Volume Two - Academic Conferences

More documents

Recommendations

Info

eSubmission – UK Policies, Practice and Support Barbara Newland 1 , Lindsay Martin 2 and Andy Ramsden 3 1 University of Brighton, Brighton, UK 2 Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, UK 3 University Campus Suffolk, Ipswich, UK b.a.newland@brighton.ac.uk lindsay.martin@edgehill.ac.uk a.ramsden@ucs.ac.uk Abstract: eSubmission is currently being implemented in universities within the UK Higher Education (HE). The process of implementation is generally occurring in departments and Schools with institutional changes in policy and practice following afterwards. This paper provides a strategic overview of the current situation and focuses on key issues concerning the impact of eSubmission. The term eSubmission is used very widely to cover a range of activities which include eSubmission, eMarking, eFeedback, eReturn as well as plagiarism deterrence and detection. For clarity and distinction between these activities the term eSubmission is defined as online submission of an assignment in this paper. The research was undertaken through the Heads of eLearning Forum (HeLF). HeLF is a “network of senior staff in institutions engaged in promoting, supporting and developing technology enhanced learning” (HeLF, 2011). It was established in 2003 and currently represents over 120 HE institutions in the UK. It meets regularly every year at events relating to topical issues in strategic eLearning developments. eSubmission is having an impact on the roles of academics, administrative staff and learning technologists. It is changing the roles of academics and administrators as well as the relationship between them. It is creating extra work for learning technologists who support both academics and administrative staff and sometimes students using eSubmission. The technical infrastructure is in place within universities and often there is integration with Virtual Learning Environments. eSubmission is closely related to plagiarism detection as a digital version of an assignment is required to use the plagiarism software. In most universities plagiarism software is available across all courses, but it is generally used on an opt-in basis by individual academics or by a whole department. There are contrasting views on whether the plagiarism software is used for student development or plagiarism detection. The development approach (carrot) is often recommended but in practice the plagiarism detection (stick) approach is used. HeLF members were overwhelmingly positive to a proposed new role for HeLF to collate and publish and share practice in areas of eLearning such as eSubmission. Keywords: eSubmission, policy, process, change, HeLF 1. Introduction eSubmission is currently being implemented in universities within the UK Higher Education (HE). The process of implementation is generally occurring in departments and Schools with institutional changes in policy and practice following afterwards. This paper provides a strategic overview of the current situation and focuses on key issues concerning the impact of eSubmission. The term eSubmission is used very widely to cover a range of activities which include: eSubmission eMarking eFeedback eReturn Plagiarism deterrence and detection For clarity and distinction between these activities the following definitions are used in this paper: eSubmission – online submission of an assignment eMarking – marking a paper online eFeedback - producing online feedback which could be text, audio etc but not paper eReturn – online return of marks Currently, there is usually a mixture practice in the process between online and paper. For example, students may be required to use eSubmission and hand in a hard copy. <strong>Academic</strong>s may mark hard copies but give online feedback. 578
