Technology enhanced learning survey

 

ucisa has been surveying the sector on the application of technology enhanced learning (TEL) in our institutions for over eighteen years.

The changing language of past Surveys neatly reflects the evolving development of support provision for TEL tools across the sector. From an initial focus on Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) and Managed Learning Environment (MLE) platforms (2001 and 2003 Surveys respectively), the Survey broadened its focus to take account of e-learning (2005) and then a much wider coverage of technology enhanced learning tools (2008, 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2016). For the 2018 Survey, this focus was retained, but an attempt was made to update questions and response options to capture new realities in TEL support and provision across the UK higher education sector. At the same time the questionnaire was restructured, with a concerted effort made to reduce the number of questions; the aim being to reduce the burden on respondents. The results of the 2018 survey are presented here. Currently the Executive summary and summaries of each section are presented; the detailed responses to individual questions will be added in due course.

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 changing language of past Surveys neatly reflects the evolving development of support provision for TEL tools across the sector. From an initial focus on Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) and Managed Learning Environment (MLE) platforms (2001 and 2003 Surveys respectively), the Survey broadened its focus to take account of e-learning (2005) and then a much wider coverage of technology enhanced learning tools (2008, 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2016). For the 2018 Survey, this focus was retained, but an attempt was made to update questions and response options to capture new realities in TEL support and provision across the UK higher education sector. At the same time the questionnaire was restructured, with a concerted effort made to reduce the number of questions; the aim being to reduce the burden on respondents.

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.”

The primary ucisa stakeholder community i.e. ucisa is a very broad constituency, including managers, learning technologists, educational developers and technical and administrative staff. Institutionally they can be found centrally or devolved in schools and departments. They may be in an IT unit or the Library, in staff development and educational development units, in specialist e-learning units, in academic departments or indeed in any combination of them all!
 
The Reports for the eight previous Surveys are available on the ucisa website1, with links also to case study research publications that we have presented as an accompaniment to each Survey report . Concise peer reviewed papers on the key messages from the 2016 Survey were presented to international delegates at ASCILITE 2016 in Adelaide, Australia 2, and at ICERI 2016 in Seville, Spain3, and presentations were also made to national audiences at ALT-C 2016 4 and to members of the Management of Small Higher Education Institutions Network (MASHEIN) in 20175 . A series of YouTube executive summaries of the Survey findings were also created, reporting on learning analytics and open learning developments across the sector . Finally, a journal article was also published in Interactive Learning Environments (2017) on TEL developments between 2012 and 2016 .
 
The ucisa community, and the wider TEL community, has valued the oversight that the Survey reports provide of trends within UK higher education and may use them to assess the position of their own institution in relation to them. However, caution should be exercised against using the statistics as benchmarks or performance indicators. There are different perspectives on where an institution may wish to be located across the spectrum of options and there is no single path of uniform development in provision and support for learning technologies.
 
The focus of respondents’ attention is firmly on institution-level concerns, which is unsurprising given the nature of the Survey and the fact that the respondents are typically those in TEL leadership roles at institutional level. The support community may sometimes feel that they are at the end of this food chain, but the effectiveness of their role is highly dependent upon the cultural environment in which they are asked to operate. Technological advances have continued to be rapid since the 2016 Survey, bringing new educational opportunities and additional support headaches! It is these new challenges which the 2018 Survey wished to capture. Also, although many members of ucisa may indeed have some institutional influence in determining strategies, it is the implementation of the infrastructures and services to sustain those strategies that are also of importance and relevance to the core UCISA constituency.
 
We were encouraged by feedback from the support communities on the value of the Survey reports, most notably those represented by the UK Heads of eLearning Forum (HeLF). Crucially we also received financial backing from the ucisa Executive to go ahead with the Survey in 2018.

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.

  • Heads of e-Learning Forum (HeLF) members, especially Richard Goodman, John Hill, Andy Jaffrey, Esther Jubb, Sue Lee, Sheila McNeil, Malcolm Murray, Barbara Newland, Sarah Speight, Simon Thomson, Chris Turnock and Kate Wright.
  • ucisa Executive and ucisa Operational Support team
  • ucisa Digital Education Group members
  • Jisc for their encouragement and feedback on the Survey design
  • The Research Partnership, especially Nick Smith
  • 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.

    Figure 1.3 shows that the top seven encouraging factors have changed very little over the past eight years. Availability of TEL support staff and Feedback from students retain their positions as the top two encouraging factors for the development of TEL. However, Availability and access to tools across the institution has dropped down the list of encouragers to sixth place, with Central university senior management support and School /departmental senior management support now occupying third and fourth places. Feedback from staff was a new factor introduced in this year's Survey and appears as the fifth most commonly cited factor encouraging TEL development. Availability of external project funding continues to be the lowest ranked factor for 2018, perhaps reflecting the continued lack of availability of such funding opportunities across the sector.
    For the different institution types there is not much variation in the overall ranking of the top seven encouraging factors, although for Post-92 institutions Availability and access to tools across the institution still features in the top five, ranked third. The order of the top seven does vary depending on institution type, with Pre-92 institutions placing more importance on Central university senior management support - ranking this second above Feedback from students which is ranked third. For Post-92 and Other HE institutions however, Feedback from students was ranked first whilst Central university senior management support was ranked fifth for Post-92 institutions, and fourth for Other institutions, with both ranking below Feedback from staff.
    Availability of TEL support staff remains a leading encouraging factor for all countries. However, English, Welsh and Northern Irish institutions also ranked Feedback from students in joint first place, whilst Scottish institutions ranked Central university senior management support equal first, with Feedback from students ranking fifth. The top five rankings by English and Welsh institutions mirror the overall rankings. In contrast, Scottish institutions rank Availability and access to tools across the institution fourth, above Feedback from students and Feedback from staff.
     

    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?

    Table 1.4: Other factors that encourage TEL development

    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?

    Table 2.1: Institutional strategies that have informed TEL development – top six

    Question 2.1 has been retained from previous Surveys, enabling a comparison of rankings across the years. (See Table C2.1 for the complete list of rankings and totals for previous years.)
    The Teaching, Learning and Assessment Strategy tops the list and remains the most commonly cited strategy (88%) informing TEL development across institutional type, country and mission group categories.
    The past three Surveys had shown an increase in the importance given to Student learning experience/student engagement strategy. In 2018 these were offered as separate items, with student learning experience strategy being cited by 39% of respondents and student engagement survey by 32% of respondents. While individually lower percentages than the 58% in 2016, taken together they indicate the importance of student experience and satisfaction, echoing the responses to Q1.1. Corporate Strategy (53%) is consistent with the 2016 return (56%) and returns to second place.
    Beyond the Teaching, Learning and Assessment strategy, which is cited by 35% more institutions than any other strategies, the responses indicate a general levelling off or decline in the influence of other strategies upon TEL development. The influence of Corporate Strategy, Library/Learning Resources strategy and Student Learning Experience strategy have all declined, though they remain in the top four. More Post-92 institutions report having strategies that address TEL than Pre-92 institutions, except for the Open, International and Distance Learning Strategies (see A2.1).
    Two of the strategies addressing TEL which are referenced more commonly in this year's Survey are Estates (up from 28% in 2016 to 33% and ranked 7th) and Digital Strategy/eStrategy (up from 20% to 26% and ranked =11th). Qualitative responses to Q1.1, identifying driving factors for TEL developments also indicate that estates developments are emerging as a factor. Student engagement strategy, new for 2018, is ranked =8th.

    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?

    Question 2.2 was first introduced in 2016 to explore how the governance of TEL activities within an institution is managed. In 2018 more options were added for respondents to select from and this may account for a very different set of responses, in turn bringing to light a much wider range of approaches to governance within institutions. Teaching and Learning (committees), which were not one of the options in 2016, are ranked top in 2018; a higher proportion of Post-92 institutions selected this option than Pre-92 institutions. Second is TEL/E-Learning/Blended Learning, ranked highest in 2016 and now second in 2018, with 52% of respondents selecting this option. Interestingly, more Pre-92 institutions (60%) report this form of governance than Post-92 institutions (45%) in contrast with 2016. Pre-92 institutions also have higher levels of governance linked to Learning Spaces (new for 2018) and Open Learning/MOOC development, at similar levels to 2016. Table 2.2 presents the total responses and those for institutional type and country.

    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?

    Table 2.3: Three most useful external strategy documents in planning TEL – top four 

    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?

    Table 2.4: Institutional policies which link strategy with implementation of TEL tools – top five

    Learning, Teaching and Assessment policies were again the most frequently cited category linking institutional strategies with the implementation of TEL tools. At 59% this was down from the 70% recorded in 2016. Post-92 institutions again show a higher linkage between policy and implementation than Pre-92 institutions.
    Lecture capture guidelines/policy appeared for the first time in 2016, with 44% of responding institutions having an institutional policy. This has now increased to 59% - equal with Learning, teaching and Assessment policies. There is less of a difference between Pre-92 and Post-92 compared to 2016 indicating the increasing pervasiveness of lecture capture and the need for policies for this.
    VLE usage policy (or minimum requirements) is ranked third and shows a slight decline in the number of responses compared to 2016. The clear difference between Pre-92 (40%) and Post-92 (80%) remains for this option.
    In 2016, e-Assessment/e-Submission policy was included as an option, with a 50% return. For 2018 this was replaced by two options, EMA policy and e-Assessment policy which had 36% and 24% returns respectively. In both cases these policies are more prevalent in Post-92 institutions, particularly e-Assessment policy (38% in Post-92, 14% in Pre-92).

    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

    Table 3.1 reveals that all respondents, bar one English HE institution, reported that they had at least one virtual learning environment in use within their institution. The institution without a VLE is using Google Classroom to support the delivery of taught programmes.

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

    This is a long-standing question item, appearing in Surveys dating back to 2001. In this year's report.

    Table 3.2: Number of institutional VLEs currently in use

    Data is presented for the first time in 2018 on the number of VLE platforms that an institution is using. This information replaces the question item on ‘departments using a VLE in addition to the main centrally provided platform’ that was not included in this year's Survey.

    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)

    Table 3.2a highlights the most common platforms in use across the sector, with the full results presented in Table A3.2a. Table 3.2a (i) presents the longitudinal data for the top five platforms dating back to 2008, with the full set of longitudinal results available in Table C3.2 in the Appendix.
    Moodle and Blackboard have the largest market share, as they did in 2016; notably the percentage of institutions using Moodle is up from 53% in 2016 to 55%, although the actual number of institutions using the platform has only increased by one between 2016 and 2018. Blackboard has dropped from 46% in 2016 to 43% continuing the downward trend from the 49% recorded in 2014 - with five fewer institutions using the platform.
    The key change from 2016 has been the rise in adoption of the FutureLearn platform 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 are the biggest users of FutureLearn (79%), as in 2016.
    The other notable development has been the increasing market share of Canvas, which has more than doubled since 2016, up from seven institutions in 2014 to 16 in 2018. This rise has not been matched by other cloud-based platforms such as Blackboard Ultra and Brightspace, which still have only limited adoption (n=3) across the sector. Indeed, uptake of Blackboard’s hosted service for Moodle, Joule by Moodlerooms, has fallen from the three institutions which reported that they were using it in 2016 to just one in this year’s Survey.
    Of the other commercial platforms that are in use, Learning Pool, Aula, Virtual College and Administrate were all mentioned. WordPress was cited by three institutions as an open source platform that is currently in use. The overall picture, though, is one of consolidation across the sector, with the disappearance of platforms such as Blackboard Angel and Pearson eCollege from the marketplace. The continuing pace of VLE reviews (see Question 3.17) may also lead to a further rationalisation of institutional choices over platforms for accredited and open course delivery.

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

    Table 3.3: The main VLE in use – top four

    Table 3.3 highlights the most common main VLE platforms in use across the sector, with the full results presented in Table A3.3. Table 3.3 (i) presents the longitudinal data for the top four main VLE platforms dating back to 2008, with the full set of longitudinal results available in Table C3.3 in the Appendix.
    There has been little change in the identity of the main institutional platforms since 2016, and this remains largely a choice between Blackboard and Moodle. Table 3.3(i) shows that they have the same combined percentage of use (88%) as they did 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%. When comparing the actual numbers of institutions using these solutions over the past two Surveys, the Moodle figure is unchanged (n=47), whereas the figure for Blackboard has dropped from 48 in 2016 to 43 in this year’s Survey.
    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, the other VLEs have made little headway as alternative main institutional platforms. Indeed, some solutions such as Blackboard Classic, Pearson eCollege and SharePoint that were cited in the 2016 results are not referenced in this year’s Survey and appear to be no longer in use. (See Table C3.3 for a breakdown of results by main institutional platform over the years).

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

    Question 3.4 was introduced for the first time in the 2016 Survey, with the intention of learning more about the role of the main institutional VLE in supporting different modes of course delivery, ranging from support for blended learning for campus-based courses through to open online course delivery.

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

    Table 3.4 (i) confirms that the main VLE platform is used by all institutions that are engaged in blended learning course delivery.

    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

    Open online learning activities are far less developed across the sector than blended and distance learning delivery, with the picture largely unchanged from the last Survey. This context is indeed consistent with the findings from question 1.1 of the Survey on driving factors for developing TEL, with 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) representing the two lowest ranking factors.

    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?

    Table 3.5: Hosting results for main institutional VLE

    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 3.5 (i) provides a breakdown of results per platform, performed through a cross-tabulation of data for main institutional VLE (Table 3.3) and whether hosting is taking place (Table 3.5). The results show that the institutions using Canvas are based exclusively on SaaS services, but there has been very limited adoption of cloud-based versions of Moodle and Blackboard Learn software – the leading main institutional VLE platforms within the UK HE sector to date.

    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?

    Question 3.6 invited respondents using an externally-hosted service for their main institutional VLE to reveal the identity of their service provider. Note that the format of this question was changed from an open-response question in 2016 to a pre-coded list of options in 2018.

    Table 3.6: External hosting provider for main institutional VLE

    Table 3.6 shows the range of external providers hosting main institutional VLE platforms and Table 3.6(i) presents a cross-tabulation of data comparing external provider (Q3.6) with main institutional VLE (Q3.3) - revealing which platforms external providers are hosting.

    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.

    Questions 3.7 to 3.11 focused on the types of institutional TEL services which are outsourced (3.7) or under consideration for outsourcing (3.10), how they are outsourced (3.8) and whether institutions are looking to bring services back in-house (3.9).

