Nurse Education in Practice 10 (2010) 138–143

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Nurse Education in Practice

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/nepr

Annotation an effective device for student feedback: A critical reviewof the literature

Elaine C. Ball *

University of Salford, Manchester M6 6PU, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o s u m m a r y

Article history:Accepted 24 May 2009

Keywords:AnnotationFeedbackSummative assessment

1471-5953/$ - see front matter � 2009 Published bydoi:10.1016/j.nepr.2009.05.003

* Tel.: +44 0161 295 7280.E-mail address: e.ball1@salford.ac.uk

The paper examines hand-written annotation, its many features, difficulties and strengths as a feedbacktool. It extends and clarifies what modest evidence is in the public domain and offers an evaluation ofhow to use annotation effectively in the support of student feedback [Marshall, C.M., 1998a. The Futureof Annotation in a Digital (paper) World. Presented at the 35th Annual GLSLIS Clinic: Successes and Fail-ures of Digital Libraries, June 20–24, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, March 24, pp. 1–20; Mar-shall, C.M., 1998b. Toward an ecology of hypertext annotation. Hypertext. In: Proceedings of the NinthACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, June 20–24, Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, US, pp. 40–49;Wolfe, J.L., Nuewirth, C.M., 2001. From the margins to the centre: the future of annotation. Journal ofBusiness and Technical Communication, 15(3), 333–371; Diyanni, R., 2002. One Hundred Great Essays.Addison-Wesley, New York; Wolfe, J.L., 2002. Marginal pedagogy: how annotated texts affect writing-from-source texts. Written Communication, 19(2), 297–333; Liu, K., 2006. Annotation as an index to crit-ical writing. Urban Education, 41, 192–207; Feito, A., Donahue, P., 2008. Minding the gap annotation aspreparation for discussion. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 7(3), 295–307; Ball, E., 2009. A par-ticipatory action research study on handwritten annotation feedback and its impact on staff and students.Systemic Practice and Action Research, 22(2), 111–124; Ball, E., Franks, H., McGrath, M., Leigh, J., 2009.Annotation is a valuable tool to enhance learning and assessment in student essays. Nurse EducationToday, 29(3), 284–291]. Although a significant number of studies examine annotation, this is largelyrelated to on-line tools and computer mediated communication and not hand-written annotation as com-ment, phrase or sign written on the student essay to provide critique. Little systematic research has beenconducted to consider how this latter form of annotation influences student learning and assessment or,indeed, helps tutors to employ better annotative practices [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, 1–40; Jewitt, C., Kress, G., 2005. English in classrooms: only write downwhat you need to know: annotation for what? English in Education, 39(1), 5–18]. There is little evidenceon ways to heighten students’ self-awareness when their essays are returned with annotated feedback[Storch, N., Tapper, J., 1997. Student annotations: what NNS and NS university students say about theirown writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(3), 245–265]. The literature review clarifies formsof annotation as feedback practice and offers a summary of the challenges and usefulness of annotation.

� 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Introduction

Annotation is a term used to describe the augmentation of textwith additional content. It is a visual instrument designed to ac-tively engage with the host text and can be employed by authoror reader. The etymological root of annotation comes from the La-tin annotare ‘to mark’ (http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts,2008) which, when applied to an assignment to measure the out-comes of student learning, marks the page on which their work iswritten. Registering a textual response involves inscribing com-

Elsevier Ltd.

ments or signs and entering into dialogue with the original docu-ment. Hand-written annotation can be as simple as underlining asentence or adding more complex gloss depending on the purposeand intended outcomes of the marginalia. Textual moments of thekind possibly noted in underlining may seem simple, but there isno evidence to support that it facilitates cognition (Marshall,1998a; Wolfe, 2002; Wolfe, 2000). There is scant evidence onannotation generally and it is practiced by many without anymethodical teaching or examination (Feito and Donahue, 2008).This means that an inductive method of assessment is currentlyin use and not supported by a legitimate evidence base. This papercollates hand-written annotation and seeks to extract a central fo-cus for good practice.

