Volume Two - Academic Conferences

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, “Academic staff are now taking on some more administrative tasks in setting up and
579