2003 ILT in FE Report

8/7/2019 2003 ILT in FE Report

1/38

1

ILT in Further Education: laying the foundations for e-learning

A report to the Joint Implementation Group of the National Learning Network

July 2003


2/38

2

AcknowledgementsThis survey report would not have been possible without the time and effort put in by themajority of colleges to complete the two long questionnaires. The survey, like itspredecessors, benefited from the comments and observations of a range of individuals and

agencies, including members of the National Learning Network Programme Board, officers ofthe Department for Education and Skills, the Learning and Skills Council, the Learning andSkills Development Agency, the National Information and Learning Technologies Associationand the Joint Information Systems Committee.

The online survey facility was provided by Infopoll.


3/38

3

Contents

1 Management Summary ........................................................................................ 41.1 Some key messages .............................................................................................. 41.2 The survey ............................................................................................................. 4

1.3 ILT infrastructure .................................................................................................... 41.4 Access to ILT ......................................................................................................... 51.5 ILT for teaching and learning ................................................................................. 51.6 ILT expenditure ...................................................................................................... 6

2 The survey ............................................................................................................ 82.1 Context and purpose of the study .......................................................................... 82.2 Survey methodology and response ....................................................................... 8

3 Infrastructure ...................................................................................................... 103.1 Computer specifications ....................................................................................... 103.3 College computer stock ....................................................................................... 123.3 Local Area Networks ............................................................................................ 133.4 LAN performance ................................................................................................. 143.4 Internet Connectivity ............................................................................................ 15

3.5 Constraints on Internet use .................................................................................. 164. Access to ILT ...................................................................................................... 174.1 Access for learners .............................................................................................. 17

Access to Internetenabled computers................................................................ 184.2 Managing demand for student access ................................................................. 194.3 Access for Staff .................................................................................................... 204.4 Mode of access for staff ....................................................................................... 21

5 Use of ILT for teaching and learning............................................................... 24 5.1 Electronic communications ................................................................................. 245.2 Learning platforms .............................................................................................. 255.3 ILT in the teaching and learning process ............................................................ 27

ILT in student induction........................................................................................ 28ILT in mainstream programmes........................................................................... 29

ILT learning materials........................................................................................... 30ILT and online assessment.................................................................................. 31

5.4 Staff IT and ILT skills........................................................................................... 326 Expenditure on ILT............................................................................................ 35

6.1 Identifying funding sources ................................................................................. 356.2 Sustainability of investment ................................................................................ 356.3 ILT and staff-related costs .................................................................................. 366.4 Major corporate information systems .................................................................. 36


4/38

4

1 Management summary

1.1 Some key messages

This report shows that there is a robust ILT (Information and Learning Technology)infrastructure across the Further Education sector. Targets for student access to computers

and the Internet have been met in the vast majority of colleges, and the targets for staffaccess are also close to being met in most colleges. College networks are increasinglycapable of meeting the demands placed on them. The use of virtual learning environments(VLEs) as a learning platform is increasing in colleges, and those that do use a VLE find iteasier to use than other platforms.

The report also identifies a new set of challenges for college management. Firstly, the largeinvestment in colleges technology infrastructure since 1999 has been slow to have awidespread impact on teaching and learning practice. The survey identified a number ofexamples: the use of VLEs or of electronic learning materials with students remains at lowlevels; ILT is often a supporting element, outside scheduled learning activities; onlineassessment remains the preserve of ILT enthusiasts. Secondly, a key element in achievingthis integration of ILT into teaching and learning is a well-trained body of staff. Colleges are

beginning to identify development needs that go beyond the acquisition of particular technicalskills and concentrate on the integration of ILT within teaching and learning practice. The thirdkey area, and one underpinning the whole process of ILT use and development, is thequestion of sustainability. As the large numbers of computers bought in 2000 and 2001 reachthe end of their useful lives, college budgets will begin to feel the strain. However,replacement is not the only issue here. Management attention will also have to be given tohow future innovative technologies will impact both on college budgets, and on teaching andlearning practice.

1.2 The survey

This study, to assess progress in the provision of ILT within the further education (FE) sector,represents the most recent of a series of studies undertaken in 1999, 2000 and 2001. It aimsto provide comparative data to judge the impact of the deployment of National LearningNetwork (NLN) monies for the development of ILT infrastructure in the sector.

Two hundred and fifty-six colleges (64% of the sector) responded to the ILT MonitoringSurvey, the outcomes of which are presented in Sections 3 to 5 of this report. One hundredand ninety-seven colleges (49% of the sector) responded to the ILT Expenditure Survey,reported in Section 6. A further 13 colleges responded to the ILT monitoring survey and 9 tothe expenditure survey, but were too late to be included in this analysis.

1.3 ILT infrastructure

We estimate that the actual number of computers in the 401 English colleges in 2003 isaround 300,000, compared with around 260,000 in 2001 and 160,000 in 1999. Around one-sixth of the current stock has survived since 1999, and around a half dates from 2001.

A quarter (25%) of computers designated for student use are open-access and the remainingthree-quarters (75%) are sited in classrooms. This level of availability decreases in theevening and is at its lowest at weekends. However, a higher proportion of open-accesscomputers remain available for students beyond daytime hours, with just under a half of thesemachines available for use at weekends.

The local area network (LAN) backbone in over 70% of colleges is 100 Mbps Ethernet, and afurther 20% of colleges have Gigabit LANs. Ninety-four per cent of computers designated forstudent use are networked, and all student computers are networked in 83% of colleges.Forty-two per cent of respondents say that their network could cope with a significant increase

in traffic, compared to 24% in 1999. The number struggling to meet demand has fallen to 5%from 22%. Despite the improvement in LAN specification, over half of the sector is, however,still stretched to full capacity. This seems to indicate that the nature of demand for ILT in


5/38

5

colleges could be described as a motorway effect, which sees traffic rapidly adjust upwardseach time an additional lane is opened.

All colleges have been provided with a free 2 Mbps internet connection via JANET as part ofthe NLN initiative. Around one-third of these (33%) have, or plan to have, additionalbandwidth. There also seems to be a growing polarisation between the majority of colleges

which seem relatively content with 2 Mbps, and the third that have invested in extrabandwidth and seem hungry for more.

Broadly speaking, the FE sector has a robust infrastructure capable of delivering a wide rangeof electronically mediated learning experiences. Demand for this technology is clearlywidespread and may continue to grow and devour any future increase in capacity.

1.4 Access to ILT

The median ratio of full-time-equivalent (FTE) students per computer has fallen to 4.0:1 (7.6:1in 1999). The highest value calculated for 2003 was 9.7:1 at a single college, whilst only fourcolleges (less than 2% of the respondents) had ratios of 8:1 or greater. This compares with43% who had ratios of 8:1 or greater in 1999. The median number of FTE students to

computers with internet access is now 4.1:1 and three-quarters of colleges have nowachieved the target set by the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) of 5:1. This compares with amedian of 21:1 in 1999, which had fallen to 4.95:1 by last year.

The number of colleges who are unable to meet current demand for internet access fell fromjust over a half in 1999 to exactly a quarter in 2001. This proportion has remained the samesince then. The ability to meet demand for the internet and the demand for computers per sehave converged steadily since 1999, in line with the increasing proportion of computersconnected to the internet.

The NLN target of one internet-connected computer for every permanent member of teachingstaff has been achieved or bettered by 26% of colleges, from a level of 15% in 2001. Theactual achievement of colleges in providing computers for staff is better reflected in themedian value of the ratio of permanent teaching staff to internet-connected computers, whichhas fallen from 3:1 in 2000 to 1.4:1 this year. The figure inferred for 1999 (when the questionwas not directly asked) is 7:1.

The characteristic mode of access to computers for teaching staff remains sharing acomputer in a staff room. This mode of access has remained at a constant level since 1999. Ithas acted as a buffer as sharing student machines declined (all or most teaching staff sharedwith students in 20% of colleges in 1999; by 2001 this had fallen to 6%), and having sole useof computers has increased (all or most teaching staff have sole access in 31% of colleges,compared to 5% in 1999).

Taking the sector as a whole, the 1999 targets for access to computers and the internet havebeen exceeded for students and almost achieved for staff. Two questions still remain. Is thisILT infrastructure being used effectively in teaching and learning? Is it affordable in the long

term?

1.5 ILT for teaching and learning

The use of email for staff communication is well embedded in almost all colleges and iscommon practice in nearly two-thirds of the sector. Electronic communication both with andbetween students is however a far less extensive use of college networks. All colleges havean acceptable use policy for electronic communications, and acceptable use forms part of thestudent induction process in 94% of colleges. Over three-quarters (76%) of colleges indicatedthat they monitored electronic communications, using software, members of staff, or acombination of the two.

Ninety-three per cent of colleges use their network as a learning platform and 40% use it as

the main platform. Eighty-four per cent use their intranet as a learning platform, and this isconsidered the main platform in 14% of colleges. As a more recent technology, VLEs are farless widely used: 59% of colleges have them and only 11% use them as their main platform.


6/38

6

These three types of learning platform are heavily used as repositories for course documents;however, beyond this their use differs considerably. College intranets are also heavily usedfor learner support. Intranets and VLEs allow the uploading of materials more easily thannetworks, and VLEs most easily allow student tracking.

The use of ILT for student tracking and the use of electronic information to support teaching

and learning are, however, at a modest level. Thirty per cent of colleges commonly useelectronic information to support personal tutorials, and information from tutorials is recordedelectronically in 20% of colleges. Electronic student portfolios or records of achievement aremaintained in 22% of colleges.

By far the most frequent use of ILT in mainstream college programmes is to support learning;ILT is used in all or most programmes in 48% of colleges. ILT is widespread as a traditionalclassroom tool in 21% of colleges. Using ILT with traditional learning resources to produceblended learning is seen as widespread in 18% of colleges. Seventeen per cent of collegesalso report the use of ILT to enable learners to access some or all of their programme at atime convenient to them. The use of ILT for remote access or to produce an individualisedprogramme of study are the least common uses of e-learning in colleges; 34% of collegesmake no use of ILT to enable individualised study, and 28% do not use ILT for remote

learning.

Learning materials are most often used at the individual teachers discretion. This was thecase in 52% of the colleges surveyed. Their use is directed by a college-wide plan in only17% of colleges, and by a plan at department or course level in 28%. The internet is the mostfrequently used source of learning materials, being used in 94% of colleges and being incommon use in 43%. Of the 78% of colleges that use NLN materials, only 5% describe theiruse as common practice. This reflects the early stage in embedding the use of NLN materials,with only the limited range of Round 1 materials available to colleges at the time of thesurvey.

Online assessment, taken in the context of each colleges whole programme, is seen asinsignificant or limited to individual enthusiasts in 50% of the colleges surveyed. It is seen as

a widespread activity in only 3% of colleges. The most extensive use of ILT with regard toassessment is to store and record outcomes of assessment; this happens to some degree in68% of colleges, though only 10% describe this as common practice.

Seventy-three per cent of college teaching staff are considered to be competent or advancedin their personal use of IT, compared with 67% in 2000. However, in the use of ILT withlearners, only 56% of teaching staff are considered competent or advanced. (In 2000 this was42%.) Both sets of skills are improving and the gap between IT competence and ILTcompetence has steadily narrowed since 1999.

The use of ILT remains a peripheral activity in much of teaching and learning. Electroniccommunications are more frequently used between college staff than with students. ILT ininduction is often focused on areas that already have inherent IT content. In mainstream

programmes, most ILT use remains a bolt-on element, outside scheduled teaching. However,the first signs of embedded ILT practice are beginning to appear. There is some evidence ofILT being used in traditional teaching, and some blended learning is taking place. Staff skillsin ILT are improving faster than their general IT skills, and many colleges see the embeddingof ILT into teaching practice as a key development need.

1.6 ILT expenditure

The estimated total expenditure on ILT for the FE sector as a whole in the year to July 2002was 206 million. Hardware accounted for the largest amount of expenditure at 87 million(42% of the total), followed by ILT-related staff costs, estimated at 51 million (25% of thetotal). Seventy-eight per cent of the total expenditure came from within colleges own funds,and 8% came from each of the Standards Fund and the NLN. The remaining 6% came from

other funds, notably from the European Union and the National Lottery.


7/38

7

The current level of computer stock in the FE sector, noted above, will prove difficult tosustain within the present hardware budget without careful planning of the life of these assets.A key question then is how useful for teaching and learning is a four- or five-year-oldcomputer? Investment decisions will need to take account of what would be considered areasonable life span for these assets. However, growth and innovation continue, thereforemanagement planning for sustainability must also take into account the potential for change

and innovation in current practice.

ILT staffing costs are difficult to identify, as it is almost impossible to extricate exactly whatitems in the staff budget are driven by ILT. However, the survey shows that it is indeed asignificant amount and that, certainly for the near future, colleges will need to invest in anddevelop the staff skill sets necessary for the realisation of the full potential of ILT.

Major corporate information systems represent long-term strategic investment by colleges.Student records systems are by far the largest item of current major systems expenditure.Student numbers are a major driver of many other costs; they drive staffing levels, estates,and of course ILT investment. This investment should therefore provide much-neededinformation for colleges needing to plan for sustainability and possible future growth.


8/38

8

2 The survey

2.1 Context and purpose of the study

This study was carried out from February through to June 2003 on behalf of the LSC. Thesurvey seeks to assess progress in the provision of ILT within the FE sector, along with theextent to which this provision is integrated into the teaching and learning process. Threeprevious studies, undertaken in February 1999, September 2000 and September 2001,provide comparative data to judge the impact of the deployment of NLN monies for thedevelopment of ILT infrastructure in the sector.

2.2 Survey methodology and response

The study took the form of a survey, using two separate questionnaires, of all 401 FE collegesin England. The main questionnaire (the ILT Monitoring Survey) explored quantitative issuesrelating to infrastructure and practice. A second questionnaire (the ILT Expenditure Survey),directed to each colleges finance director, concerned expenditure on ILT and the sources offunds for this expenditure. The two questionnaires were published and disseminatedsimultaneously in both paper-based and web-based formats.

Two hundred colleges (50% of the sector) submitted completed ILT monitoringquestionnaires, and 132 colleges (33% of the sector) completed the ILT expenditurequestionnaires prior to the original deadline in March. A second call for responses from theLSC resulted in a final total of 256 colleges (64% of the sector) submitting completed ILTmonitoring questionnaires and 197 colleges (49% of the sector) submitting completed ILTexpenditure questionnaires. A further 13 colleges responded to the ILT monitoring survey and9 to the expenditure survey, but were too late to be included in this analysis.Table 1 shows the breakdown of respondents to the ILT Monitoring Survey by type of college.

Table 1 Respondents by college type

College type Sector RespondentsGeneral FE and tertiary 65% 65%

Sixth-form college 26% 27%

Agricultural & horticultural college 5% 5%

Art, design & performing arts college 2% 2%

Specialist-designated college 3% 2%

Total 100% 100%

The breakdown by college type reveals that the sample is sufficiently representative of thenumbers of different types of college nationally to ensure a high level of confidence in anyinferences drawn from the data. The actual number of art and design colleges (6) and

specialist-designated colleges (4) in the sample reflects the small number in the sector, butprevents us from making specific observations about them as a group.

The regional breakdown of respondents to the ILT Monitoring Survey is shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Respondents by regional location

Region Sector Respondents

South West 8% 10%

South East 18% 18%

Greater London 13% 10%

Eastern Region 8% 8%

East Midlands 7% 7%

West Midlands 13% 14%North West 15% 18%


9/38

9

Yorkshire and Humber 10% 10%

Northern Region 6% 5%

A high proportion of colleges from the North West and the South West regions and adisappointingly low proportion of colleges from London submitted responses. However, thegeneral profile of the respondents still mirrors the sector quite closely.

Table 3 shows the profile of colleges responding to each survey grouped according tonumbers of FTE students enrolled at each college.

Table 3 Respondents by college size

FTE bandILT

MonitoringSurvey

ILTExpenditure

SurveySector

0750 FTEs 10% 11% 10%

7511,750 FTEs 37% 38% 38%

1,7513,000 FTEs 27% 26% 27%

3,001 FTEs and greater 26% 24% 25%

Again, both surveys show a reasonable match to the sector as a whole. However, as NLNmonies were allocated on the basis of the FTE bands shown, the slight bias in favour ofsmaller colleges in the responses to the ILT Expenditure Survey has been corrected byweighting the results of this survey.

The profiles shown in the three tables above, taken with the high response rate for bothsurveys, lead us to a high degree of confidence in the data. These surveys were detailed andconducted within a tight time-scale. It is understandable, therefore, that as a consequencesome returns were incomplete in some sections. For this reason the basis of calculation in thereport varies from the sample maximum at times.


10/38

10

3 Infrastructure

3.1 Computer specifications

The original Becta survey of ILT in colleges, carried out in February 1999, found that only38% of computers available for learning purposes were of an acceptable standard for usewith internet applications. The specification (arbitrarily) chosen was Pentium II MMX. Fromthe survey of 2000 onwards, we have asked colleges to use their own minimum baselinespecification for an acceptable level of performance and to delineate stock against thisbenchmark. It is hoped that this will provide a robust basis of comparison over time, since itmatches the continual changes in the technology of computers with changes in userexpectations and increased technical demands of current software.

Respondents were asked to describe the baseline specification that they would currentlyconsider buying for college purposes in terms of its speed, RAM and hard disk capacity. Theywere also asked to describe what they would consider the current best-buy specification.The three dimensions of speed, memory and hard disk capacity were then weighted toproduce eight bands representing machines of increasing capability. Table 4 below shows atypical specification for each band and the percentages of colleges designating each band astheir baseline specification.

Table 4 Baseline specification of computers

Typical band specifications Percentage ofrespondents

Speed (MHz) RAM (Mb) Hard disk (Gb) Baselinespecification

2000

Baselinespecification

2003

Band 1200 32 2 29% 5%

Band 2500 32 4

25% 12%

Band 3500 64 6 23% 21%

Band 4650 64 10 20% 9%

Band 5650 128 15 2% 9%

Band 6700 128 20 0% 8%

Band 7750 256 20 0% 2%

Band 81,000 256 20 0% 17%

Band 9 and greater2,000 512 40 0% 15%

Data = percentage of respondents

The median specification of band 5 is somewhat misleading as a typical baseline computerwithin the sector. The table shows that as the performance of computers has increased,around one-third of respondents (32%) have specified as baseline Pentium 4 computers thatwere unavailable in 2000. A slightly higher number (38%) continue to specify a baselinecomputer in the bottom three bands essentially Pentium II or low-specification Pentium III.This dichotomy in what constitutes a minimum specification may be caused by therequirements of the particular software or learning materials used in each college. However, itmay also be the result of the rapid escalation of marketplace specifications, leading some

college managers to specify on the basis of current availability rather than user requirementsand expectations.


11/38

11

The best buy, by contrast, is typically a significantly higher specification than the baseline.Although 30% of respondents cite the same specification for both baseline and best buy,another 30% cited best-buy specifications six or more bands higher than the baseline. Thisprobably reflects the rapid upward movement of technical specification within themarketplace; colleges may define a baseline requirement in terms of user needs, but find it

cheaper to buy over-specified machines, or indeed impossible to buy the baseline as themarket moves rapidly on.

Table 5 Best-buy specification of computers

Typical band specifications Percentage ofrespondents

Speed (MHz) RAM (Mb) Hard disk (Gb) Best-buyspecification

2001

Best-buyspecification

2003

Band 1200 32 2 0% 0%

Band 2500 32 4 0% 0%

Band 3500 64 6 4% 0%

Band 4650 64 10 15% 1%

Band 5650 128 15 23% 1%

Band 6700 128 20 34% 2%

Band 7 750 256 20 6% 2%

Band 81,000 256 20 13% 33%

Band 9 and greater2,000 512 40 3% 59%


As shown in Table 5, over 90% of respondents cited computers in the highest bands as theirbest buy. However, as the available specification of computers has increased, prices havetended to fall. The median price paid for a best buy computer is now 650, down from 700 in2001. Despite this there remains considerable variation between colleges in terms of prices

paid

3% colleges (eight out of the sample of 256) gave a price in excess of 1,000 for theirbest buy.


12/38

12

3.2 College computer stock

Chart 1 College computer stock (% of total)

63%

18%

12%

3% 4% Baseline spec or better

Above Pentium II, below

baseline

Pentium II

Pentium I and below

Apple


Chart 1 shows that 63% of the current installed stock of computers in colleges is at, or betterthan the colleges baseline specification for desired level of performance. This is exactly thesame proportion as in 2001. A further 18% of stock is better than the Pentium II specificationwe set as benchmark in February 1999, and would still be considered higher than baselinelevel in many colleges.

Chart 2 Change in computer stock over time (numbers of computers)


More dramatic than the relative changes described above is the increase in absolute numbersof computers in colleges. A very rough estimate that can be inferred from the data is that theactual number of computers in the 401 English colleges is around 300,000, compared witharound 260,000 in 2001 and 160,000 in 1999. An equally rough calculation, illustrated in

Chart 2, suggests that around one-sixth of the current stock has survived since 1999, andaround a half date from 2001. An estimate of the total number of new computers bought since

050000

100000150000200000250000300000350000

1999 2001 2003

2002-03 purchases2000-01 purchasesPre-2000 purchases


13/38

13

that date for use in teaching and learning would then be around 100,000, yielding a netincrease of 40,000 above the replacement investment of 60,000 machines over the last twoyears.

Table 6 shows the type of access to computers across the sector. As might be expected,computer availability is at its greatest in the daytime, decreases in the evening and is at its

lowest at weekends. However, a higher proportion of open-access computers remainsavailable for students beyond daytime hours, with just under a half of these machinesavailable for use at weekends. Though colleges may wish for a greater proportion ofcomputers to be open access, the actual space available in college buildings that weredesigned to meet the needs of another age may prove a constraint.

Table 6 Computer placement

Open access Classroom only No access

Daytime 25% 71% 4%Evenings 22% 62% 17%Weekends 12% 28% 60%

Data = percentage of computer stock

3.3 Local area networks

The specification of college LANs has continued to rise in line with the specification andvolume of the computers that they support. Ninety-five per cent of all computers arenetworked, the same percentage as in 2001. However, 83% of colleges report that allmachines for student use are networked, compared to 60% in 2001. Ninety-one per cent nowreport that all staff computers are attached to the network; this figure was 69% in 2001.

Ethernet technology dominates college networks. Chart 3 shows the stages in the life-cycle ofLAN capacity occupied by each bandwidth. Gigabit Ethernet is beginning to grow its share ofthe FE market, whereas 100 Mbps Ethernet is now a mature technology at the peak of itsgrowth, and 10 Mbps Ethernet is now an old technology declining to a mere 6% of the sector.

Chart 3 Local area network backbone

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1999 2000 2001 2003

Percentageo

frespondent

10M Ethernet

100M EthernetGigabit Ethernet



14/38

14

3.4 LAN performance

The improvement in LAN specification leads to an expectation of a concomitant improvementin performance and in capability to meet demand. Chart 4 shows that there has indeed beensuch an improvement.

In 1999, only 24% of colleges had the capacity to meet an increase in demand upon thenetwork, whilst 22% could not cope with existing calls upon them. By 2003, 42% ofrespondents say that they could cope with a significant increase in traffic. The numberstruggling to deliver has fallen to 5%. Despite the improvement in LAN specification, over halfof the sector is still stretched to full capacity. This seems to confirm that the notion of amotorway effect, which sees traffic rapidly adjust upwards each time an additional lane isopened, still applies to the nature of demand for ILT in colleges.

