1. ICERI2016
Seville, Spain
14-16 Oct 2016
Technology adoption trends and educational change within UK HE: Reflections on the UCISA Survey data ( )
Dr Richard Walker
Head of E-Learning
University of York, UK

2. The changing face of higher education
Higher education has been reshaped over recent years:
the marketisation of higher education (national & global competition)
demand-driven expansion of UG education
the emergence of students-as-consumers, exerting wishes for new kinds of educational provision;
the potential of new digital technologies; and
the apparent potential (that new educational environments are opening up) for widening higher education at reduced unit costs (Barnett, 2004:8)

3. How should UK HE institutions respond?
Market differentiation in programme design:
Distinctive portfolio of programmes (design, outcomes & transferable skills)
Flexible entry points and pathways to degree courses, attracting a diverse student body
Flexible delivery methods: increased online provision
Learner engagement (retention & progression):
institutional responsiveness to student expectations and needs (through well-defined academic support and service delivery; greater use of learner analytics)
Ensuring the quality of the student experience through innovative teaching, support & service provision
Learner flexibility:
Flexible and interactive learning experiences through the informed use of digital technologies (evidence-based)

4. What does the UCISA data say?
The Universities and Colleges Information Systems Association (UCISA) has surveyed UK higher education institutions on the use of learning technology tools since 2001

5. Pedagogical flexibility
Still an emphasis, though slowly reducing, on transmissive teaching methods (2014 UCISA TEL Survey)
Category A – web supplemented
Category Bi – web dependent, content
Category Bii – web dependent, communication
Category Biii – web dependent, content and communication
Category E – fully online (categories adapted from Bell et al., 2002)

6. Blended content delivery
A strong focus on supplementary uses of the web to support content delivery:
offered extensively across 79% of responding institutions (2016 UCISA Survey)
a further 13% confirm that supplementary online content offered across schools / departments
compares favourably with ‘modest level of mainstreaming’ of blended provision reported in EUA Survey (Gaebel et al., 2014)
But to what extent does this support an active learning agenda?

7. Institutional provision of TEL tools
2016
2014
2012
VLE
99%
95% -
Other tools:
E-submission
93%
85%
87%
Text-matching
90%
92%
Formative e-assessment
71%
79%
Asynchronous communication
Summative e-assessment
81%
Blog
76%
73%
72%
Document sharing
45%
51%
The capacity building effort in the past decade has led to the mainstreaming of TEL services to control and manage key learning processes. Learning management systems or VLEs are now ubiquitous, despite ongoing criticism of their pedagogic inflexibility – responsible for the heavy lifting of course management. We have also witnessed strong investment in e-assessment tools for automated marking of tests and e-submission of assignments (a step towards e-marking) and text-matching (plagiarism detection) to assist students with their academic writing as much as for screening of assessed work. We have seen less emphasis on student-controlled tools to support collaboration and to promote active student learning
Source: UCISA 2016 TEL survey

8. Percentage of institutional courses using TEL tools
100%
75%-99%
50%-74%
VLE
42%
50% 1%
Other tools:
E-submission
20%
38%
Text-matching
16%
19%
Content management
11% 9% 2%
Reading list software
21%
12%
Digital repository 6%
Mobile apps 5%
Asynchronous communication 4%
10%
15%
This table displays the most commonly deployed TEL tools by UK HE institutions and indicates the percentage of courses in which they are deployed. The columns reflect the percentage of responding institutions to the survey using a TEL tool, based on a scale of deployment of half to just under three-quarters of all courses that they deliver on the far right-side, through to 100% or all of their courses in the left-hand column.
It comes as no surprise to see that virtual learning environments are a common feature across most courses - 42% of responding institutions use the VLE in all of the courses that they deliver.
E-assessment and content management tools also feature prominently as part of institutional TEL provision to students. Student-controlled learning activity has a lesser profile, with mobile apps and asynchronous communication tools appearing at the bottom of the table.
Source: UCISA 2016 TEL survey

9. Enabling change through ‘top down’ support
Facilitating institutional policies
- University of South Wales ‘switch on’ policy for mobile devices (UCISA 2014)
Embedding of TEL concerns within institutional strategies
- Teaching, Learning & Assessment strategy informs TEL development for 91% of institutions (UCISA, 2016)
Investment in digital delivery
- MOOCs supporting outreach and on-campus support
Summing things up, the UCISA data suggests that institutional change in pedagogic practice through the use of learning technologies has not changed dramatically over the years – and that we are still seeing a strong focus on the use of technology to push out content to students and to manage key processes such as assessment, rather than to empower academics to innovate in pedagogic design and students to engage in more active learning online. We may conclude that institutional investment in TEL infrastructure will not, by itself, bring about changes in pedagogic practice.
Through our case study research with individual institutions, we have seen that there may be greater prospects for change when capacity building and investment initiatives such as the development of ubiquitous wifi infrastructure on campus are supported by facilitating institutional policies towards the use of digital tools, encouraging academics to consider new course delivery approaches involving the use of technology. For example, the University of South Wales has adopted such a twin-track strategy, upgrading wifi access to support the use by students of their mobile devices on campus, whilst at the same time introducing a ‘switch-on’ policy supporting students’ use of mobile devices in classroom settings.
The introduction of top-down support for TEL and its embedding within institutional strategies for teaching, learning and assessment also appears to be a key factor in promoting sustainable change. The 2016 UCISA data highlights the progress that has been made in this regard, with 91% of responding institutions confirming that their Teaching, Learning and Assessment strategy now informs the development of technology enhanced learning. This reflects how technology is being incorporated as an enabling or component part of the institutional vision for teaching and learning, rather than as a sole focus (i.e. as part of a capacity-building initiative). Indeed this level of institutional engagement compares favourably with how technology is being addressed on a strategic level across European institutions; judging by the findings of the EUA Survey reported that only 49% of institutions had a strategy informing e-learning development.
The promotion of the digital agenda through complementary initiatives such as MOOC delivery may also help in showcasing innovation and scope for different uses of TEL tools in campus based teaching.