Barbara Newland et al. The research provides a strategic overview of the impact of eSubmission in UK universities. Key issues which are investigated are the change in roles in this area for academics, administrative staff and learning technologists. The technical infrastructures being used to support eSubmission and the relationship between eSubmission and plagiarism policies. The research was undertaken through the Heads of eLearning Forum (HeLF) and may result in a new role for this national body. 2. Methodology In order to identify the current situation an online survey was circulated to the HeLF. HeLF is a “network of senior staff in institutions engaged in promoting, supporting and developing technology enhanced learning” in the UK (HeLF, 2011). It was established in 2003 and has met regularly every year. Each HE institution can nominate one member as the Head of eLearning and the group now has over 120 members. Heads of eLearning have an institutional perspective on eLearning in their universities. HeLF’s aims are to operate in an advisory, collaborative and supportive way with regard to strategic eLearning developments. It acts as “an advisory body for national and governmental organisations on issues relating to e-learning institutional strategy and implementation.” It is “proactive in soliciting responses from such bodies and promoting the views of its membership” in an authoritative and coherent manner. In its collaborative role, HeLF enables the sharing and comparing of “the strategic implications of developing and implementing eLearning.” HeLF supports “the processes by which elearning strategy can be effectively created, and implemented, including advice, support and cooperation between members.” (HeLF, 2011) A small group of HeLF members, who are currently implementing eSubmission in their institution, developed the survey. The survey consisted of 31 open and closed questions and was undertaken in March 2011. The data has been held anonymously and securely. Some participants were willing to engage in further communication regarding eSubmission and consequently provided their contact details. Quantitative and qualitative methods were used to analyse the data resulting from the survey. 3. Results Thirty-eight members of HeLF responded to the survey, which gave a representative sample of data with a 30% response rate. The results focus on the key issues of roles and practices, technological infrastructure, eSubmission and plagiarism and the role of HeLF. The quotes are from HeLF members who completed the survey. 3.1 Roles and practices Approximately, two thirds of members thought that eSubmission has had an impact on academic, administrative and learning technologist roles and practices, only 5% feel that it has not, but 26% are unsure. The impact on the roles of academics, administrators and learning technologists are being affected in different ways in different institutions. eSubmission “bridges the technology and the pedagogy, therefore all the above roles are affected by it.” The process has led to collaborative working across universities. “The whole issue is proving a valuable area for bringing together academics, admin and TEL staff to collaborate to produce workable policies and procedures.” ” The project has led to closer working in order to join us processes.” There have been some pedagogical changes as the “move to e-marking and feedback cannot help but change academic practices, and many are still getting to grips with this.” eFeedback may provide more legible, timely and comprehensive feedback to learners which enhances learning (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006). The introduction of eSubmission “resulted in a revisiting of the assessment and feedback agenda in some departments, which allowed programme leaders and practitioners to rethink.” It may lead to more consistency as the “use of grading rubrics and standard answers has led to a more consistent marking experience, particularly when postgraduates are involved.” There are differing views on how eSubmission has changed the balance of administrative work between academics and administrative staff. In some universities it has “given academics more responsibility over the submission process, and management of retrieving work for marking.” Similarly, “<strong>Academic</strong> staff are now taking on some more administrative tasks in setting up and 579
