learning - Academic Conferences Limited

Alice Bird
Reflecting on the feasibility study, the division of power still seemed to be split mainly between
strategic management and academic staff. Project Board meetings frequently returned to discussions
on issues associated with academic staff engagement in e-submission. The project Chair played a
vital role in keeping the project on track in achieving its objectives. The role of the student union was
mainly consultative rather than a force for change. However, there were early indicators of the
increasing influence of the local Student Union through lobbying in response to a National Union of
Student (NUS) Higher Education Campaign. Working in collaboration with the institutional Learning
Development Unit, Mark My Words, Not My Name, NUS (2008), was translated into a
recommendation for institutional implementation of anonymous marking of coursework.
3.2 Pilot study
The second phase of the e-submission project was initiated in September 2009, following on from the
recommendations of the feasibility study. The stepping down of the Chair from the Project Board
resulted in a Faculty Dean being appointed to fulfil this role.
Preparation for the pilot study included the development of online support resources for staff and
student participants prior to the start of the academic year. During August and September 2009,
participating members of academic staff were recruited and identified specific module cohorts for the
pilot. The pilot was implemented in 52 modules from a range of different programmes. A key aim was
to ensure the pilot covered a diversity of subject disciplines, different cohort sizes and programme
levels, different types of submissions (file types, sizes and single/multiple files) and range of student
and staff levels of ICT competencies. In practice, although all Faculties participated in the pilot,
engagement varied considerably with some Faculties involving whole subject areas, whilst others
allowed self-nomination by individual members of staff. The latter tended to be techno-enthusiasts
and this had to be taken into account when evaluating the pilot. Group and one-to-one hands-on
training sessions were provided for participating staff in using the VLE assignment tool. In some
cases, participating staff implemented e-submission for a single coursework assignment with one
cohort, whilst others piloted e-submission with several cohorts in Semester 1 and Semester 2.
Although the pilot required staff to use a specified submission tool, they were at liberty to determine
how they marked coursework and provided feedback to students. Online help resources were
provided for a range of methods for e-marking but instructions were also provided on how to batch
submit coursework items for printing via the university print room.
Evaluation of the pilot study focused on three key areas; submission, marking and feedback. The
methods used included online questionnaires issued to participating staff and students. Students were
invited to participate in a post-submission questionnaire, whilst members of staff were invited to
complete pre- and post-submission questionnaires in order to assess any shifts in their perceptions
after engaging with e-submission. Triangulation of questionnaire findings was achieved through
analysis of staff and student support calls throughout the pilot and more general feedback collated by
the Faculty and Student Union representatives on the Project Board.
In parallel with the pilot study, technological development and performance testing was implemented.
During the pilot, some additional requirements for augmentation of the VLE assignment tool emerged.
In addition, the outcomes from a Higher Education Academy funded study at the University of
Sheffield Hallam, Hepplestone et al (2010), focused on the use of a customisation of the tool that
helped promote student engagement with feedback on assessment. A demonstration of the system to
the Project Board and other members of academic staff resulted in a strong recommendation for
acquisition of the customised version for any future phase of the project.
The participant response rate to online questionnaires was 49% of academic staff (25) and 17% of
students (167). The outcomes of the evaluation suggested that only a few members of academic staff
in the pilot had prior experience of e-submission. Most staff and student respondents rated their levels
of ICT confidence as confident or very confident. However, approximately 5% of staff had limited or
no confidence and expressed some apprehension in engaging in the pilot. Some staff and students
had experienced technical issues during the pilot but both staff and students agreed that there were
benefits for students, in particular, with the submission stage of the process. The main benefits
included savings on travel time and costs and enhanced ability to submit at anytime and from any
location. Some staff also acknowledged benefits through faster receipt of submissions, although some
of those who chose to print out submitted coursework disagreed with this view. Members of staff were
much more divided on the benefits when taking into account other stages in the process. Some were
78