JISC

Managed Learning Environment activity in Further and Higher Education in the UK

Supporting study for JISC and the Universities and Colleges Information Systems Association (UCISA). Prepared by The Social Informatics Research Unit, University of Brighton, Education for Change Ltd and The Research Partnership

Executive summary

The research

This study was commissioned by the JISC and UCISA in August 2002 from a consortium of research organisations* led by the Social Informatics Research Unit at the University of Brighton. The research methods adopted were an extensive literature and web review, consultation with key informants throughout the sector, a national survey of all FE and HE institutions attracting a 51% response, and a series of in-depth case studies.

Overview

The survey found significant levels of MLE development activity across all institutions. Over 70% of institutions in the sector are currently engaged in some kind of MLE development activity.  83% of the responding institutions, however, report that they currently use some kind of virtual learning environment (VLE) and 44% of the respondent institutions report that they already have an institutional portal.

The two most common strategic models for managing MLE development within the institution are now ‘predominantly centrally managed activity’ (40% of responding institutions); and an institution-wide initiative with responsibilities devolved to departments and units within the institution (27%). This indicates a significant move towards more strategic developments, shaped by institutional and policies and sectoral-wide initiatives.

Integration of MLE functions and components

The core of the survey questionnaire was an extensive matrix of MLE functions, in which respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which the various systems in their institution are currently integrated and the extent to which they think integration might be developed over the next 5 years.  Institutions were assigned an ‘integration score’ making it possible to categorise institutions as having either low, medium or high levels of systems integration, in their position now and as anticipated in 3-5 years time. 

Overview

35% of all FE respondents (including Sixth Form colleges) can be categorised currently as having minimal systems integration (low); 35% have systems partially integrated to allow some MLE functionality (medium); and 30% have relatively high levels of integration (high).

The integration picture among HE respondents shows similarity in the pace of development among all universities: 19% of university respondents currently have minimal systems integration (low); 24% have systems partially integrated to enable some MLE functionality (medium); and 57% have high levels of systems integration (high).

The picture among HE college respondents varies from that among universities; while only 11% report minimal MLE systems integration, and 61% have some integrated systems, only 28% of HE college respondents regard themselves as having high levels of systems integration.

Some comparisons across the sector

The survey indicates a cautious approach to online enrolment with 70% of all respondents using paper forms only for enrolment.  Only 16% of FE respondents expect to enrol online in future.  The age and profile of FE entrants, and the need for personal counselling suggests that paper enrolment will continue to be the preferred option.  A similar picture emerges in module selection, in which 44% of HE respondents aim to have modules chosen primarily online in contrast to only 10% of FE.

HE respondents appear to be far more advanced in delivering online access via a separate gateway to the library / electronic resources; and 49% in HE have already integrated some online library resources into a VLE, in contrast to 23% in FE.

Student access to administrative data online elicited very different responses from HE and FE – 83% of FE respondents, in contrast to 67% in HE, do not allow students to see personal administrative data, and only 15% of FE respondents aspire to do so in future.

56% of all respondents provide online systems which support a limited range of access needs for students with disabilities.   Considerably more post-1991 university respondents (31%) than pre-1991 universities (13%) can support a range of these needs.

The tracking of student attendance online elicited different responses from HE and FE: more respondents from FE are already far more integrated in this area than in HE.  This is largely explained by the necessity for FE institutions to provide an auditable trail of student attendance to receive funding.

Perceived advantages, disadvantages and impact

It is significant that both HE and FE are encountering the same advantages and problems to a greater or lesser degree in the development of MLEs. 

