THE STATE OF ILT IN FE COLLEGES

Report to the National Learning Network Programme Board

Of A Survey Into Information And Learning Technology
Provision, Access And Policy In FE Colleges In England with
additional information drawn from updated college ILT
strategies.

by
Bob Powell

Steve Davies

November 2001

1
Acknowledgements
Bob Powell is Associate Director: Lifelong Learning at Becta. Steve Davies is Project
Officer with the Ferl team and carried out the bulk of the statistical analysis.
Claire Gill and Sarah Swaney of the Ferl team provided cogent analysis of the
college ILT strategy updates.

The questionnaire was based on one initially developed for the 1999 survey by Alison
Page of Becta. This survey, like its predecessors, has benefited from the comments
and observations of a range of individuals and agencies, including members of the FE
ILT Committee and its successor body, the National Learning Network Programme
Board, officers of the Department for Education and Skills, the Learning and Skills
Council, the Learning and Skills Development Agency (formerly FEDA), NILTA
and the Joint Information Systems Committee.

Particular thanks are due to Kevin Donovan of LSDA, who organised a one day
seminar on evaluation of the impact of ILT, with particular reference to the National
Learning Network, at which the main findings of this report were first aired, and to
the members of that group for their feedback.

The online survey facility was provided by Infopoll.

2
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................ 2
The State of ILT in FE colleges ..................................................................................... 5
Report of a Survey into Information and Learning Technology provision, access
and policy in FE colleges in England, September 2001 ............................................ 5
1. Management Summary .......................................................................................... 5
1.1 Overall summary................................................................................................ 5
1.2 The survey.......................................................................................................... 5
1.3 College computer infrastructure ........................................................................ 5
Computer stock .......................................................................................................... 5
Local Area Networks ................................................................................................. 6
Internet Connectivity ................................................................................................. 6
1.4 Access to Computers.......................................................................................... 6
Managing demand for computer use.......................................................................... 7
Staff access to computers ........................................................................................... 7
1.5 Uses of ILT ........................................................................................................ 7
Access to Email.......................................................................................................... 8
Intranet and Extranet .................................................................................................. 8
Virtual Learning Environments and Student tracking ............................................... 8
1.6 Staff skills .......................................................................................................... 8
1.7 ILT Champions .................................................................................................. 8
1.9 Access in the community ................................................................................... 9
2 The Survey ........................................................................................................... 10
2.1 Context and purpose of the study..................................................................... 10
2.2 Survey methodology and response .................................................................. 10
3. Infrastructure ............................................................................................................ 12
3.1 College computer stock...................................................................................... 12
3.2 Baseline specification ........................................................................................ 13
3.3 Local Area Network ........................................................................................... 16
3.4 LAN Performance .............................................................................................. 17
3.5 Internet Connectivity ....................................................................................... 19
3.6 Constraints on Internet use............................................................................... 20
4. Access to Computers................................................................................................ 22
4.1 Access for learners ............................................................................................. 22
Access to Internet–enabled computers..................................................................... 23
4.2 Managing demand for student access ................................................................ 24
4.3 Location of computers for learners .................................................................... 26
4.4 Access for Staff .................................................................................................. 27
4.5 Mode of access for staff ..................................................................................... 28
5. Uses of ILT .............................................................................................................. 30
5.1 Staff Use of the LAN/ Intranet........................................................................... 30
5.2 Access to Email.................................................................................................. 33
5.3 Intranet and Extranet use ................................................................................... 34
5.4 Virtual Learning Environments and Student tracking ....................................... 35
5.5 Tracking Learner Activity................................................................................ 37
6. Staff skills ............................................................................................................... 39
6.1 Staff IT and ILT Competence ............................................................................ 39
8 Access in the community ..................................................................................... 43
8.1 Providing access in the community ................................................................. 43
8.2 Use of community links ................................................................................... 44

3
Appendix : Messages from the Strategy updates ......................................................... 45
Background .............................................................................................................. 45
ILT Vision ................................................................................................................ 45
Managing the Strategy. ............................................................................................ 45
Infrastructure ............................................................................................................ 46
Physical location of computers ................................................................................ 47
ILT in Learning and Teaching ................................................................................. 47
Managed Learning Environments ............................................................................ 47
Staff Development ................................................................................................... 48
ILT Champions ........................................................................................................ 49
Access In The Community....................................................................................... 49

4
 The State of ILT in FE colleges

Report of a Survey into Information and Learning Technology provision,

access and policy in FE colleges in England, September 2001

1. Management Summary

1.1 Overall summary

This survey shows that most colleges now have the computer infrastructure that
FEFC‟s FEILT Committee in 1999 considered necessary to support effective
learning. Robust local area networks link nearly all of the sector‟s estimated 260,000
computers (170,000 new since 1999) to the Internet through 2Mbps JANET
connections. The typical English college has achieved or bettered the sector strategy
target of one internet enabled computer for every 5 FTE students. 85% of colleges
have achieved or bettered last year’s average of 7:1. In 1999, by contrast, the 85th
percentile was 106:1. Sector colleges now have one internet enabled computer for
every two permanent teaching staff, though progress towards the 1:1 target is slow.
Embedding ILT into practice is beginning to grow, with information searching on the
internet and email commonplace amongst staff and learners. Other uses of the
network for e-learning are in evidence, but on a relatively small scale in most
institutions. The use of ILT Champions to lead development is widespread, but there
is a clear need for substantial staff development built around a shared understanding
of what constitutes good practice and what skills are needed to bring it about.

1.2 The survey

242 Colleges (57% of the Sector) submitted completed questionnaires in time for
inclusion in the analysis. 110 colleges (45% of the analysed data set) submitted their
replies electronically using the web- based version of the questionnaire. The sample
obtained closely reflects the characteristics of the larger population and leads us to a
high degree of confidence in the data. The survey findings are supplemented by
observations drawn from an examination of the updates to college ILT Strategy
documents which were submitted at the same time as the survey.

1.3 College computer infrastructure

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

5
baseline specification or better. A further one-quarter of stock is Pentium II
specification or better. Pentium I machines have gone down from 19% of stock in
summer 2000 to 6%, while the 486s that made up one quarter of computers in 1999
now account for only1%.
A rough estimate of the actual number of computers in the 420 English colleges is
around 260,000, up from 160,000 in February 1999. No more than a third of the
current stock has survived since 1999, which suggests that a minimum of 170,000
new computers have gone into colleges since that date for use in teaching and
learning.
The average price paid for a middle range specification computer is £700. Prices paid
have fallen since last year by around £100 for lower specification machines and £200
for higher specification.

Local Area Networks

95% of computers are networked; 60% of colleges have all student machines
networked, whilst 69% report that all staff computers are attached to the network.
Local area networks are more extensive, robust and can support greater traffic than in
1999. Two-thirds of colleges now have a 100 Mbps Ethernet backbone and 14% have
a gigabit LAN, up from 1% in 1999, when 10Mbps was the most common bandwidth.
Leased line accounts for 44% of links between different sites in multi-site colleges,
while wire-less technologies make up a further 20%.
54% of LANs are at full capacity, whilst the number unable to cope with current
demand has fallen to 5%. 80% of colleges, however, restrict network traffic in
bandwidth hungry applications.
Only 3% of colleges now experience frequent problems of network performance. 47%
describe their network as working without appreciable delay, though about half report
the network to be slow at busy times.

Internet Connectivity
All colleges have a 2Mbps Internet connection via JANET. 36% have or plan
additional bandwidth (41% in 2000). Although there is no overall relationship
between planned bandwidth and college size, 85% of those seeking greater bandwidth
are larger than average in terms of student numbers. JANET is ISP for 54% of the
additional bandwidth.
Technical constraints remain the most pressing barrier to increased use of the Internet,
but have declined in relative importance, while pedagogical issues of course design
and student skills have grown in significance. Issues of inappropriate use of the
Internet continue to concern colleges.

1.4 Access to Computers

The mean number of f.t.e students per computer has fallen from 5.5:1 in 2000 to 4.7:
1 in 2001 (1999 = 8.2:1). The median value (the ratio of colleges at the middle of the
range of values) is 4.5:1 (7.6:1). Only 4% of colleges have 8:1 or greater, (43% in
1999). Sixth Form colleges have a median ratio of 4.1: 1, compared with 4.5:1 for
General Further Education colleges and 5.7: 1 for land-based colleges.

6
The median number of f.t.e. students to computers with Internet access is now
4.95:1 (21:1 in 1999) indicating that the typical college has now achieved the FEFC
target of 1: 5. 85% of colleges have now achieved or bettered last year’s average
of 7:1. In 1999, by contrast, the 85th percentile was 106:1.

