ILT in Further Education: laying the foundations for e-learning

A report to the Joint Implementation Group of the National Learning Network

July 2003

1
Acknowledgements

This survey report would not have been possible without the time and effort put in by the
majority of colleges to complete the two long questionnaires. The survey, like its
predecessors, benefited from the comments and observations of a range of individuals and
agencies, including members of 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, the National Information and Learning Technologies Association
and the Joint Information Systems Committee.

The online survey facility was provided by Infopoll.

2
Contents

1 Management Summary ........................................................................................ 4

1.1 Some key messages .............................................................................................. 4
1.2 The survey ............................................................................................................. 4
1.3 ILT infrastructure .................................................................................................... 4
1.4 Access to ILT ......................................................................................................... 5
1.5 ILT for teaching and learning ................................................................................. 5
1.6 ILT expenditure ...................................................................................................... 6
2 The survey ............................................................................................................ 8
2.1 Context and purpose of the study .......................................................................... 8
2.2 Survey methodology and response ....................................................................... 8
3 Infrastructure ...................................................................................................... 10
3.1 Computer specifications ....................................................................................... 10
3.3 College computer stock ....................................................................................... 12
3.3 Local Area Networks ............................................................................................ 13
3.4 LAN performance ................................................................................................. 14
3.4 Internet Connectivity ............................................................................................ 15
3.5 Constraints on Internet use .................................................................................. 16
4. Access to ILT ...................................................................................................... 17
4.1 Access for learners .............................................................................................. 17
Access to Internet–enabled computers................................................................ 18
4.2 Managing demand for student access ................................................................. 19
4.3 Access for Staff .................................................................................................... 20
4.4 Mode of access for staff ....................................................................................... 21
5 Use of ILT for teaching and learning............................................................... 24
5.1 Electronic communications ................................................................................. 24
5.2 Learning platforms .............................................................................................. 25
5.3 ILT in the teaching and learning process ............................................................ 27
ILT in student induction ........................................................................................ 28
ILT in mainstream programmes ........................................................................... 29
ILT learning materials........................................................................................... 30
ILT and online assessment .................................................................................. 31
5.4 Staff IT and ILT skills........................................................................................... 32
6 Expenditure on ILT............................................................................................ 35
6.1 Identifying funding sources ................................................................................. 35
6.2 Sustainability of investment ................................................................................ 35
6.3 ILT and staff-related costs .................................................................................. 36
6.4 Major corporate information systems .................................................................. 36

3
1 Management summary

1.1 Some key messages

This report shows that there is a robust ILT (Information and Learning Technology)
infrastructure across the Further Education sector. Targets for student access to computers
and the Internet have been met in the vast majority of colleges, and the targets for staff
access are also close to being met in most colleges. College networks are increasingly
capable of meeting the demands placed on them. The use of virtual learning environments
(VLEs) as a learning platform is increasing in colleges, and those that do use a VLE find it
easier to use than other platforms.

The report also identifies a new set of challenges for college management. Firstly, the large
investment in colleges’ technology infrastructure since 1999 has been slow to have a
widespread impact on teaching and learning practice. The survey identified a number of
examples: the use of VLEs or of electronic learning materials with students remains at low
levels; ILT is often a supporting element, outside scheduled learning activities; online
assessment remains the preserve of ILT enthusiasts. Secondly, a key element in achieving
this integration of ILT into teaching and learning is a well-trained body of staff. Colleges are
beginning to identify development needs that go beyond the acquisition of particular technical
skills and concentrate on the integration of ILT within teaching and learning practice. The third
key area, and one underpinning the whole process of ILT use and development, is the
question of sustainability. As the large numbers of computers bought in 2000 and 2001 reach
the end of their useful lives, college budgets will begin to feel the strain. However,
replacement is not the only issue here. Management attention will also have to be given to
how future innovative technologies will impact both on college budgets, and on teaching and
learning practice.

1.2 The survey

This study, to assess progress in the provision of ILT within the further education (FE) sector,
represents the most recent of a series of studies undertaken in 1999, 2000 and 2001. It aims
to provide comparative data to judge the impact of the deployment of National Learning
Network (NLN) monies for the development of ILT infrastructure in the sector.
Two hundred and fifty-six colleges (64% of the sector) responded to the ILT Monitoring
Survey, the outcomes of which are presented in Sections 3 to 5 of this report. One hundred
and ninety-seven colleges (49% of the sector) responded to the ILT Expenditure Survey,
reported in Section 6. A further 13 colleges responded to the ILT monitoring survey and 9 to
the expenditure survey, but were too late to be included in this analysis.

1.3 ILT infrastructure

We estimate that the actual number of computers in the 401 English colleges in 2003 is
around 300,000, compared with around 260,000 in 2001 and 160,000 in 1999. Around one-
sixth of the current stock has survived since 1999, and around a half dates from 2001.
A quarter (25%) of computers designated for student use are open-access and the remaining
three-quarters (75%) are sited in classrooms. This level of availability decreases in the
evening and is at its lowest at weekends. However, a higher proportion of open-access
computers remain available for students beyond daytime hours, with just under a half of these
machines available for use at weekends.
The local area network (LAN) backbone in over 70% of colleges is 100 Mbps Ethernet, and a
further 20% of colleges have Gigabit LANs. Ninety-four per cent of computers designated for
student use are networked, and all student computers are networked in 83% of colleges.
Forty-two per cent of respondents say that their network could cope with a significant increase
in traffic, compared to 24% in 1999. The number struggling to meet demand has fallen to 5%
from 22%. Despite the improvement in LAN specification, over half of the sector is, however,
still stretched to full capacity. This seems to indicate that the nature of demand for ILT in

4
colleges could be described as a ‘motorway effect’, which sees traffic rapidly adjust upwards
each time an additional lane is opened.

All colleges have been provided with a free 2 Mbps internet connection via JANET as part of
the NLN initiative. Around one-third of these (33%) have, or plan to have, additional
bandwidth. There also seems to be a growing polarisation between the majority of colleges
which seem relatively content with 2 Mbps, and the third that have invested in extra
bandwidth and seem hungry for more.

Broadly speaking, the FE sector has a robust infrastructure capable of delivering a wide range
of electronically mediated learning experiences. Demand for this technology is clearly
widespread and may continue to grow and devour any future increase in capacity.

1.4 Access to ILT

The median ratio of full-time-equivalent (FTE) students per computer has fallen to 4.0:1 (7.6:1
in 1999). The highest value calculated for 2003 was 9.7:1 at a single college, whilst only four
colleges (less than 2% of the respondents) had ratios of 8:1 or greater. This compares with
43% who had ratios of 8:1 or greater in 1999. The median number of FTE students to
computers with internet access is now 4.1:1 and three-quarters of colleges have now
achieved the target set by the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) of 5:1. This compares with a
median of 21:1 in 1999, which had fallen to 4.95:1 by last year.

