Presentation for HeLF - EMA Electronic Management of Assessment Workshop

1. Institutional Roll Out of Submission and
Marking
Rob Howe
The University of Northampton
Presentation at HeLF – EMA Electronic Management of
Assessment Workshop 9th July, 2013

2. Learner Considerations
1. Flexibility of submission
points
2. Readability
3. Feedback prompt and
useful (NSS)
(Hepplestone et al,
2011)
4. Usability and training
See the SaGE blog for
more details on
Northampton’s
approach

3. Need to join up University approaches
Timings:
<2010 – Small scale trials (Turnitin, SoundsGood Rotheram (2009) and Looks
Good)
2010-2011 - Piloting
2012 – Whole University approach to submission and marking
Items to consider:
•Basic Comments
•Rubrics
•Voice Comments
•Quickmark comments
•Video feedback
•Peer Assessment
•Second marking
•External examiners
•Submission points
•Letter grading vs numeric
grading
•Ensure robust functionality
of the tools
•Archive results in line with
University policy

4. The SaGE workflow

5. Creating feedback opportunities
Do students value feedback (or just the grade ?)
“Staff complain that feedback does not work
(Weaver 2006) and that students do
not act on feedback (Mutch 2003). It is
claimed that students are only concerned
with their grades (Wojtas 1998; Nesbit and
Burton 2006), see feedback as a means
to justify the grade (Price and O’Donovan
2008; Price et al. 2010) or only read the
qualitative comments if the quantitative mark
is outside of their expectations
(Duncan 2007).”
(Hepplestone et al, 2011)

6. Some benefits for students
• Allows students to read it at a time convenient to them
• Allows them to concentrate more deeply on the comments
in the absence of their peers.
• Students able to access feedback whenever and wherever
they complete future assessments.
• Where grades are presented alongside feedback, students
can use this information to inform their performance in
future assessment tasks.
• Feedback returned electronically may be returned quicker
as time may be saved during administrative processes.

7. Did staff like it ?
• Some did (after adapting their style)......others.....

8. Is it working? Feedback from students
•Email
• Blog
• Spot surveys
• Focus groups
I also feel that lecturers
returned grades to students
much more promptly when
they were on paper
I do think that
electronic feedback is
good because it is
easy and quick.
It was beneficial as it is easier
to hand in assignments
instead of having to travel
into the university however
feel there is less feedback
given
It would be better if it
was more uniform.I think its brilliant
and it saves time
and money on
travelling.”

9. Top five tips
1. Pilot extensively on robust tools and ensure all areas of the
institution are represented.
2. Consistent University policies and procedures – do assessments
have to be bunched at the end / moderation or second marking ?
3. Mandatory (re)training for all staff involved and phased rollout.
4. Clear instructions for students.
5. Survey feedback – and keep refining.

10. Questions?
Contact details:
Rob Howe
Rob.Howe@northampton.ac.uk
01604 892483

11. References etc.
Useful links
• Hepplestone, S., Holden, G., Irwin, B., Parkin, H., Thorpe, L., (2011) Using
technology to encourage student engagement with feedback: a literature review .
Research in Learning Technology Vol. 19, No. 2, July 2011, 117–127.
• Rotheram, B. 2009. Sounds good: Quicker, better assessment using audio feedback.
JISC funded project. http://sites.google.com/site/soundsgooduk/downloads.
Image credits
• Photography by Rob Farmer, University of Northampton