Managing demand for computer use

Demand for ILT by students is widespread, with consequent strain on college stocks.
Demand continues to rise to swallow up new machines. Only 5% of colleges say that
they could satisfy any increase in demand, while 57% are operating at full capacity.
28% cannot meet current demand (47% in 1999) . 80% of respondents say that
students may find it difficult to get on a machine at busy times. 75% of colleges can
meet current demand for Internet access.
20% of college stock is described as open access, (25% in 2000). 3% managing all
computers this way (4.5% in 2000). The volume of new equipment, means that whilst
the proportion of stock, has fallen, the actual number of open access machines has
risen. 74% of colleges now make some part of their computing facility available at
the weekend (60% in 2000).

Staff access to computers

The median value of the ratio of permanent staff to internet-connected computers is
1.9:1, down from 3 staff for every machine in 2000 and an estimated 7:1 in 1999. The
NLN target of 1 internet-connected computer for every permanent member of
teaching and learning support staff has been achieved or bettered by 15% of colleges
and a further 15% has achieved a ratio below 1.5:1. The ratio of all staff to internet-
connected computers is 3.5:1, compared with 12:1 in 1999. 95% of staff computers
are networked and 98% of these are internet-connected.
60% of colleges say that most staff shared a computer in a staff room, though 27%
report that most permanent staff have their own designated computer, (5% in 1999).

1.5 Uses of ILT

Email and Internet access are common practice in most colleges (82% and
90%respectively) Staff use of the LAN for advice and guidance has doubled since
1999, from 43% to 86%. 94% of colleges now use the LAN for both learning
materials and course document storage and access (1999 = 60% ). Staff in nearly
20% of colleges engage in online delivery and support of learning as a regular part of
professional practice.
.Student use of college LANs follows a similar pattern to staff use, though typically
tracking behind staff in the extent of use Internet access remains the principal use,
though the other activities have increased significantly

The main Internet activities remain information gathering and e-mail. Two-thirds of
the sample use the Internet to support distance-learning, almost three times as many as
in 1999, though it is common practice in only 5%.

7
Access to Email
There is a robust infrastructure in place for electronic communications with staff as
widespread subscription to college email supplements well-developed intranets. 74%
of full time and 57% of part time students have a college email address. This may
understate the extent of access to email, given a reliance in some institutions on
Hotmail for students. 95% of permanent staff have a personal email address, whilst
only 3% have no access to email. The split between provision of an internal service
(40%) and an external service (48%) or both (11%) is almost unchanged from last
year.

Intranet and Extranet

88% of colleges have an Intranet which is local to the institution, whilst a further 8%
have developed a shared facility. The growth by 9% since 2000 in the number of
colleges using an Intranet is offset by a reduction of 4% in the number sharing an
Extranet.

Virtual Learning Environments and Student tracking

51 % of respondents stated that they currently use a VLE, up from 30% last year,
though only 13 colleges describe their use as common practice.
61% of general F.E. colleges reported using VLEs compared with only 27% of Sixth
form colleges. In house systems accounted for largest share (17%) of the total
reported.
57% of colleges use systems to track learner activity, compared with 44% last year.
Sixth form colleges are the bigger users of student tracking systems , 77% reporting
them compared with 52% of general F.E. colleges.

1.6 Staff skills

70% of staff are considered by respondents to be competent or advanced in their

personal use of IT, compared with 67% in 2000. However, in the use of ILT with
learners, only 48% college staff are considered competent or advanced. (2000 =
42%). 15 colleges considered a greater proportion of staff to be competent of ILT in
the classroom than in their personal use of IT, evidence of some staff development
strategies that take learning applications, rather than office applications, as a starting
point for staff competence. College strategy updates suggest that these results may
overstate the actual levels of ILT skills amongst staff.

1.7 ILT Champions

1.8
92% of sector colleges have ILT Champions. 48% of colleges also have a Senior
Management ILT Champion. The average number of Champions in a college is 3.
Key functions include support of staff, development of materials, identification of
resources and training of staff. The average remission from teaching responsibilities is
3 hours per week, but 32% get no remission.

8
1.9 Access in the community
1.10
48% of colleges provide community ILT access, up from 38%. Around 30% of
colleges offer learning programmes that include remote submission of assessed work,
online advice and guidance, together with contact with tutors and peers, typically
small in scale. It is described as common practice by only 2% of colleges.
25% of college now provide access via ILT for home-based learners, compared with
19% in 2000. The results suggest an increasing commitment within the sector to
develop and extend online modes of learning.

9
2 The Survey
2.1 Context and purpose of the study
This study was carried out in September 2001 on behalf of the Learning and Skills
Council in order to assess progress in the provision of information and learning
technology within the sector. Two previous studies, undertaken in February 1999 and
September 2000, provide comparative data to judge the impact of the provision of £74
million over three-years for the development of ILT infrastructure in the sector.

2.2 Survey methodology and response

The Study took the form of a survey by questionnaire of all 426 FEFC colleges in
England, exploring quantitative issues relating to infrastructure and practice. The
questionnaire was published and disseminated in both paper-based and web-based
formats;
242 Colleges (57% of the Sector) submitted completed questionnaires in time for
inclusion in the analysis. 110 colleges (45% of the analysed data set) submitted their
replies electronically using the web- based version of the questionnaire. Table 1
shows the breakdown by type of college.

Table 1 Respondents by college type

College type Respondents Sector
Art and Design college 1% 2%
Agricultural college 7% 6%
Designated college 2% 3%
Further education college 68% 65%
Sixth form college 23% 25%
Total 100% 100%

The breakdown by college type reveals that the sample is sufficiently close to the
distribution of colleges in the population to ensure a high level of confidence in any
inferences drawn from the data. The actual number of Art and Design colleges (2) and
specialist Designated colleges (5) in the sample reflects the small number in the
sector, but prevents us from making specific observations about them as a group.

The regional breakdown of respondents is shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Respondents by regional location

Region Respondents Sector
East Midlands 9% 8%

10
 Eastern Region 9% 8%
Greater London 12% 14%
North East 5% 6%
North West 15% 15%
South East 18% 17%
South West 8% 9%
West Midlands 13% 13%
Yorkshire & Humberside 11% 10%
Total 100% 100%

Tables 1 and 2 taken together demonstrate that the colleges that responded to the
survey closely match the sector in regional spread and college type. This, taken with
the high response rate for the survey, leads us to a high degree of confidence in the
data.
The survey was detailed and was conducted within a tight time scale. It is
understandable, therefore, that as a consequence some returns were incomplete in
some sections. For this reason the basis of calculation in the report varies from the
sample maximum at times.

11
3. Infrastructure
3.1 College computer stock

The original Becta survey of ILT in colleges, carried out in February 1999, found that
only 38% of computers available for learning purposes were of an acceptable standard
for use with Internet applications. The specification (arbitrarily) chosen was Pentium
II/ MMX. From the survey of 2000 onwards, we have asked colleges to use their own
baseline specification for an acceptable level of performance and to delineate stock
against this benchmark. This is more robust as a basis of comparison over time, since
it matches the continual changes in technology of computers with changes in user
expectations and increased technical demands of current software. It will tend to
understate the proportion of machines capable of delivering an acceptable level of
service for users if the baseline is set against the rapid escalation of marketplace
specifications, rather than a more humble, but serviceable, notion of user requirements
and expectations.
For reasons of comparison, we again asked respondents to count the numbers of
computers built on 486 and Pentium 1 processors.

1 4
6

26 Baseline spec or better

Above Pentium I
Pentium I
486 and below
63
Apple

Chart 1: College computer stock (% of total)

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

12
further one-quarter of stock is as good or better than the Pentium II specification we
set as benchmark in February 1999, whilst the Pentium I machines that made up 19%
of stock in summer 2000 had fallen to 6% by summer 2001.

Chart 2 maps the change in computer stock over the period of the National Learning
Network initiative. A significant transformation has seen the 486 machines that made
up one quarter of computers in 1999 and 5% in 2000 fall to a mere 1%.

Chart 2: Change in computer stock 1999-2001

70

60

50

40 1999
2000
30 2001

20

10

0
Baseline Above Pentium I 486 and Apple
spec or Pentium I below
better

These relative changes are all the more dramatic when set against the increase in
absolute numbers of computers in colleges. A very rough estimate that can be inferred
from the data is that the actual number of computers in the 420 English colleges is
around 260,000, compared with around 160,000 in February 1999. An equally rough
calculation suggests that no more than a third of the current stock has survived since
1999, giving a conservative estimate of the total number of new computers bought
since that date for use in teaching and learning of around 170,000, yielding a net
increase of 100,000 above the replacement investment of 70,000 machines.
A more meaningful measure of the impact of new investment is to be found on the
improvement in the ratios of access to Internet-enabled computers for both students
and staff (see 4.1 below).

3.2 Baseline specification

Respondents were asked to describe the baseline specification that they would
currently consider buying for college purposes, in terms of its speed, RAM and hard
disk capacity. They were also asked to describe what they would consider the current
„best buy‟ specification. The three dimensions of speed and memory were then

13
weighted to produce eight bands representing machines of increasing capability.
Table 3 below shows a typical specification for each band.
43% of colleges have set as their baseline a 500 MHz, or slower, computer with 32
Mb of RAM. The median baseline specification is 500 Mhz with 64 Mb of RAM and
6Gb hard disk. One in four colleges this year regard 128 Mb of RAM as the
benchmark, with concomitant faster speeds and hugely expanded hard disk capacity.
In general, however, the results suggest a concern for user expectation and experience
rather than technical innovation as the driver for setting a baseline.

Table 3 Computer specifications

Typical band specifications 2001
2000 values

Speed (MHz) RAM (Mb) Hard disk Baseline Best buy

(Gb) specification specification
Band 1 200 32 2 18 29 0 0

Band 2 500 32 4 25 25 0 9

Band 3 500 64 6 15 23 4 30

Band 4 650 64 10 15 20 15 47

Band 5 650 128 15 8 2 23 8

Band 6 700 128 20 13 0 34 3

Band 7 750 256 20 2 0 6 3

Band 8 1000 256 20 3 0 16 0

Data = % of respondents

The best buy, by contrast, is typically a significantly higher specification than the
baseline. Although 29% of respondents cite the same specification for both baseline
and best buy, the average best buy is two bands higher than the quoted baseline
specification. This could simply reflect the continual upward movement of technical
offer within the marketplace; colleges may define a baseline requirement in terms of
user needs, but find it cheaper to buy over-specified machines, or indeed impossible
to buy the baseline as the market has moves rapidly on.

Colleges were also asked if there were any other factors that they considered critical
when purchasing a computer. The key issues remain the same as last year: robustness,
support and price. 57% of respondents (2000 = 65%) identify build quality and
reliability as a critical factor to be considered when buying a workstation. An almost
unchanged 55% cite after-sales care (warranty, maintenance, service and support).
Price is the only other significant factor, considered critical by 43%, compared with
31% a year ago. This rise may indicate a market in which bargains are available for
the buyer who is willing to search, or simply the need to maximise the number of

14
machines for any given budget. Both views are supported by the data, which indicate
large volumes of computers being acquired at lower prices, on average, than in 2000.
We observed last year that the market for computers in FE seems to be fairly
sophisticated, with buyers clearly able to articulate their needs and well armoured
against hype. This continues to be the case, with only 2% of respondents rating a
named brand as critical. Only 1% now consider future-proofing to be important. This
may reflect the common view that the effective life of college computers is only three
years, future-proofed or not. Recent experience is that change has been characterised
by different technology rather than the model of the same technology plus more
memory and add-ons that future proofing often assumes. A more practical
consideration may be that the physical battering taken by heavily used college stock
puts it beyond resuscitation.

Table 4 Prices for “best buy” computer

Median price £ Lowest price £ Highest price £
Band 3 650 485 850
Band 4 650 440 850
Band 5 700 380 900
Band 6 650 400 1000
Band 7 755 500 1200
Band 8 750 500 1200

Table 4 shows the prices colleges report as their best buy for machines in each band.
The spread between highest and lowest price is again notable. The spread of the prices
paid within bands by different colleges is more extreme than the spread of median
prices between bands. The average prices paid for all 5 of the popular bands is
covered by a £105 difference, from £650 to £755. The mean average prices are pulled
upwards by the extremes, but differ by no more than £30 at most from the median
value. A comparison with the prices quoted by colleges last year reveals a significant
fall in the average price paid of around £100 for bands 4 and 5 (£138 and £102 less
than the respective 2000 price) and around £200 for bands 6 and 7 (£191 and £213
less).
The prices reported by Sixth Form colleges in the last survey were systematically
lower than those paid by F.E. colleges. This is no longer the case. The midpoint and
range of prices reported by both groups are now essentially the same.

15
3.3 Local Area Network

The specification of college Local Area Networks (LAN) has risen in line with the
specification and volume of the computers that they support. 95% of all computers are
networked; 60% of colleges report that all machines for student use are networked,
whilst 69% report that all staff computers are attached to the network.
Ethernet technology dominates college networks. Chart 3 shows the dramatic increase
in LAN bandwidth since 1999, when 10 mbps Ethernet accounted for 63% of
networks. Two out of every three colleges now has a 100 mbps Ethernet backbone,
with 14% having a gigabit LAN (up from 1% in 1999 and 9% last year).

Chart 3: Local Area Network- Backbone

70

60

50

40 10M Ethernet
100M Ethernet
30 Gigabit Ethernet

20

10

0
1999 2000 2001

38% of colleges have only one site. The remainder face the problem of extending
their LAN to connect different sites. 23% of respondents have four or more sites,
including 5 very large colleges with more than 10 major sites each.

Table 5 Connecting sites

2001 2000 1999
44 44 43
Leased line
4 12 12
Modem
14 17 31
ISDN

16
 20 15 11
Wire-less
technologies
16 11 16
Cable
Data = % of connections between sites

Table 5 shows the percentage of connections that are accounted for by each
technology. Whilst leased line continues to dominate, wire-less connections have
increased substantially. Wire-less technologies, which is used to include all such
media, including radio, microwave and laser, have nearly doubled in use, despite the
constraints that restrict the use of variants requiring clear line-of-sight to operate. 38%
of the multi-site colleges utilise multiple technologies to connect their sites, including
one college which employs 5 separate technologies.

3.4 LAN Performance

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

improvement in performance and in capability to meet demand. Chart 4 shows that
there has indeed been such an improvement.
In 1999, only 24% of colleges had the capacity to meet an increase in demand upon
the network, whilst 22% could not cope with existing calls upon them. By 2001, 38%
of respondents say that they could cope with a significant increase in traffic. The
number struggling to deliver has fallen to 5%. Despite the improvement in LAN
specification, over half of the sector is still stretched to full capacity. This seems to
confirm that the notion of a motorway effect, which sees traffic rapidly adjust upwards
each time an additional lane is opened, is still an appropriate description of the nature
of demand for ILT in colleges.
These data must be seen against a backcloth of substantial increases in demand upon
networks. Not only must each college network support its share of the additional
100,000 machines we estimate to have been added since 1999, but it must also deal
with the increased proportion of the total that are networked (95%) rather than stand-
alone. The burden is further increased, moreover, by the increasing use of networked
applications.

17
Chart 4 : Network capability to meet demand

70
Percentage of respondents

60
50
Over-stretched
40
At capacity
30
Spare capacity
20
10
0
1999 2000 2001
Over-stretched 22 9 5
At capacity 54 62 57
Spare capacity 24 27 38

Colleges continue to restrict network traffic in bandwidth hungry applications. Four

out of every five colleges identify large files as an actual or potential source of
problems on the network, and hence look to control their use. This is only 4% fewer
than the 84% who cited large files as a problem in 1999.

Table 6 Network performance

2001 2000 1999
47 38 35
Always smooth without appreciable delay
49 56 60
Generally works well but slow at busy times
3 4 5
Slowness/unreliability a frequent problem
Data = % of colleges

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

indicators. The number who experience frequent problems has fallen to 3% of sector
colleges. More dramatic has been the rise to 47% in the proportion of colleges who
describe their network as always smooth, without appreciable delay and the decline to
just below half of all colleges who report the network performance to be slow at busy
times. Those students whose networked learning is scheduled at such busy times,
however, almost certainly find their experience systematically worse than winners in

18
the lottery of timetable slots who find they are scheduled to use the network when
traffic is low. This notwithstanding, the improvement since 1999 is impressive,
particularly given the increased demands on the network described above.

3.5 Internet Connectivity

All colleges now have a free 2Mbps Internet connection via JANET as part of the
National Learning Network (NLN) initiative. Table 7 shows that just over one-third of
these (36%) have, or plan to have additional bandwidth. This has fallen from 41% of
colleges who stated an intention in 2000 to go beyond 2Mbps. The most significant
fall has been the reduction by a half of those colleges planning to have between 2 and
3 Mbps. The fall in this group by 6% of colleges almost exactly matches the increase
in those planning to stick with the free 2Mbps. It seems plausible to infer that this is
the result of colleges deciding that the benefits arising from, or the volume of traffic
flowing through, relatively small amounts of additional bandwidth do not justify the
cost.