The number of colleges who are unable to meet current demand for internet access fell from
just over a half in 1999 to exactly a quarter in 2001. This proportion has remained the same
since then. The ability to meet demand for the internet and the demand for computers per se
have converged steadily since 1999, in line with the increasing proportion of computers
connected to the internet.
The NLN target of one internet-connected computer for every permanent member of teaching
staff has been achieved or bettered by 26% of colleges, from a level of 15% in 2001. The
actual achievement of colleges in providing computers for staff is better reflected in the
median value of the ratio of permanent teaching staff to internet-connected computers, which
has fallen from 3:1 in 2000 to 1.4:1 this year. The figure inferred for 1999 (when the question
was not directly asked) is 7:1.
The characteristic mode of access to computers for teaching staff remains sharing a
computer in a staff room. This mode of access has remained at a constant level since 1999. It
has acted as a buffer as sharing student machines declined (all or most teaching staff shared
with students in 20% of colleges in 1999; by 2001 this had fallen to 6%), and having sole use
of computers has increased (all or most teaching staff have sole access in 31% of colleges,
compared to 5% in 1999).

Taking the sector as a whole, the 1999 targets for access to computers and the internet have
been exceeded for students and almost achieved for staff. Two questions still remain. Is this
ILT infrastructure being used effectively in teaching and learning? Is it affordable in the long
term?

1.5 ILT for teaching and learning

The use of email for staff communication is well embedded in almost all colleges and is
common practice in nearly two-thirds of the sector. Electronic communication both with and
between students is however a far less extensive use of college networks. All colleges have
an acceptable use policy for electronic communications, and acceptable use forms part of the
student induction process in 94% of colleges. Over three-quarters (76%) of colleges indicated
that they monitored electronic communications, using software, members of staff, or a
combination of the two.

Ninety-three per cent of colleges use their network as a learning platform and 40% use it as
the main platform. Eighty-four per cent use their intranet as a learning platform, and this is
considered the main platform in 14% of colleges. As a more recent technology, VLEs are far
less widely used: 59% of colleges have them and only 11% use them as their main platform.

5
These three types of learning platform are heavily used as repositories for course documents;
however, beyond this their use differs considerably. College intranets are also heavily used
for learner support. Intranets and VLEs allow the uploading of materials more easily than
networks, and VLEs most easily allow student tracking.

The use of ILT for student tracking and the use of electronic information to support teaching
and learning are, however, at a modest level. Thirty per cent of colleges commonly use
electronic information to support personal tutorials, and information from tutorials is recorded
electronically in 20% of colleges. Electronic student portfolios or records of achievement are
maintained in 22% of colleges.

By far the most frequent use of ILT in mainstream college programmes is to support learning;
ILT is used in all or most programmes in 48% of colleges. ILT is widespread as a traditional
classroom tool in 21% of colleges. Using ILT with traditional learning resources to produce
blended learning is seen as widespread in 18% of colleges. Seventeen per cent of colleges
also report the use of ILT to enable learners to access some or all of their programme at a
time convenient to them. The use of ILT for remote access or to produce an individualised
programme of study are the least common uses of e-learning in colleges; 34% of colleges
make no use of ILT to enable individualised study, and 28% do not use ILT for remote
learning.

Learning materials are most often used at the individual teacher’s discretion. This was the
case in 52% of the colleges surveyed. Their use is directed by a college-wide plan in only
17% of colleges, and by a plan at department or course level in 28%. The internet is the most
frequently used source of learning materials, being used in 94% of colleges and being in
common use in 43%. Of the 78% of colleges that use NLN materials, only 5% describe their
use as common practice. This reflects the early stage in embedding the use of NLN materials,
with only the limited range of Round 1 materials available to colleges at the time of the
survey.

Online assessment, taken in the context of each college’s whole programme, is seen as
insignificant or limited to individual enthusiasts in 50% of the colleges surveyed. It is seen as
a widespread activity in only 3% of colleges. The most extensive use of ILT with regard to
assessment is to store and record outcomes of assessment; this happens to some degree in
68% of colleges, though only 10% describe this as common practice.

Seventy-three per cent of college teaching staff are considered 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 56% of teaching staff are considered competent or advanced. (In 2000 this was
42%.) Both sets of skills are improving and the gap between IT competence and ILT
competence has steadily narrowed since 1999.

The use of ILT remains a peripheral activity in much of teaching and learning. Electronic
communications are more frequently used between college staff than with students. ILT in
induction is often focused on areas that already have inherent IT content. In mainstream
programmes, most ILT use remains a bolt-on element, outside scheduled teaching. However,
the first signs of embedded ILT practice are beginning to appear. There is some evidence of
ILT being used in traditional teaching, and some blended learning is taking place. Staff skills
in ILT are improving faster than their general IT skills, and many colleges see the embedding
of ILT into teaching practice as a key development need.

1.6 ILT expenditure

The estimated total expenditure on ILT for the FE sector as a whole in the year to July 2002
was £206 million. Hardware accounted for the largest amount of expenditure at £87 million
(42% of the total), followed by ILT-related staff costs, estimated at £51 million (25% of the
total). Seventy-eight per cent of the total expenditure came from within colleges’ own funds,
and 8% came from each of the Standards Fund and the NLN. The remaining 6% came from
other funds, notably from the European Union and the National Lottery.

6
The current level of computer stock in the FE sector, noted above, will prove difficult to
sustain within the present hardware budget without careful planning of the life of these assets.
A key question then is ‘how useful for teaching and learning is a four- or five-year-old
computer?’ Investment decisions will need to take account of what would be considered a
reasonable life span for these assets. However, growth and innovation continue, therefore
management planning for sustainability must also take into account the potential for change
and innovation in current practice.

ILT staffing costs are difficult to identify, as it is almost impossible to extricate exactly what
items in the staff budget are driven by ILT. However, the survey shows that it is indeed a
significant amount and that, certainly for the near future, colleges will need to invest in and
develop the staff skill sets necessary for the realisation of the full potential of ILT.

Major corporate information systems represent long-term strategic investment by colleges.

Student records systems are by far the largest item of current major systems expenditure.
Student numbers are a major driver of many other costs; they drive staffing levels, estates,
and of course ILT investment. This investment should therefore provide much-needed
information for colleges needing to plan for sustainability and possible future growth.

7
2 The survey
2.1 Context and purpose of the study
This study was carried out from February through to June 2003 on behalf of the LSC. The
survey seeks to assess progress in the provision of ILT within the FE sector, along with the
extent to which this provision is integrated into the teaching and learning process. Three
previous studies, undertaken in February 1999, September 2000 and September 2001,
provide comparative data to judge the impact of the deployment of NLN monies for the
development of ILT infrastructure in the sector.

2.2 Survey methodology and response

The study took the form of a survey, using two separate questionnaires, of all 401 FE colleges
in England. The main questionnaire (the ILT Monitoring Survey) explored quantitative issues
relating to infrastructure and practice. A second questionnaire (the ILT Expenditure Survey),
directed to each college’s finance director, concerned expenditure on ILT and the sources of
funds for this expenditure. The two questionnaires were published and disseminated
simultaneously in both paper-based and web-based formats.
Two hundred colleges (50% of the sector) submitted completed ILT monitoring
questionnaires, and 132 colleges (33% of the sector) completed the ILT expenditure
questionnaires prior to the original deadline in March. A second call for responses from the
LSC resulted in a final total of 256 colleges (64% of the sector) submitting completed ILT
monitoring questionnaires and 197 colleges (49% of the sector) submitting completed ILT
expenditure questionnaires. A further 13 colleges responded to the ILT monitoring survey and
9 to the expenditure survey, but were too late to be included in this analysis.

Table 1 shows the breakdown of respondents to the ILT Monitoring Survey by type of college.