    Table 3.7: Institutional services that are currently outsourced

    Table 3.7 reveals that lecture capture platforms are the most commonly outsourced TEL service (46%), and uptake of this mode of provision has doubled since the last Survey, reflecting both the widespread adoption of recording services across the sector together with the recent move by the leading vendors to a ‘hosting only’ model; (Table 3.21 shows that 75% of respondents (n=77) now have such a centrally-supported recording service).
    A clarification for ‘Digital Repositories’ was presented in this year’s Survey question set, with an illustrative reference made to the suite of Google tools (e.g. Google Drive, Google Docs) as examples of outsourced repository tools. This clarification may, in part, explain why we see a marked increase in outsourcing figures against this item in this year’s Survey results (see Table C3.7) as the term is better understood, rising from 10% in 2016 to 34%. Table 3.7 shows that the outsourcing of ePortfolio and media streaming services is also being supported at a similar level across the various types of institutions. 

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

    Table 3.8: How the institutional services identified in Question 3.7 are 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?

    Table 3.9: Services that are currently outsourced are under consideration for 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

    Question 3.10 invited respondents to confirm whether they were considering outsourcing the provision of any of their existing institutionally-managed TEL services. 46% of respondents confirmed that they were considering such a development, with Pre-92 institutions (55%) most commonly considering the outsourcing of TEL service provision.

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

    Following on from Table 3.10, Table 3.10 (a) identifies the services that are being considered for outsourcing. The results show that the leading candidate for outsourcing is the VLE platform supporting blended learning, followed by the VLE platform supporting fully online courses. Although the numbers are quite small, consideration of outsourced VLE provision for these activities reflects the prevailing trend in VLE service management, with the move away from institutionally-hosted and managed services in this domain, as revealed in Table 3.5.

    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

    This question aimed to identify the type of outsourcing being considered for the institutional services listed in Question 3.10. The data shows that SaaS is the primary method of outsourcing being considered for all candidate services, although a great deal of uncertainty surrounds the question of how new institutional TEL services such as learning analytics should be managed. 

    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.

    Table 3.12: Considered collaboration with other HE institutions

    Table 3.12 summarises the returns for Question 3.12, which invited respondents to confirm whether they had considered collaboration with other HE institutions in the delivery of TEL services. As in previous surveys, the majority of institutions (74%) have not considered or are not currently collaborating with other HE institutions.

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

    Table 3.13: Nature of collaboration with other HE institutions

    In this year’s Survey, respondents considering collaboration with other HE institutions in the delivery of TEL services were presented with pre-coded response options for the first time. Table 3.13 summarises the results, revealing that designing and sharing course resources is the most common form of collaboration. Of the other ideas for collaboration that were mentioned, shared hosting of VLE platforms (n=3), a shared data centre (n=1) and joint employment of a VLE service manager across institutions (n=1) were noted.

    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.

    Table 3.14: Considered collaboration with commercial partners

    Questions 3.14 and 3.15 were new additions to the Survey and asked respondents to confirm whether they had considered collaboration with commercial partners in the delivery of TEL services or resources to staff. Table 3.14 reveals that nearly half of the respondents (49%) have not considered collaborations of this type, although the combined number of institutions that do collaborate or are currently considering doing so with commercial partners (34%; n=36) is far greater than the number considering collaborations with HE institutions (13%; n=13), as recorded in Table 3.12.

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

    Table 3.15: Nature of collaboration with commercial partners

    Respondents considering collaboration with commercial partners in the delivery of TEL services were presented with pre-coded response options to help identify the nature of the collaboration. Table 3.15 summarises the results, revealing that collaboration in fully online/distance learning is the most common form of activity (88%; n=35), followed by collaboration in the design and delivery of open learning (25%; n=10) and degree apprenticeships (13%; n=5). 

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

    The next set of questions (3.16 – 3.20) was adapted from previous Surveys to include a broader focus on TEL review activities. In 2012 and 2014 the question set focused exclusively on VLE review activity, but in this year's Survey - following on from the change made in 2016 - participants were invited to report on any TEL facility or system that they had reviewed. New response items were included in this year's Survey on Electronic Management of Assignments (EMA) and media streaming.

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

    Table 3.16 confirms that TEL review activity is well established across the sector, with nearly half (47%) of the institutions which responded to the Survey having conducted some form of TEL review in the last two years. TEL review activity is fairly evenly spread across the institutional types, however, two-thirds (67%) of the Scottish institutions that responded were conducting reviews (up from 39% in 2016), with just under half (46%) of English institutions also conducting reviews (down from 55% in 2016); the percentage of Welsh institutions conducting this activity has decreased from 50% in 2016 to only 14% in 2018.  

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

    Table 3.17: TEL facilities or systems that have been reviewed in the last two years – top six

    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

    Table 3.17 (i) provides a breakdown of results per platform, performed through a cross-tabulation of data for main institutional VLE (Table 3.3) and whether a review of the VLE has taken place in the last two years (Table 3.17). Care needs to be taken in interpreting the data from this table. The reviews will not necessarily have taken place for the platforms listed in Table 3.17 – in some cases they will have been for predecessor systems. This appears to be the case for Canvas users; whilst the results suggest that institutions using Canvas as their main VLE have recorded the highest level of evaluation activity (63%), the data from Table 3.18 (i) below shows that the outcomes of five institutional VLE reviews have resulted in the adoption of Canvas as the new institutional platform, with the reviews focusing on use of the predecessor platform. Of the two main platforms used by the majority of institutions, there is only a small difference in review percentages with Blackboard Learn having slightly more with 37% and Moodle with 32%. This has changed since 2016 when there was a clearer majority of reviews on Moodle platforms (55%) and 2014 when more reviews took place on Blackboard Learn (59%).

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

    Table 3.18 (i) below summarises the outcomes of the VLE reviews that were reported in this year's Survey and Table C3.18 in the Appendix presents a longitudinal picture of review outcomes looking back to 2012. The results show that the decision to switch institutional platforms (n=10) was the most common one to take in 2018 - in marked contrast to 2016 when only four institutions switched platforms - followed by a decision to remain with the current platform (n=8) or upgrade to the latest version (n=7).
     
    Table 3.18 (i): Outcomes of the VLE review – top five

     

    Top five

    (Base: All respondents)

    Frequency

    (40)

    Switch to a different VLE platform

    • From Moodle to Canvas (by Instructure)
    • From Blackboard to Canvas (by Instructure)
    • From Moodle to Brightspace (by Desire2Learn)
    • From Blackboard to Brightspace (by Desire2Learn)
    • From Pearson Learning Studio to Canvas (by Instructure)
    • From Sakai to Canvas
    • From not specified to Canvas (by Instructure)         

    10

    (2)

    (2)

    (2)

    (1)

    (1)

    (1)

    (1)

    Continue with the same VLE platform
    • Blackboard Learn
    • Moodle
    • Brightspace (by Desire2Learn)

    8
    (4)
    (3)

    (1)

    Continue with the same platform and upgrade to latest version

    • Moodle                
    • Blackboard

    7

    (5)

    (2)

    Review process not yet completed

    • Blackboard Learn

    4

    (4)

    Switch to external hosting for same VLE platform

    • Move to Blackboard Managed Hosting (for Blackboard Learn)
    • Move to external hosting provider (for Moodle)

    4

    (3)

    (1)

    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

    Top five

    (Base: All respondents)

    Frequency

    (23)

    New system implementation/Pilot

    • Panopto
    • Not specified
    • Institutional solution
    • Planet eStream

    11

     

    (6)

    (3)

    (1)

    (1)

    Change of system

    • Medial to Panopto
    • Echo360 to Panopto
    • Kaltura to Panopto

    3

     

    (1)

    (1)

    (1)

    Upgrade current platform

    • Panopto

    2

     

    (2)

    Stay with current platform

    • Panopto

    2

     

    (2)

    In Progress

    2

     

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

    Top five

    (Base: All respondents)

    Frequency

    (13)

    Change/introduction of system

    • PebblePad to Campus Press
    • Mahara to Brightspace ePortfolio
    • Mahara to WordPress
    • PebblePad

    4

     

    (1)

    (1)

    (1)

    (1)

    In progress

     

    4

    Upgrade current system

     

    • Mahara

    2

     

    (1)

    Continue with current system

    • Blackboard ePortfolio
    • PebblePad

    2

     

    (1)

    (1)

    Move to self-hosting

    • Mahara

    1

     

    (1)

     

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

    Top three

    (Base: All respondents)

    Frequency

    (13)

    Jisc Partnership

    3

    Pilot of service

    3

    In progress

    3

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

    Outcomes

    (Base: All respondents)

    Frequency

    (9)

    Submission recommendation

    • Install or upgrade Turnitin Plugin to Moodle
    • Use Blackboard Grades Journey
    • Update integration of Turnitin in Blackboard
    • Use both Blackboard and Turnitin for submissions
    • Move from SITS/eVision to Moodle

    6

    (2)

    (1)

    (1)

    (1)

    (1)

    Move to fully online submission, grading and feedback

     

    2

    In progress

    1

     


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

    Top 2

     

    Frequency

    (8)

    Move system

    • From Adobe Flash to Planet E Stream
    • Migrated to alternative media streaming provider
    • From Helix to Planet eStream

    3

     

    (1)

    (1)

    (1)

     

    Stayed with current system

    • CoSector (previously ULCC)
    • Vimeo (and Panopto)

    2

     

    (1)

    (1)

     


    Table 3.18 (vii): Other

    Top four

    (Base: All respondents)

    Frequency

    (7)

    Polling Software

    • Turning Point to Mentimeter
    • Poll Everywhere
    • Turning Technologies (ResponseWare)

    3

    (1)

    (1)

    (1)

     

    Review in progress (system not specified)

     

    2

    Moved systems (system not specified)

     

    1

    Remain with Turnitin but review after new system is implemented

     

    1

     

    Table 3.18 (viii): Outcomes of the eAssessment review

    Top four

    (Base: All respondents)

    Frequency

    (6)

    Platform

    • Use Blackboard Grades Journey
    • Moodle
    • Stayed with Turnitin

    3

    (1)

    (1)

    (1)

     

    Review of policy and procedures

     

    1

    Investigate further Wiseflow

     

    1

    Upgrade and partial move

    • Examstarts and QuestionMark Perception (SaaS)

    1

    (1)

     

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

    Outcomes

    (Base: All respondents)

    Frequency

    (6)

    Development planning and implementation of MOOCs

    • FutureLearn
    • Cousera, edX and Open edX

    4

    (3)

    (1)

    Continue with current provider

    • FutureLearn

    1

    (1)

    Switch MOOC Platform

    • From Canvas to Brightspace

    1

     

    (1)

     

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

    Outcomes

    (Base: All respondents)

    Frequency

    (2)

     

    Key services now mobile friendly

     

    1

     

    Pending

     

    1

     

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

    Table 3.19: Institutional review of TEL facility or system in next two years

    Table 3.19 shows that 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 appears to be on VLE reviews (65%), as it was in 2016, with lecture capture (46%) now the second most commonly reviewed system, rising above eAssessment (40%) and learning analytics (37%) since the 2016 Survey.

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

    Table 3.20: TEL facilities or systems to be reviewed in the next two years – top five

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

    Table 3.20 (i) provides a breakdown of results per platform, performed through a cross-tabulation of data for main institutional VLE (Table 3.1b) and whether a review of the VLE is to be conducted over the next two years (Table 3.20). The results show that institutions using Blackboard Learn as their main VLE record the highest frequency (n= 25) and top the list of platforms which will be reviewed over the next two years, as was the case in 2016. 

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

    Question 3.21 invited institutions to identify the range of software tools that are centrally provided for students. This question has been used in previous Surveys dating back to 2008, but Electronic Management of Assignments (EMA) was added as a new response option for 2018, replacing the item ‘e-submission’ that had been used in previous Surveys, in order to incorporate both assignment submission and the management of electronically submitted work and make a clearer distinction between this activity and eAssessment, which focuses on the use of online tests and quizzes.
    Table 3.21: Centrally-supported software tools used by students – top 12

    Table 3.21 shows the results for the top 12 centrally-supported tools most commonly used by students, and there have been some notable shifts in position since the 2016 Survey. Lecture capture tools rises to sixth position with 75% usage (up four places from 2016). Document sharing tools is up three places from 2016 and 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 tenth 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).
    These shifts in position appear to be common across both Country and Institution type, with the exception of lecture capture tools and personal response systems, which both have significantly lower percentages of central provision in institutions categorised as type “Other”. The VLE continues to be the most common centrally-supported software used by students, maintaining the top position since its introduction as a response item in 2014.

    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.

    In addition to indicating the types of tools that are centrally-supported, respondents were invited to identify the specific tools that they are using. A selection of the tables for the leading tools (n=10 or more responses) is presented below and the full set of results is available in Tables A3.21a – z. 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.

    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.

    Table 3.21d reveals that MS Office 365 once again tops the list of preferred document sharing solutions, now with more than three times as many institutions using it (n=69) as the next leading solution – Google Drive (n=22). Similarly, Panopto remains the number one solution for lecture capture – also with more than three times the number of institutions that are using it (n=47) compared with the next leading solution which is Echo360 (n=14). Table 3.21b confirms the position of Turnitin as the most popular text matching tool with 93%, down only 3% from 2014.
     
    Table 3.21a: Centrally-supported virtual learning environment – top three

    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.

    Data for this question requires some circumspection, as the results reflect the perspectives of respondents (generally e-learning managers) on the range of tools that they believe students to be using as a supplement to the centrally-supported toolset. A comparison with results from 2016 (Table C3.22) shows that the top three non centrally-supported solutions remain the same as they were then, with social networking tools the most common, followed by document sharing tools and blogs. Comparing the percentage of institutions reporting use of non centrally-supported solutions, there has been a decrease from the figures recorded in 2016 for social networking, down from 59% (n=62) in 2016 to 42% (n=43) in 2018.

    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.

    The most common use of student/staff owned mobile devices is for accessing course/learning content and resources, followed by access to course administration/information and participating in interactive class teaching sessions. High usage was 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 by institutions 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 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%) and particularly so within Pre- and Post-92 institutions.
    Of the 'Other use' of mobile devices mentioned in free-text responses to this question, there was a variety of responses with no main theme. It was reported that it was the personal choice of the user on how they used their device. Use of VLE resources and a University app were also mentioned. Institutions also reported that personal devices were used for podcasting, screen casting, screen capture, recording audio/video and specific course apps. 

    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?

    This question was first introduced in the 2014 Survey to track the ways that institutions are promoting the use of student and staff owned mobile devices.

    The most common ways in which institutions are promoting the use of mobile devices continue to be through the establishment of a Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) policy and by loaning out devices to staff and students. There is little change in these figures, with the percentages of respondents implementing a BYOD policy and loaning devices to staff/students broadly equivalent to the 2016 and (where relevant) 2014 figures (Table C3.24).
     
    A longitudinal review of the data for this question shows that the number of institutions reporting funding for mobile learning projects continues to decrease, continuing the trend reported in 2014, down from 23% (n=23) in 2016 to 10% (n=10) in 2018. The number of institutions implementing a switch-on policy has also decreased, down from 15% (n=15) in 2016 to 6% (n=6) in 2018. The number of institutions not promoting the use of mobile devices has increased, up from 15% (n=15) in 2016 to 21% (n=21) in 2018. This may well reflect the fact that mobile usage is now well established across institutions and does not require a dedicated 'push' to adoption; indirectly this is indicated through the disappearance of mobile services as a recent and prospective development making demands on institutions (see Tables C6.3 and C6.4).

    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:

  • Blended learning: lecture notes and supplementary resources for courses studied in class are available;
  • Blended learning: parts of the course are studied in class and other parts require students to engage in active learning online (e.g. engaging in collaborative or assessed tasks);
  • Fully online courses;
  • Open online learning courses for all students at your institution: internal access only;
  • Open online boundary courses: free external access to the course materials for the public, but assessment restricted to students registered at your institution only;
  • Open online learning courses for public: free external access;
  • Other: free-text responses.
  • Nearly three quarters of respondents (73%) report that Blended learning, focusing on the provision of lecture notes and supplementary resources to students (category a.), is used extensively across their institutions (down from 79% in 2016). Combined with 19% indicating that this mode is also used across some Schools/departments it reinforces that there continues to be a consistent focus on supplementary uses of TEL.

    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).

    The third most common category was Fully online courses (category c.). 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. There is more fully-online provision across schools/departments in Post-92 institutions than Pre-92 (59% vs 48%) but in Pre-92 institutions there is more led by some individual teachers, (27% vs 21%).

    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.

    Evidence of engagement with Open learning course delivery (categories d., e. and f.) also remains consistent with the levels indicated in 2016 at institutional level. However, there are small increases for Open online boundary courses and Open online courses for the public at local levels within institutions.

    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.

    Open online learning courses for all students at an institution (category d.) were reported by 41% of institutions. In 2016 Post-92 institutions were more active in this area, but in 2018 Pre-92 institutions are more active at 48% compared with 34% in Post-92.

    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

    None recorded

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

    Questions 4.3 invited respondents to confirm whether there are any disciplines within their institution which make extensive use of TEL tools, above and beyond the institutional norm for technology usage.

    The trend that is emerging is for a drop in identification of subjects that make more extensive use of TEL than the institutional norm, with an even split between institutions that responded yes and no. This compares to 57% of respondents who confirmed that there are subject areas which exceed the institutional norm in 2016 and 71% in 2014, and may suggest that institutions are moving towards a more standardised use of TEL.

    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.

    Questions 4.4 invited respondents to identify those subject areas which exceed the institutional norm in terms of their use of TEL tools. Respondents were provided with a series of options to select from, highlighting subject categories derived from previous Survey feedback.

    Table 4.4 shows that Medical Sciences and Business and Management once again top the list of subject areas making more extensive use of TEL tools than the institutional norm, continuing a pattern that has been seen since 2008 (see table C4.4). While Question 4.3 shows the overall number of institutions reporting disciplines making extensive use continues to decline, Question 4.4 shows that the proportions within that group remain largely consistent.

    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.

    In reference to Business and Management, assessment and scaling up of course delivery came through as key drivers for increased use of TEL; respondents also noted the provision of dedicated design and implementation expertise driven by institutional TEL policy, in turn responding to increased expectations of students both for on and off campus course delivery.

    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

    Category  Sample quote
    Driven by needs of students, increased course uptake and backed up by local strategies

    Post-graduate courses (PG Cert, Dip and MA) in teaching and learning for health professionals.... They are in full-time work and the blend is mostly online with a small number of face-to-face sessions.

    Transformed a face-to-face course to a fully online/virtual course to make running the course more scalable due to increasing student numbers.

    Students are mostly working or on placement. This means they're not on campus as often as other students, so we must rely on a stronger blended learning approach.

               
    Provision of dedicated support 

    Use cutting edge technologies. Have a proactive learning technology lead.

    Dedicated support staff within departments support technology usage.

    The school has a clear vision for digital education and the resources to enable TEL - a dedicated budget and two learning technologists in house.

    This School [Social Work] also benefits from having a dedicated educational technologist who supports academic colleagues in their use of technology.

    This faculty [Business and Management] has had a dedicated learning technologist for a number of years and he has supported the drive for the use of TEL tools in the faculty. This model has since been replicated in other areas.

               
     Subject driven

    Allied Health .... have been forced to innovate in their delivery so it is more distance learning in order to keep market share, have a good collegial attitude to sharing practice, and are willing to try innovations.

    Languages have a strong benefit from using multimedia resources and iterative testing of knowledge, plus a number of students going abroad who need to be included.

               
    Use of specific technology  Education and teacher training utilise e-portfolios and in classroom tools more. I think this links to the higher use of these tools in school settings

    Use of classroom technologies, audience response, lecture capture and throwable microphones.

    Use of VR and multimedia. Presents opportunities that students may not be able to gain locally.

    Used for presenting image rich teaching resources (e.g. anatomy dissections, clinical procedures) in an interactive or AR environment

               
     Staff competencies / student literacy / enthusiasm and confidence Enthusiastic lecturers happy to try technology such as video assignments, classroom polling etc.

    Perception that students are comfortable with online study.

    Staff are keen to engage, support from management, innovative course design, understanding of employability and digital literacy agendas

               
     Standardisation  Development of fully online components of courses, embedded use of Office 365

    Are delivering distinctive programmes with a much greater emphasis of work-based learning and online delivery.

    Professional education programmes delivered at distance
    Professional standards require extensive technology usage. Tech usage is embedded within the curriculum.

    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 question was modified from a free-text response format to one in which a series of subject categories were provided for respondents to select from. Art and Design is the most commonly cited subject area (32%), as it was in 2016 (then 45%) followed by Maths and Humanities. ‘Other’ subjects cited by participants included Music, Conservatoire & Acting, Archaeology, Dance, Music, English, Politics and International Relations and Women's Studies. For the full list of results, please see Table A4.7.

    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 provides a summary of reasons for less extensive use of TEL. The categories of reasons are very similar to those given in 2014 and in 2016 in that they focus on teaching style and preferences over course delivery methods, with academic staff placing a greater emphasis on face-to-face interaction and practical activities using ‘traditional' media. The varying engagement of staff with technology and the culture of teaching for the discipline were also commonly referenced as reasons for less extensive use of TEL, as well as the lack of strategic guidance, support and practical emphasis of outputs from specific disciplines.

    Table 4.8: Reasons given for less extensive use of TEL

    Category Sample quote
    Traditional pedagogic approaches

    Limited use of VLE and lack of engagement.... due to studio-based working... and always in contact with students so see less reason to use the VLE

    Focus on physical creation; resistance to use of corporate TEL.

    Mostly studio works - very hands-on.

    Technology not viewed as relevant to pedagogic methods.

    They insist on using traditional technologies such as paper based homework problem setting, chalkboards instead of digital virtual whiteboards or tools like OneNote.

    Focus on specific classroom-based technologies or alternative technologies

    Use course specific software supported by division rather than TELs.

    Difficulty of maths e-assessment (very complex software requiring specialist support).

    Use course specific software, use quizzes extensively to teach maths for science.

    Dedicated system used to gather evidence opposed to traditional classroom resources being shared via the VLE.

    Lack of Strategy/Support

    Limited support from senior management.

    The school lacks local support.

    Departmental culture not supportive of technology usage.

    Academic culture does not buy in to tech adoption.

    Cultural is at Department level, resulting in lack of engagement and hence output of TEL usage.

    Perception that students are less comfortable with online study.

    Staff skills

    Skill set of staff.

    Staff digital skills and confidence.

    ...the number of staff who come from practice and have low confidence in using digital technologies.

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

    This question aims to track the extent of TEL usage in courses across institutions; it uses a list of tools which has been updated and based on responses from participants. For 2018 the term Electronic Management of Assessments (EMA) was used instead of e-submission 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.

    The results are comparable to those from 2016, where the top three were VLE, E-submission tools and Text-matching tools.

    What Tables 4.9 and A4.9 show is that while some tools are widely used by different institutions, others are not yet pervasive in their use. The table shows that four tools, VLEs, EMA, text-matching and Reading List Management software are being used in over 50% of courses in the majority of institutions. There is then a drop in levels of usage with tools such as Lecture Capture, Formative Assessment, Document sharing and Asynchronous Communication being used in less than 50% of courses.

    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.

    Tools appearing in Table 4.9, indicating higher levels of use, but which are not common centrally provided (see table 3.21) are Digital/learning repository and Content Management Systems. Conversely, tools that appear in the list of top 12 centrally provided tools (Table 3.21), but which are not heavily used (Table 4.9), are e-Portfolios, Summative eAssessment tools, Blog and Personal Response Systems. Comparing the responses to questions 3.21 and 4.9 does reinforce how provision does not necessarily lead to use.
     
    A breakdown of results for the top five tools is presented below. Please note that the total number of responses received for each tool does vary. The full set of results for each item is available in the Appendix (Tables A4.9a–y). For a full longitudinal comparison of results across previous Surveys, please view Table C4.9.

    Comparing the extent to extent to which tools are used across Pre-92 and Post-92 institutions tables 4.9a-e show that VLE and test-matching tool use are comparable. However, the use of EMA and Reading list management software is higher in Post-92 and lecture capture in Pre-92.

    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.

    The 2018 Survey included an option to differentiate institutional level and local evaluations — previous Surveys had invited simple yes/no responses. Table 4.10 shows that 43% of respondents had undertaken institutional level evaluations and a further 12% local departmental level evaluations. In 2016, 40% of institutions had undertaken evaluations on the impact of TEL on the student learning experience over the past two years. Even combining the institutional and departmental level evaluations, the level of activity (55% for 2018) remains relatively low, comparable with that reported in 2014 (52%) and 2012 (61%).

    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

    Eleven institutions provided information on the types of evaluation undertaken. Of these, four indicated that they were part of module or course evaluation, providing a standard format to ask questions linked to TEL. In other instances, there was a project focus to the evaluations, linked to tools that were being piloted or being focused on VLE usability or learning spaces; student-led evaluations; and an example of an evaluation of an initiative to have TEL partners in faculties. Example responses include:
     
  • Student Council-led evaluation of student needs and Moodle use, resulting in 'Moodle Minimum' policy.
  • We are piloting the role of TEL partners in the Faculties and are currently evaluating TEL at a Faculty level.
  • Question in the standard module evaluation questionnaire.
  • 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?

    This question was introduced in 2016, inviting respondents to identify the key themes for institutional evaluation activities. Respondents were provided with a list of options based on previous Survey data and known areas of evaluation activity across the sector.

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

    The two most common purposes for undertaking evaluation activities, remain to investigate student satisfaction (75%) and to determine take-up of TEL services (73%) (Table 4.13c). The number of institutions whose purpose is to Assess value of TEL in relation to student performance (learning analytics) remains relatively low; however, it does show an increase from 8% in 2016 to 25%. This is consistent with responses elsewhere in the Survey (Q1.3) which indicating how Improving student satisfaction and Meeting student expectations in the use of technology are key driving factors for TEL development.

    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.

    Forty respondents provided responses to this question, with 35 providing information on the evaluation outcomes. It is possible to identify general themes from the responses, which were variable in detail. Question 4.13 shows that Assessing student satisfaction and Determining take-up and usage of TEL tools were the most common reasons for undertaking the evaluations. The responses to Question 4.14 reveal that the evaluations are helping respondents inform how they organise services and tools, identify gaps in their provision and identify areas where usage is limited. The responses also reveal factors or services that are impacting on Student satisfaction, for example the positive response to provision of lecture capture and conversely concern over the level of staff digital capabilities. Consistency of provision was another emerging theme. Table 4.14 presents the broad themes which emerged from the responses, some are very generic (e.g. student satisfaction and usage) but in some cases more specific information was provided such as consistency and lecture capture.

    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.

    Category

    Sample Comments

    Organisation of services and tools

    Students are generally very satisfied with the use of TEL, but feel that the VLE could be used more within particular areas.

    Students want more technology integrated into their learning experiences and they want more consistent use of technology and the VLE.

    Highlighted general areas for development including missing services and tools. Also issues of usability and inconsistent practices within and across courses.

    Student usage

    Student use of digital interfaces change as they progress as learners; students value a mixed methods approach, that is a variety of tools.

    Students are confident, strategic and discerning online learners – though they may not use TEL to best effect and are reluctant to explore how they could better engage with technology.

    Lecture capture

    Lecture recording is being received positively by students.

    Students want all lectures recorded.

    Consistency

    Students like consistency across modules.

    Students are positive towards the use of TEL but have growing expectations and want more consistency.

    Staff digital capabilities

    The general consensus that students learn better and feel more engaged when technology is used, and see the value in technology skills for their chosen careers, but are less than satisfied with staff digital capability.

     

    Students would like staff to make use of more tools within Moodle, including collaborative learning activities.

    Student satisfaction

    Generally positive feedback from students on current way TEL is used.

     

    Students in the main are satisfied with TEL deployment.

    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:

  • An assessment of the use of technology is one of the factors in the Annual Departmental Teaching Reviews.
  • Evaluation of active learning spaces and impact on teaching approaches.
  • Individual schools look closely at student module evaluations and consider use of technology
  • Part of the on-going T&L reports done by programme leaders
  • Question 4.17: What aspects of staff pedagogic practices have you evaluated over the past two years?

    This was a new question for 2016, introduced to gain a clear understanding of the institutional focus for pedagogic evaluation activity. In 2016 assessment-related uses of TEL were the most common. These do still feature prominently; however General review of TEL services (62%) and Staff digital fluency/capability (48%) are the most common responses in 2018. The recent interest in lecture capture is also evident in the responses (33%).

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

    Figures 4.18a-c provides a breakdown of the categories detailing when, how and for what purpose the impact of TEL tools on pedagogic practices has been measured. The full data for this question is available in Table A4.18.

    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).

    Determining take-up of TEL tools and usage across an institution (adoption) – 86%- was still the most widely reported purpose for pedagogic evaluation to be conducted. Assessing staff satisfaction (71%) the next most popular response (Fig 4.18c). In the 2016 Survey the reduced percentage of institutions selecting Assess value of TEL tools in relation to student performance learning analytics as the purpose of their evaluation activity was noted as dropping from 44% to 17%, 2018 saw an increase to 29%, still below 2014 levels.
     
    Pre 92 and Post 92 differences are limited within the small sample set for this question.

    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.

    Questions 4.19 invited respondents to identify the main conclusions arising from the evaluations of the impact of TEL for pedagogic practices. The responses to this question reveal a concern about the limited digital capabilities of staff and the variation in engagement with and uptake of technology. These qualitative comments add to the picture of generally extensive use of technology at a limited base level, with enhanced use being impacted by lack of staff digital capabilities, lack of awareness of potential, and lack of resources and support. The responses also indicate that undertaking such evaluations is helping to identify differences in usage across discipline areas. Table 4.19 provides some indicative quotes.