Table 7 Total Planned Bandwidth

Bandwidth 2001 2000
64 59
2 Mbps
6 12
2-3 Mbps
18 19
4 Mbps
0 1
6 Mbps
3 1
8 Mbps
5 4
10 Mbps and more
Data = % of respondents

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

bandwidth and college size. We tested this using FTE student enrolment as a proxy
for size. The correlation coefficient, r, of 0.28 indicates that this year, as last, there is
no relationship to be detected between large student numbers and large bandwidth.
The profile of colleges planning bandwidth of 3Mbps and above is significantly
different from last year, however, with a much clearer tendency for those seeking
larger bandwidth to be larger colleges. 85% are larger than the sector median value of
FTE student numbers, whilst half of the largest 10% intend to take on greater
bandwidth. Clearly this means that the other half are content with 2Mbps for the near
future, as are many of the largest colleges in the sector and many with a longstanding
reputation for good practice in ILT.
Whilst a number of different Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are contracted to
provide the additional connectivity, only JANET, which has reinforced its dominance
with 54%, and BT with 10% of colleges reach double figures.

19
3.6 Constraints on Internet use
Colleges were asked to rank a list of possible constraints upon expansion of Internet
use in the order of their significance within the college. The results are shown in
Chart 5. The weighted scores are derived by giving a score of five for every time a
constraint is ranked first, four if it is ranked second and so on.

Chart 5: constraints on increased use of the Internet

Access points

Access speeds
Constraint

1999
Course design 2000
2001
Student skills

No interest

0 1 2 3 4
Weighted score

On this basis, the technical constraints remain the most significant barrier to increased
use of the Internet. The number of access points continues to be seen as a key
constraint, despite the large influx of Internet-capable machines into colleges. We
must interpret this against the concomitant rise in demand for Internet access, which
other data in the survey and the following observation from a college confirm:

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

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

capability to support the now universal JANET connections comes in the continuing
decline in access speeds as a constraint.
As technical hurdles are surmounted and as use of the Internet becomes
commonplace, pedagogical issues have grown in importance. For staff, course design
and planning to exploit the possibilities of the Web have edged up the rankings,
together with the student skills needed to engage effectively with the Internet as a
tool.

20
Colleges were invited to list other factors restricting growth. The only major factor
was that of inappropriate use, including restriction of access to unsuitable sites, cited
by 11% of all respondents, the same proportion as last year. A new element was the
problem of access for remote sites, noted by 8 colleges. References to other issues
commonly cited in previous years have fallen in number. Staffing issues and
bandwidth concerns have both halved in number of mentions, each being cited by 4%
of respondents, whilst the cost issues which concerned 4% of colleges in 2000 are
referred to by only 2 colleges.

21
4. Access to Computers

4.1 Access for learners

The survey requested an actual count of computers available within the college.
Based on this data, calculations were made of the availability of computers for both
students and staff within colleges. The proxy variables that have been calculated to
estimate this are the ratios of computers to students and to staff. These measures were
used in the 1999 and 2000 studies and allow comparisons to be drawn. They are also
the format used by the Further Education Funding Council to define the targets for
access to computers which it encouraged colleges to seek to achieve by 2002.
There is no single, unambiguous measure of student numbers that can safely be used
to calculate access ratios. The use of full time equivalent (f.t.e.) student data as a basis
for calculations reflects a recognition that they make an allowance for total hours of
attendance, which other possible measures such as a simple count of student numbers
do not. This allows us to get closer to the underlying question – how easy is it for a
student to access a computer within the institution. We have not attempted to
distinguish particular groups of students, nor to separate out attendance mode, pattern
or site, though we recognise that these may have a significant influence in
determining access in practice.
The analysis used the latest complete set of f.t.e student data available from LSC,
which covers student numbers for academic year 1999/00. If student numbers have
changed dramatically over the period, then comparing them with computers in 2001
will distort the apparent ratio. Information about changes in enrolments in the
intervening period suggests that any such effect is likely to be minimal, i.e. that the
calculated ratios are a true reflection of the actual situation in colleges in September
2001.

We have examined two key statistics:

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

The improvement since 1999 in the availability of computers for students is shown in
Chart 6.
The mean average number of f.t.e students per computer has fallen from 5.5:1 in 2000
to 4.7: 1 in 2001 (1999 = 8.2:1). The median value (the ratio of colleges at the middle
of the range of values) is 4.5:1 (7.6:1). The dispersion of values is far less than in
1999, with fewer colleges having very high ratios. The highest value calculated for
2001 was 11:1 at a single college, whilst only 10 colleges (4% of the respondents) had
ratios of 8:1 or greater. This compares with 43% who had ratios of 8:1 or worse in
1999. The median value is, nonetheless, likely to be the better estimate of the typical
situation within sector colleges.

22
 Chart 6: Ratio of f.t.e. students to all computers

More than 20:1

12:1 to 20:1
8:1 to 12:1
7:1 2001
6:1 2000
5:1 1999

4:1
3:1
Better than 3:1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Better More
8:1 to 12:1 to
than 3:1 4:1 5:1 7:1 than
12:1 20:1
3:1 20:1
2001 5 15 29 26 7 4 0
2000 1 11 21 26 9 11 1
1999 0 3 4 14 16 33 7 3
% of colleges

A difference emerges between the types of colleges in level of resource. Sixth Form
colleges have a median ratio of 4.1: 1, compared with 4.5:1 (identical to the overall
median) for General Further Education colleges and 5.7: 1 for land-based colleges.
The dispersion of values, as measured by both standard deviation and inter-quartile
range is relatively low for sixth-form and land-based colleges, indicating a clustering
around the average values, which suggests that these are indeed typical values.
An unpublished Becta study in August 1999 found a similar disparity between sixth-
form and general F.E. colleges, which seems to have persisted over time.

Access to Internet–enabled computers

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

below shows. The median number of f.t.e. students to computers with Internet access
is now 4.95:1 indicating that the typical college has now achieved the FEFC target of
1: 5. This compares with a median of 21:1 in 1999, which had fallen to 7:1 by last
year. 85% of colleges have now achieved 7:1 or better. In 1999, by contrast, the 85th
percentile was 106:1. This single statistic, perhaps more than any other in this report,
reveals the extent to which colleges have transformed the computing facility available
to learners over the period of the NLN initiative.

23
 20 +

13 to 20

8 to 12

7 2001
2000
6 1999

3 or better

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

3 or 13 to
4 5 6 7 8 to 12 20 +
better 20
2001 17 26 21 14 10 9 2 1
2000 5 16 13 15 11 18 7 14
1999 0 1 2 4 5 21 14 51
% of colleges

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

4.2 Managing demand for student access

The improvement in the number of high specification computers available for use by
learners has transformed the capability of colleges to deal with a level of demand for
ILT which they overwhelmingly describe as widespread. Just under half of
institutions (47%) reported that they could not cope with the demand for computers in
1999. As Chart 8 shows, this fell to 39% last year and now stands at 28%, or just over
a quarter of colleges.

24
Chart 8: meeting student demand for computers

70

60

50

40

30
1999
20 2000
2001
10

0
Cope with more
Unable to cope Able to cope
demand
1999 47 46 4
2000 39 50 3
2001 28 61 5

% of colleges

Despite the scale of new investment, only one in twenty say that they could cope with
more demand for computers, reinforcing the notion that the motorway effect is still in
evidence.

The same general picture applies to meeting demand for Internet access. Table 8
indicates that the number of colleges who are unable to meet current demand has
fallen from just over a half in 1999 to exactly one-quarter. 11% report that they can
cope with greater demand, twice as many as report themselves able to cope with
greater demand for computers per se.

25
Table 8 Meeting student demand for Internet access
College capability 2001 2000 1999
25 39 54
Cannot cope with current demand
58 45 25
Can cope with current demand
11 7 5
Can cope with greater demand
Base = % of colleges

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

conditions of access. Queuing remains a feature of learners‟ access to computing
facilities. Four out of every five colleges say that students may find it difficult to get
on a machine at busy times. Half of these (44% of respondents) see unrestricted
access for learners as a priority, though the continuing encroachment of the motorway
effect into new stock may make this more difficult to sustain than to achieve.
Access to the internet is relatively easier, assuming that a student has found a place at
a computer. 44% of respondents now describe use of computers for internet access as
easy at any time, whilst over a half (56%) report that learners are likely to queue at
busy times.

Table 9 Ease of internet use

Bandwidth 2001 2000
44 34
Easy at any time
56 62
Wait or queue at busy times
0 1
Difficult outside lessons
0 3
Limited access

4.3 Location of computers for learners

There has been a fall in the share of total stock made available to learners as open
access. On average, 20% of college stock is described as open access, compared with
25% in 2000. The interquartile range suggests that from 12% to 33% of stock is made
accessible this way in the middle 50% of colleges. Only 3% of colleges manage all
the stock as open access, a figure which has fallen from 4.5% in 2000, while a mere
2% of colleges report no open access facility.
This reduction in the proportion of stock managed as open access could be a matter of
pragmatism rather than policy. This report has estimated that 100,000 new computers
have been acquired by the sector in the past two years. Given the relative inflexibility
of accommodation in most colleges, it was unlikely that it would be possible to house

26
them all in open learning centres, even if college ILT managers believe open access to
be more pedagogically effective or more efficient in terms of resource allocation.
Managing open access to classroom-based computers is more problematical and less
efficient than managing large open plan areas
The sheer scale of new equipment, however, suggests that whilst the proportion of
total stock made available on open access has fallen, the actual number of open access
machines has risen. If this is true, then a preference for open access is still in
evidence, but further moves in this direction are currently frustrated by the expense of
knocking down brick walls.

