The use of Tablet PCs for marking physics assignments
Jonathan Underwood* and Stuart Freake,
Department of Physics and Astronomy, The Open University
[ * now at Department of Physics and Astronomy, University College, London]
December 2007
Abstract
Marking and commenting on electronic tutor marked assignments (eTMAs) requires
a simple and efficient method for tutors to annotate students’ scripts. We report here
on a pilot project that provided associate lecturers (ALs) for a Level 2 physics course
with Tablet PCs and appropriate software that enabled them to input handwritten
annotation, including equations and diagrams, to files containing students'
assignment solutions. Surveys of ALs’ views indicated that this method of marking
eTMAs is effective and acceptable to students and to a large majority of ALs.
1
Introduction
The majority of Open University courses are assessed by a combination of tutor
marked assignments (TMAs), which are submitted by students at intervals during the
presentation of a course, and an end-of course examination. The TMAs are marked
by associate lecturers (ALs, also known as tutors), who are based at different
locations around the country and are each responsible for a group of about 25
students. The traditional method of producing and marking TMAs is paper based: a
student writes their answers to the assignment questions on paper (or wordprocesses them and prints them out), they use the postal system to mail the
assignment to their AL, who marks and comments on the assignment by annotating
the student’s script and completing a cover form (the PT3 form). The AL sends
marked assignments and PT3 forms to the Open University in Milton Keynes, where
the marks are recorded in a database, a sample of scripts are copied so that each
AL’s marking can be monitored, and the scripts are then posted back to students.
This system involves shuffling large quantities of paper around the country and there
are delays, expenses and inconvenience associated with the postal system and with
the transcription of marks and the copying of assignments for monitoring. Now that
OU students and ALs are expected to have access to a computer and the internet,
some of the delays, costs and inconvenience can be reduced by handling TMAs
electronically.
The OU has developed a system for handling electronic tutor marked assignments
(eTMAs), and is encouraging course teams and students to use this system
wherever possible. The eTMA system allows students to submit electronic files
containing their assignments over the internet to a file handling system on a server in
Milton Keynes. ALs download the eTMA files for their students from the server, mark
and comment on the eTMAs offline, and then return the marked scripts over the
internet to the server in Milton Keynes, where marks are automatically recorded in
the appropriate database and a sample of scripts is made available for monitors to
download for monitoring. Students can then download their marked assignment from
the central server. This system has many advantages for students, ALs and the OU
over the paper-based assignment system that relies on the post office for moving the
assignments around the country, but it also has some disadvantages.
1
Gibbs and Simpson (2004) established a list of conditions under which assessment
effectively supports learning. A key finding of this work was that it is essential that
“feedback is timely in that it is received by students while it still matters to them and
in time for them to pay attention to further learning or receive further assistance”. This
issue was also highlighted in the ‘seven principles of good practice in undergraduate
education’ (Chickering and Gamson, 1987, 1991). The eTMA system in principle
allows ALs to give more rapid feedback to students following the cut-off date for the
assignment than does the paper-based system.
However, the benefits of rapid feedback could be more than offset if the time required
for students to produce an eTMA were significantly longer than to produce a paper
TMA, so that their time is diverted from learning physics. The benefits might also be
offset if a longer time were required for ALs to mark eTMAs to the same standard as
paper TMAs, so that the quality and quantity of feedback provided to students were
reduced. Assignments for physics and astronomy courses (and courses in some
other disciplines too) generally involve large amounts of mathematical notation,
equations and diagrams. Many OU students do not have the skills required to
incorporate equations and diagrams into a word-processed file, and for some of
those who do have these skills the additional time required compared with
handwriting an assignment is prohibitive. However, these students might be able to
scan a handwritten TMA, combine the resulting image files into a single document
and submit this electronically. When marking eTMAs, ALs also need to be able to
insert equations and diagrams, and for them the time required to do this is generally
the major issue. Keyboard and mouse based tools, such as equation editors and line
drawing programs, are much more time consuming to use compared with annotating
a paper script with a pen.
The pilot project described in this report was set up to investigate ways in which ALs
could mark physics eTMAs easily, and could incorporate equations and diagrams just
as they would if they were marking a paper assignment. There were four main
requirements that we wanted to meet.
• Students should be able to prepare their TMA answers using the tools that they
find easiest, and should not have to purchase any proprietary software. Scanned
handwritten submissions should be acceptable.
• ALs should be provided with only one program that they had to learn to use to
mark and annotate assignments efficiently, including annotation with equations and
diagrams, without incurring an increase in workload. The marking software should
therefore be usable whatever the file formats submitted by students.
• The annotated file returned by the AL had to be readable by the student. Formats
that would be difficult for some students to open are not acceptable.
• No content or information – including the mathematical content – should be lost at
any stage of the process.
For this project we recommended using the pdf file format for marking, since it is
possible to use free software that installs a ‘virtual printer’ that can ‘print’ from any
program that the student uses to create a pdf file. The pdf file can be annotated with
the Tablet PC pen using PDF Annotator software in the same way that an AL would
annotate a paper TMA. The annotated file can then be saved in pdf format and
returned to the student to be read using Adobe Reader
2
A second eTMA marking project within the Centre for Open Learning of Maths,
Science, Computing and Technology has investigated the use of Tablet PCs for
marking eTMAs for a Technology course using Windows Journal rather than PDF
Annotator (Fisher, 2007).
Another CETL project was set up in 2007 to investigate use of digital pens for
producing eTMAs. About 30 S207 students were provided with digital pens, so that
they could submit handwritten assignments via the eTMA system (Gorfinkiel 2007).
2
The project
In March 2006 the Physics Innovations Centre for Excellence in Teaching and
Learning (πCETL) at the Open University agreed to fund a pilot project to investigate
the use of Tablet PCs by ALs for marking assignments. All of the ALs who were
tutoring a Level 2 physics course, S207 The physical world, were invited to
participate in the project. Since the project was set up after the start of the course,
participation by both ALs and students was optional, and 19 of the 24 ALs agreed to
take part. The participating ALs were provided with a Tablet PC (Toshiba Tecra M4),
with appropriate software installed, to enable them to add handwritten annotation to a
student’s eTMA file.
Students were informed about the pilot project at the end of March 2006, and told
about some of the benefits of using the eTMA system. They were told that not all ALs
were participating, that student participation was optional, and that they should
discuss with their AL whether eTMA submission was possible and what formats were
acceptable for their eTMA files. It was left up to individual ALs to decide how much
encouragement they gave to students to submit their assignments electronically.
The timing of the approval of the project and of despatch of the Tablet PCs meant
that electronic submission was not possible for the first assignment (TMA01) in 2006,
but most of the ALs were prepared to accept eTMAs for the second and subsequent
assignments (TMA02 – TMA07). In 2007, all students could opt to submit
electronically, and all ALs were expected to mark and return eTMAs electronically.
2.1
Marking procedures with the Tablet PC
ALs had a number of options for marking and commenting on eTMAs using the
Tablet PC.
2.1.1
Ink annotation of a pdf file using PDF Annotator
We decided to recommend the PDF file format for marking, since it is consistent with
all four requirements listed at the end of Section 1. The Tablet PCs were sent out
