Type of Institution:	Four year public university
Course Level & Title:	Undergraduate, ENGL 1301: Essentials of College Rhetoric
Course type(s) (asynchronous, synchronous, online, hybrid):	Asynchronous online course
Delivery platform(s):	Blackboard (LMS), Microsoft Word Online (for collaborative annotation), Video Transcripts

Relevant GSOLE OWI Principles & Tenets (2019)

Principle 1: Online literacy instruction should be universally accessible and inclusive.

Tenets

• Use of technology should support stated course objectives, thereby not presenting an undue burden for instructors and students.
• The student-user experience should be prioritized when designing online courses.

• Inclusion and access involve using multiple teaching and learning formats, engaging students’ choices, and welcoming all students in the course.

Principle 3: Instructors should commit to regular, iterative processes of course and instructional material design, development, assessment, and revision to ensure that online literacy instruction and student support reflect current effective practices.

Tenets

• Instructors should migrate and/or adapt appropriate reading, alphabetic writing, and multimodal composition theories from traditional instructional settings to their OLI environment(s).
• Instructors should research, develop, theorize, and apply appropriate reading, alphabetic writing, and multimodal composition theories to their OLI environment(s).

1. Overview

[1] In the asynchronous ENGL 1301: Essentials of College Rhetoric course at Texas Tech University in Fall 2023, I enhanced student collaboration and engagement through group annotation using Microsoft Word Online with a color-coded system. This practice is part of Unit II: Reading the Conversations, which allows students to explore and analyze texts that engage in dialogue with each other on generational differences, focusing particularly on Millennials and Generation Z. These two demographics were chosen because the class composition itself largely consisted of students from these two generations. The asynchronous format attracted non-traditional students, including working professionals, who predominantly belonged to the Millennial generation, while many other students were traditional undergraduates from Generation Z. This dynamic created an interesting collaborative environment, as students from both generations worked together in small groups to critically engage with issues that directly reflected their lived experiences—such as their distinct attitudes toward technology, digital communication, and workplace expectations.

[2] The final project for this unit required students to create three infographics:

1. Summaries of two artifacts (one text and one video each) assigned by me.
   
2. An infographic synthesizing the main arguments and counterarguments of both artifacts, reflecting these generational perspectives.
   

[3] To ensure comprehensive engagement with the materials, I selected two texts and two videos and divided the 25 students into five groups of five. Each group was assigned one text and one video transcript, which they collaboratively annotated in a shared Microsoft Word Online document. At the top of each document, I included general guidelines that addressed both privacy considerations and the annotation process. Given that Microsoft Word Online utilizes AI-driven data collection, I first provided students with instructions on how to disable AI scraping to protect their privacy. Mac users were directed to Word > Preferences > Privacy > Manage Connected Experiences to disable data collection, while Windows users could navigate to File > Options > Trust Center > Trust Center Settings > Privacy Options to turn off connected experiences. These steps ensured that students could collaborate securely without unintended data sharing.

[4] The guidelines also outlined the annotation process, providing a structured color-coded system to help students systematically analyze rhetorical elements within the texts and video transcripts. Each color represented a specific rhetorical component, ensuring that students could easily identify and categorize key arguments, evidence, and persuasive strategies.

[5] To maintain consistency across all groups, students followed this standardized color system:

• Yellow – Identifies the main argument or thesis statement of the text or video transcript. Students were encouraged to highlight central claims and primary positions taken by the author or speaker.
• Blue – Marks supporting evidence or examples that strengthen the main argument. Students highlighted statistics, expert opinions, anecdotes, or illustrative examples that reinforced the thesis.
• Green – Highlights counterarguments or opposing viewpoints presented within the text. This allowed students to recognize alternative perspectives, helping them develop a more nuanced understanding of rhetorical strategies.
• Pink – Identifies rhetorical strategies or devices, such as appeals to ethos, pathos, logos, figurative language, repetition, or strategic word choice. Students analyzed how these elements shaped the persuasiveness of the argument.
• Grey– Highlights conclusions or calls to action, marking the points where the author or speaker summarizes key ideas or urges the audience toward a particular response.

[6] Students were required to only use the highlighted sentences when creating their infographics, ensuring their selections were grounded in rhetorical analysis rather than arbitrary choices. This structured approach not only promoted collaborative learning but also addressed several accessibility considerations. While color-coding was central to the annotation process, I also provided alternative methods, such as labeling highlighted text with comments (e.g., "Thesis Statement" or "Supporting Evidence"), for students with color vision deficiencies. This ensured that all students, regardless of visual or cognitive differences, could fully engage with the activity. Through this collaborative annotation practice, students engaged more deeply with complex rhetorical texts, participated in critical discussions asynchronously, and developed skills in synthesis, summarization, and argumentation, all while working in a peer-supported, interactive digital space. The added generational diversity of the asynchronous setting enriched these discussions, as students from different professional and educational backgrounds brought distinct perspectives and approaches to analyzing the texts.

2. Outcomes

Challenges Addressed

[7] Limited Interaction in Asynchronous Settings:

• Obstacle: Asynchronous courses often lack real-time interaction, making it challenging to foster a sense of community and collaboration among students.
• Solution: By organizing students into small groups for collaborative annotation, the activity encourages peer interaction and builds a learning community within the online course.

[8] Engagement with Complex Texts:

• Obstacle: Students may find it difficult to engage deeply with complex rhetorical texts without interactive support, leading to superficial understanding.
• Solution: Collaborative annotation using a color-coded system guides students to focus on key rhetorical elements, facilitating deeper analysis and comprehension of the texts. This approach is not only effective in Microsoft Word Online but can also be adapted for use with other collaborative software platforms, such as Google Docs, Miro, Notion, and Evernote. This adaptability makes it a versatile tool that can enhance engagement with complex texts across various digital environments, addressing the need for flexible educational tools that can be integrated into different teaching and learning contexts.

[9] Difficulty in Identifying Key Rhetorical Elements:

• Obstacle: Students may struggle to analyze and synthesize key rhetorical components within texts, affecting their ability to critically engage with the material.
• Solution: The color-coded highlighting system directs students to identify and categorize rhetorical elements systematically, enhancing their analytical skills.

[10] Coverage of Multiple Materials:

• Obstacle: Ensuring that all course materials are adequately covered and discussed by students in an asynchronous setting can be challenging.
• Solution: Assigning different texts and videos to each group ensures comprehensive coverage of materials. Later sharing of infographics allows all students to benefit from the collective analysis.

Improvements Achieved

[11] Enhanced Participation and Engagement:

• Metric: In previous assignments using traditional discussion board posts, student engagement was inconsistent. While all students were required to submit an initial post, many did not fully participate in follow-up discussions. On average, only 10 to 15 out of 25 students engaged in peer responses, while the rest either submitted just their initial post without responding to others or skipped the activity entirely. This pattern suggested that while students were completing required tasks, they did not find discussion boards particularly engaging or valuable as a collaborative learning tool.
• Improvement: When I introduced collaborative annotation in place of discussion board responses, student participation increased significantly. In one section, 24 out of 25 students actively contributed, while in another, 22 out of 24 participated. This marked increase was likely due to the interactive nature of the annotation task, which allowed students to engage with the material more organically. Instead of composing standalone discussion posts, students highlighted specific passages, added comments in real time or asynchronously, and directly interacted with their peers' insights within the text itself. This shift reduced the cognitive and time burden often associated with writing lengthy discussion posts while making the learning process feel more immediate and connected.
• Impact: The shift from discussion board posts to collaborative annotation led to higher participation, stronger peer interaction, and deeper engagement with the material. Students found the annotation process more useful and relevant, as they could immediately see and build upon each other's insights instead of waiting for discussion board responses. The increased participation numbers suggest that students preferred this mode of engagement, particularly in an asynchronous setting, where fostering a sense of community can be challenging.

[12] Structured Collaborative Analysis:

• Benefit: By assigning each group specific materials and using the color-coded system, students become experts on their assigned texts and videos, encouraging them to delve deeper into analysis.
• Outcome: Students demonstrated a more nuanced understanding of the rhetorical elements, as evidenced by the quality of their annotations and the depth of their infographics.

[13] Improved Quality of Student Work:

• Observation: The infographics created by each group were more detailed and more accurately reflected the key arguments and rhetorical strategies of the texts, compared to previous iterations of the same assignment. Previously, students worked together without specific color-coding instructions, resulting in a lack of clarity about what needed to be used in the infographics. This often led to some groups completely missing the arguments the authors were making in different texts.
• Reason: Restricting the selection of sentences for infographics to those highlighted during group annotation ensured that students' visual representations were grounded in collaborative and critical analysis.

[14] Enhanced Collaboration Through Group Work:

• Student feedback and perceived benefits: Feedback gathered from in-class discussions and anonymous surveys indicated that working in small groups fostered a sense of community and accountability. Many students appreciated the opportunity to discuss and learn from their peers, noting that collaborative annotation helped them engage more actively with the material compared to working individually. Students also reported that the structured group work provided motivation to complete the assignment, as their contributions were directly visible to their peers.
• Acknowledging limitations and potential biases: While this feedback suggests that students found value in the collaborative process, it is important to acknowledge potential social desirability bias in self-reported responses. Since I was both the instructor and the person administering the survey, students may have been influenced by the expectation that collaboration is a beneficial learning strategy. Additionally, students who struggled with group dynamics, scheduling conflicts, or discomfort in peer discussions may have been less likely to vocalize negative experiences.
• Interpreting the results: Despite these limitations, participation data supports the idea that students were more engaged in collaborative annotation than traditional discussion board activities. While individual experiences may have varied, the overall increase in peer-to-peer interaction and shared accountability suggests that this approach was generally more effective in fostering active engagement and critical discussion. Future iterations of this activity could benefit from external or third-party data collection methods to further reduce bias and gain a more balanced perspective on student experiences.

[15] Use of Accessible and Familiar Tools:

• Advantage of familiar platforms: Utilizing Microsoft Word Online, a widely available and commonly used tool, minimized technical barriers and ensured that students could collaborate seamlessly without needing to learn a new platform. Since most students were already comfortable with Word, they could focus on the annotation process itself rather than navigating unfamiliar software.
• Accessibility considerations and limitations: While this approach improved access for many students, it is important to acknowledge certain accessibility limitations, particularly for those who may have difficulty distinguishing colors due to color vision deficiency or other visual impairments. To address this, students were also given the option to label their highlighted sections with text-based annotations (e.g., typing "Main Argument" next to a yellow-highlighted section). Additionally, students who required further accommodations were encouraged to use screen reader-compatible commenting features in Microsoft Word instead of relying solely on color coding.
• Ensuring inclusive participation: By integrating both visual and text-based annotation methods, this practice aimed to reduce barriers for students with diverse needs. However, future iterations of this activity could benefit from further refinement, such as incorporating alternative annotation tools or gathering student feedback on additional accessibility features to ensure all students can participate effectively.

[16] Comprehensive Coverage and Shared Learning:

• Strategy: By having different groups work on different materials and later sharing their infographics, the entire class benefited from a collective understanding of all texts and videos.
• Educational Value: This approach promoted peer learning and allowed students to engage with a broader range of perspectives and analyses.

[17] Increased Engagement with Complex Texts:

• Evidence: Students' annotations and comments demonstrated a higher level of critical thinking and engagement with the texts compared to previous assignments.
• Facilitation: The color-coded system made the annotation process interactive and visually organized, aiding in comprehension and retention.

[18] Positive Student Feedback:

• Survey Results: An anonymous survey conducted at the end of the unit showed that 88% of students found the collaborative annotation activity helpful in understanding the course material.
• Comments: Students mentioned that the activity made them feel more connected to their peers and that it helped them grasp complex concepts more effectively.

3. Implementation

Step 1: Prepare Course Materials

[19] Select Unit II Texts: Choose a total of two texts and two videos for the entire class that are in explicit or implicit conversation about a relevant issue, as part of the semester's thematic focus on Generations, Mental Health, and Rural Life and Identity, selected by First Year Writing Directors for all sections of ENGL 1301. For this project, I selected the issue of Generations, based on my previous experiences teaching the same section, where students showed a higher level of engagement with this topic compared to the other two. The final deliverable for this project requires students to create three infographics: one summarizing each of the two artifacts (text/video) and a third infographic synthesizing the main arguments and counterarguments from both, illustrating the generational themes discussed.

[20] Provide Video Transcripts: Obtain accurate transcripts for both video materials to facilitate annotation and ensure accessibility.

[21] Create Microsoft Word Online Documents: Convert each text and video transcript into separate Microsoft Word documents and upload them to OneDrive or SharePoint.

[22] Set Permissions: Adjust sharing settings to allow editing by assigned group members.

Step 2: Organize Students into Groups

[23] Group Formation: Divide the class of 25 students into 5 groups of 5 students each and assign materials to groups.