Table 1 Respondents by college type

College type Sector Respondents
General FE and tertiary 65% 65%
Sixth-form college 26% 27%
Agricultural & horticultural college 5% 5%
Art, design & performing arts college 2% 2%
Specialist-designated college 3% 2%
Total 100% 100%

The breakdown by college type reveals that the sample is sufficiently representative of the
numbers of different types of college nationally to ensure a high level of confidence in any
inferences drawn from the data. The actual number of art and design colleges (6) and
specialist-designated colleges (4) 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 to the ILT Monitoring Survey is shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Respondents by regional location

Region Sector Respondents
South West 8% 10%
South East 18% 18%
Greater London 13% 10%
Eastern Region 8% 8%
East Midlands 7% 7%
West Midlands 13% 14%
North West 15% 18%

8
 Yorkshire and Humber 10% 10%
Northern Region 6% 5%

A high proportion of colleges from the North West and the South West regions and a
disappointingly low proportion of colleges from London submitted responses. However, the
general profile of the respondents still mirrors the sector quite closely.
Table 3 shows the profile of colleges responding to each survey grouped according to
numbers of FTE students enrolled at each college.

Table 3 Respondents by college size

ILT ILT
FTE band Monitoring Expenditure Sector
Survey Survey
0–750 FTEs 10% 11% 10%
751–1,750 FTEs 37% 38% 38%
1,751–3,000 FTEs 27% 26% 27%
3,001 FTEs and greater 26% 24% 25%

Again, both surveys show a reasonable match to the sector as a whole. However, as NLN
monies were allocated on the basis of the FTE bands shown, the slight bias in favour of
smaller colleges in the responses to the ILT Expenditure Survey has been corrected by
weighting the results of this survey.
The profiles shown in the three tables above, taken with the high response rate for both
surveys, lead us to a high degree of confidence in the data. These surveys were detailed and
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.

9
3 Infrastructure
3.1 Computer specifications
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 minimum baseline
specification for an acceptable level of performance and to delineate stock against this
benchmark. It is hoped that this will provide a robust basis of comparison over time, since it
matches the continual changes in the technology of computers with changes in user
expectations and increased technical demands of current software.
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, memory and hard disk capacity were then weighted to
produce eight bands representing machines of increasing capability. Table 4 below shows a
typical specification for each band and the percentages of colleges designating each band as
their baseline specification.

Table 4 Baseline specification of computers

Typical band specifications Percentage of

respondents

Speed (MHz) RAM (Mb) Hard disk (Gb) Baseline Baseline

specification specification
2000 2003
200 32 2 29% 5%
Band 1
500 32 4 25% 12%
Band 2
500 64 6 23% 21%
Band 3
650 64 10 20% 9%
Band 4
650 128 15 2% 9%
Band 5
700 128 20 0% 8%
Band 6
750 256 20 0% 2%
Band 7
1,000 256 20 0% 17%
Band 8
2,000 512 40 0% 15%
Band 9 and greater

Data = percentage of respondents

The median specification of band 5 is somewhat misleading as a typical baseline computer

within the sector. The table shows that as the performance of computers has increased,
around one-third of respondents (32%) have specified as baseline Pentium 4 computers that
were unavailable in 2000. A slightly higher number (38%) continue to specify a baseline
computer in the bottom three bands – essentially Pentium II or low-specification Pentium III.
This dichotomy in what constitutes a minimum specification may be caused by the
requirements of the particular software or learning materials used in each college. However, it
may also be the result of the rapid escalation of marketplace specifications, leading some
college managers to specify on the basis of current availability rather than user requirements
and expectations.

10
The best buy, by contrast, is typically a significantly higher specification than the baseline.
Although 30% of respondents cite the same specification for both baseline and best buy,
another 30% cited best-buy specifications six or more bands higher than the baseline. This
probably reflects the rapid upward movement of technical specification 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 moves rapidly on.

Table 5 ‘Best-buy’ specification of computers

Typical band specifications Percentage of

respondents

Speed (MHz) RAM (Mb) Hard disk (Gb) Best-buy Best-buy

specification specification
2001 2003
200 32 2 0% 0%
Band 1
500 32 4 0% 0%
Band 2
500 64 6 4% 0%
Band 3
650 64 10 15% 1%
Band 4
650 128 15 23% 1%
Band 5
700 128 20 34% 2%
Band 6
750 256 20 6% 2%
Band 7
1,000 256 20 13% 33%
Band 8
2,000 512 40 3% 59%
Band 9 and greater

Data = percentage of respondents

As shown in Table 5, over 90% of respondents cited computers in the highest bands as their
‘best buy’. However, as the available specification of computers has increased, prices have
tended to fall. The median price paid for a best buy computer is now £650, down from £700 in
2001. Despite this there remains considerable variation between colleges in terms of prices
paid – 3% colleges (eight out of the sample of 256) gave a price in excess of £1,000 for their
best buy.

11
3.2 College computer stock

Chart 1 College computer stock (% of total)

3% 4%
Baseline spec or better
12%
Above Pentium II, below
baseline
Pentium II
18%
Pentium I and below
63%

Apple

Data = percentage of respondents

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. This is exactly the
same proportion as in 2001. A further 18% of stock is better than the Pentium II specification
we set as benchmark in February 1999, and would still be considered higher than baseline
level in many colleges.

Chart 2 Change in computer stock over time (numbers of computers)

350000
300000
250000
200000 2002-03 purchases
2000-01 purchases
150000 Pre-2000 purchases
100000
50000
0
1999 2001 2003

Data = percentage of respondents

More dramatic than the relative changes described above is 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 401 English colleges is around 300,000, compared with
around 260,000 in 2001 and 160,000 in 1999. An equally rough calculation, illustrated in
Chart 2, suggests that around one-sixth of the current stock has survived since 1999, and
around a half date from 2001. An estimate of the total number of new computers bought since

12
that date for use in teaching and learning would then be around 100,000, yielding a net
increase of 40,000 above the replacement investment of 60,000 machines over the last two
years.

Table 6 shows the type of access to computers across the sector. As might be expected,
computer availability is at its greatest in the daytime, decreases in the evening and is at its
lowest at weekends. However, a higher proportion of open-access computers remains
available for students beyond daytime hours, with just under a half of these machines
available for use at weekends. Though colleges may wish for a greater proportion of
computers to be open access, the actual space available in college buildings that were
designed to meet the needs of another age may prove a constraint.

Table 6 Computer placement

Open access Classroom only No access
Daytime 25% 71% 4%
Evenings 22% 62% 17%
Weekends 12% 28% 60%
Data = percentage of computer stock

3.3 Local area networks

The specification of college LANs has continued to rise in line with the specification and
volume of the computers that they support. Ninety-five per cent of all computers are
networked, the same percentage as in 2001. However, 83% of colleges report that all
machines for student use are networked, compared to 60% in 2001. Ninety-one per cent now
report that all staff computers are attached to the network; this figure was 69% in 2001.

Ethernet technology dominates college networks. Chart 3 shows the stages in the life-cycle of
LAN capacity occupied by each bandwidth. Gigabit Ethernet is beginning to grow its share of
the FE market, whereas 100 Mbps Ethernet is now a mature technology at the peak of its
growth, and 10 Mbps Ethernet is now an old technology declining to a mere 6% of the sector.