There is evidence of greater accessibility for learners to stock throughout the week.
Almost three-quarters of all colleges (74%) now make some part of their computing
facility available at the weekend, a substantial increase on 2000, when the figure was
60%. About one in four of the weekend colleges offer open access facilities only,
whilst roughly the same number offer classroom access (and by implication, tutor-
directed activity) only.
Those whose offer of computer access is restricted to daytime has fallen, from 4.5%
last year to less than 2% of institutions in 2001.
The survey explored conditions of access to stock, rather than computer use. The data
suggest that at times when only part of the stock is in use, as may be the case at
lunchtime, twilight sessions and at the weekend, the restricted access, classroom-
based stock that is used disproportionately less. College policy almost certainly
supports this to the extent that a small number of large open access areas are more
efficient to staff and administer than a larger number of relatively small classrooms.
It may be inferred from this that whilst a typical college may have one machine in five
as open access, the proportion of demand falling upon open access machines is greater
than 20%. This may offer an explanation for the preponderance of colleges who cite
queues at busy times, yet declare themselves more than able to meet demand: if only
20% of total stock is available on open access, a large number of the new machines
are locked away behind classroom doors when learners want to use them. This clearly
is not a simple problem to resolve. Accommodation is one of the more intractable
elements of change within the ILT equation.

4.4 Access for Staff

The provision of computers for the exclusive use of staff has continued its steady
improvement. The NLN target of 1 internet-connected computer for every permanent
member of teaching and learning support staff has been achieved or bettered by only
15% of colleges, though a further 15% has achieved a ratio below 1.5:1. This accords
with a general preference, expressed in the strategy documents submitted by colleges
to Becta during summer 2000 for giving early priority to resources for students, rather
than staff. This position is reaffirmed by the strategy updates for 2001 and its
translation into practice is clearly demonstrated by achievement of the student access
ratios reported above.
The actual achievement of colleges in providing computers for staff is better reflected
in the median value of the ratio of internet-connected computers to permanent staff,

27
which has fallen from 3 staff for every machine in 2000, down to 1.9 in 2001. The
figure imputed for 1999 (when the question was not directly asked) is 7:1.

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

Bandwidth 2001 2000 1999
3.5 4.1 12.0
All staff
1.9 3.0 7.0 **
Permanent staff
** Estimate based on 1999 data

Table 10 further shows the improvement in access to Internet enabled computers for
all staff, which is of particular significance given the heavy reliance by colleges on
sessional staff to deliver programmes of learning. This has fallen from 12 staff for
each Internet enabled computer down to 3.5.
We have chosen not to separately report the ratios between staff and all computers,
including those without Internet capability, because they now differ little from the
figures given in Table 6. This has come about from the increasing connection of staff
computers to the college network. 95% of all computers set aside for staff use are now
networked, and 98% of these are internet-connected.

4.5 Mode of access for staff

The improvement in staff access has accompanied a move towards giving staff their
own designated machine. 27% of colleges now report that all or most staff have their
own designated computer, compared with only 5% in 1999. One in five in 1999
relied upon most staff sharing computers with students. This has fallen through 10%
in 2000 to only 6% now, though 40% still rely upon this mode of access for at least
some staff. As Table 11 indicates, however, the characteristic mode of access for staff
remains sharing a computer in a staff room.
Table 11: Staff access to computers
All/most Some/few None

Own designated 27 68 1
computer (16,5)** (79,90) (1,2)

Shared office 60 35 1
computer (64,59) (34,44) (0,0)
Shared staff/student 6 40 37
(10,20) (47,44) (31,26)
No access 5 75
(9,10) (80,81)
Data = % of colleges. Figures in italics are values for (2000, 1999)

28
Table 12 reveals college priorities changing in the light of the increase in available
resource. Sole use of a computer for all staff remains low on the priorities of colleges
(3%), whilst the achievement of a shared office computer is reported as a priority by
29%, a figure that has fallen from just over half of institutions in 1999.

Table 12: Priorities for staff access

2001 2000 1999
Priority
To a computer 15 20 18

Shared office 29 46 51
computer

Sole use 3 1 1

Data = % of respondents

The relatively low number of responses to the choices presented in the survey should
not be interpreted as indifference to the importance of providing suitable access to
staff. A consistent theme emerging from the ILT strategy updates was a recognition
by managers that staff confidence and skill with ILT will not develop without
adequate access to computers in an environment in which they feel able to learn and
to innovate.

29
5. Uses of ILT

5.1 Staff Use of the LAN/ Intranet

The survey asked respondents to distinguish whether particular applications were in

use (intermittent, occasional, small in scale) or whether they could be described as
common practice within the institution. This distinction was not made in 1999, so
limits direct comparability.

Use by staff of the college LAN for email and Internet access is now virtually
universal, both being reported by 99% of sector colleges. Both have become
extensively embedded into organisational culture: staff accessing the Internet is
described as common practice in 90% of colleges, a rise from 75% in 2000, whilst
staff use of email is common in 82% of colleges (2000 =61% ).
Equally significant, though smaller in scale, are increases reported in the use being
made of networked applications to directly support learning and teaching, through
storage and delivery of learning materials, advice and guidance and as a repository of
course documentation.

Chart 9: Teaching and Learning uses of LAN

Advice & guidance

Advice (common use)

Course documents 2001

2000
Documents (common use) 1999

Learning materials

Materials (common use)

0 20 40 60 80 100
% of colleges

30
Chart 9 shows the dramatic increase in use of the LAN for these three areas of activity
since 1999. The number of colleges in which staff make use of the LAN for advice
and guidance has exactly doubled over the period, going from 43% to 86%. A total of
94% of colleges now make some use of the LAN for both learning materials and
course document storage and access (1999 = 66%, 60% respectively).
The extent of common use is less, but the data suggest that staff in nearly 20% of
colleges are engaging in online delivery and support of learning as a regular part of
professional practice. If it is truly the case that one in five colleges have achieved
some degree of embedding of these activities into common practice, then this
represents a significant step forward in the application of ILT with learners.
This assertion must be interpreted in the light of considerable ambiguity in college
strategies about what constitutes effective practice in ILT. This accompanies a
continuing confusion in many colleges between IT/ ICT as both technology and
learning outcome per se, and ILT as the application of IT/ICT to the achievement of
learning outcomes in any and all subject areas. Few college strategies that were
submitted for evaluation in Summer 2000 demonstrated a clear vision of ILT in this
sense. The Strategy update process yielded even fewer who had refined their vision
of the place of ILT within the overall teaching and learning strategy. These
observations however should not detract from the fact that the data indicate a
significant shift in practice since 1999 towards embedding ILT into staff practice in
the vanguard of sector colleges

Table 13 Uses of the LAN/ Intranet by Staff

2001 2000 1999
Used Common Used Common Used Common

Email 99 82 98 61 91

Learning materials 94 18 88 14 66

Course documents 94 20 84 15 60

Advice & guidance 86 17 78 18 43

Internet access 99 90 99 76 89

Videoconferencing 33 1 36 0 19

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

on last year, but has only been taken into common practice by 1%. College strategy
documents suggest that where videoconferencing is used, it is typically to facilitate
meetings between staff rather than to support learners.

Table 14 shows student use of college LANs following a similar pattern to staff use,
though typically tracking behind staff in the extent of use, most notably in the use of
the LAN for email traffic. Internet access remains the principal use, though the other

31
activities have increased significantly. The data suggest that whilst the number of
colleges using the LAN for the listed activities has increased over the past year, the
extent of common use by students has not risen in train. The most intriguing aspect is
use of the LAN to access course documents. Whilst the number of colleges in which
staff both use and make common use of the LAN for storage of documents have risen,
only 9% of colleges believe that students commonly access them at present,. The
figures for staff and student participation in the other activities are more in accordance
with expectations.