E.C. Ball / Nurse Education in Practice 10 (2010) 138–143 139

Perhaps the most striking detail about annotation is its rise inpopular use. Not since medieval time has the instrument of margi-nalia (writing in the margins) been so keenly utilised (Wolfe andNuewirth, 2001). Medieval writing reveals that the reader’s inter-action with the text was central to keeping the discourse topical(Wolfe and Nuewirth). Multiple readers all had access to the samecopy and the exchange and discussion of annotation was as impor-tant as the primary text. Although print technologies contributedto the decline of annotations as critical forums, digital technologiespromise to revive these practices and create new ones (Ball et al.,2009). Thus, undertaking a literature review on annotation is basedon its current revival: its huge strides into web based or electroniclearning1 has had a major impact on the way we read and reviewprimary texts – this practise has made its way into how student es-says are read – writing in the margins or using the comment tool inword-processing packages to feedback on students’ work is nowcommon practice. If we are to expose students to a variation of thesecontemporary practices then, in keeping with current learning strat-egies, there is a need to explore the pros and cons of annotation.Given the plethora of literature on digital annotation, this paperrestricted itself to hand-written annotation and concentrates onthe student/lecturer feedback process.

Searching the literature

Search terms separated or linked annotation, assessment, educa-tion and feedback. Ovid Online, IngentaConnect and SwetsWise,AMED, Medline, PsychInfo and Cinahl were utilised. Blackwell–Syn-ergy.com and The Cambridge Journals Online were useful as a sourceto English literature and social and critical theory. METAPRESS, SageOnline and ScienceDirect were used for nursing. The EnhancedTeaching and Learning environment and ERIC database were sourcesfor teaching, assessment and feedback. The search completed Febru-ary 2009 and generated over 1500 potential articles for inclusion.Using the abstracts as a guide, articles for review were distilled to209 and condensed further to 53 linking feedback, assessment andhigher education. Adding hand-written annotation reduced thearticles to eight (over a period of forty six years) (Table 1).

Thematic organisation of the literature

Although feedback has been the subject of some considerablescrutiny, hand-written annotation has been largely neglected withscant evidence to support its practice. To understand its functionand how it operates, annotation needs to be examined as a compo-nent of feedback; therefore a general outline of feedback is offeredfirst and outlined below.

Theme 1. Transparent feedback

In this oft-cited definition, feedback has to be specific, accurate,timely, clear, focused and encouraging (Brown et al., 1997). As a listit works well but in order to grapple with any gaps between thetheoretical basis of feedback and a student’s ability to take holdof the message and utilise it, identifiable markers need to be madeto the actual essay weakness. Feedback is of great benefit to stu-dents when definable areas are identified (Stefani, 2004–2005).Students benefit from feedback when it is directly linked to itscomposition (Urquhart and McIver, 2005). However, underliningstudent essays has no impact on the students’ perception of pooressay technique (Wolfe, 2002). Positive or negative commentary

1 The internet and hardware applications such as hypertext mean that manyannotation technologies have been developed to facilitate successful and cost-effective exchanges between long-distance collaborators.

influences students’ work (Wolfe and Nuewirth), but whateveremphasis on assessment is chosen, tutors and students need crys-tal clear explanation on assessment criteria (Crook et al., 2006).Students who receive evaluative annotations are more likely topay closer attention to feedback than are students who receivethe same material without annotation.

Theme 2. Nurturing feedback

Feedback is the means by which tutors feedback information orstatements of opinion about something. Feedback also provides anidea of whether it is successful or liked (Struyven et al., 2005). Yetif the word ‘‘feedback” is scrutinised it invokes connotations ofpassivity and dependence. In a dictionary, the first stem of theword ‘‘feed” offers the following examples ‘‘bottle feed”; ‘‘mouthsto feed”; ‘‘spoon feed”; ‘‘force feed” and ‘‘feed to the lions”(http://www.askoxford.com, 2008). The truncations are largelyrooted in reliance and, to a lesser degree, persecution. To what ex-tent these terms are associated with academic feedback is a mootpoint, but an important one all the same. Feedback is a process bywhich the student can have their work examined by a tutor who isexperienced in the demands of the academic environment (Allanand Clarke, 2007). Given this, the student borrows the perceptiveskills of the lecturer (Storch and Tapper, 1997). Arguably, a degreeof surrogate-perception is part of the feedback process, but to whatdegree students are ‘mouths to feed’ depends on an the educationcontinuum utilised by student–staff connection. Ideally thereshould be a progressive shift towards critically capable, indepen-dent learning where students learn by doing and applying (Race,1995); the challenge being to present feedback in a way thatencourages and motivates the learner (Harrison, 2006). Therefore,key factors are required in learning and assessment, with a directbearing upon the student’s journey towards intellectual indepen-dence and motivation.

Theme 3. Summative and formative feedback

A study of the literature shows that relevant summative feed-back is of most benefit to the student (Prowse et al., 2007; Trotter,2006; Wilson, 1991) when definable areas are identified (Stefani,2004–2005) and achievable goals are set out for the student to at-tain (Wilding and Andrews, 2006). Whereas summative assess-ment serves to grade and evaluate progress (Knight, 2006),formative assessment can guide students’ performance over timein multiple problem-solving situations and improve performanceprior to grading (Orsmond et al., 2004; Elton and Johnston,2002). Both summative and formative assessments develop thebasis for improving composition and monitoring development(Boston, 2002; Ainsworth and Viegut, 2006). Feedback is aboutplaying-back to the student their summative understanding of atopic encapsulated on paper – it is an agreed assessment processdesigned to measure progress, correct errors, improve performanceand close gaps between the intended purpose of the essay and theactual result (Martens and Dochy, 1997; Weaver, 2006). Feedbackshould therefore provide opportunities to reflect upon criticismand set goals for measurable change: only then will it become anopportunity to understand difference between the essay’s inten-tions and outcomes and enable students to trouble-shoot theirown performance (Knight, 2006; Dornan et al., 2004; Juwahet al., 2004).

The unifying factor in all approaches to feedback however is thesocially shared habits of that particular community; the examplehere being a School of Nursing. For this case in point, it was helpfulto understand that feedback can be context-bound (Richardsonand John, 2005) and was steered by the intended aims and out-comes of student nurses. A précis of what signifies good feedback

Table 1Search results of primary sources – hand-written annotation: (Wray et al., 2001).

Short references Method Sample size and characteristics Main findings

McColly (1965) A matrix of intercorrelations of ratingswere analysed

32 English teachers judged theannotations of 313 compositions on 32bipolar adjective scales

Findings confirmed a hypothesis that thefactor-structure of compositionannotation corresponds to that ofcompositions

Marshall (1998a) Uses three stories to support sentence-by-sentence analysis, indepth research andstory narrative on hand-written anddigital annotation

Annotated samples from books, onlineand papers

Annotation must have lasting value – beeasily interpreted, juxtaposed and linkedand reducing fragmentation of meaning

Marshall (1998b) Looked for general patterns of annotationand a line-by-line analysis of markingsmade in copies of selected textbooks. Usedn-way consensus actual (predicted) 2+way consensus

410 Books; 39 titles and 21 differentsubject areas

There was n-way consensus

Wolfe (2002) Students randomly assigned to 1 of 4annotative hand-written feedback styles.They wrote an essay, followed-up with apost-writing questionnaire. Sampleanalysed for recall of annotatedinformation and attitude towardannotation

122 Undergraduate students Annotation as question, comment, adviceetc. improves recall. Minimal annotationand underlining is not useful. Annotationintegrated in textual content is useful.Enhanced theories of workplace andclassroom communication

Wolfe and Nuewirth (2001) Describes and reviews digital and hand-written annotation technologies

Annotated samples from a variety ofonline and paper material

Provides useful strategies for improvingannotating

Porter-O’Donnell (2004) Describes how annotating a text can helpstudents to comprehend difficult textswhile they are reading

Textual analysis of annotated material Explains benefits of annotation, includinghelping to teach reading as a process,clarifying comprehension, promotingactive reading

Liu (2006) Examined the annotation samples ofstudents’ core reading material forcoursework

40 Undergraduate university students Skilled annotators supports higher meta-cognitive skills

Feito and Donahue (2008) Examined the annotation samples ofstudents’ reading of Shakespeare’s KingLear

32 Undergraduate students Annotation is open to interpretivenegotiation – what is said and what is notsaid needs to be considered in equalamount

140 E.C. Ball / Nurse Education in Practice 10 (2010) 138–143

so far includes facilitating the progress of composition to improveindividual development and performance, and identifying thestrengths and weaknesses of the student to bring about measur-able change in the academic arena with a contributory impact onclinical practice.

Classifying annotation

Annotation, however, was far more difficult to classify; due inpart to their being so little on the subject, but also because anno-tation operates at the margins (Freshwater and Rolfe, 2004). Itsellipses disturb syntactic chains and grammatical categories which,as Julia Kristeva notes, ‘‘affects the never-ending process of the rap-prochement between the signifiable and the referent” (Kristeva,1986, p. 215). In other words, because annotation is supplementaryto the text it does not have the same permanence as the principalnarrative (the referent). As addendum it reproaches the signifier’sslippage of meaning and eludes definition due to its elliptical qual-ities. Classifying annotation is difficult in part because it opens upinto a more unsettling ellipsis.

