A Participatory Action Research Study on Handwritten Annotation Feedback and Its Impact on Staff and Students

Original Paper

Abstract

Annotation was introduced to a United Kingdom (UK) School of Nursing following an institutional audit within a UK University. Handwritten annotation (writing in the margins of student assignments) was introduced to the grading procedure to enhance the quality of student feedback and learning. Once in practice, annotation could be examined and an action research study facilitated the process. Post-qualifying essay scripts were examined for styles of annotation to identify its strengths and weaknesses. Five staff participated in action research to examine staff perceptions of annotation. Findings showed that words or telegraphic signs that stand alone in the margins of a student essay can be seen as abstract signs to the novitiate reader and need contextualising. If there is a negative tone in the markers’ annotation it can be detected by the student and interpreted as unhelpful or disparaging. There are a number of ways of improving annotation, and good practice guidelines are offered in the conclusion to this paper.

Keywords

Participatory action research Annotation Student feedback Transformative experience 

References

  1. Argyris C, Schön D (1978) Organisational learning. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MAGoogle Scholar
  2. Argyris C, Putnam R, Smith D (1985) Action science: concepts, methods and skills for research and intervention. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  3. Ball E (2009a) Annotation: an effective device for student feedback: a critical review of the literature. Nurse Educ Pract (in press)Google Scholar
  4. Ball E (2009b) Annotation is a valuable tool to enhance learning and assessment in student essays. Nurse Educ Today 29(3) (in press)Google Scholar
  5. Blair B (2006) At the end of a huge crit in the summer, it was “crap”–I’d worked really hard but all she said was “fine” and I was gutted. Art Des Commun High Educ 5(2):83–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown G, Bull J, Pendlebury P (1997) Assessing student learning in higher education. Kogan Page, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Cao L (2006) Synergic inquiry, paradigms, and other methodologies. In: Tang Y, Joiner C (eds) Synergic inquiry: a collaborative action methodology. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Coughlan P, Coughlan D (2002) Action research for operations management. Int J Oper Prod Manag 22(2):220–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. de Saussure F (1987) Course in general linguistics (trans: Harris R). Duckworth, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Denton P, Madden J, Roberts M, Rowe P (2008) Students’ response to traditional and computer-assisted formative feedback: a comparative case study. Br J Educ Technol 39(3):486–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Diyanni R (2002) One hundred great essays. Addison-Wesley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Eden C, Huxman C (1996) Action research for management research. Br J Manag 7:75–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Feito A, Donahue P (2008) Minding the gap annotation as preparation for discussion. Arts Humanit High Educ 7(3):295–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Freire P (1972) Pedagogy of the oppressed. Penguin, HarmondsworthGoogle Scholar
  15. Geer J (1991) Do open ended questions measure “salient” issues? Public Opin Q 55:360–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Guba EG, Lincoln YS (1994) Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of qualitative research. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Hagey RS (1997) Guest editorial: the use and abuse of participatory action research. Chronic Dis Canada 18:1–4Google Scholar
  18. Harrison N (2006) The impact of negative experiences, dissatisfaction and attachment on first year undergraduate withdrawal. J Furth High Educ 30(4):377–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hart E, Bond M (1995) Action research for health and social care: a guide to practice. Oxford University Press, BuckinghamGoogle Scholar
  20. Herr K, Anderson GL (2005) The action research dissertation: a guide for students and faculty. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Heslop L, Elsom S, Parker N (2000) Improving continuity of care across psychiatric and emergency services: combining patient data within a participatory action research framework. J Adv Nurs 31(1):135–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hyland P (2000) Learning from feedback on assessment. In: Booth A, Hyland P (eds) The practice of university history teaching. MUP, ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  23. Jenkins J (2005) Policy on provision of feedback on assessed work. School of Nursing, University of Salford. K:\School of Nursing\New Structure-Nursing Filestore\Quality\School Policies\Feedback\2005\Policy on the Provision of Feedback on Assessed Work 7/doc. Accessed 21 June 2008Google Scholar
  24. Jewitt C, Kress G (2005) English in classrooms: only write down what you need to know: annotation for what? Engl Educ 39(1):5–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnson M (1997) Observations on the neglected concept of intervention in nursing research. J Adv Nurs 25:23–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Juwah C, Macfarlane-Dick D, Matthew B, Nicol D, Ross D, Smith B (2004) Enhancing student learning through effective formative feedback. The Higher Education Academy, York, pp 1–40Google Scholar
  27. Kemmis S, McTaggart R (1988) The action research planner. Deakin University Press, GeelongGoogle Scholar
  28. Koshy V (2005) Action research for improving practice: a practical guide. Paul Chapman, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Lea MR, Stierer B (2000) Student writing in higher education, new contexts. Oxford University Press, BuckinghamGoogle Scholar
  30. Liu K (2006) Annotation as an index to critical writing. Urban Educ 41(2):192–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marshall CM (1998) Toward an ecology of hypertext annotation. Hypertext. In: Proceedings of the ninth ACM conference on hypertext and hypermedia, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 20–24 June, pp 40–49Google Scholar
  32. McColly W (1965) The dimensions of composition annotation. State University of New York Press, Oswego, NYGoogle Scholar
  33. McKernan J (1991) Curriculum action research. A handbook of methods and resources for the reflective practitioner. Kogan Page, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Munnukka T, Kiikkala I (1995) How Finnish nurses changed over to primary nursing. Int Nurs Rev 42:187–191Google Scholar
  35. Mutch A (2003) Exploring the practice of feedback to students. Active Learn High Educ 4(1):24–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Paley J (2006) Evidence and expertise. Nurs Inq 13:82–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (2004) Institutional Audit Report Main Report QAA for Higher Education Gloucester Sect. 3: The audit investigations: discipline audit trails. Gloucester, LinneyGoogle Scholar
  38. Ramage JD, Bean JC (1995) Writing arguments: a rhetoric with reading. Allyn & Bacon, BostonGoogle Scholar
  39. Schein EH (1993a) How can organisations learn faster? The challenge of entering the green room. Sloan Manag Rev 34:85–92Google Scholar
  40. Schein EH (1993b) On dialogue, culture, and organisational learning. Organ Dyn 22:40–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Soltis-Jarrett V (1997) The facilitator in participatory action research: les raisons d’eˆ tre. Adv Nurs Sci 2:45–54Google Scholar
  42. Storch N, Tapper J (1997) Student annotations: what NNS and NS university students say about their own writing. J Second Lang Writ 6(3):245–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Susman GL, Evered RD (1978) An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Admin Sci Q 23(4):582–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sutherland K (1997) Electronic text: investigations in method and theory. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  45. Weaver MR (2006) Do students value feedback? Student perceptions of tutors’ written responses. Assess Eval High Educ 31(3):379–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wolfe JL (2000) Effects of annotations on student readers and writers. In: Proceedings of the fifth ACM conference on digital libraries. ACM Press, San AntonioGoogle Scholar
  47. Wolfe JL (2002) Marginal pedagogy: how annotated texts affect writing-from-source text. Writ Commun 19(2):297–333Google Scholar
  48. Wolfe JL, Nuewirth CM (2001) From the margins to the centre: the future of annotation. J Bus Tech Commun 15(3):333–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Yang SJH, Chen IYL, Shao N (2004) Ontology enabled annotation and knowledge management for collaborative learning in virtual learning community. Educ Technol Soc 7(4):70–81Google Scholar
  50. Zuber-Skerritt O (ed) (1991) Action research for change and development. Avebury, AldershotGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of NursingUniversity of SalfordSalford, Greater ManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations