Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Read Between the Lines; the Emancipatory Nature of Formative Annotative Feedback on Draft Assignments

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Systemic Practice and Action Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Policy guidelines promoting best practice for annotation feedback on draft assignments risk neutralising lecturers’ feedback and higher education potential as an emancipatory pedagogy. Annotation use within higher education is more complex than its definition suggests compounded by a lack of supporting evidence and a largely inductive practice. With emphasis placed on receiving formative annotative feedback on draft assignments lecturers’ can empower students’ skills for lifelong learning and closing the gap between actual and desired performance on assessed work. Analysis of findings from a survey methodology, questionnaires (students’ n = 600, lecturers’ n = 112) and feedback comments are discussed with literature published from 1997 to 2009. Themes impacting on formative annotation feedback and educational transformation were identified. Students’ (n = 13, 2.17% response rate) felt frustrated by feedback requiring them to ‘read between the lines’ and interpret the lecturer’s actual intended message. Lecturers’ (n = 22, 19.64% response rate) indicated they valued feedback but despite preceding summative, formative annotative feedback was perceived to be indistinct from summative feedback. The generic nature of feedback policy, guidelines and literature reinforces this perception. In reality the different timing and aims of formative annotation means that feedback generalities maybe unhelpful.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ball E (2009a). Annotation an effective device for student feedback: a critical review of the literature. Nurse Educ in Practice 7(3):295–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball E (2009b) A participatory action research study on handwritten annotation feedback and its impact on staff and students. Syst Pract Action Res 22:111–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball E, Franks H, Jenkins J, McGrath M, Leigh J (2009) Annotation is a valuable tool to enhance learning and assessment in student essays. Nurse Educ Today 29:284–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bargal D (2006) Personal and intellectual influences leading to Lewin’s paradigm of action research. Action Res 4(4):367–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barthes R (1964) Elements of semiology. Hill and Wang, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Black P, William D (1998) Assessment and classroom learning. Assess Educ 5(1):7–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boud D (2007) Reframing assessment as if learning were important. In: Boud D, Falchikov N (eds) Rethinking assessment in higher education. Learning for the longer term. Routledge, London, pp 14–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler DL, Winne PH (1995) Feedback and self-regulated learning: a theoretical synthesis. Rev Educ Res 65(3):245–281

    Google Scholar 

  • Chanock K (2000) Comments on essays: do students understand what lecturers write? Teach High Educ 5(1):95–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham JB (1993) Action research and organisational development. Praeger, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Dick B, Stringer E, Huxham C (2009) Theory in action research. Action Res 7(1):5–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duffy K (2003) Failing students: a qualitative study of factors that influence the decisions regarding assessment of students’ competence in practice. Caledonian Nursing and Midwifery Research Centre, School of Nursing, Midwifery and Community Health, Glasgow Caledonian University

  • Elton L, Johnston B (2002) Assessment in Universities: a critical review of research, LTSN Generic Centre. http://ltsnpsy.york.ac.uk/docs/pdf/p20030617_elton_johnston-assessment_in_universities_a_critical_view_o.pdf. Accessed 4 Jan 2010

  • Feito A, Donahue P (2008) Minding the gap annotation as preparation for discussion. Arts Humanit High Educ 7(3):295–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freire P (1970) Pedagogy of the oppressed. Seabury Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Handley K, Szwelnik A, Ujma D, Lawrence L, Millar J, Price M (2007) When less is more: students’ experiences of assessment feedback, 1st July, 3rd Higher Education Academy annual conference, Engaging students in Higher Education. https://mw.brookes.ac.uk/download/attachments/2851502/HEA+paper+2007+-+Student+experiences+of+assessment+feedback.pdf?version=1. Accessed 12 Jan 2010

  • Harlen W, Crick RD (2003) Testing and motivation for learning. Assess Educ 10(2):169–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higher Education Statistics Agency (2008) Performance indicators in higher education in the UK 2007/08. HESA. http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1446&Itemid=141. Accessed 4 Jan 2010

  • Holter IM, Schwartz-Barcott D (1993) Action research: what is it? How has it been used and how can it be used in nursing? J Adv Nurs 18:298–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyland P (2000) Learning from feedback on assessment. In: Booth A, Hyland P (eds) The practice of University history teaching. MUP, Manchester

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins J (2005) Guidelines for the annotation of formative and summative assessments. School of Nursing, University of Salford. http://intranet.nursing.salford.ac.uk/geninfo/quality/Guidelines%20for%20the%20Annotation%20of%20Formative%20and%20Summative%20Assessments.doc. Accessed 4 Jan 2010

