The MLE Landscape Study: current trends and activity

Margaret Wallis Social Informatics Research Unit,

University of Brighton,

Background to the study

Commissioned by JISC and UCISA - August 2002 to June 2003

Social Informatics Research Unit, University of Brighton

Education for Change The Research Partnership

Objective of the study

To identify and analyse the current picture in UK FE and HE institutions with regard to issues of the integration of business processes, services and systems in support of learning and teaching

www.jisc.ac.uk/project_mle_activity.html

Research Methodology Extensive literature and web review Consultation with key informants National survey of all FE and HE

institutions 699 institutions - 540 FE and 194 HE Response rate 358 institutions - 51% Eight case studies selected to represent

FE and HE categories and levels of integration

Defining an MLE

Initial focus to provide a definition The term MLE rarely understood Functions and level of integration

the key

Research findings

Significant levels of MLE activity across all institutions - 70%

47% have yet to finalise an MLE development strategy

VLE use - 83% Institutional portal - 44%

Strategic models for MLE development

Predominantly centrally managed - 40%

Institution-wide initiative with devolved responsibilities - 27%

Move away from local/departmental initiatives

Drivers of MLE development Enhancing the quality of teaching and

learning Improving access to learning for

students off-campus Widening participation/inclusiveness Student expectations Access to/attracting overseas students Competitive advantage

Consultation on MLE development

Consulting with staff Consulting with students Consulting with external

organisations

Operational model for MLE development

77% of HE institutions are developing and/or integrating systems using in-house capability.

MLE Functions

17 functions including: Academic teaching/guidance Access to course descriptions Integration of on-line library

resources with VLE Payment of fees

MLE Current and future integration

Extent of integration

Course enrolment

Course enrolment is through

paper forms only

Enrolment for some

courses can be done on-

line

On-line enrolment

available for the majority of courses

Students primarily enrol for courses on-

line

Now

3-5 year

s

Now

3-5 year

s Now

3-5 year

s Now 3-5 years

Signing-on to access electronic learning resources and environments

No electronic learning

resources

Students have to use

multiple user names specific to

each resource to

access electronic learning

resources and

environments

Students access

electronic learning

resources and

environments using

many user names;

some cover multiple

resources

Students access all electronic

learning resources and environments

directly using a single user name

and password

Now

3-5 year

s Now

3-5 year

s Now

3-5 year

s Now 3-5 years

Systems integration

19% of universities have minimal systems integration

24% have partial integration 57% have relatively high levels of

integration HE Colleges 11%; 61% and 28% respectively

Findings (1)

Course enrolment Cautious approach

Module selection 44% online selection

Academic teaching/guidance – Pre-91 24% online guidance Post 91 51% online guidance

Integration of online library resources into VLE Pre-91 - 38%; Post-91 - 64%

Access needs for students with disabilities Limited on-line support – 56% Support for wide range of needs Pre-91 – 13%; Post-91 – 31%

Findings (2)

Advantages, disadvantages and impact of MLEs

Advantages Open and wider access to learning; Greater administrative efficiency Integration of data across the

institution

Disadvantages of MLEs “There are no disadvantages, but there

are obstacles and risks. The development of the MLE impacts on current working practices of both academic and administrative staff. There are significant training needs for staff and students. [There is a] risk to quality of student experience if not used well.”

Comments from a post-1991 university.

Disadvantages

Cost and time involved Resistance to culture change Scale of need for staff training and

development Stable infrastructure and dependence

on software systems vendors Importance of system and data

security

Impact on learning and teaching

Too soon to assess the impact of MLEs

The relationship between the MLE and VLE largely unexplored

Systems not yet well embedded or accepted

Student expectations raised

Constraints and barriers to development

Lack of time Lack of money Lack of academic staff knowledge Lack of academic staff

development Lack of support staff

Conclusions

MLEs are “a good thing” Not yet fully embedded institutionally Student experience is being

enhanced Pedagogical issues have been a

secondary concern Scale of the task is daunting Uneven quality of materials

Future activity

Further case studies Development of a benchmarking

tool to build on the integration matrix

Development of a case study data base

Further survey