These data must be seen against a backcloth of substantial increases in demand uponnetworks. Not only must each college network support its share of the additional 140,000machines we estimate to have been added since 1999, but it must also deal with theincreased proportion of the total that are networked (95%) rather than stand-alone. Theburden is further increased, moreover, by the increasing use of networked applications.

Chart 4 Network capability to meet demand

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1999 2000 2001 2003

Percentageo

frespondent

Over-stretched

At capacitySpare capacity


Colleges continue to restrict network traffic in bandwidth-hungry applications. Seventy-eightper cent of colleges identify large files as an actual or potential source of problems on thenetwork, and hence seek to control their use. This is only 6% fewer than the 84% who citedlarge files as a problem in 1999.

Table 7 Network performance

2003 2001 2000 1999

Always smooth without appreciable delay53% 47% 38% 35%

Generally works well but slow at busy times42% 49% 56% 60%

Slowness/unreliability a frequent problem4% 3% 4% 5%


15/38

15


Table 7 shows colleges appraisal of their network performance. The rate of improvement innetwork performance continues to lag behind other indicators. Frequent problems continue toaffect a small percentage of sector colleges. More dramatic, however, has been the rise to53% in the proportion of colleges who describe their network as always smooth, without

appreciable delay, and the decline to well below half of all colleges who report the networkperformance to be slow at busy times. Those students whose networked learning isscheduled at such busy times, however, almost certainly find their experience systematicallyworse than winners in the lottery of timetable slots who find they are scheduled to use thenetwork when traffic is low. This notwithstanding, the improvement since 1999 is impressive,particularly given the increased demands on the network described above.

3.4 Internet connectivity

All colleges have been provided with a free 2 Mbps internet connection via JANET as part ofthe NLN initiative. Table 8 shows that around one-third of these have, or plan to have,additional bandwidth. This has fallen from around two-fifths of colleges who stated an

intention in 2000 to go beyond 2 Mbps. The most significant fall has been the dramaticreduction of those colleges planning to have between 2 and 3 Mbps. The 10% fall since 2000in this group of colleges almost exactly matches the increase in those planning to stick withthe free 2 Mbps. It seems plausible to infer that this is the result of colleges deciding that thebenefits arising from, or the volume of traffic flowing through, relatively small amounts ofadditional bandwidth do not justify the cost. For colleges with 4 Mbps or more, however, thetendency is towards increased bandwidth, with 11% of colleges planning 10 Mbps or more.

Table 8 Total planned bandwidth

Bandwidth 2003 2001 2000

2 Mbps

67% 64% 59%

23 Mbps2% 6% 12%

4 Mbps14% 18% 19%

6 Mbps2% 0% 1%

8 Mbps1% 3% 1%

10 Mbps and greater11% 5% 4%


The profile of colleges planning bandwidth of 3 Mbps and above shows a continuing tendencyfor those seeking larger bandwidth to be larger colleges. Eighty-eight per cent are larger thanthe sector median value of FTE student numbers, and 93% of those seeking bandwidth inexcess of 10 Mbps are larger than the sector median. Seventy-eight per cent of the largest10% of colleges also intend to take on greater bandwidth. This still leaves the other 22% ofthe very largest colleges who are content with 2 Mbps for the near future, among themseveral of the largest colleges in the sector and some with a longstanding reputation for goodpractice in ILT.

Whilst a number of different internet service providers (ISPs) are contracted to provide theadditional connectivity, JANET has increased its dominance with 63% of these colleges, anincrease from 53% in 2001.


16/38

16

3.5 Constraints on internet use

Colleges were asked to rank a list of possible constraints upon expansion of internet use inthe order of their significance within the college. The results are shown in Chart 5. Theweighted scores are derived by giving a score of five for every time a constraint is ranked first,four if it is ranked second and so on.

Chart 5 Constraints on increased use of the internet

0 1 2 3 4

Access speeds

Access points

Course design

No interest

Student skills

Constrain

Weighted score

1999

2000

2001

2003

The number of access points remains a key constraint, despite the large influx of internet-capable machines into colleges. As mentioned in Section 3.2 above, it may be difficult toprovide more open-access points given the logistics of adapting existing buildings for ILT use.

Access speeds continue to decline as a constraint, however, a result of the investment inhigh-specification computers and LAN capability to support the now-universal JANET. Astechnical hurdles are surmounted and as use of the internet becomes commonplace,pedagogical issues have grown in importance. For staff, course design and planning to exploitthe possibilities of the Web maintains its place in the rankings, together with the student skillsneeded to engage effectively with the internet as a tool. Lack of interest remains in fifth place,but has increased in importance over previous years, perhaps as a result of trying to embedinternet use in more recalcitrant areas of the curriculum.

Colleges were invited to list other factors restricting growth. Inappropriate use, includingrestriction of access to unsuitable sites and the potential for inadvertently restricting suitablesites, continued to be the most important constraint. Eight per cent of all respondentsmentioned this, compared with 11% in 2000 and 2001. The 2 Mbps bandwidth was cited as a

constraint by another 8% of respondents, returning this issue to levels cited in 2000, havinggone down to 4% in 2001. Three per cent of respondents pointed out that they thought therewere no constraints to using the internet with students in their particular colleges, and asimilar number thought that the level of staff skills was an important issue to address.

Broadly speaking, the FE sector has a robust infrastructure capable of delivering a wide rangeof electronically mediated learning experiences. Demand for this technology is clearlywidespread and may continue to grow and devour any future increase in capacity.


17/38

17

4 Access to ILT

4.1 Access for learners

The survey requested an actual count of computers available within the college. Based onthese data, calculations were made of the availability of computers for both students and staffwithin colleges. The proxy variables that have been calculated to estimate this are the ratiosof computers to students and to staff. These measures were used in the studies in 1999,2000 and 2001, and allow comparisons to be drawn. They are also the format used by theLSC to define the targets for access to computers which it encouraged colleges to seek toachieve by 2002.

There is no single, unambiguous measure of student numbers that can safely be used tocalculate access ratios. The use of FTE student data as a basis for calculations reflects arecognition that they make an allowance for total hours of attendance, which other possiblemeasures such as a simple count of student numbers do not. This allows us to get closer tothe underlying questionhow easy is it for a student to access a computer within theinstitution? We have not attempted to distinguish particular groups of students, nor toseparate out attendance mode, pattern or site, though we recognise that these may have asignificant influence in determining access in practice.

The analysis used the latest complete set of FTE student data available from the LSC, whichcovers student numbers for academic year 2000-01. If student numbers have changeddramatically over the intervening period, using this older data with 2003 data for computernumbers will distort the apparent ratio of students:computer. Information about changes inenrolments over this period suggests that any such effect is likely to be minimal, that is thatthe calculated ratios are a true reflection of the actual situation in colleges in spring 2003.

We have examined two key ratios:- FTE students to all computers within the college- FTE students to internet-enabled computers

The improvement since 1999 in the availability of computers for students is shown in Chart 6.The mean number of FTE students per computer has fallen from 8.2:1 in 1999 to 4.1: 1 in2003. The median value (the ratio at the middle of the range of values) is 4.0:1 (7.6:1 in1999). As might be inferred from the similarity of these two figures, the dispersion of values isfar less than in 1999, with fewer colleges having very high ratios. The highest value calculatedfor 2003 was 9.7:1 at a single college, whilst only four colleges (less than 2% of therespondents) had ratios of 8:1 or greater. This compares with 43% who had ratios of 8:1 orworse in 1999. The median value is, nonetheless, likely to be the better estimate of the typicalsituation within sector colleges.