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

     

    Increasing division in technically competent staff who are prepared to take risk and embrace new technologies – and staff with poor digital literacy rely on support staff to carry out e-learning tasks

    Steady growth in use - although not consistent across the institution - has indicated areas to focus support and effort

    Inconsistent practice with some areas of excellent practice with others of limited use. Use of lecture capture and online reading lists is disappointingly low and many staff have low confidence levels. Marked differences depending on subject area.

    In summary, the academic staff survey revealed that basic technology is used widely across the University but there is significant scope to use/adopt ‘added value’ tools and services. There is an underlying appetite to use technology more to enhance learning and teaching

    A range of practice and digital capabilities. VLE is central to the delivery of all modules but some aspects of delivery need further support e.g. support for more interactive resources, general learning design approaches particularly in relation to fully online delivery

    Summary

    The pattern of different delivery modes (Blended, Online and Open) shows that supplementary blended learning approaches remain more prevalent than active modes of blended learning.  Provision of Fully online courses is primarily a School/Department (especially for Post-92) or Individual Teacher (especially for Pre-92) activity.  Open online courses for public use are offered more by Pre-92 institutions. Overall, use across the different modes of delivery remains consistent with data from 2016.
     
    The number of institutions identifying discipline areas which make more or less extensive use of TEL continues to drop, indicating that institutions are moving toward a more standardised use of TEL.  Where reported, Medical Sciences and Business & Management continue to be the most extensive users and Art and Design the discipline where TEL is used less extensively.
     
    Four tools - VLEs, Electronic Management of Assignments (EMA), Text-matching and Reading List Management software were identified as being used significantly across institutions; being used in over 50% of courses in the majority of institutions.  However, these results, when cross referenced to Q3.21, do indicate that provision of tools (as evidenced in Q3.21) does not lead to use.  Tools that are commonly provided across the sector but show low levels of use across courses include e-Portfolios, Summative eAssessment tools, Blog and Personal Response Systems.
    Making comparisons across the sector, Russell Group institutions have notably lower use of EMA across courses than the other mission groups.  Conversely Lecture Capture is used much more widely in Russell Group universities compared to other mission groups.
     
    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.

    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.

    Table 5.1 presents the top five responses for Question 5.1 and shows the percentage of institutions which have each of the support units listed. The full list is provided in Table A5.1. The question responses were updated to change the name of the previous response option Learning Technology Support Unit to TEL unit or equivalent and to introduce Distance/Online Learning Unit as a new response option.

    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.

    Both Library and Local support are showing a slight downward trend from a peak of 60% in the 2014 Survey, to 45% and 52% respectively. Distance/Online Learning Unit was introduced as a new response option in 2018 and this type of specialist unit has been reported in 23% of institutions, predominantly Pre-92 and English institutions. In the majority of cases, the Distance/Online Learning Unit exists in addition to other support units, primarily a TEL unit or Educational Development Unit.

    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.

    Table 5.1b summarises the responses for Question 5.1, focusing on the mean number of support units per institution. The data shows that institutions provide TEL support via a range of units, typically with three per institution, with Other HE providers having a lower mean of around 2 units.

    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?

    Table 5.2a displays the mean number of individual staff by staff type for each support unit for the sector as a whole. For a full breakdown by country and institution type see tables A5.2aa-ah.

    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.

    Pre-92 institutions have more Learning Technologists providing Local support (8.54) than Post-92 (4.76) and Other HE providers (1.67). This is a change from 2016 when numbers were comparable for Pre-92 and Post-92, and Other HE providers had reported having no local Learning Technologists.

    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.

    Analysing the differences between the mission groups shows that Russell Group institutions have the highest mean number of Learning Technologists within TEL units (8.9), with the other three mission groups reporting means of 3-5. Russell Group institutions also reported the highest number of local Learning Technologists (14.38), which is more than double the second highest mean within Universities Alliance institutions (6.56)

    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 highest FTE of staff is found within Local support units (6.33), followed by TEL units or equivalent (4.60). Distance/Online Learning Units have the third highest mean FTE. However, it should be noted that this data is somewhat skewed by a single institution reporting a Distance/Online Learning unit with 25 FTE. Institutions from Wales do not reflect the rest of the sector as the majority of their FTE exists in Other support units, IT support and the Library.

    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.

    Considering the institutional types, Other HE providers typically have the majority of their FTE within an Educational Development Unit and very little Local support compared to Pre-92 and Post-92 institutions.

    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).

    Figure 5.2 presents the percentage of institutions against staff FTE, put into bands of five. The majority of institutions have 15 or fewer staff FTE supporting TEL within their institution. There are seven institutions with more than 36 FTE, including four Russell Group institutions. Comparing with the 2016 data there is a trend towards larger teams reflecting the responses from Question 5.4 where 40 institutions reported that they have increased the number of TEL staff in the last two years.

    Cross-referencing the responses to Question 5.2 with Question 1.3, encouraging factors for the development of TEL, it is interesting to note that those institutions who ranked Availability of TEL support staff as Very Important also reported the highest mean FTE of staff across all staff types.

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

    This was a new question in 2018 to identify the main support unit responsible for TEL. In the majority of cases TEL units or equivalent are the main support unit, which shows that whilst IT support units are the most prevalent (Question 5.1), their role is likely to be supporting the technical infrastructure rather than the main support for staff and students.

    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.

    Table 5.4a summarises the returns for those institutions where changes in staffing provision have been made and the table shows the top five responses. Table A5.4a shows the full list.

    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.

    Responses of those institutions who indicated Other change in staffing provision, included an increase in the number of temporary staff to support the implementation of new initiatives, such as the introduction of a new VLE, and the reinstatement of staff previously moved to another department.

    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:

  • Increased recognition of teaching enhancement as a result of the TEF.
  • Institutional recognition of the importance of the role that TEL plays in education and as a result placing a strategic focus on the enhancement of TEL.
  • Support for new institutional level projects, particularly in relation to online and distance learning. Other areas of growth including online degree apprenticeships, online assessment and lecture capture.
  • Increased demand for support as a result of the growing use of digital technologies.
  • Institutional restructure, budgetary cuts and job freezes across the sector leading to a realignment of TEL teams and impacting growth and replacement of roles.
  • Combining TEL staff from different parts of the institution into one team, to bring together expertise and deliver a consistent offering across the institution. This has included combining faculty learning technologists into a central team.
  • Question 5.6: Do you foresee changes in the staffing provision for supporting TEL in the near future?

    Table 5.6a summarises the returns for those institutions that do foresee changes in staffing provision and the table shows the top five responses. Table A5.6a provides the full list.

    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 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 provision is 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 present in 23% of institutions.

    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.

    Considering the size of TEL staffing provision, the majority of institutions have fewer than 15 FTE staff supporting TEL, however there are seven institutions with over 35 FTE, including four from the Russell Group.

    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 6.2 asked respondents whether there were any developments making new demands upon institutions in terms of the support required by users; 65% indicated that there were. Other HE providers were less likely to report these demands, with only 33% indicating this was the case. Respondents were then invited to identify up to three important developments (Question 6.3).

    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.

    As in previous Surveys, this was an open question and respondents were invited to provide up to three responses. The responses, many of which were multi-part, were then categorised. The top five demands are given in Table 6.3. For a full breakdown by country and institution type see table A6.3.
    The percentages are calculated as a proportion of the number of respondents. Where possible items have been categorised based on categories used in previous Surveys, but where necessary new categories have been added or combined. As a result of this, some longitudinal analysis is possible and is given in Table C6.3.

    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.

    Moving into third place is the VLE, up from 10% in 2016 to 25% in 2018. Institutions reported 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 with an increase from 13% in 2016 to 20% in 2018.
    The demands made by Distance learning/fully online courses remain fairly consistent, but this year MOOCs were missing from the responses, a clear decline since their entry in 2014. Social media/networking and cloud services also leave the list of demands for the first time since 2010.

    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 6.4 asked respondents to confirm whether the developments identified in Question 6.3 posed any challenges for support over the next two to three years. Respondents were then invited to provide information about those challenges (Question 6.5a) and how they would overcome them (Question 6.5b).

     

    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.

    Table 6.5a gives the top five most commonly cited challenges. For a full breakdown by country and institution type see Table A5.6a. As in previous Surveys, this was an open question and respondents were invited to provide up to three responses. Where possible, items have been categorised based on categories used in previous Surveys, but where necessary categories have been added or combined. As a result of this, some longitudinal analysis is possible (see Table C5.6a).

    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.

    Learning Analytics jumps to second place from 11th, with particular challenges noted around ethics and the role of data, although no Scottish institutions reported specific challenges around Learning Analytics. Also new to the top five is new modes of delivery, where institutions are reporting challenges in relation to supporting the development of online/distance learning courses and the role of blended learning and active learning in the curriculum. It is notable that no Welsh institutions reported this as a particular challenge, with the majority more focussed on 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?

    Table 6.5b lists the most commonly cited solutions to the challenges identified in Question 6.5a. For a full breakdown by country and institution type see Table A5.6b. As for previous Surveys, this was an open question and respondents were invited to provide up to three responses. Where possible, items have been classified based on categories used in previous Surveys, but where necessary categories have been added or combined. As a result of this, some longitudinal analysis is possible (see Table C6.5b).

    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)

    Rank 2018

    Driving Factor

    All

    Type

    Country

    Pre-92

    Post- 92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Sco

    NI

     

    (Base: All respondents)

    (103)

    (51)

    (42)

    (10)

    (83)

    (7)

    (12)

    (1)

    1

    Enhancing the quality of learning and teaching in general

    3.84

    3.80

    3.88

    3.90

    3.84

    3.86

    3.83

    4.00

    2

    Improving student satisfaction e.g. NSS scores

    3.75

    3.73

    3.81

    3.60

    3.75

    3.86

    3.67

    4.00

    3

    Meeting student expectations in the use of technology

    3.52

    3.41

    3.62

    3.70

    3.49

    3.71

    3.67

    3.00

    4

    Improving access to online/blended learning for campus-based students

    3.46

    3.43

    3.48

    3.50

    3.46

    3.43

    3.42

    4.00

    5

    Widening participation/inclusiveness

    3.43

    3.31

    3.57

    3.40

    3.40

    3.71

    3.42

    4.00

    6

    Supporting the development of digital literacy skills or digital capability for students and staff

    3.39

    3.18

    3.57

    3.70

    3.39

    3.71

    3.25

    3.00

    7

    Helping to create a common user experience

    3.33

    3.14

    3.50

    3.60

    3.25

    3.57

    3.67

    4.00

    8

    Supporting flexible/blended curriculum development

    3.31

    3.27

    3.33

    3.40

    3.28

    3.29

    3.58

    3.00

    9

    Improving institutional reputation*

    3.30

    3.31

    3.31

    3.20

    3.19

    3.86

    3.75

    3.00

    10

    Assisting and improving the retention of students

    3.27

    2.86

    3.69

    3.60

    3.28

    3.29

    3.17

    4.00

    11

    Meeting the requirements of the Equality Act (2010)

    3.25

    3.22

    3.43

    3.70

    3.22

    3.57

    3.33

    3.00

    12

    Responding to the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF)*

    3.17

    3.08

    3.33

    2.90

    3.37

    3.43

    1.50

    4.00

    13

    Keeping abreast of educational developments

    3.16

    3.16

    3.19

    3.00

    3.14

    3.29

    3.17

    3.00

    14

    Supporting students affected by the withdrawal of DSA provision (Disabled Students’ Allowances)

    3.15

    3.16

    3.26

    2.60

    3.11

    3.71

    3.08

    3.00

    15

    Improving administrative processes

    3.12

    3.00

    3.21

    3.30

    3.11

    3.57

    2.83

    4.00

    16

    Attracting international (outside EU) students

    3.11

    3.16

    3.12

    2.80

    3.08

    3.43

    3.08

    3.00

    17

    Attracting home students

    3.05

    2.92

    3.24

    2.90

    3.05

    3.29

    2.92

    3.00

    18

    Creating or improving competitive advantage

    3.04

    3.02

    3.05

    3.10

    2.96

    3.43

    3.42

    2.00

    19

    Attracting new markets

    3.03

    3.00

    3.07

    3.00

    2.94

    3.43

    3.33

    4.00

    20

    Attracting EU students

    3.01

    3.00

    3.05

    2.90

    2.99

    3.29

    3.00

    3.00

    21

    Improving access to learning for international students

    3.00

    3.14

    2.93

    2.60

    2.92

    3.14

    3.50

    3.00

    22

    Addressing work-based learning – the employer / workforce development agenda and student employability skills

    2.97

    2.73

    3.19

    3.30

    2.99

    3.14

    2.75

    3.00

    23

    Achieving cost/efficiency savings

    2.92

    2.80

    3.07

    2.90

    2.89

    3.00

    3.00

    4.00

    24

    Improving access to learning for distance learners

    2.88

    2.94

    2.93

    2.40

    2.78

    3.00

    3.42

    4.00

    25

    Developing a wider regional, national or international role for your institution

    2.74

    2.63

    2.83

    2.90

    2.66

    2.86

    3.17

    3.00

    26

    Improving access to learning for part-time students

    2.72

    2.41

    3.03

    3.00

    2.66

    2.57

    3.17

    3.00

    27

    The formation of other partnerships with external institutions/organisations

    2.43

    2.43

    2.48

    2.20

    2.34

    2.86

    2.75

    3.00

    28

    Helping to support joint/collaborative course developments with other institutions

    2.21

    1.96

    2.57

    2.00

    2.17

    2.86

    2.75

    3.00

    29

    Improving access to learning through the provision of open education courses (e.g. MOOCs)

    1.83

    2.16

    1.50

    1.60

    1.84

    1.14

    2.25

    1.00

    30

    Improving access to learning through the provision of open education resources

    1.82

    1.78

    1.83

    1.90

    1.73

    2.29

    2.17

    1.00

     

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

    Table A1.2: Other driving factors for TEL development

    Other driving factor

    Frequency

    (Base: All respondents)

    (18)

    Enhancing the student experience

    4

    Institutional strategies

    4

    Learning Space / Campus development

    3

    External influences

    2

    Achieve cost/efficiency savings

    2

    Flexibility and inclusivity

    2

    Facilitating online/distance learning

    1

    Employability

    1

    Identify students at risk

    1

     

    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)

    Rank 2018

    Driving Factor

    All

    Type

    Country

    Pre-92

    Post- 92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Sco

    NI

     

    (Base: All respondents)

    (103)

    (51)

    (42)

    (10)

    (83)

    (7)

    (12)

    (1)

    1

    Availability of technology enhanced learning support staff

    3.67

    3.65

    3.74

    3.50

    3.65

    3.86

    3.67

    4.00

    2

    Feedback from students

    3.64

    3.53

    3.79

    3.60

    3.65

    3.86

    3.42

    4.00

    3

    Central university senior management support

    3.51

    3.57

    3.50

    3.30

    3.46

    3.86

    3.67

    4.00

    4

    School /departmental senior management support

    3.42

    3.45

    3.43

    3.20

    3.36

    3.71

    3.58

    4.00

    5

    Feedback from staff*

    3.40

    3.25

    3.55

    3.50

    3.39

    3.71

    3.33

    3.00

    6

    Availability and access to tools across the institution

    3.37

    3.24

    3.62

    3.00

    3.31

    3.71

    3.50

    4.00

    7

    Availability of committed local champions

    3.15

    3.18

    3.17

    2.90

    3.08

    3.71

    3.17

    4.00

    8

    Technological changes/developments

    3.15

    2.98

    3.36

    3.10

    3.12

    3.29

    3.17

    4.00

    9

    Availability of university committees and steering groups to guide development and policy

    3.12

    3.14

    3.26

    2.40

    3.07

    3.29

    3.25

    4.00

    10

    Availability of internal project funding

    3.02

    3.06

    3.14

    2.30

    2.95

    3.29

    3.25

    4.00

    11

    Threshold/minimum/baseline standards*

    2.91

    2.71

    3.10

    3.20

    2.84

    3.57

    3.00

    3.00

    12

    Availability and access to relevant user groups / online communities

    2.84

    2.71

    3.10

    2.50

    2.80

    3.14

    3.00

    3.00

    13

    Partnership with students on TEL projects (students as co-creators)

    2.56

    2.53

    2.62

    2.50

    2.43

    3.71

    2.75

    3.00

    14

    Availability of relevant technical standards

    2.54

    2.39

    2.76

    2.40

    2.45

    3.00

    3.00

    2.00

    15

    Availability of external project funding (e.g. Jisc, HEA, HEFCE, HEFCW, SFC, DfE)

    2.27

    2.02

    2.52

    2.50

    2.27

    2.86

    2.08

    1.00

     

    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

    Other factor identified

    Frequency

    (Base: All respondents)

    (14)

    Internal and external frameworks and strategies

    4

    Internal departments

    3

    Cost of buying software and resources

    1

    Sharing of good practice online

    1

    Steering group or committee

    1

    Responsive staff development opportunities

    1

    Motivation of e-learning team

    1

    Student wanting / not wanting TEL

    1

    Commercial partner knowledge and skills

    1

     

    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

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    (Base: All respondents)

    (102)

    (50)

    (42)

    (10)

    (83)

    (7)

    (11)

    (1)

    Teaching, Learning and Assessment strategy

    90

    88%

    82%

    93%

    100%

    87%

    100%

    91%

    100%

    Corporate strategy

    54

    53%

    46%

    62%

    50%

    48%

    71%

    73%

    100%

    Library/Learning Resources strategy

    43

    42%

    32%

    50%

    60%

    42%

    29%

    46%

    100%

    Student learning experience strategy*

    40

    39%

    34%

    45%

    40%

    37%

    57%

    46%

    0%

    Information and Communication Technology (ICT) strategy

    36

    35%

    32%

    43%

    20%

    34%

    57%

    27%

    100%

    Technology Enhanced Learning or eLearning strategy

    35

    34%

    30%

    36%

    50%

    37%

    14%

    27%

    0%

    Estates strategy

    34

    33%

    34%

    38%

    10%

    30%

    29%

    64%

    0%

    Student engagement strategy*

    33

    32%

    26%

    41%

    30%

    34%

    29%

    27%

    0%

    Employability strategy

    33

    32%

    28%

    41%

    20%

    30%

    29%

    56%

    0%

    Access/Widening Participation strategy

    28

    28%

    20%

    36%

    30%

    25%

    14%

    46%

    100%

    Digital strategy/eStrategy

    26

    26%

    26%

    26%

    20%

    27%

    29%

    18%

    0%

    Staff Development strategy

    26

    26%

    20%

    29%

    40%

    25%

    14%

    36%

    0%

    Digital Literacy/Digital Capability strategy

    24

    24%

    14%

    38%

    10%

    24%

    29%

    18%

    0%

    Quality Enhancement strategy

    22

    12%

    14%

    29%

    30%

    17%

    14%

    64%

    0%

    International strategy

    17

    17%

    22%

    14%

    0%

    13%

    14%

    46%

    0

    Distance Learning strategy

    15

    15%

    18%

    7%

    30%

    17%

    0%

    9%

    0%

    Other institutional strategy

    14

    14%

    18%

    12%

    0%

    13%

    29%

    9%

    0

    Marketing strategy

    13

    13%

    12%

    14%

    10%

    12%

    14%

    18%

    0%

    Information and Learning Technology (ILT) strategy

    13

    13%

    2%

    21%

    30%

    10%

    29%

    27%

    0%

    Human Resources strategy

    13

    13%

    6%

    24%

    0%

    15%

    0%

    9%

    0%

    Digital Media strategy

    11

    11%

    4%

    21%

    0%

    11%

    14%

    9%

    0%

    Open Learning strategy

    9

    9%

    12%

    5%

    10%

    7%

    14%

    18%

    0%

    Information strategy

    8

    8%

    6%

    12%

    0%

    8%

    0%

    9%

    0%

    Communications strategy

    8

    8%

    2%

    17%

    0%

    8%

    0%

    9%

    0%

    Mobile Learning strategy

    7

    7%

    4%

    12%

    0%

    7%

    14%

    0%

    0%

    Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) strategy

    7

    7%

    6%

    10%

    0%

    6%

    14%

    9%

    0%

    Not considered in any institutional strategy documents

    0

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

     

    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

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    (Base: All respondents)

    (102)

    (50)

    (42)

    (10)

    (83)

    (7)

    (11)

    (1)

    Teaching and Learning*

    71

    70%

    64%

    79%

    60%

    65%

    86%

    91%

    100%

    TEL/E-Learning/Blended Learning

    53

    52%

    60%

    45%

    40%

    49%

    71%

    55%

    100%

    Learning spaces*

    38

    37%

    50%

    26%

    20%

    35%

    42%

    56%

    0%

    Learning analytics*

    35

    34%

    32%

    43%

    10%

    29%

    71%

    46%

    100%

    Lecture capture*

    32

    31%

    32%

    36%

    10%

    30%

    57%

    27%

    0%

    Electronic Management of Assignments (EMA)*

    29

    28%

    26%

    36%

    10%

    27%

    43%

    36%

    0%

    Distance Learning (fully online delivery)

    26

    26%

    30%

    21%

    20%

    25%

    0%

    36%

    100%

    Other 1

    26

    26%

    24%

    26%

    30%

    25%

    29%

    27%

    0%

    Open learning/MOOC development

    20

    20%

    36%

    5%

    0%

    19%

    14%

    27%

    0%

    eAssessment (eg. quizzes)*

    14

    14%

    14%

    17%

    0%

    11%

    14%

    36%

    0%

    Other 2

    12

    12%

    16%

    10%

    0%

    12%

    0%

    18%

    0%

    Other 3

    5

    5%

    8%

    2%

    0%

    5%

    0%

    9%

    0%

    Mobile Learning

    2

    2%

    4%

    0%

    0%

    2%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    Other 4

    2

    2%

    4%

    0%

    0%

    2%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    Don't have committees/working groups with an institutional remit looking at TEL

    11

    11%

    12%

    7%

    20%

    12%

    14%

    0%

    0%

     

    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

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    (Base: All respondents)

    (100)

    (50)

    (40)

    (10)

    (81)

    (7)

    (11)

    (1)

    Jisc: Digital Capability Framework (2015, 2017)*

    39

    39%

    30%

    48%

    50%

    42%

    14%

    36%

    0%

    UCISA: Survey of Technology Enhanced Learning for higher education (2012, 2014 & 2016)

    37

    37%

    28%

    45%

    50%

    37%

    14%

    55%

    0%

    NMC Horizon Report (2015 & 2017) Higher Education Edition

    21

    21%

    26%

    18%

    10%

    16%

    43%

    46%

    0%

    Jisc: Developing organisational approaches to digital capability (2017)*

    19

    19%

    8%

    30%

    30%

    16%

    29%

    27%

    100%

    Other external strategy document or report

    17

    17%

    20%

    15%

    10%

    19%

    14%

    9%

    0%

    Jisc: Student digital experience tracker 2017: the voice of 22,000 UK learners

    16

    16%

    22%

    10%

    10%

    15%

    14%

    18%

    100%

    HEPI: Rebooting learning for the digital age: What next for technology-enhanced higher education? (2017)

    15

    15%

    14%

    18%

    10%

    19%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    Changing the Learning Landscape Report (2012-14)

    13

    13%

    14%

    15%

    0%

    15%

    14%

    0%

    0%

    HeLF Lecture Capture in UK HE 2017: A HeLF Survey Report

    10

    10%

    8%

    13%

    10%

    9%

    14%

    18%

    0%

    Jisc: Code of practice for learning analytics (2015)

    9

    9%

    12%

    8%

    0%

    6%

    14%

    27%

    0%

    HeLF: Electronic Management of Assessment Survey Report (2013)

    8

    8%

    12%

    5%

    0%

    9%

    0%

    9%

    0%

    UCISA: Digital Capabilities Survey Report (2015 & 2017)

    8

    8%

    6%

    10%

    10%

    7%

    29%

    0%

    0%

    Jisc: Enhancing the student digital experience: a strategic approach (2014)

    7

    7%

    6%

    8%

    10%

    7%

    14%

    0%

    0%

    Jisc/NUS Benchmarking tool – the student digital experience (2015)

    6

    6%

    4%

    5%

    20%

    6%

    0%

    0%

    100%

    HEFCE: eLearning strategy (2005 & 2009)

    4

    4%

    6%

    0%

    10%

    5%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    HEFCE: Review of the National Student Survey (2014)

    4

    4%

    2%

    5%

    10%

    5%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    HeLF: UK HE Research on Learning Analytics (2015 & 2017)

    4

    4%

    4%

    5%

    0%

    5%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    The Open University: Innovation Pedagogy Report (2014)

    3

    3%

    4%

    3%

    0%

    3%

    0%

    9%

    0%

    Enhancing Learning and Teaching through Technology: refreshing the HEFCW strategy 2011

    2

    2%

    2%

    3%

    0%

    0%

    29%

    0%

    0%

    EUA: E-Learning in European Higher Education Institutions (2014)

    2

    2%

    4%

    0%

    0%

    3%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    Jisc: Developing successful student- staff partnerships (2015)

    2

    2%

    0%

    5%

    0%

    3%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    MOOCs and Open Education: Implications for Higher Education (2013)

    2

    2%

    4%

    0%

    0%

    3%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    BIS: FELTAG report (2014)

    1

    1%

    0%

    0%

    10%

    1%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    BIS: Students at the Heart of the System (2011)

    1

    1%

    0%

    3%

    0%

    1%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    HEFCE’s Strategy Statement: Opportunity, choice and excellence in higher education (2011)

    1

    1%

    0%

    3%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    9%

    0%

    HEPI-HEA: Student Academic Experience Survey (2015)

    1

    1%

    0%

    3%

    0%

    1%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    Jisc: Enhancing curriculum design with technology (2013)

    1

    1%

    2%

    0%

    0%

    1%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    BIS: The Maturing of the MOOC (2013)

    0

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    Gibbs: Implications of Dimensions of quality in a market environment (2012)

    0

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    HEFCE: Collaborate to Compete paper (2011)

    0

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    HeLF: Tablet Survey Report (2014)

    0

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    NUS connect: A Manifesto for Partnership (2015)

    0

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    NUS: Charter on Technology in HE (2011)

    0

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    NUS: Radical interventions in teaching and learning (2014)

    0

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    Other HEFCE strategy documents

    0

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    No external strategy documents or reports have been useful in planning TEL

    8

    8%

    12%

    3%

    10%

    9%

    14%

    0%

    0%

     

    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

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    Base: All respondents

    (100)

    (50)

    (40)

    (10)

    (81)

    (7)

    (11)

    (1)

    Learning, Teaching and Assessment policies

    59

    59%

    52%

    73%

    40%

    54%

    57%

    91%

    100%

    Lecture capture guidelines/policy

    59

    59%

    70%

    58%

    10%

    58%

    71%

    64%

    0%

    VLE usage policy (minimum requirements)

    58

    58%

    40%

    80%

    60%

    58%

    71%

    46%

    100%

    Faculty or departmental/school plans

    44

    44%

    40%

    55%

    20%

    46%

    29%

    36%

    100%

    VLE guidelines/description of VLE service

    41

    41%

    38%

    45%

    40%

    42%

    43%

    27%

    100%

    TEL or eLearning strategy/action plan/framework

    37

    37%

    38%

    40%

    20%

    33%

    29%

    64%

    100%

    Electronic Management of Assignments (EMA) policy*

    36

    36%

    32%

    43%

    30%

    36%

    43%

    27%

    0%

    eAssessment policy*

    24

    24%

    14%

    38%

    20%

    21%

    29%

    26%

    0%

    Mobile policy (i.e. institutional policy on mobile usage in support of teaching and learning)*

    12

    12%

    4%

    25%

    0%

    11%

    14%

    18%

    0%

    Other

    8

    8%

    8%

    3%

    30%

    10%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    There are no institutional policies that link strategy and implementation

    6

    6%

    8%

    3%

    10%

    7%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    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

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    (Base: All respondents)

     

    (104)

    (51)

    (43)

    (10)

    (84)

    (7)

    (12)

    (1)

    Yes

    103

    99%

    100%

    100%

    90%

    99%

    100%

    100%

    100%

    No

    1

    1%

    0%

    0%

    10%

    1%

    0%

    0%

    0%

     

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

     

    Table 3.2: Number of institutional VLEs currently in use

    Responses

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    (Base: All respondents with a VLE)

    (103)

    (51)

    (43)

    (9)

    (83)

    (7)

    (12)

    (1)

    1

    45

    44%

    28%

    56%

    78%

    41%

    71%

    42%

    100%

    2

    32

    31%

    31%

    35%

    11%

    33%

    14%

    33%

    0%

    3

    15

    15%

    20%

    9%

    11%

    16%

    14%

    8%

    0%

    4

    6

    6%

    12%

    0%

    0%

    6%

    0%

    8%

    0%

    5

    4

    4%

    8%

    0%

    0%

    5%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    6

    1

    1%

    2%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    8%

    0%

     

    Table A3.2a: VLEs currently used

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    (Base: All respondents with a VLE)

    (103)

    (51)

    (43)

    (9)

    (83)

    (7)

    (12)

    (1)

