JISC

What is this project about?

The project runs from September 2010 to October 2011 and covers two stages of research, This Phase 1 report sets out to establish the current arrangements surrounding the use of Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) amongst those staff who teach HE in a Further Education college (FEC) setting. The study was focused on the 37 members of the Mixed Economy Group of colleges (MEG) and was undertaken across September – November 2010. The project is funded by JISC. Phase 2 will report in early October 2011. The full report from Phase 1 is available here.Phase 2 Final Report

Why was the research undertaken?

The project emerged from a number of factors which are specific to the delivery of HE in FE:

• HE Teaching staff can often feel isolated within the FE environment and even though there will be similar HE programmes in other colleges the opportunities to network with like-minded colleagues are limited

• Support mechanisms such as those offered by validating HEIs and the Higher Education Academy are valuable but often do not address all the issues of direct concern to college staff

• Surveys have shown that teachers make good use of Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) within their own institutions. However the use of VLEs for the development of learning materials for higher-level study across colleges is under developed

• Support for specific professional development for staff teaching "HE in FE" is patchy,

• The creation and development of an "HE identity" for students and staff within the HE in FE environment can be variable

Why is it important to improve and increase the skills of staff in the use of the VLE as a teaching tool?

The current context for HE is characterised by a simultaneous reduction in public funding and an increase in demand for HE. The increased interest in higher education and higher level skills comes from both the traditional market for such provision – young people leaving school at 18 – and a newer market, composed of those already in the workforce but wishing to improve their qualifications and thus their potential earnings base.

Outcomes from HEFCE’s Online Learning Task Force (OLTF) give a steer as to how the UK’’s higher education sector can take advantage of new and expanding markets, through the development of flexible pathways such as workplace and informal learning, supported by targeted investment at a significant scale. Significantly, the OLTF refers to the importance of good pedagogy to the design and delivery of online learning models .

Methodology

A total of 34 MEG colleges took part in this research either by answering questionnaires or by taking part in focused discussions with members of the project team or both. This represents nearly 92% of members and we are confident that it offers a realistic picture of the activity currently undertaken around the establishment and development of VLEs.

Two questionnaires were developed, focused on two different groups of staff with involvement in VLEs within colleges. One sought the views of staff, usually lead by a Head of Information and Learning technology (ILT) that were aware of the technical possibilities of the chosen platform. The other was aimed at those who use the VLE as a tool to supplement traditional teaching and learning methods. Follow-up telephone interviews with 11 college representatives then enabled us to pursue particular issues in more depth.

What were the outcomes from the research?

From the questionnaires received from Directors of HE and their staff, the project concluded that:

1. Understanding and exploitation of the VLE amongst college HE teams is uneven. The sheer variability of responses was striking, with half a dozen colleges being aware of the opportunities provided by the VLE and a similar number acknowledging that they were in the early stages of understanding and exploiting such technology. 2. The approach taken by senior management teams to the development of an e-learning strategy and a separate HE Teaching, Learning and Assessment strategy is crucial in determining the stance taken by departmental heads and teaching staff.

2. There is a significant concern over the extent to which VLE training addresses pedagogical and professional needs opposed to ensuring technical competency

3. Where the VLE is clearly a strategic tool in the development of HE programmes within the locality (and beyond), there are likely to be clearer expectations of staff in terms of linkage between appraisal, training plans and classroom observation.

4. The VLE can be a means by which staff acquire more time to develop other activities such as scholarly activity or subject updating.

5. Some colleges may be unable or unwilling to exploit the full power of the VLE. In many responses, the suggestion seemed to be that training and subsequent usage of the VLE was at the minimum required for effective usage- but no more than that.

6. Meeting student expectations will be of increasing importance as colleges and universities go into a more market-led environment. Many young full-time students are already familiar with e-learning approaches as a result of the technologies available in schools, and some employers have high-quality in-house IT systems. Colleges have to be able to match these expectations.