Table 14 Uses of the LAN/ Intranet by Students

2001 2000 1999
Used Common Used Common Used Common

Email 88 50 82 39 64

Learning materials 87 16 80 16 74

Course documents 82 9 75 11 45

Advice & guidance 78 15 71 15 45

Internet access 97 85 99 76 91

Videoconferencing 23 0 28 1 10

Tables 15 and 16 show the uses made of the Internet by staff and students. The main
common activities of both staff and students remain information gathering and e-mail.
The marketing potential of the Internet is now exploited by virtually all colleges,
typically through the medium of the college website.
Two-thirds of the sample report using the Internet to support distance-learning, almost
three times as many as in 1999, whilst 74% use the medium to offer advice and
guidance. The number who use the web as common practice to support distance
learning remains constant at 5%, suggesting that those newly engaged in the field are
yet to convert small scale activity in distance learning into mainstream practice. This
may be as much an issue of market perceptions as of technical capability and
competence.

Table 15 Uses of the Internet by Staff

2001 2000 1999
Used Common Used Common Used Common
College marketing 96 40 83
94 45
Information resource 100 65 100
99 78
Support distance 50 5 26
learning
67 5
Admin/management 72 31 45
83 35
Advice & guidance 61 11 25
74 13

32
 Email 97 61 89
98 78

Table 16 again shows a similar picture of use by students, to that of staff. The two-
thirds of colleges that deliver distance learning on the Internet have students actively
learning and one in twenty describe it as common practice. This may be an early
indicator of the development of an active community of online tutors and students
engaging remotely in learning throughout the sector‟s colleges.

Table 16 Uses of the Internet by Students

2001 2000 1999
Used Common Used Common Used Common
Information 100 79 100 74 99
resource
Support distance 65 5 49 3 23
learning
Advice & guidance 76 13 68 13 31
Email 96 65 91 55 74

5.2 Access to Email

Chart 10: Email access

33
 Part time students

Full time students

Sessional staff
Personal address
Shared address
No access
Permanent staff

0 20 40 60 80 100
Permanent Full time Part time
Sessional staff
staff students students
No access 3 20 24 39
Shared address 2 4 2 4
Personal address 95 76 74 57

Data = % of colleges

Chart 10 shows the condition of access to email of different user groups within
colleges. 95% of permanent staff now have a personal email address, whilst only 3%
have no access to email. Over three-quarters of sessional staff have a personal address
and a further 4% share one, leaving one in five sessional staff without a college email
address. This may overstate the actual degree of engagement of sessional staff with
email within college if it simply reflects automatic allocation of an address as part of
the contract process for sessional staff. This notwithstanding, there is clearly in place
a robust infrastructure for colleges who wish to rely upon electronic communications
with staff; widespread subscription to college email now supplements well-developed
intranets. 74% of colleges have all permanent staff on the email system, with 49%
reporting full coverage of sessional staff. The respective values for full-time and
part-time students are 54% and 37%.
Almost one in four full-time students and two-fifths of part-time students have no
access to college email services. This may be a measure of the degree to which
colleges rely upon some types of external service to meet these needs and therefore
understate the true extent of access to email for students. The split between provision
of an internal service (40%) and an external service (48%) or both (11%) is almost
unchanged from last year. The survey does not specifically identify reliance upon
Hotmail or similar email provision.
Only two colleges explicitly report that they offer no email service to learners.

5.3 Intranet and Extranet use

An Intranet is essentially a website that is internal to the institution. It has all of the
capability of the Internet for storage of information in a variety of forms and for
access and dissemination throughout the network. The sharing of such a facility, or

34
part of it, with external partners, such as other colleges or local businesses, may be
termed an Extranet.

As Chart 11 shows, Intranet skills and technology are widespread in the sector. 88%
of colleges have an Intranet which is local to the institution, whilst a further 8% have
developed a shared facility. The growth by 9% since 2000 in the number of colleges
using an Intranet is offset by a reduction of 4% in the number sharing an Extranet.

Chart 11 : Intranet & Extranet

90
80
70
60
50
% of colleges
40
2000
30
2001
20
10
0
Intranet Extranet None
2000 79 12 9
2001 88 8 4
Platform

5.4 Virtual Learning Environments and Student tracking

The survey used the term Virtual Learning Environments (VLE) as the sector‟s
preferred term for software packages that constitute an environment in which to
deliver online learning.
51 % of respondents stated that they currently use a VLE, a substantial increase on the
30% who were using them last year, though only 13 colleges describe their use as
common practice. Colleges that use a VLE often have more than one: last year 78
colleges accounted for 111 VLEs. In 2001, 121 colleges shared 180 between them.

35
 A striking difference emerged between different types of college in their adoption of
VLEs. Land-based colleges matched the overall take-up at 50% exactly. 61% of
General F.E. colleges reported using VLEs, however, compared with only 27% of
Sixth form colleges. This lends support to the anecdotal evidence of a view emerging
from sixth form colleges that they do not see VLEs as a current priority and to the
evidence arising from the sixth form colleges strategic updates. Many sixth form
colleges are strategically committed to further development of the college intranet as
platform for online learning and to whole class display technologies, such as
electronic whiteboards and data projectors. The view is by no means unanimous, with
several enthusiastic advocates of VLEs amongst the sixth form community, including
those who are developing their own.

Chart 12 below lists the most commonly cited VLEs in use in colleges. The listing is
not complete. 14 other products were named, including learndirect, but in smaller
numbers than those in the chart..
The most commonly cited commercial systems were Blackboard with 14% and
Learnwise with 11% of the systems in use, both building from relatively small market
share in 2000. WebCT , Virtual Campus and NetG Skill Vantage continued to be
well used in 2001, each accounting for between 8% and 10% of the systems in use.
The development and use of in house systems has ballooned, with 32 colleges
accounting for just over 17% of the total systems reported, compared with only 10 in
house developments noted in 2000. 16% of the in-house developments were reported
to be in common use, with Blackboard accounting for the same percentage. The
OnLinM community, based around Nathan Boddington‟s system developed at Leeds
University , boasts the highest proportion of common usage at 25%, with 2 of the
reported 8 systems so described by their colleges.

Chart 12: Most commonly cited VLEs in use

36
 In-house system

Learnwise

Blackboard

OnLinm
VLE Product

2001 Common
2001 Used
NetG Skill Vantage
2000 Common
2000 Used
WebCT

Virtual Campus

Lotus Learning Space

Fretwell Downing LE

0 10 20 30
number of colleges

5.5 Tracking Learner Activity

The number of colleges using systems to track learner activity has increased from
44% colleges in 2000 to 57% this year. As with VLEs , those colleges who use such
software seem to be trialling or mixing and matching more than one product. The 132
colleges who identified themselves as users shared 236 systems, an average of 1.8
each.
Fretwell Downing EBS was the most widely cited commercial product, with 12% of
systems, while Easi-Track and BromCom wNET each accounted for approximately
10%. As in the case of VLEs, in-house bespoke system of some type, often based
upon spreadsheet or database software are the most commonly used, making up 23%

37
or nearly twice as many as the commercial leader. A clear division emerges in the
preferences (or needs) of different segments of the sector, with Easi-Track and
Fretwell Downing systems mainly used by general FE colleges, whilst BromCom
wNET is prominent in the sixth form college market.

Chart 13: Tracking Learner Activity

VLE

Tokairo

Dolphin

2001 Common
Product

2001 Used
In house
2000 Common
2000 Used

Easi-Track

Fretwell
Downing
EBS

BromCom
wNET

0 10 20 30 40 50
% of systems

The data identify a further separation between general F.E. colleges and sixth form
colleges. We noted the significant difference in take-up of VLEs. A possible reason
might have been that sixth form colleges are more sceptical about ICT solutions, or
more technophobic. Any such suggestion is readily dispelled by the observation that
only 52% of general F.E. colleges use software to track learner activity compared
with 77% of sixth form colleges.

38
6. Staff skills

6.1 Staff IT and ILT Competence

Respondents were asked to estimate the proportion of staff with low, medium or high
levels of skill (beginner, competent, advanced), both in their personal use of IT and in
their use of ILT with learners. Definitions within these broad classifications were left
to the judgement of respondents on grounds of practicality. The research team
considered the identification of suitably bounded criteria to be a daunting task, if not
impossible within the timescale. More telling, however, was the belief that while
respondents‟ assessments of the categories would not be identical, they would share
sufficiently similar common understandings of competency to enable comparison and
judgements to be drawn from the results. An average of the values estimated by each
college was calculated for every category. The results are shown in Chart 14.

Chart 14 IT and ILT skill levels

60

50

40
% of staff

IT
30
ILT

20

10

0
Low Medium High
IT 30 52 18
ILT 52 32 16

Across the sector as a whole, 70% of staff are considered by respondents to be

competent or advanced in their personal use of IT, compared with 67% in 2000.
However, in the use of ILT with learners, only 48% college staff are considered
competent or advanced. (2000 = 42%). This suggests that one in three staff who are
competent or advanced in their personal use of IT are regarded as low-skilled in the

39
application of ILT with learners. The results are the same in nature and similar to
those found in Becta surveys of ILT in Wales and Scotland.
As in both of those countries, a small number of colleges, 15 in this survey,
considered a greater proportion of staff to be competent or advanced in their use of
ILT in the classroom than in their personal use of IT. In four cases this difference was
quite marked, in the others more marginal. It is evidence, nonetheless, of some staff
development strategies that take learning applications, rather than office applications,
as a starting point for staff competence.
A further 35 colleges considered the proportion of combined competent and
advanced groups to be the same in both skill sets, albeit typically with fewer advanced
skills in ILT.