    Moodle

    57

    55%

    63%

    42%

    78%

    57%

    57%

    50%

    0%

    Blackboard Learn

    44

    43%

    41%

    51%

    11%

    37%

    71%

    58%

    100%

    FutureLearn

    31

    30%

    53%

    7%

    11%

    31%

    14%

    33%

    0%

    Canvas (by Instructure)

    16

    16%

    22%

    9%

    11%

    18%

    0%

    8%

    0%

    Open Education (by Blackboard)

    9

    9%

    4%

    16%

    0%

    8%

    0%

    17%

    0%

    Coursera

    8

    8%

    16%

    0%

    0%

    8%

    0%

    8%

    0%

    Other VLE – developed in-house

    6

    6%

    8%

    5%

    0%

    5%

    0%

    17%

    0%

    SharePoint

    6

    6%

    10%

    2%

    0%

    7%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    edX

    4

    4%

    8%

    0%

    0%

    4%

    0%

    8%

    0%

    Other commercial VLE

    4

    4%

    6%

    0%

    11%

    5%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    Other MOOC platform

    4

    4%

    0%

    9%

    0%

    5%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    Blackboard Ultra*

    3

    3%

    2%

    5%

    0%

    2%

    0%

    8%

    0%

    Brightspace (by D2L)

    3

    3%

    0%

    7%

    0%

    4%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    Other intranet based – developed in-house

    3

    3%

    4%

    0%

    11%

    4%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    Other open source

    3

    3%

    6%

    0%

    0%

    2%

    0%

    8%

    0%

    Sakai

    2

    2%

    4%

    0%

    0%

    2%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    Joule (by Moodlerooms)

    1

    1%

    2%

    0%

    0%

    1%

    0%

    0%

    0%

     

    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

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    (Base: All respondents with a VLE)

    (103)

    (51)

    (43)

    (9)

    (83)

    (7)

    (12)

    (1)

    Moodle

    47

    46%

    45%

    40%

    78%

    51%

    29%

    25%

    0%

    Blackboard Learn

    43

    42%

    41%

    49%

    11%

    36%

    71%

    58%

    100%

    Canvas (by Instructure)

    8

    8%

    10%

    5%

    11%

    8%

    0%

    8%

    0%

    Brightspace (by D2L)

    2

    2%

    0%

    5%

    0%

    2%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    Joule (by Moodlerooms)

    1

    1%

    2%

    0%

    0%

    1%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    Other VLE - developed in-house

    1

    1%

    0%

    2%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    8%

    0%

    Sakai

    1

    1%

    2%

    0%

    0%

    1%

    0%

    0%

    0%

     

    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)

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    Base: All respondents with a main VLE

    (103)

    (51)

    (43)

    (9)

    (83)

    (7)

    (12)

    (1)

    Yes

    99

    96%

    94%

    98%

    100%

    95%

    100%

    100%

    100%

    No, another VLE (mainly) used

    0

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    No, mode not supported using VLE across institution

    0

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    No, mode not supported across institution

    4

    4%

    6%

    2%

    0%

    5%

    0%

    0%

    0%

     

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

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    Base: All respondents with a main VLE

    (103)

    (51)

    (43)

    (9)

    (83)

    (7)

    (12)

    (1)

    Yes

    80

    77%

    75%

    86%

    56%

    76%

    86%

    83%

    100%

    No, another VLE (mainly) used

    10

    10%

    14%

    7%

    0%

    10%

    0%

    17%

    0%

    No, mode not supported using VLE across institution

    1

    1%

    2%

    0%

    0%

    1%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    No, mode not supported across institution

    12

    12%

    10%

    7%

    44%

    13%

    14%

    0%

    0%

     

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

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    (Base: All respondents with other VLE for distance learning)

    (10)

    (7)

    (3)

    (0)

    (8)

    (0)

    (2)

    (0)

    Another Moodle instance

    4

    40%

    29%

    67%

    0%

    38%

    0%

    50%

    0%

    Another Blackboard instance

    2

    20%

    14%

    33%

    0%

    25%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    FutureLearn

    2

    20%

    29%

    0%

    0%

    13%

    0%

    50%

    0%

    Other VLE (unnamed)

    1

    10%

    14%

    0%

    0%

    13%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    WordPress

    1

    10%

    14%

    0%

    0%

    13%

    0%

    0%

    0%

     

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

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    (Base: All respondents with a main VLE)

    (103)

    (51)

    (43)

    (9)

    (83)

    (7)

    (12)

    (1)

    Yes

    7

    7%

    8%

    5%

    11%

    6%

    29%

    0%

    0%

    No, another VLE (mainly) used

    39

    38%

    53%

    28%

    0%

    39%

    0%

    50%

    100%

    No, mode not supported using VLE across institution

    7

    7%

    6%

    9%

    0%

    7%

    0%

    8%

    0%

    No, mode not supported across institution

    50

    48%

    33%

    58%

    89%

    48%

    71%

    42%

    0%

     

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

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    (Base: All respondents with other VLE(s) for open learning)

    (39)

    (27)

    (12)

    (0)

    (30)

    (0)

    (6)

    (1)

    FutureLearn

    23

    59%

    78%

    17%

    0%

    67%

    0%

    50%

    0%

    Coursera

    6

    15%

    22%

    0%

    0%

    17%

    0%

    17%

    0%

    Open Education (by Blackboard)

    6

    15%

    4%

    42%

    0%

    13%

    0%

    17%

    100%

    edX

    3

    8%

    11%

    0%

    0%

    7%

    0%

    17%

    0%

    Brightspace (by D2L)

    1

    3%

    0%

    8%

    0%

    3%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    Canvas

    1

    3%

    0%

    8%

    0%

    3%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    CourseSites (by Blackboard)

    1

    3%

    0%

    8%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    17%

    0%

    Another Moodle instance

    1

    3%

    0%

    8%

    0%

    3%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    PebblePad

    1

    3%

    0%

    8%

    0%

    3%

    0%

    0%

    0%

     

    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

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    (Base: All respondents with a main VLE)

    (103)

    (51)

    (43)

    (9)

    (83)

    (7)

    (12)

    (1)

    Institutionally-hosted and managed

    50

    48%

    55%

    44%

    33%

    45%

    86%

    58%

    0%

    Institutionally-managed but hosted by a third party

    39

    38%

    31%

    42%

    56%

    42%

    14%

    25%

    0%

    Cloud-based Software as a Service (SaaS) multi-tenant service

    14

    14%

    14%

    14%

    11%

    13%

    0%

    17%

    100%

     

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

    Response

    Institutionally-hosted & managed

     

    Institutionally-managed but hosted by third party

    Cloud-based Software as a Service / multi-tenant service

    Total

    (Base: All respondents with main VLE)

    No

    %

    No

    %

    No

    %

    (103)

    Moodle

    27

    57%

    17

    36%

    3

    6%

    47

    Blackboard Learn

    20

    47%

    21

    49%

    2

    5%

    43

    Canvas (by Instructure)

    0

    0%

    0

    0%

    8

    100%

    8

    Brightspace (by D2L)

    1

    50%

    0

    0%

    1

    50%

    2

    Joule (by Moodlerooms)

    0

    0%

    1

    100%

    0

    0%

    1

    Other VLE - developed in-house

    1

    100%

    0

    0%

    0

    0%

    1

    Sakai

    1

    100%

    0

    0%

    0

    0%

    1

     

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

     

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

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    (Base: All respondents using external provider to host main VLE)

    (53)

    (23)

    (24)

    (6)

    (46)

    (1)

    (5)

    (1)

    Blackboard Managed Hosting

    23

    43%

    35%

    58%

    17%

    37%

    100%

    80%

    100%

    CoSector (previously ULCC)

    16

    30%

    35%

    21%

    50%

    35%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    Other external provider

    7

    13%

    13%

    17%

    0%

    15%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    Instructure

    5

    9%

    13%

    4%

    17%

    9%

    0%

    20%

    0%

    Moodlerooms

    1

    2%

    4%

    0%

    0%

    2%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    Webanywhere

    1

    2%

    0%

    0%

    17%

    2%

    0%

    0%

    0%

     

    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

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    (Base: All respondents)

    (104)

    (51)

    (43)

    (10)

    (84)

    (7)

    (12)

    (1)

    Lecture capture platform

    48

    46%

    51%

    49%

    10%

    49%

    57%

    25%

    0%

    Digital repositories (e.g. Google Drive, Google Docs)

    35

    34%

    37%

    30%

    30%

    36%

    29%

    25%

    0%

    ePortfolio

    35

    34%

    29%

    40%

    30%

    35%

    14%

    42%

    0%

    Media streaming*

    34

    33%

    33%

    33%

    30%

    33%

    14%

    42%

    0%

    VLE platform – supporting the delivery of blended learning courses

    33

    32%

    31%

    30%

    40%

    36%

    0%

    17%

    100%

    VLE platform – supporting the delivery of open online courses

    28

    27%

    35%

    23%

    0%

    27%

    14%

    25%

    100%

    VLE platform – supporting the delivery of fully online courses

    26

    25%

    26%

    28%

    10%

    25%

    29%

    17%

    100%

    No outsourced provision

    21

    20%

    16%

    26%

    20%

    20%

    14%

    25%

    0%

    Learning analytics*

    9

    9%

    4%

    14%

    10%

    7%

    0%

    17%

    100%

    Don't know

    2

    2%

    2%

    2%

    0%

    2%

    0%

    0%

    0%

     

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

     

    Table A3.8: How the institutional services identified in Question 3.7 are currently outsourced

    Response

    Institutionally-managed but hosted by a third party

    Cloud-based Software as a Service (SaaS) multi-tenant service

    Don't know

     

    No.

    Total

    No.

    Total

    No.

    Total

    Lecture capture platform

    12

    25%

    35

    73%

    1

    2%

    Digital repositories (e.g. Google Drive, Google Docs)

    10

    29%

    25

    71%

    0

    0%

    ePortfolio

    19

    54%

    16

    46%

    0

    0%

    Media streaming*

    12

    35%

    21

    62%

    1

    3%

    VLE platform – supporting the delivery of blended learning courses

    20

    61%

    13

    39%

    0

    0%

    VLE platform – supporting the delivery of open online courses

    11

    39%

    17

    61%

    0

    0%

    VLE platform – supporting the delivery of fully online courses

    13

    50%

    12

    46%

    1

    4%

    Learning analytics*

    4

    44%

    4

    44%

    1

    12%

     

    Table A3.8 (i): Type of outsourcing for Lecture capture platform

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    (Base: All respondents with outsourced provision)

    (48)

    (26)

    (21)

    (1)

    (41)

    (3)

    (4)

    (0)

    SaaS multi-tenant service

    35

    73%

    81%

    62%

    100%

    71%

    75%

    100%

    0%

    Institutionally-managed, hosted by other organisation

    12

    25%

    15%

    38%

    0%

    27%

    25%

    0%

    0%

    Don't know

    1

    2%

    4%

    0%

    0%

    2%

    0%

    0%

    0%

     

    Table A3.8 (ii): Type of outsourcing for Digital repositories (e.g. Google Drive, Google Docs)

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    (Base: All respondents with outsourced provision)

    (35)

    (19)

    (13)

    (3)

    (30)

    (2)

    (3)

    (0)

    SaaS multi-tenant service

    25

    71%

    79%

    54%

    100%

    70%

    100%

    67%

    0%

    Institutionally-managed, hosted by other organisation

    10

    29%

    21%

    46%

    0%

    30%

    0%

    33%

    0%

    Don't know

    0

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

     

    Table A3.8 (iii): Type of outsourcing for ePortfolio

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    (Base: All respondents with outsourced provision)

    (35)

    (15)

    (17)

    (3)

    (29)

    (1)

    (5)

    (0)

    Institutionally-managed, hosted by other organisation

    19

    54%

    47%

    53%

    0%

    62%

    0%

    20%

    0%

    SaaS multi-tenant service

    16

    46%

    79%

    54%

    100%

    38%

    100%

    80%

    0%

    Don't know

    0

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

     

    Table A3.8 (iv): Type of outsourcing for Media streaming*

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    (Base: All respondents with outsourced provision)

    (34)

    (17)

    (14)

    (3)

    (28)

    (1)

    (5)

    (0)

    SaaS multi-tenant service

    21

    62%

    76%

    50%

    33%

    61%

    100%

    60%

    0%

    Institutionally-managed, hosted by other organisation

    12

    35%

    18%

    50%

    67%

    36%

    0%

    40%

    0%

    Don't know

    1

    3%

    6%

    0%

    0%

    3%

    0%

    0%

    0%

     

    Table A3.8 (v): Type of outsourcing for VLE platform – supporting the delivery of blended learning courses

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    Base: All respondents with outsourced provision

    (33)

    (16)

    (13)

    (4)

    (30)

    (0)

    (2)

    (1)

    Institutionally-managed, hosted by other organisation

    20

    61%

    56%

    62%

    75%

    67%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    SaaS multi-tenant service

    13

    39%

    44%

    38%

    25%

    33%

    0%

    100%

    100%

    Don't know

    0

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

     

    Table A3.8 (vi): Type of outsourcing for VLE platform – supporting the delivery of open online courses

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    (Base: All respondents with outsourced provision)

    (28)

    (18)

    (10)

    (0)

    (23)

    (1)

    (3)

    (1)

    SaaS multi-tenant service

    17

    61%

    61%

    60%

    61%

    52%

    100%

    100%

    100%

    Institutionally-managed, hosted by other organisation

    11

    39%

    39%

    40%

    39%

    48%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    Don't know

    0

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

     

    Table A3.8 (vii): Type of outsourcing for VLE platform – supporting the delivery of fully online courses

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    (Base: All respondents with outsourced provision)

    (26)

    (13)

    (12)

    (1)

    (21)

    (2)

    (2)

    (1)

    Institutionally-managed, hosted by other organisation

    13

    50%

    54%

    50%

    0%

    57%

    50%

    0%

    0%

    SaaS multi-tenant service

    12

    46%

    38%

    50%

    100%

    43%

    0%

    100%

    100%

    Don't know

    1

    4%

    8%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    50%

    0%

    0%

     

    Table A3.8 (viii): Type of outsourcing for Learning analytics*

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    (Base: All respondents with outsourced provision)

    (9)

    (2)

    (6)

    (1)

    (6)

    (0)

    (2)

    (1)

    Institutionally-managed, hosted by other organisation

    4

    44%

    50%

    50%

    0%

    50%

    0%

    50%

    0%

    SaaS multi-tenant service

    4

    44%

    50%

    33%

    100%

    33%

    0%

    50%

    100%

    Don't know

    1

    12%

    0%

    17%

    0%

    17%

    0%

    0%

    11%

     

     

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

     

    Table A3.9: Services that are currently outsourced that are under consideration for bringing back in to be institutionally-managed

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    (Base: All respondents that currently outsource some provision)