with the PDF Creator application installed (Chinery and Heindörfer). This application
creates a ‘virtual printer’ that can be used to convert into pdf format any file that can
be opened and printed from the Tablet PC. The AL simply opens a student's eTMA
file – which requires that an appropriate application is installed on the Tablet PC –
selects Print and chooses PDF Creator as the printing device. 'Printing' the file then
produces a pdf version of the file, which is stored in a location specified by the AL,
rather than printing out on paper. PDF Creator allows the user to combine a number
of different files into a single pdf file.
3
The AL then opens the pdf file from the PDF Annotator application (Grahl Software
Design), which was also preinstalled on the Tablet PC. With the computer in the
tablet configuration, the pdf file can be annotated by writing on the screen with the
tablet pen in exactly the same way that a paper assignment would be annotated with
a conventional pen, but with various advantages:
- it is easy to change pen colour and line width – so it's possible to colour code
different types of comments;
- it is easy to erase or correct comments;
- it is easy to move or resize comments;
- it is possible to save comments as macros that can then be inserted easily
elsewhere in the same document or in other documents;
- it is easy to insert blank pages for additional comments, or to append files (such as
specimen answers).
When the AL has finished marking, they ‘melt’ the annotation so that it becomes a
permanent part of the document, they save the file in pdf format and follow the
standard procedures for returning the eTMA to the OU server. The student
downloads the marked assignment from the server and opens the file using Acrobat
Reader.
One facility that was not available in PDF Annotator in 2006 was for the input of text
using the keyboard. When this application was running, the keyboard was disabled,
so even if the computer were in the laptop configuration rather than the tablet
configuration, it was only possible to annotate a document using the tablet pen.
However, an upgrade to PDF Annotator (version 1.5.0.108, released May 2007) now
allows simple text to be keyed into a text box, and ALs were able to make use of this
facility when marking the later TMAs for the 2007 presentation of the course. Mixing
keyboard entry and tablet pen entry is not particularly easy, since it involves
switching back and forth between using the laptop configuration and using the tablet
configuration. Switching between the two configurations of the screen takes about 15
seconds, which is not an unreasonable overhead, but the switchover is somewhat
clumsy and it is not clear whether the hinge mechanism for the screen is designed for
such frequent use. An alternative procedure used by some ALs is to connect a USB
keyboard to the Tablet PC, so that both keyboard entry and tablet pen entry are
possible in the tablet configuration.
2.1.2
Ink annotation using Microsoft Word
A large majority of the S207 eTMAs are submitted as Word documents, and so a
second option for eTMA marking is for ALs to use the Ink tools available in the Tablet
PC version of Word 2003, which was installed on the computers that were provided.
In contrast to the PDF Annotator approach described above, employing Word for
marking requires that the student submits the TMA in a file format compatible with
the version of Word used by the AL. Problems with equations can arise when a
document produced in Word 97 is opened in Word 2003, though no ALs reported
experiencing any such problems.
The Ink Annotation tool can be used to write with the tablet pen anywhere in an open
Word document, and, as with PDF Annotator, it is possible to change pen colour and
line width, to erase ink marks, and to reposition and resize comments. It is also
possible to use the Ink Comment tool to insert comments in the margin. This is
similar to using the normal Insert Comment feature in Word, except that the
comments are handwritten in a balloon in the right margin using the tablet pen.
These comments can include equations and diagrams.
4
When the AL has finished marking the script, the file is saved in .doc format for return
to the student via the eTMA system.
Keyboard entry is always available while Word is running, so it is possible to switch
back and forth between using the keyboard to enter simple text in the laptop
configuration and using the tablet pen to enter equations and figures in the tablet
