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 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.

Facilitating productive use of feedback in higher education

“…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.…”

Reframing the effectiveness of feedback in improving teaching and learning achievement

“…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.…”

Written Teacher Feedback: Reflections of Year Seven Music Students

“…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.…”