2001 ilt in fe report

8/7/2019 2001 ILT in FE Report

1/49

1

THE STATE OF ILT IN FE COLLEGES

Report to the National Learning Network Programme Board

Of A Survey Into Information And Learning Technology

Provision, Access And Policy In FE Colleges In England with

additional information drawn from updated college ILT

strategies.

by

Bob Powell

Steve Davies

November 2001


2/49

2

Acknowledgements

Bob Powell is Associate Director: Lifelong Learning at Becta. Steve Davies is Project

Officer with the Ferl team and carried out the bulk of the statistical analysis.

Claire Gill and Sarah Swaney of the Ferl team provided cogent analysis of the

college ILT strategy updates.

The questionnaire was based on one initially developed for the 1999 survey by Alison

Page of Becta. This survey, like its predecessors, has benefited from the comments

and observations of a range of individuals and agencies, including members of the FE

ILT Committee and its successor body, the National Learning Network Programme

Board, officers of the Department for Education and Skills, the Learning and Skills

Council, the Learning and Skills Development Agency (formerly FEDA), NILTAand the Joint Information Systems Committee.

Particular thanks are due to Kevin Donovan of LSDA, who organised a one day

seminar on evaluation of the impact of ILT, with particular reference to the National

Learning Network, at which the main findings of this report were first aired, and to

the members of that group for their feedback.

The online survey facility was provided by Infopoll.


3/49

3

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................ 2

The State of ILT in FE colleges ..................................................................................... 5

Report of a Survey into Information and Learning Technology provision, access

and policy in FE colleges in England, September 2001 ............................................ 5

1. Management Summary .......................................................................................... 51.1 Overall summary ................................................................................................ 5

1.2 The survey .......................................................................................................... 5

1.3 College computer infrastructure ........................................................................ 5

Computer stock .......................................................................................................... 5

Local Area Networks ................................................................................................. 6

Internet Connectivity ................................................................................................. 6

1.4 Access to Computers.......................................................................................... 6

Managing demand for computer use.......................................................................... 7

Staff access to computers ........................................................................................... 7

1.5 Uses of ILT ........................................................................................................ 7

Access to Email.......................................................................................................... 8Intranet and Extranet .................................................................................................. 8

Virtual Learning Environments and Student tracking ............................................... 8

1.6 Staff skills .......................................................................................................... 8

1.7 ILT Champions .................................................................................................. 8

1.9 Access in the community ................................................................................... 9

2 The Survey ........................................................................................................... 10

2.1 Context and purpose of the study..................................................................... 10

2.2 Survey methodology and response .................................................................. 10

3. Infrastructure ............................................................................................................ 12

3.1 College computer stock ...................................................................................... 12

3.2 Baseline specification ........................................................................................ 13

3.3 Local Area Network ........................................................................................... 16

3.4 LAN Performance .............................................................................................. 17

3.5 Internet Connectivity ....................................................................................... 19

3.6 Constraints on Internet use............................................................................... 20

4. Access to Computers................................................................................................ 22

4.1 Access for learners ............................................................................................. 22

Access to Internetenabled computers..................................................................... 23

4.2 Managing demand for student access ................................................................ 24

4.3 Location of computers for learners .................................................................... 26

4.4 Access for Staff .................................................................................................. 274.5 Mode of access for staff ..................................................................................... 28

5. Uses of ILT .............................................................................................................. 30

5.1 Staff Use of the LAN/ Intranet........................................................................... 30

5.2 Access to Email.................................................................................................. 33

5.3 Intranet and Extranet use ................................................................................... 34

5.4 Virtual Learning Environments and Student tracking ....................................... 35

5.5 Tracking Learner Activity................................................................................ 37

6. Staff skills ............................................................................................................... 39

6.1 Staff IT and ILT Competence ............................................................................ 39

8 Access in the community ..................................................................................... 43

8.1 Providing access in the community ................................................................. 438.2 Use of community links ................................................................................... 44


4/49

4

Appendix : Messages from the Strategy updates ......................................................... 45

Background .............................................................................................................. 45

ILT Vision ................................................................................................................ 45

Managing the Strategy. ............................................................................................ 45

Infrastructure ............................................................................................................ 46

Physical location of computers ................................................................................ 47ILT in Learning and Teaching ................................................................................. 47

Managed Learning Environments ............................................................................ 47

Staff Development ................................................................................................... 48

ILT Champions ........................................................................................................ 49

Access In The Community....................................................................................... 49


5/49

5

The State of ILT in FE colleges

Report of a Survey into Information and Learning Technology provision,access and policy in FE colleges in England, September 2001

1. Management Summary

1.1Overall summaryThis survey shows that most colleges now have the computer infrastructure thatFEFCs FEILT Committee in 1999 considered necessary to support effective

learning. Robust local area networks link nearly all of the sectors estimated 260,000

computers (170,000 new since 1999) to the Internet through 2Mbps JANET

connections. The typical English college has achieved or bettered the sector strategy

target of one internet enabled computer for every 5 FTE students. 85% of colleges

have achieved or bettered last years average of 7:1. In 1999, by contrast, the 85th

percentile was 106:1. Sector colleges now have one internet enabled computer for

every two permanent teaching staff, though progress towards the 1:1 target is slow.

Embedding ILT into practice is beginning to grow, with information searching on the

internet and email commonplace amongst staff and learners. Other uses of the

network for e-learning are in evidence, but on a relatively small scale in mostinstitutions. The use of ILT Champions to lead development is widespread, but there

is a clear need for substantial staff development built around a shared understanding

of what constitutes good practice and what skills are needed to bring it about.

1.2The survey242 Colleges (57% of the Sector) submitted completed questionnaires in time for

inclusion in the analysis. 110 colleges (45% of the analysed data set) submitted their

replies electronically using the web- based version of the questionnaire. The sample

obtained closely reflects the characteristics of the larger population and leads us to ahigh degree of confidence in the data. The survey findings are supplemented by

observations drawn from an examination of the updates to college ILT Strategy

documents which were submitted at the same time as the survey.

1.3College computer infrastructureComputer stock

The typical baseline specification quoted by colleges is 500 Mhz with 64 Mb of RAMand 6Gb hard disk. 63% of the current installed stock of computers in colleges is


6/49

6

baseline specification or better. A further one-quarter of stock is Pentium II

specification or better. Pentium I machines have gone down from 19% of stock in

summer 2000 to 6%, while the 486s that made up one quarter of computers in 1999

now account for only1%.

A rough estimate of the actual number of computers in the 420 English colleges is

around 260,000, up from 160,000 in February 1999. No more than a third of thecurrent stock has survived since 1999, which suggests that a minimum of 170,000

new computers have gone into colleges since that date for use in teaching and

learning.

The average price paid for a middle range specification computer is 700. Prices paid

have fallen since last year by around 100 for lower specification machines and 200

for higher specification.

Local Area Networks

95% of computers are networked; 60% of colleges have all student machines

networked, whilst 69% report that all staff computers are attached to the network.Local area networks are more extensive, robust and can support greater traffic than in

1999. Two-thirds of colleges now have a 100 Mbps Ethernet backbone and 14% have

a gigabit LAN, up from 1% in 1999, when 10Mbps was the most common bandwidth.

Leased line accounts for 44% of links between different sites in multi-site colleges,

while wire-less technologies make up a further 20%.

54% of LANs are at full capacity, whilst the number unable to cope with current

demand has fallen to 5%. 80% of colleges, however, restrict network traffic in

bandwidth hungry applications.

Only 3% of colleges now experience frequent problems of network performance. 47%

describe their network as working without appreciable delay, though about half report

the network to be slow at busy times.

Internet Connectivity

All colleges have a 2Mbps Internet connection via JANET. 36% have or plan

additional bandwidth (41% in 2000). Although there is no overall relationship

between planned bandwidth and college size, 85% of those seeking greater bandwidth

are larger than average in terms of student numbers. JANET is ISP for 54% of the

additional bandwidth.

Technical constraints remain the most pressing barrier to increased use of the Internet,

but have declined in relative importance, while pedagogical issues of course design

and student skills have grown in significance. Issues of inappropriate use of theInternet continue to concern colleges.

1.4Access to ComputersThe mean number of f.t.e students per computer has fallen from 5.5:1 in 2000 to 4.7:

1 in 2001 (1999 = 8.2:1). The median value (the ratio of colleges at the middle of the

range of values) is 4.5:1 (7.6:1). Only 4% of colleges have 8:1 or greater, (43% in

1999). Sixth Form colleges have a median ratio of 4.1: 1, compared with 4.5:1 for

General Further Education colleges and 5.7: 1 for land-based colleges.


7/49

7

The median number of f.t.e. students to computers with Internet access is now

4.95:1 (21:1 in 1999) indicating that the typical college has now achieved the FEFC

target of 1: 5. 85% of colleges have now achieved or bettered last years average

of 7:1. In 1999, by contrast, the 85th

percentile was 106:1.

Managing demand for computer use

Demand for ILT by students is widespread, with consequent strain on college stocks.

Demand continues to rise to swallow up new machines. Only 5% of colleges say that

they could satisfy any increase in demand, while 57% are operating at full capacity.

28% cannot meet current demand (47% in 1999) . 80% of respondents say that

students may find it difficult to get on a machine at busy times. 75% of colleges can

meet current demand for Internet access.

20% of college stock is described as open access, (25% in 2000). 3% managing all

computers this way (4.5% in 2000). The volume of new equipment, means that whilst

the proportion of stock, has fallen, the actual number of open access machines has

risen. 74% of colleges now make some part of their computing facility available atthe weekend (60% in 2000).

Staff access to computers

The median value of the ratio of permanent staff to internet-connected computers is

1.9:1, down from 3 staff for every machine in 2000 and an estimated 7:1 in 1999. The

NLN target of 1 internet-connected computer for every permanent member of

teaching and learning support staff has been achieved or bettered by 15% of colleges

and a further 15% has achieved a ratio below 1.5:1. The ratio of all staff to internet-

connected computers is 3.5:1, compared with 12:1 in 1999. 95% of staff computers

are networked and 98% of these are internet-connected.60% of colleges say that most staff shared a computer in a staff room, though 27%

report that most permanent staff have their own designated computer, (5% in 1999).

1.5Uses of ILTEmail and Internet access are common practice in most colleges (82% and

90%respectively) Staff use of the LAN for advice and guidance has doubled since

1999, from 43% to 86%. 94% of colleges now use the LAN for both learning

materials and course document storage and access (1999 = 60% ). Staff in nearly

20% of colleges engage in online delivery and support of learning as a regular part ofprofessional practice.

.Student use of college LANs follows a similar pattern to staff use, though typically

tracking behind staff in the extent of use Internet access remains the principal use,

though the other activities have increased significantly

The main Internet activities remain information gathering and e-mail. Two-thirds of

the sample use the Internet to support distance-learning, almost three times as many as

in 1999, though it is common practice in only 5%.


8/49

8

Access to Email

There is a robust infrastructure in place for electronic communications with staff as

widespread subscription to college email supplements well-developed intranets. 74%

of full time and 57% of part time students have a college email address. This may

understate the extent of access to email, given a reliance in some institutions on

Hotmail for students. 95% of permanent staff have a personal email address, whilst

only 3% have no access to email. The split between provision of an internal service

(40%) and an external service (48%) or both (11%) is almost unchanged from last

year.

Intranet and Extranet

88% of colleges have an Intranet which is local to the institution, whilst a further 8%

have developed a shared facility. The growth by 9% since 2000 in the number of

colleges using an Intranet is offset by a reduction of 4% in the number sharing an

Extranet.

Virtual Learning Environments and Student tracking

51 % of respondents stated that they currently use a VLE, up from 30% last year,

though only 13 colleges describe their use as common practice.

61% of general F.E. colleges reported using VLEs compared with only 27% of Sixth

form colleges. In house systems accounted for largest share (17%) of the total

reported.

57% of colleges use systems to track learner activity, compared with 44% last year.

Sixth form colleges are the bigger users of student tracking systems , 77% reporting

them compared with 52% of general F.E. colleges.

1.6Staff skills70% of staff 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 48% college staff are considered competent or advanced. (2000 =

42%). 15 colleges considered a greater proportion of staff to be competent of ILT in

the classroom than in their personal use of IT, evidence of some staff development

strategies that take learning applications, rather than office applications, as a starting

point for staff competence. College strategy updates suggest that these results mayoverstate the actual levels of ILT skills amongst staff.

1.7ILT Champions1.892% of sector colleges have ILT Champions. 48% of colleges also have a Senior

Management ILT Champion. The average number of Champions in a college is 3.

Key functions include support of staff, development of materials, identification of

resources and training of staff. The average remission from teaching responsibilities is

3 hours per week, but 32% get no remission.


9/49

9

1.9Access in the community1.1048% of colleges provide community ILT access, up from 38%. Around 30% of

colleges offer learning programmes that include remote submission of assessed work,

online advice and guidance, together with contact with tutors and peers, typically

small in scale. It is described as common practice by only 2% of colleges.

25% of college now provide access via ILT for home-based learners, compared with

19% in 2000. The results suggest an increasing commitment within the sector to

develop and extend online modes of learning.


10/49

10

2 The Survey

2.1 Context and purpose of the study

This study was carried out in September 2001 on behalf of theLearning and Skills

Council in order to assess progress in the provision of information and learning

technology within the sector. Two previous studies, undertaken in February 1999 and

September 2000, provide comparative data to judge the impact of the provision of 74

million over three-years for the development of ILT infrastructure in the sector.

2.2 Survey methodology and response

The Study took the form of a survey by questionnaire of all 426 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;

242 Colleges (57% of the Sector) submitted completed questionnaires in time for

inclusion in the analysis. 110 colleges (45% of the analysed data set) submitted their

replies electronically using the web- based version of the questionnaire. Table 1

shows the breakdown by type of college.

Table 1 Respondents by college type

College type Respondents SectorArt and Design college 1% 2%

Agricultural college 7% 6%

Designated college 2% 3%

Further education college 68% 65%

Sixth form college 23% 25%

Total 100% 100%

The breakdown by college type reveals that the sample is sufficiently close to the

distribution of colleges in the population to ensure a high level of confidence in anyinferences drawn from the data. The actual number of Art and Design colleges (2) and

specialist Designated colleges (5) in the sample reflects the small number in the

sector, but prevents us from making specific observations about them as a group.

The regional breakdown of respondents is shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Respondents by regional location

Region Respondents Sector

East Midlands 9% 8%


11/49

11

Eastern Region 9% 8%

Greater London 12% 14%

North East 5% 6%

North West 15% 15%

South East 18% 17%

South West 8% 9%West Midlands 13% 13%

Yorkshire & Humberside 11% 10%

Total 100% 100%

Tables 1 and 2 taken together demonstrate that the colleges that responded to the

survey closely match the sector in regional spread and college type. This, taken with

the high response rate for the survey, leads us to a high degree of confidence in the

data.

The survey was detailed and was conducted within a tight time scale. It isunderstandable, 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 maximum at times.


12/49

12

3. Infrastructure

3.1 College computer stock

The original Becta survey of ILT in colleges, carried out in February 1999, found thatonly 38% of computers available for learning purposes were of an acceptable standard

for use with Internet applications. The specification (arbitrarily) chosen was Pentium

II/ MMX. From the survey of 2000 onwards, we have asked colleges to use their own

baseline specification for an acceptable level of performance and to delineate stock

against this benchmark. This is more robust as a basis of comparison over time, since

it matches the continual changes in technology of computers with changes in user

expectations and increased technical demands of current software. It will tend to

understate the proportion of machines capable of delivering an acceptable level of

service for users if the baseline is set against the rapid escalation of marketplace

specifications, rather than a more humble, but serviceable, notion of user requirements

and expectations.

For reasons of comparison, we again asked respondents to count the numbers of

computers built on 486 and Pentium 1 processors.

Chart 1: College computer stock (% of total)

Chart 1 shows that 63% of the current installed stock of computers in colleges is at, orbetter than the colleges baseline specification for desired level of performance. A

63

26

61 4

Baseline spec or better

Above Pentium I

Pentium I

486 and below

Apple


13/49

13

further one-quarter of stock is as good or better than the Pentium II specification we

set as benchmark in February 1999, whilst the Pentium I machines that made up 19%

of stock in summer 2000 had fallen to 6% by summer 2001.

Chart 2 maps the change in computer stock over the period of the National Learning

Network initiative. A significant transformation has seen the 486 machines that madeup one quarter of computers in 1999 and 5% in 2000 fall to a mere 1%.

Chart 2: Change in computer stock 1999-2001

These relative changes are all the more dramatic when set against the increase in

absolute numbers of computers in colleges. A very rough estimate that can be inferred

from the data is that the actual number of computers in the 420 English colleges is

around 260,000, compared with around 160,000 in February 1999. An equally rough

calculation suggests that no more than a third of the current stock has survived since

1999, giving a conservative estimate of the total number of new computers bought

since that date for use in teaching and learning of around 170,000, yielding a net

increase of 100,000 above the replacement investment of 70,000 machines.A more meaningful measure of the impact of new investment is to be found on the

improvement in the ratios of access to Internet-enabled computers for both students

and staff (see 4.1 below).

3.2 Baseline specification

Respondents were asked to describe the baseline specification that they would

currently consider buying for college purposes, in terms of its speed, RAM and hard

disk capacity. They were also asked to describe what they would consider the current

best buy specification. The three dimensions of speed and memory were then

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Baseline

spec orbetter

Above

Pentium I

Pentium I 486 and

below

Apple

1999

2000

2001


14/49

14

weighted to produce eight bands representing machines of increasing capability.

Table 3 below shows a typical specification for each band.

43% of colleges have set as their baseline a 500 MHz, or slower, computer with 32

Mb of RAM. The median baseline specification is 500 Mhz with 64 Mb of RAM and

6Gb hard disk. One in four colleges this year regard 128 Mb of RAM as the

benchmark, with concomitant faster speeds and hugely expanded hard disk capacity.In general, however, the results suggest a concern for user expectation and experience

rather than technical innovation as the driver for setting a baseline.

Table 3 Computer specifications

Typical band specifications 2001

2000 values

Speed (MHz) RAM (Mb) Hard disk

(Gb)

Baseline

specification

Best buy

specification

Band 1 200 32 2 18 29 0 0

Band 2 500 32 4 25 25 0 9

Band 3 500 64 6 15 23 4 30

Band 4 650 64 10 15 20 15 47

Band 5 650 128 15 8 2 23 8

Band 6 700 128 20 13 0 34 3

Band 7 750 256 20 2 0 6 3

Band 8 1000 256 20 3 0 16 0

Data = % of respondentsThe best buy, by contrast, is typically a significantly higher specification than the

baseline. Although 29% of respondents cite the same specification for both baseline

and best buy, the average best buy is two bands higher than the quoted baseline

specification. This could simply reflect the continual upward movement of technicaloffer within the marketplace; 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 the market has moves rapidly on.

Colleges were also asked if there were any other factors that they considered critical

when purchasing a computer. The key issues remain the same as last year: robustness,

support and price. 57% of respondents (2000 = 65%) identify build quality and

reliability as a critical factor to be considered when buying a workstation. An almost

unchanged 55% cite after-sales care (warranty, maintenance, service and support).

Price is the only other significant factor, considered critical by 43%, compared with

31% a year ago. This rise may indicate a market in which bargains are available for

the buyer who is willing to search, or simply the need to maximise the number of


15/49

15

machines for any given budget. Both views are supported by the data, which indicate

large volumes of computers being acquired at lower prices, on average, than in 2000.

We observed last year that the market for computers in FE seems to be fairly

sophisticated, with buyers clearly able to articulate their needs and well armoured

against hype. This continues to be the case, with only 2% of respondents rating a

named brand as critical. Only 1% now consider future-proofing to be important. Thismay reflect the common view that the effective life of college computers is only three

years, future-proofed or not. Recent experience is that change has been characterised

by different technology rather than the model of the same technology plus more

memory and add-ons that future proofing often assumes. A more practical

consideration may be that the physical battering taken by heavily used college stock

puts it beyond resuscitation.

Table 4 Prices for best buy computer

Median price Lowest price Highest price

Band 3 650 485 850

Band 4 650 440 850

Band 5 700 380 900

Band 6 650 400 1000

Band 7 755 500 1200

Band 8 750 500 1200

Table 4 shows the prices colleges report as their best buy for machines in each band.

The spread between highest and lowest price is again notable. The spread of the prices

paid within bands by different colleges is more extreme than the spread of median

prices between bands. The average prices paid for all 5 of the popular bands is

covered by a 105 difference, from 650 to 755. The mean average prices are pulled

upwards by the extremes, but differ by no more than 30 at most from the median

value. A comparison with the prices quoted by colleges last year reveals a significantfall in the average price paid of around 100 for bands 4 and 5 (138 and 102 less

than the respective 2000 price) and around 200 for bands 6 and 7 (191 and 213

less).

The prices reported by Sixth Form colleges in the last survey were systematically

lower than those paid by F.E. colleges. This is no longer the case. The midpoint and

range of prices reported by both groups are now essentially the same.


16/49

16

3.3 Local Area Network

The specification of college Local Area Networks (LAN) has risen in line with the

specification and volume of the computers that they support. 95% of all computers are

networked; 60% of colleges report that all machines for student use are networked,

whilst 69% report that all staff computers are attached to the network.

Ethernet technology dominates college networks. Chart 3 shows the dramatic increase

in LAN bandwidth since 1999, when 10 mbps Ethernet accounted for 63% of

networks. Two out of every three colleges now has a 100 mbps Ethernet backbone,

with 14% having a gigabit LAN (up from 1% in 1999 and 9% last year).

Chart 3: Local Area Network- Backbone

38% of colleges have only one site. The remainder face the problem of extending

their LAN to connect different sites. 23% of respondents have four or more sites,

including 5 very large colleges with more than 10 major sites each.

Table 5 Connecting sites

2001 2000 1999

Leased line 44 44 43

Modem 4 12 12

ISDN 14 17 31

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1999 2000 2001

10M Ethernet

100M Ethernet

Gigabit Ethernet


17/49

17

Wire-less

technologies

20 15 11

Cable 16 11 16

Data = % of connections between sites

Table 5 shows the percentage of connections that are accounted for by each

technology. Whilst leased line continues to dominate, wire-less connections have

increased substantially. Wire-less technologies, which is used to include all such

media, including radio, microwave and laser, have nearly doubled in use, despite the

constraints that restrict the use of variants requiring clear line-of-sight to operate. 38%

of the multi-site colleges utilise multiple technologies to connect their sites, including

one college which employs 5 separate technologies.

3.4 LAN Performance

The improvement in LAN specification leads to an expectation of a concomitant

improvement in performance and in capability to meet demand. Chart 4 shows that

there has indeed been such an improvement.

In 1999, only 24% of colleges had the capacity to meet an increase in demand upon

the network, whilst 22% could not cope with existing calls upon them. By 2001, 38%

of respondents say that they could cope with a significant increase in traffic. The

number struggling to deliver has fallen to 5%. Despite the improvement in LAN

specification, over half of the sector is still stretched to full capacity. This seems to

confirm that the notion of a motorway effect, which sees traffic rapidly adjust upwardseach time an additional lane is opened, is still an appropriate description of the nature

of demand for ILT in colleges.

These data must be seen against a backcloth of substantial increases in demand upon

networks. Not only must each college network support its share of the additional

100,000 machines we estimate to have been added since 1999, but it must also deal

with the increased proportion of the total that are networked (95%) rather than stand-

alone. The burden is further increased, moreover, by the increasing use of networked

applications.


18/49

18

Chart 4 : Network capability to meet demand

Colleges continue to restrict network traffic in bandwidth hungry applications. Fourout of every five colleges identify large files as an actual or potential source of

problems on the network, and hence look to control their use. This is only 4% fewer

than the 84% who cited large files as a problem in 1999.

Table 6 Network performance

2001 2000 1999

Always smooth without appreciable delay 47 38 35

Generally works well but slow at busy times 49 56 60

Slowness/unreliability a frequent problem 3 4 5

Data = % of colleges

The rate of improvement in network performance continues to lag behind other

indicators. The number who experience frequent problems has fallen to 3% of sector

colleges. More dramatic has been the rise to 47% in the proportion of colleges who

describe their network as always smooth, without appreciable delay and the decline to

just below half of all colleges who report the network performance to be slow at busy

times. Those students whose networked learning is scheduled at such busy times,however, almost certainly find their experience systematically worse than winners in

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Percentage

ofrespondents

Over-stretched

At capacity

Spare capacity

Over-stretched 22 9 5

At capacity 54 62 57

Spare capacity 24 27 38

1999 2000 2001


19/49

19

the lottery of timetable slots who find they are scheduled to use the network when

traffic is low. This notwithstanding, the improvement since 1999 is impressive,

particularly given the increased demands on the network described above.

3.5 Internet ConnectivityAll colleges now have a free 2Mbps Internet connection via JANET as part of theNational Learning Network (NLN) initiative. Table 7 shows that just over one-third of

these (36%) have, or plan to have additional bandwidth. This has fallen from 41% of

colleges who stated an intention in 2000 to go beyond 2Mbps. The most significant

fall has been the reduction by a half of those colleges planning to have between 2 and

3 Mbps. The fall in this group by 6% of colleges almost exactly matches the increase

in those planning to stick with the free 2Mbps. It seems plausible to infer that this is

the result of colleges deciding that the benefits arising from, or the volume of traffic

flowing through, relatively small amounts of additional bandwidth do not justify the

cost.

Table 7 Total Planned Bandwidth

Bandwidth 2001 2000

2 Mbps 64 59

2-3 Mbps 6 12

4 Mbps 18 19

6 Mbps

0 1

8 Mbps 3 1

10 Mbps and more 5 4

Data = % of respondents

It might be expected, a priori, that there would be a relationship between planned

bandwidth and college size. We tested this using FTE student enrolment as a proxy

for size. The correlation coefficient, r, of 0.28 indicates that this year, as last, there is

no relationship to be detected between large student numbers and large bandwidth.

The profile of colleges planning bandwidth of 3Mbps and above is significantly

different from last year, however, with a much clearer tendency for those seeking

larger bandwidth to be larger colleges. 85% are larger than the sector median value of

FTE student numbers, whilst half of the largest 10% intend to take on greater

bandwidth. Clearly this means that the other half are content with 2Mbps for the near

future, as are many of the largest colleges in the sector and many with a longstanding

reputation for good practice in ILT.

Whilst a number of different Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are contracted to

provide the additional connectivity, only JANET, which has reinforced its dominance

with 54%, and BT with 10% of colleges reach double figures.


20/49

20

3.6 Constraints on Internet use

Colleges were asked to rank a list of possible constraints upon expansion of Internet

use in the order of their significance within the college. The results are shown in

Chart 5. The weighted 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

On this basis, the technical constraints remain the most significant barrier to increased

use of the Internet. The number of access points continues to be seen as a key

constraint, despite the large influx of Internet-capable machines into colleges. We

must interpret this against the concomitant rise in demand for Internet access, which

other data in the survey and the following observation from a college confirm:

The only real constraint is the ever increasing level of demand. As fast as we providenew computers/ access points, demand grows faster (Sixth Form college,Manchester).

An immediate return on the investment in high specification computers and LAN

capability to support the now universal JANET connections comes in the continuing

decline in access speeds as a constraint.

As technical hurdles are surmounted and as use of the Internet becomes

commonplace, pedagogical issues have grown in importance. For staff, course design

and planning to exploit the possibilities of the Web have edged up the rankings,

together with the student skills needed to engage effectively with the Internet as a

tool.

0 1 2 3 4

No interest

Student skills

Course design

Access speeds

Access points

Constraint

Weighted score

1999

2000

2001


21/49

21

Colleges were invited to list other factors restricting growth. The only major factor

was that of inappropriate use, including restriction of access to unsuitable sites, cited

by 11% of all respondents, the same proportion as last year. A new element was the

problem of access for remote sites, noted by 8 colleges. References to other issues

commonly cited in previous years have fallen in number. Staffing issues and

bandwidth concerns have both halved in number of mentions, each being cited by 4%of respondents, whilst the cost issues which concerned 4% of colleges in 2000 are

referred to by only 2 colleges.


22/49

22

4. Access to Computers

4.1 Access for learners

The survey requested an actual count of computers available within the college.

Based on this data, calculations were made of the availability of computers for both

students and staff within colleges. The proxy variables that have been calculated to

estimate this are the ratios of computers to students and to staff. These measures were

used in the 1999 and 2000 studies and allow comparisons to be drawn. They are also

the format used by the Further Education Funding Council to define the targets for

access to computers which it encouraged colleges to seek to achieve by 2002.

There is no single, unambiguous measure of student numbers that can safely be usedto calculate access ratios. The use of full time equivalent (f.t.e.) student data as a basis

for calculations reflects a recognition that they make an allowance for total hours of

attendance, which other possible measures such as a simple count of student numbers

do not. This allows us to get closer to the underlying questionhow easy is it for a

student to access a computer within the institution. We have not attempted to

distinguish particular groups of students, nor to separate out attendance mode, pattern

or site, though we recognise that these may have a significant influence in

determining access in practice.

The analysis used the latest complete set of f.t.e student data available from LSC,

which covers student numbers for academic year 1999/00. If student numbers have

changed dramatically over the period, then comparing them with computers in 2001will distort the apparent ratio. Information about changes in enrolments in the

intervening period suggests that any such effect is likely to be minimal, i.e. that the

calculated ratios are a true reflection of the actual situation in colleges in September

2001.

We have examined two key statistics:

- f.t.e. students to all computers within the college- f.t.e. students to internet-enabled computers

The improvement since 1999 in the availability of computers for students is shown in

Chart 6.

The mean average number of f.t.e students per computer has fallen from 5.5:1 in 2000

to 4.7: 1 in 2001(1999 = 8.2:1). The median value (the ratio of colleges at the middle

of the range of values) is 4.5:1 (7.6:1). The dispersion of values is far less than in

1999, with fewer colleges having very high ratios. The highest value calculated for

2001 was 11:1 at a single college, whilst only 10 colleges (4% of the respondents) had

ratios of 8:1 or greater. This compares with 43% who had ratios of 8:1 or worse in

1999. The median value is, nonetheless, likely to be the better estimate of the typical

situation within sector colleges.


23/49

23

Chart 6: Ratio of f.t.e. students to all computers

A difference emerges between the types of colleges in level of resource. Sixth Form

colleges have a median ratio of 4.1: 1, compared with 4.5:1 (identical to the overall

median) for General Further Education colleges and 5.7: 1 for land-based colleges.

The dispersion of values, as measured by both standard deviation and inter-quartile

range is relatively low for sixth-form and land-based colleges, indicating a clustering

around the average values, which suggests that these are indeed typical values.

An unpublished Becta study in August 1999 found a similar disparity between sixth-

form and general F.E. colleges, which seems to have persisted over time.

Access to Internetenabled computers

The improvement in access to internet-enabled computers is significant, as Chart 8

below shows. The median number of f.t.e. students to computers with Internet access

is now 4.95:1 indicating that the typical college has now achieved the FEFC target of

1: 5. This compares with a median of 21:1 in 1999, which had fallen to 7:1 by last

year. 85% of colleges have now achieved 7:1 or better. In 1999, by contrast, the 85th

percentile was 106:1. This single statistic, perhaps more than any other in this report,

reveals the extent to which colleges have transformed the computing facility available

to learners over the period of the NLN initiative.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Better than 3:1

3:1

4:1

5:1

6:1

7:1

8:1 to 12:1

12:1 to 20:1

More than 20:1

% of colleges

2001

2000

1999

2001 5 15 29 26 7 4 0

2000 1 11 21 26 9 11 1

1999 0 3 4 14 16 33 7 3

Better

than

3:1

3:1 4:1 5:1 7:18:1 to

12:1

12:1 to

20:1

More

than

20:1


24/49

24

Chart 7: Ratio of f.t.e. students to Internet-enabled computers

4.2 Managing demand for student access

The improvement in the number of high specification computers available for use bylearners has transformed the capability of colleges to deal with a level of demand for

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 fell to 39% last year and now stands at 28%, or just over

a quarter of colleges.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

3 or better

4

5

6

7

8 to 12

13 to 20

20 +

% of colleges

2001

2000

1999

2001 17 26 21 14 10 9 2 1

2000 5 16 13 15 11 18 7 14

1999 0 1 2 4 5 21 14 51

3 or

better4 5 6 7 8 to 12

13 to

2020 +


25/49


26/49

26

Table 8 Meeting student demand for Internet access

College capability 2001 2000 1999

Cannot cope with current demand 25 39 54

Can cope with current demand 58 45 25

Can cope with greater demand 11 7 5

Base = % of colleges

An important distinction separates colleges' ability to meet demand from the

conditions of access. Queuing remains a feature of learners access to computing

facilities. Four out of every five colleges say that students may find it difficult to get

on a machine at busy times. Half of these (44% of respondents) see unrestricted

access for learners as a priority, though the continuing encroachment of the motorway

effect into new stock may make this more difficult to sustain than to achieve.Access to the internet is relatively easier, assuming that a student has found a place at

a computer. 44% of respondents now describe use of computers for internet access as

easy at any time, whilst over a half (56%) report that learners are likely to queue at

busy times.

Table 9 Ease of internet use

Bandwidth 2001 2000

Easy at any time 44 34

Wait or queue at busy times 56 62

Difficult outside lessons 0 1

Limited access 0 3

4.3 Location of computers for learners

There has been a fall in the share of total stock made available to learners as open

access. On average, 20% of college stock is described as open access, compared with

25% in 2000. The interquartile range suggests that from 12% to 33% of stock is made

accessible this way in the middle 50% of colleges. Only 3% of colleges manage all

the stock as open access, a figure which has fallen from 4.5% in 2000, while a mere

2% of colleges report no open access facility.

This reduction in the proportion of stock managed as open access could be a matter of

pragmatism rather than policy. This report has estimated that 100,000 new computers

have been acquired by the sector in the past two years. Given the relative inflexibilityof accommodation in most colleges, it was unlikely that it would be possible to house


27/49

27

them all in open learning centres, even if college ILT managers believe open access to

be more pedagogically effective or more efficient in terms of resource allocation.

Managing open access to classroom-based computers is more problematical and less

efficient than managing large open plan areas

The sheer scale of new equipment, however, suggests that whilst the proportion of

total stock made available on open access has fallen, the actual number of open accessmachines has risen. If this is true, then a preference for open access is still in

evidence, but further moves in this direction are currently frustrated by the expense of

knocking down brick walls.

There is evidence of greater accessibility for learners to stock throughout the week.

Almost three-quarters of all colleges (74%) now make some part of their computing

facility available at the weekend, a substantial increase on 2000, when the figure was

60%. About one in four of the weekend colleges offer open access facilities only,

whilst roughly the same number offer classroom access (and by implication, tutor-

directed activity) only.

Those whose offer of computer access is restricted to daytime has fallen, from 4.5%last year to less than 2% of institutions in 2001.

The survey explored conditions of access to stock, rather than computer use. The data

suggest that at times when only part of the stock is in use, as may be the case at

lunchtime, twilight sessions and at the weekend, the restricted access, classroom-

based stock that is used disproportionately less. College policy almost certainly

supports this to the extent that a small number of large open access areas are more

efficient to staff and administer than a larger number of relatively small classrooms.

It may be inferred from this that whilst a typical college may have one machine in five

as open access, the proportion of demand falling upon open access machines is greater

than 20%. This may offer an explanation for the preponderance of colleges who cite

queues at busy times, yet declare themselves more than able to meet demand: if only

20% of total stock is available on open access, a large number of the new machines

are locked away behind classroom doors when learners want to use them. This clearly

is not a simple problem to resolve. Accommodation is one of the more intractable

elements of change within the ILT equation.

4.4 Access for StaffThe provision of computers for the exclusive use of staff has continued its steady

improvement. The NLN target of 1 internet-connected computer for every permanent

member of teaching and learning support staff has been achieved or bettered by only

15% of colleges, though a further 15% has achieved a ratio below 1.5:1. 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 for students, rather

than staff. This position is reaffirmed by the strategy updates for 2001 and its

translation into practice is clearly demonstrated by achievement of the student access

ratios reported above.

The actual achievement of colleges in providing computers for staff is better reflectedin the median value of the ratio of internet-connected computers to permanent staff,


28/49

28

which has fallen from 3 staff for every machine in 2000, down to 1.9 in 2001. The

figure imputed for 1999 (when the question was not directly asked) is 7:1.

Table 10: Median ratio of staff to Internet-connected computers

Bandwidth 2001 2000 1999

All staff 3.5 4.1 12.0

Permanent staff 1.9 3.0 7.0 **

** Estimate based on 1999 data

Table 10 further shows the improvement in access to Internet enabled computers for

all staff, which is of particular significance given the heavy reliance by colleges on

sessional staff to deliver programmes of learning. This has fallen from 12 staff for

each Internet enabled computer down to 3.5.We have chosen not to separately report the ratios between staff and all computers,

including those without Internet capability, because they now differ little from the

figures given in Table 6. This has come about from the increasing connection of staff

computers to the college network. 95% of all computers set aside for staff use are now

networked, and 98% of these are internet-connected.

4.5 Mode of access for staff

The improvement in staff access has accompanied a move towards giving staff their

own designated machine. 27% of colleges now report that all or most staff have theirown designated computer, compared with only 5% in 1999. One in five in 1999

relied upon most staff sharing computers with students. This has fallen through 10%

in 2000 to only 6% now, though 40% still rely upon this mode of access for at least

some staff. As Table 11 indicates, however, the characteristic mode of access for staff

remains sharing a computer in a staff room.

Table 11:Staff access to computers

All/most Some/few None

Own designatedcomputer

27

(16,5)**

68

(79,90)

1

(1,2)

Shared office

computer

60

(64,59)

35

(34,44)1

(0,0)Shared staff/student 6

(10,20)

40

(47,44)

37

(31,26)No access 5

(9,10)

75

(80,81)

Data = % of colleges. Figures in italics are values for (2000, 1999)


29/49

29

Table 12 reveals college priorities changing in the light of the increase in available

resource. Sole use of a computer for all staff remains low on the priorities of colleges

(3%), whilst the achievement of a shared office computer is reported as a priority by

29%, a figure that has fallen from just over half of institutions in 1999.

Table 12: Priorities for staff access

Priority2001 2000 1999

To a computer 15 20 18

Shared office

computer

29 46 51

Sole use 3 1 1

Data = % of respondents

The relatively low number of responses to the choices presented in the survey should

not be interpreted as indifference to the importance of providing suitable access to

staff. A consistent theme emerging from the ILT strategy updates was a recognition

by managers that staff confidence and skill with ILT will not develop without

adequate access to computers in an environment in which they feel able to learn and

to innovate.


30/49

30

5. Uses of ILT

5.1 Staff Use of the LAN/ Intranet

The survey asked respondents to distinguish whether particular applications were in

use (intermittent, occasional, small in scale) or whether they could be described as

common practice within the institution. This distinction was not made in 1999, so

limits direct comparability.

Use by staff of the college LAN for email and Internet access is now virtually

universal, both being reported by 99% of sector colleges. Both have become

extensively embedded into organisational culture: staff accessing the Internet is

described as common practice in 90% of colleges, a rise from 75% in 2000, whilststaff use of email is common in 82% of colleges (2000 =61% ).

Equally significant, though smaller in scale, are increases reported in the use being

made of networked applications to directly support learning and teaching, through

storage and delivery of learning materials, advice and guidance and as a repository of

course documentation.

Chart 9: Teaching and Learning uses of LAN

0 20 40 60 80 100

Materials (common use)

Learning materials

Documents (common use)

Course documents

Advice (common use)

Advice & guidance

% of colleges

2001

2000

1999


31/49

31

Chart 9 shows the dramatic increase in use of the LAN for these three areas of activity

since 1999. The number of colleges in which staff make use of the LAN for advice

and guidance has exactly doubled over the period, going from 43% to 86%. A total of

94% of colleges now make some use of the LAN for both learning materials and

course document storage and access (1999 = 66%, 60% respectively).

The extent of common use is less, but the data suggest that staff in nearly 20% ofcolleges are engaging in online delivery and support of learning as a regular part of

professional practice. If it is truly the case that one in five colleges have achieved

some degree of embedding of these activities into common practice, then this

represents a significant step forward in the application of ILT with learners.

This assertion must be interpreted in the light of considerable ambiguity in college

strategies about what constitutes effective practice in ILT. This accompanies a

continuing confusion in many colleges between IT/ ICT as both technology and

learning outcome per se, and ILT as the application of IT/ICT to the achievement of

learning outcomes in any and all subject areas. Few college strategies that were

submitted for evaluation in Summer 2000 demonstrated a clear vision of ILT in this

sense. The Strategy update process yielded even fewer who had refined their visionof the place of ILT within the overall teaching and learning strategy. These

observations however should not detract from the fact that the data indicate a

significant shift in practice since 1999 towards embedding ILT into staff practice in

the vanguard of sector colleges

Table 13 Uses of the LAN/ Intranet by Staff

2001 2000 1999

Used Common Used Common Used Common

Email 99 82 98 61 91

Learning materials 94 18 88 14 66

Course documents 94 20 84 15 60

Advice & guidance 86 17 78 18 43

Internet access 99 90 99 76 89

Videoconferencing 33 136 0 19

Videoconferencing is in evidence in one-third of colleges (19% in 1999), a slight fall

on last year, but has only been taken into common practice by 1%. College strategy

documents suggest that where videoconferencing is used, it is typically to facilitate

meetings between staff rather than to support learners.

Table 14 shows student use of college LANs following a similar pattern to staff use,

though typically tracking behind staff in the extent of use, most notably in the use ofthe LAN for email traffic. Internet access remains the principal use, though the other


32/49

32

activities have increased significantly. The data suggest that whilst the number of

colleges using the LAN for the listed activities has increased over the past year, the

extent of common use by students has not risen in train. The most intriguing aspect is

use of the LAN to access course documents. Whilst the number of colleges in which

staff both use and make common use of the LAN for storage of documents have risen,

only 9% of colleges believe that students commonly access them at present,. Thefigures for staff and student participation in the other activities are more in accordance

with expectations.

Table 14 Uses of the LAN/ Intranet by Students

2001 2000 1999


Email 88 50 82 39 64

Learning materials 87 16 80 16 74

Course documents 82 9 75 11 45


Internet access 97 85 99 76 91

Videoconferencing 23 0 28 1 10

Tables 15 and 16 show the uses made of the Internet by staff and students. The main

common activities of both staff and students remain information gathering and e-mail.The marketing potential of the Internet is now exploited by virtually all colleges,

typically through the medium of the college website.

Two-thirds of the sample report using the Internet to support distance-learning, almost

three times as many as in 1999, whilst 74% use the medium to offer advice and

guidance. The number who use the web as common practice to support distance

learning remains constant at 5%, suggesting that those newly engaged in the field are

yet to convert small scale activity in distance learning into mainstream practice. This

may be as much an issue of market perceptions as of technical capability and

competence.

Table 15 Uses of the Internet by Staff

2001 2000 1999


College marketing 94 45 96 40 83Information resource 99 78 100 65 100

Support distancelearning

67 5 50 5 26

Admin/management

83 35 72 31 45Advice & guidance 74 13 61 11 25


33/49

33

Email 98 78 97 61 89

Table 16 again shows a similar picture of use by students, to that of staff. The two-

thirds of colleges that deliver distance learning on the Internet have students activelylearning and one in twenty describe it as common practice. This may be an early

indicator of the development of an active community of online tutors and students

engaging remotely in learning throughout the sectors colleges.

Table 16 Uses of the Internet by Students

2001 2000 1999


Informationresource 100 79 100 74 99

Support distance

learning65 5 49 3 23


Email 96 65 91 55 74

5.2 Access to Email

Chart 10: Email access


34/49

34

Data = % of colleges

Chart 10 shows the condition of access to email of different user groups within

colleges. 95% of permanent staff now have a personal email address, whilst only 3%

have no access to email. Over three-quarters of sessional staff have a personal address

and a further 4% share one, leaving one in five sessional staff without a college email

address. This may overstate the actual degree of engagement of sessional staff withemail within college if it simply reflects automatic allocation of an address as part of

the contract process for sessional staff. This notwithstanding, there is clearly in place

a robust infrastructure for colleges who wish to rely upon electronic communications

with staff; widespread subscription to college email now supplements well-developed

intranets. 74% of colleges have all permanent staff on the email system, with 49%

reporting full coverage of sessional staff. The respective values for full-time and

part-time students are 54% and 37%.

Almost one in four full-time students and two-fifths of part-time students have no

access to college email services. This may be a measure of the degree to which

colleges rely upon some types of external service to meet these needs and therefore

understate the true extent of access to email for students. The split between provisionof an internal service (40%) and an external service (48%) or both (11%) is almost

unchanged from last year. The survey does not specifically identify reliance upon

Hotmail or similar email provision.

Only two colleges explicitly report that they offer no email service to learners.

5.3 Intranet and Extranet use

An Intranet is essentially a website that is internal to the institution. It has all of the

capability of the Internet for storage of information in a variety of forms and for

access and dissemination throughout the network. The sharing of such a facility, or

0 20 40 60 80 100

Permanent staff

Sessional staff

Full time students

Part time students

Personal address

Shared address

No access

No access 3 20 24 39

Shared address 2 4 2 4

Personal address 95 76 74 57

Permanent

staffSessional staff

Full time

students

Part time

students


35/49

35

part of it, with external partners, such as other colleges or local businesses, may be

termed an Extranet.

As Chart 11 shows, Intranet skills and technology are widespread in the sector. 88%

of colleges have an Intranet which is local to the institution, whilst a further 8% have

developed a shared facility. The growth by 9% since 2000 in the number of collegesusing an Intranet is offset by a reduction of 4% in the number sharing an Extranet.

Chart 11 : Intranet & Extranet

5.4 Virtual Learning Environments and Student tracking

The survey used the term Virtual Learning Environments (VLE) as the sectors

preferred term for software packages that constitute an environment in which to

deliver online learning.

51 % of respondents stated that they currently use a VLE, a substantial increase on the

30% who were using them last year, though only 13 colleges describe their use as

common practice. Colleges that use a VLE often have more than one: last year 78

colleges accounted for 111 VLEs. In 2001, 121 colleges shared 180 between them.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

% of colleges

Platform

2000

2001

2000 79 12 9

2001 88 8 4

Intranet Extranet None


36/49

36

A striking difference emerged between different types of college in their adoption of

VLEs. Land-based colleges matched the overall take-up at 50% exactly. 61% of

General F.E. colleges reported using VLEs, however, compared with only 27% of

Sixth form colleges. This lends support to the anecdotal evidence of a view emerging

from sixth form colleges that they do not see VLEs as a current priority and to the

evidence arising from the sixth form colleges strategic updates. Many sixth formcolleges are strategically committed to further development of the college intranet as

platform for online learning and to whole class display technologies, such as

electronic whiteboards and data projectors. The view is by no means unanimous, with

several enthusiastic advocates of VLEs amongst the sixth form community, including

those who are developing their own.

Chart 12 below lists the most commonly cited VLEs in use in colleges. The listing is

not complete. 14 other products were named, including learndirect, but in smaller

numbers than those in the chart..

The most commonly cited commercial systems were Blackboard with 14% and

Learnwise with 11% of the systems in use, both building from relatively small marketshare in 2000. WebCT , Virtual Campus and NetG Skill Vantage continued to be

well used in 2001, each accounting for between 8% and 10% of the systems in use.

The development and use of in house systems has ballooned, with 32 colleges

accounting for just over 17% of the total systems reported, compared with only 10 in

house developments noted in 2000. 16% of the in-house developments were reported

to be in common use, with Blackboard accounting for the same percentage. The

OnLinM community, based around Nathan Boddingtons system developed at Leeds

University , boasts the highest proportion of common usage at 25%, with 2 of the

reported 8 systems so described by their colleges.

Chart 12: Most commonly cited VLEs in use


37/49

37

5.5 Tracking Learner Activity

The number of colleges using systems to track learner activity has increased from

44% colleges in 2000 to 57% this year. As with VLEs , those colleges who use such

software seem to be trialling or mixing and matching more than one product. The 132

colleges who identified themselves as users shared 236 systems, an average of 1.8

each.

Fretwell Downing EBS was the most widely cited commercial product, with 12% of

systems, while Easi-Track and BromCom wNET each accounted for approximately

10%. As in the case of VLEs, in-house bespoke system of some type, often basedupon spreadsheet or database software are the most commonly used, making up 23%

0 10 20 30

Fretwell Downing LE

Lotus Learning Space

Virtual Campus

WebCT

NetG Skill Vantage

OnLinm

Blackboard

Learnwise

In-house system

VLE

Prod

uct

number of colleges

2001 Common

2001 Used

2000 Common

2000 Used


38/49

38

or nearly twice as many as the commercial leader. A clear division emerges in the

preferences (or needs) of different segments of the sector, with Easi-Track and

Fretwell Downing systems mainly used by general FE colleges, whilst BromCom

wNET is prominent in the sixth form college market.

Chart 13: Tracking Learner Activity

The data identify a further separation between general F.E. colleges and sixth form

colleges. We noted the significant difference in take-up of VLEs. A possible reason

might have been that sixth form colleges are more sceptical about ICT solutions, or

more technophobic. Any such suggestion is readily dispelled by the observation that

only 52% of general F.E. colleges use software to track learner activity compared

with 77% of sixth form colleges.

0 10 20 30 40 50

BromComwNET

Fretwell

DowningEBS

Easi-Track

In house

Dolphin

Tokairo

VLE

Product

% of systems

2001 Common

2001 Used

2000 Common

2000 Used


39/49

39

6. Staff skills

6.1 Staff IT and ILT Competence

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 ILT with learners. Definitions within these broad classifications were left

to the judgement of respondents on grounds of practicality. The research team

considered the identification of suitably bounded criteria to be a daunting task, if not

impossible within the timescale. More telling, however, was the belief that while

respondents assessments of the categories would not be identical, they would share

sufficiently similar common understandings of competency to enable comparison and

judgements to be drawn from the results. An average of the values estimated by each

college was calculated for every category. The results are shown in Chart 14.

Chart 14 IT and ILT skill levels

Across the sector as a whole, 70% of staff 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 48% college staff are considered

competent or advanced. (2000 = 42%). This suggests that one in three staff who arecompetent or advanced in their personal use of IT are regarded as low-skilled in the

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

%o

fstaff

IT

ILT

IT 30 52 18

ILT 52 32 16

Low Medium High


40/49

40

application of ILT with learners. The results are the same in nature and similar to

those found in Becta surveys of ILT in Wales and Scotland.

As in both of those countries, a small number of colleges, 15 in this survey,

considered a greater proportion of staff to be competent or advanced in their use of

ILT in the classroom than in their personal use of IT. In four cases this difference was

quite marked, in the others more marginal. It is evidence, nonetheless, of some staffdevelopment strategies that take learning applications, rather than office applications,

as a starting point for staff competence.

A further 35 colleges considered the proportion of combined competent and

advanced groups to be the same in both skill sets, albeit typically with fewer advanced

skills in ILT.

College strategy updates reaffirm a strong commitment to staff development,

particularly to IT/ICT programmes such as ECDL (European Computer Driving

Licence). Many explicitly recognise the need to take this further into development of

pedagogical skills to underpin effective use of ILT. . The outcomes of the FENTOstandards work, which LSDA is leading, are eagerly awaited as a guide to colleges

and a stimulus to training providers and in-house support and many documents

mention the staff development toolkit that NILTA is producing as part of its

contribution to FENTO developments.

The lack of an commonly agreed and well understood set of definitions of ILT

competencies, taken together with the uncertainty about what constitutes good

practice and effective pedagogy in e-learning may have led many respondents to

overstate the ILT skill level of staff. The message that emerges from the updating of

Strategy documents is that colleges feel ever more urgently that a major staff

development effort is necessary if the investment in infrastructure is to be converted

into better student learning experiences and outcomes.


41/49

41

7. ILT Champions

ILT Champions are now to be found in 92% of sector colleges. 48% of colleges also

have a Senior Management ILT Champion. The median number of Champions in a

college is 3, with the Interquartile range (the middle 50% of colleges) stretching from

2 to 7, whilst the top 10% have more than 12, with 40 the maximum number recorded.There is no significant correlation, however, between numbers of Champions and

staff numbers or student numbers, even amongst those colleges who only have a

single Champion.

Table 17 shows the reporting arrangements and organisational boundaries of

Champions.

