19

Click here to load reader

HeLF eSubmission Quantitative Results2012

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: HeLF eSubmission Quantitative Results2012

HeLF eSubmission Survey Data 2012

Dr Barbara Newland, Brighton

Lindsay Martin, Edge Hill

Alice Bird, Liverpool John Moores

Page 2: HeLF eSubmission Quantitative Results2012

This presentation is a summary of the quantitative data from the Heads of eLearning Forum eSubmission survey undertaken in March 2012.

Further information on the qualitative results will be made available later.

Overview

Page 3: HeLF eSubmission Quantitative Results2012

The term eSubmission is used very widely to cover a range of activities so the following definitions were used:

Definitions

eSubmission online submission of an assignment

eMarking marking online ie not paper

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

eReturn online return of marks

Page 4: HeLF eSubmission Quantitative Results2012

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

Page 5: HeLF eSubmission Quantitative Results2012

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 JISCwww.helf.ac.uk

Heads of eLearning Forum (HeLF)

Page 6: HeLF eSubmission Quantitative Results2012

The survey was available to HeLF members who were asked to respond with regard to their knowledge of their own institution.

The survey was available in March 2012 and took about 10 minutes to complete

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

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 results are being analyzed using quantitative and qualitative methods

Methodology

Page 7: HeLF eSubmission Quantitative Results2012

44 responses from HeLF members

35% response rate

Results

Page 8: HeLF eSubmission Quantitative Results2012

Institution-wide policy

Yes No Don't know0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

eSubmissioneFeedback with eMarkingeFeedback without eMarking

Page 9: HeLF eSubmission Quantitative Results2012

Closer to having an institution-wider policy than a year ago?

Yes No Don't know0

5

10

15

20

25

eSubmissioneFeedback with eMarkingeFeedback without eMarking

Page 10: HeLF eSubmission Quantitative Results2012

Current practice

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

University-wideSome department-wideIndividual academics only

Page 11: HeLF eSubmission Quantitative Results2012

Regulations for eSubmission

Within institutional assessment regula-tionsSeparate regulationsNot yet been consideredDon't know

Page 12: HeLF eSubmission Quantitative Results2012

Training for academics

Optional Optional and strongly encouraged by some departments Optional and strongly encouraged across the institution Compulsory where adopted by de-partments Compulsory where adopted institution-wide

Page 13: HeLF eSubmission Quantitative Results2012

Does your institution recommend particular software?

Turn

itin

(sta

nd-a

lone

)

Turn

itin

(inte

grat

ed in

to V

LE)

VLE

Home

grow

n

Other

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

eSubmission of texteFeedback of text

Page 14: HeLF eSubmission Quantitative Results2012

Marks automatically fed back from VLE to student record system?

YesNoUnder consideration

Page 15: HeLF eSubmission Quantitative Results2012

Who is driving eSubmission adoption?

Seni

or m

anag

emen

t

Head

of Fac

ulty

/Sch

ool

Acade

mics

Admin

istra

tors

Lear

ning

tech

nolo

gist

s

Stud

ents

Nobod

y0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Page 16: HeLF eSubmission Quantitative Results2012

Academic staff attitudes

Positive Negative Don't know0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

eSubmissioneFeedback with eMarkingeFeedback without eMarking

Page 17: HeLF eSubmission Quantitative Results2012

Administrative staff attitudes

Positive Negative Don't know0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

eSubmissioneFeedback with eMarkingeFeedback without eMarking

Page 18: HeLF eSubmission Quantitative Results2012

Student attitudes

Positive Negative Don't know0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

eSubmissioneFeedback with eMarkingeFeedback without eMarking

Page 19: HeLF eSubmission Quantitative Results2012

http://www.yorksj.ac.uk/technology-enhanced-learning/technology-enhanced-learning/moodle/e-submission.aspx

  http://www.bradford.ac.uk/elearning/e-SubmissionOptions/page_01.htm   https://www.ucl.ac.uk/isd/staff/e-learning/tools/turnitin   http://turnitin.wetpaint.com/   http://staffcentral.brighton.ac.uk/plagiarism/esubmission.shtm   http://ltss.beds.ac.uk/breo_help/staff_help/sta_019.html   http://www.lancs.ac.uk/celt/celtweb/files/LUVLEStaffGuide0910.pdf starting on p 35   http://hermes.uwl.ac.uk/vle_staff_support/index.asp?toolkitID=100&sectionID=120&topicID=First

&pageNo=1

  http://www.gold.ac.uk/warden/smt-pw-students/   www.derby.ac.uk/esubmission - staff site

www.derby.ac.uk/esub - student site

Policy, guidelines and/or training/support materials