Online submission, feedback and grading of assessment: what do academic staff really think?

  • Emma Mayhew Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Reading, Berkshire, UK
  • Vicki Holmes Centre for Quality Support and Development, University of Reading, Berkshire, UK
  • Madeline Davies Department of English Literature, University of Reading, Berkshire, UK
  • Yota Dimitriadi Institute of Education, University of Reading, Berkshire, UK
Keywords: Online assessment, electronic assessment management, change management, assessment and feedback


The move to institution-wide adoption of online submission, feedback and grading is increasing significantly within the Higher Education sector. This transition is predominantly driven by the need to improve the student assessment experience, but some institutions now also cite the need to improve the staff assessment experience. Existing studies, however, provide seemingly contradictory evidence surrounding this online marking experience. This article adopts a mixed methods approach to explore academic staff preferences of the assessment experience within a UK-based institution following adoption of online submission, feedback and grading during 2017–2018. It finds that although the majority of colleagues prefer to mark and provide feedback online, the process of marking electronically is highly individual. Online marking is not just a single practice but a set of varied, rich approaches, influenced by individual marker perceptions, preferences and previous experiences, and is often highly emotive. Changes to existing marking practices are seen simultaneously as both challenging and liberating by cohorts of markers. Drawing on the results of a detailed staff survey, this article identifies seven themes that are influential to that experience. These findings have significant implications for how institutions manage change to large-scale adoption of online marking.


Download data is not yet available.


Adams, J., Meyer, P. & Anderson, R. (2011) ‘E-feedback for better learning and experience’, International Conference on Teaching & Learning in Higher Education (ICTLHE), [online] Available at:

Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006) ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology’, Qualitative Research in Psychology, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Buckley, E. & Cowap, L. (2013) ‘An evaluation of the use of Turnitin for electronic submission and marking and as a formative feedback tool from an educator’s perspective’, British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 562–570. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12054

Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (2017) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, 5th edn, Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

Djordjevic, A. & Milward, S. (2012) OCME: Online Course Management Evaluation. Report, JISC, Bristol, [online] Available at:

Ellis, C. & Reynolds, C. (2013) EBEAM Final Report, [online] Available at:

Ferrell, G. (2014) Electronic Management of Assessment (EMA): A Landscape Review. Report, JISC, Bristol, [online] Available at:

Howe, R. (2013) SaGE Survey 2013, Report, University of Northampton, UK, [online] Available at:

Irwin, B., Childs, J. & Hepplestone, S. (2016) Assessment Journey: A Programme to Provide a Seamless and Improved Assessment Experience for Staff and Students, Report, Sheffield Hallam University, [online] Available at:,%20Accessed%2026%20Jun%202019

Law, J. (2018) ‘Jury ‘is still out’ on online marking’, Times Higher Education, March 24, [online] Available at:

Mayhew, E. (2018) ‘Implementing electronic management of assessment: Four key barriers faced by higher education providers moving to online submission and feedback’, Research in Learning Technology, vol. 26, article no. 2083. doi: 10.25304/rlt.v26.2083

Nulty, D. (2008) ‘The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what can be done?’ Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 301–314. doi: 10.1080/02602930701293231

Rankin, S. & Demetre, J. (2012) ‘ The experience of Online marking and the future development of Online marking practice’, Compass: Journal of Learning and Teaching, vol. 3, no. 6. doi: 10.21100/compass.v3i6.155

Twining, P., et al., (2017) ‘Some guidance on conducting and reporting qualitative studies’, Computers & Education, vol. 106, pp. A1–A9. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.002

UCISA (2018) Report on Technology Enhanced Learning Survey, [online] Available at:

University of Glamorgan (2012) Evaluation of Assessment Diaries and GradeMark at the University of Glamorgan. Final Report, [online] Available at:

University of Keele (n.d) STAF Project Final Report, [online] Available at:

University of Reading (2018) About the Programme: EMA Programme [online] Available at:

University of Manchester Humanities (2013) eAssignment Progress Report 2012–2013, [online] Available at:

Verges Bausili, A. (2017) ‘From piloting e-submission to electronic management of assessment (EMA): Mapping grading journeys’, British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 463–478. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12547.
How to Cite
Mayhew E., Holmes V., Davies M., & Dimitriadi Y. (2022). Online submission, feedback and grading of assessment: what do academic staff really think?. Research in Learning Technology, 30.
Original Research Articles