Page 1 and 2:
Proceedings of the 10 th European C
Page 3 and 4:
Contents Paper Title Author(s) Page
Page 5 and 6:
Paper Title Author(s) Page No. A Qu
Page 7 and 8:
The Project Mobile Game Based Learn
Page 9 and 10:
Extreme Scaffolding in the Teaching
Page 11 and 12:
Malaysia); Tuomo Kakkonen (Universi
Page 13 and 14:
Preface These Proceedings represent
Page 15 and 16:
Mini Track Chairs Dr Antonios Andre
Page 17 and 18:
Cornélia Castro is a PhD student i
Page 19 and 20:
Manuel Frutos-Perez is the Leader o
Page 21 and 22:
David Mathew works at the Centre fo
Page 23 and 24:
Research interests include the inve
Page 25:
Novita Yulianti is a PhD student at
Page 28 and 29:
Peter Mozelius et al. searching and
Page 30 and 31:
Peter Mozelius et al. Error Handli
Page 32 and 33:
Peter Mozelius et al. were no chanc
Page 34 and 35:
Peter Mozelius et al. single login
Page 36 and 37:
Antoinette Muntjewerff for every st
Page 38 and 39:
Antoinette Muntjewerff All of this
Page 40 and 41:
Figure 1: Metadata editor Antoinett
Page 42 and 43:
Antoinette Muntjewerff The structur
Page 44 and 45:
A Framework for Decision Support fo
Page 46 and 47: Phelim Murnion and Markus Helfert i
Page 48 and 49: Phelim Murnion and Markus Helfert 4
Page 50 and 51: Phelim Murnion and Markus Helfert s
Page 52 and 53: Phelim Murnion and Markus Helfert P
Page 54 and 55: Shekhar Murthy and Devi Murthy wisd
Page 56 and 57: Shekhar Murthy and Devi Murthy educ
Page 58 and 59: Shekhar Murthy and Devi Murthy Figu
Page 60 and 61: Shekhar Murthy and Devi Murthy corr
Page 62 and 63: Shekhar Murthy and Devi Murthy Figu
Page 64 and 65: Shekhar Murthy and Devi Murthy Stag
Page 66 and 67: 7. Conclusions Shekhar Murthy and D
Page 68 and 69: Student's Characteristics for Note
Page 70 and 71: Minoru Nakayama et al. Learning exp
Page 72 and 73: Minoru Nakayama et al. 3.3 Effectiv
Page 74 and 75: Minoru Nakayama et al. Table 2: Cor
Page 76 and 77: Freeing Education Within and Beyond
Page 78 and 79: Chrissi Nerantzi The aim was to exp
Page 80 and 81: Chrissi Nerantzi agreeing with Nova
Page 82 and 83: Chrissi Nerantzi familiarisation wi
Page 84 and 85: Chrissi Nerantzi Scardamalia, M. an
Page 86 and 87: Paul Newbury et al. the slides or w
Page 88 and 89: Paul Newbury et al. multimedia faci
Page 90 and 91: Paul Newbury et al. It is designed
Page 92 and 93: Paul Newbury et al. Download figur
Page 94 and 95: Paul Newbury et al. “Has the fact
Page 98 and 99: Barbara Newland et al. managing stu
Page 100 and 101: Figure 3: Technical infrastructure
Page 102 and 103: Barbara Newland et al. and I strong
Page 104 and 105: Harnessing the Internet for Authent
Page 106 and 107: Abel Nyamapfene As stated on the co
Page 108 and 109: Abel Nyamapfene 8. There were suffi
Page 110 and 111: Abel Nyamapfene Mulnix, J. W. (2011
Page 112 and 113: Maruff Akinwale Oladejo and Adelua
Page 114 and 115: 2.3 Instrumentation Maruff Akinwale
Page 116 and 117: Maruff Akinwale Oladejo and Adelua
Page 118 and 119: References Maruff Akinwale Oladejo
Page 120 and 121: Adelua Olajide Olawole and Maruff A
Page 122 and 123: 2.2 Sample and sampling techniques
Page 124 and 125: 3.1 Result Adelua Olajide Olawole a
Page 126 and 127: Adelua Olajide Olawole and Maruff A
Page 128 and 129: Fatemeh Orooji et al. awareness and
Page 130 and 131: Fatemeh Orooji et al. Figure 1: The
Page 132 and 133: Fatemeh Orooji et al. Sensing/intu
Page 134 and 135: Fatemeh Orooji et al. lower and upp
Page 136 and 137: Fatemeh Orooji et al. the other dim
Page 138 and 139: Using Lifeworld-led Multimedia to E
Page 140 and 141: Andy Pulman et al. A key feature of
Page 142 and 143: Andy Pulman et al. in this case “
Page 144 and 145: Andy Pulman et al. The Research Evi
Page 146 and 147:
The Project Mobile Game Based Learn
Page 148 and 149:
Thomas Putz A hybrid game, consisti
Page 150 and 151:
3.3 The different ‘events’ supp
Page 152 and 153:
4. Pedagogical impacts Thomas Putz
Page 154 and 155:
Thomas Putz Fabricatore, C. (2000).
