process can feel hard to replicate in other media.

As many teachers move their pedagogy into online media over the coming weeks, in this article I introduce a set of tools and practices that facilitate shared conversation through collaborative digital annotation of primary texts. This approach is not the same as a guided close reading in class, but it pursues the same objectives and even affords some benefits that aren’t realized in face-to-face classroom discussions.

The Basics

Over the remainder of the spring semester, my students will be using a tool named Hypothesis for this collaborative practice of annotation. One can accomplish similar goals in a shared Google Document or with tools like Perusall or NowComment. More complex online tools like Digital Mappa, Omeka, or Mirador can also facilitate annotation of texts or artifacts. (A number of these tools can be integrated into institutional learning management systems, too.)

This semester, I have divided my students into groups of approximately six annotators. Each group uses Hypothesis to annotate a short primary text every week. Each group annotates the same text. In my experience, the ideal length for texts is one to three pages. To preserve the conversational back-and-forth of the classroom environment, I ask each student to add at least two annotations and to respond to at least two comments from others. I grade this low-stakes assignment based on completion. If a student engages the text and their peers, then they get full credit.

I assign annotations in the period leading up to the lecture in which I discuss the annotated primary text. In my lecture, I address areas of confusion and incorporate excellent student insights (acknowledging the student’s work, of course). It is also possible to use annotation assignments as follow-on tasks to consolidate knowledge and prompt further exploration after a text has been introduced in a lecture segment. I provide student feedback by responding directly in each annotation cluster.

Productive Conversations

The central challenge of this annotation assignment is to both facilitate shared conversation that contributes to the overarching goals of the class and also encourage students’ creative inquiry. Instructors assign particular texts for specific reasons. Certain narratives, certain problems, certain lacunae are why we have chosen this text for our class. Here, as in a guided classroom discussion, the goal is to cultivate good habits of textual analysis without getting bogged down with excessive focus on details that do not advance the overall pedagogical aims of the course. In classroom discussion, an instructor can intervene in real time in order to keep things on track. Asynchronous annotation assignments require a bit more planning.

The most effective way to accomplish this goal will vary based on the level of the course, the stage in the course, and the instructor’s specific goals for a particular close reading.

For most texts, I pre-annotate with background details. I might note the date of the text, provide information about the author, and give brief clarifications about unusual vocabulary or cultural practices. This mirrors my classroom practice, where I supply background information and draw attention specific details in the text.

To prompt thoughtful annotation, I frequently pose specific questions. Sometimes I instruct students to read the text in light of another text we have already discussed. (For example, in one assignment I asked students to compare Paul’s rhetoric about gift-giving in 2 Corinthians 8 with our previous reading of Seneca’s On Benefits.) In other cases, I ask them to focus on particular kinds of details. (For example, what does Pliny’s Epistle 96 indicate about the social statuses of Christ-followers in early second-century Roman Bithynia?) My goal is not to short-circuit textual inquiry, but to keep students’ questions pointed in productive directions.

With more advanced students, and often later in the semester, I leave annotation assignments more open-ended and simply invite students to observe details of the text that connect to conversations we’re already having. This practice assumes that students have already developed habits of attention to textual detail and works best, in my experience, when the course has a strong through-line to provide context for ongoing discussions.

Even with relatively directed assignments, however, I encourage students to note striking details and to flag questions or points of confusion. I’m regularly delighted to discover that students have identified details and connections that I had previously overlooked.

Building Intellectual Community

One of the strengths of collaborative assignments is that students can see themselves as contributors to a shared intellectual community, rather than just consumers of delivered digital content. In introducing this annotation assignment, I encourage my students to see themselves as participating in one of the oldest modes of scholarship, with similar practices of commentary going back to the ancient Mediterranean. Annotation is a way to involve students in the creation of knowledge.

Annotation assignments contribute to a classroom dynamic of inclusive dialogue. As a low-stakes mode of collaborative scholarship, annotation encourages all students to contribute their thoughts. Annotations in previous courses have elicited brilliant insights from students who were reluctant to share their thoughts aloud in the classroom. When students disagree—as I encourage them to do—their disagreements stay focused on the textual evidence. Moreover, because annotation assignments invite students to interact with specific details of a relatively short primary text, students who might otherwise feel overwhelmed frequently find it easier to make concrete contributions.

As is particularly relevant in this time of digital distance, annotation assignments build a sense of intellectual community. I have found that my students appreciate the opportunity to respond directly to one another. Their collaborative annotations concretize the fact that they are not alone as they finish the semester. They can see that classmates are reading the same texts and asking similar questions. Perhaps in part because of this sense of community, my students’ comments on each other’s annotations this semester have been astonishingly rich. This semester, I have increasingly come to see a shared sense of intellectual community as the primary benefit of this pedagogical practice.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Before assigning digital annotations, it is helpful to think through strengths and weaknesses of this pedagogical approach. As I have suggested in this essay, the strengths are manifold.

·   Annotation is a mode of collaborative scholarship which encourages all students to participate.

·   Annotation assignments are asynchronous. Students can work at their own pace and do not require a high-speed internet connection. Especially in a period of pandemic disruption, this levels the playing field for students.

·   Annotation assignments are not limited to texts. They can be used for maps, coins, and other sources.

·   Many annotation tools are free and low-maintenance. Hypothesis can be integrated into learning management systems like Blackboard, Canvas, Moodle, and Sakai. (It took me about fifteen minutes to do.) Many other tools are similarly user-friendly for both instructors and students.

As with any approach, digital annotation assignments have weaknesses.

·   Annotated documents can become confusing and cluttered if a large number of students are annotating a relatively short text. For this reason, annotation assignments work best if students are divided into groups with six to eight annotators each. The groups can each annotate the same text or different texts can be assigned to different groups of annotators.

·   While annotation has fewer technological requirements than synchronous approaches like Zoom lectures, it can still exclude students who lack reliable internet access or who can only access the internet with mobile phones. Consider students’ access to the internet before selecting this assignment model. If some members of the class have limited or unreliable internet access, avoid requiring rapid turn-around times for annotations and responses.

A Final Thought

Collaborative annotation assignments and technologies are fruitful beyond the pandemic context. I’ve used similar annotation assignments in classes that involved face-to-face classroom sessions multiple times each week. Pandemic pedagogy poses many new challenges with far too little time, but I hope that the skills we must all-too-quickly develop will continue to be fruitful in varied course formats going forward.

Jeremiah Coogan holds a PhD in Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity from the University of Notre Dame. In autumn 2020 he will begin a Marie Skłodowska-Curie Postdoctoral Fellowship at the University of Oxford.