Marking individual scripts: Reading, annotating, awarding a mark, providing synoptic feedback

In this section, marking is used to refer to the marking of an individual script. NTU colleagues described three different approaches in how they generate feedback. The different approaches place a different emphasis on how feedback is provided. A third approach was also described by colleagues and this involves marking scripts in sets and this is dealt with in the marking as a sequence section. The two main approaches are described below:

Synoptic feedback then annotations
This approach consisted in paying attention to the text as a whole firstly, and then considering its parts. These markers first focused on making a holistic summary and then turned to criteria and selected a few key relevant points to communicate in feedback to the student. Annotations are then written to illustrate the key points in the synoptic feedback.

Annotations then synoptic feedback
The first stage combines two tasks, providing detailed feedback (annotations) simultaneously with the formulation of the judgement. The second stage consists of re-reading, glancing at annotations, and constructing the synoptic feedback.

Overview of approaches to reading and annotating individual scripts
Marking is reported to be a highly idiosyncratic activity (Crisp and Johnson, 2007); however, the NTU interviews revealed patterns making a judgement and to constructing different parts of the feedback. The differences in approach can be seen in how the marking is carried out and the emphasis placed on different elements of the process.

The two approaches differ in how they prioritise the feedback construction and how they combine their goals. The first approach prioritises synoptic feedback with annotations being secondary. In the second approach both elements of feedback are given equal importance.

The process is also different in that in the first approach the goals differ in different stages. Initially the goal is to formulate a judgement and then construct feedback. The second approach combines both goals of formulating a judgement and constructing the feedback simultaneously.

The relative effectiveness of these two approaches, in terms of their impact on students is subject to conjecture in the absence of direct evidence although there is some consensus on the notion that prioritising detail (annotations in this case) is more time consuming (Meadows and Billington, 2005; Weigle, 1996).

From the student perspective, NTU based research (E-submissions and e-marking report, June 2011) suggests that students prioritise the synoptic feedback given to them. All students reported reading the synoptic feedback. Approximately only half of the students interviewed read the annotations after the synoptic feedback. From this point of view, if effectiveness is seen through the perspective of students’ habits, a focus on creating and constructing the synoptic feedback with annotations being considered as subordinate to this might support effective use of markers’ time.

You may also be interested in:

• moderation of marking
• marking and moderating text-based coursework.

References
CRISP, V. and JOHNSON, M., 2007. The use of annotations in examination marking: opening a window into markers' minds. British Educational Research Journal, 33 (6), pp. 943 — 961.

MEADOWS, M. and BILLINGTON, L. 2005. A Review of the literature on marking reliability. AQA Research Paper. RPA_05_MM_RP_05.

WEIGLE, S. C., 2002. Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.