Although relatively little attention has been given to the voice assessment of student work, at least when compared with more traditional forms of text-based review, the attention it has received strongly points to a promising form of review that has been hampered by the limits of an emerging technology. A fresh review of voice assessment in light of recent technological developments strongly suggests that this form of review is now ready for broad adoption. Favorable student reception of voice assessment and its potential for raising instructor awareness around the review process itself argue further for considering it afresh.
AnsonC. (1999). Talking about text: the use of recorded commentary in response to student writing. In StraubR. (Ed.), A sourcebook for responding to student writing (pp. 165-174). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
2.
BeachR.FriedrichT. (2006). Response to writing. In MacArthurC. A.GrahamS.FitzgeraldJ. (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 222-234). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
3.
ClarkT. D. (1981). Cassette tapes: An answer to the grading dilemma. The ABCA Bulletin, 44(2), 40-41.
4.
CrewsT.WilkinsonK. (2010) Students’ perceived preference for visual and auditory assessment with e-handwritten feedback. Business Communication Quarterly, 73, 399-412.
GatesS. M.AugustineK. H.BenjaminR.BiksonT. K.KaganoffT.LevyD. G.. . . ZimmerR. W. (2002). Ensuring quality and productivity in higher education: An analysis of assessment practices (ED 468727). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED468727.pdf
7.
GottschalkK.HjortshojK. (2004). The elements of teaching writing: A resource for instructors in all disciplines. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
8.
JohnsonL.AdamsS.CumminsM. (2012). NMC Horizon report: 2012 Higher education edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
MeansB.ToyamaY.MurphyR.BakiaM.JonesK. (2010). Technology and education change: Focus on student learning. Journal of Research on Technology Education, 42, 285-307.
13.
MooreN. S.FillingM. L. (2012). iFeedback: using video technology for improving student writing. Journal of College Literacy & Learning, 38, 3-14.
14.
NowSmart. (2012). Audio Record Wizard (Version 6.0) [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://www.nowsmart.com
15.
PearceC. G.AckleyR. J. (1995). Audiotaped feedback in business writing: An exploratory study. Business Communication Quarterly, 58, 31-34.
16.
SinnJ. W. (2004). Electronic course delivery in higher education: Promise and challenge. Journal of Technology Studies, 15, 39-45.
17.
StillB. (2006). Talking to students: Embedded voice commenting as a tool for critiquing student writing. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 20, 460-475.
18.
StraubR.LunsfordR. (2006). Key works on teacher response: An anthology. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
19.
Tech-Smith. (2012). Camtasia Studio for Windows (Version 8.0) [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://www.techsmith.com
20.
Van Horn-ChristopherD. A. (1995). Voice-graded business communication documents. Business Communication Quarterly, 58(3), 35-37.