For example, Diyanni’s definition of annotation cites underlin-ing, circling, highlighting passages, drawing arrows and questionmarks (Diyanni, 2002). The list itself appears self explanatory andhelpful, but even so its authority is easily dislocated as semioticsigns and practices misconstrue its own meaning which is ex-plained in Marshall’s definition of annotation:

Many annotations are telegraphic and incomplete. A high-lighted sentence, a cryptic marginal ‘‘No!” an unexplained link,a reading history, or a bookmark all poses interpretive difficul-ties for anyone other than the original annotator (and the pas-sage of time sometimes erodes that privilege). . .. Annotatorsmake symbolic notations, draw on and over text, write betweenthe lines, underline, circle, box, and highlight (1998b, p. 41–42).

Both Diyanni’s and Marshall’s accounts, each readable andinteresting in their own right, indicate what annotation is andthe troubling difficulty one faces in its practical application.

Annotation feedback

McColly identified four dimensions of hand-written annotation.Although his book was published in 1965, it describes annotationas ‘‘multidimensional” as does Marshall more than thirty yearson (1998b). McColly’s study involved sampling English teacherannotations to determine systems for writing corrections and crit-icisms on student compositions. Four sets of compositions werewritten by students in secondary school grades 9–13. The matrixof the intercorrelations of these ratings was analysed. Findingsshowed annotation possesses ‘‘general internal properties ordimensions” and are placed in order of importance: ‘‘content-stylefactor”, reflecting the attributes of scope depth and purposeful-ness; a ‘‘tone” that reflects feeling and attitude; ‘‘visual impact”,and, lastly, ‘‘appropriateness”. In short, annotation should havescope, depth and purposefulness, visual impact and appropriate-ness. The meaning McColly attaches to the third dimension is mostinteresting: annotations contain intrinsic properties such as anunderlying tone. It may be that as a precursor to post-modernthought McColly freely proposes that narrative has inherent qual-ities. It is difficult to be sure but what is certain annotation signifiesa core tone, the tenor of which can signify obstructive or dismissiveproperties (Ball et al., 2009). In addition, stand alone telegraphicstatements such as question or exclamation marks can encode aharsh attitude to the host text (Ball, 2009).

On the other end of the interpretive spectrum we find that Mar-shall, influenced by a post-modern ideal, writes of annotation:‘‘readers don’t just read. They commune with their documents.

E.C. Ball / Nurse Education in Practice 10 (2010) 138–143 141

They wander, collect, organise, interpret, mark. . .. The degree towhich these annotations are writings on their own forms a dimen-sion . . . between reading and writing” (1998b, p. 41). Marshall issuggesting that the dimension of interpretation lies between theinterstices of reading and writing, where value, tone, purposeful-ness and such like are translated into meaning. There is thereforea disciplinary expectation on the part of the student to understandthe marginal feedback so avoid misinterpretation (Barney, 1991).But what hand-written annotation is and just how its contentcan be misconstrued is highlighted by all the primary authors inthis review.

Annotation and feedback practices

Being able to decipher annotation is therefore key to good prac-tice, and success depends on its transparency so that students donot misinterpret intended meanings. Findings showed that stu-dents needed more guidance to understand and use feedback.Weaver’s study (2006) showed that many students could not accu-rately interpret academic discourse; a detail I encountered when Imoderated an essay marked and annotated by two tutors: eachused very different discourses to address the same issue. Wherethe use of vernacular marred the essay’s composition, one tutorwrote ‘‘slang” at the side of the page, while another used the term‘‘colloquialism”. To bring to the student’s attention the languagerules and sentence structure in essay writing, widely divergentmessages were signified in those two idioms. This point is basedon anecdotal evidence, but a number of studies show that the eso-teric discourse used in academia is in tension with more exotericdiscourses when it comes to interpreting feedback (Hyland,2000; Race, 2001; Mutch, 2003). If students are to understand tutorfeedback, it is important to consider what messages are being con-veyed so an explanation of terms and their usage can be given inadvance of feedback (Nesbit and Burton, 2006).

