No abstract

No 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. IntroductionThere are many potential benefits associated with online assignment submission and management (OASM). As Weir (2004) noted: 'Network-based electronic submission promises greater convenience and potentially full elimination of physical delivery.' Bridge and Appleyard (2005) have previously described other potential benefits and pitfalls for both staff and students, including time saving and the ease of production of electronic feedback, as well as the need for a reliable back-up system.The virtual learning environment (VLE) Blackboard is currently used across the Sheffield Hallam Radiotherapy and Oncology course to provide essential support to our learning, teaching and assessment. A previous study (Bridge & Appleyard, 2005) compared traditional paperbased assignment submission with the online equivalent offered by the VLE. Unfortunately the assignment submission date coincided with a crash of the VLE, resulting in a

No abstract

Purpose: Having previously reviewed the implementation of systematic in vivo dosimetry at the Norfolk and Norwich Hospital this paper examines the results of entrance dose measurements for specific sites/techniques and determines whether different action/alert protocols are required for these different categories. Methods and materials: Entrance dose measurements using p-type diodes were analysed for the following treatment categories: Breast, head and neck in beam direction shell, abdomino-pelvic and intrathoracic. A 4% tolerance was applied. Results: Mean deviations from expected dose and proportion of measurements exceeding tolerance were: Breast: ϩ1.15% Ϯ 3.04% (1SD), 238/1073 Ն 4%; Head and neck: ϩ0.35% Ϯ 2.20% (1SD), 21/326 Ն 4%; Abdomino-pelvic: ϩ0.52% Ϯ 2.75% (1SD), 93/712 Ն 4%; Intrathoracic: Ϫ0.01% Ϯ 2.75% (1SD), 22/119 Ն 4%. Significant improvements in results for breast patients were noted following the introduction of a commercial breast board. The results for abdomino-pelvic patients confirmed a substantial variation in diode response under short FSD, wedged fields at 16 MV (that had not been corrected for). The statistical uncertainty in dose measurement for each treatment category was calculated in order to assist determination of appropriate tolerance levels. Conclusions: A blanket tolerance of 4% was generally too low given the extent of measurement uncertainty. The relatively high number of readings outside tolerance where identification of errors was difficult/impossible resulted in inconsistent application of the action protocol. Some widening of tolerances is likely to improve quality of procedure and treatment. Appropriate action levels are recommended for each treatment category. This value could be reduced if a variation in diode response under wedged fields at 16 MV was corrected for. § These values are larger mainly as a consequence of a relatively higher proportion of FSD inaccuracies for this category. Improvements in this respect would reduce these figures to the level seen for isocentric abdomino-pelvic techniques.