Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Reviewing institutional policies for electronic...

Electronic data

  • voce-highereducation-2015

    Rights statement: The final publication is available at Springer via https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9813-2

    Accepted author manuscript, 614 KB, PDF document

View graph of relations

Reviewing institutional policies for electronic management of assessment

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article

Published

Standard

Reviewing institutional policies for electronic management of assessment. / Voce, Julie.

In: Higher Education, Vol. 69, No. 6, 2015, p. 915-929.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article

Harvard

Voce, J 2015, 'Reviewing institutional policies for electronic management of assessment', Higher Education, vol. 69, no. 6, pp. 915-929.

APA

Voce, J. (2015). Reviewing institutional policies for electronic management of assessment. Higher Education, 69(6), 915-929.

Vancouver

Author

Voce, Julie. / Reviewing institutional policies for electronic management of assessment. In: Higher Education. 2015 ; Vol. 69, No. 6. pp. 915-929.

Bibtex

@article{cd35895afae04ebaba69053aa121f11c,
title = "Reviewing institutional policies for electronic management of assessment",
abstract = "Electronic assignment submission (e-submission) tools, such as those within course management systems (e.g. Blackboard), or systems such as Turnitin, which enable students to submit coursework online are now one of the main centrally supported institutional tools in Higher Education (HE) in the United Kingdom (UK), however the development of institutional policies for the electronic management of assessment (EMA) has not kept up with the implementation of the technology. This study takes a critical discourse analysis approach to review a selection of EMA policies from UK HE institutions. The results find that the policies are often unclear about the main actors involved in the EMA process and fail to clarify who is responsible for actions. In addition, whilst students feature most frequently in the policies, their role is often back-grounded such that students are not given control of the actions relating to them. The study concludes with guidance aimed at anyone writing their own institutional EMA policy and asserts that policies should be clear about the participants involved and their responsibilities.",
keywords = "e-submission, e-marking, e-feedback, electronic management of assessment, policy, higher education",
author = "Julie Voce",
note = "The final publication is available at Springer via https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9813-2",
year = "2015",
language = "English",
volume = "69",
pages = "915--929",
journal = "Higher Education",
issn = "0018-1560",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "6",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reviewing institutional policies for electronic management of assessment

AU - Voce, Julie

N1 - The final publication is available at Springer via https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9813-2

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - Electronic assignment submission (e-submission) tools, such as those within course management systems (e.g. Blackboard), or systems such as Turnitin, which enable students to submit coursework online are now one of the main centrally supported institutional tools in Higher Education (HE) in the United Kingdom (UK), however the development of institutional policies for the electronic management of assessment (EMA) has not kept up with the implementation of the technology. This study takes a critical discourse analysis approach to review a selection of EMA policies from UK HE institutions. The results find that the policies are often unclear about the main actors involved in the EMA process and fail to clarify who is responsible for actions. In addition, whilst students feature most frequently in the policies, their role is often back-grounded such that students are not given control of the actions relating to them. The study concludes with guidance aimed at anyone writing their own institutional EMA policy and asserts that policies should be clear about the participants involved and their responsibilities.

AB - Electronic assignment submission (e-submission) tools, such as those within course management systems (e.g. Blackboard), or systems such as Turnitin, which enable students to submit coursework online are now one of the main centrally supported institutional tools in Higher Education (HE) in the United Kingdom (UK), however the development of institutional policies for the electronic management of assessment (EMA) has not kept up with the implementation of the technology. This study takes a critical discourse analysis approach to review a selection of EMA policies from UK HE institutions. The results find that the policies are often unclear about the main actors involved in the EMA process and fail to clarify who is responsible for actions. In addition, whilst students feature most frequently in the policies, their role is often back-grounded such that students are not given control of the actions relating to them. The study concludes with guidance aimed at anyone writing their own institutional EMA policy and asserts that policies should be clear about the participants involved and their responsibilities.

KW - e-submission

KW - e-marking

KW - e-feedback

KW - electronic management of assessment

KW - policy

KW - higher education

M3 - Journal article

VL - 69

SP - 915

EP - 929

JO - Higher Education

JF - Higher Education

SN - 0018-1560

IS - 6

ER -