  • Johansson AW, Lindhult E (2008) Emancipation or workability? Critical versus pragmatic scientific orientation in action research. Action Res 6(1):95–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson M, Nádas R (2009) Marginalised behaviour: digital annotations, spatial encoding and the implications for reading comprehension. Learn Media Tech 34(4):323–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juwah C, Macfarlane-Dick D, Matthew B, Nicol D, Ross D, Smith B (2004) Enhancing student learning through effective formative feedback. http://www.palatine.ac.uk/files/919.pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2010

  • Kemmis S (2006) Participatory action research and the public sphere. Educ Action Res 14(4):459–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemmis S, McTaggart R (2005) Participatory action research: communicative action and the public sphere. In: Denzin N, Lincoln Y (eds) The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 559–603

    Google Scholar 

  • Killingsworth MJ (1993) Product and process, literacy and orality: an essay on composition and culture. Coll Compos Commun 44(1):26–39 (February)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight P (2006) The local practices of assessment. Assess Eval High Educ 31(4):435–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kristeva J (1986) The Kristeva reader. In: Toril Moi (ed), Basil Blackwell, Oxford

  • Lewin K (1947a) Frontiers in group dynamics 1: concept, method and reality in social science; social equilibria and social change. Hum Rel 1(5):5–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin K (1947b) Frontiers in group dynamics 11: channels in group life: social planning and action research, concept, method and reality in social science; social equilibria and social change. Hum Rel 1:143–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin K (1951) Field theory in social science. Harper and Row, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu K (2006) Annotation as an index to critical writing. Urban Educ 41:192–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall CM (1998a) The future of annotation in a digital (paper) world. Presented at the 35th annual GLSLIS clinic: successes and failures of digital libraries, June 20–24, University of Illinois, pp 1–20, March 24

  • Marshall CM (1998b) Toward an ecology of hypertext annotation. Hypertext. In: proceedings of the ninth ACM conference on hypertext

  • McColly W (1965) The dimensions of composition annotation. State University of New York Press, Oswego, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • McNiff J (2002) Action research for professional development; concise advice for new action researchers, 3rd edn. http://www.jeanmcniff.com/booklet1.html. Accessed 13 Jan 2010

  • Nicol D, Macfarlane-Dick D (2006) Formative assessment and self regulated learning; a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Stud High Educ 3(2):199–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orsmond P, Merry S, Reiling K (2002) The use of formative feedback when using student derived marking criteria in peer and self-assessment. Assess Eval High Educ 27(4):309–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paley J (2006) Evidence and expertise. Nurs Inq 13:82–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter-O’Donnell C (2004) Beyond the yellow highlighter: teaching annotation skills to improve reading comprehension. English J 93:5

    Google Scholar 

  • Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (2006) Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education. http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/codeofpractice/section6/draft/. Accessed 4 Jan 2010

  • Race P (2001a) A briefing on self, paper and group assessment. Assessment series no. 9, LTSN

  • Race P (2001b) Assessment: a guide for students. LTSN, York

    Google Scholar 

  • Robson C (2002) Real world research, 2nd edn. Blackwell publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler DR (1983) Evaluation and the improvement of academic learning. J High Educ 54(1):60–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler DR (1989) Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instr Sci 18:119–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Small SA (1995) Action-oriented research: models and methods. J Marriage Family 57(4):941–955

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Somekh B, Zeichner K (2009) Action research for educational reform: remodelling action research theories and practices in local contexts. Educ Action Res 17(1):5–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stenhouse L (1975) An introduction to curriculum research and development. Heinemann, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland K (1997) Introduction. In: Sutherland K (ed) Electronic text: investigations in method and theory. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Torrance H, Pryor J (1998) Investigating formative assessment; teaching, learning and assessment in the classroom. Open Univ Press, Philadelphia, PA

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter R, Munn-Giddings C (2001) A handbook for action research in health and social care. Taylor and Francis Ltd, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe JL (2002) Marginal pedagogy: how annotated texts affect writing-from-source text. Writ Comm 19(2):297–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe JL, Nuewirth CM (2001) From the margins to the centre: the future of annotation. J Bus Tech Commun 15(3):333–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yorke M (2003) Formative assessment in higher education: moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice. High Educ 45(4):477–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

    Paul John Regan

Authors
  1. Paul John Regan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul John Regan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Regan, P.J. Read Between the Lines; the Emancipatory Nature of Formative Annotative Feedback on Draft Assignments. Syst Pract Action Res 23, 453–466 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-010-9168-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-010-9168-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation