File contents
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<!-- saved from url=(0070)http://www.jisc.ac.uk/printer_friendly.cfm?name=mle_study_exec_summary -->
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Printer Friendly Version</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<STYLE type=text/css>BODY {
MARGIN: 0px
}
A:visited {
COLOR: #663399
}
A:hover {
COLOR: #ff3300
}
H1 {
FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: small; COLOR: #000000; LINE-HEIGHT: 18px; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Helvetica, Arial; caption: Heading
}
H1.title {
FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: small; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Helvetica, Arial; caption: Heading
}
.LinkText {
FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11px; COLOR: #0000cf; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Helvetica, Arial
}
.subNavText {
FONT-SIZE: 10px; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Helvetica, Arial
}
.bodyText {
FONT-SIZE: 12px; COLOR: #000000; LINE-HEIGHT: 18px; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Helvetica, Arial; caption: Main Text
}
OL {
FONT-SIZE: 12px; COLOR: #000000; LINE-HEIGHT: 18px; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Helvetica, Arial; caption: Main Text
}
UL {
FONT-SIZE: 12px; COLOR: #000000; LINE-HEIGHT: 18px; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Helvetica, Arial; caption: Main Text
}
.bodySmall {
FONT-SIZE: 10px; COLOR: #000000; LINE-HEIGHT: 16px; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Helvetica, Arial
}
.bodyTitle {
FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 13px; COLOR: #000000; LINE-HEIGHT: 18px; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Helvetica, Arial
}
.bodyTitleLarge {
FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14px; COLOR: #000000; LINE-HEIGHT: 18px; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Helvetica, Arial
}
.bodyTitleHuge {
FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 16px; COLOR: #000000; LINE-HEIGHT: 18px; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Helvetica, Arial
}
.warningText {
FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11px; COLOR: #ff3300; LINE-HEIGHT: 18px; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Helvetica, Arial
}
.bigWarningText {
FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14px; COLOR: #ff3300; LINE-HEIGHT: 22px; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Helvetica, Arial
}
.SubNavHeadings {
FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10px; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Helvetica, Arial
}
.formHeadings {
FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10px; COLOR: #ff9900; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Helvetica, Arial
}
</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="90%" align=center border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD class=bodyText vAlign=top align=left>
<P><!-- PF:Start -->
<P class=bodyText align=left><STRONG>Managed Learning Environment Activity
in Further and Higher Education in the UK</STRONG></P>
<P class=bodyText align=left>A Supporting Study for the Joint Information
Systems Committee (JISC) and the Universities and Colleges Information
Systems Association (UCISA)</P>
<P class=bodyText><SPAN class=bodyText><STRONG>Prepared by</STRONG>
<EM>The Social Informatics Research Unit, University of Brighton,
Education for Change Ltd and The Research Partnership</EM></SPAN></P>
<P class=bodyTitleLarge>Executive summary</P>
<P class=bodyTitle><EM>The research</EM></P>
<P class=bodyText>This Study was commissioned by the JISC and UCISA in
August 2002 from a consortium of research organisations<A class=linkText
title=""
href="http://www.jisc.ac.uk/printer_friendly.cfm?name=mle_study_exec_summary#_ftn1"
name=_ftnref1><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference>[1]</SPAN></A> led by the
Social Informatics Research Unit at the University of Brighton. The
research methods adopted were an extensive literature and web review,
consultation with key informants throughout the sector, a national survey
of all FE and HE institutions attracting a 51% response, and a series of
in-depth case studies.</P>
<P class=bodyTitle><EM>Overview</EM></P>
<P class=bodyText>The survey found significant levels of MLE development
activity across all institutions. Over 70% of institutions in the
sector are currently engaged in some kind of MLE development
activity. 83% of the responding institutions, however, report that
they currently use some kind of virtual learning environment (VLE) and 44%
of the respondent institutions report that they already have an
institutional portal.</P>
<P class=bodyText>The two most common strategic models for managing MLE
development within the institution are now ‘predominantly centrally
managed activity’ (40% of responding institutions); and an
institution-wide initiative with responsibilities devolved to departments
and units within the institution (27%). This indicates a significant
move towards more strategic developments, shaped by institutional and
policies and sectoral-wide initiatives.</P>
<P class=bodyTitle><EM>Integration of MLE functions and
components</EM></P>
<P class=bodyText>The core of the survey questionnaire was an extensive
matrix of MLE functions, in which respondents were asked to indicate the
extent to which the various systems in their institution are currently
integrated and the extent to which they think integration might be
developed over the next 5 years. Institutions were assigned an
‘integration score’ making it possible to categorise institutions as
having either low, medium or high levels of systems integration, in their
position now and as anticipated in 3-5 years time. </P><SPAN
class=bodyTitle>Overview</SPAN>
<P class=bodyText>35% of all FE respondents (including Sixth Form
colleges) can be categorised currently as having minimal systems
integration (low); 35% have systems partially integrated to allow some MLE
functionality (medium); and 30% have relatively high levels of integration
(high).</P>
<P class=bodyText>The integration picture among HE respondents shows
similarity in the pace of development among all <U>universities</U>: 19%
of university respondents currently have minimal systems integration
(low); 24% have systems partially integrated to enable some MLE
functionality (medium); and 57% have high levels of systems integration
(high).</P>
<P class=bodyText>The picture among HE college respondents varies from
that among universities; while only 11% report minimal MLE systems
integration, and 61% have some integrated systems, only 28% of HE college
respondents regard themselves as having high levels of systems
integration.</P><SPAN class=bodyTitle>Some comparisons across the
sector</SPAN>
<P class=bodyText>The survey indicates a cautious approach to <I>online
enrolment</I> with 70% of all respondents using paper forms only for
enrolment. Only 16% of FE respondents expect to enrol online in
future. The age and profile of FE entrants, and the need for
personal counselling suggests that paper enrolment will continue to be the
preferred option. A similar picture emerges in <I>module
selection</I>, in which 44% of HE respondents aim to have modules chosen
primarily online in contrast to only 10% of FE.</P>
<P class=bodyText>HE respondents appear to be far more advanced in
delivering online access via a separate gateway to <I>the library /
electronic resources</I>; and 49% in HE have already integrated some
online library resources into a VLE, in contrast to 23% in FE.</P>
<P class=bodyText><I>Student access to administrative data</I> online
elicited very different responses from HE and FE – 83% of FE respondents,
in contrast to 67% in HE, do not allow students to see personal
administrative data, and only 15% of FE respondents aspire to do so in
future.</P>
<P class=bodyText>56% of all respondents provide online systems which
support a limited range of <I>access needs for students with
disabilities</I>. <I> </I> Considerably more post-1991 university
respondents (31%) than pre-1991 universities (13%) can support a range of
these needs.</P>
<P class=bodyText>The <I>tracking of student attendance</I> online
elicited different responses from HE and FE: more respondents from FE are
already far more integrated in this area than in HE. This is largely
explained by the necessity for FE institutions to provide an auditable
trail of student attendance to receive funding.</P>
<P class=bodyTitle><EM>Perceived advantages, disadvantages and
impact</EM></P>
<P class=bodyText>It is significant that both HE and FE are encountering
the same advantages and problems to a greater or lesser degree in the
development of MLEs. </P>
<P class=bodyText>The top three <I>advantages</I> across the sector
were:</P>
<UL>
<LI>open & wider access to learning
<LI>greater efficiency in administration
<LI>integration of data across the institution </LI></UL>
<P class=bodyText>The top five <I>disadvantages</I> across the sector
were:</P>
<UL>
<LI>cost and time involved
<LI>resistance to culture change
<LI>requirement for large scale and continuous staff training / staff
development
<LI>heavy reliance on having a stable infrastructure and/or IT system,
and dependence on the software systems vendors.
<LI>the importance of system security and data security </LI></UL>
<P class=bodyText>It was evident that for many of the institutions it was
too soon to assess the impact of MLEs on either core business processes or
learning and teaching. The majority of responses suggested that the
relationship between the VLE and MLE is so far largely unexplored.