Chart 3 Local area network – backbone

80
Percentage of respondents

70

60

50 10M Ethernet
40 100M Ethernet

30 Gigabit Ethernet

20

10
0
1999 2000 2001 2003

Data = percentage of respondents

13
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 2003, 42% 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, still applies to 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 140,000
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.

Chart 4 Network capability to meet demand

70
Percentage of respondents

60

50

40 Over-stretched
At capacity
30 Spare capacity
20

10

0
1999 2000 2001 2003

Data = percentage of respondents

Colleges continue to restrict network traffic in bandwidth-hungry applications. Seventy-eight

per cent of colleges identify large files as an actual or potential source of problems on the
network, and hence seek to control their use. This is only 6% fewer than the 84% who cited
large files as a problem in 1999.

Table 7 Network performance

2003 2001 2000 1999

53% 47% 38% 35%
Always smooth without appreciable delay
42% 49% 56% 60%
Generally works well but slow at busy times
4% 3% 4% 5%
Slowness/unreliability a frequent problem

14
Data = percentage of respondents

Table 7 shows colleges’ appraisal of their network performance. The rate of improvement in
network performance continues to lag behind other indicators. Frequent problems continue to
affect a small percentage of sector colleges. More dramatic, however, has been the rise to
53% in the proportion of colleges who describe their network as always smooth, without
appreciable delay, and the decline to well 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 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.

3.4 Internet connectivity

All colleges have been provided with a free 2 Mbps internet connection via JANET as part of
the NLN initiative. Table 8 shows that around one-third of these have, or plan to have,
additional bandwidth. This has fallen from around two-fifths of colleges who stated an
intention in 2000 to go beyond 2 Mbps. The most significant fall has been the dramatic
reduction of those colleges planning to have between 2 and 3 Mbps. The 10% fall since 2000
in this group of colleges almost exactly matches the increase in those planning to stick with
the free 2 Mbps. 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. For colleges with 4 Mbps or more, however, the
tendency is towards increased bandwidth, with 11% of colleges planning 10 Mbps or more.

Table 8 Total planned bandwidth

Bandwidth 2003 2001 2000

67% 64% 59%
2 Mbps
2% 6% 12%
2–3 Mbps
14% 18% 19%
4 Mbps
2% 0% 1%
6 Mbps
1% 3% 1%
8 Mbps
11% 5% 4%
10 Mbps and greater

Data = percentage of respondents

The profile of colleges planning bandwidth of 3 Mbps and above shows a continuing tendency
for those seeking larger bandwidth to be larger colleges. Eighty-eight per cent are larger than
the sector median value of FTE student numbers, and 93% of those seeking bandwidth in
excess of 10 Mbps are larger than the sector median. Seventy-eight per cent of the largest
10% of colleges also intend to take on greater bandwidth. This still leaves the other 22% of
the very largest colleges who are content with 2 Mbps for the near future, among them
several of the largest colleges in the sector and some 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, JANET has increased its dominance with 63% of these colleges, an
increase from 53% in 2001.

15
3.5 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

Student skills

No interest
1999
Constraint

2000
Course design
2001
2003
Access points

Access speeds

0 1 2 3 4
Weighted score

The number of access points remains a key constraint, despite the large influx of internet-
capable machines into colleges. As mentioned in Section 3.2 above, it may be difficult to
provide more open-access points given the logistics of adapting existing buildings for ILT use.
Access speeds continue to decline as a constraint, however, a result of the investment in
high-specification computers and LAN capability to support the now-universal JANET. 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 maintains its place in the rankings, together with the student skills
needed to engage effectively with the internet as a tool. Lack of interest remains in fifth place,
but has increased in importance over previous years, perhaps as a result of trying to embed
internet use in more recalcitrant areas of the curriculum.

Colleges were invited to list other factors restricting growth. Inappropriate use, including
restriction of access to unsuitable sites and the potential for inadvertently restricting suitable
sites, continued to be the most important constraint. Eight per cent of all respondents
mentioned this, compared with 11% in 2000 and 2001. The 2 Mbps bandwidth was cited as a
constraint by another 8% of respondents, returning this issue to levels cited in 2000, having
gone down to 4% in 2001. Three per cent of respondents pointed out that they thought there
were no constraints to using the internet with students in their particular colleges, and a
similar number thought that the level of staff skills was an important issue to address.

Broadly speaking, the FE sector has a robust infrastructure capable of delivering a wide range
of electronically mediated learning experiences. Demand for this technology is clearly
widespread and may continue to grow and devour any future increase in capacity.

16
4 Access to ILT

4.1 Access for learners

The survey requested an actual count of computers available within the college. Based on
these 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 studies in 1999,
2000 and 2001, and allow comparisons to be drawn. They are also the format used by the
LSC 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 FTE 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 FTE student data available from the LSC, which
covers student numbers for academic year 2000-01. If student numbers have changed
dramatically over the intervening period, using this older data with 2003 data for computer
numbers will distort the apparent ratio of students:computer. Information about changes in
enrolments over this period suggests that any such effect is likely to be minimal, that is that
the calculated ratios are a true reflection of the actual situation in colleges in spring 2003.

We have examined two key ratios:

- FTE students to all computers within the college
- FTE students to internet-enabled computers

The improvement since 1999 in the availability of computers for students is shown in Chart 6.
The mean number of FTE students per computer has fallen from 8.2:1 in 1999 to 4.1: 1 in
2003. The median value (the ratio at the middle of the range of values) is 4.0:1 (7.6:1 in
1999). As might be inferred from the similarity of these two figures, the dispersion of values is
far less than in 1999, with fewer colleges having very high ratios. The highest value calculated
for 2003 was 9.7:1 at a single college, whilst only four colleges (less than 2% 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.

17
Chart 6 Ratio of FTE students to all computers

Percentage of colleges 40
35
30
1999
25
2000
20
2001
15
2003
10
5
0
Better 8:1 to 12:1 to More
3:1 4:1 5:1 6:1 7:1
than 11:1 20:1 than
1999 0 3 4 14 20 16 35 7 1
2000 1 11 21 26 19 9 11 1 0
2001 4 15 30 26 13 7 5 0 0
2003 7 28 29 23 7 4 2 0 0

Data = percentage of respondents

The disparity noted in previous surveys between different types of college in terms of level of
resource has closed. The median ratio for sixth-form colleges remains at the 2001 level of
4.1:1; the ratio for general FE colleges is now 3.9:1 (4.5:1in 2001); and the median ratio for
land-based colleges is now 4.6:1 (5.7:1 in 2001). The dispersion of values, as measured by
both standard deviation and interquartile 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.

Access to internet-enabled computers

The improvement in access to internet-enabled computers is significant, as Chart 7 shows.
The median ratio of the number of FTE students to the number of computers with internet
access is now 4.1:1, and three-quarters of colleges have now achieved the LSC target of 5:1.
This compares with a median of 21:1 in 1999, which had fallen to 4.95:1 by last year. Eighty-
th
five per cent of colleges have now achieved 5.7:1 or better. In 1999, by contrast, the 85
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 facilities available to learners
over the period of the NLN initiative.

