8 Social Annotation as Feminist Praxis
Clare Daniel
The advent of new digital teaching tools in recent years has greatly enhanced feminist educators’ ability to operationalize feminist pedagogy in the online teaching environment. Although many envision online courses as impersonal, isolating, and top-down, several technologies have emerged in the past two decades to counter this stereotypical view. For instance, social annotation tools enable students to collaborate and share during the reading process. The goal is to allow students to annotate a text simultaneously, viewing and interacting with each other’s highlighted passages and marginal notes. Social annotation can put into action several principles of feminist pedagogy.
In this chapter, I examine the processes and outcomes of using the social annotation tool Hypothes.is in a first-year honours colloquium about sexuality, knowledge production, and education. The course grapples with research across scholarly disciplines and its connection to truth and power and how people have attempted to understand and teach each other about human sexuality in modern Western society. Students examine research across the fields of medicine, public health, sociology, and more to think critically about the practices and institutions of knowledge production as well as how human sexuality has been a fundamentally enigmatic focal point of gendered and racialized social, cultural, and political concern throughout American history, shaping our lives in unequal ways. Students are required to socially annotate assigned readings before each class session, and I argue that this is an excellent tool for enacting feminist pedagogical praxis by disrupting the hierarchy of the traditional classroom, fostering co-education, and building equity among students and instructor. As students confront the medicalization and pathologization of various sexualities within scholarly research and its application, as well as the inequitable distribution of information about sexuality to the populace, they practise a democratic, cooperative interrogation of knowledge that, though not without its own unique challenges, demonstrates a more just and collective way of producing and circulating knowledge.
Feminist Pedagogy and Social Annotation
Feminist pedagogy provides a wealth of theoretical explorations and practical tools for teaching in ways that are transformative for students and instructors. Feminist educators aim to eschew a professor-centred classroom, create collaborative learning, connect course content to students’ personal lives and communities, and cultivate critical awareness of the constructedness of knowledge. The traditional on-the-ground classroom has not always been conducive to these goals. As Renee Bondy (2015, p. 133) writes, “the most common learning space for large university classes—the lecture hall …—ensures by design the practice of all-eyes-on-the-professor-at-all-times and is hardly amenable to meaningful social interaction.” Feminist instructors in the on-the-ground teaching environment have been forced to create new physical arrangements and sometimes even to develop engagements outside the classroom in order to put their pedagogy into practice.
Similarly, the online classroom, though arguably increasingly more flexible than a physical classroom, also requires intentional efforts to move beyond the cold, impersonal, static environment that sometimes manifests itself via recorded lectures, “cookie-cutter” course templates, standardized tests, and minimal interaction among students. In many instances, distance education developed as a way to offer students juggling jobs, parenthood, and other barriers to a traditional college experience access to higher education (Hopkins, 1996, p. 177) and has been seen by feminist educators as a way to overcome constraints on people’s lives and connect across time and space (Ai, 2016, p. 375). In this sense, the online modality helps to accomplish feminist and social justice goals by countering the exclusivity of traditional higher education models. However, there are some aspects of feminist pedagogy, as Catharine Bailey (2017, p. 255) explains, that feminist instructors worry will be more difficult to achieve in an online setting, such as “forging meaningful connections through classroom discussions,” because students might not be able to look each other in the eye or engage with each other in real time. Instructors also worry about keeping students engaged and “incorporating personal and experientially based discussion” (p. 257). These concerns are certainly valid, but fortunately the development of digital tools to structure online learning has enabled instructors to meet these challenges. Tools that facilitate social annotation can address all three of these concerns.
Social annotation enables electronic collaboration on a specific digital text. Novak et al. (2012, p. 40) explain that “[a social annotation] technology is a multi-purpose system that facilitates adding, editing, and modifying information in an electronic resource without changing the resource itself.” Social annotation tools have been shown to enhance learning in a variety of ways. In their 2012 review of 16 studies, Novak et al. concluded that social annotation tools can lead to improvements in “critical thinking, meta-cognition skills, and reading comprehension” (p. 47). In addition to individual skill building, social annotation has been shown to have social and community-level effects.
As Zhu et al. (2020, p. 262) point out in their review of 39 studies, “in education, web annotation is broadly used to support social reading, group sensemaking, knowledge construction and community building.” Similarly, Kalir (2020, p. 246) points to social annotation as a tool for “intersubjective meaning-making.” He explains that “intersubjective meaning-making occurs when people jointly contribute to related interpretations of a common activity through coordinated epistemic expressions that may include commentary, questions, explanations, expressions of attitude and affect, evidence-based arguments, and the presentation and re-presentation of ideas necessary for knowledge construction” (p. 247). Social annotation, therefore, can have effects on both an individual level and a community level to increase comprehension, critical thinking, and collaboration.