configuration. Again, combining keyboard entry and tablet pen entry is much more
straightforward if an external keyboard is used with the Tablet PC.
2.1.3
Ink annotation using Windows Journal
A third way to mark eTMAs with a Tablet PC is to convert the student’s file to a
Windows Journal file and then to annotate this file using the tablet pen. As with PDF
Creator, Windows Journal installs a virtual printer with which any printable file
submitted by a student can be converted to a Windows Journal file (.jnt), and this file
can then be annotated in much the same way as a pdf file is annotated using PDF
Annotator. This option was not suggested to S207 ALs, and none of them apparently
discovered or used this method, but this was the approach used in a COLMSCT
Tablet PC trial with a Technology course (Fisher, 2007).
3
Evaluation
After completion of the 2006 presentation of S207, a brief questionnaire was emailed
to the ALs who had participated in the pilot project, and 15 of the 19 participants
responded. A more comprehensive questionnaire was emailed at the end of 2007 to
the 24 ALs involved in that year’s presentation, and 23 of them responded. For both
years, information about the number of paper TMAs and eTMAs marked by each AL
for each of the course assignments was obtained from the assignment handling
database.
number of TMAs
Number of eTMAs submitted The number of eTMAs submitted by S207 students
and their percentage of the total number of TMAs submitted have grown steadily, as
shown in Figures 1 and 2. It is noteworthy that whilst the number of paper TMAs
decreased by about 50% during each presentation, the number of eTMAs initially
increased each year and only decreased slightly for the last few TMAs. However, we
cannot say whether the relative stability of the number of eTMAs submitted in the
second half of the course is due to better retention of students who use the eTMA
system or to students moving from paper submission to electronic submission to
counteract drop out by eTMA users. At the end of 2006 25% of TMAs were being
submitted electronically, and this percentage had increased to almost 40% by the
end of 2007.
300
eTMAs
paper TMAs
200
100
A0
7
TM
A0
6
TM
A0
5
TM
A0
4
TM
A0
3
TM
A0
2
TM
A0
1
TM
A0
7
TM
A0
6
TM
A0
5
TM
A0
4
TM
A0
3
TM
TM
A0
2
0
Figure 1 Number of eTMAs and paper TMAs submitted for each assignment during 2006
(shown on the left half of the chart) and 2007 (shown on the right).
5
30
20
10
A0
7
TM
A0
6
TM
A0
5
TM
A0
4
TM
A0
3
TM
A0
2
TM
A0
1
TM
A0
7
TM
A0
6
TM
A0
5
TM
A0
4
TM
TM
TM
A0
3
0
A0
2
% TMAs submitted
electronically
40
Figure 2 Percentage of TMAs submitted electronically for each assignment during 2006
(shown on the left) and 2007 (shown on the right).
56
-6
0
51
-5
5
46
-5
0
41
-4
5
36
-4
0
31
-3
5
26
-3
0
21
-2
5
16
-2
0
11
-1
5
610
2006
2007
60
-6
5
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
05
number of ALs
There was a wide variation in the use of eTMAs by different tutor groups. Figure 3
shows the numbers of ALs receiving different percentages of eTMAs. In 2006 12 of
the 19 ALs received less than 20% of their TMAs electronically and only two received
more than 40% as eTMAs. In contrast, the 2007 data show only five of the 24 ALs
received less than 20% eTMAs and 12 received more than 40%.
eTMAs marked / %
Figure 3 Number of ALs receiving different percentages of eTMAs in 2006 and 2007.
One possible explanation for the disparities between the submissions of eTMAs by
different tutor groups is that ALs varied in their stance towards eTMA submission. In
the 2007 questionnaire, ALs were asked about this, and most of them said that they
took a fairly neutral stance, indicating advantages and disadvantages of esubmission, but also indicating that they were happy to accept either form and it was
up to individual students to decide. There is some evidence that AL who encouraged
students to try the eTMA system, or who indicated a personal preference for
electronic marking received a higher percentage of eTMAs: the AL who received
61% of TMAs electronically “said I’d prefer eTMAs, and emphasised that the choice
was theirs”, whereas an AL who only received three eTMAs did not say anything
about the different submission routes to their students. However, there were also ALs
who encouraged e-submission but with little response, and those who were neutral
but received a high percentage of eTMAs.
Of course, pushing eTMAs too hard could be counterproductive, and lead to
increased drop out by students who do not want to use the eTMA system. There is
no evidence that this is happening. One measure of retention is the total number of
