Technology enhanced learning survey

What are the key trends in technology enhanced learning across the UK HE sector? How are institutions responding to new challenges and what are the next priorities on the planning horizon? We highlight below six developments emerging from the data gathered in this year’s ucisa TEL survey.

1. A core set of TEL services has been identified

A common set of institutional TEL services supporting course delivery has been established across the sector.  The top five services include the virtual learning environment (VLE), text matching tools, provision for the electronic management of assignments (EMA), reading list software and lecture capture provision.

2. External hosting of TEL service provision is gathering momentum

Over half of respondents to this year’s Survey have chosen an external hosting model for their VLE service provision, with cloud-based SaaS provision doubling since the last Survey. Just under half of respondents have done so for their lecture capture provision, and cloud-based SaaS services are the most common form of service provision for digital repositories and media streaming services, as vendors favour this mode of delivery.

3. Course delivery modes are not changing greatly

Despite the investment in TEL services, we are not seeing major changes in the way that technology is being used to support learning, teaching and assessment activities. Blended learning delivery focusing on the provision of lecture notes and supplementary resources to students still represents the most commonly supported activity, with active learning, open learning and fully online course delivery modes showing little change from 2016.

4. Fully online delivery remains a strategic priority, despite the slow progress to date

Despite the limited tangible progress in distance education to date, institutions are exploring ways of expanding their fully online provision through the creation of dedicated distance learning units and collaboration arrangements with external/commercial partners. New modes of course delivery is identified as one of the top three challenges for the future. The other priority areas are electronic management of assignments (EMA) and learning analytics.

5. TEL system reviews continue to be important, but there is less emphasis on the evaluation of student learning and staff pedagogic practices

TEL review activity is well established across the sector with just under half of the institutions having conducted some form of TEL review over the last two years, and two-thirds planning to do so over the next two years. VLE and lecture capture systems represent the most common systems under review.  In contrast there is very limited evidence of evaluation on the impact of TEL on the student learning experience. Where it is taking place, it tends to focus on student satisfaction as part of a general review of TEL services.  The evaluation of staff pedagogic practices is at its lowest level since 2012 and has most commonly focused on a general review of TEL services, determining the take-up and usage of TEL tools across an institution.

6. Staff digital capabilities and knowledge are under the spotlight again…

Lack of academic staff knowledge re-emerges as one of the top three barriers to TEL development in this year’s Survey, in combination with lack of time and a supportive departmental/school culture. This is a concern, given the proliferation of systems that staff are now being asked to engage with, and the perceived lack of staff digital capabilities and awareness of the affordances of TEL tools that are given as reasons for less extensive use of TEL in this year’s Survey. The availability of TEL support staff at an institutional and local level tops the list of encouraging factors identified by respondents to help promote TEL development. Encouragingly, the evidence in this year’s Survey shows that there has been an increase in TEL support staff across the sector to help support TEL activities within institutions.

The 2018 Survey is a continuation of those conducted since 2001 but it also captures new issues that have emerged since 2016. Whilst the challenges within the sector are constantly evolving, the rationale for the ucisa community remains the same. The following text was written in the Report for the 2001 Survey and despite the passage of time it remains apposite: (replace VLEs with TEL):

"ucisa is aware that a number of issues relating to VLEs are having a significant impact on Computing/Information Services. They also represent cultural challenges for both academic staff and students in how they engage with their learning and teaching. Issues relate to choosing a VLE, its implementation, technical support and a whole range of support, training and pedagogic issues relating to its use.”

^1. Reports on the ucisa surveys are available at: http://www.ucisa.ac.uk/bestpractice/surveys/tel/tel.aspx ^↩

^2. Jenkins, M., Walker, R., Voce, J., Ahmed, J., Swift, E., & Vincent, P. (2016). Refocusing institutional TEL provision on the learner: drivers for change in UK higher education. In S. Barker, S. Dawson, A. Pardo, & C. Colvin (Eds.), Show Me The Learning. Proceedings ASCILITE 2016 Adelaide (pp. 278-282). http://2016conference.ascilite.org/wp-content/uploads/ascilite2016_jenkins_concise.pdf ^↩

^3. Walker, R. (2016). Technology adoption trends and educational change within UK higher education: Reflections on the ucisa Survey data (2001-2016). ICERI2016, the 9th annual International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation. 14th-16th November 2016, Seville, Spain. (YouTube presentation: http://tinyurl.com/TELSurvey2016 ; presentation slides: http://tinyurl.com/ICERI2016-Tech-trends; abstract: https://library.iated.org/view/WALKER2016TEC) ^↩

^4. Walker, R., Voce, J., Jenkins, M., Ahmed, J., Swift, E. & Vincent, P. (2016). Open and flexible learning opportunities for all? Findings from the 2016 UCISA TEL Survey on learning technology developments across UK HE. ALT-C 2016: Connect, Collaborate, Create. 6th September, University of Warwick. (http://tinyurl.com/UCISASurvey PPTX) ^↩

^5. Sherman, S., & Voce, J. (2015). Technology Enhanced Learning for HE in the UK: Implications of the 2016 ucisa Survey for Small and Specialist Institutions. Leading digital Learning: Key Issues for Small and Specialist Institutions. MASHEIN (Management of Small Higher Education Institutions Network), London. ^↩

^6. Jenkins, M. (2016). 2016 ucisa TEL Survey: Spotlight on open learning. Retrieved from: http://tinyurl.com/open-learning-summary Walker, R. (2016). 2016 ucisa TEL Survey: Spotlight on learning analytics. Retrieved from: http://tinyurl.com/learning-analytics-summary ^↩

^7. Walker, R., Jenkins, M., & Voce, J. (2017). The rhetoric and reality of technology enhanced learning developments in UK higher education: reflections on recent ucisa research findings (2012 – 2016). Interactive Learning Environments. Taylor & Francis: London. First published on: 28 December 2017: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10494820.2017.1419497

Section 1: Factors encouraging development of Technology Enhanced Learning

1. Enhancing the quality of learning and teaching remains the primary driver for considering using TEL. However, Improving student satisfaction (e.g. NSS scores) swops places with Meeting student expectations and is now the second most common driver for institutional TEL provision. This marks the first change in the top two drivers since the 2008 Survey and reflects the increasing importance of improving student satisfaction as a consideration in TEL developments.
[Question 1.1]

2. Availability of TEL support staff and Feedback from students retain their positions as the top two encouraging factors for the development of TEL. Availability and access to tools across the institution has dropped down the list of encouragers to 6th place, with Central university senior management support and School/departmental senior management support now in third and fourth places in the rankings.
[Question 1.3]

Section 2: Strategic questions

3. Teaching, Learning and Assessment strategies remain by far the most common category influencing TEL development, referenced by 88% of respondents; this is over 30% higher than any other strategy that was mentioned. Corporate (53%) and Library/Learning Resources strategies (42%) were the next most commonly cited. Meeting expectations for the Student learning experience and ensuring student satisfaction remain important drivers for TEL.
[Question 2.1]

4. TEL governance is primarily managed through general teaching and learning channels (70%). TEL/E-learning/Blended committees (52%) and Learning Spaces groups (37%) were the next most commonly cited governance bodies. The policies linking strategy and TEL implementation that were referenced most were Learning, Teaching and Assessment (59%), Lecture Capture (59%) and VLE Usage (58%). References to lecture capture policy have increased from the figure recorded in the 2016 Survey and no doubt reflect the expansion in lecture capture provision across the sector.
[Questions 2.2 and 2.4]

Section 3: Technology Enhanced Learning currently in use

5. The identity of the main institutional VLE remains largely a choice between Moodle and Blackboard. They have the same combined percentage of use (88%) as in 2016 and in 2014, although the 2018 data reveals that Moodle is now the leading main institutional platform in use – up from 43% in 2016 to 46%, with Blackboard falling from 45% to 42%. The other key change from the last Survey has been the rise in the number of institutions using Canvas as their main institutional VLE, up from two in 2016 to eight in this year’s Survey. In comparison, other VLEs have made little headway as main institutional platforms.

Looking at VLE usage in general, the other key development since 2016 has been the rise in adoption of FutureLearn by Pre-92 institutions, with overall usage across the sector up from 24% in 2016 to 30% (n=31), no doubt linked to increasing MOOC delivery using this platform. Russell Group institutions have the highest percentage of users of the FutureLearn platform (79%) as compared with other mission groups, as they did in 2016.
[Questions 3.1 – 3.3]

6. There has been an increase in the number of institutions with outsourced VLE provision since the last Survey, with 52% now choosing an external hosting model. This increase may be attributed to institutions opting for a cloud-based SaaS service, and this mode of VLE provision has doubled from 7% to 14%, when comparing data with the 2016 Survey. Lecture capture platforms are the second most commonly outsourced TEL service (46%), and this level of provision has doubled since the last Survey, reflecting the widespread adoption of recording services across the sector. Digital repositories, media streaming services and VLE platforms supporting open online courses are all now predominantly managed through cloud-based SaaS services.
[Questions 3.7 – 3.15]


7 TEL review activity is well established across the sector, with nearly half of the institutions which responded to the Survey having conducted some form of TEL review over the last two years. VLE reviews remain the most common form of TEL review activity that institutions are engaged in.

Lecture Capture is the next most common system to undergo a review with 57% of Pre-92 institutions having done so, compared with just 17% of Post-92 (17%) and 14% of Other institutions. This is a reversal of the results in 2016 where there were more Post-92 institutions carrying out reviews on these systems. E-Portfolio and Learning analytics were the third most common TEL systems to be reviewed.

Nearly two-thirds of the institutions which responded to the Survey are planning to conduct TEL reviews over the next two years. The primary focus again appears to be on VLE reviews, with lecture capture the second most common cited system for review - rising above eAssessment and Learning analytics since the 2016 Survey. Of the other TEL systems that are candidates for review, eAssessment, learning analytics and Electronic Management Assignments (EMA) all feature in institutional plans.
[Questions 3.16 – 3.20]

8. Looking beyond the VLE and text matching tools, there have been some notable shifts of position in the list of top-ten centrally-supported TEL tools since the last Survey. Lecture Capture Tools rise to sixth position with 75% usage (up 4 places from 2016). Document Sharing Tools are up 3 places from 2016 and are now placed joint 4th with Formative eAssessment tools at 81% usage. Electronic Management of Assignments (a new response item for 2018) enters the top ten in joint 10th position at 67% usage, sharing the spot with Personal Response Systems (which re-enters the top ten after a brief hiatus in the 2016 results). It is worth noting though that the figure for Electronic Management of Assignments represents a much lower level of usage across the sector than has been recorded in previous Surveys for e-submission tools (93% in 2016), and possibly reflects a lesser level of integration of electronic submission and management tools within the VLE for the management of student coursework.
[Question 3.21]

9. There has been little change in the list of non centrally-supported tools. The top three remain the same as they were in 2016, with social networking tools the most common, followed by document sharing tools and blogs. However, the actual number of institutions reporting use of non-centrally-supported tools has decreased since the last Survey; notably social networking tools have dropped from 59% in 2016 to 42% in 2018. This may well reflect the investment in institutional services and the growing adoption of centrally-supported alternatives by staff and students.
[Question 3.22]

10. The most common use of student/staff owned mobile devices is for accessing course/learning content and resources, accessing course administration/information and participating in interactive class teaching sessions. High usage is also reported for accessing library resources and accessing grade/other academic progress information. These findings are consistent with the results recorded in the 2016 Survey in relation to the types of services that had been optimised to be accessible via mobile devices, with a strong emphasis on access to course information and resources - i.e. institutions pushing out resources and course information to students, as opposed to mobiles being used to support active learning usage. The one exception to this is the use of mobile to support student interaction in lectures through polling and quizzing activities, which appears to be well established across the sector (81%).
[Questions 3.23 and 3.24]

Section 4: Course delivery and evaluation of Technology Enhanced Learning

11.   The sector level picture of how TEL tools are being used for blended, online or open course delivery is very similar to 2016. Blended learning based on the provision of supplementary learning resources remains the most common form of delivery. The 2016 results suggested that there had been increasing institutional engagement in the delivery of fully online courses, but activity appears to have levelled off in 2018. This is still primarily at a local level with delivery based in schools/departments or led by individuals in over 70% of institutions. Open online course delivery also remains consistent with the picture recorded in 2016, with activity primarily at local levels. The data indicates that activity is higher at School/Department level in Post-92 than Pre-92; yet activity by individuals is higher in Pre-92.

The picture presented is of an emergent strategic approach to the use of online methods of delivery, based on School/Department or individual initiatives and linked potentially to links with external partners. As a consequence, the evidence for this activity is not yet emerging through clear institutional structures.
[Question 4.1]

12. Section three of the survey demonstrated that a wide range of tools are available across institutions. However, Section 4 shows that extensive use within institutions is limited to small set of tools. Only VLEs, Text-matching tools, Electronic management of assessment and Reading list management software are identified as being used by 50% or more of courses across half of respondents.
[Question 4.9]

13. Evaluation of the impact of TEL on both the student learning experience and staff pedagogic practices remains low across the sector. Where evaluations are taking place, the aspects of the impact focused on have been General Review of TEL services, Student or Staff digital fluency/capability and specific projects such as Lecture Capture. The purpose for undertaking evaluations has been identified as Student or Staff Satisfaction and Determining the take-up of TEL services. Pre-92 institutions are more likely to evaluate Lecture Capture and Post-92 Student digital fluency/capability.
[Questions 4.10 – 4.19]

Section 5: Support for Technology Enhanced Learning tools

14. The number of units providing support for TEL has increased since the last Survey, but this appears to fluctuate every two years, which could indicate that TEL support structures are still evolving. This is reflected by the continuing changes in TEL staffing provision with 38% of respondents reporting some form of restructure of their department(s) or TEL provision. In addition, the 2018 Survey included a new response option relating to Distance/Online Learning units, which are now present in 23% of institutions.
[Questions 5.1 to 5.6]

15. The 2018 findings also suggest a continued period of growth in TEL staffing, albeit at a slower rate than previous years, with 40% of respondents reporting an increase in the number of staff in the past two years. This is reflected in the increase in mean FTE of staff and this trend looks set to continue with the majority of institutions foreseeing further changes, primarily relating to increasing numbers of staff and restructuring of their services.
[Questions 5.1 to 5.6]

Section 6: Looking to the future ….

16. Lack of time remains the leading barrier to TEL development, consolidating its position at the top of the list which it has held since the 2005 Survey. Culture continues to be a key barrier, with Departmental\school culture retaining second place and Institutional culture moving back up to fourth place. Lack of academic staff knowledge moves up to third position, from sixth place in 2016, and is potentially linked to the changing TEL landscape in light of the TEL system reviews reported in Section 3.
[Question 6.1]

17. Electronic Management of Assessment and Lecture Capture retain a position in the top two developments making the most demand on TEL support teams, now holding joint first position. Mobile technologies remain in the top three list, continuing its decline indicating that mobile technologies have now become embedded. Moving into third place is the VLE with institutions reporting that the implementation of a new VLE, VLE upgrades and minimum requirements for VLE use were the main areas placing demands on support. Learning Analytics continues its slow growth as a development making demands on TEL support teams.
[Questions 6.2 and 6.3]

18. There have been several changes in the top five challenges facing institutions looking two to three years ahead. Electronic Management of Assessment now tops the table, followed by Learning Analytics and new modes of delivery, which have both entered the top five for the first time. Lecture capture/recording and technical infrastructure drop out of the top five challenges but remain in the top ten. Staff development and investment continue to be the primary ways of addressing these challenges. To address the challenges relating to new modes of delivery, there is now greater emphasis on sharing good practice through communities of practice and a new item relating to focussing on pedagogy and curriculum design.
[Questions 6.4 and 6.5]

The following have all made invaluable contributions to the preparation, conduct or analysis of the Survey. It is customary in such circumstances to acknowledge their advice but to absolve them of blame for any subsequent inadequacies and imperfections. We gladly and appreciatively do both.

Factors encouraging the development of technology enhanced learning

Section 1 of the Survey looked at the factors encouraging and promoting the development of TEL within higher education institutions and retained the same questions used in 2016. However, the response options have been updated to reflect key changes since the last Survey, such as the increasing importance of improving institutional reputation, developing digital capabilities, and establishing threshold and baseline standards for TEL usage. The response options also considered the importance of feedback from staff, and the influence of the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF), on TEL developments.

Question 1.1: How important, if at all, have each of the following driving factors been for developing TEL and the processes that promote it to date?

Table 1.1a: Driving factors for TEL development (mean values and ranking for all institutions and type of institution)

Table 1.1b: Driving factors for TEL development (mean values and ranking for all institutions and country of institution)

Tables 1.1a and 1.1b summarise the returns for Question 1.1 showing the top seven rankings for all the data, ordering them according to their mean values by type of institution (1.1a) and by country (1.1b). The mean values were calculated from the number of responses given for each option.
 
Table 1.1c: Longitudinal view of the top seven factors encouraging development of TEL.

Table 1.1c shows that the top driver for TEL development has remained unchanged since the 2008 Survey, with Enhancing the quality of learning and teaching again leading the list. However, Improving student satisfaction e.g. NSS scores has now overtaken Meeting student expectations in the use of technology and is now the second most common driver for institutional TEL provision. This reflects the increasing importance of improving student satisfaction as a consideration in TEL developments.
Improving access to online/blended learning for campus-based students remains in the list of leading drivers, moving from fifth to fourth place. However, this ranking is dominated by Pre-92 institutions with Post-92 and Other types ranking it significantly lower. Post-92 institutions rank Assisting and improving the retention of students third, and for Other HE institutions, Supporting the development of digital literacy skills or digital capability for students and staff is ranked equal second and Improving institutional reputation ranks equal first for Wales and second for Scotland.
Widening participation/inclusiveness is again in the list of the leading driving factors - ranked fifth overall, having been ranked tenth in 2016. However, this is not the case for Other HE institutions (ranked eighth) which consider Assisting and improving the retention of students and Helping to create a common user experience along with Improving student satisfaction e.g. NSS scores as their joint equal fifth ranked factors.
As in 2016, the lowest two ranking factors were Improving access to learning through the provision of open education resources and Improving access to learning through the provision of open education courses (e.g. MOOCs). All institution types and countries have these two factors in their bottom three, although the actual ranking of these drivers does vary between them, with other factors such as Helping to support joint/collaborative course developments with other institutions, The formation of other partnerships with external institutions/organisations and for Scotland Responding to the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) also seen as less important drivers for TEL development.
 

Question 1.2: Are there any other driving factors in your institution?

Table 1.2: Other driving factors for TEL development

This was an open question inviting respondents to identify additional driving factors for the development of TEL. Table 1.2 captures the additional driving factors that were identified by respondents. Some of the responses reflected the pre-coded response options in Question 1.1, such as enhancing the student learning experience and facilitating online/distance learning. Four institutions noted driving factors related to institutional strategies and strategic priorities, which are the focus of Question 2.1. Learning space and campus development was a new driver emerging in the data this year with three institutions noting how changing their physical spaces was driving TEL developments.

Question 1.3: How important, if at all, are the following factors in encouraging the development of TEL and the processes that promote it?

Table 1.3a: Factors encouraging development of TEL (mean values and ranking for all institutions and type of institution)

Table 1.3b: Factors encouraging development of TEL (mean values and ranking for all institutions and country of institution)

Figure 1.3: Longitudinal view of the top seven factors encouraging development of TEL.

Question 1.4: Are there any other factors in your institution that encourage the development of technology enhanced learning and the processes that promote it?

Summary

Enhancing the quality of learning and teaching remains the top driver for TEL development. There is also a clear focus on the student experience across the sector, with improving student satisfaction and meeting student expectations consolidated as the other leading drivers guiding institutional activity.  Availability of TEL support staff and Feedback from students remain the top encouraging factors for TEL development, followed by central university and school/departmental senior management support.

Strategic questions

Section 2 of the Survey assessed the importance of internal and external strategies in influencing the development of TEL tools and services. This section has been revised since the 2016 Survey - questions linked to enabling adoption and promoting awareness have been dropped.  In other questions the options provided were rationalised: question 2.3 brought together external strategy documents and reports, which had previously been separate questions, and respondents were invited to identify the top three documents rather than select all.

Question 2.1: Which, if any, institutional strategies inform the development of technology enhanced learning in your institution?

Question 2.2: How is TEL governance managed within your institution? Do you have any of the following committees / working groups with an institutional remit, looking at TEL activity across the institution?

Table 2.2: Management of TEL governance within institutions

Question 2.3: Which three external strategy documents or reports have been most useful in planning TEL in your institution?

Question 2.3 has been updated to ask respondents to identify the top three strategy documents rather than select all that apply. Therefore, the potential counts per item in this question, compared to 2016, are much lower and longitudinal analysis is difficult.
Table 2.3 identifies the four most useful documents, these are Jisc: Digital Capability Framework (2015, 2017) (39%), the UCISA TEL Survey (37%), NMC Horizon Report (2015 & 2017) (21%) and Jisc: Developing organisational approaches to digital capability (2017) (19%). In 2016 the top strategies cited were Jisc strategies (71%) and HEFCE strategies (51%). For reports the most selected were Jisc: Developing digital literacies (73%) and the UCISA TEL Survey (61%).
Given the changes to the question, the dynamic nature of the TEL field and continued emergence of new reports and strategies, longitudinal analysis is problematic. It is though notable that reports on digital capabilities remain important, especially in Post-92 institutions, and the value of the UCISA surveys remains high. 

Question 2.4: What institutional policies, if any, link strategy and implementation of TEL tools?

Summary

Teaching, Learning and Assessment strategies and committees continue to dominate, with the importance of others remaining static or diminishing. However, estates and lecture capture committees and policies are growing in significance for TEL.

Technology Enhanced Learning currently in use

Section 3 was redesigned in this year’s Survey to focus on details of the TEL tools and services that are being used by institutions to support learning, teaching and assessment activities, rather than on the take-up and adoption of TEL tools and evaluation activities which were moved to a revised section 4.
The section incorporated a series of questions on outsourcing of VLE and other institutional TEL services. It also included a mini section on collaboration in the delivery of TEL services, making a distinction in this year’s Survey between collaboration with other HE institutions and collaboration with commercial partners. The question set on the review of institutional TEL services was also expanded to incorporate new items such as the electronic management of assessments (EMA) and media streaming systems. Changes were also made to the question set on mobile devices to focus on how they are being used to support teaching, learning and assessment activities.

Table 3.1: Institutional VLE currently in use

Question 3.2: Which VLE(s) is/are currently used in your institution

Table 3.2: Number of institutional VLEs currently in use

Table 3.2 shows that 44% of institutions use only one VLE system and three-quarters use two or fewer platforms – with a mean of two systems in use per institution across the sector. However, the range of VLE usage extends to six platforms in use – in one Pre-92 Scottish institution. Pre-92 institutions have the largest number of systems in use, a mean of 2.47 compared with 1.53 for Post-92 institutions and 1.33 for Other institutions. This finding is consistent with the data from previous Surveys which reported on institutions with departments using their own VLE platforms; note the 2016 Survey data that revealed that 42% of Pre-92 institutions possess departmental platforms in addition to the main institutional VLE, as compared with 16% of Post-92 institutions and 13% of Other institutions.

Table 3.2a: VLEs currently used – top five

Table 3.2a (i): VLEs currently used – top five (longitudinal)

Question 3.3: Out of the above which is the main VLE in use across your institution?

Question 3.4: Is the main VLE used for each of the following or not?

Table 3.4 (i): The main VLE and blended learning (campus-based courses)

Table 3.4 (ii): The main VLE and distance learning

Table 3.4 (ii) reveals both the extent of distance learning across the sector (87% of responding institutions are delivering courses of this type) and the reliance on the main institutional VLE to support this activity. Of the ten institutions which have opted to use a different platform, four institutions use Moodle, two use Blackboard Learn and two use FutureLearn, with WordPress and a locally developed platform also mentioned.
 
Table 3.4 (iii): The main VLE and open online learning

Table 3.4 (iii) shows that 48% of institutions (n=50) are not engaged in any form of open online delivery at all. Only seven institutions use their main VLE platform for open online learning, with 39 opting to use a different delivery platform to support this activity. Unsurprisingly, dedicated MOOC platforms account for the majority of alternative VLEs in use for open learning, with 23 institutions using FutureLearn’s platform and six using Open Education by Blackboard and six using Coursera. Other MOOC platforms that are referenced include edX (n=3), Brightspace, the Canvas Network, CourseSites by Blackboard, Moodle and PebblePad (all n=1).

Question 3.5: Thinking about the (main) VLE in use, which of the following best describes how your platform is technically managed?

This question aimed to determine the extent to which VLE provision is being outsourced by higher education institutions. Table 3.5 reveals that the percentage of institutionally-hosted main VLE services is continuing to decline from the high of 67% recorded in 2014 and 57% in 2016 to 48% in 2018; in absolute numbers there are ten fewer institutionally-hosted and managed VLE services reported in this year’s Survey compared with the figure recorded in 2016. Interestingly the number of institutions that have VLE services hosted by a third party (38%) remains almost at the exact same level as in 2016 (37%). The main change since the last Survey has been the increase in the number of institutions opting for a cloud-based SaaS service, which has doubled from 7% to 14%, when comparing data with the 2016 Survey.

Table 3.5 (i): Hosting results per platform for main institutional VLE – top four

Table C3.5 (i) in the Appendix compares 2018 hosting results with the picture reported in 2016 and reveals that there have been slight increases in the combined percentages of hosted and cloud-based services for Moodle and Blackboard platforms, as compared with locally managed services. The most notable change though has been the reduction in the number of institutionally-hosted and managed Blackboard clients (down from 26 in 2016 to 20 in 2018), which appear to have moved to hosted services or other platforms (see Table 3.18 for a summary of outcomes from recent institutional VLE reviews). 

Question 3.6: Who is the external provider that hosts your (main) VLE?

Table 3.6: External hosting provider for main institutional VLE

The numbers of institutions using the services of Blackboard Managed Hosting to host Blackboard Learn and CoSector (previously University of London Computing Centre) to host Moodle remain unchanged from the last Survey. Of the other external providers that were mentioned in this year’s Survey, three institutions referenced their use of Canvas by Instructure (despite Instructure being a listed option to select), two institutions identified Catalyst as host for their Moodle platform and one referenced Desire2Learn as host for Brightspace. Synergy Learning was not referenced in this year’s Survey as a hosting provider. 

Question 3.7: Does your institution currently outsource its provision of any of the following? Provision refers to an institutional service being hosted by another organisation.

Table 3.7: Institutional services that are currently outsourced

Question 3.8: How is the provision of these services currently outsourced?

This question aimed to identify the type of outsourcing used for the institutional services listed in Question 3.7. The data shows that lecture capture, digital repositories, media streaming services and VLE platforms supporting open online courses are all predominantly managed through cloud-based SaaS services. Table C3.8 again shows that there have been big shifts away from ‘institutionally-managed but externally-hosted’ services for lecture capture and digital repositories, and towards SaaS delivery since the last Survey. This development may be attributed, in part, to the changing way in which vendors manage these services. Interestingly though, SaaS delivery is less established for other TEL-related outsourced services such as VLE platform provision for blended and fully online courses, with the balance of outsourcing activity still based on institutionally-managed but externally-hosted delivery models.

Question 3.9: Which, if any, of the services that are currently outsourced are you considering bringing back in to be institutionally-managed?

This question invited respondents to consider whether they would bring any outsourced TEL services back ‘in-house’, reverting to an institutionally-managed service model. Table 3.9 clearly shows that this is not a likely development, with no institutions currently considering bringing back services to an institutionally-managed service model.  

Question 3.10: Is your institution formally considering the outsourcing of some or all of your provision for any of the following? Provision refers to an institutional service being hosted by another organisation?

Table 3.10: Consideration of outsourcing

Table 3.10 (a): Services being formally considered for outsourcing – top five

Question 3.11: What option(s) are being considered for the outsourcing of this provision?

Table 3.11: Options being considered for outsourcing of top five services

Question 3.12: Has your institution formally considered collaboration with other HE institutions in the delivery of technology enhanced learning services or resources to staff? Please include institutions both in the UK and abroad.

Question 3.13: What (do you collaborate/are you considering collaborating/did you consider collaborating) on?

Question 3.14: Has your institution formally considered collaboration with commercial partners in the delivery of TEL services or resources to staff? Please include partners both in the UK and abroad.

Question 3.15: What (do you collaborate/are you considering collaborating/did you consider collaborating) on?

Question 3.16: Have you undertaken a review of a major institutional TEL facility or system in the last two years?