Although social annotation has this potential, the tools do not necessarily accomplish these goals automatically. In the development of their concept of “critical social annotation,” Brown and Croft (2020) argue that, without a focus on equity, social annotation can pose a danger for marginalized students. They point to research showing that microaggression, othering, and exclusivity have been identified in the online learning environment, noting that social annotation is not immune to these things (p. 4). Indeed, a feminist pedagogical approach to social annotation that seeks to disrupt traditional power dynamics, honour intersectional perspectives, and build a culture of care in the online classroom requires attentiveness to how social annotation tools could just as easily reify as break down hierarchies and inequalities. For this reason, it is crucial for the instructor to play an active role in the social annotation process as a facilitator of respectful, equitable co-construction of knowledge among students.
Methods
To examine the potential for social annotation as feminist praxis, I present a qualitative case study. This research project received approval from the Tulane University Institutional Review Board (2019-1516).
The Course
The investigation occurred as part of an undergraduate honours course that I taught at Tulane University in the spring semester of 2021, “Sexuality, Knowledge Production, and Education.” It had 15 first-year honours students and met synchronously once a week via Zoom and occasionally via Zoom and in person simultaneously (with some students remaining remote the entire semester). Students in this course examined research on human sexuality across disciplines for the purpose of interrogating varied processes of knowledge production and learning about the history and politics of sexuality research and education. The course was primarily online with a few class sessions held in a hybrid format (as a result of university policy during the COVID-19 pandemic).
Data Collection and Analysis
Students were required to read one to three articles or book chapters per week. Readings were loaded into Hypothes.is via Canvas, Tulane’s learning management system. In an assignment modified from one originally co-created with my colleague Jacquelyne Thoni Howard for a different course, students were asked to demonstrate that they “carefully and critically considered the text by making connections to the course themes, identifying arguments, analyzing cited sources, and referring to other texts” (Daniel, 2021). They were further instructed that they could “insert new ideas for discussion, respond to others’ ideas, pose questions, highlight and expound upon interesting passages, explain a tricky concept, offer an informed opinion, and bring in additional resources.” They were required to post at least five to seven annotations per reading, using a combination of initial posts and responses to peers, and to read through all of the annotations before our synchronous class session. As the instructor, I monitored and participated in the social annotations throughout the week, asking questions and inviting students to make further connections among the reading, other course content, and their lives. Each synchronous class session was facilitated by a student discussion leader instructed to summarize key takeaways from the annotations and use them to develop discussion questions.
The primary method that I used to explore whether social annotations achieved feminist pedagogical goals in this course was content analysis of (1) the students’ annotations, (2) data from a survey asking students about their experiences with social annotations in the course, and (3) comments on the university-administered end-of-semester course evaluation. I manually coded these sources based on three feminist pedagogical tenets: (1) disruption of the traditional classroom hierarchy, (2) co-education, and (3) building equity. I also utilized a fourth category of challenges/difficulties in which I identified students’ grievances, missed opportunities, and interactions that ran counter to feminist pedagogical goals.
Results: Disrupting Traditional Classroom Hierarchy
Social annotation can disrupt the traditional classroom hierarchy in which the instructor is viewed as the only person in the class who has valid knowledge. The practice of collectively annotating a text allows students to interact directly with each other without the mediation of the instructor asking specific questions, calling on certain students, or responding to each student’s contribution. Rather than a conversation directed by the instructor, social annotations are centred on the text. In my course, students were asked to focus on the relationships among the text, other course content, and their own lives. I provided guidance when necessary but primarily allowed students to converse with each other to reach understandings and draw connections.
In the following exchange, students focused their questions and responses on attempting to understand the research design of the study and its implications for political advocacy related to sex education.
Student A highlighted this portion of the reading:
Specifically, we hypothesized that abstinence-only funding may actually be effective at reducing adolescent births in more conservative states but may have more of a counterproductive effect (increasing adolescent pregnancy and birthrates) in less conservative states. (Fox et al., 2019, p. 3)
Student A:
Why would [the] political ideology of a state make abstinence-only sex education more effective? Obviously, it is just a hypothesis, but I do not see any reasons for why that might change the outcome of that sort of sex education.
Student B:
They seem to be saying that in liberal states the more conservative and not so widely accepted messages of abstinence-only sex-ed would upset students and cause “cognitively dissonant reactions” that would not do anything to effect [sic] birthrates. However, in conservative states where messaging matches what is being taught at home or in religious contexts the students may feel more pressure to adhere to the moralizations implicit in abstinence-only sex-ed and thus would reduce birthrates.
Student A:
I guess my question was worded poorly. I meant more along the lines of why it would be considered to have any major effect considering much research has already shown abstinence-only sex education to be ineffective at best.
Student C:
I think the researchers are aiming to see that, although abstinence-only sex education appears to be ineffective, it might be at least partially effective in certain regions of conservative political ideology. This could inform policy makers of places to target for sex-ed reform first—if abstinence-only was least effective in liberal states, they should target those states before targeting conservative ones.
In this exchange, Student A highlighted a confusing passage that challenged their existing ideas about abstinence-only sex education and asked their peers for help in understanding why the researchers chose to investigate the topic in this way. Student B posited an answer that elucidated the researchers’ reasoning, which prompted Student A to clarify their question. Student C entered the conversation to explain why the researchers’ approach might have practical applications for policy making.
These students collectively helped each other to understand the text without instructor intervention. They practised posing questions and hypothesizing, relying on each other as a resource for knowledge production, and letting go of instructor expertise as the central source of verified information. As one student noted in the end-of-term course evaluation, “I liked how the social annotations were structured, with an emphasis on interacting with the material and with the other students. I think it was an effective way of running the discussion aspect of the class because we were all comfortable interacting with one another.”
Co-Education
As the previous example illustrated, decentring the traditional classroom model can promote co-education. Not only can social annotation allow students to help each other answer critical questions about the reading, but also it can enable them to assist each other by modelling close reading and metacognition, identifying main arguments, explaining difficult concepts, and making connections across course content, to other courses, and to their personal lives.
In the following example, a student highlighted a passage, identified one of the main points of the reading and how it connected to other course content, and then posed a critical question to their peers.
Student A highlighted this passage:
In the 1990s U.S. we have witnessed a veritable cult of the age-appropriate, a Quest for the Normal necessitated by the discursive consolidation of sexual abuse diagnostics. (Janssen, 2009, p. 6)
Student A:
One question that I think both our readings and our discussions have continually gone back to is what is/should be considered “normal”? I think that here Janssen is in a way arguing for us to abandon our pursuit to define normality. We’ve talked before about how setting standards can be stigmatizing because in accepting certain behaviours as normal we are condoning others to be seen as abnormal and therefore as shameful. Should we care about what is considered normal or not if it only means conforming to a statistical standard? Are there any other benefits?
This question was then referenced by the discussion leader in the synchronous session, illustrating how students can provoke their peers to apply the reading’s concepts more broadly via their annotations, which then inform an engaging synchronous debate.
Examining a related argument in the same reading, three students thought critically about the concept of “age-appropriateness” in sex education.
Student A highlighted the following passage:
Since “age” is an architectural feature of curricula rather than mere content, this necessitates a critical look at not just analyzable curriculum content, but at curricula per se. (Janssen, 2009, p. 4)
Student A:
Here Janssen is discussing how curricula and education are formulated based on age and appropriateness of topics. He says that age is an important feature of curricula, and the modulation of education based on age can certainly be seen throughout different topics, but these mostly seem to be based on the ability to understand the topic based on previous education rather than appropriateness of the topic based on age. Are these two (appropriateness based on understanding for subjects like math and appropriateness based on age for sex-ed) the same or different? Are there any topics with the same kind of age-appropriate censorship as sex-ed?
Student B:
In the case of sex education, I am not sure that the appropriateness based on understanding of subjects and appropriateness based on age for sex education are the same because, as we know, Orleans Parish is allowed to teach sex education as soon as third grade. If the main concern for appropriateness was based on prior understanding, like in other subjects, then third graders would likely not be allowed to learn about sex education. They likely have little understanding of biological functions or many sexual thoughts by that point in time. However, they are still thought to be in need of sex education that early.
Student C:
I find interesting [the] cultural regard for childhood as something inherently pure and protectable, especially when the psychological concept of the developing mind and childhood mostly came about with the industrial revolution. (Child labour at this time skyrocketed because children could be paid less than adults on the grounds that they were younger and theoretically had less output. This solidified the concept of childhood, or at least that’s what I learned in sociology.) Why is childhood considered so special and untaintable [sic], when, in reality, kids are still subjected to issues of racism, homophobia, poverty, and homelife issues? If the introduction of sexual content in sex education is bad, where does it rank in comparison to something like experiencing systemic racism from a young age?
In this exchange, Student A asked a critical question related to the main argument of the reading. Student B attempted to answer that question by making a direct connection to previous course content and a real-life example, the sex education policy of Louisiana’s Orleans Parish. Student C drew a connection between the arguments in this reading and the social construction of childhood learned in their sociology course, which helped to illustrate this text’s main argument by denaturalizing dominant assumptions about age that guide the development of sex education curricula. Student C ended with a new question that prompted students to question further widely held assumptions about the age appropriateness of various information and experiences.
These examples demonstrate how social annotation fosters co-education by allowing students to dig deeper into the meanings of the texts and demonstrate a text’s relevance to content within and outside the course. As one student stated in the end-of-term course evaluation, “the readings are dense but interesting, and the social annotations are often helpful in terms of understanding the material.” Similarly, another student commented in the social annotations survey that “it allowed me to learn from my peers so much more so than many other teaching methods in other classes.”
Building Equity
One of the most exciting facets of social annotation as a feminist pedagogical tool is the potential to facilitate exchanges between students who might not otherwise engage with each other. The annotations, like other forms of asynchronous discussion, allow students who are less comfortable participating spontaneously in synchronous conversations to prepare their contributions in their own time and submit them via writing. The discussion leader draws from the annotations for synchronous discussion, making it possible for questions from students who rarely speak in class to be amplified. In the social annotations survey, one student noted that social annotations are “a good option so that students who are shy and do not talk in class can get some participation grades without becoming uncomfortable.” Providing multiple modes for students to learn and engage is a key aspect of inclusive feminist pedagogy. As bell hooks (1994, p. 8) put it, “any radical pedagogy must insist that everyone’s presence is acknowledged.”
Moreover, the fact that the annotations are grounded in the shared text means that there is space for students of varying levels of comprehension, preparedness, and skill to participate without necessarily wading into a discussion among peers that they find intimidating or confusing. Students can choose passages on which to focus their comments and are encouraged to ask questions about difficult passages. They are privy to their peers’ and the instructor’s interpretations of the text before the synchronous discussion, which can help them to comprehend the main takeaways and feel more prepared. One survey respondent stated that “the annotations helped to clarify parts of the reading that were confusing.” Another survey respondent stated that “having it to reflect upon before class was very helpful in refreshing my memory of the text and any thoughts I had.”
Challenges of Social Annotation
Despite the many advantages of social annotation, this method has its challenges. For instance, some students reported finding the annotations distracting while reading the text, stating that it took them longer to complete the reading than it otherwise would have. One survey respondent stated that “they doubled the amount of time the readings should have taken.” When this issue was raised during the class, I suggested that students could complete the reading first by downloading the file and then open the social annotation tool once they were ready to engage in discussion of the text. In the future, I plan to include this as an option in the instructions for the assignment.
Similarly, though most survey respondents agreed that the social annotations helped them to practise engaging in intellectual discussions with their peers, the same respondent disagreed and stated that “I feel like this did not create intellectual discussions because I was more focused on reaching the required annotation amount rather than understanding my peers’ perspectives.” Combined, these two survey comments indicate that the social annotation assignment can make the reading process more time consuming and that annotation might feel rote for some students. This could disproportionately burden students with more demands on their time, such as paid labour, care work, and so on. One solution might be to reduce the amount of reading when social annotations are required. This could allow students with limited time to engage more earnestly in the process of annotating. A second solution could be to require three to five posts rather than five to seven posts.
Another important challenge with social annotations is the potential for microaggression, othering, and exclusivity (Brown & Croft, 2020). In any class discussion, students can make comments that offend, misrepresent, reiterate stereotypes, et cetera. Unlike in synchronous discussions, however, in which the instructor is present and can intervene, in social annotations such comments can linger unaddressed indefinitely if the instructor is not vigilant. The instructor must regularly monitor the social annotations and be prepared to mediate difficult exchanges. In my experience, despite my attentiveness to these issues, my students were exceedingly conscientious and gracious with each other. I did not receive any feedback on the anonymous survey or course evaluation to indicate otherwise. However, such issues can arise at any point, so vigilance is necessary.