TMAs submitted to an AL as a percentage of the number expected if all initially
registered students had submitted all assignments. The correlation between this
figure and the percentage of assignments submitted to an AL as eTMAs was very
small and positive (R = 0.10), which indicates a small but insignificant increase in
retention with increasing eTMA submission rate.
6
During 2007, 29% of the students registered at the start of the course submitted at
least one eTMA. About 13% of the students who submitted an eTMA reverted to
paper submission for a subsequent TMA. In some cases the reversion was
temporary – a student on holiday with no access to a computer, a student who
wanted to practice writing answers in preparation for the exam – but in other cases
students decided that paper submission was easier or that they could not spare the
extra time required to prepare an eTMA.
Format of the eTMA files submitted ALs reported that (70%) of the eTMAs
submitted in 2007 were word-processed, including the equations and diagrams.
About 20% were largely word-processed, but with equations and/or diagrams
produced by hand, scanned and images inserted into the document, and another
10% of eTMAs were completely handwritten and then scanned. Most of the eTMAs
(83%) were submitted as Word doc files, but small percentages were submitted in
other word-processor formats, as pdf files or as image files.
Marking procedures used by ALs In 2007 the ALs were approximately equally
split between those who converted files to pdf format and then marked using PDF
Annotator, and those who marked using Word. Most of the ALs who opted to use
Word for marking did not receive any files in other formats, and this may have been
because they specifically asked students to submit eTMAs as doc files. A variety of
approaches were used when marking in Word; most ALs used both keyboard and
tablet pen entry, but a couple opted not to use the Tablet PC and used a
conventional computer for inserting text boxes and comments (using Track
Changes). None of the S207 ALs used the Windows Journal application.
Difficulties in learning how to use the marking system ALs were asked in 2006
whether they had problems learning how to use the Tablet PC or the associated
software. Even though the only information that they had received was the standard
user manuals for the computer and the software, there were few reported problems.
One person was averse to the use of an additional computer and did not complete
the setting up of the machine because they were put off by 'problems' discussed by
colleagues on the S207 AL FirstClass forum; however, they received no eTMAs so
had no impetus to engage with the system. A few tutors said they would have
appreciated more guidance on the conversion of files to pdf format and on the use of
PDF Annotator, and one commented that the use of Print File in PDF Creator to
produce a pdf file was counterintuitive. A couple of ALs thought there should be
explicit guidance about how to insert pages into a script for additional comments. The
other comments made by ALs were related to difficulties experienced in learning how
to use the standard eTMA file handling system. One AL handed the training materials
to his (presumably IT-literate) son, who then trained him (and received the training
fee). During 2007 we produced a document that provided guidance on the use of the
Tablet PC for marking and this was distributed to all S207 ALs. This document will be
available in future years for ALs who are new to this method of marking.
Ergonomic considerations Six tutors said that it took them some time to find a
comfortable way to mark using the Tablet PC. Three of them found that it was difficult
to use the Tablet PC while wearing varifocal glasses, and two of them overcame this
problem by using single prescription lenses while marking. Two ALs worked with the
tablet on their laps and another found that they had to use a lower working surface.
One AL found using the Tablet PC so uncomfortable that he minimised use of it in
the tablet mode by connecting an external monitor, keyboard and mouse to the
Tablet PC and only using pen input for equations or diagrams that could not be
copied or referred to. In future it would be appropriate to provide some 'ergonomic'
advice as part of the guidance to ALs on the use of the Tablet PC for eTMA marking.
7
Advantages of using the Tablet PC The ALs were asked about the advantages of
using the Tablet PC compared with paper marking, and the points they mentioned
were:

