Presentation on behalf of HeLF at the University of East London. Content covers the 2011 HeLF survey of its members which provided a unique HE sector snapshot of the adoption of eSubmission, eMarking and eFeedback.

1. eSubmission: HeLF Survey of
Policies, Practices and Attitudes
Andy Ramsden, University Campus, Suffolk
Barbara Newland, University of Brighton
Lindsey Martin, Edge Hill University

2. Overview
 Bried introduction to HeLF
 Why survey eSubmission?
 eSubmission: our working definition
 Survey – a snapshot of current policy
&practice
 Results
 Conclusions – so what, now what?

3. Who are HeLF?
 Heads of eLearning Forum: a network of senior staff in
institutions engaged in promoting, supporting and
developing technology enhanced learning
 Represents the interests of its members to various
national bodies and agencies including the Higher
Education Academy and JISC
 Aims to share knowledge on the strategic implications of
developing and implementing e-learning
 http://w01.helfcms.wf.ulcc.ac.uk/

4. Why survey eSubmission?
 Sense of being on verge of a step-change from
experimental to mainstream adoption
 Uptake driven largely on assumptions around
efficiency gains and improved student
experience
 Institutional perspective from HeLF members
could provide a snapshot of current policy and
practice and identify key issues for wider
consideration

5. eSubmission: key activities
• eSubmission – online submission of an
assignment
• Plagiarism deterrence and detection
• eMarking – marking a paper online
• eFeedback- producing online feedback
which could be text, audio etc but not paper
• eReturn – online return of marks

6. Survey: a snapshot of policy & practice
 Online survey circulated to HeLF members
March 2011
 Aim to provide an institutional perspective on
eSubmission
 A mixture of closed multiple choice, multiple
selection and open response
 38 out of a possible 125 responses
 30% response rate providing a representative
sample

7. Drivers for eSubmission
Five strong themes emerged:
Enhanced student experience*
Efficiency gains*
Green agenda
Responding to the student voice
Plagiarism detection

8. Who ‘owns’ eSubmission in your
institution?
Area of University Number of responses
Academic led, local & distributed 16
Central Services led 10
Head of Assessment 1
Standard Committee on
Assessment
1
Registry 1
Working groups/ collaborations 3
No one 4

9. eSubmission Technologies
4
30
5
22
1
5
21
3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Home Grown TurnitIn [integrated with
VLE]
TurnitIn [stand alone] VLE ePortfolio (Peddlepad)
TEXT
NON-TEXT

10. eSubmission and/or Paper
4
5
24
5
11
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
efeedback and student can
choose to print hard copy
esubmission and hard copy
printed by department
esubmission and hard copy
printed by student
emarking esubmission as the only form
of submission

11. Academic Attitudes to eSubmission
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
eSubmission eFeedback eMarking
Academic Attitudes
Positive
Negative
Unsure

12. Anxieties around eSubmission
processes
Themes identified
eMarking*
Adequacy/robustness of current systems/ infrastructure*
Additional workloads/ time demands
Staff skills
Back-up and archiving
Blind/anonymous/double marking

13. Scale of adoption across
institutions
Scale of adoption Responses
Approaching mainstream 3
Faculty/School 11
Patchy 20
No way of knowing 2

14. Role(s) of Head of eLearning icw
eSubmission
Roles of Head of eLearning icw eSubmission Occurrences
Awareness raising/Adviser/Champion/Staff
Development and Support
26
Technical input – where eSubmission intersects
with the VLE/ technical infrastructure
14
Driving Policy Development and Strategy 13
Co-ordination/ Project Management 7

15. Benefits of eSubmission
Benefits Occurrences
Student satisfaction 22
Quality and learning enhancements 21
Efficiencies from streamlined processes,
faster turnaround, reduced costs to the
University
17
Environmental – Green Agenda 4

16. Evidence base
Evidence drawn from:
• Student surveys, module evaluations, L&T
Committees, focus groups, staff surveys,
pilots, staff consultations, staff interviews,
benchmarking, anecdotal, help desk data

17. Conclusion – now what?
• A wide spread and increasing use of e-submission across the sector
suggests we are on the cusp of a step-change to more strategic, planned
adoption of eSubmission
• The process of implementation is generally occurring in departments and
Schools with institutional changes in policy and codes of practice following
afterwards
• Academic staff perceptions are relatively positive about eSubmission but
institutional change will need to address their negative attitude to
eMarking and eFeedback
• HeLF members recognise that that staff will require support through “this
major change in working practice” and are working towards providing this
• One HeLF member commented that it “needs a lot of different
stakeholders to work together to make it effective”