STUDENT AND INSTRUCTOR EXPERIENCE USING COLLABORATIVE ANNOTATION VIA PERUSALL IN UPPER YEAR AND GRADUATE COURSES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perusall is a collaborative annotation platform designed for pre-readings in a flipped classroom, but can also be used for stand-alone, asynchronous reading discussion components of courses. We examine the use of Perusall as a social constructivist learning tool in two upper year/graduate courses in Mechanical Engineering. Perusall was used to replace in-class discussion of readings during the shift to online teaching. Data was collected from student surveys and from the student and instructor annotations themselves. Annotations were coded for content, and examined for factors such as upvoting. We found substantial engagement from students, with collaborative annotation providing opportunities for: correction of misunderstanding; linking concepts from the course and between readings; discussing larger issues around research and research writing; sharing background information among peers; and critically analyzing the readings. Students reported deeper learning than in typical in-class discussions of readings; however, they also noted that annotation required much more time. Overall, collaborative annotation appears to be an effective method for course reading discussion.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".