Reviewing the University’s Virtual Learning Environment

  1. External Context

In December 2009 the HEFCE established an Online Learning Task Force to help the UK higher education (HE) sector maintain and extend its position as a world leader in online learning. The work of the task force has assumed increasing significance as the implications of the Browne Report and spending review leads most universities to look at alternative and more flexible ways to deliver courses. The OLTF has just (January 2011) published its final reportand the body of the report and its recommendations include much of relevance to the review of the institutional VLE.

Central to the conclusions of the OLTF is the need for institutions to see online learning as a strategic issue and not a simple bolt on option. The recommendations urge universities to collaborate more in online learning developments and to engage more in teaching partnerships between technologists, learning support specialists and academics.“Mixed teams working together on the pedagogic and technological elements of online learning will enable institutions to offer innovative, up-to-date, high-quality provision”.

To be successful an institution will need a VLE that is suitable for the demands of its learners, has support from management and that its staff are enthusiastic about. A VLE is not so much about choosing a tool or set of tools but is much more about ensuring that the context within which the VLE operates is ‘right’. Key here are the issues of reliability and staff development and support for the use of the VLE matching staff expectations.

For many years now, the core of an institutional VLE has normally been a commercial system made up of a suite of tools that can collectively be used to manage and deliver learning. Typically these systems have tools to facilitate communication, to upload and make available materials/content, to allow students to undertake online tests and submit coursework electronically and to record marks and track progress and student activity.For years the market was led by 2 ‘off the shelf’ VLE products Blackboard and WebCT. In 2008 Blackboard purchased WebCT and announced their intention to merge the 2 systems.

In recent years a number of institutions in the UK have started to use an open source VLE (Moodle), and in fact the latest UCISA survey states:

“Although Blackboard (Classic & Web CT) remains as the most used enterprise or institutional VLE, its usage has declined since 2008. Moodlehas increased in usage as an enterprise solution and remains the most commonly used VLE platform at a devolved level within schools and departments.”

According to UCISA’s survey 35% of institutions use Blackboard as their main institutional VLE, compared to 23% using Moodle and 20% with WebCT. The UCISA figures are based on returns from 91 institutions (out of a possible 167). The Heads of E-learning Forum (HELF) has recently (December 2010) conducted its own survey and has collected data from 149 institutions. According to these figures, 41% of institutions use Blackboard, 13% use WebCT, 30% use Moodle and 7% use Blackboard and Moodle. Of the institutions using WebCT (20), since Blackboard’s acquisition of WebCT, 2 so far have decided to move to Moodle and 2 to Blackboard.

Interestingly, UCISA’s survey shows that 35% of the institutions that responded to their survey have VLE’s hosted locally in addition to the main centrally provided institutional VLE. The most commonly cited reason for the local provision was based on a pedagogical rationale to meet specific needs in that department.

An ‘off the shelf’ VLE can support a range of pedagogic approaches from instructor led, through problem based to collaborative learning and others. However, as pointed out by Weller (2007) “some pedagogic approaches are supported more easily than others, and some require a great deal of intervention in order to realise them within the limitations of the fixed set of tools typically found within a VLE”. The difficulties encountered in translating an academic’s vision of how an online pedagogic approach will work in practice is what often underpins the demand for tools that are not part of the standard set within the chosen institution wide platform.

Compounding the ‘one version of a VLE tool does not fit all’ situation has been the growth in recent yearsin the use of Web2.0 tools. These tools, of which there are many, can also underpin a range of online pedagogies but, because of their nature, tend to encourage a more social form of learning. In contrast the more ‘staid’ tools of commercial VLEs that have been designed around content centric models of online learning are seen as much more ‘instructor centred’ than ‘student centred’. Some universities, (the University of Brighton is considered an exemplar), have undertaken a great deal of work to both extend the tool set of their corporate VLE (Blackboard) and create a look and feel for their VLE that is more in tune with the kind of systems that students use in their private lives and that they will encounter when in employment.