18
Chart 7 Ratio of FTE students to internet-connected computers

Percentage of colleges 40

30 1999
2000
20
2001
2003
10

0
Better 8:1 to 12:1 to More
3:1 4:1 5:1 6:1 7:1
than 11:1 20:1 than
1999 0 3 4 14 20 16 35 7 1
2000 1 11 21 26 19 9 11 1 0
2001 4 15 30 26 13 7 5 0 0
2003 8 22 29 22 11 4 3 0 0

Data = percentage of respondents

4.2 Managing demand for student access

Over the years since 1999, the increased 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 now stands at 29%. This proportion has not changed since 2001. However, the
number of colleges reporting that they are able to cope with increased demand has doubled
from 5% to 10% of colleges.

19
Chart 8 Meeting student demand for computers

80
Percentage of colleges

60 1999
2000
40
2001
20 2003

0
Difficulty meeting Sufficient capacity for Sufficient capacity for
demand demand greater demand
1999 47 46 4
2000 39 50 3
2001 28 61 5
2003 29 60 10

Data = percentage of respondents

The same general picture applies to meeting demand for internet access. Table 9 indicates
that the number of colleges that are unable to meet current demand fell from just over half in
1999 to exactly one-quarter in 2001. This proportion has remained the same since then. The
ability to meet demand for the internet and the demand for computers per se have converged
steadily since 1999, in line with the increasing proportion of computers connected to the
internet, currently 94% of student machines.

Table 9 Meeting student demand for internet access

College capability 2003 2001 2000 1999

25 25 39 54
Cannot cope with current demand
63 58 45 25
Can cope with current demand
11 11 7 5
Can cope with greater demand

Data = percentage of respondents

Access to the internet has improved, however. Fifty-three per cent of respondents now
describe use of computers for internet access as easy at any time, compared to 44% in 2001,
and 44% now report that learners are likely to queue at busy times, down from 56% in 2001.

4.3 Access for staff

The provision of computers for the exclusive use of staff has continued its steady
improvement. The NLN target of one internet-connected computer for every permanent
member of teaching staff has been achieved or bettered by 26% of colleges, from a level of
15% in 2001. The attainment of this target is proving slower to achieve than the target for
student access. 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 was reaffirmed by the strategy updates for 2001, and

20
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 permanent teaching staff to internet-connected computers, shown
in Table 10, which has fallen from 3:1 in 2000, down to 1.4:1 this year. The figure inferred for
1999 (when the question was not directly asked) is 7:1.

Table 10 Median number of teaching staff to internet-connected computers

2003 2001 2000 1999

2.4 3.5 4.1 12.0
All staff
1.4 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
teaching 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 2.4.

We have chosen not to separately report the ratios for staff and all computers, including those
without internet capability, because they now differ little from the figures given in Table 6. This
reflects the increasing connection of staff computers to the college network. Ninety-five per
cent of all computers set aside for staff use are now networked, and, combined with staff
laptops, some 96% are connected to the internet.

4.4 Mode of access for staff

The improvement in staff access has accompanied a move towards giving staff their own
designated machine. Chart 9 shows that teaching staff are those with the lowest level of
access. Thirty-one per cent of colleges now report that all or most teaching staff have their
own designated computer; however, this has increased considerably since 1999 when only
5% of colleges reported this level of access. Management and administration staff, as might
be expected, have by far the highest level of access, ICT being essential to running the
college as a business. Around one-quarter of colleges report that remote access to the
college system is available to all or most of each type of staff. This may be a greater boon to
teaching staff with a lower level of access to college machines and a tradition of developing
their teaching materials away from the college.

21
Chart 9 Staff access to computers

Percentage of colleges 120

100

80

60

40

20

0
Management/admin
Teaching staff Support staff
staff
All/most with own 31 46 98
designated computer
All/most with remote 25 23 23
access

Data = percentage of respondents

As Chart 10 below indicates, however, the characteristic mode of access for teaching staff
remains sharing a computer in a staff room. This mode of access has remained at a constant
level since 1999. It has acted as a buffer as sharing student machines declined (all or most
teaching staff shared with students in 20% of colleges in 1999; by 2001 this had fallen to 6%)
and having sole use of computers increased.

Chart 10 Teaching staff access to computers

70
Percentage of colleges

60
50
40 All/most with own
30 designated computer
20
All/most with shared
10 office computer
0
1999 2000 2001 2003
All/most with own 5 16 27 31
designated
computer
All/most with 59 64 60 60
shared office
computer

Data = percentage of respondents

Table 11 reveals college priorities changing in the light of the increase in available resource.
The number of teaching staff and learning support staff with sole use of a computer has
increased: 11% of colleges now have designated computers for these individuals. At first
glance this might seem to sit awkwardly with the reported achievement of a ratio of teaching

22
staff to computers of 1:1 by 26% of colleges. However, many colleges may have sufficient
computers for all permanent teaching staff, but these machines are not designated for the
sole use of a particular individual. The achievement of this goal is now seen as a priority by
more colleges (sole use was seen as a priority by only 3% of colleges in 2001). Also,
gratifyingly, all colleges with a teaching staff:computer ratio above 5:1 see the achievement of
sole use as a priority.

Table 11 Priorities for staff access to own designated computer

Achieved A policy Not a policy
Type of staff
priority priority

All permanent teaching staff have a 11 53 35

computer for their sole use

All learning support staff have a 11 39 50

computer for their sole use

Data = percentage of respondents

Sole access to a computer for learning support staff is seen as less of a priority than sole
access for teaching staff for colleges, however. Even though the same proportion have
achieved this type of access as for teaching staff, half of all colleges do not regard sole
access as a priority for this group.

Taking the FE sector as a whole, there is a reasonable level of access to ILT for both
students and staff. Two questions remain: ‘Is this ILT infrastructure being used effectively in
teaching and learning?’ and ‘Is it affordable in the long term?’

23
5 Use of ILT for teaching and learning

5.1 Electronic communications

Chart 11 indicates that the use of email for staff communication is well embedded in almost all
colleges and is common practice in nearly two-thirds of the sector. This mirrors practice
across all sectors of the economy where email has become the business communications tool
of choice. Electronic communication both with and between students is less extensive and is
less likely to be commonly used in any college.

Chart 11 Use of email and other electronic communications

120%
Percentage of colleges

100%

80%

60%
40%

20%

0%
Management Staff to staff Staff to Student to
to staff communicatio student student
Common practice 61% 64% 16% 25%
We do this 35% 34% 61% 44%

Data = percentage of respondents

All colleges have an acceptable use policy, and acceptable use forms part of the student
induction process in 94% of colleges. Over three-quarters (76%) of colleges indicated that
they monitored electronic communications, using software, members of staff, or a
combination of the two. Table 12 shows the frequency of inappropriate use brought to the
notice of colleges. No colleges claim that inappropriate use of electronic communications
never happens, though one-third (33%) say that it is extremely rare.

Table 12 Inappropriate use of electronic communications

Percentage of colleges
Is extremely rare 33%
Has to be dealt with every year 24%
Has to be dealt with every term 31%
Has to be dealt with every week 9%
Data = percentage of respondents

As might be expected, colleges that monitored electronic communications as a common

practice were more likely to report that inappropriate use was a frequent problem. Table 13
shows the level of monitoring for inappropriate use against discovered occurrences. Over
50% of those that described monitoring as common practice (whether using electronic means,
staff, or both) reported that inappropriate use had to be dealt with at least every term,
whereas only 38% of those where monitoring was less rigorous reported this level of
frequency of inappropriate use.

