Going Blended with a Triple-Entry - CELT Vol IX - Online Discussions of Assigned Readings using Marginalia

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by jay

Investigates how structured small-group discussions of assigned readings in a blended course can be delivered online through a “triple-entry activity” using the annotation tool Marginalia. Compares the online effectiveness with prior face-to-face implementation and analyzes what students did, why they did it, and which interaction patterns emerged. Reports comment types (acknowledgements, extensions, personal connections, questions, and answers), interaction structures, learning perceptions, community-building outcomes, and how pre-class responses informed instructor preparation.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages14

Reading Time35 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Going Blended

Implementing the Triple-Entry Activity Online

Going Blended with a Triple-Entry 2016 CELT Vol IX Activity: Students’ [Online Discussions](Online Discussions celt. uwindsor.ca)[ celt. uwindsor.ca](Online Discussions celt. uwindsor.ca) [www.stlhe.ca](www.stlhe.ca) of Assigned Readings using Marginalia Lannie Kanevsky, Cindy Xin, and Ilana Ram Simon Fraser University In this paper, we describe and investigate small group discussions of assigned readings in an online version of a “triple-entry activity” in a blended course used an annotation tool, Marginalia. We wondered if students would interact in this structured, critical, reflective reading activity as effectively online as they had when the activity was undertaken on paper in face-to-face classes. We investigated what happened, why, and if successful, and how these findings might inform the use of annotated discussions in the future. We found 30% of comments acknowledged the value of ideas expressed in a group member’s response to a reading, 30% extended those ideas, 11% connected the reading to personal experience, 9% were questions, and 6% answers. Approximately 60% of the interactions were between one group member and the author of the response; 40% involved comments that were connected to each other as well as the author’s response to the reading. Students felt using Marginalia to comment on classmates’ responses and having classmates comment on their responses facilitated their learning from assigned readings. The instructor agreed andfelt the online discussions also contributed to the development of a community of learners between face-to-face classes. In addition, reading students’ responses and discussions before each class informed the instructor’s preparation for in-class activities. Introduction fter A24 teaching small Education courses (maximum students) face-to-face for 20 years with consistent positive evaluations, the first author, Dr. Kanevsky, wanted to offer one of them in a blended format, i.e., “through a combination of online and face-to-face experiences” (Means, Toyama, Murphy,& Baki, 2013, p.6) . Although the face-to-face course filled well and the evaluations were strong, she wanted to make the course more accessible to potential students who lived too far from the university campus to arrive in time for evening classes that began at 4:30 pm. She resisted shifting to a blended format until online tools could be found that enabled her students to have a core course experience, the “triple-entry activity”, and its benefits (Kooy & Kanevsky, 1996) . Here we describe the triple-entry activity, first offline and as it was adapted for use in a blended course, how it was implemented, and its outcomes. Here the word “entry” means a written contribution to a conversation about an assigned reading. In the face-to-face version of the triple-entry activity, the first “entry” was a student’s written response to an assigned reading. The second “entry”was in the form of comments written in the margins by a few classmates when they exchanged and read each other’s responses in class. Rich, lively small group and whole class discussions of their readings ensued. Students’ conversations began in the comments they made in the margins and went deeper when they spoke. Students were creating zones of proximal development (Vygtosky, 1978), social spaces in which they surfaced, examined, deconstructed and reconstructed their knowledge. Students submitted their marked-up responses to the instructor for her feedback at the end of the class session. Her feedback was the third “entry”. This process not only engaged students critically and reflectively with the course content, it played a fundamental role in developing the learning community. These interactions were what Dr. Kanevsky wanted to preserve in an online discussion format when she “went blended.” Going Blended As previously mentioned, a major reason for shifting the delivery format from face-to-face to blended was to increase acces

FAQs

What is the “triple-entry activity” in this blended course context?

It is a structured conversation about an assigned reading with three written contributions: a student response, classmates’ margin comments, and the instructor’s feedback entry based on submitted marked-up responses.

Why shift from face-to-face to a blended format?

To increase access for students unable to attend weekly evening classes on campus and to allow learners to control when and where they study between meetings, including providing extra time for students for whom English is an additional language.

How does the study describe student interaction and outcomes in the online version?

Students used Marginalia to comment on classmates’ responses and received reciprocal comments, which supported their learning from assigned readings. The online discussions also contributed to developing a community of learners and helped the instructor prepare for in-class activities.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by jay