Marking and production of feedback is probably the most problematic component of the life-cycle as it is the area where the fit between institutional processes and the functionality of commercially available IT systems is least well matched. We are hearing very clear messages from the sector that existing systems do not adequately meet institutional requirements in these areas.
The University of Manchester, Faculty of Humanities, as produced a very useful analysis of gaps between current functionality and what systems need to be able to do to support institutional marking processes (see our earlier blog post about their range of marking models). The analysis is of course based on that particular institution’s systems profile which is:
– VLE: Blackboard 9 SP14;
– Turnitin/Grademark Building Block: Basic 2.5.28 & Bb Assignment
– Student Record System: Campus Solutions/People Soft
The recommendations for enhancement therefore relate particularly to the Turnitin product. We are grateful to the University (and especially Anna Verges-Bausili) for permission to share this analysis (current as of 29/6/14). We have undertaken limited editing and renumbering to facilitate your commentary and we would like to invite your thoughts on how well this analysis matches your priorities.
1. Security requirements (Must have)
1.1 Lock down of marker comments including at Post Date;
1.2 Identification and tracking of any further comments made (user ID, date) after Post Date.
2. Requirements for administrative roles (Must have)
2.1 Ability to identify submissions by ID number
2.2 Ability to identify non-submissions or non-anonymised read only interface to allow identification of non-submitters and late submissions by administrative staff.
2.3 Ability to batch download original submissions before Post Date and to do so by ID number -not assignment title
3. Requirements for academic roles (changes expected from Tii by end of 2014)
3.1 Sampling ability: New function to select and retain assignments anonymised after post date for subsequent moderation/external examiner access.
3.2 Ability to handle large cohorts by multiple markers: Enhance the assignment by groups facility to makes moderation processes in large cohorts either between multiple markers or between GTAs, a non-manual and time consuming process.
3.3 Second marking:
3.3.1 Distinct ‘voice’, i.e. facility to distinguish second marker comments
if appropriate, e.g. Teaching Assistant as first marker, with lead academic adding additional comments before Post Date
3.3.2 Ability to record second markers mark
3.3.3 Additional ability to control visibility of 2nd marker comments
3.3.4 Ability to download second markers comments
3.4.1 Ability to provide online Read only access to all papers or to a selected sample
3.4.2 Ability to add comments addressed to Instructor/academic team only i.e. not being visible to the student
3.4.3 Version control on Grade (Add ‘moderated’ grade that does not override student original indicative grade)
3.4.5 Ability to download moderators comments
3.5 Blind second marking features:
3.5.1 Ability to mark second copy of assignment (with no access to first copy).
3.5.2 Ability to download second marker comments
3.5.3 Assignments by Groups view that allows the identification of moderation samples (by grade) and moderation between markers
3.6 Document viewer enhancements for marking:
3.6.1 Ability to lift/cut text from document viewer
3.6.2 Ability to resize document to individually-defined optimal size and to resize comments side bar
3.6.3 Ability to scroll down to 1-page-view at a time and mouse scroll to move faster down/up document
3.6.4 Search facility within the Document viewer
3.6.5 Ability to save and re-use general documents as well as the ability to use formatting in comments e.g. bold, underline, auto-numbering
3.7 PC offline marking
3.8 email notification of submission in some cases e.g. administrators to receive notification of submissions by students with mitigation circumstances.
3.9 Greater downloading flexibility:
3.9.1 to bulk download original student submissions before post date, and the downloaded files to retain individual ID number in file name
3.9.2 to download spreadsheet of marks before post-date
3.9.3 to download audio feedback files for both student and Institution retention.
3.10 Group assignment capability i.e. whereby 1 student in a group can submit to Turnitin and academic feedback is returned to all students in the group.
4. Enhancements (Should have/could have)
4.1 Selective word count i.e. word count that excludes references and footnotes.
4.2 Greater file upload limit
4.3 Ability to mark with native applications
4.4 Ability to provide feedback with mathematical characters/formulae
4.5 Compatibility with speech recognition software.
4.6 Ability to upload a file with comments
4.7 Process overview interface: ability to identify at which stage in the assessment processes student submissions are
4.8 External examiner specific requirements: ability to grant to external examiners view access only, ability to identify a moderation sample and/or restrict access to only to some submissions in Assignment inbox.
4.9 Marking with a wider range of tablets (other than iPad) e.g. Android
5. eLearning Reporting Requirements
To be able to overview uptake of online submission and online marking, a monitoring/reporting functionality is needed to be able to identify courses across Schools/Faculties that are using Turnitin and those courses which are using Grademark.