Page 156 and 157:
Ricardo Queirós and José Paulo Le
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
3.6 Discussion Topics Ricardo Queir
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
The Design and Development of an eL
Page 166 and 167:
Andrik Rampun and Trevor Barker as
Page 168 and 169:
Andrik Rampun and Trevor Barker add
Page 170 and 171:
Figure 5: Screen shot of a user’s
Page 172 and 173:
Andrik Rampun and Trevor Barker 3.1
Page 174 and 175:
Andrik Rampun and Trevor Barker cou
Page 176 and 177:
Kansei Design Model for eLearning:
Page 178 and 179:
Fauziah Redzuan et al. presentation
Page 180 and 181:
Fauziah Redzuan et al. A second sur
Page 182 and 183:
Fauziah Redzuan et al. understand t
Page 184 and 185:
Fauziah Redzuan et al. to explain t
Page 186 and 187:
Fauziah Redzuan et al. Websites", P
Page 188 and 189:
Changing Teacher Beliefs Through IC
Page 190 and 191:
Bart Rienties et al. substantial di
Page 192 and 193:
Bart Rienties et al. videoed for re
Page 194 and 195:
5. Discussion Bart Rienties et al.
Page 196 and 197:
Moodle and Affective Computing: Kno
Page 198 and 199:
Manuel Rodrigues et al. Moodle does
Page 200 and 201:
Manuel Rodrigues et al. Other sever
Page 202 and 203:
Manuel Rodrigues et al. Doing this
Page 204 and 205:
Using Google Applications to Facili
Page 206 and 207:
Eleni Rossiou and Erasmia Papadopou
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Andrée Roy determines if eLearning
Page 218 and 219:
Andrée Roy Table 3: Profiles of eL
Page 220 and 221:
Andrée Roy the cost of production
Page 222 and 223:
Andrée Roy Lawless, N., Allan, J.
Page 224 and 225:
Zuzana Šaffková comment metacogni
Page 226 and 227:
Zuzana Šaffková Moodle applicatio
Page 228 and 229:
Zuzana Šaffková the other propert
Page 230 and 231:
Zuzana Šaffková In the last phase
Page 232 and 233:
Zuzana Šaffková prior knowledge,
Page 234 and 235:
A Mobile aid Tool for Crafting Acti
Page 236 and 237:
Ahmed Salem Question difficulty in
Page 238 and 239:
Ahmed Salem Figure 2: The Simple le
Page 240 and 241:
Ahmed Salem Table 1: The two groups
Page 242 and 243:
King-Sized eLearning - how Effectiv
Page 244 and 245:
Marie Sams et al. MOB was set up in
Page 246 and 247:
Marie Sams et al. attaching the new
Page 248 and 249:
Marie Sams et al. include time cons
Page 250 and 251:
Rowena Santiago et al. However, whe
Page 252 and 253:
Rowena Santiago et al. 6.1.2 Assign
Page 254 and 255:
Rowena Santiago et al. the original
Page 256 and 257:
Rowena Santiago et al. Together, th
Page 258 and 259:
Vitor Santos and Luis Amaral To bui
Page 260 and 261:
Vitor Santos and Luis Amaral Althou
Page 262 and 263:
Figure 4: Technical architecture Vi
Page 264 and 265:
Implementing and Evaluating Problem
Page 266 and 267:
Maggi Savin-Baden et al. different
Page 268 and 269:
Maggi Savin-Baden et al. and second
Page 270 and 271:
Maggi Savin-Baden et al. important
Page 272 and 273:
The Evolution of eLearning Platform
Page 274 and 275:
Adriana Schiopoiu Burlea et al. Hyp
Page 276 and 277:
Adriana Schiopoiu Burlea et al. Tab
Page 278 and 279:
Adriana Schiopoiu Burlea et al. Eve
Page 280 and 281:
Teachers’ Skills set for Personal
Page 282 and 283:
Zaffar Ahmed Shaikh and Shakeel Ahm
Page 284 and 285:
Zaffar Ahmed Shaikh and Shakeel Ahm
Page 286 and 287:
6. Conclusion and recommendations Z
Page 288 and 289:
Bridging the Feedback Divide Utilis
Page 290 and 291:
Angela Shapiro and Aidan Johnston f
Page 292 and 293:
Angela Shapiro and Aidan Johnston F
Page 294 and 295:
Post-Academic Masters Course in Man
Page 296 and 297:
4. Discussion and conclusion Cees T
Page 298 and 299:
Engagement With Students in ‘Midd
Page 300 and 301:
Anne Smith and Sonya Campbell x y c
Page 302 and 303:
4.3 Student led connectivity Anne S
Page 304 and 305:
Figure 2: Conceptualising ‘middle
Page 306 and 307:
The Learning Management System as a
Page 308 and 309:
Dina Soeiro et al. He was older, ol
Page 310 and 311:
Dina Soeiro et al. specially about
Page 312 and 313:
Can the Medium Extend the Message?