24
Table 13 Monitoring inappropriate use
Occurs rarely (annually Occurs frequently Totals
or less often) (at least termly)
Occasional monitoring 25% 16% 41%
of e-communications
Monitoring of 17% 18% 35%
e-communications is
common practice
Data = percentage of respondents

We also asked colleges to rank the different sources of information that brought inappropriate
use to their attention. Chart 12 shows that learning resource staff and teaching staff brought
up this issue most often; electronic forms of detection were next. Learners themselves were
by far the least likely to bring matters to the college’s attention, with over 70% of colleges
ranking learners as fourth or fifth in importance.

Chart 12 Sources of information about inappropriate use

Learning resource staff

Teaching staff

Electronic detection

Other staff

Learners

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Weighted score (highest = most important)

5.2 Learning platforms

Colleges were asked to indicate the types of learning platform in use at their college. These
could be the college intranet, a commercially produced VLE, or the general college network,
for example using joint drives or public folders. They were also asked to indicate whether this
use could be described as frequent, and also, if frequent, whether the particular learning
platform could be described as the college’s main platform. Chart 13 shows that colleges
continue to make heavier use of their networks than other learning platforms, 93% using the
network as a learning platform and as the main platform in 40% of cases. As a more recent
technology, VLEs are far less widely used, 59% of colleges having them and only 11% using
them as their main platform.

25
Chart 13 College learning platforms

Percentage of colleges 100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
Intranet VLE Network
Main platform 14% 11% 40%
In frequent use 30% 11% 25%
In use 40% 37% 28%

Data = percentage of respondents

The three types of learning platform are heavily used as repositories for course documents.
Chart 14 indicates that colleges use their networks and VLEs to a far lesser extent for learner
support and guidance. College intranets, on the other hand, are used for learner support
equally as frequently as for course documentation.

Chart 14 Use of college learning platforms

100%
Percentage of colleges

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
Separate
Intranet VLE Network
device
Course documents 69% 50% 80% 5%
Support and guidance 70% 26% 49% 4%

Data = percentage of respondents

The data presented in Table 14 indicates that uploading materials is a relatively easy task for
the users of college learning platforms. Tracking learners through any programme of study,
and linking to the college’s management information system (MIS) appears more problematic.

Table 14 Ease of use of main college learning platform

Upload Track learner Link to college
materials activity MIS

26
 Easily 78% 31% 31%
With difficulty 16% 27% 26%
Not at all 3% 37% 37%
Data = percentage of respondents

However, when the main platform is identified in each case, some interesting differences
emerge. The data presented in Table 15 are derived from the separate responses of those
that use each type of platform as their ‘main’ learning platform. The figures given are the
percentages of colleges with each type of platform that found these operations easy. We can
see that uploading materials is a much easier task for those who use a VLE or the college
intranet than those who use the college network. The functionality of a VLE appears to enable
the tracking of learner activity far more easily than the other two platforms. Linking to the
college’s MIS seems only slightly easier for a VLE than the other platforms, only slightly better
than the figure of 31% for all platforms shown in Table 14. Easy linkage to college MIS
systems does not seem to be a feature of any particular platform, and any success here may
reflect local solutions found by particular skilled members of staff.

Table 15 Tasks considered easy for each college learning platform

Upload Track learner Link to college
materials activity MIS
College intranet 94% 19% 28%
VLE 92% 83% 33%
College network 80% 19% 29%
Data = percentage of users of each ‘main platform’

The extent to which colleges use ILT to track student progress is shown in Table 16. It can be
seen that this type of activity has yet to be fully embedded within the sector. By far the most
common type of tracking is against assignments or assessments, which takes place in only
42% of colleges.

Table 16 Use of ILT to track progress

Percentage of colleges
Scheme of work 12%
Whole programme 21%
Assignments and assessments 42%
Completion of an element of the programme 27%
Tutorials 18%
Data = percentage of respondents

The use of electronic information to support teaching and learning is at a similar modest level.
Thirty per cent of colleges commonly use electronic information to support personal tutorials,
and information from tutorials is recorded electronically in 20% of colleges. Electronic student
portfolios or records of achievement are maintained in 22% of colleges.

5.3 ILT in the teaching and learning process

Thirty-four per cent of colleges have set formal targets for the use of ILT across all
programmes. A further 46% set targets where they feel they are appropriate, and 16% do not
set targets for ILT at all. Many colleges have relationships with external organisations in their
delivery of technology-oriented learning. Table 17 shows the main organisations with which
colleges have IT academy-type status.

27
Table 17 Formal relationships with commercial organisations
Organisation Percentage of colleges
Cisco 37%
Microsoft 23%
Regional academies 6%
Oracle 5%
Novell 5%
Others 9%
Data = percentage of respondents

Remote learning is currently dominated by learndirect, with 72% of colleges delivering

learndirect courses. However, a not inconsiderable 55% of colleges conduct some remote
learning that is not delivered via learndirect.

Display screen technologies have made significant inroads into teaching practice. Ninety-
eight per cent of colleges use data projectors, of which 64% describe their use as frequent.
Eighty-one per cent of colleges use electronic whiteboards, but only 21% say they are used
frequently. However, these figures probably overstate the extent of the use of these
technologies. A few machines frequently used in even a modest sized college will not have a
widespread impact on embedding ILT in the teaching and learning process.

ILT in student induction

Chart 15 shows the extent to which ILT is used in the student induction process in colleges.
Two of the three most frequently cited activities, learning resources and IT/ICT skills, are
areas that have an intrinsic technology element. The third, initial assessment, is an area
where the ‘number-crunching’ ability of IT allows the quick and timely deployment of
assessment instruments. The evaluation of learning styles may seem to similarly lend itself to
ILT, but may be a less widespread part of the induction process generally, resulting in its
lower level of use here.

Chart 15 Use of ILT in student induction

90%
80%
Percentage of colleges

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Evaluate
Initial Learning Subject College
IT/ICT skills learning
assesment resources induction induction
styles

This is common practice 39% 35% 36% 9% 15% 9%

We do this 37% 47% 42% 47% 36% 32%

Data = percentage of respondents

28
ILT in mainstream programmes
Colleges were asked to identify the extent to which ILT was used in mainstream college
1
programmes. The model of e-learning developed by Jenny Scribbins and Bob Powell (2002)
was used to structure the variety of ways in which electronic media and resources can be
used to enable and support effective teaching and learning. The results are shown in Chart
16.

By far the most frequent use of ILT is to support learning; this takes place in all or most
programmes in 48% of colleges. This type of activity typically takes place outside scheduled
learning and complements or supports the main programme. The kind of ILT use envisioned
here includes using the internet for research, or using technology-based exercises for revision
or practice.

ILT is widespread as a traditional classroom tool in 21% of colleges. This category includes
the use of display screen technologies, and the level of use indicated here perhaps gives a
better picture of the current use of these technologies than the level of frequent use cited
above.

Using ILT with traditional learning resources to produce blended learning is seen as
widespread in some 18% of colleges. Seventeen per cent of colleges also report the use of
ILT to enable learners to access some or all of their programme at a time convenient to them.
The use of ILT for remote access or to produce an individualised programme of study are the
least common uses of e-learning in colleges: 34% of colleges make no use of ILT to enable
individualised study, and 28% do not use ILT for remote learning.

It is worth noting that this model of e-learning is a descriptive one and does not seek to
prescribe a set of activities that all colleges must follow. Each e-learning activity can aid high-
quality, effective teaching and learning when it is appropriate to the needs of the learner.