A large amount of advice given to academics about how to writefeedback concerns the language used (Duff, 2007). Imperativestatements leave no room for manoeuvre and cloud interpretationleaving students confused and upset (Lea and Street, 2002). Criticalor judgemental language, expressions such as ‘‘fails to answer thequestion” or ‘‘poor effort”, provokes resentment and apathy (Boud,1995). Juwah et al. (2004) argue that until recently, tutors trans-mitted feedback messages to students about strengths and weak-nesses, presupposing a knowledge or understanding on the partof the student. There is the assumption that feedback is easily de-coded and acted upon when research shows that it is complex anddifficult to decipher (Crisp, 2007). Indeed feedback is under con-ceptualised which makes it difficult to design effective feedbackpractices. Literature shows that feedback is ‘‘obstinately focusedon simple transmission perspectives” (Juwah et al., 2004, p. 2). Ifthe mark at the end is the only goal then we are failing our stu-dents to take part in self-assessment and reflection. A function offeedback is therefore to engage students fully in the formativestage, capture their enthusiasm, and reinforce good advice promot-ing learning and not failure (Young, 2000).

Annotation calls for greater sensitivity

Engaging with students’ essays either on the page or in the mar-gin as annotation dictates, calls for greater sensitivity than is per-haps usually customary with other feedback styles. The principle ofhand-written annotation is that a comment or mark (ideally both)is written directly onto the page. It is an ‘‘active participation” (Liu,2006, p. 205) in the reading and writing process where the stu-dent’s words interact with the tutor’s evaluation. This has implica-tions for the tutor’s role who, to draw upon von Glaserfeld’s

metaphoric image, is the ‘‘‘midwife in the birth of understanding”and not as Lui would suggest – an agent of the ‘‘mechanics ofknowledge transfer” (cited in Liu (2006), p. 205). Annotation thenis a more intimate exegesis in which feedback shifts from a sepa-rate sheeted-template that is placed at the front of the essay, to atextual interaction where ‘‘the annotator slips in between readerand text with a note” (Lamont, 1997, p. 47). The annotator’s pres-ence can influence the student’s interaction with their text causingthem to evaluate their original writing differently (Wolfe, 2002;Jewitt and Kress, 2005). Ramage and Bean (1995) use two differentannotated versions of the same essay to model and contrast read-ing as a believer and reading as a doubter. It makes the point thatmultiple readings can be made of one text, but how the essay isread by the tutor has the greater impact on students (this mightbe the tone McColley referred to). The reader needs to be awareof both reading strategies and rhetorical strategies when annotat-ing an essay.

Liu (2006) further expounds on the reader’s strategic interac-tion with the text and proposes that annotation styles fall intotwo classes – a deep/skilful approach and a surface/poor approach.The study used data derived from actual annotative activity, inwhich 40 university students submitted three lots of annotatedreading material. The results identified that skilful annotation isan index to erudite critical writing. Results also found that deepannotators produced more critical and analytical examples ofannotation, whereas surface annotators recycled informationrather than analysing it. In addition, the more erudite group en-gaged with the text highlighting passages, writing in the margins,circling words, emphasising key ideas, using arrows to join or pointto related ideas and arguments, and reflecting on learning out-comes. The surface annotators drew minimal marginal responsesand lacked analytical engagement with the text. Although Liu isusing these two styles to illustrate how students use annotationas a tool, the findings can be used generally to show how annota-tion might be employed.

Reasons to use or not use annotation

Reasons to use annotation in assessment is a theme that has at-tracted a response from a small number of writers but JoannaWolfe has written chiefly on the subject and offers the importantpoint that written feedback in the form of annotation invites thestudent into the discourse communities they hope to join (Wolfe,2002). Annotation helps students interpret their text, and studentswho receive evaluative annotations are less likely to merely sum-marise . . . than are students who received the same material with-out annotation (Wolfe, 2002). Any written feedback processhowever, should be made with a view to transforming problemsto improve the situation for the next time (Patterson, 1996). Thiscan be achieved in a number of ways. Wolfe suggests that ‘‘viewingthe evaluations, questions and comments of a reader expressingirritations with a document might help [students] empathise withthe needs and expectations of the readers” (Wolfe and Nuewirth,2001, p. 350).

The downside to all of this presupposes that students actuallyread their annotated scripts, as it is often thought that students failto read feedback (Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick, 2006). Moreover, gi-ven the findings on self-esteem and assessment, there is no guar-antee the effects of annotation will be received positively. Wolfeand Nuewirth (2001) point out that a danger with annotations isthat they curtail the independent thought and style of the student.An explanation for this is that essays are written ‘in the presence’of other readers (Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz, 1999) where studentspre-suppose the judgements of their reading and markingaudience.

