eSubmission Sept 2011

190 views

Published on

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.

Published in: Education, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

eSubmission Sept 2011

  1. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 7. Drivers for eSubmission Five strong themes emerged: Enhanced student experience* Efficiency gains* Green agenda Responding to the student voice Plagiarism detection
  8. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 13. Scale of adoption across institutions Scale of adoption Responses Approaching mainstream 3 Faculty/School 11 Patchy 20 No way of knowing 2
  14. 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. 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. 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. 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”

×