18/38

18

Chart 6 Ratio of FTE students to all computers

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Percentageofc

ollege

1999

2000

2001

2003

1999 0 3 4 14 20 16 35 7 1

2000 1 11 21 26 19 9 11 1 0

2001 4 15 30 26 13 7 5 0 02003 7 28 29 23 7 4 2 0 0

Better

than3:1 4:1 5:1 6:1 7:1

8:1 to

11:1

12:1 to

20:1

More

than


The disparity noted in previous surveys between different types of college in terms of level ofresource has closed. The median ratio for sixth-form colleges remains at the 2001 level of4.1:1; the ratio for general FE colleges is now 3.9:1 (4.5:1in 2001); and the median ratio forland-based colleges is now 4.6:1 (5.7:1 in 2001). The dispersion of values, as measured byboth standard deviation and interquartile range is relatively low for sixth-form and land-basedcolleges, indicating a clustering around the average values, which suggests that these are

indeed typical values.

Access to internet-enabled computers

The improvement in access to internet-enabled computers is significant, as Chart 7 shows.The median ratio of the number of FTE students to the number of computers with internetaccess is now 4.1:1, and three-quarters of colleges have now achieved the LSC target of 5:1.This compares with a median of 21:1 in 1999, which had fallen to 4.95:1 by last year. Eighty-five per cent of colleges have now achieved 5.7:1 or better. In 1999, by contrast, the 85

th

percentile was 106:1. This single statistic, perhaps more than any other in this report, revealsthe extent to which colleges have transformed the computing facilities available to learnersover the period of the NLN initiative.


19/38

19

Chart 7 Ratio of FTE students to internet-connected computers

0

10

20

30

40

Percentageo

fcollege

1999

2000

2001

2003

1999 0 3 4 14 20 16 35 7 1

2000 1 11 21 26 19 9 11 1 0

2001 4 15 30 26 13 7 5 0 0

2003 8 22 29 22 11 4 3 0 0

Better

than3:1 4:1 5:1 6:1 7:1

8:1 to

11:1

12:1 to

20:1

More

than


4.2 Managing demand for student access

Over the years since 1999, the increased number of high-specification computers availablefor use by learners has transformed the capability of colleges to deal with a level of demandfor ILT which they overwhelmingly describe as widespread. Just under half of institutions(47%) reported that they could not cope with the demand for computers in 1999. As Chart 8

shows, this now stands at 29%. This proportion has not changed since 2001. However, thenumber of colleges reporting that they are able to cope with increased demand has doubledfrom 5% to 10% of colleges.


20/38

20

Chart 8 Meeting student demand for computers

0

20

40

60

80

Percentage

ofcollege

1999

2000

2001

2003

1999 47 46 4

2000 39 50 3

2001 28 61 5

2003 29 60 10

Difficulty meeting

demand

Sufficient capacity for

demand

Sufficient capacity for

greater demand


The same general picture applies to meeting demand for internet access. Table 9 indicatesthat the number of colleges that are unable to meet current demand fell from just over half in1999 to exactly one-quarter in 2001. This proportion has remained the same since then. The

ability to meet demand for the internet and the demand for computers per sehave convergedsteadily since 1999, in line with the increasing proportion of computers connected to theinternet, currently 94% of student machines.

Table 9 Meeting student demand for internet access

College capability 2003 2001 2000 1999

Cannot cope with current demand25 25 39 54

Can cope with current demand63 58 45 25

Can cope with greater demand11 11 7 5


Access to the internet has improved, however. Fifty-three per cent of respondents nowdescribe use of computers for internet access as easy at any time, compared to 44% in 2001,and 44% now report that learners are likely to queue at busy times, down from 56% in 2001.

4.3 Access for staff

The provision of computers for the exclusive use of staff has continued its steadyimprovement. The NLN target of one internet-connected computer for every permanentmember of teaching staff has been achieved or bettered by 26% of colleges, from a level of15% in 2001. The attainment of this target is proving slower to achieve than the target forstudent access. This accords with a general preference, expressed in the strategy documents

submitted by colleges to Becta during summer 2000, for giving early priority to resources forstudents rather than staff. This position was reaffirmed by the strategy updates for 2001, and


21/38

21

its translation into practice is clearly demonstrated by achievement of the student accessratios reported above.

The actual achievement of colleges in providing computers for staff is better reflected in themedian value of the ratio of permanent teaching staff to internet-connected computers, shownin Table 10, which has fallen from 3:1 in 2000, down to 1.4:1 this year. The figure inferred for1999 (when the question was not directly asked) is 7:1.

Table 10 Median number of teaching staff to internet-connected computers

2003 2001 2000 1999

All staff2.4 3.5 4.1 12.0

Permanent staff1.4 1.9 3.0 ** 7.0

** Estimate based on 1999 data

Table 10 further shows the improvement in access to internet-enabled computers for allteaching staff, which is of particular significance given the heavy reliance by colleges onsessional staff to deliver programmes of learning. This has fallen from 12 staff for each

internet-enabled computer down to 2.4.

We have chosen not to separately report the ratios for staff and all computers, including thosewithout internet capability, because they now differ little from the figures given in Table 6. Thisreflects the increasing connection of staff computers to the college network. Ninety-five percent of all computers set aside for staff use are now networked, and, combined with stafflaptops, some 96% are connected to the internet.

4.4 Mode of access for staff

The improvement in staff access has accompanied a move towards giving staff their owndesignated machine. Chart 9 shows that teaching staff are those with the lowest level of

access. Thirty-one per cent of colleges now report that all or most teaching staff have theirown designated computer; however, this has increased considerably since 1999 when only5% of colleges reported this level of access. Management and administration staff, as mightbe expected, have by far the highest level of access, ICT being essential to running thecollege as a business. Around one-quarter of colleges report that remote access to thecollege system is available to all or most of each type of staff. This may be a greater boon toteaching staff with a lower level of access to college machines and a tradition of developingtheir teaching materials away from the college.


22/38

22

Chart 9 Staff access to computers

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Percentage

ofcollege

All/most with own

designated computer

31 46 98

All/most with remote

access

25 23 23

Teaching staff Support staffManagement/admin

staff


As Chart 10 below indicates, however, the characteristic mode of access for teaching staffremains sharing a computer in a staff room. This mode of access has remained at a constantlevel since 1999. It has acted as a buffer as sharing student machines declined (all or mostteaching staff shared with students in 20% of colleges in 1999; by 2001 this had fallen to 6%)and having sole use of computers increased.

Chart 10 Teaching staff access to computers

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Percentage

ofcollege

All/most with own

designated computer

All/most with shared

office computer

All/most with own

designated

computer

5 16 27 31

All/most with

shared office

computer

59 64 60 60

1999 2000 2001 2003


Table 11 reveals college priorities changing in the light of the increase in available resource.The number of teaching staff and learning support staff with sole use of a computer has

increased: 11% of colleges now have designated computers for these individuals. At firstglance this might seem to sit awkwardly with the reported achievement of a ratio of teaching


23/38

23

staff to computers of 1:1 by 26% of colleges. However, many colleges may have sufficientcomputers for all permanent teaching staff, but these machines are not designated for thesole use of a particular individual. The achievement of this goal is now seen as a priority bymore colleges (sole use was seen as a priority by only 3% of colleges in 2001). Also,gratifyingly, all colleges with a teaching staff:computer ratio above 5:1 see the achievement ofsole use as a priority.

Table 11 Priorities for staff access to own designated computer

Type of staffAchieved A policy

priorityNot a policypriority

All permanent teaching staff have acomputer for their sole use

11 53 35

All learning support staff have acomputer for their sole use

11 39 50


Sole access to a computer for learning support staff is seen as less of a priority than soleaccess for teaching staff for colleges, however. Even though the same proportion haveachieved this type of access as for teaching staff, half of all colleges do not regard soleaccess as a priority for this group.

Taking the FE sector as a whole, there is a reasonable level of access to ILT for bothstudents and staff. Two questions remain: Is this ILT infrastructure being used effectively inteaching and learning? andIs it affordable in the long term?


24/38

24

5 Use of ILT for teaching and learning

5.1 Electronic communications

Chart 11 indicates that the use of email for staff communication is well embedded in almost allcolleges and is common practice in nearly two-thirds of the sector. This mirrors practiceacross all sectors of the economy where email has become the business communications toolof choice. Electronic communication both with and between students is less extensive and isless likely to be commonly used in any college.

