2000 ilt in fe report

8/7/2019 2000 ILT in FE Report

1/30

SURVEY INTO INFORMATION AND LEARNING

TECHNOLOGY PROVISION, ACCESS AND POLICY IN FECOLLEGES IN ENGLAND

REPORT TO THE FURTHER EDUCATION

ILT COMMITTEE

September 2000


2/30

CONTENTS

1 Management summary .......... .......... ........... .......... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... .......... 6

The survey ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6

Numbers of Computers ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 6

College networks ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6

Internet access ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 6

Staff and student access .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 6

Access in the community .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 7

Administrative systems ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 7

2 Introduction .......... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... .......... ........... .......... ..... 8

2.1 Context and purpose of the study .................... ...................... ...................... ....................... ....................... ...................... ....................... ..... 8

2.2 Survey methodology and response ..................... ....................... ...................... ....................... ...................... ....................... ....................... . 8

3 Computer equipment and specification .......... .......... ........... .......... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... ..... 9

3.1 Numbers of computers ...................... ...................... ....................... ....................... ...................... ...................... ....................... .................... 9

3.2 Colleges' PC stock ....................... ...................... ...................... ....................... ...................... ....................... ...................... ...................... ..... 10

4 Networks, Intranets and the Internet ........... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... ........... ..... 13 4.1 Local area networks (LANs) ...................... ....................... ...................... ....................... ...................... ....................... ....................... ........... 13

4.2 Network performance ..................... ..................... ....................... ....................... ...................... ...................... ....................... ...................... . 14

4.3 Internet Connectivity ....................... ..................... ....................... ....................... ...................... ...................... ....................... ...................... . 15

4.4 Network applications ....................... ..................... ....................... ....................... ...................... ...................... ....................... ...................... . 16

5 Policy, access and entitlement .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... .......... ..... 20

5.1 Ratios of students and staff to computers ..................... ...................... ...................... ....................... ....................... ...................... ........... 20

5.2 Student access .................... ...................... ....................... ...................... ...................... ....................... ....................... ...................... ........... 20

5.3 Staff access ..................... ...................... ....................... ....................... ...................... ...................... ....................... ....................... .............. 20

5.4 Demand for access to ILT ..................... ....................... ...................... ....................... ...................... ....................... ....................... ............... 21

5.5 Constraints on Internet use ...................... ....................... ...................... ....................... ...................... ....................... ....................... .......... 22

6 Access in the community .......... ........... ........... .......... ........... .......... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... ... 24


3/30

6.1 Providing access in the community ..................... ....................... ...................... ....................... ...................... ....................... ...................... 24

6.2 Scale and use of community links .................... ...................... ...................... ....................... ....................... ...................... ....................... ... 25

7 Administrative systems ........... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... ........... .... 26

7.1 Tracking Learner Activity ...................... ....................... ...................... ....................... ...................... ....................... ....................... .............. 26

7.2 Managed Learning Environments ...................... ...................... ...................... ....................... ....................... ...................... ....................... ... 26

8 Staff development .......... .......... ........... .......... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... ........... .... 28

8.1 Staff IT and ILT Competence ..................... ....................... ...................... ....................... ...................... ....................... ....................... .......... 28

8.2 Staff Development Methods ...................... ....................... ...................... ....................... ...................... ....................... ....................... .......... 28


4/30

List of Tables

Table 1 Comparisons of respondents with sector ........................................................................................................................................ 8

Table 2 Ratios of student FTEs per computer................................................................................................................................................ 9

Table 3 Ratios of staff per computer ............................................................................................................................................................. 10

Table 4 Computer specifications .................................................................................................................................................................... 12

Table 5 Prices for best buy computer ....................................................................................................................................................... 12

Table 6 LAN Technologies................................................................................................................................................................................. 13

Table 7 Network performance ........................................................................................................................................................................ 14

Table 8 Total Planned Bandwidth .................................................................................................................................................................... 15

Table 9 Internet Service Providers................................................................................................................................................................ 15

Table 10 Uses of local area networks by staff ........................................................................................................................................... 16

Table 11 Uses of local area networks by students .................................................................................................................................... 17

Table 12 Use of the Internet by staff ................................................................................................................................................................. 18

Table 13 Use of the Internet by students ......................................................................................................................................................... 18

Table 14 Student entitlement to ILT ................................................................................................................................................................. 20

Table 15 Staff access to computers................................................................................................................................................................. 21

Table 16 Achievements and priorities for staff access ............................................................................................................................... 21