the ability to annotate eTMAs in the same way that they would annotate paper
TMAs;

the ability to erase comments, or to revise them; they were pleased that they
did not need to use correction fluid or to cross out comments; they thought
their comments were often more considered, since they could be changed if
necessary after reading a later part of the answer;

no longer needing to contend with the piles of paper associated with
conventional TMA marking; also, the pages can't get out of order;

the ability to copy and paste comments between different TMAs;

comments could be more legible – though it may be necessary to write more
slowly, or to rewrite comments;

the ease of inserting relevant parts of the specimen answers;

several ALs said that eTMA marking requires less time than conventional
marking;

automated PT3 addition avoids errors in part marks and totals;

improved turnaround time, particularly for students outside the UK;

avoids use of the paper-based mail delivery system; it is easier to upload
marked eTMAs than to post paper TMAs; eTMAs can be accessed anywhere
that there is a broadband connection.
Ongoing problems and disadvantages of using the Tablet PC for marking In
addition to the ergonomic considerations noted above, the main ongoing problems
and disadvantages mentioned were:

some ALs found that it took longer to mark eTMAs;

converting files to pdf format was tedious;

it was difficult to trawl through pages to get an overview to ensure that the
comments were appropriate, or difficult to lay out pages and compare several
scripts to ensure consistency;

it was inconvenient to switch between different students’ files when marking
each question as a batch;

it was not as convenient as paper for marking while waiting in the car;

in 2006 it was not possible to use the keyboard while running PDF Annotator;
ALs wanted the ability to insert both typed comments and handwritten
comments on the students’ eTMA script; the May 2007 release of version
1.5.0.108 of PDF Annotator provided this facility; however, ALs found that
switching between laptop and tablet modes was a bit inconvenient; some ALs
avoided this inconvenience by using an external keyboard connected to a
USB port on the Tablet PC;

it is not possible to cut and paste in PDF Annotator;

