Electronic Submission and Marking Tutors and Students Evaluate ‘Crocodoc’

Workshop Aims Give a brief demonstration of the tool 'Crocodoc' in use. Discuss tutors' and students’ evaluations of the tool. Begin to identify the support that tutors and students need if they are to engage effectively with in-line marking and feedback.

Context Sociology degree course: virtually 100% coursework. External examiners' concerns about plagiarism. Decision to use Turnitin as a formative tool on all modules. Decision to trial the in-line marking tool, 'Crocodoc', on two modules.

Crocodoc Part of the Blackboard suite of tools. For information, see: blackboard-inline-grading/ blackboard-inline-grading/ Allows the annotation of student work in-line

Student Evaluation: Positive Convenient: Work can be submitted anywhere at any time: 'Quick, easy and I can do it in bed!' Feedback is easily accessed and is all in one place for reference (eg it can be ‘cut and pasted’ for use later). Inexpensive: saves on printing and postage costs. Eco-friendly Feedback easier to read.

Student Evaluation: Negative Submission problems: Internet or Blackboard failures; Incompatible document formats; Anxieties about submitting the right document; Submission problems for those with extensions; No receipt given for submission: ‘doesn’t feel safe’. Feedback issues: Not clear where feedback sheets are or even if there are any attached; ‘Not able to see all the feedback’. Does this refer to the annotations on the scripts? 'Don't get a lot of feedback online' (2 comments)

Electronic or hard copy submission? 28 of the 46 students who completed the questionnaire overwhelmingly prefer electronic submission and feedback. 'Blackboard - it's easier for everyone'. One expressed no preference. Ten prefer hard copy submission. One would like to hand in both hard copy and electronically to ensure that tutors receive the work and do not ‘lose’ it. One would like physical submission in term time and electronic submission during the vacations. One would like physical submission and electronic feedback. One would like online submission with both online and hard copy feedback. Three do not mind which kind of submission is used but one of these prefers online feedback.

Tutor Evaluation: Positive Convenient – instant access to marking as soon as it is submitted, wherever you are. Quicker than hard copy marking once you get used to it (if you do not download the essays first to view them in a full screen). Annotation tools are easy to use. Student work and feedback is stored for future reference.

Tutor Evaluation: Negative Submission problems are frequent and time-consuming to sort out. Late submissions have to be tracked and managed by the module leader. Marking online is time-consuming until you get used to it and at-elbow support is needed for tutors. 3 of the 6 tutors who evaluated the tool complained of headache or eye problems which they attributed to online marking. External examiners may not be prepared to examine online and alternative arrangements may have to be made. Tool design issues were the most important topic of negative comments….

Tool Design Issues Some document formats cannot be opened in Crocodoc. The essay window takes up only a third of the screen which makes reading the work difficult. The font in student work changes for no apparent reason. The ‘draw’ tool is inaccurate. Moving between screens is clunky and time-consuming. The essay text became weaker and harder to read once comments had been made. It is not immediately clear where second markers put their comments. Feedback grids have to be uploaded. Essays printed out do not include the comments boxes that tutors have added. It is not clear to students where their feedback grids are – or even if there are any attached.

But..... There is going to be an upgrade of Crocodoc - available very shortly - that addresses some of these issues.

Discussion What support do tutors and students need if they are to engage effectively with in-line marking and feedback?