1. Technology to support the transition from paper based to electronic modes of feedback and assessment Mark Dransfield, Technology Enhanced Learning Advisor & University Teaching Fellow Nikki Swift, Senior Teaching Fellow, York St John Business School

2. Background of e-marking and feedback in the University 2007/8 Pilot projects (video feedback link) 2008 e-submission working group 2009: University Quality of the Student Experience (QSEC) committee decided to implement e-submission across the university from 2010/11 2010: The Dean of the Business School decides to implement e-feedback across the Business School 2010: STEF project funding granted through L&TD

3. Wanted to find a range of methods for people to mark electronically which they were personally comfortable with

4. Initial aims of the STEF project To embed e-marking and feedback in the Business School To gain an understanding of the impact of new technologies on e-marking and feedback To inform the University of the most efficient and practical ways of working with these technologies, potentially avoiding investing in unworkable/impractical technologies To share knowledge with the University and the sector of attitudes to marking on screen

5. Advocacy Advocacy: Posters, workshops, postcards and informal chats

6. Method 2 members of staff were approached to try providing electronic feedback using dual monitors and an iPad All Business School staff were invited to complete an online survey which included an opportunity to express an interest in joining the project Participating staff were interviewed to elicit their requirements and attitudes to e-marking

7. Survey data results In November 2010, a questionnaire was sent out to all members of academic staff within the Business School (41 full-time and part-time) with the aims of: gathering information related to attitudes around e-submission and marking in the Business School identifying potential advocates and disaffected members of staff identifying participants for the project The number of responses was 24, representing a 57% response rate.

8. Equipment used iPads Digital Pen & Lightweight laptop Macbook Air Kindle Dual Monitors TurnitinUK & Grademark

9. iPad demo

10. iPads Positive reports: – Useful to be able to access your marking anywhere, e.g. on the train – Very useful for meetings and email Negative reports: – iTunes not available on networked PCs – People experienced problems during initial setup with personal iTunes account (not so much a problem with iOS5) – Complex process of getting assignments on to the ipad and back to Moodle – Complex administrative process of purchasing apps – gifting – Poor quality annotations/fiddly to do – Didnt replicate marking on paper closely enough – Some people didnt complete the project as desired

11. 1 Digital pen & lightweight laptop Link to YouTube video Feedback from user

12. 1 Macbook Air Most powerful and light First ultrabook style on the market Shift of operating system (YSJ a Microsoft House)

13. Kindle Some information from Keith

14. Dual monitors Some findings from dual monitors – explored further in practical stuff Findings from the project led on to most of the faculty being equipped with DMs Negatives of being fixed to a location (work!)

15. TurnitinUK & Grademark

16. Drawbacks observed in the early stages of the project The steps required to secure student work during the download/upload of annotated scripts to Moodle are time consuming and can add a lot of time to the assessment process On screen marking using PCs is reported to be very slow. We considered whether this could be due to: – Reading/scanning/reviewing small section of text at once – Being a new method of working which may speed up with experience

17. Benefits observed in the early stages of the project Hardware purchases were reported to improve staff efficiency in other areas (time management, email access on the go etc.) Ease of access to documents Materials are accessible by External Examiners

18. Second Phase – Year 2 11 ipad users 2 Asus tablet users

19. Mentoring Buddies Length of project restrictive – 3 semesters Staff reluctant to ask for assistance Basic use is reasonably intuitive Staff workloads/time constraints meant Unofficial support system?

20. Impact of the project Year 1 29% involved in the project Year 2 44% directly involved in the project, but all having benefitted from dual screens

21. Emerging Aims of the project To consider the impact of working with mobile technologies on data security To consider the impact of e-marking and feedback on student perceptions of feedback To consider the impact of e-marking and feedback on staff time and feedback turnaround times

22. Findings Mismatch between expectations and what the technology is capable of Time is a major issue for almost everyone involved in the project No one size fits all solution, people have to find their own preferred methods Attitudes are mixed, some love it and some hate it (new staff are more accepting generally)

23. The Future Opinions are not uniform – some staff have welcomed e-marking Opinions are divided over different devices Upload to VLE is being supported by admin staff New devices coming soon with different/improved stylus technology, e.g. Galaxy Note 10.1