1
A fuller exposition of this model can be found in Managing Inspection and ILT, Becta 2002.

29
Chart 16 Use of ILT in mainstream college programmes

To support learning

Traditional classroom tool

Part of blended learning

Learners own pace

Learners own time

Individualised programme

Remote access

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Individual Learners Part of Tradition To

Remote Learners
ised ow n blended al support
access ow n time
program pace learning classroo learning

Used in no programmes 28% 34% 9% 3% 5% 2% 1%

In all or most programmes 8% 4% 17% 10% 18% 21% 48%

Percentage of colleges

Data = percentage of respondents

ILT learning materials

Learning materials are most often used at the individual teacher’s discretion. This was the
case in 52% of the colleges surveyed. Their use is directed by a college-wide plan in only
17% of colleges and by a plan at department or course level in 28%. Chart 17 shows the main
sources of learning materials used with students. The internet is the most frequently used
source of learning materials, being used in 94% of colleges and in common use in 43%. Of
the 78% of colleges that use NLN materials, only 5% describe their use as common practice.
This reflects the early stage in embedding the use of NLN materials, with only the limited
range of Round 1 materials available to colleges at the time of the survey.

Colleges were also asked to rank these sources of learning materials in order of importance.
The ranking followed the level of use, with internet resources ranked as most important and
NLN materials ranked fourth.

Eighty-seven per cent of colleges offer staff development programmes to support staff who
wish to develop or adapt electronic learning materials. Seventy-nine per cent offer support
from ILT champions and 75% offer support from technical staff. Of the 30% of colleges that
offer other support, around half offer support from other members of staff, often on a one-to-
one or mentoring basis. Others offer some remission of time, loan of laptops or other
equipment, and sometimes project funding.

30
Chart 17 Electronic learning materials used with students

Percentage of colleges 100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
NLN Commercial/ Own
Internet
materials bought-in college/devel
This is common practice 5% 18% 27% 43%
We do this 73% 68% 62% 51%

Data = percentage of respondents

ILT and online assessment

Online assessment, taken in the context of each college’s whole programme, is seen as
insignificant or limited to individual enthusiasts in 50% of the colleges surveyed. It is seen as
a widespread activity in only 3% of colleges. This low level of use is reflected in the extent to
which the assessment activities are seen as common practice in Chart 18 below. The most
extensive use of ILT is to store and record outcomes of assessment, which happens to some
degree in 68% of colleges, though only 10% describe this as common practice. The use of
ILT for assessment activities that lead to formal certification is the least widespread type of
activity, with only 46% of colleges doing this at all, and 2% describing this as common
practice. Given the early stage of ILT use in colleges generally, it is to be expected that the
use of ILT in assessment, and formal assessment especially, will lag behind. The adoption of
new and potentially untried techniques in this area may be seen as requiring a period of
evaluation against existing methods.

31
Chart 18 Online assessment activities

Computer-marked
assignments

On-line submission of work

To store outcomes

Certification activities

For student feedback

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

On-line Computer-
For student Certification To store
submission marked
feedback activities outcomes
of w ork assignment

This is common practice 5% 2% 10% 3% 2%

We use this 60% 44% 58% 56% 64%

Percentage of colleges

Data = percentage of respondents

5.4 Staff IT and ILT skills

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 time-scale. More
significant, however, was the belief that while respondents’ assessments of the categories
would not be identical, they would share sufficiently similar understandings of competency to
enable comparison and for judgements to be drawn from the results. The mean of the values
estimated by each college was calculated for every category.

However, it is worth noting that the lack of a 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.

32
Chart 19 Teaching staff IT and ILT competence

60

50
Percentage of staff

40

30

20

10

0
Beginner Competent Advanced
IT skills 27 53 20
ILT skills 44 37 19

Data = percentage of respondents

The results for teaching staff are shown in Chart 19. Across the sector as a whole, 73% 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 56% of college
staff are considered competent or advanced (in 2000 this was 42%). This suggests that just
under one in three staff who are competent or advanced in their personal use of IT are
regarded as low skilled in the application of ILT with learners. However, both sets of skills are
improving, and the gap between IT competence and ILT competence is narrowing as shown
in Chart 20.

Chart 20 Teaching staff: competent and advanced at IT/ILT

80
70
Percentage of staff

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2000 2001 2003
IT skills 67 70 73
ILT skills 42 48 56

Data = percentage of respondents

Respondents were asked to state the main skills that teaching staff currently need to develop,
and any development programmes that would help to address these needs. Twenty-one per
cent of colleges cited the integration of ILT into the curriculum and classroom practice.
Seventeen per cent cited the technical skills necessary to use particular packages or
applications. A further 14% cited the skills needed to use a VLE, 9% cited materials-
development skills, and a further 3% mentioned online tutoring skills. Even though it was only

33
launched in November 2002, the Ferl Practitioners’ Programme (FPP) was the most
frequently mentioned development programme, cited by 7% of respondents, and the
European Computer Driving Licence (ECDL) was mentioned by 1%.

Chart 21 shows the perceived skill levels for college learning support staff. The definition of
‘learning support staff’ was left to respondents. It does, however, represent a heterogeneous
skill set that may not be fairly represented here. Technical staff may be thought to dominate
the group, hence the higher level of competence reported in both IT (77% competent or
advanced) and ILT skills (65% competent or advanced) compared to teaching staff.

Chart 21 Learning support staff: IT and ILT competence

60

50
Percentage of staff

40

30

20

10

0
Beginner Competent Advanced
IT skills 23 55 22
ILT skills 35 43 22

Data = percentage of respondents

The skills thought necessary for this group of staff to develop tended more towards technical-
type skills. Twenty-five per cent cited the technical skills necessary to use particular packages
or applications, and another 11% mentioned use of a VLE. Product knowledge of the different
packages and hardware available was thought necessary for support staff by 6% of colleges.
The FPP was again the most frequently mentioned development programme, again cited by
7% of respondents. The ECDL was thought to be more appropriate for learning support staff,
cited here by 3% of respondents.

The use of ILT remains a peripheral activity in much of teaching and learning. Electronic
communications are more frequently used with college staff than with students. ILT in
induction is often focused on areas that already have inherent IT content. In mainstream
programmes, most ILT use remains a bolt-on element, outside scheduled teaching. However,
the first signs of embedded ILT practice are beginning to appear. There is some evidence of
ILT being used in traditional teaching, and some blended learning is taking place. Staff skills
in ILT are improving faster than their general IT skills, and many colleges see the embedding
of ILT into teaching practice as a key development need.

34
6 Expenditure on ILT

6.1 Identifying funding sources

Colleges found the Expenditure Survey difficult. Identifying particular items of expenditure
with particular funding streams proved a daunting task. For most colleges, once funding has
been received it is subsumed within the overall budget, and unless tracking back is a specific
requirement, it can prove to be very difficult. As a result, several colleges identified all
expenditure as emanating from college funds. Funding from external sources may, therefore,
be slightly understated.

Some £20 million of NLN funding was allocated to colleges in the year to July 2002. However,
some colleges pointed out that part of the funding became available from April 2001 and was
subsequently spent in the previous accounting period. This, taken along with some evidence
of colleges possibly misallocating NLN monies to Standards Fund or other sources, will
account for the apparent shortfall on this item.

