UCISA digital capability survey 2017
•Download as PPT, PDF•
1 like•1,088 views
The document summarizes findings from the UCISA Digital Capability Survey 2017. It discusses recommendations in 5 areas: defining digital capabilities, strategies for developing capabilities, delivery and implementation practices, accessibility, and future directions. Key findings include varying use of the Jisc definition, importance of student expectations and employability as drivers, and strategies like teaching/learning assessments. The survey had a 43% response rate and produced a 200-page report and 22 recommendations to help institutional leaders develop digital capabilities.
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to UCISA digital capability survey 2017
Similar to UCISA digital capability survey 2017 (20)
More from Jisc
More from Jisc (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
UCISA digital capability survey 2017
- 2. www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap UCISA Digital Capability Survey 2017: Some findings and recommendations for leaders Jisc Digital Capability Community Launch 9 May 2017
- 3. www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap 3 Gillian Fielding UCISA Digital Capabilities Group www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap @g_fielding #udigcap #digitalcapability
- 5. www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap Digital Capabilities Group 5 The DCG aims to share knowledge and good practice, and raise the profile of digital capability development throughout the sector. •Digital Capabilities Forum •Jisc Mailing list •Survey •Case studies •Work with other bodies •Webinars •Events
- 6. www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap “Spotlight on Digital Capabilities” 6
- 7. www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap Agenda • Some survey findings and recommendations for leaders with responsibility for developing digital capabilities 1. Definition 2. Strategy 3. Delivery, implementation and practice 4. Accessibility for all 5. Looking to the future • Survey overview • Questions 7
- 8. www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap 8 Disclaimer – we may do!
- 9. www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcapDigital Capabilities Group 5. Looking to the future 9
- 10. www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap 5. Looking to the future R5.22 That in order to address the barriers above, senior leadership within institutions should fully engage with, and pro-actively drive the digital agenda across all areas of their institution, for example, by appointing an executive member with sole responsibility 10
- 11. www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcapDigital Capabilities Group 4. Accessibility for all 11
- 12. www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap Institutional Strategies for DCs Q4.5 How widely available across your institution are the following for students, in practice? •Accessible Word documents •Accessible PowerPoint presentations •Accessible PDFs •Accessible web browsing •Other accessible software formats •Accessible VLE •Recording of teaching sessions for later use •Lecture/class/presentations/hand-outs available online for all sessions 12
- 13. www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap Q4.5 How widely available across your institution are the following for students, in practice? 13 AccessibleVLE(59) No Some Good Widespread Good+w/s DK
- 14. www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap Q4.5 How widely available across your institution are the following for students, in practice? Accessible VLE (84% said ‘good or widespread’ availability) Lecture/class presentations and hand-outs (74%) Word documents (49%) PowerPoint presentations (47%) PDFs (47%) Excel (39%) Recording (32%) Surprising, over-claiming?, definitions, (Moodle Accessibility block) 14
- 15. www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap 4. Accessibility for all R4.16 That UCISA produce guidance and standard phrases/questions on accessibility which can be included in institutional tender documentation for IT systems reviews 15
- 16. www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap 4. Accessibility for all R4.19 That institutions ensure staff awareness and training reinforces the understanding that accessible resources are not just about disability but there to benefit everyone 16
- 17. www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcapDigital Capabilities Group 3. Delivery, implementation & practice 17
- 18. www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap Q3.3 Which activities/processes directly encourage and support staff digital capabilities? 18
- 19. www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap Q3.4 Which activities/processes directly encourage and support staff digital capabilities? Internally provided training in digital capabilities (yes - 77%, working towards 22%, no 2%) IT policy/infrastructure enabling of innovation, e.g. a software upgrade (yes - 73%, working towards 17%, no 10%) Development of innovative pedagogic practices (yes - 62%, working towards 35%, no 3%) “HR processes” feature throughout, training, recruitment, induction, appraisal, CPD, etc These 3 were in the top 5 for students, so help both 19
