http://reviewbasics.com/

The basics

Reviewbasics allows users to upload documents and other digital artefacts to a site where others can then annotate and comment on them. It is not a co-authoring site – the document can only be annotated not edited. All documents are stored privately enabling copyright material to be placed there if required (the documents are not published). It has a good system for inviting participants to review the document, and several useful features in annotating (including colours, icons and similar). Users can be given instructions about what kind of feedback or review is required.

Slides

Presenting the key affordances and possible uses of Reviewbasics:

Video

Discussion and live demonstration of slides:

What is great

Reviewbasics great strength is in the depth and style of annotations available. As we know from student reactions to an essay returned full of ‘red ink’, the visual cues of annotations are often implicitly negative. However, in Reviewbasics, positive comments can be coded in green; or with a tick icon; negative in red; and so on. reviewbasics, unlike many other web 2.0 tools, focuses specifically on the use of the Internet to present material in private, in a safer environment.

One of the key problems with ‘reviewing’ work is that it is often done individually because of the logistic problems of sharing the work amoung many and controlling versions. Reviewbasics makes those problems disappear.

Scenarios for using this tool

Shared review of scholarly articles

In an advanced unit on cultural theory, a key, but challenging reading is placed in the reviewbasics site by the unit controller. The 18 students taking this unit are invited as reviewers, with instructions simply to observe what the unit controller does. The teacher then annotates the article to demonstrate how to extract the key meaning from this text and provides a summary comment of the kind normally used in an annotated bibliography. In particular, the teacher shows (via the use of the positive and negative icons) how to link this text with other knowledge in the field which either supports it or challenges it. Each student then selects a similar reading in pdf format and uploads it to the site and annotates it. Each student then selects another student – a study buddy – to join in and add additional comments. Students then come to class, with copies of the pdf, and then introduce the reading to classmates in a seminar format, using the printed copy as the basis of their presentation.

Reviewbasics:

• is private – copyright material is fine so long as it is not further distributed.
• activates interaction between students and teachers focused on a document or other artefact – shared viewing; and
• has rich tools for identifying the kind of annotated comment being added.

Peer feedback

Masters students in a screen arts unit are required to produce a ‘pitch’ for their major screen production project according to a set format. So as to encourage students to learn from each other, and also to become used to providing and accepting critical feedback, each student must place their pitch in a single reviewbasic collaborative space to which all the students are invited. All students must read and comment on these pitches. So as to manage the degree of feedback provided, students are told to write a detailed general comment, according to guidelines contained in the review site, and add no more than 2 positive, 2 negative and 2 neutral comments. When the review process is closed, each student then downloads and prints their annotated pitch, writes a review indicating what they think of the feedback, and then submits the final pitch for assessment along with the annotations and the review.

Reviewbasics:

• includes the capacity;
• enables specific, intext comments and general feedback; and
• focuses students on review, rather than writing.

Visual review

A large visual communications unit within Mass Communication requires students, working in groups, to find popular images in print sources which are then scanned and uploaded (not for publication to avoid copyright breaches). Each group then works to annotate the images in Reviewbasics. They include both comments and three questions about the images, all of which are thematically linked to the topic being discussed (for example, ‘how are women portrayed in fashion advertisements?’). Each group then swaps with another group and the second group must first read and learn from the ‘presentation’ of the images and annotations, but also must then answer the questions, adding their own annotated responses: colour codes are used to distinguish the two groups’ work. Finally, to create a link to assessment, each student in the group selects one of the original images and writes a short report which, using the theories being taught in the unit, analyses the image in more depth. Note that the system works equally well for online or on-campus students.

Reviewbasics:

• can export the final result as a PDF enabling individual students to have a permanent record; and
• can control who sees what comments enabling groups to embed the answers to questions without the other group seeing them.

Alternatives

Annotate is similar, but requires payment, though the cost is relatively small.

Further discussion and concepts

Adkins, B. and J.Nasarczyk. 2009. Asynchronicity and the ‘time envelope’ of online annotation. Australian Journal of Communication, 36.3:115-140.

Heinrich, E. & Wang, Y. 2003. Online Marking of Essay-type Assignments . In D. Lassner & C. McNaught (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications , pp.768-772. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Johnson, T. et al. 2010. Individual and team annotation effects on students’ reading comprehension, critical thinking, and meta-cognitive skills . Computers in Human Behavior26.6: 1496-1507.

van der Pol, J. et al. 2008. The nature, reception, and use of online peer feedback in higher education. Computers & Education, 51.4: 1804-1817.