Table 3.16: Institutional review of TEL facility or system in last two years

Question 3.17: Which major TEL facilities or systems have you reviewed in the last two years?

The number of institutions conducting VLE reviews has decreased from 83% (n=47) in 2016 to 82% (n=40) in 2018 but is still the most common form of TEL review activity that institutions are engaged in and tops the list in Table 3.17. Lecture capture is the next highest system to undergo a review with 57% of Pre-92 institutions having done so, compared with just 47% of Post-92 and 14% of Other institutions. This is a reversal of the results in 2016 when there were more Post-92 institutions carrying out a review on these systems. Indeed, this picture is reflected in the mission group data, with the Russell Group having the highest percentage of members which have conducted a lecture capture review (71%) in this year's Survey, compared with the lowest percentage in 2016 (27%). E-Portfolio and learning analytics were the third most common TEL systems to be reviewed. Million+ is again the most engaged mission group in reviewing learning analytics provision, with 71% of members confirming that they have done so over the past two years, compared with the 100% that had done so in the last Survey.
 
Table 3.17 (i): Cross tabulation of ‘main institutional VLE’ with ‘VLE review conducted in the last two years’ Main institutional VLE Conducted review in last two years

Question 3.18: Please write the outcome of the review on these TEL facilities or systems

Tables 3.18 (ii) – (x) summarise the outcomes from the TEL systems that have been reviewed. Table 3.18 (ii) shows that lecture capture reviews have mostly focused on the implementation or piloting of new systems. Table 3.18 (iii) reveals a similar picture for e-portfolio provision, with most reviews introducing or changing systems. Table 3.18 (vii) summarises the other TEL systems mentioned by respondents; personal response software was the leading 'other' system under review, reported by three respondents.

Table 3.18 (ii): Outcomes of the Lecture Capture review

Table 3.18 (iii): Outcomes of the e-Portfolio review

Table 3.18 (iv): Outcomes of the Learning Analytics review

Table 3.18 (v): Outcomes of the EMA review*

Table 3.18 (vi): Outcomes of the Media streaming review*

Table 3.18 (vii): Other

Table 3.18 (viii): Outcomes of the eAssessment review

Table 3.18 (ix): Outcomes of the MOOC platform review

Table 3.18 (x): Outcomes of the Mobile Learning review

Question 3.19: Are you planning to undertake a review of a major institutional TEL facility or system within the next two years?

Question 3.20: Which major TEL facilities or systems are you planning on reviewing in the next two years?

Table 3.20 (i): Cross tabulation of ‘main institutional VLE’ with ‘VLE review to be conducted in the next two years’

Question 3.21: Which centrally-supported TEL tools are used by students in your institution?

Table A3.21 in the Appendix captures the full set of results for this question and Table C3.21 presents the longitudinal picture dating back to 2008. Continuing the trend from 2014, use of podcasting tools continues its dramatic fall (from 35% in 2014 to 17% this year), whereas lecture capture tools continue to rise, albeit at a slower rate than in previous years (up to 75% this year from 71% in 2014). As posited in 2014, it is reasonable to assume that lecture capture tools are offering sufficient functionality to render dedicated podcasting tools unnecessary for many institutions. Wikis record their lowest percentage of institutional provision to date at 48%, down from 63% recorded in 2016. The reduction is reflected in lower percentage figures in the Pre-92, Post-92 and English institution categories. Institutional provision of learning analytics (which was a new response item in 2016) has increased from 19% in 2016 to 31% for 2018. Given the level of interest in learning analytics reported by respondents to the 2016 Survey, this growth may reflect subsequent successful project implementations over the past two years.

The results in Table 3.21a show that Blackboard and Moodle are still the most common VLE platforms – confirming the findings reported in Table 3.2, with their platforms including formative and summative e-assessment tools, wikis and asynchronous communication tools for which they are also the most popular solutions. Although Blackboard also remains the leading supplier for a range of software (including blogs, content management system, electronic essay exams, mobile apps and synchronous collaboration tools), the two VLEs have now swapped position, with Moodle becoming the most common VLE in use across the sector.

Question 3.22: And which, if any, TEL tools that are used by students are not centrally-supported? For example, those used by particular departments or even individuals.

Question 3.22 invited institutions to identify the range of software tools that students are using which are not centrally-supported by institutions. This question has been used in previous Surveys dating back to 2008, but the response items were updated for 2018, mirroring the changes made to Question 3.21.

In addition to indicating the types of non centrally-supported tools that students are using, respondents were again invited to identify the specific packages in use. A selection of tables for the leading tools (n=10 or more responses) cited by respondents is set out below. The leading tools are broadly the same as those reported in the 2016 Survey. The full set of results is available in Tables A3.22a-e. Please note that the percentage scores are calculated based on the total number of respondents for the question, rather than the total population for the Survey.

Table 3.22e: Non centrally-supported media streaming tool – top solution

Question 3.23: How does your institution use student or staff owned mobile devices in support of learning, teaching and assessment activities?

This question was introduced in this year's Survey to track the ways that institutions are using student or staff-owned mobile devices in support of learning, teaching and assessment activities. It replaced the question employed in previous Surveys on the type of TEL services that are optimised to be accessible via mobile devices. The revised question aimed to get a clearer understanding of how mobile devices are actually being used to support the student learning experience.

Question 3.24: How does your institution promote the use of student or staff owned mobile devices in support of learning, teaching and assessment activities?

Of the other methods of promoting mobile devices which were mentioned in free-text responses, institutions reported implementing comprehensive wifi infrastructure to support users on campus. It was also reported that IT systems and services were designed to be mobile friendly.

Course delivery and evaluation of Technology Enhanced Learning

Section 4 of the Survey has been designed to focus on how TEL tools are being used in institutions and how this use is being tracked and evaluated; complementing the focus, in Section 3, on what TEL tools are being used.
 
In this section the question set includes understanding types of courses being offered —blended, online and open— and which disciplines are making greater or less use of TEL. Respondents are also asked to identify the extent to which individual tools are being used across their institutions, so helping understand the depth as well the breadth explored in section 3.  The final set of questions asks to what extent institutions are evaluating both the impact of TEL on the student learning experience and on staff pedagogic practices.

Question 4.1: Does your institution offer any of the following types of courses?

This question was updated in 2016 to incorporate the more commonly understood categories of blended, fully online and open modes of delivery. The question invites respondents to indicate how TEL is being used for each mode of course delivery, estimating the extent to which this activity is taking place across their institution. The results are presented in Figure 4.1 below.  The categories of course delivery used in Figure 4.1 were adapted from the classification scheme employed in the 2013 European Universities Association Survey of e-learning in European higher education institutions. They are described as follows:

More active modes of Blended Learning (category b) are only encountered extensively in 18% of institutions, more in Post-92 (26%) than in Pre-92 (10%). With respect to use across some schools/departments the response was 43% (with 39% in Post-92 and 48% in Pre-92).

Cross referencing the results with responses for Question 1.1, improving access to online/blended learning for campus-based students is ranked 4th as a driving factor for using TEL, yet improving access for distance learners is only ranked 24th.

The most popular open delivery format in 2018 is Open online courses for public (category f.) with 43% institutions showing some level of activity. Pre-92 institutions remain the most active with 60% offering some engagement compared to 30% in Post-92. As in 2016, this reflects the high adoption levels of the FutureLearn platform as a channel for open learning course delivery by Pre-92 institutions, as revealed in Question 3.2a.

Of the other categories of course delivery that are supported by TEL across institutions, only three responses were received singling out CPD courses, pre-entry access programmes and in-house library resources which are publicly available.

Questions 4.2: Further comments from Q4.1

Question 4.3: Are there any particular subject areas that make more extensive use of technology enhanced learning tools than your institutional norm?

Questions 4.4 and 4.5: Please select up to three subject areas below and then in the next question you will be asked to explain in what way they make more use of TEL tools and why you think this is so.

With regard to Medical Sciences, the explanations offered for more use of TEL varied from reports of e-portfolio usage and work-based learning, to demands of employers and professional standards, as well as a consistently reported increase in the delivery of wholly online courses or as a minimum a blended approach of online and face-to-face. The adoption of other in-class technologies, simulation and extensive EMA was also mentioned.

Figure 4.5 illustrates the most common words that were used by respondents to explain why subjects make more extensive use of TEL then the institutional norm.
Table 4.5 below highlights some of the leading drivers for extensive use of TEL with sample quotes from respondents. Explanations vary from a stronger focus on the needs of the end user, logistics of course delivery, and support for work-based learning and collaboration, to a reported general increase in competence and familiarity with technology.

Table 4.5: Reasons for more extensive use of TEL

One major recurring theme from the free-text comments is the level of support that is being made available to encourage and embed the use of TEL. This is consistent with the results received for Question 1.3, where Availability of technology enhanced learning support staff once again tops the list of factors encouraging the development of TEL. The nature of the support includes drivers such as a defined TEL strategy; a top-down strategic decision-making focus on the expansion of online courses and dedicated ‘in school’ technical support to academic staff. Reference is also made though to 'Departmental culture with strong academic buy-in', with certain subject areas showing a natural enthusiasm for innovative technological and pedagogical practice.

Question 4.6: Are there any particular subject areas that make less extensive use of technology enhanced learning tools than your institutional norm?

Table 4.6 shows that only 35% reported that there are subject areas which fall below the institutional norm, so continuing the decline that has been seen since 2014 (52% in 2014 and 46% in 2016).

Questions 4.7 and 4.8: Please select up to three subject areas and in the following question you will be asked in what way they make less use of technology enhanced learning tools and why you think that this is so.

The change to the question design makes it difficult to conduct a meaningful longitudinal analysis, comparing results with previous years. Nevertheless, the order of subjects remains similar. Art and Design in 2018 (32%; 45% in 2016) compares with Art, Music and Drama which was the most commonly cited subject area to make less extensive use of TEL. However, Humanities, occupying second position in 2016 (34%), 2014 (24%) and 2012 (17%) has now dropped to third position. It has been replaced by an increasing number of references to Mathematics (for the second year running) as a subject area with less extensive TEL usage, and this is now the second most commonly referenced subject area, although the number of institutions citing it remains low (n=3 in 2014 and n=7 in 2016 & 2018). The full longitudinal picture of results for this question is presented in Table C4.7.

Table 4.8: Reasons given for less extensive use of TEL

Question 4.9: Approximately, what proportion of courses within your institution use each of the following TEL tools?

Table 4.9 captures the leading TEL tools which are being used by institutions to support teaching and learning practices. The top 10 tools listed in this table are those with the highest proportion of usage in 50% or more of courses. Data for this question requires some circumspection, as the results are estimates by respondents of the proportion of courses using TEL tools within their institutions.

When cross referencing these results with the centrally-supported software tools used by students in Question 3.21, we see a slightly different pattern emerging. The top six tools from table 4.9 appear in the top 12 centrally-supported software tools used by students (Table 3.21) but in a different order, although VLE and text matching are the top two in both tables.

Unpacking this further by mission group, Tables 4.9(i) a-e provide a breakdown for the top five tools of use, in terms of percentage of courses using, by mission group. Russell Group Institutions have notably lower use of EMA across courses than the other mission groups. Only 6% of these universities are at 100% course usage compared to GuildHE (43%), Alliance (30%) and Million + (42%) (Table 4.9(i)c). Conversely Lecture Capture is used more widely in Russell Group universities, with 71% of these HEIs reporting use in over 50% of courses compared to GuildHE (0%), Alliance (10%) and Million + (25%) (Table 4.9(i)e)

Question 4.10: Has the institution evaluated the impact of TEL on the student learning experience across the institution as a whole over the past two years? This can include particular aspects of TEL across the institution.

Questions 4.10-4.14 sought to investigate the extent to which the sector is evaluating the impact of TEL, both in terms of the effect on the student learning experience and its influence on pedagogic practices. First introduced in 2012, the question set has been redesigned in the light of the data collected in previous Surveys, using pre-coded response options to reflect commonly referenced evaluation themes.

Previous Surveys had indicated that Pre-92 institutions had been more active than Post-92 institutions in conducting impact studies, but in 2018 there is little difference in the data. However, analysis of mission group data does show that GuildHE and Russell Group institutions have conducted more impact studies: 71% of GuildHE and 59% of Russell Group institutions (Table 4.10(i)).

Question 4.11: What types of evaluations have individual departments/schools undertaken over the past two years? Please write in some examples

Question 4.12: What aspects of the impact of technology enhanced learning on the student learning experience have you evaluated over the past two years?

Question 4.13: How has the impact been measured, when, and for what purpose?

The 2018 results show that surveys remain the most common data gathering method (80%), followed by interview/focus groups (60%). New responses for 2018, Usage figures (55%) and Benchmarking (48%) also figure prominently (Table 4.13a).

Question 4.14: And what have these evaluations revealed? Please describe the broad conclusions from the evaluations and, if any have been published, provide the appropriate references or links.

Table 4.14b provides some indicative responses to help illustrate the themes identified in table 4.14.

Table 4.14b provides some indicative responses to help illustrate the themes identified in table 4.14.

Question 4.15: Has the institution evaluated the impact of TEL on staff pedagogic practices across the institution as a whole over the past two years? This can include particular aspects of TEL across the institution

Table 4.15 shows that only 21 institutions (23%) evaluated the impact of TEL on staff pedagogic practices across the institution as a whole, this is down from 36% in 2016, and is the lowest percentage response to this question since it was introduced in 2012. Twelve institutions (13%) indicated local evaluation activity. The breakdown of data by organisational type shows that Pre-92 and Post-92 institutions have a similar level of evaluation activity. In contrast to Q4.10, which asked about evaluation of the student learning experience, in this instance there is less difference between mission group types (Table 4.15(i)).

Question 4.16: What types of evaluations have individual departments/schools undertaken over the past two years? Please write in some examples

Twelve institutions provided examples of types of evaluations undertaken by individual departments/schools. The types of evaluation undertaken includes use of annual programme/course reports and module evaluations plus focused evaluations on specific projects or services. Where there has been an identified focus beyond annual review and module evaluations, then learning spaces, minimum VLE standards and usability were identified. Example responses include:

Question 4.17: What aspects of staff pedagogic practices have you evaluated over the past two years?

Question 4.18: How has the impact on pedagogic practices been measured, when and for what purpose?

