learning - Academic Conferences Limited

3.3 Early stage implementation
Alice Bird
During the academic year 2010/11, a number of factors combined to transform the proposed early
stage implementation into an extended pilot rather than wide-spread implementation. Academic staff
initiative overload referred to earlier was one factor and there was also a need to align more generally
with other institutional policies, including the proposal for anonymous marking. Participation was wider
than in the previous pilot study, with increased general awareness of a developing e-submission
policy. This led to wider debate amongst the academic community, with the main union representing
academic staff questioning aspects of policy and practice, already raised as perceived issues by staff.
Union concerns about health and safety resulted in a revision of the university’s safety code of
practice on visual display equipment to accommodate laptop and tablet devices. This did not lead to
the identification of any specific e-submission and e-marking safety issue, although staff remained
concerned about their ability to comply with the code and also meet the three week turnaround for
feedback. Another union concern was to ensure the right for staff to print electronically submitted
coursework, although this did conflict with directives in some Schools that electronic submission
should not result in increased departmental costs. A further union concern related to the ability of the
institutional print room to cope with large volume printing a peak deadline times but this was
countered as a historical view of the capabilities of the service.
The early phase implementation is currently being evaluated but the institution has decided to
continue with the ‘third way’ approach for electronic submission. This has been translated into policy
for 2011/12 but in a way that still allows academic staff to choose how to mark and provide feedback.
The decision to maintain the approach, without further amendment, acknowledges the general sense
of initiative overload by academic staff. E-submission does represent a major cultural shift in staff
assessment practices and our experience suggests that it cannot be achieved without agreeing some
form of consensus in approach. The project has also highlighted to strategic management the
complexity of the overall coursework submission process and the need to limit change to what is
practicable at any point in time.
4. Reflection and recommendations
In reflecting on the case study experience, the institution has made progress towards implementing
electronic submission of coursework and to achieving its objectives. The proposal to implement a
‘third way’ was critical in moving the process forward. However, we are conscious that implementing
e-submission is only one aspect of reviewing and improving assessment practices within the
institution. Evidence from existing and emerging research supports the need to redesign assessment
practices across the whole institution, REAP (2011), and within programmes of study, TESTA (2011).
The intention is to continue working with institutional management, academic staff and students to
develop practices that benefit all stakeholders.
In recommending how other institutions might approach development of e-submission policy and
practice, a key starting point is analysis of the predominant culture and sub-cultures. Acknowledging
the increased influence in student power is essential and early inclusion of student leadership does
promote better understanding between key stakeholders. The needs of key stakeholders need to
align but giving stakeholders the opportunity to vent their concerns is also critical in promoting better
understanding. This needs to be conducted in the spirit of listening and moving forward with
agreement to minimise concerns. In our case, frequent consultation throughout the various stages of
the project did not translate into members of academic staff being aware of the introduction of new
policy. Hence, further debate can be expected once any new policy is first implemented. Providing
evidence that perceived issues have already been discussed and solutions considered is essential at
this stage.
Progress can only be achieved through managing the expectations and understandings of all key
stakeholders. Our experience also highlights the need to take an institutional perspective of all
initiatives impacting on academic practice, administrative activities and the student experience, at any
point in time. Finally, any implementation of e-submission policy and practice needs to be considered
in the context of changing assessment practices, in general, and the opportunities that technology
provides for alternative approaches to assessment and feedback on assessment.
80