Table 17:Management of Champions

Report to Operate

Principal 4 Within

departments

30

Vice Principal 27 Cross college 14

Department Heads 20 Both 53

IT/ ILT Manager 27 Other 3

Staff Development 6

Other 16

Data = % of colleges with Champions

The 4% of colleges in which the Champion reports directly to the Principal include

some very large colleges, for whom such an arrangement must be seen as a measure

of top-level support for the Champion and for ILT within the college. In general the

wide range of reporting arrangements reflects the variety of organisational structure

within the sector. Over half of the colleges look to their Champions to have a brief

which extends beyond their own Department, with only 1 in 7 making it an explicitly

cross-college function without Departmental ties.

Chart 15 shows the major functions that Champions perform. Again, there was

considerable variation in the nature and number of functions undertaken by

Champions. No single function is common to all Champions, nor even close to being

common. The most frequently cited functions are support of staff, development of

materials and identification of resources. Support of staff is reported as part of the

Champions role by two out of three colleges. Materials production (58%) and

discovery (44%) emerge as significant roles. 32 colleges have Champions whose sole

function is one or other of these learning content development roles. Contributing to

the training of staff is the other key function, carried out by Champions in 41% of

colleges. The most common bundlings of key tasks see the Champions combineeither materials development or materials discovery with training and other support


42/49

42

for staff (20% of colleges ) or both materials development and discovery with staff

support (23%). It seems reasonable to infer that the most pressing current issue for

Champions in the majority of colleges is helping to find suitable content and to

support staff in its use. It seems equally plausible to suggest a causal connection

between this focus of Champion activity and the NLN funding for in-house materials

development.

Chart 15 : The key tasks of ILT Champions

The remission from teaching responsibilities that Champions receive varies from none

at all in one-third of colleges, up to more than 10 hours per week in one in twelve.

Half of colleges allow between one hour and five hours per week for Champions to

carry out their duties, with an average of 3 hours.

Additional support and resourcing typically takes the form of a computer and/or

training opportunities, both reported by 63% of colleges. 17% make a dedicated

workspace available to the Champions. Only 3 colleges reported that they offer salary

enhancement to their Champions.

Nine colleges reported no additional support to their Champions; seven of these also

give no remission. Intriguingly, however, they include a number of colleges who have

a good track record of ILT development.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

% of colleges

Managing Intranet

Training staff

Identifying resources

Developing materials

Supporting staff

Series1 14 41 44 58 68

Managing

IntranetTraining staff

Identifying

resources

Developing

materials

Supporting

staff


43/49

43

8 Access in the community

8.1 Providing access in the community

Table 18 Plans for community ILT access

2001 2000 1999

No plans to engage 9 7 7

Future possibility 21 24 26

Firm plan 24 31 31

Currently engaged 48 38 35

% of colleges

Table 18 shows a substantial increase since 2000 in the percentage of colleges

actively providing community ILT access, with nearly half of all colleges engaged,

and a consequent fall in the number still at the planning stage. The survey was not

framed in a way that allows us to separate the influence of initiatives such as

UKonline on the raised level of activity.


44/49

44

Chart 16 indicates the main types of partner organisation and shows the percentage of

colleges with formal partnerships with each type of organisation. The distribution of

partnerships shows little change from 2000, with links to H.E., learning and outreach

centres numerically the greatest.

Over 80% of electronic links with schools, libraries and businesses tend to be dial-up

rather than permanent, whilst for links with local authorities and outreach centres the

split is more like 50:50. Only in partnerships with HE institutions and learning

centres do permanent links predominate.

8.2 Use of community links

There has been little change in the scale of use made of community links for teaching

and learning over the last year. Delivery of learning materials remains the prime use

of these links, with just under half of all colleges in the sample reporting some activity

in this area. One college in twelve reports that community access to learning materials

is common practice. Around 30% of colleges offer learning programmes that include

remote submission of assessed work, online advice and guidance, together withcontact with tutors and peers. This practice is typically small in scale. It is described

as common practice by only 2% of colleges, which has changed little since last year.

25% of college now provide access via ILT for home-based learners, compared with

19% in 2000. A further 29% report firm plans to do so. The survey did not seek to

measure the scale of these ventures, but rather the extent to which colleges are using

the potential of ILT to reach out into the community. The results suggest an

increasing commitment within the sector to develop and extend online modes of

learning.

0 10 20 30 40 50

Outreach centres

Businesses

Schools

HE Centres

Local Authorities

Public Libraries

Other Learning Centres

% of colleges

Partnership

Permanent

Dial-up


45/49

45

Appendix : Messages from the Strategy updates

Background

Colleges within the sector were asked to submit an update of their ILT strategy,noting any significant changes over the intervening period and identifying any

particular achievements or problems. The documents received from colleges are free

form text statements built around the same framework as the original strategy

documents. Colleges were encouraged to submit their own reports, using a proforma

as a checklist, or to complete and submit the proforma as a free-standing document.

The responses do not lend themselves readily to quantitative analysis. This section

looks to use the themes and messages that emerge from the whole body of strategy

update information as qualitative data to supplement and illuminate the quantitative

responses to the survey.

ILT Vision

Few colleges revisited their vision statements. A small minority of colleges in the

original tranche of strategies articulated a clear vision of the impact of ILT on the

student experience and learning outcomes. While the updates give some indication of

this group increasing in size, it is clear that there is no commonly shared sense of

what successful ILT might look like in colleges. There is continuing confusion,

moreover, about the concepts of IT, ICT and ILT and the differences between these.

The notion that ILT must be embedded into a whole college teaching and learning

strategy is, however, beginning to have an impact on colleges, particularly those with

active Champions working to a clear brief from senior management.

Many colleges see ILT as a tool for improving retention and achievement, but lack a

coherent model of how this might be brought about. An increasing number recognise

that ILT can contribute to the achievement of some mission-critical goals, such as

widening participation. Recognition of the potential for ILT to be integral to the

achievement of key strategic goals and fundamentally intertwined and entangled in

other strategies emerges as a thread running through some of the updates. This is in

contrast to the first versions, which were largely silent or lacked detail on the

contribution of ILT to broader outcomes. There is, however, little evidence of

systematic evaluation of the impact of ILT on learning, or indeed on any other college

outputs or processes.

Managing the Strategy.

Nearly all colleges have a cross-college management / steering group for ILT, which

meets on a regular basis and reviews action plans and developments, typically chaired

by a Vice Principal or Assistant Principal and on which ILT Champions or identified

practitioners are present. Regardless of hierarchy and reporting arrangements, ILT

Champions are mentioned as central to the management of the ILT strategy and in the

majority of colleges have an input into the strategic process, which is seen as a

strength. The potential of this for building a more sophisticated vision of learning and

teaching with ILT is promising, insofar as it gives those who are closest to learners a

voice in ILT strategic planning.


46/49

46

An increasing number of colleges mention the role of Governors and Corporation

involvement in ILT and managing the strategy; this however is often limited to

finance and/or policy issues.

InfrastructureThere was considerable uniformity in the area of infrastructure, fully supporting thefindings of the survey. The strategy updates confirm the quantitative evidence that

colleges have prioritised infrastructure targets in the first phase of the NLN, with

particular focus on computers for learners and on local area network infrastructure, in

line with their original action plans. The connection to Janet is universally regarded as

having a positive impact and is explicitly identified by some as a stimulus to

upgrading the LAN and inter-site links.

A number of colleges felt that they were behind in terms of infrastructure and

technical developments. A copy of the previous Becta survey report was enclosed

with the published guidance for colleges on completing a strategy update and it is

clear that this has been used to benchmark infrastructure developments against sectornorms.

Three elements arise from the strategies that are not directly addressed by the survey.

There is increasing mention of wireless solutions for connectivity and laptops,

compared with the original strategies, particularly for use in remote locations or

inaccessible areas of campus sites. The logistical and cost benefits of extending the

reach of the LAN without the expense and disr