Page 314 and 315:
Mekala Soosay elements under study,
Page 316 and 317:
Mekala Soosay to self and peer-asse
Page 318 and 319:
Mekala Soosay flexible web-based ap
Page 320 and 321:
Implementation and Analysis of an O
Page 322 and 323:
Iain Stewart et al. No-one was con
Page 324 and 325:
Iain Stewart et al. The content sh
Page 326 and 327:
Iain Stewart et al. entry per stude
Page 328 and 329:
Iain Stewart et al. Dolnicar, S, Sh
Page 330 and 331:
2. The research Caroline Stockman a
Page 332 and 333:
Caroline Stockman and Fred Truyen S
Page 334 and 335:
Caroline Stockman and Fred Truyen n
Page 336 and 337:
Caroline Stockman and Fred Truyen s
Page 338 and 339:
PeerWise - The Marmite of Veterinar
Page 340 and 341:
Amanda Sykes et al. recently outlin
Page 342 and 343:
Amanda Sykes et al. activity became
Page 344 and 345:
Amanda Sykes et al. students either
Page 346 and 347:
Category Amanda Sykes et al. Q9 : W
Page 348 and 349:
Amanda Sykes et al. Chang, S-B., Hu
Page 350 and 351:
Nicolet Theunissen and Hester Stubb
Page 352 and 353:
Figure 1: Overall structure Nicolet
Page 354 and 355:
Page 356 and 357:
Page 358 and 359:
References Nicolet Theunissen and H
Page 360 and 361:
Tone Vold This idea phase was under
Page 362 and 363:
Tone Vold process. A synchronous di
Page 364 and 365:
The Effects of Self-Directed Learni
Page 366 and 367:
Chien-hwa Wang and Cheng-ping Chen
Page 368 and 369:
Page 370 and 371:
Page 372 and 373:
Usage Cases: A Useful way to Improv
Page 374 and 375:
Cristina Wanzeller and Orlando Belo
Page 376 and 377:
Page 378 and 379:
Page 380 and 381:
The Virtual Path to Academic Transi
Page 382 and 383:
Julie Watson course overall, with s
Page 384 and 385:
Julie Watson practical and economic
Page 386 and 387:
6. First phase Julie Watson Followi
Page 388 and 389:
Identifying and Locating Frames of
Page 390 and 391:
Ethical approval Katherine Wimpenny
Page 392 and 393:
Katherine Wimpenny et al. SL was a
Page 394 and 395:
Katherine Wimpenny et al. This in t
Page 396 and 397:
Reaction Lecture: Text Messaging to
Page 398 and 399:
Koos Winnips et al. order to make a
Page 400 and 401:
Table 2: Overview of student reacti
Page 402 and 403:
Koos Winnips et al. Students liked
Page 404 and 405:
A Holistic Approach to Instructiona
Page 406 and 407:
Li Zhong Zhang There is a wealth of
Page 408 and 409:
Figure 1: An integrated design fram
Page 410 and 411:
6.1 Design implications Li Zhong Zh
Page 412 and 413:
894
Page 414 and 415:
896
Page 416 and 417:
Nahla Aljojo et al. Adaptive hyperm
Page 418 and 419:
Nahla Aljojo et al. Email: The emai
Page 420 and 421:
Nahla Aljojo et al. Table 3: 16 typ
Page 422 and 423:
Table 7: The results of pairwise co
Page 424 and 425:
Nahla Aljojo et al. fact misleading
Page 426 and 427:
Nahla Aljojo et al. Aljojo, N. & Ad