College strategy updates reaffirm a strong commitment to staff development,

particularly to IT/ICT programmes such as ECDL (European Computer Driving
Licence). Many explicitly recognise the need to take this further into development of
pedagogical skills to underpin effective use of ILT. . The outcomes of the FENTO
standards work, which LSDA is leading, are eagerly awaited as a guide to colleges
and a stimulus to training providers and in-house support and many documents
mention the staff development toolkit that NILTA is producing as part of its
contribution to FENTO developments.

The lack of an commonly agreed and well understood set of definitions of ILT
competencies, taken together with the uncertainty about what constitutes good
practice and effective pedagogy in e-learning may have led many respondents to
overstate the ILT skill level of staff. The message that emerges from the updating of
Strategy documents is that colleges feel ever more urgently that a major staff
development effort is necessary if the investment in infrastructure is to be converted
into better student learning experiences and outcomes.

40
7. ILT Champions
ILT Champions are now to be found in 92% of sector colleges. 48% of colleges also
have a Senior Management ILT Champion. The median number of Champions in a
college is 3, with the Interquartile range (the middle 50% of colleges) stretching from
2 to 7, whilst the top 10% have more than 12, with 40 the maximum number recorded.
There is no significant correlation, however, between numbers of Champions and
staff numbers or student numbers, even amongst those colleges who only have a
single Champion.
Table 17 shows the reporting arrangements and organisational boundaries of
Champions.

Table 17: Management of Champions

Report to Operate
Principal 4 Within 30
departments
Vice Principal 27 Cross college 14
Department Heads 20 Both 53
IT/ ILT Manager 27 Other 3
Staff Development 6
Other 16

Data = % of colleges with Champions

The 4% of colleges in which the Champion reports directly to the Principal include
some very large colleges, for whom such an arrangement must be seen as a measure
of top-level support for the Champion and for ILT within the college. In general the
wide range of reporting arrangements reflects the variety of organisational structure
within the sector. Over half of the colleges look to their Champions to have a brief
which extends beyond their own Department, with only 1 in 7 making it an explicitly
cross-college function without Departmental ties.

Chart 15 shows the major functions that Champions perform. Again, there was
considerable variation in the nature and number of functions undertaken by
Champions. No single function is common to all Champions, nor even close to being
common. The most frequently cited functions are support of staff, development of
materials and identification of resources. Support of staff is reported as part of the
Champions role by two out of three colleges. Materials production (58%) and
discovery (44%) emerge as significant roles. 32 colleges have Champions whose sole
function is one or other of these learning content development roles. Contributing to
the training of staff is the other key function, carried out by Champions in 41% of
colleges. The most common bundlings of key tasks see the Champions combine
either materials development or materials discovery with training and other support

41
for staff (20% of colleges ) or both materials development and discovery with staff
support (23%). It seems reasonable to infer that the most pressing current issue for
Champions in the majority of colleges is helping to find suitable content and to
support staff in its use. It seems equally plausible to suggest a causal connection
between this focus of Champion activity and the NLN funding for in-house materials
development.

Chart 15 : The key tasks of ILT Champions

Supporting staff

Developing materials

Identifying resources

Training staff

Managing Intranet

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
% of colleges
Managing Identifying Developing Supporting
Training staff
Intranet resources materials staff
Series1 14 41 44 58 68

The remission from teaching responsibilities that Champions receive varies from none
at all in one-third of colleges, up to more than 10 hours per week in one in twelve.
Half of colleges allow between one hour and five hours per week for Champions to
carry out their duties, with an average of 3 hours.
Additional support and resourcing typically takes the form of a computer and/or
training opportunities, both reported by 63% of colleges. 17% make a dedicated
workspace available to the Champions. Only 3 colleges reported that they offer salary
enhancement to their Champions.
Nine colleges reported no additional support to their Champions; seven of these also
give no remission. Intriguingly, however, they include a number of colleges who have
a good track record of ILT development.

42
8 Access in the community
8.1 Providing access in the community
Table 18 Plans for community ILT access
2001 2000 1999
9 7 7
No plans to engage

21 24 26
Future possibility

24 31 31
Firm plan

48 38 35
Currently engaged

% of colleges

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

actively providing community ILT access, with nearly half of all colleges engaged,
and a consequent fall in the number still at the planning stage. The survey was not
framed in a way that allows us to separate the influence of initiatives such as
UKonline on the raised level of activity.

43
 Other Learning Centres

Public Libraries

Local Authorities
Partnership
HE Centres Permanent
Dial-up
Schools

Businesses

Outreach centres

0 10 20 30 40 50
% of colleges

Chart 16 indicates the main types of partner organisation and shows the percentage of
colleges with formal partnerships with each type of organisation. The distribution of
partnerships shows little change from 2000, with links to H.E., learning and outreach
centres numerically the greatest.
Over 80% of electronic links with schools, libraries and businesses tend to be dial-up
rather than permanent, whilst for links with local authorities and outreach centres the
split is more like 50:50. Only in partnerships with HE institutions and learning
centres do permanent links predominate.

8.2 Use of community links

There has been little change in the scale of use made of community links for teaching
and learning over the last year. Delivery of learning materials remains the prime use
of these links, with just under half of all colleges in the sample reporting some activity
in this area. One college in twelve reports that community access to learning materials
is common practice. Around 30% of colleges offer learning programmes that include
remote submission of assessed work, online advice and guidance, together with
contact with tutors and peers. This practice is typically small in scale. It is described
as common practice by only 2% of colleges, which has changed little since last year.

25% of college now provide access via ILT for home-based learners, compared with
19% in 2000. A further 29% report firm plans to do so. The survey did not seek to
measure the scale of these ventures, but rather the extent to which colleges are using
the potential of ILT to reach out into the community. The results suggest an
increasing commitment within the sector to develop and extend online modes of
learning.

44
Appendix : Messages from the Strategy updates

Background
Colleges within the sector were asked to submit an update of their ILT strategy,
noting any significant changes over the intervening period and identifying any
particular achievements or problems. The documents received from colleges are free
form text statements built around the same framework as the original strategy
documents. Colleges were encouraged to submit their own reports, using a proforma
as a checklist, or to complete and submit the proforma as a free-standing document.
The responses do not lend themselves readily to quantitative analysis. This section
looks to use the themes and messages that emerge from the whole body of strategy
update information as qualitative data to supplement and illuminate the quantitative
responses to the survey.

ILT Vision
Few colleges revisited their vision statements. A small minority of colleges in the
original tranche of strategies articulated a clear vision of the impact of ILT on the
student experience and learning outcomes. While the updates give some indication of
this group increasing in size, it is clear that there is no commonly shared sense of
what successful ILT might look like in colleges. There is continuing confusion,
moreover, about the concepts of IT, ICT and ILT and the differences between these.
The notion that ILT must be embedded into a whole college teaching and learning
strategy is, however, beginning to have an impact on colleges, particularly those with
active Champions working to a clear brief from senior management.

Many colleges see ILT as a tool for improving retention and achievement, but lack a
coherent model of how this might be brought about. An increasing number recognise
that ILT can contribute to the achievement of some mission-critical goals, such as
widening participation. Recognition of the potential for ILT to be integral to the
achievement of key strategic goals and fundamentally intertwined and entangled in
other strategies emerges as a thread running through some of the updates. This is in
contrast to the first versions, which were largely silent or lacked detail on the
contribution of ILT to broader outcomes. There is, however, little evidence of
systematic evaluation of the impact of ILT on learning, or indeed on any other college
outputs or processes.

Managing the Strategy.

Nearly all colleges have a cross-college management / steering group for ILT, which
meets on a regular basis and reviews action plans and developments, typically chaired
by a Vice Principal or Assistant Principal and on which ILT Champions or identified
practitioners are present. Regardless of hierarchy and reporting arrangements, ILT
Champions are mentioned as central to the management of the ILT strategy and in the
majority of colleges have an input into the strategic process, which is seen as a
strength. The potential of this for building a more sophisticated vision of learning and
teaching with ILT is promising, insofar as it gives those who are closest to learners a
voice in ILT strategic planning.

45
An increasing number of colleges mention the role of Governors and Corporation
involvement in ILT and managing the strategy; this however is often limited to
finance and/or policy issues.