Chart 11 Use of email and other electronic communications

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Percentageofcollege

Common practice 61% 64% 16% 25%

We do this 35% 34% 61% 44%

Management

to staff

Staff to staff

communicatio

Staff to

student

Student to

student


All colleges have an acceptable use policy, and acceptable use forms part of the studentinduction process in 94% of colleges. Over three-quarters (76%) of colleges indicated thatthey monitored electronic communications, using software, members of staff, or acombination of the two. Table 12 shows the frequency of inappropriate use brought to thenotice of colleges. No colleges claim that inappropriate use of electronic communicationsnever happens, though one-third (33%) say that it is extremely rare.

Table 12 Inappropriate use of electronic communications

Percentage of colleges

Is extremely rare 33%Has to be dealt with every year 24%Has to be dealt with every term 31%Has to be dealt with every week 9%


As might be expected, colleges that monitored electronic communications as a commonpractice were more likely to report that inappropriate use was a frequent problem. Table 13shows the level of monitoring for inappropriate use against discovered occurrences. Over50% of those that described monitoring as common practice (whether using electronic means,staff, or both) reported that inappropriate use had to be dealt with at least every term,whereas only 38% of those where monitoring was less rigorous reported this level offrequency of inappropriate use.


25/38

25

Table 13 Monitoring inappropriate use

Occurs rarely (annually

or less often)

Occurs frequently

(at least termly)

Totals

Occasional monitoringof e-communications

25% 16% 41%

Monitoring ofe-communications iscommon practice

17% 18% 35%


We also asked colleges to rank the different sources of information that brought inappropriateuse to their attention. Chart 12 shows that learning resource staff and teaching staff broughtup this issue most often; electronic forms of detection were next. Learners themselves were

by far the least likely to bring matters to the colleges attention, with over 70% of collegesranking learners as fourth or fifth in importance.

Chart 12 Sources of information about inappropriate use

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5

Learners

Other staff

Electronic detection

Teaching staff

Learning resource staff

Weighted score (highest = most important)

5.2 Learning platforms

Colleges were asked to indicate the types of learning platform in use at their college. Thesecould be the college intranet, a commercially produced VLE, or the general college network,for example using joint drives or public folders. They were also asked to indicate whether thisuse could be described as frequent, and also, if frequent, whether the particular learningplatform could be described as the colleges main platform. Chart 13 shows that collegescontinue to make heavier use of their networks than other learning platforms, 93% using thenetwork as a learning platform and as the main platform in 40% of cases. As a more recenttechnology, VLEs are far less widely used, 59% of colleges having them and only 11% usingthem as their main platform.


26/38

26

Chart 13 College learning platforms

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percentage

ofco

llege

Main platform 14% 11% 40%

In frequent use 30% 11% 25%

In use 40% 37% 28%

Intranet VLE Network


The three types of learning platform are heavily used as repositories for course documents.Chart 14 indicates that colleges use their networks and VLEs to a far lesser extent for learnersupport and guidance. College intranets, on the other hand, are used for learner supportequally as frequently as for course documentation.

Chart 14 Use of college learning platforms

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percentageofcollege

Course documents 69% 50% 80% 5%

Support and guidance 70% 26% 49% 4%

Intranet VLE NetworkSeparate

device


The data presented in Table 14 indicates that uploading materials is a relatively easy task forthe users of college learning platforms. Tracking learners through any programme of study,and linking to the colleges management information system (MIS) appears more problematic.

Table 14 Ease of use of main college learning platform

Uploadmaterials

Track learneractivity

Link to collegeMIS


27/38

27

Easily 78% 31% 31%

With difficulty 16% 27% 26%

Not at all 3% 37% 37%


However, when the main platform is identified in each case, some interesting differencesemerge. The data presented in Table 15 are derived from the separate responses of thosethat use each type of platform as their main learning platform. The figures given are thepercentages of colleges with each type of platform that found these operations easy. We cansee that uploading materials is a much easier task for those who use a VLE or the collegeintranet than those who use the college network. The functionality of a VLE appears to enablethe tracking of learner activity far more easily than the other two platforms. Linking to thecolleges MIS seems only slightly easier for a VLE than the other platforms, only slightly betterthan the figure of 31% for all platforms shown in Table 14. Easy linkage to college MISsystems does not seem to be a feature of any particular platform, and any success here mayreflect local solutions found by particular skilled members of staff.

Table 15 Tasks considered easy for each college learning platform

Uploadmaterials

Track learneractivity

Link to collegeMIS

College intranet 94% 19% 28%

VLE 92% 83% 33%

College network 80% 19% 29%

Data = percentage of users of eachmain platform

The extent to which colleges use ILT to track student progress is shown in Table 16. It can beseen that this type of activity has yet to be fully embedded within the sector. By far the mostcommon type of tracking is against assignments or assessments, which takes place in only

42% of colleges.

Table 16 Use of ILT to track progress


Scheme of work 12%

Whole programme 21%

Assignments and assessments 42%

Completion of an element of the programme 27%

Tutorials 18%


The use of electronic information to support teaching and learning is at a similar modest level.Thirty per cent of colleges commonly use electronic information to support personal tutorials,and information from tutorials is recorded electronically in 20% of colleges. Electronic studentportfolios or records of achievement are maintained in 22% of colleges.

5.3 ILT in the teaching and learning process

Thirty-four per cent of colleges have set formal targets for the use of ILT across allprogrammes. A further 46% set targets where they feel they are appropriate, and 16% do notset targets for ILT at all. Many colleges have relationships with external organisations in theirdelivery of technology-oriented learning. Table 17 shows the main organisations with whichcolleges have IT academy-type status.


28/38

28

Table 17 Formal relationships with commercial organisations

Organisation Percentage of colleges

Cisco 37%

Microsoft 23%

Regional academies 6%

Oracle 5%Novell 5%

Others 9%


Remote learning is currently dominated by learndirect, with 72% of colleges deliveringlearndirect courses. However, a not inconsiderable 55% of colleges conduct some remotelearning that is not delivered via learndirect.

Display screen technologies have made significant inroads into teaching practice. Ninety-eight per cent of colleges use data projectors, of which 64% describe their use as frequent.Eighty-one per cent of colleges use electronic whiteboards, but only 21% say they are usedfrequently. However, these figures probably overstate the extent of the use of thesetechnologies. A few machines frequently used in even a modest sized college will not have awidespread impact on embedding ILT in the teaching and learning process.

ILT in student induction

Chart 15 shows the extent to which ILT is used in the student induction process in colleges.Two of the three most frequently cited activities, learning resources and IT/ICT skills, areareas that have an intrinsic technology element. The third, initial assessment, is an areawhere the number-crunching ability of IT allows the quick and timely deployment ofassessment instruments. The evaluation of learning styles may seem to similarly lend itself toILT, but may be a less widespread part of the induction process generally, resulting in its

lower level of use here.

Chart 15 Use of ILT in student induction

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Percenta

ge

ofcollege

This is common practice 39% 35% 36% 9% 15% 9%

We do this 37% 47% 42% 47% 36% 32%

Initial

assesmentIT/ICT skills

Learning

resources

Subject

induction

College

induction

Evaluate

learning

styles



29/38

29

ILT in mainstream programmes

Colleges were asked to identify the extent to which ILT was used in mainstream collegeprogrammes. The model of e-learning developed by Jenny Scribbins and Bob Powell (2002)

1

was used to structure the variety of ways in which electronic media and resources can be

used to enable and support effective teaching and learning. The results are shown in Chart16.

By far the most frequent use of ILT is to support learning; this takes place in all or mostprogrammes in 48% of colleges. This type of activity typically takes place outside scheduledlearning and complements or supports the main programme. The kind of ILT use envisionedhere includes using the internet for research, or using technology-based exercises for revisionor practice.

ILT is widespread as a traditional classroom tool in 21% of colleges. This category includesthe use of display screen technologies, and the level of use indicated here perhaps gives abetter picture of the current use of these technologies than the level of frequent use citedabove.

Using ILT with traditional learning resources to produce blended learning is seen aswidespread in some 18% of colleges. Seventeen per cent of colleges also report the use ofILT to enable learners to access some or all of their programme at a time convenient to them.The use of ILT for remote access or to produce an individualised programme of study are theleast common uses of e-learning in colleges: 34% of colleges make no use of ILT to enableindividualised study, and 28% do not use ILT for remote learning.

It is worth noting that this model of e-learning is a descriptive one and does not seek toprescribe a set of activities that all colleges must follow. Each e-learning activity can aid high-quality, effective teaching and learning when it is appropriate to the needs of the learner.

1A fuller exposition of this model can be found in Managing Inspection and ILT, Becta 2002.


30/38

30

Chart 16 Use of ILT in mainstream college programmes

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Remote access

Individualised programme

Learners own time

Learners own pace

Part of blended learning

Traditional classroom tool

To support learning


Used in no programmes 28% 34% 9% 3% 5% 2% 1%

In all or most programmes 8% 4% 17% 10% 18% 21% 48%

Remote

access

Individual

ised

program

Learners

ow n time

Learners

ow n

pace

Part of

blended

learning

Tradition

al

classroo

To

support

learning


ILT learning materials

Learning materials are most often used at the individual teachers discretion. This was thecase in 52% of the colleges surveyed. Their use is directed by a college-wide plan in only17% of colleges and by a plan at department or course level in 28%. Chart 17 shows the mainsources of learning materials used with students. The internet is the most frequently usedsource of learning materials, being used in 94% of colleges and in common use in 43%. Ofthe 78% of colleges that use NLN materials, only 5% describe their use as common practice.This reflects the early stage in embedding the use of NLN materials, with only the limitedrange of Round 1 materials available to colleges at the time of the survey.

Colleges were also asked to rank these sources of learning materials in order of importance.

The ranking followed the level of use, with internet resources ranked as most important andNLN materials ranked fourth.

Eighty-seven per cent of colleges offer staff development programmes to support staff whowish to develop or adapt electronic learning materials. Seventy-nine per cent offer supportfrom ILT champions and 75% offer support from technical staff. Of the 30% of colleges thatoffer other support, around half offer support from other members of staff, often on a one-to-one or mentoring basis. Others offer some remission of time, loan of laptops or otherequipment, and sometimes project funding.


31/38

31

Chart 17 Electronic learning materials used with students

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percentage

ofco

llege

This is common practice 5% 18% 27% 43%

We do this 73% 68% 62% 51%

NLN

materials

Commercial/

bought-in

Own

college/develInternet


ILT and online assessment

Online assessment, taken in the context of each colleges whole programme, is seen asinsignificant or limited to individual enthusiasts in 50% of the colleges surveyed. It is seen asa widespread activity in only 3% of colleges. This low level of use is reflected in the extent towhich the assessment activities are seen as common practice in Chart 18 below. The mostextensive use of ILT is to store and record outcomes of assessment, which happens to somedegree in 68% of colleges, though only 10% describe this as common practice. The use of

ILT for assessment activities that lead to formal certification is the least widespread type ofactivity, with only 46% of colleges doing this at all, and 2% describing this as commonpractice. Given the early stage of ILT use in colleges generally, it is to be expected that theuse of ILT in assessment, and formal assessment especially, will lag behind. The adoption ofnew and potentially untried techniques in this area may be seen as requiring a period ofevaluation against existing methods.


32/38

32

Chart 18 Online assessment activities

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

For student feedback

Certification activities

To store outcomes

On-line submission of work

Computer-marked

assignments


This is common practice 5% 2% 10% 3% 2%

We use this 60% 44% 58% 56% 64%

For studentfeedback

Certificationactivities

To storeoutcomes

On-linesubmission

of work

Computer-marked

assignment


5.4 Staff IT and ILT skills

Respondents were asked to estimate the proportion of staff with low, medium or high levels of

skill (beginner, competent, advanced), both in their personal use of IT and in their use of ILTwith learners. Definitions within these broad classifications were left to the judgement ofrespondents on grounds of practicality. The research team considered the identification ofsuitably bounded criteria to be a daunting task, if not impossible within the time-scale. Moresignificant, however, was the belief that while respondents assessments of the categorieswould not be identical, they would share sufficiently similar understandings of competency toenable comparison and for judgements to be drawn from the results. The mean of the valuesestimated by each college was calculated for every category.

However, it is worth noting that the lack of a commonly agreed and well understood set ofdefinitions of ILT competencies, taken together with the uncertainty about what constitutesgood practice and effective pedagogy in e-learning, may have led many respondents tooverstate the ILT skill level of staff.


33/38

33

Chart 19 Teaching staff IT and ILT competence

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Percentageof

staff

IT skills 27 53 20

ILT skills 44 37 19

Beginner Competent Advanced


The results for teaching staff are shown in Chart 19. Across the sector as a whole, 73% ofstaff are considered by respondents to be competent or advanced in their personal use of IT,compared with 67% in 2000. However, in the use of ILT with learners, only 56% of collegestaff are considered competent or advanced (in 2000 this was 42%). This suggests that justunder one in three staff who are competent or advanced in their personal use of IT areregarded as low skilled in the application of ILT with learners. However, both sets of skills areimproving, and the gap between IT competence and ILT competence is narrowing as shownin Chart 20.

Chart 20 Teaching staff: competent and advanced at IT/ILT

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Percentageofstaff

IT skills 67 70 73

ILT skills 42 48 56

2000 2001 2003


Respondents were asked to state the main skills that teaching staff currently need to develop,and any development programmes that would help to address these needs. Twenty-one percent of colleges cited the integration of ILT into the curriculum and classroom practice.Seventeen per cent cited the technical skills necessary to use particular packages or

applications. A further 14% cited the skills needed to use a VLE, 9% cited materials-development skills, and a further 3% mentioned online tutoring skills. Even though it was only


34/38

34

launched in November 2002, the Ferl Practitioners Programme (FPP) was the mostfrequently mentioned development programme, cited by 7% of respondents, and theEuropean Computer Driving Licence (ECDL) was mentioned by 1%.

Chart 21 shows the perceived skill levels for college learning support staff. The definition oflearning support staff was left to respondents. It does, however, represent a heterogeneous

skill set that may not be fairly represented here. Technical staff may be thought to dominatethe group, hence the higher level of competence reported in both IT (77% competent oradvanced) and ILT skills (65% competent or advanced) compared to teaching staff.

Chart 21 Learning support staff: IT and ILT competence

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Percentag

eofstaf

IT skills 23 55 22

ILT skills 35 43 22

Beginner Competent Advanced


The skills thought necessary for this group of staff to develop tended more towards technical-type skills. Twenty-five per cent cited the technical skills necessary to use particular packagesor applications, and another 11% mentioned use of a VLE. Product knowledge of the differentpackages and hardware available was thought necessary for support staff by 6% of colleges.The FPP was again the most frequently mentioned development programme, again cited by7% of respondents. The ECDL was thought to be more appropriate for learning support staff,cited here by 3% of respondents.

The use of ILT remains a peripheral activity in much of teaching and learning. Electroniccommunications are more frequently used with college staff than with students. ILT ininduction is often focused on areas that already have inherent IT content. In mainstreamprogrammes, most ILT use remains a bolt-on element, outside scheduled teaching. However,the first signs of embedded ILT practice are beginning to appear. There is some evidence ofILT being used in traditional teaching, and some blended learning is taking place. Staff skillsin ILT are improving faster than their general IT skills, and many colleges see the embeddingof ILT into teaching practice as a key development need.


35/38

35

6 Expenditure on ILT

6.1 Identifying funding sources

Colleges found the Expenditure Survey difficult. Identifying particular items of expenditurewith particular funding streams proved a daunting task. For most colleges, once funding hasbeen received it is subsumed within the overall budget, and unless tracking back is a specificrequirement, it can prove to be very difficult. As a result, several colleges identified allexpenditure as emanating from college funds. Funding from external sources may, therefore,be slightly understated.

Some 20 million of NLN funding was allocated to colleges in the year to July 2002. However,some colleges pointed out that part of the funding became available from April 2001 and wassubsequently spent in the previous accounting period. This, taken along with some evidenceof colleges possibly misallocating NLN monies to Standards Fund or other sources, willaccount for the apparent shortfall on this item.

The total expenditure of 206 million calculated in Table 18 below compares with 177 millionreported in an unpublished study in 1999, therefore representing a 17% increase in ILTexpenditure since that time. However, we asked for much more detailed information on staff-related costs in the current survey compared to 1999. Stripping out the staff-related costs, the2003 figure for hardware, software and systems is 141 million compared to 171 million in1999, a 17% decrease in expenditure over the four years.

Over three-quarters of ILT expenditure comes out of the general college budget, with moneyfrom the NLN and the Standards Fund and funding from external sources accounting for therest, at around 78% each. However, if the different types of expenditure are examined, thetargeted nature of this funding, and its importance to particular types of activity, is thrown intorelief. The other funding, mainly from European Union and National Lottery sources, is oftentied to capital projects, therefore accounting for 10% of expenditure on hardware. The NLNfunding, being technology oriented, again accounts for 12% of the expenditure on both

hardware and software. The Standards Fund, on the other hand, is shown to be an extremelyimportant source of funding for training, accounting for over one-third of expenditure on bothtechnician and staff training in ILT. Staffing costs, being a recurrent expense, areoverwhelmingly funded out of the general college budget and, as several respondents found itdifficult to disentangle ILT-related staff costs from staff costs generally, the 94% figure statedhere is probably an understatement.

6.2 Sustainability of investment

Computers, along with much electronic office equipment are usually depreciated to zero overthree years. If this is a reasonable estimate of the life of these assets, then our calculation ofthe total computer stock in the FE sector (see Section 3.2 above) would lead us to assumethat the sector as a whole must replace 100,000 computers each year to maintain presentlevels. This would entail an annual expenditure of 65 million at todays prices, some 75% ofthe current hardware budget. This does not take into account expenditure on printers andother peripherals, or on data projectors, electronic whiteboards and other classroomequipment. However, we also estimate that some 50,000 of the computers in current use datefrom 1999 or perhaps earlier. This represents a little over 30% of the computer stock in use atthat time, so it would be sensible to assume that a reasonable proportion of today scomputers will have a life span of four years or maybe more. If this is true, the steady-stateannual replacement cost is then less than 50 million. However, a rough estimate of thenumber of new computers bought in the year in question is 50,000 at a cost of around 33million, this is less than half the total hardware spend for the year.

A key question then is how useful for teaching and learning is a four- or five-year-oldcomputer? The present baseline specification for such a computer remains at 1999 levels for

over a third of colleges (see Section 3.1 above), but the present acceleration of marketspecifications of computers and the development of more highly specified materials andapplications would lead us to assume that such a situation will not hold for long. Investment


36/38

36

decisions will need to take account of what would be considered a reasonable life span forthese assets.

This series of reports has demonstrated that computer specifications improve and prices fallover time. However it would be unwise to assume that innovation will stop and new, hithertounimagined technologies will not be clamouring to be used to enhance teaching and learning.

Sustainability is not simply a case of planning for replacement; it must also take into accountthe potential for change and innovation in current practice.

6.3 ILT and staff-related costs

As mentioned above, several colleges found the task of extricating ILT-related staff costs fromthe overall staff budget impossible, and therefore left the field blank. Others argued that asILT was the responsibility of everyone within the college, it was only a marginal element of thestaffing budget anyway. The figure of 51 million for staff with ILT as a key element of theirrole is therefore the most problematic amount presented here. It is, however, large enough toremind us that staffing is a necessary and not insignificant cost of any investment in ILT.

With regard to staff development, the 1999 survey only considered technician training, as thiswas an area receiving specific funding from the then Further Education Funding Council(FEFC). This item of expenditure was 6 million in 1999, and currently stands at 4.6 million,a decrease of 23%. This figure, taken together with that for more general ILT staff training,represents the smallest item in this budget, at 6% of the total. Well-trained staff are, however,key to the implementation of ILT within colleges. The Standards Fund has been an extremelyimportant source of funding for ILT training, providing over a third of the funding received forthis item of expenditure. It should also be noted that the Standards Fund has usually requiredmatched funding, essentially doubling its contribution. There is clearly a danger, now that theStandards Fund monies have been subsumed within the general college budget, that such asmall but essential amount may be diverted to other projects.

6.4 Major corporate information systems

These systems often involve large-scale projects followed by periods of maintenance. Theyrepresent long-term strategic investment by colleges. Student records systems are by far thelargest item of current major systems expenditure. This is a reflection not only of theimportance of student information for reporting purposes, and the complexity of recordingdata about an extremely diverse student body, but also of the relatively recent realisation ofthe importance of this information. Student numbers are a major driver of many other costs:they drive staffing levels, estates and, of course, ILT investment. This investment shouldtherefore provide much-needed information for colleges that have to plan for sustainabilityand possible future growth.


37/38

37

Table 18 ILT expenditure for the FE sector 2001-02 ( million)

Source of funding NLNmonies

Collegefunds

StandardsFund

Othersources

Totals % oftotal

Major information systems

Student records 0.40 11.40 0.31 0.00 12.11Human resources 0.07 2.20 0.20 0.06 2.53

Finance 0.04 4.51 0.22 0.00 4.77

Other 0.55 4.06 0.54 0.77 5.92

Totals for info. systems 1.06 22.18 1.27 0.82 25.33 12%

% of info. systems spend 4% 88% 5% 3%

General ILT expenditure

Hardware

Classroom equipment 5.51 37.95 5.06 5.82 54.34

LRC equipment 1.32 6.48 0.44 0.98 9.21

Other 3.42 16.69 1.82 1.66 23.59

Totals for hardware 10.25 61.11 7.32 8.46 87.13 42%% of hardware spend 12% 70% 8% 10%

SoftwareExternally produced learningmaterials 0.27 1.52 0.39 0.24 2.42Internally produced learningmaterials 1.24 2.90 0.90 1.36 6.39Leaning managementsoftware 1.32 3.44 0.41 0.22 5.39

LRC software and licenses 0.18 2.24 0.30 0.06 2.77

Other software and licenses 0.65 11.54 0.14 0.41 12.74

Totals for software 3.67 21.65 2.13 2.28 29.72 14%

% of software spend 12% 73% 7% 8%

ILT Staff Costs

Learning resources support 0.06 15.38 0.43 0.14 16.01

Business support 0.05 11.95 0.15 0.02 12.18

ILT champions 0.21 3.17 0.88 0.02 4.27

Management of ILT 0.04 8.34 0.31 0.15 8.85

Other ILT-related staff costs 0.10 9.13 0.24 0.04 9.50

Totals for ILT staffing 0.46 47.97 2.01 0.37 50.82 25%

% of ILT staffing spend 1% 94% 4% 1%

Technical support staff training

Technician training 0.24 0.73 0.61 0.03 1.62Externally provided training 0.11 0.90 0.51 0.01 1.53

Training staff costs 0.07 0.91 0.49 0.04 1.51

Totals for TS training 0.42 2.54 1.61 0.09 4.66 2%

% of TS training spend 9% 55% 35% 2%

ILT staff training

Externally provided training 0.03 1.64 1.13 0.02 2.82

Training staff costs 0.03 3.58 1.98 0.07 5.66

Totals for ILT training 0.06 5.22 3.10 0.10 8.48 4%

% of ILT training spend 1% 62% 37% 1%

Total expenditure 15.91 160.67 17.44 12.12 206.14 100%% of total expenditure 8% 78% 8% 6%


38/38

Documents

2003 ILT in FE Report