Page 428 and 429:
Andy Coverdale media and related on
Page 430 and 431:
Andy Coverdale A former interdisci
Page 432 and 433:
Andy Coverdale Whilst new initiativ
Page 434 and 435:
Andy Coverdale the participant inte
Page 436 and 437:
Michael Flavin In a subsequent work
Page 438 and 439:
Michael Flavin labour” nodes) in
Page 440 and 441:
Michael Flavin The lecturer also sp
Page 442 and 443:
Michael Flavin Quality Assurance Ag
Page 444 and 445:
Fortunate Gunzo and Lorenzo Dalvit
Page 446 and 447:
4. Possible scenarios 4.1 Computer
Page 448 and 449:
Fortunate Gunzo and Lorenzo Dalvit
Page 450 and 451:
Collaborative eLearning in a Develo
Page 452 and 453:
Evelyn Kigozi Kahiigi et al. implem
Page 454 and 455:
Evelyn Kigozi Kahiigi et al. includ
Page 456 and 457:
Evelyn Kigozi Kahiigi et al. had ve
Page 458 and 459:
Evelyn Kigozi Kahiigi et al. consid
Page 460 and 461:
Evelyn Kigozi Kahiigi et al. So, H.
Page 462 and 463:
Fabio Serenelli et al. is to identi
Page 464 and 465:
Figure 3: Screenshots of LO3 - Lear
Page 466 and 467:
Managing Essential Processing Foste
Page 468 and 469:
6. Results and analysis Fabio Seren
Page 470 and 471:
Fabio Serenelli et al. Mangiatordi,
Page 472 and 473:
1.2 VLE (Virtual Learning Environme
Page 474 and 475:
Nazime Tuncay and Hüseyin Uzunboyl
Page 476 and 477:
Page 478 and 479:
Figure 4 Response Screen Nazime Tun
Page 480 and 481:
Page 482 and 483:
Figure 12 An Example of Recorded Vi
Page 484 and 485:
Figure 15 VirtualNeu General Menus
Page 486 and 487:
Page 488 and 489:
Page 490 and 491:
972
Page 492 and 493:
Liz Falconer and Manuel Frutos-Pere
Page 494 and 495:
Liz Falconer and Manuel Frutos-Pere
Page 496 and 497:
Extreme Scaffolding in the Teaching
Page 498 and 499:
Dan-Adrian German first exposure to
Page 500 and 501:
Benefits and Barriers: Applying eLe
Page 502 and 503:
Simon McGinnes view on demand. OSD
Page 504 and 505:
986
Page 506 and 507:
988
Page 508 and 509:
Olivia Billingham 2010); gains in c
Page 510 and 511:
Olivia Billingham Deneen, L., (2010
Page 512 and 513:
Karin Levinsen et al. conference or
Page 514 and 515:
Karin Levinsen et al. in order to s
Page 516 and 517:
Peps Mccrea professional engagement
Page 518 and 519:
A Framework for Understanding Onlin
Page 520 and 521:
Sónia Sousa et al. little sense re
Page 522 and 523:
Sónia Sousa et al. Figure 4: The e
Page 524 and 525:
Trust in Distributed Personal Learn
Page 526 and 527:
2.2 LePress Sónia Sousa et al. Per
Page 528 and 529:
Sónia Sousa et al. 3. Elicitation
Page 530 and 531:
Breaking Down Barriers: Development
Page 532 and 533:
Karen Strickland et al. qualitative
Page 534 and 535:
Novita Yulianti et al. Research con
show all

Volume Two - Academic Conferences

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?