The total expenditure of £206 million calculated in Table 18 below compares with £177 million
reported in an unpublished study in 1999, therefore representing a 17% increase in ILT
expenditure since that time. However, we asked for much more detailed information on staff-
related costs in the current survey compared to 1999. Stripping out the staff-related costs, the
2003 figure for hardware, software and systems is £141 million compared to £171 million in
1999, a 17% decrease in expenditure over the four years.

Over three-quarters of ILT expenditure comes out of the general college budget, with money
from the NLN and the Standards Fund and funding from external sources accounting for the
rest, at around 7–8% each. However, if the different types of expenditure are examined, the
targeted nature of this funding, and its importance to particular types of activity, is thrown into
relief. The ‘other’ funding, mainly from European Union and National Lottery sources, is often
tied to capital projects, therefore accounting for 10% of expenditure on hardware. The NLN
funding, being technology oriented, again accounts for 12% of the expenditure on both
hardware and software. The Standards Fund, on the other hand, is shown to be an extremely
important source of funding for training, accounting for over one-third of expenditure on both
technician and staff training in ILT. Staffing costs, being a recurrent expense, are
overwhelmingly funded out of the general college budget and, as several respondents found it
difficult to disentangle ILT-related staff costs from staff costs generally, the 94% figure stated
here is probably an understatement.

6.2 Sustainability of investment

Computers, along with much electronic office equipment are usually depreciated to zero over
three years. If this is a reasonable estimate of the life of these assets, then our calculation of
the total computer stock in the FE sector (see Section 3.2 above) would lead us to assume
that the sector as a whole must replace 100,000 computers each year to maintain present
levels. This would entail an annual expenditure of £65 million at today’s prices, some 75% of
the current hardware budget. This does not take into account expenditure on printers and
other peripherals, or on data projectors, electronic whiteboards and other classroom
equipment. However, we also estimate that some 50,000 of the computers in current use date
from 1999 or perhaps earlier. This represents a little over 30% of the computer stock in use at
that time, so it would be sensible to assume that a reasonable proportion of today’s
computers will have a life span of four years or maybe more. If this is true, the steady-state
annual replacement cost is then less than £50 million. However, a rough estimate of the
number of new computers bought in the year in question is 50,000 – at a cost of around £33
million, this is less than half the total hardware spend for the year.

A key question then is ‘how useful for teaching and learning is a four- or five-year-old
computer?’ The present baseline specification for such a computer remains at 1999 levels for
over a third of colleges (see Section 3.1 above), but the present acceleration of market
specifications of computers and the development of more highly specified materials and
applications would lead us to assume that such a situation will not hold for long. Investment

35
decisions will need to take account of what would be considered a reasonable life span for
these assets.

This series of reports has demonstrated that computer specifications improve and prices fall
over time. However it would be unwise to assume that innovation will stop and new, hitherto
unimagined technologies will not be clamouring to be used to enhance teaching and learning.
Sustainability is not simply a case of planning for replacement; it must also take into account
the potential for change and innovation in current practice.

6.3 ILT and staff-related costs

As mentioned above, several colleges found the task of extricating ILT-related staff costs from
the overall staff budget impossible, and therefore left the field blank. Others argued that as
ILT was the responsibility of everyone within the college, it was only a marginal element of the
staffing budget anyway. The figure of £51 million for staff with ILT as a key element of their
role is therefore the most problematic amount presented here. It is, however, large enough to
remind us that staffing is a necessary and not insignificant cost of any investment in ILT.

With regard to staff development, the 1999 survey only considered technician training, as this
was an area receiving specific funding from the then Further Education Funding Council
(FEFC). This item of expenditure was £6 million in 1999, and currently stands at £4.6 million,
a decrease of 23%. This figure, taken together with that for more general ILT staff training,
represents the smallest item in this budget, at 6% of the total. Well-trained staff are, however,
key to the implementation of ILT within colleges. The Standards Fund has been an extremely
important source of funding for ILT training, providing over a third of the funding received for
this item of expenditure. It should also be noted that the Standards Fund has usually required
matched funding, essentially doubling its contribution. There is clearly a danger, now that the
Standards Fund monies have been subsumed within the general college budget, that such a
small but essential amount may be diverted to other projects.

6.4 Major corporate information systems

These systems often involve large-scale projects followed by periods of maintenance. They
represent long-term strategic investment by colleges. Student records systems are by far the
largest item of current major systems expenditure. This is a reflection not only of the
importance of student information for reporting purposes, and the complexity of recording
data about an extremely diverse student body, but also of the relatively recent realisation of
the importance of this information. Student numbers are a major driver of many other costs:
they drive staffing levels, estates and, of course, ILT investment. This investment should
therefore provide much-needed information for colleges that have to plan for sustainability
and possible future growth.

36
Table 18 ILT expenditure for the FE sector 2001-02 (£ million)
Source of funding NLN College Standards Other Totals % of
monies funds Fund sources total
Major information systems
Student records 0.40 11.40 0.31 0.00 12.11
Human resources 0.07 2.20 0.20 0.06 2.53
Finance 0.04 4.51 0.22 0.00 4.77
Other 0.55 4.06 0.54 0.77 5.92
Totals for info. systems 1.06 22.18 1.27 0.82 25.33 12%
% of info. systems spend 4% 88% 5% 3%

General ILT expenditure

Hardware
Classroom equipment 5.51 37.95 5.06 5.82 54.34
LRC equipment 1.32 6.48 0.44 0.98 9.21
Other 3.42 16.69 1.82 1.66 23.59
Totals for hardware 10.25 61.11 7.32 8.46 87.13 42%
% of hardware spend 12% 70% 8% 10%

Software
Externally produced learning
materials 0.27 1.52 0.39 0.24 2.42
Internally produced learning
materials 1.24 2.90 0.90 1.36 6.39
Leaning management
software 1.32 3.44 0.41 0.22 5.39
LRC software and licenses 0.18 2.24 0.30 0.06 2.77
Other software and licenses 0.65 11.54 0.14 0.41 12.74
Totals for software 3.67 21.65 2.13 2.28 29.72 14%
% of software spend 12% 73% 7% 8%

ILT Staff Costs

Learning resources support 0.06 15.38 0.43 0.14 16.01
Business support 0.05 11.95 0.15 0.02 12.18
ILT champions 0.21 3.17 0.88 0.02 4.27
Management of ILT 0.04 8.34 0.31 0.15 8.85
Other ILT-related staff costs 0.10 9.13 0.24 0.04 9.50
Totals for ILT staffing 0.46 47.97 2.01 0.37 50.82 25%
% of ILT staffing spend 1% 94% 4% 1%

Technical support staff training

Technician training 0.24 0.73 0.61 0.03 1.62
Externally provided training 0.11 0.90 0.51 0.01 1.53
Training staff costs 0.07 0.91 0.49 0.04 1.51
Totals for TS training 0.42 2.54 1.61 0.09 4.66 2%
% of TS training spend 9% 55% 35% 2%

ILT staff training

Externally provided training 0.03 1.64 1.13 0.02 2.82
Training staff costs 0.03 3.58 1.98 0.07 5.66
Totals for ILT training 0.06 5.22 3.10 0.10 8.48 4%
% of ILT training spend 1% 62% 37% 1%

Total expenditure 15.91 160.67 17.44 12.12 206.14 100%

% of total expenditure 8% 78% 8% 6%

37
38