    (80)

    (42)

    (30)

    (8)

    (42)

    (30)

    (6)

    (2)

    None being considered for bringing back in-house

    80

    100%

    100%

    100%

    100%

    100%

    100%

    100%

    100%

     

    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 A3.10: Formally considering the outsourcing of some or all of their provision

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    (Base: All respondents)

    (104)

    (51)

    (43)

    (10)

    (84)

    (7)

    (12)

    (1)

    Yes

    48

    46%

    55%

    41%

    20%

    41%

    57%

    67%

    100%

    None being considered for outsourcing

    47

    45%

    41%

    47%

    60%

    49%

    43%

    25%

    0%

    Don’t know

    9

    9%

    4%

    12%

    20%

    10%

    0%

    8%

    0%

     

    Table A3.10 (a): Services being formally considered for outsourcing

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    (Base: All respondents)

    (104)

    (51)

    (43)

    (10)

    (84)

    (7)

    (12)

    (1)

    None being considered for outsourcing

    47

    45%

    41%

    47%

    60%

    49%

    43%

    25%

    0%

    VLE platform – supporting the delivery of blended learning courses

    21

    20%

    24%

    21%

    0%

    16%

    57%

    33%

    0%

    VLE platform – supporting the delivery of fully online courses

    17

    16%

    20%

    14%

    10%

    14%

    14%

    33%

    0%

    Learning analytics*

    16

    15%

    14%

    19%

    10%

    14%

    0%

    33%

    0%

    Lecture capture platform

    15

    14%

    20%

    12%

    0%

    11%

    29%

    25%

    100%

    Media streaming*

    10

    10%

    8%

    14%

    0%

    10%

    14%

    0%

    100%

    ePortfolio

    9

    9%

    16%

    2%

    0%

    7%

    14%

    17%

    0%

    Don't know

    9

    9%

    4%

    12%

    20%

    10%

    0%

    8%

    0%

    VLE platform – supporting the delivery of open online courses

    5

    5%

    6%

    5%

    0%

    4%

    14%

    8%

    0%

    Digital repositories (e.g. Google Drive, Google Docs)

    4

    4%

    4%

    5%

    0%

    4%

    0%

    8%

    0%

     

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

     

    Table A3.11: Options being considered for outsourcing

    Response

    Institutionally-managed but hosted by a third party

    Cloud-based Software as a Service (SaaS) multi-tenant service

    Don’t know/
    options still being considered

     

    No.

    Total

    No.

    Total

    No.

    Total

    VLE platform – supporting the delivery of blended learning courses

    2

     

    10%

     

    10

     

    48%

     

    9

     

    43%

     

    VLE platform – supporting the delivery of fully online courses

    0

     

    0%

     

    10

     

    59%

     

    7

     

    41%

     

    Learning analytics*

    1

     

    6%

     

    4

     

    25%

     

    11

     

    69%

     

    Lecture capture platform

    1

     

    6%

     

    10

     

    67%

     

    4

     

    27%

     

    Media streaming*

    2

     

    20%

     

    4

     

    40%

     

    4

     

    40%

     

    ePortfolio

    1

     

    11%

     

    5

     

    56%

     

    3

     

    33%

     

    VLE platform – supporting the delivery of open online courses

    0

     

    0%

     

    3

     

    60%

     

    2

     

    40%

     

    Digital repositories (e.g. Google Drive, Google Docs)

    0

     

    0%

     

    3

     

    75%

     

    1

     

    25%

     

     

    Table A3.11 (i): Type of outsourcing being considered for VLE platform – supporting the delivery of blended learning courses

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    Base: All respondents with outsourced provision

    (21)

    (12)

    (9)

    (0)

    (13)

    (4)

    (4)

    (0)

    SaaS multi-tenant service

    10

    48%

    50%

    44%

    0%

    38%

    25%

    100%

    0%

    Don't know

    9

    43%

    33%

    56%

    0%

    54%

    50%

    0%

    0%

    Institutionally-managed, hosted by other organisation

    2

    10%

    17%

    0%

    0%

    8%

    25%

    0%

    0%

     

    Table A3.11 (ii): Type of outsourcing being considered for VLE platform – supporting the delivery of fully online courses

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    (Base: All respondents with outsourced provision)

    (17)

    (10)

    (6)

    (1)

    (12)

    (1)

    (4)

    (0)

    SaaS multi-tenant service

    10

    59%

    70%

    50%

    0%

    42%

    100%

    100%

    0%

    Don't know

    7

    41%

    30%

    50%

    100%

    58%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    Institutionally-managed, hosted by other organisation

    0

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

     

    Table A3.11 (iii): Type of outsourcing being considered for Learning analytics*

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    (Base: All respondents with outsourced provision)

    (16)

    (7)

    (8)

    (1)

    (12)

    (0)

    (4)

    (0)

    Don't know

    11

    69%

    71%

    63%

    100%

    75%

    0%

    50%

    0%

    SaaS multi-tenant service

    4

    25%

    14%

    37%

    0%

    17%

    0%

    50%

    0%

    Institutionally-managed, hosted by other organisation

    1

    6%

    14%

    0%

    0%

    8%

    0%

    0%

    0%

     

    Table A3.11 (iv): Type of outsourcing being considered for Lecture capture platform

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    (Base: All respondents with outsourced provision)

    (15)

    (10)

    (5)

    (0)

    (9)

    (2)

    (3)

    (1)

    SaaS multi-tenant service

    10

    67%

    70%

    60%

    0%

    78%

    0%

    67%

    100%

    Don't know

    4

    27%

    30%

    20%

    0%

    11%

    100%

    33%

    0%

    Institutionally-managed, hosted by other organisation

    1

    6%

    0%

    20%

    0%

    11%

    0%

    0%

    0%

     

    Table A3.11 (v): Type of outsourcing being considered for Media streaming*

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    (Base: All respondents with outsourced provision)

    (10)

    (4)

    (6)

    (0)

    (8)

    (1)

    (0)

    (1)

    Don't know

    4

    40%

    25%

    50%

    0%

    38%

    100%

    0%

    0%

    SaaS multi-tenant service

    4

    40%

    50%

    33%

    0%

    38%

    0%

    0%

    100%

    Institutionally-managed, hosted by other organisation

    2

    20%

    25%

    17%

    0%

    25%

    0%

    0%

    0%

     

    Table A3.11 (vi): Type of outsourcing being considered for ePortfolio

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    (Base: All respondents with outsourced provision)

    (9)

    (8)

    (1)

    (0)

    (6)

    (1)

    (2)

    (0)

    SaaS multi-tenant service

    5

    56%

    50%

    100%

    0%

    67%

    0%

    50%

    0%

    Don't know

    3

    33%

    38%

    0%

    0%

    33%

    0%

    50%

    0%

    Institutionally-managed, hosted by other organisation

    1

    11%

    12%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    100%

    0%

    0%

     

    Table A3.11 (vii): Type of outsourcing being considered for VLE platform – supporting the delivery of open online courses

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    (Base: All respondents with outsourced provision)

    (5)

    (3)

    (2)

    (0)

    (3)

    (1)

    (1)

    (0)

    SaaS multi-tenant service

    3

    60%

    67%

    50%

    0%

    33%

    100%

    100%

    0%

    Don't know

    2

    40%

    33%

    50%

    0%

    67%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    Institutionally-managed, hosted by other organisation

    0

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

     

    Table A3.11 (viii): Type of outsourcing being considered for Digital repositories (e.g. Google Drive, Google Docs)

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    (Base: All respondents with outsourced provision)

    (4)

    (2)

    (2)

    (0)

    (3)

    (0)

    (1)

    (0)

    SaaS multi-tenant service

    3

    75%

    50%

    100%

    0%

    67%

    0%

    100%

    0%

    Don't know

    1

    25%

    50%

    0%

    0%

    33%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    Institutionally-managed, hosted by other organisation

    0

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

     

    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.

     

    Table A3.12: Considered collaboration with other HE institutions

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    (Base: All respondents)

    (104)

    (51)

    (43)

    (10)

    (84)

    (7)

    (12)

    (1)

    No, have not considered

    72

    69%

     

    65%

    70%

    90%

    68%

    57%

    83%

    100%

    Don't know

    14

    13%

     

    15%

    12%

    10%

    15%

    14%

    0%

    0%

    Yes, and do collaborate as a result

    7

    7%

    8%

    7%

    0%

    6%

    14%

    8%

    0%

    Yes, currently under consideration so no decision reached

    6

    6%

    4%

    9%

    0%

    6%

    0%

    8%

    0%

    Yes, did consider but decided not to collaborate

    5

    5%

    8%

    2%

    0%

    5%

    14%

    0%

    0%

     

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

     

    Table A3.13: Nature of collaboration with other HE institutions

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    (Base: All respondents that considered collaboration with other HE institutions)

    (18)

    (10)

    (8)

    (0)

    (14)

    (2)

    (2)

    (0)

    Designing and sharing course resources

    8

    44%

    40%

    50%

    0%

    50%

    50%

    0%

    0%

     

    Other idea for collaboration

    7

    39%

    60%

    13%

    0%

    36%

    50%

    50%

    0%

     

    Joint course collaboration, blended learning (fly out faculty, teach in situ)

    5

    28%

    30%

    25%

    0%

    29%

    50%

    0%

    0%

    Joint course delivery, fully online

    4

    22%

    20%

    25%

    0%

    21%

    0%

    50%

    0%

     

     

    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.

     

    Table A3.14: Considered collaboration with commercial partners

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    (Base: All respondents)

    (104)

    (51)

    (43)

    (10)

    (84)

    (7)

    (12)

    (1)

    No, have not considered

    51

    49%

    43%

    54%

    60%

    44%

    86%

    67%

    0%

     

    Yes, and do collaborate as a result

    18

    17%

    23%

    14%

    0%

    19%

    14%

    8%

    0%

     

    Yes, currently under consideration so no decision reached

    18

    17%

    18%

    16%

    20%

    19%

    0%

    8%

    100%

    Don't know

    13

    13%

    12%

    12%

    20%

    16%

    0%

    0%

    0%

     

    Yes, did consider but decided not to collaborate

    4

    4%

    4%

    5%

    0%

    2%

    0%

    17%

    0%

     

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

     

    Table A3.15: Nature of collaboration with commercial partners

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    (Base: All respondents that considered collaboration with commercial partners)

    (40)

    (23)

    (15)

    (2)

    (34)

    (1)

    (4)

    (1)

    Fully online/distance learning

    35

    88%

    87%

    93%

    50%

    88%

    0%

    100%

    100%

    Design and delivery of open learning

    10

    25%

    35%

    13%

    0%

    29%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    Degree apprenticeships

    5

    13%

    13%

    13%

    0%

    12%

    0%

    25%

    0%

    Other idea for collaboration

    2

    5%

    0%

    7%

    50%

    3%

    100%

    0%

    0%

     

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

     

    Table A3.16: Institutional review of TEL facility or system in last two years

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    (Base: All respondents)

    (104)

    (51)

    (43)

    (10)

    (84)

    (7)

    (12)

    (1)

    Yes

    49

    47%

    45%

    44%

    70%

    46%

    14%

    67%

    100%

    No

    55

    53%

    55%

    56%

    30%

    54%

    86%

    33%

    0%

     

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

     

    Table A3.17: TEL facilities or systems that have been reviewed in the last two years

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    (Base: All respondents that have undertaken a review)

    (49)

    (23)

    (19)

    (7)

    (39)

    (1)

    (8)

    (1)

    VLE

    40

    82%

    70%

    95%

    86%

    80%

    100%

    88%

    100%

    Lecture capture

    23

    47%

    57%

    47%

    14%

    49%

    100%

    38%

    0%

    e-Portfolio

    13

    27%

    13%

    37%

    43%

    26%

    100%

    25%

    0%

    Learning analytics

    13

    27%

    26%

    37%

    0%

    21%

    100%

    38%

    100%

    Electronic Management of Assignments (EMA)*

    9

    18%

    26%

    16%

    0%

    15%

    100%

    25%

    0%

    Media streaming*

    9

    18%

    17%

    16%

    29%

    18%

    0%

    25%

    0%

    Other facility or system

    7

    14%

    17%

    16%

    0%

    18%

    0.0%

    0.0%

    0%

    MOOC platform

    6

    12%

    17%

    11%

    0%

    15%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    eAssessment

    6

    12%

    22%

    5%

    0%

    13%

    0%

    13%

    0%

    Mobile learning

    2

    4%

    4%

    5%

    0%

    3%

    0%

    13%

    0%

     

    Table A3.17 (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

     

    No.

    Main VLE total (3.3)

    %

     

    Blackboard Learn

    16

    43

    37%

    Moodle

    15

    47

    32%

    Canvas (by Instructure)

    5

    8

    63%

    Brightspace (by D2L)

    2

    2

    100%

    Joule (by Moodlerooms)

    1

    1

    100%

    Sakai

    1

    1

    100%

    Note: n=49 for Table 3.17 (i)

     

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

     

    Table 3.18 (i): Outcomes of the VLE review

    Top five

    Frequency

    Switch to a different VLE platform

    • From Moodle to Canvas (by Instructure)
    • From Blackboard to Canvas (by Instructure)
    • From Moodle to Brightspace (by Desire2Learn)
    • From Blackboard to Brightspace (by Desire2Learn)
    • From Pearson Learning Studio to Canvas (by Instructure)
    • From Sakai to Canvas (by Instructure)
    • From not specified to Canvas (by Instructure)

    10

    (2)

    (2)

    (2)

    (1)

    (1)

    (1)

    (1)

    Continue with the same VLE platform

    • Blackboard Learn
    • Moodle
    • Brightspace (by Desire2Learn)

    8
    (4)
    (3)

    (1)

    Continue with the same platform and upgrade to latest version

    • Moodle
    • Blackboard

    7

    (5)

    (2)

    Review process not yet completed

    • Blackboard Learn

    4

    (4)

    Switch to external hosting for same VLE platform

    • Move to Blackboard Managed Hosting (for Blackboard Learn)
    • Move to external hosting provider (for Moodle)

    4

    (3)

    (1)

    Note: n=40 for Table 3.18 (i)

     

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

    Top five

    Frequency

    New system implementation/Pilot

    • Planet eStream
    • Panopto
    • Not specified
    • Institutional solution

    11

    (1)

    (6)

    (3)

    (1)

    Change of system

    • Medial to Panopto
    • Echo360 to Panopto
    • Kaltura to Panopto

    3

    (1)

    (1)

    (1)

    Upgrade current platform

    • Panopto

    2

    (2)

    Stay with current platform

    • Panopto

    2

    (2)

    In Progress

    2

    Note: n=23 for Table 3.18 (ii)

     

