2010
DOI: 10.1007/s11213-010-9168-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

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

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 b… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
34
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(35 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
0
34
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This conflict, between what students prefer and what is likely to contribute to productive learning, is a recurrent problem in the studies reviewed. For instance, students appreciate specific, detailed, and individualized comments on their own work (Auten, 1992; Ball et al, 2009; Carless, 2006; Chanock, 2000; Ferguson, 2011; Hedgcock and Lefkowitz, 1996; Higgins et al, 2002; Holmes and Papageorgiou, 2009; Hyland, 2000; Lipnevich and Smith, 2009; Pitts, 2005; Poulos and Mahony, 2008; Price et al, 2010; Rea and Cochrane, 2008; Regan, 2010; Rice et al, 1994; Séror, 2009; Weaver, 2006; Whitington et al, 2004), and they make both more revisions and more accurate revisions if told exactly what to do (Baker and Hansen Bricker, 2010; Ferris, 1997; Sweeney, 1999; Vardi, 2009). Still, revisions based on such highly specific and directive feedback do not necessarily improve the quality of students’ texts.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This conflict, between what students prefer and what is likely to contribute to productive learning, is a recurrent problem in the studies reviewed. For instance, students appreciate specific, detailed, and individualized comments on their own work (Auten, 1992; Ball et al, 2009; Carless, 2006; Chanock, 2000; Ferguson, 2011; Hedgcock and Lefkowitz, 1996; Higgins et al, 2002; Holmes and Papageorgiou, 2009; Hyland, 2000; Lipnevich and Smith, 2009; Pitts, 2005; Poulos and Mahony, 2008; Price et al, 2010; Rea and Cochrane, 2008; Regan, 2010; Rice et al, 1994; Séror, 2009; Weaver, 2006; Whitington et al, 2004), and they make both more revisions and more accurate revisions if told exactly what to do (Baker and Hansen Bricker, 2010; Ferris, 1997; Sweeney, 1999; Vardi, 2009). Still, revisions based on such highly specific and directive feedback do not necessarily improve the quality of students’ texts.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Concerning writing reviews, Bruno and Santos [27] agreed that comments must be simple, structured, include a commonplace and basic jargon, and refrain from providing some portion of the acknowledgement. Regan [28] perceived the tone in which written input is passed as needing to be taken into account. It is critical because teachers must strike a balance among enabling students to make significant improvements and inspiring them to make it.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In specific relation to written feedback, Bruno and Santos (2010) identify that comments should be legible and direct, contain familiar and simple vocabulary, and avoid giving part of the answer. Regan (2010) observes that consideration should also be given to the tone in which written feedback is conveyed. This is important as teachers need to strike a balance between empowering students and motivating students to make necessary changes.…”
Section: Characteristics Of Effective Written Feedbackmentioning
confidence: 99%