Sample Group Assignments:

• Group 1: Text 1 and Video 1
• Group 2: Text 2 and Video 2
• Group 3: Text 1 and Video 2
• Group 4: Text 2 and Video 1
• Group 5: Text 1 and Text 2 (or Video 1 and Video 2, depending on desired coverage)

This way, each group has a combination of one text and one video, and all materials are covered across groups.

Step 3: Provide Access to Shared Documents

[24] Generate Links: Create unique sharing links for each group's assigned Word Online documents. In compliance with FERPA regulations and to respect student privacy, sharing personal email addresses was not mandatory. To further protect anonymity and ensure accessibility, students were provided with links to the document that could be accessed through any email provider. This allowed students who were not comfortable sharing their school email addresses to participate anonymously, ensuring that their privacy preferences were honored while still enabling full participation in the course activities.

Anonymity in Participation (If needed): Students were allowed to access the documents without logging in or using anonymous guest links where possible.

[25] Distribute Links: Post the links on Blackboard in the respective group's discussion board or send via email.

Step 4: Introduce Collaborative Annotation Using Microsoft Word Online

[26] Instructional Guide: Provide tutorials on using Word Online's commenting and highlighting features, emphasizing the color-coded system. These tutorials are delivered through a combination of screencasts, which visually guide students through the process, and detailed written instructions that accompany the screencasts. This dual format ensures that students have both visual and textual references to help them understand and implement the annotation techniques effectively in their assignments.

[27] Anonymity in Comments: Students were given the option to add comments and replies anonymously if they preferred, allowing them to engage more freely without attaching their identities to their contributions.

[28] To ensure they still received appropriate credit for their participation, those who chose to comment anonymously were required to submit a separate document via Blackboard. This document listed the specific comments and replies they had made, enabling the instructor to verify their engagement while maintaining their anonymity within the collaborative activity.

Advantages and Limitations of Anonymity

• Encouraging honest participation: Allowing anonymous commenting helped students express their thoughts freely without fear of judgment, particularly when critiquing ideas or disagreeing with peers. To facilitate this, students were not made aware of the names or email addresses of other group members, ensuring that contributions were evaluated based on content rather than the identity of the contributor.
• Comfort in dissent: Anonymity made it easier for students to provide critical analysis and alternative perspectives without worrying about social repercussions, fostering a space for open academic discourse.
• Potential challenges with community and accountability: While anonymity encouraged more candid engagement, it may have also created a sense of detachment among students, reducing opportunities for relationship-building and peer accountability. Without visible identities attached to comments, some students may have been less invested in engaging meaningfully with their peers' contributions. Future iterations of this activity could explore a hybrid approach, where students can choose partial anonymity (e.g., using pseudonyms or initials) to balance honest participation with a stronger sense of peer connection.

Step 5: Add General Guidelines at the Top of Word Documents

[29] Include detailed instructions on the following:

• Objectives and instructions (see Figure 1).
• Anonymity protocol and explain how to add comments anonymously, along with instructions for submitting their contributions separately for credit through Blackboard.

[30] Etiquette and Expectations:

• Emphasize respectful and constructive feedback.
• In the first unit, Language Autoethnography, students were taught to give peer feedback based on Bill Hart-Davidson's (YEAR) approach to feedback, which involves three key steps: describe, evaluate, and suggest. This foundation helps ensure that comments are both respectful and constructive.Remind students that while anonymity protects their identity, all comments should adhere to academic standards.

[31] Instructor Oversight: Inform students that my teaching philosophy, rooted in the principles of constructive alignment and scaffolded learning as advocated by Biggs (2014), guides my oversight of their interactions. This approach emphasizes active and supportive engagement, leveraging Hart-Davidson's (YEAR) method of feedback—describing, evaluating, and suggesting—to foster a classroom environment where feedback is instructive and encouraging. I monitor comments to ensure appropriateness and to support a culture of respect and collaboration, thereby enhancing students' critical thinking and communication skills. 

Step 6: Emphasize the Importance of Color-Coded Highlighting

[32] Instruction on Usage:

• Students must use the assigned colors consistently to represent the designated rhetorical elements.
• Only sentences highlighted in these colors can be used in their infographics.

Step 7: Facilitate Collaborative Annotation (see Figure 2)

[33] Monitoring and Oversight: The instructor regularly reviewed the comments and replies to ensure they remained constructive and appropriate.

