Promoting paperless approaches to quality assurance and enhancement procedures: a university departmental case study.

The paperless office remains an unfulfilled goal for many businesses and organisations. In the Higher Education context the number and diversity of information and IT systems, coupled with a historic expectation of academic freedom and individual practice, has often militated against drives towards paperless quality assurance. The complex and sometimes fluid management structures in Higher Education (HE) coupled with the unpredictability of budgets and complex planning processes account in part for a typical melange of information systems, often procured piecemeal, and variable practice in their usage at the local level. Often data has to be exported from one system and massaged before being input into another. What might appear to be a simple activity – such as marking a student script – might require access to a student record system, a virtual learning environment, a portal, a University Website, a plagiarism detection facility and so on. Marking of student work has for many years featured aspects of electronic submission, electronic marking and interoperability between systems. However, submission of paper-based artefacts and marking by provision of handwritten comments and feedback is still commonplace. The goal of eliminating paper submissions has often been impeded by concerns over satisfying other quality assurance procedures or by the concerns of individuals and groups about changes to their working practices. This paper presents a case study showing how judicious implementation and exploitation of systems and careful design of human processes can assist in the elimination of paper artefacts in the management and delivery of study programmes in HE. The project was undertaken through a desire to achieve better communications with all stakeholders in the academic processes and to achieve a richer staff and student experience. The outcome was a number of streamlined procedures, improved student engagement and better management information. Additional benefits in the student experience, in external examination processes and in the archiving of historic data were also obtained.

[1]  G. Boulton‐Lewis Teaching for quality learning at university , 2008 .

[2]  I. Vernersson Open University Press , 2000 .

[3]  Ronald D. Simpson,et al.  Practical Considerations When Using Benchmarking for Accountability in Higher Education , 2005 .

[4]  David Cobham,et al.  Undergraduate students: Interactive, online experiences and ePortfolio development , 2011, 2011 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Communication Software and Networks.

[5]  Thomas N. Garavan,et al.  Implementing a quality management framework in a higher education organisation: A case study , 2012 .

[6]  Mantz Yorke,et al.  The Management of Assessment in Higher Education , 1998 .

[7]  Stephen Brown,et al.  From VLEs to learning webs: the implications of Web 2.0 for learning and teaching , 2010, Interact. Learn. Environ..

[8]  Barbara Crossouard Reforms to higher education assessment reporting: opportunities and challenges , 2010 .

[9]  Dave Chaffey,et al.  Business Information Management , 2006 .

[10]  Richard Walker,et al.  A longitudinal perspective regarding the use of VLEs by higher education institutions in the United Kingdom , 2006, Interact. Learn. Environ..

[11]  J. Biggs,et al.  Teaching For Quality Learning At University , 1999 .

[12]  Davide Ferrari,et al.  Web‐based versus paper‐based data collection for the evaluation of teaching activity: empirical evidence from a case study , 2011 .

[13]  Peter G. Bradford,et al.  The Blackboard Learning System: The Be All and End All in Educational Instruction? , 2007 .

[14]  Eva Heinrich,et al.  An Investigation into E-Tool Use for Formative Assignment Assessment - Status and Recommendations , 2009, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[15]  M'hammed Abdous,et al.  E-Learning Quality Assurance: A Process-Oriented Lifecycle Model. , 2009 .

[16]  Stanley Goldberg,et al.  The General Theory of Relativity , 1984 .

[17]  P. Dirac General Theory of Relativity , 1975 .

[18]  Charles R. Graham,et al.  Understanding the experiences of instructors as they adopt a course management system , 2007 .

[19]  David Morrison,et al.  Recommendations for the use of e‐tools for improvements around assignment marking quality , 2009 .

[20]  Bernard C. Williams Business Information Systems: Analysis, Design and Practice , 1991 .

[21]  Gareth R.T. White,et al.  Business Information Management: Improving Performance Using Information Systems , 2004 .