10. Support for teaching and staff development
Upskilling of lecturers’ digital capabilities (NUS, 2010): a new digital divide?
Supporting transition to active learning pedagogical design
Pedagogic craft to embed TEL tools effectively in course design and delivery (e.g. video as stimuli for pre- and in-class learning)
new pedagogic models? Transfer of MOOC inspired pedagogies to on-campus teaching (Yuan, Powell & Oliver, 2014)
Greater use of learner analytics (Jisc, )
We should acknowledge though that the key component of any change agenda for the use of technology in higher education has to be support for teaching. Respondents to the 2016 UCISA survey highlighted staff development as the leading challenge to TEL adoption moving forwards over the next years.
The National Union of Students highlighted way back in 2010 a potential new digital divide between the digital capabilities of students and the perceived skills of academic staff – and clearly there is a need to make staff aware of the affordances of learning technologies and provide them with the skills to use TEL tools effectively in course design to support active learning.
Academic staff need the time, space and encouragement to embed technologies in course design and delivery – for instance, through use of video to support flipped designs and more meaningful class engagement with students.
In this respect we may see MOOCs acting as a stimulus for staff to experiment with technologies in their undergraduate teaching (a trickle-down effect), inspired by the innovative practice they have seen displayed in fully online courses – supporting the development of new pedagogic models.
Finally the use of learning analytics and big data may also make a contribution to pedagogic innovation and change, enabling academics to track student learning and respond to student needs through more timely and targeted support. The Jisc is currently working with more than 50 universities and colleges to support the development of a sector-wide learning analytics solution, with the project due to be completed by the end of July 2017 and we may anticipate further developments in analytics provision in the future.

11. 2016 UCISA TEL Survey Report and institutional case studies:
Further information
2016 UCISA TEL Survey Report and institutional case studies:
Open learning developments across the UK HE sector:
Learning analytics developments across the UK HE sector:
summary
That concludes the presentation. Thanks for listening. If you would like to know more about TEL developments across the UK sector, please take a look at the full report of the 2016 UCISA survey, which is available via the UCISA weblink highlighted on the screen. We welcome feedback on the report and project team would welcome the opportunity to compare our findings with other national HE sectors.
Based on the UCISA data we have also produced short Youtube summaries of open learning and learning analytics developments across the UK HE sector, available via the weblinks on screen, which might be of interest.

12. Barnett, R. (2014). Conditions of flexibility: securing a more responsive higher education system, The Higher Education Academy: York.
Bell, M., Bush, D., Nicholson, P, O’Brien, D., & Tran, T. (2002). Universities online: A survey of online education and services in Australia. Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training.
Gaebel, M., Kupriyanova, V., Morais, R., & Colucci, E. (2014). E-learning in European Higher Education Institutions: Results of a mapping survey conducted in October-December European University Association Publications learning_survey
References

13. Jisc (2015-2017). Effective learning analytics. Jisc project
Jisc ( ). Effective learning analytics. Jisc project analytics
National Union of Students [NUS] (2010). Student perspectives on technology – demand, perceptions and training needs. Report to HEFCE by NUS.
UCISA (2014) Survey of Technology Enhanced Learning: case studies. Good Practice Guide. Universities and Colleges Information Systems Association (UCISA). Oxford, UK.
References

14. Walker, R. , Voce, J. , Nicholls, J. , Swift, E. , Ahmed, J
Walker, R., Voce, J., Nicholls, J., Swift, E., Ahmed, J., Horrigan, S., & Vincent, P. (2014) Survey of Technology Enhanced learning for higher education in the UK. Universities and Colleges Information Systems Association (UCISA) Report. Oxford, UK.
Walker, R., Voce, J., Swift, E., Ahmed, J., Jenkins, M., & Vincent, P. (2016) Survey of Technology Enhanced learning for higher education in the UK. Universities and Colleges Information Systems Association (UCISA) Report. Oxford, UK.
Yuan, l., Powell, S., & Olivier, B. (2014). Beyond MOOCs: Sustainable Online Learning in Institutions. CETIS white paper.
References