142 E.C. Ball / Nurse Education in Practice 10 (2010) 138–143

Thus, to what effect annotation influences student learning andassessment is an important question and one that Wolfe reinforcesin an attempt to determine which, if any, annotations were usefulto students. Her mixed methods study constructed four ways ofinscribing annotation and divided the 122 student sample intoone of each glossary band: (1) no annotation; (2) underlining only;(3) positive evaluating annotations, and (4) negative evaluativeannotation. Results found that underlining had no impact on stu-dents’ writing, but strongly positive or negative commentary didinfluence students (Wolfe, 2002). Students engaged more withpositively evaluated annotated texts and disengaged from nega-tively annotated texts. Although this review does not explore theissue, it is prudent to note that negative annotation might impacton tutors who second mark annotated scripts.

2 A useful phrase coined by Jaques Derrida to describe elliptical meaning.

Annotation as an assessment instrument

Porter-O’Donnell investigated ways of making the process ofmarking and evaluating a text visible to students. Where studentswere asked to annotate, she argued that annotation was a powerfulstrategy to steer difficult material and encourage active reading(2004). In her study, students were provided with ‘‘strategies” forannotating a text during and after reading. During reading studentswere asked to summarise and predict, formulate opinions, makeconnections, ask questions, analyse, reflect, and look for repetition(Yang et al., 2004). After reading they were instructed to rereadannotations and draw conclusions. Although this study exploredstudents’ annotation of literary texts for meaning, the strategiesencouraged them to become partners in the management of theirown learning. The study is thus illuminating as it provides evalua-tive skills in the form of annotation that can enable students to be-come increasingly self-critical and self-reliant. The need forstudents to develop skills in annotation in ways that facilitatereading and reflection is helpful to this review as the informationcan be integrated with evidence from other sources to the benefitof the student (Paley, 2006).

There is little published evidence on ‘what works best’ in stu-dent feedback (Juwah et al., 2004). However, there is often thedesire on the part of the assessor to find what works best bymeeting individual student needs. Such can be said of staff thatendeavours to assist an increasing mobile and migrant studentpopulation (Broecke and Nicholls, 2007). Anecdotal evidence ata North West University suggests that most staff wish to supportto students whose English is not a first language, and that anno-tating syntax can be counter-productive and obstruct learning forstudents (Ball et al., 2009). Some tutors believe it is their obliga-tion to mark the essay’s content and leave language matters tothe study skills tutor. However, in a survey examining annotatedfeedback with native speaking students, whose English was asecond language, Radecki and Swales (1988) found that 87% oftheir respondents wanted extensive comments on a piece ofwriting and also expected the instructor to correct all surface er-rors (p. 364). This is maybe helpful to know when next annotat-ing an essay from a student work and non native speakingstudents whose work clearly indicates a struggle with Englishlanguage. Reid (1994) argues over-annotating a text can createdependent students, but as Porter-O’Donnell shows if an insightinto the application of annotation can be developed then it is ahelpful resource. Storch and Tapper’s student sample wereencouraged to construct their own idea of annotation which goessome way in developing a shared and transparent tutor–studentapproach to learning. More importantly, it engages students earlyon in the formative feedback process and captures greater stu-dent enthusiasm for feedback, reinforcing ownership of the finalproduct (Nokelainen et al., 2005).

Conclusion

For annotative feedback to work it requires simplicity in orderto guarantee standardisation. The standard in annotative practiceso far seems to include written marginalia and the non-phoneticstructures of underlining a sentence, drawing horizontal linesalong the side of the paragraph, circling, question marks andmaybe other graphic forms. Because of the mixture of comments,phrases and signs, annotation is more annunciation thanannouncement (Derrida, 1982)2 and for this reason perhaps, anno-tation can escape meaning. Therefore, if annotation is to be practicaland helpful to students it must signify meaning and lecturers mustbe confident in its usefulness for students’ development. This isnot so easy when the theory and practice of annotation is more com-plex and intricate than its definitions. Yet despite its diversity, com-monly held purposes and strategies can be identified from theliterature review: sensitive comments, positive evaluations, readingas a believer, and non imperative statements. McColley’s dimensionsinclude scope, depth and purposefulness, visual impact andappropriateness.

References

Ainsworth, L., Viegut, D., 2006. Common Formative Assessments: How to ConnectStandards-Based Instruction and Assessment. Sage, London.

Allan, J., Clarke, K., 2007. Nurturing supportive learning environments in highereducation through the teaching of study skills: to embed or not to embed?International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 19 (1), 64–76.

Askoxford.com.oxforddictionarys. 2008. Annotation. [online] Available from: http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/annotate?view=uk. (accessed 29.09.08.).

Ball, E., 2009. A participatory action research study on handwritten annotationfeedback and its impact on staff and students. Systemic Practice and ActionResearch 22 (2), 111–124.

Ball, E., Franks, H., McGrath, M., Leigh, J., 2009. Annotation is a valuable tool toenhance learning and assessment in student essays. Nurse Education Today 29(3), 284–291.

Barney, S.A. (Ed.), 1991. Annotation and Its Texts. New York, OUP.Boston, C., 2002. The concept of formative assessment. Practical Assessment,

Research and Evaluation, 8(9), 1–5. Paper Retrieved March 29th, 2006, FromERIC Database.

Boud, D., 1995. Assessment and learning: contradictory or complementary? In:Knight, P. (Ed.), Assessment for Learning in Higher Education. Kogan Page,London.

Broecke, S., Nicholls, T., 2007. Ethnicity and Degree Attainment. Department forEducation and Skills, London.

Brown, G., Bull, J., Pendlebury, P., 1997. Assessing Student Learning in HigherEducation. Kogan Page, London.

Crisp, B.R., 2007. Is it worth the effort? How feedback influences students’subsequent submission of assessable work. Assessment and Evaluation inHigher Education 32 (5), 571–581.

Crook, C., Gross, H., Dymott, R., 2006. Assessment relationships in higher education:the tension of process and practice. British Educational Research Journal 32 (1),95–114.

Derrida, J., 1982. Margins of Philosophy (Trans., Alan Bass). Chicago UniversityPress, Chicago, USA.

Diyanni, R., 2002. One Hundred Great Essays. Addison-Wesley, New York.Dornan, T., Brown, M., Powley, D., Hopkins, M., 2004. A technology using feedback

to manage experience based learning. Medical Teacher 26 (8), 736–738.Duff, P.A., 2007. Problematising academic discourse socialisation. Learning

Discourses and the Discourses of Learning 1 (1), 1–18.Elton, L., Johnston, B., 2002. Assessment in Universities: A Critical Review of

Research. OUP, Cheri.Feito, A., Donahue, P., 2008. Minding the gap annotation as preparation for

discussion. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 7 (3), 295–307.Freshwater, D., Rolfe, G., 2004. Deconstructing Evidence-based Practice. Routledge,

Oxon.Harrison, N., 2006. The impact of negative experiences, dissatisfaction and

attachment on first year undergraduate withdrawal. Journal of Further andHigher Education 30 (4), 377–391.

Hyland, P., 2000. Learning from feedback on assessment. In: Booth, A., Hyland, P.(Eds.), The Practice of University History Teaching. MUP, Manchester.

Jewitt, C., Kress, G., 2005. English in classrooms: only write down what you need toknow: annotation for what? English in Education 39 (1), 5–18.

Juwah, C., Macfarlane-Dick, D., Matthew, B., Nicol, D., Ross, D., Smith, B., 2004.Enhancing student learning through effective formative feedback. The HigherEducation Academy, 1–40.

E.C. Ball / Nurse Education in Practice 10 (2010) 138–143 143

Knight, P., 2006. The local practices of assessment. Assessment and Evaluationin Higher Education 31 (4), 435–452.

Kristeva, J., 1986. The Kristeva Reader. In: Toril Moi (Ed.), Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Lamont, C., 1997. Annotating a text: literary theory and electronic hypertext. In:

Sutherland, K. (Ed.), Electronic Text: Investigations in Method and Theory.Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Lea, M., Street, B., 2002. Student writing and staff feedback in higher education: anacademic literacies approach. In: Lea, M., Stierer, B. (Eds.), Student Writing inHigher Education: New Contexts. OUP, Buckingham.

Liu, K., 2006. Annotation as an index to critical writing. Urban Education 41, 192–207.

Lunsford, A.A., Ruszkiewicz, J.J., 1999. The Presence of Others, third ed. St. Martins,New York.

Marshall, C.M., 1998a. The Future of Annotation in a Digital (paper) World.Presented at the 35th Annual GLSLIS Clinic: Successes and Failures of DigitalLibraries, June 20–24, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, March 24, pp.1–20.

Marshall, C.M., 1998b. Toward an ecology of hypertext annotation. Hypertext. In:Proceedings of the Ninth ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, June20–24, Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, US, pp. 40–49.

Martens, R., Dochy, F., 1997. Assessment and feedback as student support devices.Studies in Educational Evaluation 23 (3), 257–273.

McColly, W., 1965. The Dimensions of Composition Annotation Oswego. StateUniversity of New York, New York.

Nicol, D., Macfarlane-Dick, D., 2006. Formative assessment and self-regulatedlearning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies inHigher Education 31, 199–218.

Mutch, A., 2003. Exploring the practice of feedback to students. Active Learning inHigher Education 4 (1), 24–38.

Nesbit, P., Burton, S., 2006. Student justice perceptions following assignmentfeedback. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 31 (6), 655–670.

Nokelainen, P., Miettinen, M., Kurhila, J., Floréen, P., Tirri, H., 2005. A shareddocument-based annotation tool to support learner-centred collaborativelearning. British Journal of Educational Technology 36 (5), 757–770.

Orsmond, P., Merry, S., Callaghan, A., 2004. Implementation of a formativeassessment model incorporating peer and, self assessment. Innovations inEducation and Teaching International 41 (3), 273–290.

Paley, J., 2006. Evidence and expertise. Nursing Inquiry 13, 82–93.Patterson, E., 1996. The analysis and application of peer assessment in nurse

education, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Nurse Education Today 16,49–55.

Porter-O’Donnell, C., 2004. Beyond the yellow highlighter: teaching annotationskills to improve reading comprehension. English Journal 82, 89.

Prowse, S., Duncan, N., Hughes, J., Burke, D., 2007. ‘...Do that and I’ll raise yourgrade’. Innovative module design and recursive. Feedback Teaching in HigherEducation 12 (4), 437–445.

Race, P., 1995. What has assessment done for us-and to us? In: Knight, P. (Ed.),Assessment for Learning in Higher Education. Kogan Page, London.

Race, P., 2001. The lecturer’s toolkit, second ed. Kogan Page, London.Radecki, P.M., Swales, J.M., 1988. ESL student reaction to written comments on their

written work. System 16, 355–365.Ramage, J.D., Bean, J.C., 1995. Writing Arguments, third ed. Allyn and Bacon,

Needham Heights, MA.Reid, J., 1994. Responding to ESL students’ texts: the myths of appropriation. TESOL

Quarterly 28, 273–292.Richardson, John T.E., 2005. Instruments for obtaining student feedback: a review of

the literature. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 30 (4), 387–415.Stefani, L., 2004–2005. Assessment of student learning: promoting a scholarly

approach. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (1), 51–66.Storch, N., Tapper, J., 1997. Student annotations: what NNS and NS university

students say about their own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 6 (3),245–265.

Struyven, K., Dochy, F., Janssens, S., 2005. Students’ perceptions about evaluationand assessment in higher education: a review. Assessment and Evaluation inHigher Education 30 (4), 325–341.

Trotter, E., 2006. Student perceptions of continuous summative assessment.Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 31 (5), 501–521.

Urquhart, V.A., McIver, M.C., 2005. Teaching writing in the content areas.Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA.

Weaver, M.R., 2006. Do students value feedback? Student perceptions of tutors’written responses. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 31 (3), 379–394.

Wilson, D.M., 1991. Improving feedback on student papers: a quantitative methodwhich aids marking and gives valid feedback. Nurse Education Today 11, 53–56.

Wolfe, J.L., 2002. Marginal pedagogy: how annotated texts affect writing-from-source texts. Written Communication 19 (2), 297–333.

Wolfe, J.L., Nuewirth, C.M., 2001. From the margins to the centre: the future ofannotation. Journal of Business and Technical Communication 15 (3), 333–371.

Wolfe, J.L., 2000. Effects of annotations on student readers and writers. In:Proceedings of the Fifth ACM Conference on Digital Libraries, ACM Press, SanAntonio.

Yang, S.J.H., Chen, I.Y.L., Shao, N., 2004. Ontology enabled annotation and knowledgemanagement for collaborative learning in virtual learning community.Educational Technology and Society 7 (4), 70–81.

Young, P., 2000. ‘‘I might as well give up”: self-esteem and mature students’ feelingsabout feedback on assignments. Journal of Further and Higher Education 24 (3),409–418.

Wilding, J., Andrews, B., 2006. Life goals, approaches to study and performance in anundergraduate cohort. British Journal of Educational Psychology 76 (4), 171–182.

Wray, J., Brettle, A., Long, A.F., Grant, M.J., 2001. What the Papers Say about Multi-professional Working – A Review. Report HCPRDU, University of Salford.