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

    Top five

    Frequency

    Change/introduction of system

    • PebblePad to Campus Press
    • Mahara to Brighspace ePortfolio
    • Mahara to WordPress
    • PebblePad

    4

    (1)

    (1)

    (1)

    (1)

    In progress

    4

    Upgrade current system

    • Mahara

    2

    (1)

    Continue with current system

    • Blackboard ePortfolio
    • PebblePad

    2

    (1)

    (1)

    Move to self-hosting

    • Mahara

    1

    (1)

    Note: n=13 for Table 3.18 (iii)

     

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

    Outcomes

    Frequency

    Jisc Partnership

    3

    Pilot of service

    3

    In progress

    3

    Continue with tool

    1

    Platform adopted

    1

    University built system

    1

    Visualisations through tableau

    1

    Note: n=13 for Table 18 (iv)

     

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

    Outcomes

    Frequency

    Submission recommendation

    • Turnitin into Moodle
    • Blackboard Grades
    • Turnitin into Blackboard
    • Blackboard and Turnitin
    • Moodle

    6

    (2)

    (1)

    (1)

    (1)

    (1)

    Move to fully online submission, grading and feedback

    3

    Note: n=9 for Table 3.18 (v)

     

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

    Outcomes

    Frequency

    Move system

    • From Adobe Flash to Planet E Stream
    • Migrated to alternative media streaming provider
    • From elix to Planet eStream

    3

    (1)

    (1)

    (1)

    Stayed with current system

    • CoSector
    • Vimeo ( and Panopto)

    2

    (1)

    (1)

    System upgrade

    • Panopto upgrade

    1

    (1)

    New system

    1

    Combined with lecture capture tool

    1

    Note: n=8 for Table 18 (vi)

     

    Table 3.18 (vii): Other

    Top four

    Frequency

    Polling Software

    • Turning Point to Mentimeter
    • Poll Everywhere
    • Turning technologies (ResponseWare)

    3

    (1)

    (1)

    (1)

    Review in progress (system not specified)

    2

    Moved systems (system not specified)

    1

    Remain with Turnitin but review after new systems implemented

    1

    Note: n=7 for Table 3.18 (vii)

     

    Table 3.18 (viii): Outcomes of the E-Assessment review

    Top four

    Frequency

    Platform

    • Blackboard Grades Journey
    • Moodle
    • Turnitin

    3

    (1)

    (1)

    (1)

    Review of policy and procedures

    1

    Investigate further Wiseflow

    1

    Upgrade and partial move

    • Examstarts and QuestionMark Perception (SaaS)

    1

    (1)

    Note: n=6 for Table 3.18 (viii)

     

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

    Outcomes

    Frequency

    Move system

    • From Adobe Flash to Planet E Stream
    • Migrated to alternative media streaming provider
    • From elix to Planet eStream

    3

    (1)

    (1)

    (1)

    Stayed with current system

    • CoSector
    • Vimeo ( and Panopto)

    2

    (1)

    (1)

    System upgrade

    • Panopto upgrade

    1

    (1)

    New system

    1

    Combined with lecture capture tool

    1

    Note: n=8 for Table 18 (vi)

     

    Table 3.18 (vii): Other

    Top four

    Frequency

    Polling Software

    • Turning Point to Mentimeter
    • Poll Everywhere
    • Turning technologies (ResponseWare)

    3

    (1)

    (1)

    (1)

    Review in progress (system not specified)

    2

    Moved systems (system not specified)

    1

    Remain with Turnitin but review after new systems implemented

    1

    Note: n=7 for Table 3.18 (vii)

     

    Table 3.18 (viii): Outcomes of the E-Assessment review

    Top four

    Frequency

    Platform

    • Blackboard Grades Journey
    • Moodle
    • Turnitin

    3

    (1)

    (1)

    (1)

    Review of policy and procedures

    1

    Investigate further Wiseflow

    1

    Upgrade and partial move

    • Examstarts and QuestionMark Perception (SaaS)

    1

    (1)

    Note: n=6 for Table 3.18 (viii)

     

     

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

    Outcomes

    Frequency

    Development planning and implementation of MOOCs

    • FutureLearn
    • Cousera, Edx and Open Edx

    4

    (3)

    (1)

    Continue with current provider

    • FutureLearn

    1

    (1)

     

    Switch MOOC Platform

    • From Canvas to Brightspace

    1

    (1)

    Note: n=6 for Table 3.18 (ix)

     

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

    Outcomes

    Frequency

    Key services now mobile friendly

    1

    Pending

    1

     

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

     

    Table A3.19: Institutional review of TEL facility or system in next two years

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    (Base: All respondents)

    (104)

    (51)

    (43)

    (10)

    (84)

    (7)

    (12)

    (1)

    Planning a review in the next year

    38

    37%

    33%

    44%

    20%

    35%

    29%

    58%

    37%

    Planning a review in the next two years

    30

    29%

    39%

    12%

    50%

    26%

    71%

    17%

    29%

    Not planning a review in the next two years

    36

    35%

    28%

    44%

    30%

    39%

    0%

    25%

    35%

     

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

     

    Table A3.20: TEL facilities or systems to be reviewed in the next two years

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    (Base: All respondents planning a review)

    (68)

    (37)

    (24)

    (7)

    (51)

    (7)

    (9)

    (1)

    VLE

    44

    65%

    60%

    71%

    71%

    71%

    71%

    33%

    0%

    Lecture capture*

    31

    46%

    38%

    63%

    29%

    39%

    71%

    56%

    100%

    eAssessment*

    27

    40%

    43%

    46%

    0%

    33%

    57%

    68%

    0%

    Learning analytics

    25

    37%

    41%

    38%

    14%

    33%

    57%

    44%

    0%

    Electronic Management of Assignments (EMA)*

    23

    34%

    41%

    33%

    0%

    29%

    43%

    56%

    0%

    e-Portfolio

    20

    29%

    27%

    25%

    57%

    33%

    14%

    22%

    0%

    Media streaming*

    19

    28%

    32%

    25%

    14%

    24%

    29%

    44%

    100%

    Mobile learning

    10

    15%

    14%

    21%

    0%

    14%

    29%

    11%

    0%

    Other facility or system

    6

    9%

    5%

    17%

    0%

    10%

    14%

    0%

    0%

    MOOC platform

    5

    7%

    11%

    4%

    0%

    10%

    0%

    0%

    0%

     

    Table A3.20 (i): Cross tabulation of ‘main institutional VLE’ with ‘VLE review to be conducted in the next two years

    Main institutional VLE

    VLE review to be conducted in next two years

     

    No.

    Main VLE total (3.3)

    %

     

    Blackboard Learn

    25

    43

    58%

    Moodle

    17

    47

    36%

    Canvas (by Instructure)

    1

    8

    13%

    Other VLE - developed in-house

    1

    1

    100%

    Note: n=44 for Table 3.20 (i)

     

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

     

    Table A3.21: Centrally-supported software tools used by students

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    (Base: All respondents)

    (103)

    (50)

    (43)

    (10)

    (83)

    (7)

    (12)

    (1)

    Virtual Learning Environment (VLE)

    97

    94%

    92%

    98%

    90%

    93%

    100%

    100%

    100%

    Text matching tools (e.g. SafeAssign, Turnitin, Urkund)

    92

    89%

    94%

    91%

    60%

    88%

    100%

    92%

    100%

    Asynchronous communication tools (e.g. discussion forums)

    87

    84%

    86%

    81%

    90%

    82%

    86%

    100%

    100%

    Document sharing tool (e.g. Google Docs, Office 365)

    83

    81%

    80%

    86%

    60%

    80%

    86%

    83%

    100%

    Formative eAssessment tool (e.g. quizzes)

    83

    81%

    84%

    79%

    70%

    76%

    100%

    100%

    100%

    Lecture capture tools

    77

    75%

    84%

    77%

    20%

    73%

    100%

    67%

    100%

    ePortfolio

    75

    73%

    66%

    81%

    70%

    72%

    57%

    83%

    100%

    Summative eAssessment tools (e.g. quizzes)

    73

    71%

    72%

    72%

    60%

    66%

    86%

    92%

    100%

    Blog

    70

    68%

    68%

    74%

    40%

    61%

    86%

    100%

    100%

    Electronic Management of Assignments (EMA)*

    69

    67%

    72%

    63%

    60%

    67%

    71%

    58%

    100%

    Personal response systems (including handsets or web-based apps)

    69

    67%

    76%

    67%

    20%

    63%

    86%

    83%

    100%

    Reading list management software

    66

    64%

    66%

    70%

    30%

    61%

    57%

    83%

    100%

    Media streaming system

    65

    63%

    56%

    72%

    60%

    61%

    57%

    75%

    100%

    Webinar

    55

    53%

    62%

    49%

    30%

    52%

    57%

    58%

    100%

    Mobile apps

    53

    51%

    48%

    58%

    40%

    48%

    43%

    75%

    100%

    Synchronous collaborative tools (e.g. virtual classroom)

    50

    49%

    50%

    58%

    0%

    48%

    29%

    58%

    100%

    Wiki

    49

    48%

    50%

    51%

    20%

    40%

    86%

    75%

    100%

    Screen casting

    44

    43%

    40%

    44%

    50%

    37%

    43%

    75%

    100%

    Learning analytics tools

    32

    31%

    22%

    44%

    20%

    31%

    43%

    17%

    100%

    Content management systems

    28

    27%

    28%

    28%

    20%

    24%

    29%

    42%

    100%

    Digital/learning repository

    27

    26%

    22%

    30%

    30%

    27%

    0%

    42%

    0%

    Other centrally-supported TEL tool

    20

    19%

    22%

    19%

    10%

    16%

    29%

    33%

    100%

    Social networking

    19

    18%

    12%

    26%

    20%

    17%

    29%

    25%

    0%

    Podcasting

    17

    17%

    20%

    12%

    20%

    12%

    57%

    25%

    0%

    Electronic essay exams

    16

    16%

    22%

    12%

    0%

    13%

    14%

    33%

    0%

    Social bookmarking/content curation tools

    10

    10%

    6%

    12%

    20%

    11%

    0%

    8%

    0%

     

    Table A3.21a: Centrally-supported virtual learning environment

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    (Base: All respondents with centrally-supported VLE)

    (97)

    (46)

    (42)

    (9)

    (77)

    (7)

    (12)

    (1)

    Moodle

    49

    51%

    54%

    40%

    78%

    53%

    29%

    50%

    0%

    Blackboard

    42

    43%

    43%

    50%

    11%

    38%

    71%

    58%

    100%

    Canvas

    9

    9%

    13%

    5%

    11%

    10%

    0%

    8%

    0%

    Brightspace (by Desire2Learn)

    3

    3%

    0%

    7%

    0%

    4%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    Sakai

    2

    2%

    4%

    0%

    0%

    3%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    Sharepoint

    1

    1%

    2%

    0%

    0%

    1%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    WordPress

    1

    1%

    2%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    8%

    0%

    Aula

    1

    1%

    2%

    0%

    0%

    1%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    FutureLearn

    1

    1%

    0%

    2%

    0%

    1%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    Blackboard Learn Ultra

    1

    1%

    2%

    0%

    0%

    1%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    Blackboard Open Education

    1

    1%

    0%

    2%

    0%

    1%

    0%

    0%

    0%

     

    Table A3.21b: Centrally-supported text matching tools

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    (Base: All respondents with centrally-supported text matching tools)

    (92)

    (47)

    (39)

    (6)

    (73)

    (7)

    (11)

    (1)

    Turnitin

    86

    93%

    94%

    97%

    67%

    93%

    100%

    91%

    100%

    SafeAssign

    11

    12%

    9%

    15%

    17%

    11%

    14%

    18%

    0%

    Urkund

    4

    4%

    4%

    0%

    33%

    4%

    0%

    9%

    0%

    Ephorus

    1

    1%

    2%

    0%

    0%

    1%

    0%

    0%

    0%

     

    Table A3.21c: Centrally-supported asynchronous communication tools

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    (Base: All respondent with centrally-supported asynchronous communication tools)

    (87)

    (43)

    (35)

    (9)

    (68)

    (6)

    (12)

    (1)

    Blackboard

    33

    38%

    37%

    46%

    11%

    34%

    67%

    42%

    100%

    Moodle

    33

    38%

    40%

    29%

    67%

    40%

    17%

    42%

    0%

    VLE (unnamed)

    10

    11%

    12%

    14%

    0%

    10%

    17%

    17%

    0%

    Yammer

    5

    6%

    12%

    0%

    0%

    6%

    17%

    0%

    0%

    Canvas

    5

    6%

    9%

    0%

    11%

    6%

    0%

    8%

    0%

    Forums (unnamed)

    3

    3%

    2%

    3%

    11%

    4%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    MS Office 365

    3

    3%

    5%

    3%

    0%

    4%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    PebblePad

    1

    1%

    0%

    3%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    8%

    0%

    Campus Pack

    1

    1%

    2%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    17%

    0%

    0%

    Google+

    1

    1%

    0%

    3%

    0%

    1%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    Aula

    1

    1%

    0%

    0%

    11%

    1%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    Social media (unnamed)

    1

    1%

    0%

    0%

    11%

    1%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    WordPress

    1

    1%

    2%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    8%

    0%

    Unitu

    1

    1%

    0%

    3%

    0%

    1%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    Brightspace (by Desire2Learn)

    1

    1%

    0%

    3%

    0%

    1%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    In-house developed

    1

    1%

    2%

    0%

    0%

    1%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    Blackboard Collaborate

    1

    1%

    0%

    3%

    0%

    1%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    Google Groups

    1

    1%

    2%

    0%

    0%

    1%

    0%

    0%

    0%

     

    Table A3.21d: Centrally-supported document sharing tool

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92

    Other

    Eng

    Wal

    Scot

    NI

    (Base: All respondents with centrally-supported document sharing tool)

    (83)

    (40)

    (37)

    (6)

    (66)

    (6)

    (10)

    (1)

    MS Office 365

    69

    83%

    83%

    84%

    83%

    79%

    100%

    100%

    100%

    Google Drive

    22

    27%

    25%

    27%

    33%

    30%

    17%

    10%

    0%

    Blackboard

    2

    2%

    3%

    3%

    0%

    3%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    Box

    2

    2%

    5%

    0%

    0%

    3%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    OneDrive

    2

    2%

    3%

    3%

    0%

    3%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    In-house developed

    1

    1%

    3%

    0%

    0%

    2%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    Drop Box

    1

    1%

    3%

    0%

    0%

    2%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    Email

    1

    1%

    3%

    0%

    0%

    2%

    0%

    0%

    0%

    Overleaf

    1

    1%

    3%

    0%

    0%

    2%

    0%

    0%

    0%

     

    Table A3.21e: Centrally-supported formative e-Assessment tool

    Response

    Total

    Type

    Country

    No

    %

    Pre-92

    Post-92