HeLF UK HE Research on Tablet Technologies

2,249 views
2,096 views

Published on

Research on the provision, policies and support of tablet technologies in UK HE

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,249
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1,456
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Nearly all institutions purchase tablets for individual academics, about 2/3 purchase them for administrators and nearly a fifth purchase them for students. A quarter purchase them for all academics in entire Departments and Faculties and nearly a fifth purchase them for all students in entire Departments and Faculties. Less than 1% purchase them for all academics or all students across the whole institution. They are never purchased for all administrators in an entire Department or Faculty.
  • Most academics are not using their tablets for administration, eFeedback, during f2f sessions or field work. The highest area of usage is for administration with little use in learning and teaching.
  • The majority of institutions do not have policies. More policies exist or are under consideration for BOYD.

  • HeLF UK HE Research on Tablet Technologies

    1. 1. HeLF UK HE Research on Tablet Technologies Dr Barbara Newland Dr Neil Ringan Lindsey Martin
    2. 2. Aim of survey  To find out:  provision, policies and support of tablet technologies in UK HE  the impact on learning and teaching  the impact on Heads of eLearning  To share information on policies, guidelines and case studies
    3. 3.  A network of senior staff in institutions engaged in promoting, supporting and developing technology enhanced learning  Over 130 nominated Heads from UK Higher Education institutions  A regular programme of well attended events  Represents the interests of its members to various national bodies and agencies including the Higher Education Academy and JISC www.helf.ac.uk Heads of eLearning Forum (HeLF)
    4. 4. Definiton  “tablet technology” is defined as: “a portable computer that uses a touchscreen as its primary input device.” (http://www.techterms.com/definition/tablet)  For example, an iPad, Nexus10, Microsoft Surface or Kindle Fire.  This survey is not directed at smartphones or laptops, although it is appreciated that the distinctions are a grey area.
    5. 5.  The survey was available:  to HeLF members who were asked to respond with regard to their knowledge of their own institution  in March/April 2014 and took about 10 minutes to complete  The questions were a mixture of closed multiple-choice/multiple-answer and multiple selection as well as open response type  Participants were assured that all data collected in the survey would be held anonymously and securely  No personal data was asked for or retained unless the participant indicated a willingness to be contacted in the future  The results were analysed using quantitative and qualitative methods  48 responses from 131 HeLF members – 37% response rate Methodology
    6. 6. Main findings  Approach is patchy – based on individuals and some departments rather than institution wide  iPads dominate  Policies – generally, less than a fifth have polices but up to 75% are considering them  Project funding in about 60% institutions  Used more for administration than learning and teaching  Minimal impact to date on the role of Head of eLearing and learning technologists but indications that this will change  Pattern of adoption is similar to the the Electronic Management of Assessment (EMA) approach 4 years ago … except in the impact on the role
    7. 7. Purchasing tablets 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 The whole InstitutionFor an entire FacultyFor an entire DepartmentIndividuals Academics Administrators Students
    8. 8. Purchasing preference  Similar percentages of staff were allowed their choice of tablet as not allowed with a similar amount of variance. Students were less likely to be able to choose.  iPads are the greatly preferred choice by institutions and departments if there is not a free choice
    9. 9. Lending tablets  Just over half the institutions have a scheme to lend tablets. More lending happens locally and to academics more than students  All, except 1, scheme lend iPads with a third also lending Androids  There is a mixture of responsibility for lending with the main lenders being IT Services or the eLearning Team. In some cases academics can lend them to students.
    10. 10. Percentage having a tablet (either institutionally provided or owned by the individual)? 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 - 25% 26 - 50% 51 - 75% 76 - 100% Senior management Academics Administrative staff Students
    11. 11. Academic use of tablets 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 - 25% 26 - 50% 51 - 75% 76 - 100% Administration eFeedback During f2f sessions During field work
    12. 12. Policies 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Yes No Under consideration
    13. 13. Apps  Departments and individuals fund the purchase of apps for academics, administrators and students  Most individuals create their own ID  Most tablets are not supplied with a core set of apps  If apps are supplied they include: Airwatch, Aurasma, Blackboard mobile, eduroam, Explain Everything, Goodreader, iAnnotate, Meraki, Nearpod, Rosetta Stone, Skype, Turnitin, University, Virtual desktop and some subject specific
    14. 14. University funded scheme Departmental scheme No project funding Funding
    15. 15. Impact on role 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Significant Minimal None On your role as Head of eLearning eg policy development, infrastructure consultation The role of the learning technologists eg support, development
    16. 16. Indications for the low impact on role  Mainly used for administration rather than teaching  Purchasing and lending more by IT Services than eLearning team  Increasing interest in using tablets for eFeedback and eMarking using software such as Turnitin app for iPad  There are opposite extremes in the impact on the role from the large amount of support required from departments in which nearly everyone has a tablet compared to the minimal support required from departments in which few people have them.  There are indications that the level of support and the impact on the role will increase.
    17. 17. Project evaluations, case studies and policies  Corporate device policy http://www.brad.ac.uk/itservices/media/itservices/allfiles/documents/mobile-device-usage-policy.pdf  Policy and guidelines http://www.brighton.ac.uk/clt/resources/blended-learning/blended-learning-policies/  Reflections on the use of Tablets at UCS 2012/13https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12497737/reports/TabletsatUCS201213.pdf  https://www.academia.edu/4492028/Persuasive_Learning_Design_through_Context_Engineering_LTRI_CS  Mobile survey and projects http://blogs.northampton.ac.uk/learntech/?s=MALT  Case studies including enhancing the formative assessment environment http://www.ucisa.ac.uk/~/media/Files/publications/case_studies/ASG_Effective_Use_Mobile%20Learning  Staff training http://totallyrewired.wordpress.com/page/4/  Project http://technologyenhancedlearning.net/ipadsforillustration/  Project and apps http://blog.yorksj.ac.uk/ipadproject
    18. 18. Further investigation  Why the low impact on the role of Head of eLearning and learning technologists in relation to learning and teaching. Using tablet technologies in f2f can make the sessions more interactive and change the role of the academic.  Where do Heads of see their role/input going (strategy/policy/best practice case studies/training & support) and that of their teams?  Why the significant difference between developments in which the entire department has tablet technologies compared to those who don't. How will this develop in future?  How do they plan to get there – what strategies do they intend to adopt?  How do e-learning units work with IT colleagues in terms of tablets, particularly in regard to device set up and configuration when purchased, accounts for downloading apps (personal or institutional), device and app management (bulk licensing downloading, synchronizing etc) policies for loaning devices. How does the push from TEL units in terms of using apps to support academic practice link in with how devices are configured?  Could we build a consensus on a core set of apps to support L&T and associated admin? There are local differences and drivers but there will also be a core of ‘must-haves’ that it would be helpful to surface.
    19. 19. Summary  Approach is patchy – based on individuals and some departments rather than institution wide  iPads dominate  Policies – generally, less than a fifth have polices but up to 75% are considering them  Project funding in about 60% institutions  Used more for administration than learning and teaching  Minimal impact to date on the role of Head of eLearing and learning technologists but indications that this will change  Pattern of adoption is similar to the the Electronic Management of Assessment (EMA) approach 4 years ago … except in the impact on the role
    20. 20.  Dr Barbara Newland b.a.newland@brighton.ac.uk  Dr Neil Ringan n.ringan@mmu.ac.uk  Lindsey Martin Lindsey.Martin@edgehill.ac.uk Contact details

    ×