Conclusion
The literature on social annotation tools shows their usefulness for increasing reading comprehension (Novak et al., 2012), building community (Zhu et al., 2020), modelling democratic discourse (Schacht, 2015), and creating meaning collectively (Kalir, 2020). My experiences reflect these claims and the assertion that social annotation can enrich discussion. One survey respondent reflected on the use of social annotation in the course: “The discussions for this class felt much more in-depth and helpful compared to other discussion-based classes.” In my observation, students were able to ground our synchronous discussions in the intricacies of the text as a result of the practice of social annotation.
More than this, though, social annotation helped me to accomplish specifically feminist pedagogical aims by decentring the instructor, providing a platform for students to learn directly from each other, and giving space for students with varied educational needs to participate in the meaning-making process. As one survey respondent stated, “thought processes were left completely unhindered by allowing us to engage in the material on our own at our own pace.” Another respondent noted that the fact annotations were “clearly read (our instructor would respond to us) made it more of a learning experience and less of a task to begrudgingly complete.” In the online classroom, where students can be more prone to feeling isolated and disengaged, social annotation can cultivate connections among the students and between the students, the text, and the instructor. Despite its challenges, the practice of socially annotating a text also helps to illustrate a fundamentally feminist pedagogical and epistemological intervention: the production of knowledge is a collective process, not an individual one or one that belongs solely to those understood to be experts.
Key Takeaways
- Social annotation is an excellent tool for enacting feminist pedagogical praxis by disrupting the hierarchy of the traditional classroom, fostering co-education, and building equity among students and instructor.
- Social annotation allows students to practise a democratic, cooperative interrogation of knowledge that, though not without its own unique challenges, demonstrates a more just and collective way of producing and circulating knowledge.
- Although social annotation has this potential, the tools do not necessarily accomplish these goals automatically. It is crucial for the instructor to have an active role in the social annotation process as a facilitator of respectful and equitable co-construction of knowledge among students.
References
- Ai, C. Y. (2016). A feminist pedagogy through online education. Asian Journal of Women’s Studies, 22(4), 372–391. https://
dx .doi .org /10 .1080 /12259276 .2016 .1242939 - Bailey, C. (2017). Online feminist pedagogy: A new doorway into our brick- and-mortar classrooms? Feminist Teacher, 27(2–3), 253–266. https://
doi .org /10 .5406 /femteacher .27 .2 -3 .0253 - Bondy, R. (2015). Engaged pedagogy beyond the lecture hall: The book club as teaching strategy. In T. P. Light, J. Nicholas, & R. Bondy (Eds.), Feminist pedagogy in higher education: Critical theory and practice, 127–138. Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
- Brown, M., & Croft, B. (2020). Social annotation and an inclusive praxis for open pedagogy in the college classroom. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1,
1–8. https://
doi .org /10 .5334 /jime .561 - Daniel, C. (2021). Social annotations using Hypothes.is. Feminist Pedagogy for Teaching Online: A Digital Guide. https://
feministsteach .org /assignments / - Fox, A., Georgia, H., Hina, K., & Howell, E. A. (2019). Funding for abstinence-only education and adolescent pregnancy prevention: Does state ideology affect outcomes? American
Journal of Public Health, 109(3), 497–504. https://
doi .org /10 .2105 /AJPH .2018 .304896 - hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. Routledge.
- Hopkins, A. (1996). Women’s studies on television? It’s time for distance learning. NWSA Journal, 8(2), 91–106. http://
www .jstor .org /stable /4316442 - Janssen, D. F. (2009). Sex as development: Curriculum, pedagogy and critical inquiry. Review of Education, Pedagogy & Cultural Studies, 31(1), 2–28. https://
doi .org /10 .1080 /10714410802629227 - Kalir, J. (2020). Social annotation enabling collaboration for open learning. Distance Education, 41(2), 245–260. https://
doi .org /10 .1080 /01587919 .2020 .1757413 - Novak, E., Razzouk, R., & Johnson, T. E. (2012). The educational use of social annotation tools in higher education: A literature review. The Internet and Higher Education,
15(1), 39–49. https://
doi .org /10 .1016 /j .iheduc .2011 .09 .002 - Schacht, P. (2015). Digital pedagogy in the humanities: Concepts, models, and experiments. MLA Commons. https://
digitalpedagogy .mla .hcommons .org /keywords /annotation / - Zhu, X., Chen, B., Avadhanam, R. M., Shui, H., & Zhou Zhang, R. (2020). Reading and connecting: Using social annotation in online classes. Information and Learning Sciences,
121(5–6), 261–271. https://
doi .org /10 .1108 /ILS -04 -2020 -0117