Systems are not yet well embedded or universally accepted</P>
<P class=bodyText>Respondents indicated what they thought would be the
impact of MLE developments in five year’s time on learning and teaching in
their institution. Chief among these were</P>
<UL>
<LI>higher retention & achievement,
<LI>improved standards,
<LI>improved recruitment. </LI></UL>
<P class=bodyTitle><EM>Constraints and barriers to development</EM></P>
<P class=bodyText>There is considerable unanimity between FE and HE about
what are the major constraints on and barriers to further MLE
development. The top 5 constraints or barriers are:</P>
<UL>
<LI>Lack of time
<LI>Lack of money
<LI>Lack of academic staff knowledge
<LI>Lack of academic staff development
<LI>Lack of support staff </LI></UL>
<P class=bodyText>Organisational structures are not considered a very
significant constraint on development in either FE or HE, despite the
realisation among many universities and colleges that MLE development soon
requires a very fundamental rethink of institutional business processes
and procedures. This may reflect an early view of MLE development as
being more about technology and systems, than about organisational
issues.</P>
<P class=bodyTitle><EM>Some conclusions</EM></P>
<P class=bodyText>There is, overall, a sense that MLE development is a
‘good thing’ and a strong consensus that MLEs are the way forward and will
provide long-term advantages. At the same time, however, there is a
suspicion that, because everyone else is going down this road,
institutions must follow or be left behind.</P>
<P class=bodyText>What is not broadly apparent is any real sense that the
MLE is as yet fully embedded in the institutions’ strategic and
operational frameworks. </P>
<P class=bodyText>‘Enhancing the quality of teaching and learning’ is the
key driver, identified by almost every institution, for MLE
development. However, the reality appears to be that the student
<U>experience</U> is being enhanced through improved delivery of teaching
materials and course announcements, improved access to learning resources
and better communication. Pedagogical issues are not (yet) a part of
this, and, indeed, appear to have been of secondary concern until
now. </P>
<P class=bodyText>The scale of the task is clearly daunting to many
institutions. There is a growing awareness of how large are the
training and professional development needs, not only in relation to
pedagogy and curriculum change, IT skills and awareness, but also in
relation to wider ‘cultural change’ issues as the MLE develops and rolls
out across the institution.</P>
<P class=bodyText>Increasing concern is in evidence about the uneven
quality of learning and other materials, much of which is home-grown or
sourced on the Internet and being ‘dumped’ on the systems with no
observation of or opportunity for quality control procedures. </P>
<P class=bodyTitle><EM>Recommendations</EM></P>
<P class=bodyText>1. Quality control
procedures for teaching and learning content are difficult for individual
institutions to develop, embed and sustain as there are few precedents to
study and very little documented guidance in an educational /
non-commercial context. We <STRONG>recommend</STRONG> that
procedures and guidance on learning materials quality control should be an
area for further study and practical guidance by JISC.</P>
<P class=bodyText>2. The new
approaches to teaching and course delivery demanded by the implementation
of MLEs bring with them the requirement for a critical mass of electronic
content related to subjects and courses. This mass of content does
not currently exist. We <STRONG>recommend</STRONG> that the JISC
promotes ‘joined-up thinking’ around the issue of structured learning
content for the new learning environments, by bringing together the
interests and attention of those groups under the JISC umbrella focusing
concurrently on e-books, e-textbooks, MLE development and VLE use in FE
and HE. </P>
<P class=bodyText>3. Institutions
across the sector appear to have consulted widely with other educational
institutions in the early stages of MLE development, but rarely turns into
collaboration once the implementation stage begins. Many individuals
consulted during this research said how valuable it is in MLE development
to be able read case studies from other institutions and to consult and
work with others following similar developmental paths. We
<STRONG>recommend</STRONG> that JISC maintain and expand its efforts to
promote collaboration, not only in IT and technology related areas, but
also in content development and pedagogical issues. </P>
<P class=bodyText>4. We
<STRONG>recommend</STRONG> to JISC that the research instruments and
outcomes of this and other related research should be developed into a
web-based benchmarking tool for institutions which will contribute to
collaboration and sharing of experience across the sector.</P>
<P class=bodyText>5. The research data
gathered in this study, was not sufficiently rich to turn speculations
into sound conclusions on what makes best practice and what are the
milestones in progression. We <STRONG>recommend</STRONG>, therefore,
that further case study work needs to be done, building on the Study data,
to shed light on, for instance, comparative development in FE and HE,
links (if they exist) to particular kinds of strategies and strategic
approaches which lead to best practice, and which are the key lessons
learned in FE and HE that provide a spur to successful MLE
development.</P>
<HR align=left SIZE=1>
<P class=MsoFootnoteText><A class=linkText title=""
href="http://www.jisc.ac.uk/printer_friendly.cfm?name=mle_study_exec_summary#_ftnref1"
name=_ftn1><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference>[1]</SPAN></A> <SPAN
class=bodyText>Social Informatics Research Unit, University of Brighton
(SIRU), Education for Change Ltd (EfC), The Research
Partnership</SPAN></P></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR>
<P class=BodyText>Title: MLE Landscape Study Executive Summary<BR>Web page
address: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?name=mle_study_exec_summary
</P></BODY></HTML>
