Briefing on changes in e-enablement measures

Measuring e-enablement E-enablement is a measure of whether the capability is in place for an education provider to make strategic and effective use of technology to improve outcomes for learners. In the academic year 2008-9, the average level of e-maturity in schools remained about the same as the previous year. Secondary schools, however, did show some progress, with around one third of schools being classed as e-enabled. As we noted last year, there continues to be a “tail” of schools in the lower, ambivalent and late adopter categories. Some 38 per cent of primary schools were in these lower categories and 31 per cent of secondary schools.

In order to come up with these measures, we used twelve measures from our annual schools survey that reflected the range of institutional challenges identified in the Harnessing Technology strategy. These do not offer an exhaustive description of e-enablement. However, together they act as a good set of indicators of the overall level of development and embedding of technology in a school.

The indicators of an enabling infrastructure and processes were: The use of a learning platform, A better than average pupil-computer ratio, A wireless or mixed network accessible to pupils. Those for technology-confident, effective providers were: Prioritising using technology to extend learning beyond the classroom, At least half of teachers having had in-service training in ICT, Nearly all teachers enthusiastic about using ICT to deliver curriculum. Measures for confident leadership were: Governors involved in whole-school ICT strategy or plan, ICT plan is embedded in the whole-school development plan, An electronic system is used for monitoring pupil achievement. Finally, those for personalised learning experiences were: The ICT strategy addresses personalised learning, Prioritising using technology to assess learner progress, ICT is used to support learning across the curriculum. Each of these measures acted as a hurdle to be cleared, so individual schools could gain a score between 0 and 12. Schools that cleared 3 or less were categorised as “late adopters”, those with 4 or 5 were categorised as “ambivalent”, those with 6 or 7 were “enthusiastic” and those with 8 or more were “eenabled”.

The following two charts show the distribution across all twelve indicators.

These charts show how this distribution has changed between 2007-8 and 2008-9. (Where the red line advances to the right, this represents change in the direction of ematurity) The chart for secondary schools show the good progress mentioned above: the blue “peak” moving forward to where the red line shows a clear advance to the right. With the primary schools however, the red line has only advanced a sliver to the right at the “top” end, while some of the 2008 “peak” has fallen back.

The attached table shows the percentage of schools against each of the twelve indicators, along with the percentage of schools that show at least two indicators within each cluster of three. Changes of 8 per cent or more are shown in bold. Smaller changes than this are within the margin of error of the study. All the indicators in the infrastructure cluster show strong progress. Within this cluster, each of the three indicators show different patterns. The pupilcomputer ratio has a relatively flat profile over the levels of e-enablement. Similar numbers of schools have reasonable ratios whether they are e-enabled or late adopters. On the other hand, a wireless or mixed network accessible to pupils becomes more widespread as we move up the levels of eenablement. This is especially strong for primary schools, but as these networks are already widespread in secondary schools, it is a much weaker predictor in this sector. The use of a learning platform seems to be a possible hurdle to jump to get into the e-enabled category for primary schools. The percentage of e-enabled primaries is pretty much double that of the other groups (59% as opposed to 28% for enthusiastic schools and 30% for the bottom two combined). In secondary schools a much higher number have got learning platforms, so it doesn’t seem so much of a barrier (95% of e-enabled, as opposed 81% enthusiastic and 73% the rest). Most of the indicators within the technology-confident provider cluster showed little movement. The one exception was strong progress for primary schools in prioritising technology for extended learning. This indicator seems to be a hurdle for schools in both sectors moving from the bottom categories into enthusiastic. It is a bigger hurdle for secondary schools – 26% of ambivalent/late-adopter schools do this as opposed 68% enthusiastic and 84% eenabled. It’s somewhat lower in primary schools, though still there – 25% of ambivalent/late adopters and 42% enthusiastic, 53% e-enabled. Within the leadership cluster, there has been some movement backwards in the use of an electronic system to monitor student achievement, though from a high level. Has there been some re-evaluation of what this measure might entail, in the light of recent technological developments? Finally, in the personalised learning cluster, the indicator for prioritising the use of technology to assess learner progress has dropped back considerably in secondary schools. School leaders face a range of competing priorities. This particluar one may have been pushed aside by other, more pressing priorities. On the other hand, it may reflect a relaxed attitude towards this indicator, based on a belief that it is already in hand. Also within this cluster, having an ICT strategy that addresses personalised learning seems to be another hurdle to the e-enabled category. For both sectors there is a jump in the proportion of e-enabled schools that have this. (73% of e-enabled primaries as opposed to 36% enthusiastic and 23% ambivalent/late adopter; 82% of e-enabled secondary schools as opposed to 45% enthusiastic and 53% ambivalent/late adopter).

Primary 2007-8 The indicators of an enabling infrastructure and processes were: The use of a learning platform, A better than average pupil-computer ratio, A wireless or mixed network accessible to pupils. Schools with at least two infrastructure measures Those for technology-confident, effective providers were: Prioritising using technology to extend learning beyond the classroom, At least half of teachers having had in-service training in ICT, Nearly all teachers enthusiastic about using ICT to deliver curriculum. Schools with at least two provider measures Measures for confident leadership were: Governors involved in whole-school ICT strategy or plan, ICT plan is embedded in the whole-school development plan, Electronic system is used for monitoring pupil achievement. Schools with at least two leadership measures Finally, those for personalised learning experiences were: The ICT strategy addresses personalised learning, Prioritising using technology to assess learner progress, ICT is used to support learning across the curriculum. Schools with at least two learning experience measures 21% 37% 46% 32%

2008-9 38% 48% 56% 45%

Secondary 2007-8 2008-9 62% 41% 56% 54% 79% 56% 75% 81%

Primary change 17% 11% 10% 13%

Secondary change 17% 15% 19% 27%

14% 61% 32% 30%

39% 61% 31% 37%

56% 57% 11% 39%

58% 58% 17% 42%

25% 0% -1% 7%

2% 1% 6% 3%

72% 37% 79% 60%

69% 42% 67% 59%

8% 61% 88% 62%

10% 60% 80% 62%

-3% 5% -12% -1%

2% -1% -8% 0%

72% 31% 60% 71%

72% 33% 61% 63%

58% 73% 51% 59%

63% 44% 58% 55%

0% 2% 1% -8%

5% -29% 7% -4%

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful