Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Ball, E; Franks, H; Jenkins, JE; Leigh, JA; McGrath, ML
Publisher: University of Salford
Languages: English
Types: Book
Subjects: LB2300, other

Classified by OpenAIRE into

The University of Salford School of Nursing’s policy on provision of feedback on assessed work was written to communicate the processes involved in complying with the institutional policy (School of Nursing, 2005). This is a change to the marking practices of School staff and it is expected that this change will make a difference and enhance the quality of student learning. It is necessary to compare the effect of annotation on student outcomes with other types of feedback. It is anticipated this comparison will serve to highlight the strengths and weaknesses in the marking and feedback process\ud \ud The provision of feedback to students on their performance within assessment is seen by the School of Nursing as good practice and an important part of learning development. The Quality Assurance Agency’s Code of Practice for “Assessment of Students,” Precept 12 (2001) on “feedback to students on performance” states that institutions should “ensure that appropriate feedback is provided to students on assessed work in a way that promotes learning and facilitates improvement.” Providing appropriate feedback to students on assessed work aims to promote learning, assist development, and extend student critical evaluation skills.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Brown, G., Bull, J., and P, Pendlebury (1997). Assessing student learning in higher education. London: Kogan Page.
    • Derrida, J (1982). Margins of Philosophy. Translation and Annotation. (Ed., Alan Bass). Brighton: Harvester Press, 1982.
    • Geer, J. (1991). Do open ended questions measure “salient” issues? Public Opinion Quarterly. 55, 360-370.
    • Guba, E. G, and Y. S Lincoln (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds). Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
    • Jenkins, J (2005).University of Salford Guidelines for the Annotation of Formative and Summative Assessments. School of Nursing.
    • Kristeva, Julia. Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection. Trans. Leon S. Roudiez. New York: Columbia UP, 1982.
    • Polit, D, and C. T Beck (2006). Essentials of Nursing Research. (6th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincot Williams & Wilkins.
    • Stephani, L (2005). “Assessment of Student Learning: promoting a scholarly approach.” Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. Issue 1, 51-66.
    • Marshall, C. M (1998). Toward an ecology of hypertext annotation. Hypertext. Proceedings of Wolfe, J. L (2002). Marginal Pedagogy: How Annotated Texts Affects Writing-From-Source Text. Written Communication. 19, 2, 297-333.
    • Wolfe, J. L and C. M. Nuewirth (2001). “From the Margins to the Centre: the future of annotation.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication. Vol.15 No.3 333-371.
    • Wolfe, J. L (2000). Effects of Annotations on Student Readers and Writers. Proceedings of the Fifth ACM Conference on Digital Libraries. San Antonio: ACM Press.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article