The top three advantages across the sector were:

• open & wider access to learning
• greater efficiency in administration
• integration of data across the institution

The top five disadvantages across the sector were:

• cost and time involved
• resistance to culture change
• requirement for large scale and continuous staff training / staff development
• heavy reliance on having a stable infrastructure and/or IT system, and dependence on the software systems vendors.
• the importance of system security and data security

It was evident that for many of the institutions it was too soon to assess the impact of MLEs on either core business processes or learning and teaching. The majority of responses suggested that the relationship between the VLE and MLE is so far largely unexplored.  Systems are not yet well embedded or universally accepted

Respondents indicated what they thought would be the impact of MLE developments in five year’s time on learning and teaching in their institution.  Chief among these were

• higher retention & achievement
• improved standards
• improved recruitment

Constraints and barriers to development

There is considerable unanimity between FE and HE about what are the major constraints on and barriers to further MLE development.  The top 5 constraints or barriers are:

• lack of time
• lack of money
• lack of academic staff knowledge
• lack of academic staff development
• lack of support staff

Organisational structures are not considered a very significant constraint on development in either FE or HE, despite the realisation among many universities and colleges that MLE development soon requires a very fundamental rethink of institutional business processes and procedures.  This may reflect an early view of MLE development as being more about technology and systems, than about organisational issues.

Some conclusions

There is, overall, a sense that MLE development is a ‘good thing’ and a strong consensus that MLEs are the way forward and will provide long-term advantages.  At the same time, however, there is a suspicion that, because everyone else is going down this road, institutions must follow or be left behind.

What is not broadly apparent is any real sense that the MLE is as yet fully embedded in the institutions’ strategic and operational frameworks. 

‘Enhancing the quality of teaching and learning’ is the key driver, identified by almost every institution, for MLE development.  However, the reality appears to be that the student experience is being enhanced through improved delivery of teaching materials and course announcements, improved access to learning resources and better communication.  Pedagogical issues are not (yet) a part of this, and, indeed, appear to have been of secondary concern until now. 

The scale of the task is clearly daunting to many institutions.  There is a growing awareness of how large are the training and professional development needs, not only in relation to pedagogy and curriculum change, IT skills and awareness, but also in relation to wider ‘cultural change’ issues as the MLE develops and rolls out across the institution.

Increasing concern is in evidence about the uneven quality of learning and other materials, much of which is home-grown or sourced on the Internet and being ‘dumped’ on the systems with no observation of or opportunity for quality control procedures. 

Recommendations

1. Quality control procedures for teaching and learning content are difficult for individual institutions to develop, embed and sustain as there are few precedents to study and very little documented guidance in an educational / non-commercial context.  We recommend that procedures and guidance on learning materials quality control should be an area for further study and practical guidance by JISC.
2. The new approaches to teaching and course delivery demanded by the implementation of MLEs bring with them the requirement for a critical mass of electronic content related to subjects and courses.  This mass of content does not currently exist.  We recommend that the JISC promotes ‘joined-up thinking’ around the issue of structured learning content for the new learning environments, by bringing together the interests and attention of those groups under the JISC umbrella focusing concurrently on e-books, e-textbooks, MLE development and VLE use in FE and HE. 
3. Institutions across the sector appear to have consulted widely with other educational institutions in the early stages of MLE development, but rarely turns into collaboration once the implementation stage begins.  Many individuals consulted during this research said how valuable it is in MLE development to be able read case studies from other institutions and to consult and work with others following similar developmental paths.  We recommend that JISC maintain and expand its efforts to promote collaboration, not only in IT and technology related areas, but also in content development and pedagogical issues. 
4. We recommend to JISC that the research instruments and outcomes of this and other related research should be developed into a web-based benchmarking tool for institutions which will contribute to collaboration and sharing of experience across the sector.
5. The research data gathered in this study, was not sufficiently rich to turn speculations into sound conclusions on what makes best practice and what are the milestones in progression.  We recommend, therefore, that further case study work needs to be done, building on the Study data, to shed light on, for instance, comparative development in FE and HE, links (if they exist) to particular kinds of strategies and strategic approaches which lead to best practice, and which are the key lessons learned in FE and HE that provide a spur to successful MLE development.

---

* Social Informatics Research Unit, University of Brighton (SIRU), Education for Change Ltd (EfC), The Research Partnership