learning - Academic Conferences Limited

Alice Bird
The student consultation collated feedback from 30 course representatives who interviewed a total of
160 students. The majority of students interviewed (83%) suggested they would welcome electronic
submission of coursework. Some perceived advantages included ‘less travel for students who
commute’ and, for international students, the ability to ‘return home and still submit’. However, there
was some concern about the potential robustness and reliability of any system for supporting
submission. In particular, students expressed concern about the ability of a system to handle high
volumes of student submissions, at the same time. Other concerns related to potential failure to meet
deadlines due to problems with their own internet connections or computer systems. When asked to
comment on existing submission and feedback experiences, 76% thought deadlines were scheduled
effectively, although some of the remainder felt that deadlines tended to be very close together.
‘Quicker’ and ‘more detailed’ feedback featured highly as a key area for improvement, with 32%
receiving feedback over a month after submission and almost a quarter (23.4%) never receiving any
feedback on assessment.
The Faculty consultation highlighted a wide variation of prior experience across the institution from
individuals with in-depth experience of e-submission and e-marking to other members of staff having
limited experience of technology, in general. The perceived benefits and issues reflected this
diversity. In most cases, the benefits were considered only realisable with associated assumptions; in
particular, a move to electronic marking and feedback. Tables 3 and 4 below summarise the
perceived benefits and issues with associated assumptions.
Table 3: Faculty perceived benefits
Perceived Benefit Assumption
Faster, more direct access by markers to submitted coursework
‘Greener’ coursework submission approach Overall reduced levels of printing
Reduced manual handling of paper-based coursework Reduced levels of printing
More detailed and timely feedback e-Marking and e-feedback
Easier deterrence/detection of collusion/plagiarism Integration with plagiarism detection
service
Table 4: Faculty perceived issues
Perceived Issues Assumption
Failed submission due to students’ own PCs/connections Off-campus submission
Robustness and scalability of submission/feedback system
Lack of staff/student ICT skills and confidence
Lack of local staff support for changing practice
Staff screen usage health and safety issues e-Marking and e-feedback
Increased departmental printing cost Staff opting to mark paper-based copies
Delays in receipt of coursework/provision of feedback Staff opting to use Print Room service
Ability of technology to fulfil associated ‘marking’ requirements:
anonymous, team, double and external
The feasibility study concluded with the publication of a report and set of recommendations,
incorporating a summary of associated resources and costs. The main recommendation was to
implement a pilot study within Faculties in the academic year 2009/10 to assess the extent to which
perceived benefits and issues were likely to be actual benefits and issues when scaling up to
institution wide implementation. A second recommendation proposed further technological
development and performance testing of submission via the VLE to ensure scalability to institutional
requirements. The report also recommended expansion of central and local support to minimise
institutional risk during the pilot phase. Finally, the report acknowledged the need to consider
alternative approaches to assessment and not to simply replicate traditional modes of assessment
within a technology enhanced learning environment. There was a strong belief that the affordances of
technology could support alternative, more authentic methods of assessment that should be explored
more widely.
The report was presented to the institutional strategic management group in May 2009. The
recommendations to implement the pilot study and to undertake the technological work were
approved. Additional resources for central and local Faculty-based support were not approved at this
stage as a key objective was to reduce overall administrative and support costs.
77