7. University partners have a variable impact on the development of college VLEs. Whilst some colleges use the same platform (usually Blackboard) as their partner HEI, this does not always lead to close and mutually-beneficial links in terms of the VLE. In extreme cases, some colleges are more proactive in their use of this technology whilst in others the HEI takes the lead in developing and maintaining the VLE.

1. From a technical perspective, and within the responding institutions’ contexts, both Moodle and Blackboard offered a similar level of functionality. Bespoke systems, by definition offer the highest level of institutional integration but rely on in-house software developers and maintenance staff.

2. A succession planning issue then arises if these specialist staff then leave the college before a culture of e-learning is established and a wider pool of staff have acquired the technical skills necessary to maintain the system.

3. From the responses received we can generally infer that the technical attributes ascribed by each institution to its chosen system are similar, irrespective of the actual platform. Essentially, no one college appears to be at a technological advantage to any other.

4. All respondents reported a range of technological resources to facilitate access to systems within and outwith the delivery areas/rooms. However, whilst a rationale may be inferred as to why a particular resource was utilised (eg Turnitin™), cogent explanations of how such resources contributed to more effective ways of learning were lacking.

5. Increasingly, we noted that few colleges appeared to have a specific e-learning strategy for HE or to be able to equate the system that they used with specific benefits to HE retention and achievement. Only one respondent alluded to Safeguarding issues.

6. Whilst a range of tools were cited as being used for assessment there appeared to be little evidence of a strategic, planned approach to implementation in a significant number of institutions. Responses regarding tracking were generalised at times with little specific reference to the rôle of the VLE per se. There was limited evidence of specific collection of student grades and the use of tracking tools.

7. The importance of the strategic consideration of functionality, staff development, staff adoption and adaption and the level of prescription to ensure effective integration appeared to have been overlooked by respondents. In most cases, institutions appeared to take an initially conservative view on storage allocation with convenient procedures for increased allocation. There was, however, no evidence of the frequency of requests for increased allocation or analyses of same. There was no mention of demand for greater functionality, e.g. video streaming (although use of video was specifically referenced by one institution).

8. Given the heavy investment required to implement a VLE, it would be reasonable to expect that institutions would have addressed, or be in the process of addressing, the effectiveness of such a facility on success measures. It is perhaps surprising that only one institution specifically referenced the use of Quality Reviews, utilisation analyses and student satisfaction surveys especially in the light of the majority confirmation of VLE investment being linked to Strategies and Development Planning.

9. It could be said that the implementation of a VLE is a cultural as much as a technical issue (the tools exist, but are they being integrated or fully used?). When a student embarks on an HE programme, would (s)he be immersed in an environment which embraces that level of technology with which (s)he may be familiar or have come to expect as a result of previous learning environments and experiences?

Overall, this supplementary engagement with a random selection of colleges leads the project to conclude that whilst there is still some distance to travel, all institutions recognise the strategic imperative of developing an increased capability in Information Learning Technology in support of emerging markets in the higher education sector.

Conclusions

There is a diverse approach to both the strategic and operational issues surrounding e-learning within the MEG colleges. There was a need to share good practice at both a senior management and a practitioner level. Whilst some colleges were at or near the "cutting edge" in terms of using ILT in their HE programmes, others were at an earlier stage of development. That said, most could appreciate that the VLE was a means of carving a niche as the expert deliverer of a particular style of HE learning, with both staff and students benefitting from the considered uses of current technology,

Staff needs varied greatly, and the study recommended that communities of practice would be welcomed as a non- threatening means of developing teaching expertise. All of the interviewees agreed that the VLE was but one tool in the range of approaches used by the skilled practitioner. Equally, all agreed that something above a minimum level of compliance was needed if the college was to maintain its position as a deliverer of high-quality and distinctive HE.

For further information on this study, please contact Sarah Knight (s.knight@jisc.ac.uk)