Leaving aside the debate of whether an ‘out of the box’ set of e-learning tools can enable the kind of active, student centred learning that most universities seek to promote, there is little doubt that universities are increasingly moving towards using a broader range of tools that are, where possible, integrated with institutional systems and data sources.

  1. Internal Context

The review was originally commissioned by the Information Strategy Committee (ISC) but is also of direct relevance to the work of the Learning, Teaching and Student Support Committee (LTSS). The review has been stimulated by significant problems encountered with the Blackboard system at Westminster in the last 2 years. However a review is also timely given a) the very different ‘climate’ post-Browne and with the new coalition government and b) it is almost 10 years since the last review (conducted by the then Director of Information Systems) that preceded the institution’s choice of Blackboard as its corporate e-learning solution.

Blackboard is used by almost all staff in the University and the majority of students rely on it (as a minimum) as a ‘one stop shop’ for information related to their course and modules. It is ‘estimated’ that around 10% of taught modules use Blackboard for activities (e.g. online tests, student collaborative group work) or for the electronic receipt of coursework. The Director Technology Enhanced Learning has reported annually on the use of Blackboard for several years, previously at Academic Council and latterly at LTSS. These reports show that online activities such as online tests and electronic submission of coursework have grown consistently in the last 5 years (report to LTSS September 2010). At Westminster Blackboard is made up of three components, the Blackboard Learning System (provides the Blackboard sites), Blackboard Portal System (provides customisation potential) and the Blackboard Content Collection (provides file sharing capability, storage and e-portfolio tool).

Blackboard comes with the range of tools expected of a ‘single supplier’ VLE. Some, such as the announcement tool, and the content upload facility are used extensively whilst others such as the online test capability (see above) have gradually gathered more and more users over the past few years. Some tools however, such as the peer review tool, instant messaging and many of the tracking facilities are largely unused by staff and students.

Apart from the set of tools that come as part of Blackboard, Westminster also has licences for the Learning Object suite of Web 2.0 tools (blogs, wikis) and Turnitin (text matching software system). The former are integrated into Blackboard (they are purchased with plugin capability) and therefore they benefit from use of the same data as the main Blackboard system (i.e. no separate login to use the tools and the tools are automatically accessible to any students drawn into the Blackboard system by the data link to SITS). Turnitin is a standalone external system not integrated* with the institutional Blackboard installation.The University also has its own Google apps domain (one for students and one for staff) and this environment (which is not integrated with Blackboard) provides a range of functionality (including email, document sharing and collaboration, groups and websites).

In the last few years the use of video recordings to change delivery has become increasingly significant. For example the LPC, a key Law School course, relies heavily on the use of recorded videos made available on the web. Currently the University has multiple technical options for the making and distribution of audio/video recordings. There is currently an ongoing video project, led by Alex Iacconi in ISLS, that is focussed on rationalising provision with a view to providing recommended approach for video production linked to a secure, stable and easy to use distribution system.

The library now offers an extensive e-library which, based on evidence collected in the review is an important component of the institution’s VLE. E-books and e-journals accessed via a tab in Blackboard. Past exam papers are accessible from within each module site via an ‘in house’ developed building block linking the past exam paper database directly with Blackboard.

The look and feel of the Westminster Blackboard installation is pretty much ‘out of the box’. There has been no customisation of look and feel (beyond application of a basic corporate template) and no integration with systems often used by students in their day to day lives (e.g. Facebook).

In addition to the online learning tools and systems that the university provides (see above), some staff also use systems that are not in anyway university owned or approved, to support aspects of learning and teaching. Examples here could include the use of Flickr for students to showcase their work or of Yahoo Groups for online collaboration or of Wordpress blogs for students to undertake aspects of their coursework in an environment that has greater similarities to the World of work. Another example would be the use of Skype for staff to tutor students remotely in certain circumstances. The extent of such activity (i.e. online learning outside of university systems) is inevitably hard to quantify but it is clearly happening and of greater significance to certain subject areas (e.g. MAD) than others.