Infrastructure
There was considerable uniformity in the area of infrastructure, fully supporting the
findings of the survey. The strategy updates confirm the quantitative evidence that
colleges have prioritised infrastructure targets in the first phase of the NLN, with
particular focus on computers for learners and on local area network infrastructure, in
line with their original action plans. The connection to Janet is universally regarded as
having a positive impact and is explicitly identified by some as a stimulus to
upgrading the LAN and inter-site links.
A number of colleges felt that they were behind in terms of infrastructure and
technical developments. A copy of the previous Becta survey report was enclosed
with the published guidance for colleges on completing a strategy update and it is
clear that this has been used to benchmark infrastructure developments against sector
norms.
Three elements arise from the strategies that are not directly addressed by the survey.
There is increasing mention of wireless solutions for connectivity and laptops,
compared with the original strategies, particularly for use in remote locations or
inaccessible areas of campus sites. The logistical and cost benefits of extending the
reach of the LAN without the expense and disruption of installing physical cable are
typically reported as driving these developments, rather than the pedagogical
advantages of freeing learning from fixed locations.
A second element of planned infrastructure development sees increasing investment
in whole class teaching equipment such as electronic whiteboards and data projectors,
together with presentation software such as Powerpoint and peripherals such as
scanners and digital cameras. The purpose of such specialised equipment and software
can only be the creation or adaptation of materials and their use for learning and
teaching, which is pleasing evidence of investment driven by educational outcomes.

“There is now an increased demand by staff for access to PCs, and to electronic
whiteboards, data projectors, PowerPoint and scanners.” ( F.E.College, North West)

The question of sustainability of the IT infrastructure is high on colleges‟ lists of

concern, particularly in view of the massive investments made in the last two years
and the prospect of repeating these at the end of computers‟ active lives, which are
generally believed to coincide with the standard three year depreciation period.
Implicitly, many colleges anticipate that machines will eke out a brief life beyond the
three year horizon, but the rapid clear out of the 486s and Pentium I‟s must cause
many to question this assumption.

Sustainability of technical staffing infrastructure is also an issue. Common themes are

the difficulty of recruiting suitable staff and the problems of keeping them when
trained.
“ Whilst we are large for a 6th form college, with relatively small teams of IT
specialists we are vulnerable to the effects of staff turnover and recruitment
difficulties, although we have tackled this with some success by growing our own.”
(Sixth Form College, London)

46
Physical location of computers
An interesting trend to emerge from the strategy revisions is the establishment of
specialist curriculum based or learner needs based learning centres. These
supplement, or in some cases may even replace, general open access to computing
with an approach to resources which gathers together similar curriculum materials,
including but often not solely, computer-based content. This is designed to engage
teaching staff with resources relevant to their particular subject specialism and to
marshal support for learners working towards specific qualifications or learning
outcomes. A variant is to be found in the development of subject or curriculum area
portals into the college intranet.

“The establishment of learning gateways for curriculum areas enables and supports
the integration of ILT into the curriculum” ( FE College, South West)

ILT in Learning and Teaching

“ Changing the culture of teaching and learning is now ongoing as staff increase IT
skills and their confidence with new technology. This has resulted in recognition and
enthusiasm in accepting the opportunities that ILT brings to learners and staff….
[There are] problems in providing sufficient good ILT materials to meet demand due
to the lengthy process of producing home grown materials and the lack of good
affordable off the shelf materials” (FE College, South West)

The development of the college Intranet as a tool to assist learners is noted as central
to learning and teaching in college strategies. There is, moreover, as we have noted a
growing interest in specific hardware and software to support whole class teaching
modes.
IT Key skills are widely viewed as an achievable and effective application of ILT.
There is increasing evidence of the use of on-line initial assessment of key skills,
particularly during induction, and a learner-centred approach to key skills managed
through open access learning centres by learning support staff. This is facilitated by
the ready availability of high quality online learning materials for not only IT key
skills, but also the other key skill elements.
The lack of suitable materials for other curriculum areas and limited staff skills to
produce or adapt them is a theme that runs though many strategies. This explains why
the core duty of so many Champions was found by the survey to be materials search
and development, together with assistance for staff who wish to build them into
learning experiences and activities. Several colleges explicitly recognise the NLN
materials and other centrally funded sources including the JISC DNER as an essential
foundation for future development of effective learning and teaching with ILT.

Managed Learning Environments

The influence of the debate around ensuring full integration of information systems
rang out in this section of the update. Planned developments fell into three distinct
categories. Those colleges which already have a VLE are concerned to address the
issue of full integration of systems towards a MLE and of ensuring interoperability
between the VLE and other systems, particularly MIS. For the second group, those

47
who were yet to make a decision, the issue of interoperability dominates the choice
mechanism. The third group have, or are developing, an in-house system, often built
around their existing Intranet for delivery of learning materials, with a view to
ensuring interoperability, a view summed up well by the quote below:

“Last year we spent a considerable amount of time investigating commercial VLEs on

the market and as a consequence have come to the conclusion that none seem to be
able to offer what we require. The final decision was to develop our own VLE with the
intention of integrating it with our MIS system to create a MLE” ( FE College,
London)

Colleges‟ concerns about VLEs, as expressed in the strategy updates, are with
interoperability rather than learning (though the structure of the checklist that framed
responses may well have invited such an answer). Colleges accept the broad concept
of a Managed Learning Environment as a fully integrated whole college information
system, built upon learner information used and generated by the learning platform.
Strategic debate is around selection of a VLE rather than its implementation and the
key determinant of choice is seamless data exchange with other information systems.
This focus leads many colleges to the position that easy interoperability with the
current MIS is an essential determinant of the choice of VLE. This might reflect a
view amongst colleges that the teaching and learning functionality of most VLEs
differ so little, one from another, that such differences are not critical to the choice
process. It might equally reflect a greater understanding of information systems within
colleges than of the pedagogy of online learning platforms.
There is widespread commitment to the continued use and further development of
existing intranets as the principal platform for college-wide online learning, even in
many colleges that have bought and are developing VLEs. This view is particularly
common amongst Sixth form colleges, supporting the findings of the survey, but is
also to be found in General FE and land-based colleges. Underlying this is an
unwillingness to shift away from successful practice, hard won experience and
commitment from staff.

Staff Development
The survey identifies a critical gap between skills in personal use of IT and ILT skills,
defined as the use of ICT with learners. The strategy updates reinforce the message
that the majority of colleges have made little progress towards closing that gap, at
least partly because of uncertainty about what constitutes an appropriate ILT skillset
for staff and, by implication, the differing skillsets that may be required by different
staff roles and functions.
Staff Development proposals in the strategy updates range from sketchy outlines of
global intentions to detailed whole organisation staff development plans. For the
majority of colleges, staff development centres on IT skills, with ECDL the most
popular vehicle. Some have moved on to consider other qualifications, but the focus is
very much on the personal use of IT. Often this is addressed in house through staff
training centres and in a few cases the appointment of a permanent full time IT staff
trainer. A relatively small number of colleges feel that they have conducted detailed
staff development for ILT, some through staff involvement in programmes such as
Lettol (Learning to teach online), whilst others have developed in house provision.

48
The ILT standards are eagerly awaited from FENTO and some colleges explicitly
note the proposed NILTA staff development toolkit.
Not all colleges are looking for a route to certificated training for staff.
“The original ILT Strategy underestimated the amount of time and effort required to
achieve the targets concerning staff qualification in ILT…. It was also found that
many staff were not enthusiastic about the acquisition of actual qualifications. The
strategy will now encourage staff to accrue ILT skills but not necessarily
qualifications.” (Sixth Form College, London)

ILT Champions
The significance of ILT Champions within colleges is indicated by the number of
times they have already been mentioned in this report. The quote below is typical :
… “ a core of well trained ILT champions are now in place in each
curriculum area to drive the strategy forward. Use of the standards fund initiative
will allow ILT Champions time to work together as a group and to work towards
targets and ensure that the required outcomes are met.” (FE College, South East)

The broad impact of Champions on curriculum development has been noted, as has
their role in developing and managing the strategy. Champions are used for a variety
of purposes, including staff development, materials development, communication of
the strategy and assisting in the selection of a VLE. The survey‟s identification of
materials search and development as a major focus of current activity is confirmed by
the strategies.

Access In The Community

Outreach into the community is recognised by managers as one of the more obvious
ways in which ILT can contribute to the overarching mission and strategic goals of
the organisation. Most colleges have established IT Learning Centres as outreach
beyond their main campuses, often in popular locations including town centres, social
centres and pubs This provision is being targeted at basic skills and widening
participation by increasing accessibility.
The UK Online initiative and associated funding are widely welcomed, both as a
source of funding and as potential partners in delivery and in bringing access to non-
traditional learners.

49