[34] Guidelines for Constructive Feedback: Provide examples of constructive comments. Encourage critical thinking while maintaining respect for differing viewpoints.

Step 8: Guide Infographic Creation

[35] Use of Highlighted Sentences: Students could only select sentences or ideas from the collaboratively highlighted text for their infographics.

[36] Design Tools: Introduce tools like Microsoft PowerPoint or Word or Canva for infographic creation.

[37] Accessibility Considerations: Emphasize the inclusion of alt-text for images and accessible design practices.

Step 9: Incorporate the Writer's Memo

[38] Memo Guidelines:

• Reflect on how the collaborative process and anonymity influenced their work.
• Discuss specific choices made in content and design.

Step 10: Ensure Accessibility

[39] Alt-text for Images: Instructions provided to ensure that alt-text is meaningful and enhances comprehension rather than serving as a symbolic gesture. Students are instructed not only to describe what an image visually represents but also to explain why it is included and what information it conveys. This ensures that alt-text supports both contextual understanding and accessibility for all students, including those using assistive technologies. To reinforce this, I provide specific examples of effective alt-text that illustrate best practices, such as emphasizing key data points in an infographic rather than simply stating "bar chart showing survey results."

[40] Accessibility Considerations for Color Coding and Highlighting: Recognizing that some students may have difficulty distinguishing colors due to color vision deficiency or other visual impairments, I implemented alternative annotation methods to make the activity more inclusive. Students could choose to:

[41] Use text-based labels in the comments section to indicate the rhetorical element they are highlighting (e.g., typing "Main Argument" next to a highlighted section).

[42] Rely on screen reader-compatible commenting features in Microsoft Word instead of color coding alone.

[43] Pair colors with distinct formatting styles (e.g., bold for main arguments, italics for counterarguments) to provide multiple ways of distinguishing rhetorical elements.

[44] Accessible Design Practices: Students are guided on how to select color schemes that maintain high contrast and readability for all users. Additionally, I encourage the use of annotation alternatives such as numbered categories or symbols in place of color when needed.

[45] Technical Support: Assistance offered for any accessibility needs.

Step 11: Provide Assessment Rubric Emphasizing Collaboration (see Table 1)

[46] Collaboration Weight: The rubric assigned significant weight to collaboration, including participation in annotations.

[47] Accountability:

• Students submitted a separate log of their contributions to ensure they received credit.
• The instructor cross-referenced these logs with the comments to maintain accountability.

[48] Usage of the Rubric

• Transparency: Sharing the rubric with students at the beginning of the assignment helps them understand the expectations and how their work will be evaluated.

• Continuous Improvement: Use the rubric results to identify areas where students may need additional support or instruction.

• Self-Assessment: Encourage students to use the rubric to self-assess their work before submission.

Step 12: Alternative Tools and Software

[49] Primary Tool Used: Microsoft Word Online (accessible without requiring personal email sharing).

[50] Alternatives: Google Docs (offers anonymous commenting options_

4. Additional Considerations

[51] Ensure compliance with institutional policies and privacy regulations.

[52] When incorporating external email services such as Gmail for anonymous commenting, it is important to consider privacy concerns and institutional guidelines. While FERPA primarily applies to the protection of student records rather than peer-to-peer communication within a course, privacy considerations still remain relevant. Students should be made aware of the potential risks of using non-university platforms and given the option to participate using their university-provided email if they prefer.

[53] Additionally, some departments, including mine, have strict FERPA policies that discourage students from sharing their email addresses, even for peer-to-peer communication within a course, without explicit consent. Instead, these departments strongly encourage using institutionally approved platforms such as Blackboard, Canvas, or Moodle to facilitate discussions and collaboration. Instructors in similar environments should be aware of departmental policies and offer FERPA-compliant alternatives, such as university-supported Learning Management Systems (LMS) like Blackboard, Canvas, or Moodle. These platforms ensure secure communication and collaboration without requiring students to share personal email information, accommodating those who may have privacy concerns.

[54] Instructors should also take steps to ensure that no personally identifiable information is unintentionally shared when using external services. This includes guiding students on what information should and should not be included in their comments and discussions. While anonymized participation can foster more candid engagement, it is important to maintain transparency about data security, institutional expectations, and student autonomy in choosing how they engage in classroom activities.