Introduction to EMA highlights

Introduction to EMA highlights

• 1.
  Click to editMaster title style Blackboard Assignment Tool Nick Bunyan, Dan Robinson, Alex Spiers & Tunde Varga Atkins An introduction to e-submission Nick Bunyan, Dan Roberts, Alex Spiers & Tunde Varga-Atkins eLearning Unit, CIE
• 2.
  Click to editMaster title styleWorkshop topics In this one and a half hour session we will look at: 1. Policy context – your issues & requirements. 2. Benefits to staff & students. 3. Pedagogical opportunities. 4. Overview to the submission & marking processes. 5. Software selection - differences between Blackboard and Turnitin tools. 6. Other issues for consideration. 7. Planning implementation. 8. Follow up guidance & support.
• 3.
  Click to editMaster title styleContext to this initiative The University is moving to online submission for coursework assignments (see this blog post for more detail on policy). • Driver for the policy initially has come from the Guild – student printing costs. • Draft coursework submission policy developed in 2014. • March 2016 decision to go for adoption of the policy & to implement e-submission (not e- marking) for 2016/17 academic year.
• 4.
  Coursework submission Policy Afew policy highlights: 3.1 Requires e-submission - 3.7 Encourages e-marking currently. 3.2 All coursework unless file format or design of exercise does not permit. – Non-written assessments – Assessments containing visual, graphical or mathematical elements – Impossible to administer 3.4 Students should be provided with guidance on processes of e-submission including for declaration of specific learning difficulty.
• 5.
  Coursework submission Policy Afew policy highlights: 3.5 When Uni systems temporarily down… (section 3.5). 4.1 Anonymity should be maintained for all internal marking and moderation.
• 6.
  Discussion • What areyou doing now? • What are you planning? • What is your school/department doing now? • What is your school/department planning? • What do you want to find out today?
• 7.
  Students and electronicsubmission Benefits to students can include: • Students can submit their work without having to travel to the University. • Reduced printing costs. • Meeting student expectations - seen by many students as normal practice in a digital age. • Electronic reminders about marking turnaround times can be communicated through VITAL module announcements etc. Potential draw backs for students can include: • For some large cohort programmes moving to e-submission can further reduce the physical contact students have with a school or department. • Service disruptions mean that students may not be able to submit on time. Benefits for staff can include: • Monitor student submissions and remind students about forthcoming submissions. • Locate assessment support information alongside the submission tool. Potential drawbacks for staff can include: • Subtle variations in the features and facilities of using Blackboard or Turnitin e-marking tools requires programme teams or module leaders to carefully think through their appropriate application of technology and marking processes to meet their assessment requirements.
• 8.
  Students and electronicfeedback • Students access electronic feedback when they are emotionally 'ready.‘ • Evidence that they referred back to feedback more often in an electronic form (within a VLE etc.) • Grades in a single place mean they can monitor their own progress more easily. • Typed feedback more legible. • Benefits of separating feedback from grades - engaged more with feedback if they received this first. • Benefits of linking feedback to assessment criteria - something you can do using Turnitin Feedback Studio Taken from Technology, Feedback, Action!: The impact of learning technology upon students' engagement with their feedback Sheffield Hallam University investigated what students think of receiving feedback in an electronic form, how they use it etc.
• 10.
  Workflow overview
• 11.
  Click to editMaster title styleBlackboard and Turnitin - Decisions Photo by maclauren70 - Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License https://www.flickr.com/photos/42386632@N00 Created with Haiku Deck
• 12.
  Blackboard vs Turnitinsoftware selection Issue/ facility Blackboard Assignment Turnitin Assignment Single or multiple file submission. Multiple. Single only. Group submission supported Yes. No. File type restrictions 1. Mode 1 - None – Grade, criteria marking and overall feedback comment for any submission also possible here. 2. Mode 2 - To also use the Inline Grading facility file types are restricted in this mode. 1. Mode 1 – For Originality Checking (plagiarism) and Feedback Studio – file types restricted. 2. Mode 2 – Mode 1 files plus some image file types which can be annotated with Feedback Studio. 3. Mode 3 – Any file can be submitted - no Originality-Checking and restricted use of Feedback Studio. 4. No submission - restricted use of Feedback Studio (for presentations for example). File size limits. No - currently no file size limit but:  Students may find very large files may not upload with timeout issues.  CSD to explore limits to submitted file sizes.  Video files should not be uploaded (use Stream media server instead and submit the link.) Yes - maximum 40 Mb file size. Anonymous submissions Yes – flexible. Yes – strict. Electronic text matching to support plagiarism & collusion detection. No. Yes. Ability for students to re-submit their work after the due date. Yes, students can re-submit their work after the due date with specific settings. Copies of all submissions are retained – late submissions are indicated. No.
• 13.
  Blackboard vs Turnitinsoftware selection
• 14.
  Other issues forconsideration E-submission: • Financial suspension. • Academic integrity self-declaration, mitigating circumstances. • Accessibility issues (not fully tested yet). • Service disruption (protocol being developed). • Departmental printing costs.
• 15.
  Other issues forconsideration E-marking: • Moderation – differences in how the software enables moderation. • External examiner access.
• 16.
  An opportunity? Review theconsistency and effectiveness of marking – quality of comments, marking sheets (rubrics), can students learn from feedback comments etc. Are there opportunities to review the pedagogic processes (feedback cycle), especially in the year 1 – student transition to higher education?
• 17.
  Planning your implementation •Review existing experiences. • Network with similar departments. • Select appropriate pilots (e-marking) – involving admin staff & students. • Develop a resourced training & support plan for staff. • Develop clear practical workflows (document).
• 18.
  Click to editMaster title styleTake away messages • Careful planning and testing of the whole lifecycle – where current processes may need to be changed, involving all stakeholders. • Consistency of approach in school, marking teams etc. • Awareness of ongoing development of electronic tools. • Further support.
• 19.
  Photo by oggin- Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License https://www.flickr.com/photos/85755792@N00 Created with Haiku Deck NEED SUPPORT? Contact the eLearning Unit http://www.liverpool.ac.uk/elearning Internal: 44567 (CSD Service desk) [email protected] elearningatliverpool.wordpress.com/ @elearninglpool Studio Wednesdays Drop in & chat