The institutional VLE (see figure 2) is therefore made up of activity within institutional systems and activity that happens essentially on the Internet. The majority of activity, and especially activity that realises assessed work, still happens within university owned or ‘approved’ (e.g. Turnitin) systems. The pattern and extent of activity is consistent with the Technology Enhanced Learning strategic framework published as part of the university’s TEL strategy as a planning tool for Schools (see figure 3).

We are coming to the end of the ISC-led IT infrastructure review process and it clearly identifies Blackboard as a key element requiring urgent and immediate attention in respect of both resilience and availability. This reflects in part a past lack of strategic planning for the University’s IT storage and systems environment, leading to under-development and associated under-investment, despite this underpinning all other services. This is in direct contrast to the University’s network infrastructure. Data storage is the most critical element of the University’s IT environment; almost without exception, every key application and service is highly dependent on internal storage, including Blackboard. ISLS run a complex environment and there are a number of known issues with storage services – some do not work to their full capacity, other are incapable of supporting tier 1 services such as Blackboard, some are out of warranty, some are at end of life. ISLS have had to put greater reliance on cheaper storage solutions as these have plenty of space, but they can only handle a specific amount of processes. Work has already begun to consider possible storage solutions, including a move to more external hosting, which will provide the University with a solid environment for the next two to five years and beyond.

*Note Turnitin comes with plug in capability to Blackboard but this does not work for technical reasons at Westminster

Figure 3 – Technology enhanced learning framework planning tool

VLE and e-resources - Aims in this part of an e-learning strategy might include: embedding the use of some VLE tools or approaches more deeply across courses for a range of purposes e.g. to enhance quality of provision perhaps through generating more opportunities for active learning, making existing processes more effective and efficient.

New markets - The bottom left section of the framework focuses on using existing, established technology for new markets/courses and possibly modes of delivery (e.g. wholly distance learning courses). On the basis that the tried and testing technology infrastructure and support can be trusted this part of a strategy would consider how best to use the established approaches for new markets/developments.

Wireless technologies/Web2.0 - The top right section is about the application of newer technologies to existing courses. Of relevance here is the revolution taking place in the use of wireless technologies and the scope to make more use of technology in the classroom. The combination of wireless networks with laptops or PDAs makes it possible to create a classroom space that is fully integrated with the power of the internet available to individual or groups of students.

Explore emerging technologies - The bottom right box is the blue skies area and within this part of any derived strategy there may be a discussion of potential future markets linked to the exploitation of emerging technologies and their application.

3. Aim of the review

As outlined in a paper to ISC (February 2010) the aim of the review was described as:

“DeterminecurrentuserviewofBlackboardatWestminsterinrelationtoitsfitnessforpurposeandintermsofperceivedreliabilityandstimulatedebateonthepotentialofMoodleasanalternativeVLE”.

Whilst initially there was support from ISC for some limited piloting of Moodle at Westminster for comparative purposes it was felt that simply comparing one VLE against another could potentially lead to procurement issues at a later stage. As a consequence the notion of piloting Moodle with some ‘live’ courses to inform the review was not followed up.

Subsequent discussion of the objectives of the review at LTSS led to the view that:

….It was therefore felt by LTSS that the review of Blackboard should focus on the needs of staff and students – i.e. what do they need from any VLE and such a review should form the basis of any report to ISC (and LTSS) in the future.

This objective is in keeping with the general approach taken by other institutions that have conducted similar reviews and where choice of the ‘right’ VLE is informed as much by human factors and processes within an institution that can affect whether any IT tool or system becomes widely and successfully used.

Whilst at Westminster the majority of e-learning tools are those available in Blackboard, it was made clear by ISC and LTSS that the review needed to include consideration of other e-learning tools such as Turnitin and systems for the creation and distribution of video recordings (podcasts).

