A comparison of electronic and paper‐based assignment submission and feedback
Abstract
This paper presents the results of a study evaluating student perceptions of online assignment submission. 47 students submitted assignments and received feedback via features within the Virtual Learning Environment Blackboard™. The students then completed questionnaires comparing their experience of online submission and feedback with traditional methods. Results indicated that 88% of students reported a time saving and many reported financial benefits using online submission. 93% of students preferred having their feedback available online rather than printed and handed to them. Overall, students preferred online assignment management to postal or physical hand‐in. The main disadvantage of electronic submission appeared to be student distrust of the receipt system. The use of online assignment submission and management is recommended for use in Higher Education establishments where students may be remote. It is most suitable for assignments that do not require inclusion of many images.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Results from studies in other disciplines indicate that OHW is at least as effective as THW in preparing students to perform on tests.
“The results from each of these studies indicate that OHW is at least as effective as THW in preparing students to perform on tests.”
From The Effects of Online Homework on Achievement and Self-efficacy of College Algebra Students (2009) · cites this paper as Bridge & Appleyard, 2008
Additional beneficial outcomes of OHW reported in other disciplines include improved pass-fail rates, more time spent working on OHW than THW, more time saved by having assignments handled electronically, and a desire to continue to use OHW in future classes.
“Additional beneficial outcomes of OHW are also reported in these studies: improved pass-fail rates, more time spent working on OHW than THW, more time saved by having assignments handled electronically, and a desire to continue to use OHW in future classes.”
From The Effects of Online Homework on Achievement and Self-efficacy of College Algebra Students (2009) · cites this paper as Bridge & Appleyard, 2008
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Effects of Online Homework on Achievement and Self-efficacy of College Algebra Students
Brewer, D. S. (2009) · Utah State University · doi:10.26076/e6cf-1985 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Reviewing institutional policies for electronic management of assessment
Voce, J. (2015) · Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s10734-014-9813-2 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bridge, P., & Appleyard, R.
- Affiliations
- Sheffield Hallam University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Bridge, Pete
- ORCID
- Bridge, Pete
- Venue
- British Journal of Educational Technology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-07
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 644-650
- ISSN
- 0007-1013 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-8535
- OpenAlex
- W1993172547
- Cited by
- 56
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 11.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- British Journal of Educational Technology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology and E-Learning
- Social Sciences › Education › Technology-Enhanced Education Studies
- Keywords
- online assignment submission, electronic feedback, student perceptions, virtual learning environments, Blackboard, assignment management, distance learners, higher education
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
