Marginalised behaviour: Digital annotations, spatial encoding and the implications for reading comprehension

Learning, Media and Technology

Volumn 34, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 323-336

  Johnson, Martin ^a   Nadas, Rita ^a  

^a University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Annotation; Assessment; Computer based; Marking; On screen; Spatial encoding

Indexed keywords

EID: 77951661009     PISSN: 17439884     EISSN: 17439892     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17439880903338606     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Bennett, R.E. 2002. Inexorable and inevitable: The continuing story of technology and assessment. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment 1, no. 4: 1-24.
2. Coniam, D. 2009. A comparison of onscreen and paper-based marking in the Hong Kong public examination system. Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and Practice 15, no. 4: 243-63.
3. Crisp, V., and M. Johnson. 2007. The use of annotations in examination marking: Opening a window into markers' minds. British Educational Research Journal 33, no. 4: 943-61.
4. Dillon, A. 1994. Designing usable electronic text. London: Taylor & Francis.
5. Fischer, M.H. 1999. Memory for word locations in reading. Memory 7, no. 4: 79-118.
6. Fowles, D. 2008. Does marking images of essays on screen retain marker confidence and reliability? Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Association for Educational Assessment, September 7-12, in Cambridge, UK.
7. Hansen, W.J., and C. Haas. 1988. Reading and writing with computers: A framework for explaining differences in performance. Communications of the ACM 31, no. 4: 1080-9.
8. Hartley, J. 1983. Note-taking research: Resetting the scoreboard. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society 36: 13-14.
9. Hartley, J. 2002. Notetaking in non-academic settings. Applied Cognitive Psychology 16: 559-74.
10. Hartley, J., and I.K. Davies. 1978. Note-taking: A critical review. Innovation in Education and Teaching International 15, no. 3: 207-24.
11. Holsti, O.R. 1969. Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
12. Hsieh, G., K.R. Wood, and A. Sellen. 2006. Peripheral display of digital handwritten notes. Paper presented at the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2006 proceedings), April 22-27, in Montréal, Québec, Canada.
13. Huot, B. 1990. Reliability, validity and holistic scoring: What we know and what we need to know. College Composition and Communication 41: 210-13.
14. Johnson, M., and J. Greatorex. 2008. Judging text presented on screen: Implications for validity. E-Learning 5, no. 4: 40-50.
15. Johnson, M., R. Nádas, and J.F. Bell. 2009. Marking essays on screen: An investigation into the reliability of marking extended subjective texts. British Journal of Educational Technology. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00979.x
16. Johnson, M., and S. Shaw. 2008. Annotating to comprehend: A marginalised activity? Research Matters: A Cambridge Assessment Publication 6: 19-23.
17. Johnson-Laird, P.N. 1983. Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
18. Just, M.A., and P.A. Carpenter. 1987. The psychology of reading and language comprehension. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
19. Kennedy, A. 1992. The spatial coding hypothesis. In Eye movements and visual cognition, ed. K. Rayner, 379-97. New York: Springer-Verlag.
20. Khan, F. 1994. A survey of note-taking practices. HP Labs Technical Reports, HPL-93-107.
21. Kurniawan, S.H., and P. Zaphiris. 2001. Reading online or on paper: Which is faster? (Proceedings of HCI International 2001). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22. Marshall, C.C. 1997. Annotation: From paper books to the digital library. Paper presented at the 2nd ACM International Conference on Digital Libraries, July 23-26, in Philadelphia, PA.
23. Mayes, D.K., V.K. Sims, and J.M. Koonce. 2001. Comprehension and workload differences for VDT and paper-based reading. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 28: 367-78.
24. Mills, C.B., and L.J. Weldon. 1987. Reading text from computer screens. ACM Computing Surveys 19, no. 4: 329-57.
25. O'Hara, K., and A. Sellen. 1997. A comparison of reading paper and on-line documents. In Proceedings of the ACM conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Atlanta, GA, 335-42. New York: ACM Press.
26. Paek, P. 2005. Recent trends in comparability studies (PEM Research Report 05-05). www.pearsonsolutions.com/downloads/research/TrendsCompStudies_rr0505.pdf (accessed August 20, 2009).
27. Piolat, A., T. Olive, and R.T. Kellogg. 2005. Cognitive effort during note taking. Applied Cognitive Psychology 19: 291-312.
28. Piolat, A., J.-Y. Roussey, and O. Thunin. 1997. Effects of screen presentation on text reading and revising. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 47: 565-89.
29. Sanderson, P. 2001. Language and differentiation in examining at A level. PhD thesis, University of Leeds.
30. Schilit, B.N., G. Golovchinsky, and M.N. Price. 1998. Beyond paper: Supporting active reading with free form digital ink annotations. Paper presented at the ACM CHI 98 Human Factors in Computing Systems conference, April 18-23, in Los Angeles, CA.
31. Shaw, S. 2008. Essay marking on-screen: Implications for assessment validity. E-Learning 5, no. 4: 256-74.
32. Wästlund, E., H. Reinikka, T. Norlander, and T. Archer. 2005. Effects of VDT and paper presentation on consumption and production of information: Psychological and physiological factors. Computers in Human Behavior 21: 377-94.