Table 17 Demand by students for access to Internet .................................................................................................................................. 22

Table 18 Plans for community ILT access ...................................................................................................................................................... 24

Table 19 Uses of community links ............................................................................................................................................................... 25


5/30

List of charts

Chart 1 Current installed stock of computers................................................................................................................................................ 11

Chart 2 Links between college sites ................................................................................................................................................................ 13

Chart 3 Network capacity.................................................................................................................................................................................. 15

Chart 4 Ratios of student to Internet-connected computers...................................................................................................................... 19

Chart 5 Constraints on growth of Internet use ............................................................................................................................................ 23

Chart 6 Partnerships in the community......................................................................................................................................................... 24

Chart 7 Tracking software: market leaders................................................................................................................................................. 26

Chart 8 Managed Learning Environments: market leaders ........................................................................................................................ 27

Chart 9 IT and ILT skill levels............................................................................................................................................................................ 28

Chart 10 Preferred staff development methods ....................................................................................................................................... 28


6/30

Survey into Information and Learning Technology provision, access

and policy in FE colleges in England, September 2000

1 Management summary

The survey

274 Colleges (65% of the Sector) submitted completed questionnaires in time for inclusion in the analysis. 110 colleges (40% of the

analysed data set) submitted their replies electronically using the web- based version of the questionnaire. This is a very high responserate and the large sample obtained closely reflects the larger population.

Numbers of Computers

The mean average value of the ratio of students:computers is5.5:1, compared to last years mean average ratio of 8.2:1. The median

value is 5:1 compared to 7.6:1 in 1998/9. The mean value for staff:computer is 5.7:1, down from 9.2:1 last year. The median ratio valueof 4:1 for all staff:computers may be a more accurate picture of the typical college.

The survey reports 67% of computers of a higher standard than Pentium I compared to 37% in 1998/9. Only 5% of machines are now

based on a 486-processor or worse, a significant decrease from 25% last year. However, it could be argued that the Pentium Icomputers that now make up 19% of the total stock (down from 31%) are now themselves obsolete.

College networks

Most computers in most colleges form part of a local area network,with over 84% of the total installed computer base within t he samplereported to be networked. 10Mbps Ethernet has ceased to be the dominant technology, with 100Mbps Ethernet now accounting for 56%

of college networks and Gigabit Ethernet accounting for 9%. However, the perceived performance of existing local area networks hasimproved only very slightly, continuing to be slow at busy times (in 56% of cases). Frequent network service problems have declined

from 5% to 4% of colleges.

Internet access

All colleges expect to have 2Mbps Internet connection via JANET as part of the National Learning Network (NLN) initiative. Of these, 41%

have, or plan to have additional bandwidth. A variety of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) provide the additional connectivity to colleges,though JANET dominates the market, with three times the share of its nearest rival.There is also a long tail of providers with 1% orless of the market.

The principal uses of the Internet for both staff and students remain information gathering and e-mail. However, marketing on theInternet is now used by virtually all colleges. Half of colleges now report that they are using the Internet to support distance-learning,twice the proportion of colleges from last year, though it is a common activity in only a few.

The mean ratio of FTE students:computers with Internet access is now 12.8 as opposed to 109:1, showing a considerable improvementwith regard to Internet access since last year. The median value is now7:1 compared to21:1 last year. 36% of colleges have a ratio of5:1 or better.

Staff and student access

Student access to both computers and Internet is tending to become more general and less restricted. 91% of colleges report that

access to the Internet is automatically granted to all students, up from 71% last year, and no colleges report that there is no entitlementto access. Staff access to computers has also become easier, with significant movement away from machines shared with students


7/30

towards shared office machines and designated machines. 64% of colleges report most or all staff sharing office machines, and 77%report some or most staff with designated machines. However, 9% of colleges still report some or few staff with no computer accessat all

Again, the overwhelming majority of respondents report that student demand to use computers is widespread, with only one per centreporting little demand from students for access to computers and/ or the Internet. The patterns of demand, both for computers andfor the Internet have converged significantly, with around two-fifths reporting difficulty meeting widespread demand, and just under half

reporting sufficient capacity to meet widespread demand.

It is worth noting that these figures are based upon the perception of demand within colleges. One third of respondents report thathaving sufficient capacity to meet widespread demand for computers is characterised by computers being hard to find at busy times.

The same number report that difficulty meeting widespread demand is also characterised by computers being hard to find at bus y times.This may indicate that the survey instrument was not subtle enough to pick up any d ifferences, or that different colleges have differentexpectations of what meeting demand may look like.

The most important constraints upon increased Internet use remains the number of access points and speed of access, though theirscores are down on last year. Student skills have replaced course design as a strong third place. 85 colleges listed other factorsrestricting growth. The issue of staff skills and expertise heads the list with 26% citing skills in using the Internet or lack of technical

support as a major constraint. Those most commonly cited last year remain important: problems of restricting access to unsuitablesites (17%, down from 21%); bandwidth (13%, up from 11%); costs (12%, up from 8%). Technical control issues also figure highly, with

18% citing security and virus problems.

Access in the community

The scale of community involvement remains at a similar level to last year, with a small number of firm plans having become reality, and

the same number of possibilities having become plans. Typically, colleges have one or very few links to each type of partnerorganisation. The median number of links per college is 6 with businesses, 4 w ith other colleges and 3 with each of schools and outreachcentres, and 1 with the remainder. This does however hide a large degree of variation, one college reporting links to 230 businesses, andothers reporting links to 40 outreach centres and libraries. Provision of learning materials remains the prime use of these links, and

that each use has grown considerably over the last year. However, it is worth noting that few colleges state that any of these arecommonly used.

Administrative systems

44% of colleges use student tracking software of some kind. The main types of student tracking software are Easi-Track (32respondents), Fretwell Downing EBS (27 respondents), BromCom wNET (22 respondents), and 28 used an in-house system of some type.

The Easi-Track and Fretwell Downing systems are mainly used by general FE colleges and BromCom dominates among sixth formcolleges.

Less than 30% of colleges make use of MLEs to deliver on-line learning. WebCT is the leading MLE used (18 respondents), with Virtual

Campus and NetG Skill Vantage also well clear of the field (13 respondents each). 10 respondents use in-house systems and 8 use the

North Yorkshire and Humberside colleges OnLinM system.

A large number of student tracking and MLE systems were mentioned, none of which were used by more than 4 colleges. Learndirectwas also mentioned by 4 colleges, this small number reflecting the degree to which Learndirect is seen as a separate entity.


8/30

2 Introduction

2.1 Context and purpose of the study

This study was carried out in September 2000 on behalf of the Further EducationInformation and Learning Technology Committeeinorder to assess progress in the provision of information and learning technology within the sector. The original study, undertaken in

February 1999, provides the base line from which to judge the impact of the provision of 74 million over three-years for thedevelopment of ILT infrastructure in the sector.

2.2 Survey methodology and response

The Study took the form of a survey by questionnaire of all 424 FEFC colleges in England, exploring quantitative issues relating to

infrastructure and practice. The questionnaire was published and disseminated in both paper-based and web-based formats;

274 Colleges (65% of the Sector) submitted completed questionnaires in time for inclusion in the analysis. 110 colleges (40% of theanalysed data set) submitted their replies electronically using the web- based version of the questionnaire. The breakdown by type ofcollege was as follows:

Table 1 Comparisons of respondents with sector

College type Respondents SectorADS 1% 2%Agricultural college 6% 6%

DC 1% 3%Further education college 67% 64%Sixth form college 24% 25%

Total 100% 100%

Region Respondents Sector

East Midlands 8% 9%Eastern Region 8% 8%Greater London 11% 14%

Northern Region 7% 6%North West 16% 14%

South East 18% 17%

South West 9% 9%West Midlands 13% 13%

Yorkshire & Humberside 10% 10%Total 100% 100%

The response rate for the survey was exceptionally high and the type of colleges that responded to the survey matched the sectorclosely against a range of criteria, leading to an expectation of high levels of reliability in the data.

The survey was very detailed and was conducted within a very tight time scale. It is understandable, therefore, that as a consequence

some returns were incomplete in some sections. For this reason the basis of calculation in the report varies from the sample maximumat times.


9/30

3 Computer equipment and specification

3.1 Numbers of computers

The survey questionnaire (a copy of which is to be found in the appendix to this report) requested an actual count of computers availablewithin the college. Based on this data, calculations were made of the availability of computers for both students and staff within

colleges.

For the results of the survey to be useful, some standardised basis of comparison between colleges is required, to enable sector staff torelate their own college data to sector norms. This matter is not without difficulty, since there is no single, unambiguous measure of

student numbers that can safely be used to calculate access ratios. A case could be made for at least three different approaches,

whether the data concern students or staff. These are: standardising on all s tudents (or staff); on full-time equivalent numbers (FTEs);or including only those who are full-time. Each method has its drawbacks and, after due consideration, it was decided to use FTEs as

although this approach still contains an element of distortion it was felt to be less distorting than either of the alternatives. Eventually, it

will probably be necessary for the sector to begin to consider maximum student occupancy as a basis for resource planning, but it wasnot possible for this study to be based on such measures at this time.

Table 2 Ratios of student FTEs per computer

Ratio All computers 2000 Networked computers2000

All computers 1999 Networked computers1999

Better than 3:1 1% 1% 0% 0%

3:1 11% 8% 3% 2%

4:1 21% 23% 4% 3%

5:1 26% 21% 14% 9%

6:1 19% 18% 20% 11%

7:1 9% 11% 16% 14%

8:1 to 10:1 10% 13% 21% 22%

10:1 to 12:1 1% 2% 14% 14%

12:1 to 16:1 1% 3% 5% 13%

16:1 to 20:1 0% 0% 2% 5%

20:1 to 50:1 0% 0% 1% 5%

more than 50:1 0% 0% 0% 2%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

Base = No. of respondents. FTEs derived from 1996/97 and 1997/98 data.


10/30

The decision to use FTEs as a basis for calculations reflects a recognition that they do at least make an allow ance for total hours ofattendance, which a straight count of student numbers does not. This allows us to get closer to the underlying question the ratio ofavailable machines to potential users at any given time. We have not attempted to distinguish particular groups of students, or to

separate out attendance mode, pattern or site, though we recognise that these may have a significant influence in determining access.

The calculated mean average value of the ratio using this approach is5.5:1, compared to last years mean average ratio of 8.2:1. The

median value ( the ratio of colleges at the middle of the range of values) is5:1 compared to 7.6:1 in 1998/9.

The provision of computers for the exclusive use of staff has improved on last year, but not to such a great extent as that for students.Table 3 shows the distribution of values calculated from colleges' reported staffing levels.

The mean value of 5.7:1 reflects to some extent the decrease in the number of colleges with ratios in excess of 20:1. The median ratio

value of 4:1 for all staff:computers may be a more accurate picture of the typical college. When all sessional staff are completelyexcluded from the calculations, the median value rises to 2:1 as opposed to 3.2:1 last year.

Table 3 Ratios of staff per computer

Ratio All computers 2000 Networked computers2000

All computers 1999 Networked computers1999

Better than 1:1 1% 1% 1% 1%

1:1 8% 7% 7% 4%

2:1 13% 14% 10% 11%

3:1 21% 19% 17% 12%

4:1 13% 11% 9% 8%

5:1 11% 11% 5% 4%

6:1 6% 5% 9% 8%

7:1 4% 5% 4% 5%

8:1 to 10:1 8% 9% 11% 8%

10:1 to 12:1 4% 3% 5% 5%

12:1 to 16:1 5% 7% 7% 10%

16:1 to 20:1 3% 2% 7% 7%

20:1 to 50:1 2% 6% 6% 15%

more than 50:1 0% 0% 2% 3%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

Base = No of respondents

3.2 Colleges' PC stock

As Chart 1 shows, IBM-compatible PCs remain the mainstay of computing in colleges, with stock spanning several generations. Thesurvey reports 67% of computers of a higher standard than Pentium I compared to 37% in 1998/9. Only 5% of machines are now


11/30

based on a 486-processor or worse, a significant decrease from 25% last year. However, it could be argued that the Pentium Icomputers that now make up 19% of the total stock (down from 31%) are now themselves obsolete.

Chart 1 Current installed stock of computers

The age and specification of the existing stock must be taken into account when interpreting the actual and ideal ratios reported by

colleges. It effectively reduces access ratios in as much as it restricts theuseof certain machines to particular purposes and/ or toolder versions of software. The impact of this factor is likely to be greatest when we consider Internet applications.

Respondents were asked to describe the minimum baseline specification that they w ould currently consider buying for college

purposes, in terms of its speed, RAM and hard disk. They were also asked to describe what they would consider the current bestbuyspecification. The three dimensions of speed, RAM and hard disk were weighted to produce seven bands representing machines ofincreasing capability. Table 4 overleaf shows a typical specification for each band along with the results.

The minimum specification that would be considered by colleges is spread fairly evenly across the bottom 4 bands, though Band 4machines are considered best buy by 47% of respondents. 65% of respondents mention build quality and reliability as a critical factorto be considered when buying a workstation, and 59% mention after-sales care (warranty, maintenance, service and support). Price is

considered critical by 35% of respondents, compatibility and standardisation are each considered critical by 5% of respondents. Only2% of repondents rate either brand or future-proofing as critical.

44%

27%

19%

5% 5% Baseline spec orbetter

Above Pentium I

Pentium I

486 and below

Apple


12/30


13/30

4 Networks, Intranets and the Internet

4.1 Local area networks (LANs)

Whilst most computers in most colleges form part of a local area network, this is not exclusively the case. However, over 84% of thetotal installed computer base within the sample was reported to be networked.

The principal technologies employed within college local area networks are summarised in Table 6 below.

Table 6 LAN Technologies

LAN Technology % of colleges (2000) % of colleges (1999) % change

10Mbps Ethernet 27% 63% -36%

Mixture of 10/100Mbps Ethernet 3% 5% -2%

100Mbps Ethernet 56% 28% +28%

Gigabit Ethernet 9%


14/30

Sixty percent of colleges have more than one major site, 21% with 2 sites, 17% with 3 and the remaining 22% with up to 12. Technologiesused to link these multi-site colleges are indicated in Chart 2 .

The majority of colleges which have multiple major sites utilise permanent connections (leased line, cable, wireless) to link them, 74%

using leased line. The figures in the chart total more than 100%, reflecting the fact that a number of colleges use more than one meansof linking sites.

4.2 Network performance

The perceived performance of existing local area networks atcurrentlevels of demand has improved only very slightly, so could only

still be described as adequate, as indicated in Table 7. However, they continue to be slow at busy times (in 56% of cases) suggestingthat staff and students can expect reduced performance at certain times of day. This carries with it the implication that the quality andconsistency of learning opportunities may be dependent on the lottery of timetable slots. Frequent network service problems have

declined from 5% to 4% of colleges.

Table 7 Network performance

% of colleges (2000) % of colleges (1999) % change

Always smooth without appreciable delay 38% 35% +3%

Generally works well but slow at busy times 56% 60% -4%

Slowness/unreliability a frequent problem 4% 5% -1%

Total 100% 100%


When asked about the capability of the network to deal with large multimedia files, 82% of respondents said their systems could notcope or that use for this purpose was not encouraged. Again, this is only a slight change from last year, indicating that networks

continue to be restricted to everyday applications, w ith limited scope or encouragement for innovative development.

28% of respondents said their networks could cope with increased demand up from 24% last year. Colleges that cannot adequatelydeal with current workload is down from 22% last year to 9%, leaving the rest working at full capacity.

The perception of college networks ability to meet demand has not increased in line with the upgrading of network technology. This

could be the result of ever-increasing expectations of what technology can deliver, or may be the result of a growth in demand, eatingaway at system performance.


15/30

Chart 3 Network capacity

4.3 Internet Connectivity

All colleges expect to have 2Mbps Internet connection via JANET as part of the National Learning Network (NLN) initiative. Of these, 41%

have, or plan to have additional bandwidth. Table 8 shows the .internet connections planned by colleges.

Table 8 Total Planned Bandwidth

Bandwidth % of colleges (2000)

2 Mbps 59%

2-3 Mbps 12%

4 Mbps 19%

6 Mbps 1%

8 Mbps 1%

10 Mbps and more 3%

Others 4%


A variety of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) provide the additional connectivity to colleges, as summarised in Table 9 below . As can be

seen, JANET dominates the market, with three times the share of its nearest rival. There is also a long tail of providers with1% or lessof the market.

Table 9 Internet Service Providers

9%

63%

28%

Over-stretched

At capacity

Spare capacity


16/30

Internet Service Provider Colleges planning more than 2Mbps connection

BT 12%

Ntl 6%

Demon 5%

Edex 3%

JANET 39%

PIPEX 11%

RM plc 1%

Others 24%

Total 100%

Base =112 respondents

4.4 Network applications

Virtually all college LANs are used by staff for some degree of Internet access and email. Staff accessing the Internet is described ascommonplace in three-quarters of colleges, and staff email use is commonplace in 61 percent of colleges. Staff use of LANs for teaching

and administrative purposes has increased markedly on last year, though these are far more of a minority activity w ithin colleges.Videoconferencing as a staff activity has been reported by many more colleges than last year, though no colleges reported its use ascommonplace.