The number of institutions indicating they conduct evaluations remains a small proportion (23%) (Table 4.15), given the evidence that indicates continual lack of full exploitation of technology this is interesting to note. In terms of gathering evaluation data Surveys and interviews are again the most popular methods for measuring the impact of TEL (Fig 4.18a). The frequency of evaluations is varied, with responses, including written responses, showing that as well as annual surveys opportunities through specific project and TEL reviews are utilised (Fig 4.18b).

4.19: And what have these evaluations revealed? Please describe the broad conclusions from the evaluations and, if any have been published, provide the appropriate references or links.

Table 4.19: Illustrative comments explaining what the evaluations have revealed.

Summary

All questions

Question 5.1: Which, if any, support units are there in your institution that provide support for TEL? Please include both centrally provided and local units.

In a change since the 2016 Survey, IT Support returns to being the most prevalent unit providing TEL support, having increased from 59% to 74%. All the other types of support unit have seen either a small reduction or a small increase since 2016. Educational Development Units continue to be less prevalent in Other HE institutions, who have located the majority of their TEL support in IT support and TEL units.

Where respondents indicated that they had Other support units, these included a school-based distance learning unit, organisational development, web services, audio-visual team, TEL systems developers and equivalents to an EDU unit.

As shown in Table C5.1b, the mean number of support units continues to fluctuate, with 2018 seeing an increase from 2.97 to 3.26. This fluctuation appears to indicate that TEL support structures are still evolving across the sector, which is reflected in the responses to Question 5.4, with 80% of institutions having changed their TEL staffing provision in the last two years and 38% of institutions indicating that they have undergone a restructure of their department or TEL provision.

Question 5.2: How many staff supporting TEL are in the unit?

Overall, the key locations within the institution for Learning Technologists are within TEL units or equivalent (5.77) and Local Support (6.58) with both showing an increase in staff since 2016. IT Support Staff supporting TEL are most likely to be found within IT Support Units (5.54), although this number has reduced since 2016 when the mean was 9.60.

Distance/Online Learning Units were a new response item for 2018 and the results in Table A5.2af show some variation between institutions about the type of staff within these units. The highest number of Learning Technologists in these units are found in Pre-92 institutions (3.44), with Post-92 institutions favouring ‘Other’ types of staff. Unfortunately, the Survey did not ask respondents to provide details about the roles of the other types of staff, but it is likely these staff have instructional design/development roles.

In addition to the number of staff supporting TEL, respondents were asked to provide the FTE of staff supporting TEL in each unit. The top five are provided in Table 5.2b, with the full data provided in Table A5.2b.

The mean FTEs reflect the results from the 2016 Survey, with the exception of the FTE count for Other support unit. This FTE has reduced following the renaming of the 2016 response item Learning Technology Support Unit to TEL unit or equivalent; previously institutions had listed TEL units in this category.

The results from the mission groups show that Russell Group institutions have the highest mean staff FTE within TEL units (6.90) and IT support (4.67), whilst Universities Alliance have the highest mean FTE at a Local support level (14.00).

Question 5.3: Which is the main unit in the institution that provides support for TEL?

Three institutions reported that their Local support units were the main support for TEL, perhaps showing a devolved organisational structure for TEL in these institutions. Eleven institutions reported having no main unit for TEL support. Of these institutions, three reported large numbers of staff FTE at a local level, again indicating a devolved organisational structure.

Question 5.4: What changes in staffing provision for supporting TEL, if any, have been made over the last two years?

Table 5.4 shows that as with previous years, a large majority of institutions are continuing to make changes to staffing provision. A noticeable increase can be seen amongst Other HE providers with 78% reporting changes made, rising from 57% in 2016.

An increase in the number of TEL staff continues to be the top change made to staffing provision, continuing the growth in TEL support noted in 2016, however fewer institutions report growth (down from 51% in 2016 to 40%). This fall is particularly significant for Post-92 institutions where only 26% reported an increase in TEL staffing, compared to 50% in 2016. Restructure of department(s)/TEL provision retains second place and continues the trend from previous surveys, showing there is still a lot of change in TEL support structures.

Cross-referencing the responses to Question 5.4 with Question 1.3, encouraging factors for the development of TEL, 29 institutions who ranked Availability of TEL support staff as Very Important reported an increase in the number of staff in the last two years, which shows the impact of that factor on TEL staffing. However, 15 institutions reported a reduction in the number of TEL staff, despite considering TEL support staff as a key encouraging factor.

Question 5.5: Why have these changes been made?

Question 5.5 asked respondents to provide reasons for the changes that had been identified in Question 5.4. A number of reasons were given for the changes in staff provision over the past two years including:

Question 5.6: Do you foresee changes in the staffing provision for supporting TEL in the near future?

Of those that foresee change, 34% predict that this will be an increase in number of staff (increasing from 30% in 2016). This area of growth is primarily expected in Pre-92 institutions (44%). In 2018, 25% of responding institutions said they anticipated changes, but did not know how things might change, which is a decrease from 33% in 2016 (see Table C5.6a). The top five responses in Table 5.6a remain the same, although Increase in number of staff swaps position with Anticipate change but unsure as to what this might be.

Two institutions reported Other foreseen changes in staffing provision; one mentioned greater involvement of students in driving changes, perhaps in relation to a ‘students as change agents’ initiative, and the other reported putting together a business case for more staff as part of operational planning.

Summary

The 2018 findings also suggest a continued period of growth in TEL staffing, albeit at a slower rate than previous years, with 40% of respondents reporting an increase in the number of staff in the past two years. This is reflected in the increase in mean FTE of staff and this trend looks set to continue with the majority of institutions foreseeing further changes, primarily relating to increasing numbers of staff and restructuring of their services.

All questions

Question 6.1: Listed below are potential barriers to any (further) development of processes to promote and support TEL tools. What, in your opinion, might be the barriers in your institution over the coming years?

Table 6.1 summarises the responses for Question 6.1 and shows the top six rankings of the 22 barriers presented in the Survey. The full data is in Table A6.1; longitudinal analysis is given in Table C6.1. 

The top five barriers all received mean scores above 3.00 compared to 2016, where the scores were slightly lower. This indicates a greater number of respondents facing a shared set of challenges in the support and development of TEL tools.

Since the 2005 Survey, Lack of time has maintained its position as the top barrier. Culture, both at an institutional and departmental level, continues to be a top five barrier to the development of TEL. This could be linked to lack of time as previous surveys have reported some challenges around prioritisation of other activities over teaching. Lack of academic staff commitment remains unchanged from the previous year and again could relate to the cultural influence.

The most striking difference is the rise of Lack of academic staff knowledge to the third highest barrier, up from sixth position in 2016. This shift in importance is linked to the responses to Question 4.19 which indicate that a lack of staff digital capabilities and a lack of awareness of the potential of TEL were seen as preventing more extensive use of TEL. In addition, evaluations of student satisfaction reported in Question 4.14 have highlighted student concerns about staff digital capabilities and their use of TEL. As seen in Figure 6.1, the importance of this barrier has fluctuated over time. The increase in importance in this year's Survey may be linked to the introduction of yet more new tools and technologies (such as lecture recording software) or to the changing TEL landscape. Just under half of respondents reported undertaking a review of an institutional TEL facility or system in the past two years (Table A3.16); for the majority this has resulted in a move to a new system or an upgrade to an existing system which may put additional pressure on staff to keep up to date.

Lack of internal sources of funding to support development was introduced in the 2016 Survey when it was rated in third position; two years on, it has fallen to sixth place. This might be because more funding has been made available; equally it might have dropped in importance because of the increase in concern about staff knowledge.

The position of Organisational structure is another factor which has fluctuated over the years; it has risen four places in the rankings since 2016. The shift in importance of this barrier might be linked to staffing changes and/or restructuring TEL provision which are reported in Question 5.4.

Lack of incentives seems to be less of a problem than in previous Surveys and has fallen by three places since 2016 in the same way that Lack of external sources of funding has also dropped. Perhaps the increased focus on concern over staff knowledge and the perceived cultural barriers account for this. Technical and infrastructure limitations and other technical problems, both of which were introduced for the first time in 2016, have also both dropped down the rankings since last time.

The greatest difference between the ranks between the Pre-92 and Post-92 institutions was for other technical problems, which was positioned tenth for Post-92 and much lower at 18th for Pre-92 institutions, which suggests seemingly better technical provision and IT support within Pre-92 universities. Similarly, a lack of support staff was ranked third for Post-92, but much lower at ninth place for Pre-92. A greater concern for Pre-92 universities are too few standards and guidelines, which ranked at 15 versus position 21 for the newer universities.

Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish institutions all rated Lack of support staff within their top five barriers, which was ranked eighth across the sector. Also high in the Welsh institutions ranks was Lack of incentives.

Question 6.2: Have any recent and prospective developments in technology started to make new demands upon you in terms of the support required by users?

Question 6.3: Please write in details of up to three developments that are starting to make new demands upon you in terms of the support required by users – those you think are most important.

Electronic Management of Assessment and Lecture Capture retain a position in the top two developments making new demands, now holding joint first position. Electronic Management of Assessment has increased slightly from 39% in 2016 to 43% in 2018. Lecture Capture moves up from second place with an increase from 34% in 2016 to 43% in 2018. Mobile technologies drops out of the top three, for the first time since 2010, with a decrease from 31% to 11%, indicating that mobile technologies have now become embedded. For those institutions who identified Mobile technologies as a challenge, this was linked to the use of mobile technologies specifically in assessment, e.g. marking apps or BYOD for online assessment and e-exams, rather than the more general use of mobile technologies reported in previous years.

A new entry which might be expected to make more demands in the future is Degree apprenticeships; examples of the TEL demands from this were reported as increased distance delivery and the implementation of an e-Portfolio.

There are only minor differences amongst the institutional types and countries with the most notable being Lecture Capture, which is not reported by any of the Other HE providers, although there are only small numbers of respondents for both categories. Distance learning/online learning seems to be causing more demand for Pre-92 institutions (22%) than Post-92 (7%) and Other HE providers (0%) and is not a concern noted by institutions in Wales and Northern Ireland. Learning Analytics is ranked slightly higher by Post-92 institutions (27%) compared with Pre-92 institutions (16%) and is of much less concern for Scottish institutions.

Question 6.4: Do you see these developments posing any challenges over the next two to three years in terms of the support that will be required for staff and students?

Question 6.5a: Please write in the challenges you see these developments posing over the next two to three years in terms of the support that will be required for staff and students? Please write in details of up to three challenges – those you think are most important.

The 2018 Survey reveals several changes in the top five challenges from the 2016 Survey with Electronic Management of Assessment (EMA) moving into the top spot, reflecting the responses to Question 6.3. Specific challenges include workflows and procedures for EMA, in particular marking, and the support pressures from whole-institution approaches to EMA.

Staff development, as a challenge, drops out of the top five having held first place in 2016. However, the challenges relating to digital literacy/capability have increased since 2016, with Post-92 institutions (24%) noting this as being more of a challenge than for Pre-92 institutions (4%) and Other HE providers (0%).

Question 6.5b: How do you see these challenges being overcome?

Staff Development and Investment remain the top two ways of overcoming the challenges noted in Question 6.5a. Communities of practice, in terms of sharing good practice, case studies and champions, moves up into joint third place from eighth place in 2016 with an increase from 9% to 22%. A new entry this year is a focus on pedagogy and curriculum design/development which goes into joint third place and relates to the challenge noted in Q6.5a around new modes of delivery. Review and revise support provision retains a spot in the top five.

Considering the different institutional types, Staff development has increased in prominence for Pre-92 institutions, with an increase from 11% in 2014 to 40% in 2018, and is now the leading way to overcome challenges. Investment continues to be less important for Post-92 institutions. There was only one response from the Other HE providers and so it is not possible to draw any general conclusions for this group.

Full 2018 Data

Where new response options have been added to established questions used in previous Surveys, they have been denoted with an asterisk at the end of the response option. New questions for the 2018 Survey are identified in the main text accompanying each section of the Report.

Section 1

Question 1.1: How important, if at all, have each of the following driving factors been for developing TEL and the processes that promote it in to date?

Table A1.1: Driving factors for TEL development (mean values)

Question 1.2: Are there any other driving factors in your institution?

Table A1.2: Other driving factors for TEL development

Question 1.3: How important, if at all are the following factors in encouraging the development of TEL and processes that promote it?

Table A1.3: Factors encouraging development of TEL (mean values)

Question 1.4: Are there any other factors in your institution that encourage the development of technology enhanced learning and processes that promote it?

Table A1.4: Factors that encourage TEL development

Section 2: Strategic questions

Question 2.1: Which, if any, institutional strategies inform the development of technology enhanced learning in your institution?

Table A2.1: Institutional strategies that have informed TEL development

Question 2.2: How is TEL governance managed within your institution? Do you have any of the following committees/working groups with an institutional remit, looking at TEL activity across the institution?

Table A2.2: Management of TEL governance within institutions

Question 2.3: Which three external strategy documents or reports have been most useful in planning TEL in your institution?

Table A2.3: Three most useful external strategy documents in planning TEL

Question 2.4: What institutional policies, if any, link strategy and implementation of TEL tools?

Table A2.4: Institutional policies which link strategy with implementation of TEL tools

Section 3: Technology Enhanced Learning currently in use

Question 3.1: Is there a VLE currently in use in your institution?

Table A3.1: Institutional VLE currently in use

Question 3.2: Which VLE(s) is/are currently used in your institution

Table 3.2: Number of institutional VLEs currently in use

Table A3.2a: VLEs currently used

Question 3.3: Out of the above which is the main VLE in use across your institution?

Table A3.3: The main VLE in use

Question 3.4: Is the main VLE used for each of the following or not?

Table A3.4 (i): The main VLE and blended learning (campus-based courses)

Table A3.4 (ii): The main VLE and distance learning

Table A3.4 (ii) (a): The other VLE used for distance learning

Table A3.4 (iii): The main VLE and open online learning

Table A3.4 (iii) (a): The other VLE used for open online learning

Question 3.5: Thinking about the (main) VLE in use, which of the following best describes how your platform is technically managed?

Table A3.5: Hosting results for main institutional VLE

Table A3.5 (i): Hosting results per platform for main institutional VLE

Question 3.6: Who is the external provider that hosts your (main) VLE?

Table A3.6: External hosting provider for main institutional VLE

Question 3.7: Does your institution currently outsource its provision of any of the following? Provision refers to an institutional service being hosted by another organisation.

Table A3.7: Institutional services that are currently outsourced