  1. Conduct of the Review to date

Both existing recent information (e.g. the School SWOT analyses on e-learning submitted to LTSS in 2010) and new information gathered through interviews, meetings with groups of staff, LTQ committess, an extensive research survey on the theme of technology enhanced learning and a blog have been used to compile a view of the current needs of staff and Schools.

a)School SWOT analyses

Discussed at the April 2010 meeting of LTSS the School SWOT analyses ‘collectively’ highlighted major strengths in the institutional VLE as being:

  • A VLE used by staff for and valued by students as a ‘one stop shop’
  • Systems available to help with plagiarism detection/online submission

Major weaknesses highlighted were:

  • Insufficient time for staff to develop/support for expansion
  • Staff unfamiliar with what is possible/available and alack of guidance
  • Unreliable IT infrastructure

Collectively Schools outlined a range of opportunities focussed around new course developments, new markets and enhancement of the student experience.

Identified threats were as follows:

  • Insufficient time and resources
  • Reluctance from some staff/lack of confidence
  • Reliability of the technology/infrastructure/insufficient support
  • Disconnection with students/devaluation of face-to-face
  • External private and public providers of online/blended learning
  • Financial crisis impacting on number and type of staff
  • Loss of local support
  • Limitations of Blackboard
  • Change of VLE

b)Interviews with staff

Early in 2010 the Director of Technology Enhanced Learning interviewed nearly 28 staff users of Blackboard to gather some preliminary views about the review and specifically about Blackboard (see paper to the February 2010 meeting of ISC).

Staff views on thenatureofthereview

Itwasgenerallyagreedthatstaffandstudentsneededtobeconsultedwidelyonanypotentialchangegiventheextensivedegreetowhichtheuseofthe VLE hasbecomeembeddedintodailylifeatWestminster.Itwasalsogenerally feltthatthefocusofthereviewshouldnotrevolvearoundlicencecostsbutrathera)doesthe VLEprovidewhatyoucurrentlyneedb)areyouinanywaylimitedinwhatyoudo(withrespecttoTEL)bytheVLEatWestminsterandc)What,ifanything,stopsyoufromusingthe VLEmorewithstudentsbothinandoutofclass?

The staff view of Blackboard

  • BlackboardwasoneofthebettercorporatesystemsatWestminster(leavingasidethemajorproblemsthathave occurredat the start of both of the last 2 academic years)
  • Blackboardisgenerallyeasytoget‘usedto’althoughtherewerea rangeofspecificgripesaboutthe limitations of individual toolsinBlackboard
  • Theneedforareliablesystemwasstressed.Thiswasparticularlycriticalfor‘real-time’events(e.g.courseworksubmission,onlinetests,e-portfolioworkandotherstudentledworkthatcouldbeconductedinclass).Thegrowing perceptionseemstobethatBlackboardis ‘down’toooften(notethatrespondents were urgedtothinkaroundtherecenttroubles).
  • Withreliabilityanissue,notjustonlinebutwithinclassrooms(dueoftentoissuesidentifiedasnotdirectlyduetoBlackboardbutratherwithproblemsaccessingit)thequestionofwhetheranyothersystem similar to Blackboardwouldbeanymore‘reliable’intheWestminstercontextwasoftenraised
  • AmajorroleforBlackboardwasasa‘onestopshop’forstudentsonacourse becausetheycouldaccessallthekeyinformationandupdatesforallmodulesin oneplace
  • Blackboardwasseenas‘settled’ifyouwantedtouseitonamoduleorcoursebasis. Howeverifyouwantedtooperateaslightlydifferentmodele.g.teachseminargroupsratherthanwholemodules,teachacrossmodules,mixstudentsfromdifferentsubjectareas then this was not easily achievable.
  • ManystaffstilldonotknowtheextenttowhichBlackboardcanbecustomisedatuserlevel(e.g.thecapabilitytodisablecomponentswithinindividual siteswasnotwell understood)andalliedtothiswastheviewthatthereweretoomanytool optionsmade availablebydefault.
  • It was clear that whilst Blackboard has a good range of tools that can support a variety of pedagogic approaches, the tools were often seen as limiting by comparison to ‘free standing’ tools available outside of the university. A good specific example here is that of e-portfolios where the existing system in Blackboard is very limited for example in terms of amount of storage space and capability, due to institutional security policies, to share a portfolio with non-members of the university IT community.

c)Research into staff perceptions of Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) at Westminster