Table 10 Uses of local area networks by staff

Low usage2000

Common usage2000

All usage2000

All usage1999

% Change

Email 38% 61% 98% 91% +7%

Learning materials 73% 14% 88% 66% +21%

Course documents 69% 15% 84% 60% +24%

Advice & guidance 61% 18% 78% 43% +35%

Internet access 23% 76% 99% 89% +10%

Videoconferencing 36% 0% 36% 19% +18%

Other 11% 5% 16%


Three quarters of respondents state that over 80% of permanent teaching staff have a personal email address, and more than 80% of

sessional teaching staff have such access in over half the colleges surveyed.


17/30

Student use of college LANs shows a similar pattern to staff, though with email less commonly used. Internet access remains thedominant use, though the other uses have increased significantly. Two colleges also report videoconferencing being in common use bystudents.

Table 11 Uses of local area networks by students

Low usage

2000

Common usage

2000

All usage

2000

All usage

1999

% Change

Email 43% 39% 82% 64% +19%

Learning materials 64% 16% 80% 74% +7%

Course documents 65% 11% 75% 45% +30%

Advice & guidance 55% 16% 71% 45% +26%

Internet access 23% 76% 99% 91% +7%

Videoconferencing 28% 1% 28% 10% +18%

Other 8% 4% 12%


Nearly 40% of colleges have an internal email system for students, and almost half use Hotmail or some other external service. Most ofthe rest have some combination of the two, typically an internal system for particular courses, and an external system for general use.

In 60% of colleges, more than 80% of full-time students have a personal email address, and 38% of colleges state that over 80% ofpart-time students have personal email addresses. These figures may be higher, as some respondents felt unable to comment upon theextent of use because student email was entirely given over to the external provider.

As indicated in the tables below, the principal uses of the Internet for both staff and students remain information gathering and e-mail.However, marketing on the Internet is now used by virtually all colleges. Half of colleges now report that they are using the Internet tosupport distance-learning, twice the proportion of colleges from last year, though it is a common activity in only a few.


18/30

Table 12 Use of the Internet by staff

Low usage

2000

Common usage

2000

All usage

2000

All usage

1999

% Change

College marketing 56% 40% 96% 83% +13%

Information resource 34% 65% 100% 100% 0%

Support distance learning 44% 5% 50% 26% +24%

Admin/management 41% 31% 72% 45% +28%

Advice & guidance 49% 11% 61% 25% +36%

Email 36% 61% 97% 89% +8%

Other 6% 3% 8%


Table 13 Use of the Internet by students

Low usage2000

Common usage2000

All usage2000

All usage1999

% Change

Information resource 26% 74% 100% 99% 0%

Support distance learning 45% 3% 49% 23% +26%

Advice & guidance 55% 13% 68% 31% +37%

Email 36% 55% 91% 74% +16%

Other 7% 3% 9%


Chart 4 shows the distribution of ratios of FTE students to computers with access to the Internet. It shows the considerable

improvement with regard to Internet access since last year. The mean ratio of FTE students:computers with Internet access is now12.8as opposed to 109:1 last year. The median value is now7:1 compared to21:1 last year. 36% of colleges having a ratio of 5:1 or better.

The survey seems to show a broadening of the uses to which college networks and the Internet are put, by both staff and students. The

last year has seen a rapid increase in the number of colleges using this technology for a variety of purposes, indicating a growth indemand that looks set to continue.


19/30

Chart 4 Ratios of student to Internet-connected computers

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

50 plus

20 to 50

16 to 20

12 to 16

10 to 12

8 to 10

7

6

5

4

3

Less than 3

Percentage of respondents

2000

1999


20/30

5 Policy, access and entitlement

5.1 Ratios of students and staff to computers

Students: Both the mean average and median ideal ratio of students:computers indicated by colleges was 5:1. There was a greaterconsistency in college aspirations from last year, with only two colleges citing a ratio in double figures. Referring back to Section 3.1, we

can see a large increase in the number of colleges achieving this ratio or bettering it, up from 21% to 59%.

Staff: The mean average and median ideal staff:computer ratio was 1:1, suggesting that colleges view the computer as a vital tool fortheir staff. All respondents indicated an ideal staff computer ratio of 7:1 or less. This has been a more difficult target to reach, with 9%achieving a ratio of 1:1 or less, only a 1% increase on last year.

5.2 Student access

Table 14 below shows the extent that student entitlement to computers has changed over the last year. Access is tending to becomemore general and less restricted. Entitlement to Internet access has also become more generalised. 91% of colleges report that

access to the Internet is automatically granted to all students, up from 71% last year, and no colleges report that there is no entitlementto access.

Table 14 Student entitlement to ILT

2000 1999 Change

Access but not entitlement 8% 16% -8%

Enough access to complete work 53% 63% -10%

Access on any site 58% 48% +10%

Base = No. of respondents

Students have to book or queue for access to computers in three quarters of colleges, and in most of the remaining colleges access is

better than this. In 14% of colleges students have unlimited access, though nearly half see unlimited access as a policy priority.

5.3 Staff access

Staff access to computers has become easier, w ith significant movement away from machines shared with students towards shared

office machines and designated machines. 64% of colleges report most or all staff sharing office machines, and 77% report some ormost staff with designated machines. However, 9% of colleges still report some or few staff with no computer access at all. The

following table shows the figures for this year with the change from last year in brackets.


21/30

Table 15 Staff access to computers

All Most Some Few None

Use their own designated


22/30

Table 17 Demand by students for access to Internet

The college has difficulty meeting

this level of demand

The college has sufficient capacity

to meet this level of demand

The college has sufficient capacity

to meet greater than this level thanthis

2000 1999 2000 1999 2000 1999

There is widespread demand to

use

39% 54% 45% 25% 7% 5%

Demand is limited to certaincourses/ groups

3% 4% 8% 14% 1% 3%

There is little demand foraccess to

0% 0%


23/30

Chart 5 Constraints on growth of Internet use

0 1 2 3 4

Access speeds

Access points

Course design

No interest

Student skills

Weighted score

2000

1999


24/30

6 Access in the community

6.1 Providing access in the community

Table 18 Plans for community ILT access

2000 1999 Change

No plans to engage 7% 7% 0%

Future possibility 24% 26% -2%

Firm plan 31% 31% 0%

Currently engaged 38% 35% +3%


The intention of this question was to determine the extent to which college ILT networks extended into their communities. The scale of

involvement remains at a similar level to last year, with a small number of firm plans having become reality, and the same number ofpossibilities having become plans.

Chart 6 Partnerships in the community

Chart 6 indicates the main types of partner organisation and shows the percentage of colleges with formal partnerships with each typeof organisation. As might be expected, a far greater proportion of general FE colleges have these partnerships than sixth form colleges.However it does seem surprising that a smaller proportion of sixth form colleges have partnerships with public libraries (3% of SFCs)than with businesses (16% of SFCs).

Over 80% of electronic links with schools, libraries and businesses tend to be dial-up rather than permanent, whereas in the case oflocal authorities, outreach and learning centres the split is more like 50:50. Only in partnerships with HE institutions do permanent linkspredominate, with about two-thirds connected to a permanent network.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Outreach centres

Businesses

Schools

HE Centres

Local Authorities

Public Libraries

Other Learning Centres

SF CollegesFE Colleges

All Colleges


25/30

6.2 Scale and use of community links

Typically, colleges have one or very few links to each type of partner organisation. Each type has a mode of 1 w ith the exception ofschools which has a mode of 4. The median number of links per college is 6 with businesses, 4 with other colleges and 3 with each of

schools and outreach centres, and 1 with the remainder. This does however hide a large degree of variation, one college reporting linksto 230 businesses, and others reporting links to 40 outreach centres and libraries.

As Table 19 indicates, provision of learning materials remains the prime use of these links, and that each use has grown considerably

over the last year. However, it is worth noting that few colleges state that any of these are commonly used.

Table 19 Uses of community links

Low usage

2000

Common usage

2000

All usage

2000

All usage

1999

% Change

Access learning materials 42% 8% 51% 38% +13%

Submit assessed work 29% 1% 30% 12% +18%

Links to other students 22% 1% 23%9%

+15%

Links to tutors 32% 4% 36% 17% +19%

Advice and guidance 27% 3% 30% 11% +19%

Other 1%


26/30

7 Administrative systems

7.1 Tracking Learner Activity

There has been no change in the number of colleges using systems to track learner activity, 44% of the colleges surveyed making someuse of such systems, a slightly lower figure than last year.

Of the 146 colleges that replied to this section, 22% used Easi-Track, 18% used Fretwell Downing EBS, 15% used BromCom wNET, and 19%

used an in-house system of some type, often based upon spreadsheet or database software. The Easi-Track and Fretwell Downingsystems are mainly used by general FE colleges. Half the Fretwell Downing users commonly use the product whereas only one college

commonly uses Easi-Track. BromCom wNET dominates the sixth form college market, 30% of all SFCs that responded to the survey.

Two thirds of BromCom users commonly use the product.

Chart 7 Tracking software: market leaders


Respondents mentioned 27 other student tracking systems, however, none of this other software is used by more than 2% of colleges.

7.2 Managed Learning Environments

Managed Learning Environments (MLEs) or Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) are not as widely used as tracking software. Less than30% of respondents stated that such systems were used to deliver on-line learning. Of these colleges, a significant minority use morethan one type of software (78 colleges 111 instances cited of MLEs/VLEs being used in colleges, there were only 8 instances of commonuse.

Chart 8 below shows the main MLEs/VLEs in use in colleges. WebCT is the clear leader, with Virtual Campus and NetG Skill Vantage alsowell clear of the field. It is worth noting that the numbers here are small, WebCT being cited by only 18 respondents, and VC and NetGeach cited by 13. 10 respondents use in-house systems and 8 use the North Yorkshire and Humberside colleges OnLinM system

developed by Nathan Boddington from Leeds University. Again 27 other systems were mentioned, none of which were used by more than4 colleges. Learndirect was also mentioned by 4 colleges, this small number reflecting the degree to which Learndirect is seen as aseparate entity.

0 10 20 30 40

BromCom

wNET

Fretwell

Downing EBS

Easi-Track

In house

system

In use

In common use


27/30

Chart 8 Managed Learning Environments: market leaders


0 5 10 15 20

Fretwell Downing LE

Lotus Learning Space

Virtual Campus

WebCT

NetG Skill Vantage

In house system

OnLinM/Nathan Boddington

In use

In common use


28/30

8 Staff development

8.1 Staff IT and ILT Competence

Respondents were asked to estimate the proportion of staff with low, medium or high level of skill (beginner, competent, advanced) inpersonal use of IT and in the use of ILT w ith learners. Definitions within these broad classifications were left the respondents on grounds

of practicality. The research team considered the identification of suitably bounded criteria to be a daunting task, if not impossible w ithinthe timescale. More telling, however was the belief that respondents would share sufficiently similar common understandingsof

competency to enable comparison and judgements to be drawn from the results. An average of the values estimated by each collegewas calculated for every category. The results are shown in Chart 9.

Chart 9 IT and ILT skill levels

Across the sector as a whole, 67% of staff are considered to be competent or advanced in their personal use of IT. This leaves a third ofstaff whose IT skills may need to be brought to a base level of competence. However, in the use of ILT with learners, less than half of

college staff are considered competent or advanced.

The results offer grounds for speculation and debate about the relationship between IT and ILT skills and the most effective forms of

professional development. Particularly intriguing in this context is the question of why the proportion of teachers who are competent, orbetter, in IT falls from 67% to 46% competent or better at using ILT in association with their mainstream function of teaching and

facilitating learning. This suggests that one in four teachers are currently prevented from transferring their IT skills into the classroom

or learning centre by some barrier or barriers blocking such development.

8.2 Staff Development Methods

112 colleges were contacted and asked an additional question on preferred staff development methods via the telephone. Respondents

were asked to rate the usefulness of various types of staff development activity, giving a score of 5 for very useful, and 1 for not at al

useful. The results are shown in Chart 10 below.

Chart 10 Preferred staff development methods

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Average%(

allcolleges

IT 33 48 19

ILT 56 29 18

Low Medium High


29/30

Informal help from colleagues is at the top of the list; this is in line with recent European research that showed half of teachers infurther and higher education learned their ILT skills by trial and error. College-organised activities are consistently highly valued, with

external courses and events lower down the list. There seem to be two main reasons for this: college-organised activities can be better

targeted at college needs; and value for money is a key factor influencing choice in the context of tight college budgets.

Over 50% of the respondents to this question made use of other staff development methods. Notably, 12% of respondents made use ofcollege ILT Champions to develop other staff, and 8% made use of one-to-one methods like mentoring or coaching. 7% also mentionedsome staff going on longer courses, some of these at HE Institutions. ECDL was mentioned by 5% as a useful development tool, and a

significant minority (4%) engaged in collaborative activities with other colleges.

0 1 2 3 4 5

Consultancy

Print or other publications

Telephone information support

Executive briefings

National or regional conferences

Short courses

Computer-based material

Workshop away from college

Web sites

Cross curricular events

College projects

Curriculum-related events

Workshops within the college

Informal help from colleagues


30/30

2000 ilt in fe report

Documents