School Approaches to Implementing Electronic Voting

Approach / Summary / Critical factors / Comments of note / Lessons
Big bang / Introduced at programme re-validation and implemented four months later across a large undergraduate programme in all modules at all levels. Driven by move away from exams and need to manage large numbers of students.
High prevalence of both formative and summative use. Assessment stakes up to 30%
Staff prior experience negligible & staff training limited leading to poor pedagogic underpin, management of participant lists, test situations and reporting.
No insider expertise to draw upon
Significant loss of results after first year of use resulted in loss of confidence (staff and students).
Supported by designated administrator (taught how to manage results and reports). High expectations of admin from staff.
No Educational Technologist in place. / School was re-located, resulting in a significant period of change for staff and students – staff required to adapt to change and learn new skills in a short space of time.
There were difficulties with channel conflicts between the new classrooms which created barriers to use
Student behavior was inappropriate (sharing handsets, voting outside classrooms)
External support mechanisms limited
Impact
Large scale move away from using EVS
Loss of staff and student confidence
Student experience impacted. / Preparation for use plus ongoing support and training are necessary.
Must be competent in formative use before using summatively.
Timing and context of school wide change is key
Placing all responsibility with one person (e.g. managing results) can de-skill others
Steady flicker / Introduced as tool to support formative assessment and to improve engagement. No summative use. Handsets not assigned to students. Not used extensively.
Good understanding of pedagogic underpin i.e. what they do they do well
‘Slow burn’ approach, planned and led by Senior management.
Good practice shared at local fora/meetings.
Evaluation tool developed in-house.
Designated person managing handset loan but no Educational Technologist in place. / Staff members do not attend centrally provided training. Staff engagement patchy but some really nice examples of good practice including at M level. No plans to adopt EVS more widely.
Impact
Expertise remains with a few i.e. there is limited lateral spread of expertise.
Will not develop critical mass of expert
users so usage may tail off as key staff move on. / Different disciplines will adopt their own pace of change to suit their own needs
Well considered / Initially no clearly identified strategy within programmes as to how EVS was to be implemented and used. Assigned handsets severely under-utilised in first year of use.
Re-introduced to School a year later specifically as a tool to support learning and student engagement (summative use not expected).
Local and central training provided plus 1-1 support provided for early adopters.
Now use is spreading albeit more so in some programmes than others
Used summatively but much more commonly used formatively
Loan system in place to support ad hoc use.
School Studynet site has a repository of information for users.
Some administrative support and a high level of Educational Technologist support in place. Clearly defined responsibilities. / Competing demands (Staff required to learn to use a variety of other technologies to deliver materials off campus to three study centers (e.g. Camtasia, Elluminate etc)
Off campus study centres did not have EVS receivers so use there is limited.
Commonly used teaching rooms not equipped to use EVS.
Staff did not attend central training
No identified vision or pedagogical considerations to the use of EVS.
New curriculum implemented at same time. However: new structure and senior level support post re-organisation led to considered and clearly articulated strategy for school wide implementation
Impact
More efficient use of resources as handset purchase matched to planned programme usage
Students experience improving as handsets are being used more often (students had commented on having handsets that were never used)
Staff better supported to use EVS / A strategic approach to using EVS makes for more efficient use of resources and an improved staff/student experience of technology
Identifying role responsibilities is important i.e. ed tech in this school has responsibility for issue and reclaim of handsets
Steady burn / Introduced as tool to enhance learning and improve student engagement.
Used formatively and summatively
Good understanding of pedagogic underpin.
Led by Senior management and experienced teachers.
Sustained over long period
Good practice shared at local fora/meetings.
Considered approach (comprehensive report on use produced). Embedded in programmes.
Some administrative support but no Educational Technologist. / Early adopters and innovative users, led change.
Senior management ensured funding in place for handsets
Developed formative use before moving to summative
Impact
Sustained use of >5yrs, critical mass of experienced staff / Early adopters key to initiating practice but senior management support critical to sustaining it
Confidence and competence in formative use essential before moving to summative
Ed technologist not critical
Faltering / Has been used in the School for a number of years and now used by the majority of staff.
Use of EVS effectively embedded in years 1 and 2 of undergraduate programme.
Good understanding of pedagogic underpin.
Able to sustain use of EVS and staff motivation.
Good practice guidance developed around summative use of EVS for high stake ‘in class tests’.
Noticeable improvement in attendance at lectures when EVS has been used for’ in class tests’.
General perceived that EVS is positively received by academics and students.
Sustained use over more than 3 years.
Administrative support but no Educational Technologist in place. / Some technological issues due to software/hardware tensions (MAC users).
Staff work load increased with use of EVS-emails from students and a lot of work to do after running test, summative use decreasing as a result
Still not total confidence in the system.
Impact
Technology has not kept pace with user requirements. Technology barriers are now stifling innovation. / Innovators and early adopters will fall away if technology doesn’t meet their needs
We can’t ignore MAC users!
Steady burn / Several long term users and early innovators. Experienced and technologically capable. Driven by pedagogic use and an insight into student experience / Early adopters supported by Head of Department to innovate and lead others. External funding used to develop interest and drive large pedagogic exploration of use.
Impact
Able to influence and support peers trying out the technology, able to influence school direction. / Early adopters will maintain momentum if enabled by management. Additional funding can provide impetus and focus to the roll out of new technologies.
Flicker and Fade / Some regular users in school but not many. Overall, collective experience minimal with staff making limited use of centralised training. No planned approach. Some formative use across undergraduate programme but summative use adopted without support and results lost as a consequence. No Educational Technologist support and no administrator support. / Staff skill limitations not recognised.
Staff frustrated by lack of administrator support and lack of data integration.
Impact
Student experience impacted
Summative use will ‘tail’ off. / Confidence and competence in formative use essential before moving to summative
Lack of strategic planning affects sustainability
Limitations of other systems can affect ease of usage