eSubmission – Institutional Policies and Academic

AttitudesDr Barbara Newland, Brighton

Lindsay Martin, Edge HillAndy Ramsden, University Campus Suffolk

What is eSubmission?

Methodology

Results

Questions

Overview

The term eSubmission is used very widely to cover a range of activities which include:

◦ eSubmission◦ eMarking◦ eFeedback◦ eReturn◦ Plagiarism deterrence and detection

What is eSubmission?

eSubmission – online submission of an assignment

eMarking – marking a paper online

eFeedback - producing online feedback which could be text, audio etc but not paper

eReturn – online return of marks

Definitions

To identify current practice with regard to eSubmission, eMarking and eFeedback in UK HE

To gain a snapshot of the strategic overview identifying key issues relating to assessment regulations and academic attitudes

Aim

eSubmission is being implemented in universities within the UK

Not a new initiative but has developed on an ad hoc, experimental basis within individual institutions across the sector

On the verge of a step-change from experimental to mainstream adoption of eSubmission

Driven largely by expectations of efficiency gains and an improved student experience

Rationale

Online survey on eSubmission was circulated to HeLF as its members can provide the institutional perspective on eLearning

Methodology

A network of senior staff in institutions engaged in promoting, supporting and developing technology enhanced learning

Over 125 nominated Heads from UK Higher Education institutions

A regular programme of well attended events Represents the interests of its members to

various national bodies and agencies including the Higher Education Academy and JISC

www.helf.ac.uk

Heads of eLearning Forum (HeLF)

The survey took about 10 minutes to complete Participants were assured that all data collected in

the survey would be held anonymously and securely No personal data was asked for or retained unless

the participant indicated a willingness to participate in the follow-up activity

The questions were a mixture of closed multiple-choice and multiple selection as well as open response type

The survey was available for a month in 2011 and the results were analyzed using quantitative and qualitative methods.

Methodology

38 responses from HeLF members 30% response rate

Results

eSubmission policy

30

8

No Yes

Regulations

Don't

know

Not y

et b

een

cons

ider

ed

Sepa

rate

regu

latio

ns

With

in in

stitu

tiona

l ass

essm

ent r

egul

atio

ns0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

4

18

79

Confidence policies and procedures

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Unsure0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2

6

15

8

7

Ways of giving advice

34%

33%

24%

9%

Ways of Giving Advice

How to guides

Face to face

Online videos/screencasts

Managers briefing documents

Lunchtime presentations Events which are part of Faculty learning and teaching

events Show-n-share events Learning and Teaching committees Faculty presentations by staff Advice and consultancy Virtual Communities of Practice Checklists for academics, students, and administrative

staff. An opportunity for HeLF members to participate in the

collaborative sharing and creation of open educational learning resources.

Other ways of giving advice

Levels of encouragement

Stongly agree Agree Not sure Disagree Stongly disagree

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Encouragement

Actively encouraged

Actively encouraged by managers

“The VCs support for this, based on student feedback, has given this strong importance across the institution. Managers have bought in to the VCs vision.”

“E-feedback may be held up as a way of meeting Uni's deadlines for providing feedback to students.”

Managers “want to encourage saving time.”

Driven by student feedback

Academic Attitudes

eSubmission eFeedback eMarking0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Academic Attitudes

Positive

Negative

Unsure

Staff have spent their academic careers marking piles of papers. They have found ways of making this as effective and efficient as possible.

Mark anywhere they can carry the papers from their office, to the garden or while travelling such on the train.

In some institutions it is thought that academic anxieties about marking online are changing and “falling away slowly.”

Current effective practice

Many academics are anxious about the change

Connectivity - If the eMarking system is online then there can be issues with connectivity when away from the office.

Health and safety issues such as “head ache, eye strain and back/posture issues.”

Increase in workload - “downloading/re-uploading etc, audio feedback is also perceived by many to be time consuming.”

However, many academics do not want to mark on screen as “mainly it is a preference from habit”

HeLF members recognise that that staff will require support through “this major change in working practice.”

Concerns

The need for an “appropriate method for submission that is robust, reliable and secure” was recognised

“Higher use of these processes demands highly resilient VLE infrastructure.”

Interestingly, there may be a robust method but “staff sometimes are using other tools in ways we do not recommend which causes trouble. “

Technical concerns

“There is also a question about student expectations and preparedness for new and different forms of feedback. Students are not always sure how to interpret and use new forms like audio feedback.”

There are also concerns about who will support students in this process.

Student anxieties

Anonymous marking Double marking Archiving Data protection Variety of file formats

All of these will need to be addressed for the effective use of eSubmission.

Other concerns

The findings indicate a wider spread and increasing use of e-submission across the sector and academic staff perceptions are relatively positive about these developments

The process of implementation is generally occurring in departments and Schools with institutional changes in policy and practice following afterwards

However, at the institutional level, there might need to be a review of codes of practice and regulations

Conclusion

Effective eSubmission has the potential to increase efficiency in organisations by improving their business processes and eFeedback may enhance learning

In order to see the potential benefits offered then it will be necessary to address the major anxieties about academic attitudes to eMarking and eFeedback as well as the need for robust technical infrastructure

One HeLF member commented that it “needs a lot of different stakeholders to work together to make it effective and as we know when projects like this are outside the control of a single unit within an institution it is almost impossible to get consensus or agreed processes.”

Conclusion

References HeLF. (2011) www.helf.ac.uk   JISC. (2007) Student Expectations Study, available from

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/research/2007/studentexpectations.aspx

JISC. (2009) Higher Education in a Web 2.0 World, available from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/generalpublications/2009/heweb2.aspx

Nicol, D., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006) Rethinking Formative Assessment in HE: a theoretical model and seven principles of good feedback practicehttp://business.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/ourwork/tla/assessment/web0015_rethinking_formative_assessment_in_he.pdf

Redecker, C. (2009) Review of Learning 2.0 Practices: Study on the Impact of Web 2.0 Innovations on Education and Training in Europe

Smith, S. D. & Borreson Caruso, J. (2010) The ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology,(Research Study, Vol. 6). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, 2010, available from http://www.educause.edu/ecar, (1998), ‘Growing Up Digital: the Rise of the Net Generation’, McGraw Hill, New York