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
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
}
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 -