students who previously submitted early, perhaps because of uncertainties
about the postal service, tend to delay eTMA submission until just before the
deadline.
8
In fact, many of the advantages and disadvantages noted by ALs apply equally to the
standard eTMA marking system, and they are not Tablet PC specific. However, since
the S207 ALs had not experienced the standard eTMA system, it is not surprising
that they focused on how the eTMA system that they were using differed from the
familiar paper-based system rather than how it differed from the standard eTMA
marking system. Thus none of the ALs explicitly mentioned in their responses to the
survey the major advantage of the Tablet PC compared with marking using the
standard eTMA system – namely the ease of inserting equations or diagrams –
though this was commented on in the AL forum during the year.
Student feedback The small amount of feedback that ALs received from students
who submitted eTMAs was positive, with most of the comments about the quick
turnaround and the ability to submit right up to the cut off time. However, some
students did also comment on the clarity and legibility of the comments that ALs
made in the returned file.
Overall views about marking S207 eTMAs compared with marking paper TMAs
In 2007, eleven of the 23 ALs expressed a preference for marking eTMAs and eight
ALs either said explicitly that they were equally happy with paper and eTMAs or
expressed no preference. Only four ALs indicated a preference for paper marking,
and three of these had marked very few eTMAs (7, 3 and 0, respectively).
Almost all of the ALs were very positive about the pilot project. There were some
reservations from those who found that eTMAs took longer to mark – this needs to be
reviewed when ALs are more familiar with using this method of marking.
Other uses made of the Tablet PC Five ALs made use of their Tablet PCs for
marking eTMAs for other courses that they were tutoring, and eight had used them
for preparing materials for tutorials, residential schools, revision weekends, etc.
Seven ALs said that they valued having an additional laptop available at home.
Monitoring The e-monitoring system appeared to work well from the viewpoints of
the monitors and those being monitored. Several ALs commented on the quicker
return of the monitoring report – though this is dependent on the turnaround time for
both monitor and staff tutor. Some of the assignments that were monitored were
paper TMAs that had been scanned by the assignment handling office, presumably
because no eTMAs were available for a particular tutor and particular assignment.
Since there is the potential for an AL to provide quite different comments, annotation
and specimen answers for eTMAs and paper TMAs, some consideration needs to be
given to ensuring that both forms of marking are monitored effectively.
4
Future work
In 2006, about 17% of S207 assignments submitted to ALs taking part in the project
were eTMAs, and this increased to 32% in 2007. The main reason that the majority
of S207 students prefer paper submission is that they lack the IT skills to incorporate
equations and diagrams into a word-processed TMA and/or find that producing an
eTMA is unacceptably time-consuming. During the 2007 presentation, another
πCETL project attempted to increase the number of students submitting
electronically by offering students the loan of either a scanner or a digital pen. These
systems allow the student to write their assignment answers on paper, but then to
convert it to a digital format that can be submitted via the eTMA system. Full
instructions were provided in order to make this process accessible to less confident
students, and the additional time required for the conversion process should have
been relatively small. The results of this trial will be reported elsewhere (Gorfinkiel,
2007). However, e-submission would probably be increased by providing more
9
advice to students before the start of the course about these methods of digitising
handwritten assignments.
S207 ALs will retain the Tablet PCs for use in future presentations of the course, and
some of them will continue to use them for marking eTMAs for other courses that
they are tutoring. Clearly students who have been able to make use of the eTMA
system for S207 (and other courses) may want to submit eTMAs for Level 3 Physics
and Astronomy courses. We are therefore planning to provide ALs for SMT359
Electromagnetism and S381 The energetic Universe with Tablet PCs for marking in
2008, and students of these courses will therefore have the option of submitting their
TMAs electronically.
5
Conclusion
This S207 pilot project indicates that a Tablet PC provides an effective and
acceptable method of marking physics eTMAs – from the viewpoints of both the ALs
and the students. ALs used two main methods of marking eTMAs – annotating pdf
files with PDF Annotator and using Word to annotate doc files – and the choice was a
matter of personal preference. However, it must be recognized that although Tablet
PCs provide a good way of marking S207 eTMAs, their capital cost may prohibit their
widespread use within the Open University.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the S207 ALs who participated in this pilot project, and whose
comments on the FirstClass forum and whose responses to the end of course
surveys were used as the basis of this report: Carol Boote (R03), Pam Budd (R06),
Anne Campbell (R11), Alan Cayless (R11), Sarah Chyriwsky (R09), Jeff Collins
(R10), Andy Diament (R03), David Dolman (R13), Peter Hancock (R04), David Keen
(R02), Ron Lomax (R02), Craig McFarlane (R06), Graham McMaster (R11), Rami
Mehrem (R08), Harald Molgaard (R01), Jim Noras (R07), Alan Robinson (R05), Ian
Saunders (R08), Birendra Singh (R01), David Smith (R01), Bernie Tedd (R04),
Roger Tyte (R13), Martin Whitaker (R12), Colin Williams (R09) and Sheila Wright
(R07).
We are grateful to Mike Watkins (S207 Course Manager), Tracey Woodcraft (S207
Course Assistant), Kevin Mayles (πCETL Centre Manager) and Diane Ford (πCETL
Centre Assistant) for their contributions to running this project. We also acknowledge
valuable support from Rukhsana Malik, Una Lawson and Asvin Savjani (Student
Services).
This project would not have been possible without the funding and support provided
by the piCETL, which in turn is funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for
England.
References
Chickering, A.W. and Gamson, Z.F. (1987) Seven principles for good practice in
undergraduate education, AAHE Bulletin, 38(7) 3-7.
Chickering, A.W. & Gamson, Z.F. (1991) Applying the seven principles to good
practice in undergraduate education, New Directions for Teaching and Learning,
Number 47, Fall 1991.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass).
Chinery, P. and Heindörfer, F., PDF Creator software, free download from
http://www.pdfforge.org .
10
Fisher, W. (2007) --- url for COLMSCT report
Gibbs, G. and Simpson, C. (2004) Conditions under which assessment supports
student learning, Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, Issue 1, 3-31.
Gorfinkiel, J. (2007) --- url for CETL report
Grahl Software Design, PDF Annotator software, http://www.GRAHL-software.com.
11