From piloting e-submission to electronic management of assessment (EMA): Mapping grading journeys

British Journal of Educational Technology

Volumn 49, Issue 3, 2018, Pages 463-478

  Vergés Bausili, Anna ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EDUCATION; QUALITY ASSURANCE; SOFTWARE DESIGN; STUDENTS;

ASSESSMENT PRACTICES; ASSESSMENT PROCESS; ELECTRONIC MANAGEMENT; FEEDBACK TO STUDENTS; HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS; INDEPENDENT VARIABLES; INSTITUTIONALISATION; PARTICIPANT OBSERVATIONS;

GRADING;

EID: 85013380320     PISSN: 00071013     EISSN: 14678535     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/bjet.12547     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Bird, A. (2011). Challenges in developing e-submission policy and practice. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on E-Learning, Brighton Business School, University of Brighton, Brighton, UK, November 10-11.
2. Buckley, E., & Cowap, L. (2013). An evaluation of the use of Turnitin for electronic submission and marking and as a formative feedback tool from an educator's perspective. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44, 562–570.
3. Chew, E. (2010). Turn it in or turn it off? A Pilot Project for Turnitin and Grademark Experience. Project report (pp. 1–28). Glamorgan, Wales: University of Glamorgan.
4. Djordjevic, A., & Milward, S. (2012). Online coursework management evaluation (OCME). Exeter, UK: University of Exeter.
5. Ellis, C., & Reynolds, C. (2013). Evaluating the Benefits of Electronic Assessment Management (EBEAM). Final report (pp. 1–122). Huddersfield, UK: University of Huddersfield.
6. Ferrell, G. (2012). A view of the assessment and feedback landscape: baseline analysis of policy and practice from the JISC assessment & feedback programme. A report for JISC. (pp. 1–22). Bristol: JISC. Retrieved 25 September 2015 from https://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearning/Assessment/JISCAFBaselineReportMay2012.pdf.
7. Ferrell, G. (2014). Electronic management of assessment (EMA): a landscape review (pp. 1–46). Bristol: JiSC. Retrieved 25 September 2015, from: http://repository.jisc.ac.uk/id/eprint/5599.
8. Ferrell, G., & Gray, L. (2013). Electronic management of assessment guides. London: JiSC.
9. Ferrell, G., & Gray, L. (2016). Electronic management of assessment in higher education: processes and systems (pp. 1–13). Bristol, UK: JiSC.
10. Howe, R. (2013). SaGE survey 2013 (pp. 1–5). Northampton, UK: University of Northampton.
11. Newland, B., Martin, L., Bird, A., & Masika, R. (2013). HeLF—Electronic management of assessment survey report: heads of elearning forum (pp. 1–17). Retrieved from http://helfuk.blogspot.co.uk/p/projects.html.
12. Pal, J., Duran, X., Feathersone, S., Khurshed, A., & Salehnejad, R. (2014). Focus on Feedback Project. Report prepared for the Manchester business school teaching academy (pp. 1–21). Manchester, UK: Manchester Business School.
13. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). London: Sage.
14. Slaouti, D., & Harris, D. P. (2012). Focus on the formative in formative feedback: identifying implications for online marking practices through grademark. Manchester, UK: University of Manchester.
15. Struyven, K., Dochy, F., & Janssens, S. (2005). Students' perceptions about evaluation and assessment in higher education: a review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30, 325–341.
16. University of Glamorgan (2012). Evaluation of Assessment Diaries and GradeMark at the University of Glamorgan. Final Report. Glamorgan, Wales.
17. University of Manchester Humanities (2013). eAssignment Progress Report (2012-2013) (pp. 1–27). Manchester, UK: Faculty of Humanities. Retrieved May 4, 2015, from http://www.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/tandl/policyandprocedure/documents/eAssessment_Project_Report_2013_14_May2014_v.2.2.pdf.