- 20. www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap 3. Delivery, implementation & practice R3.11 That institutions implement a more consistent and strategic HR-centred approach to staff digital capabilities, through a range of HR processes including those that are currently under-utilised to develop staff digital capabilities (recruitment, promotion, reward, time-off, CPD) R3.12 UCISA work with UniversitiesHR to develop role analyses for staff and corresponding digital capability requirements (across all functions and departments); these requirements to ultimately be embedded within HR processes by institutions 20
- 21. www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcapDigital Capabilities Group 2. Strategies for driving digital capabilities 21 1. External drivers 2. External reports and documents 3. Institutional strategies 4. TEF 5. Institutional roles 6. Institutional approach
- 22. www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap External drivers Q2.1 How important are the following external factors for driving the development of digital capabilities at your institution? 22 External factor – students Base Score Increased student expectations and requirements 64 97% Increased focus on student employability 65 97% To reduce barriers and increase independence for students with disabilities 64 91% Student surveys 66 89% Expansion in course offerings 63 73% Key Information Statistics, League Tables, DLHE stats 65 72% Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) 61 62%
- 23. www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap Institutional Strategies for DCs Q2.3 How important are these institutional strategies (or nearest equivalent) for supporting and reinforcing the importance of digital capabilities in your institution? 23
- 24. www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap Institutional Strategies for DCs 24 Teaching, Learning, Assessment strategy Library/Learning Resources strategy Student Experience strategy Employability strategy Disability Support strategy Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) or eLearning strategy Mobile strategy Information & Communications Technology (ICT) strategy Digital strategy Access/Widening Participation strategy Distance Learning strategy Estates/Learning Spaces strategy Communications strategy Research strategy Open resources strategy (covering use and management of open resources) Staff Development strategy Marketing strategy Procurement strategy
- 25. www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap Institutional Strategies for DCs - 2017 25 Institutional strategy – students Base Score Teaching, Learning, Assessment strategy 60 92% Library/Learning Resources strategy 59 90% Student Experience strategy 51 86% Employability strategy 55 84% Disability Support strategy 57 84%
- 26. www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap Institutional Strategies for DCs - 2014 26 Institutional strategy – students Teaching, Learning, Assessment strategy Library/Learning Resources strategy ICT strategy - down Technology Enhanced Learning/eLearning strategy - down Student Experience strategy - up New for 2017 – Employability and Disability support strategies
- 27. www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap 2. Strategies for DCs R2.3 That ways of better evidencing student achievements in respect of their digital capabilities are examined by institutions, perhaps benchmarking within or across institutions (Jisc/UCISA), and building on HEAR and definitely taking into account employer needs and expectations 27
- 28. www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap Institutional Strategies for DCs - 2017 28 Institutional strategy – students Base Score Staff Development strategy 56 50% Marketing strategy 51 43% Procurement strategy 49 27% Bottom end of the table
- 29. www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap 2. Strategies for DCs R2.4 That institutions place more emphasis on digital capabilities (of both students and staff) when marketing courses promoting the fact that students will leave the university as digitally capable subject specialists (which can but enhance graduate employability). Institutions also need to place more emphasis on digital capabilities when recruiting staff R4.16 That UCISA produce guidance and standard phrases/questions on accessibility which can be included in institutional tender documentation for IT systems reviews 29
- 30. www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcapDigital Capabilities Group How important is TEF as a driver for the development of DCs? 30
- 31. www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap TEF impact on DC development Q2.4 Thinking specifically about the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF), has the institution taken any actions as a result of TEF that have impacted (or will impact) on the development of student and staff digital capabilities? 31
- 32. www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap 32 35%35% havehave takentaken action as aaction as a result of TEFresult of TEF
- 33. www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap TEF – actions taken 33 “TEF is at the heart of the University's new strategy, particularly the Education strategy.” “TEF is at the heart of the University's new strategy, particularly the Education strategy.” “University wide TEF Group has been established which is looking at Learning Analytics and interventions.” “University wide TEF Group has been established which is looking at Learning Analytics and interventions.” “metrics used to inform the TEF are being used to guide our priorities... Developing new analytic tools and capabilities which will require and prompt further development of digital capabilities “metrics used to inform the TEF are being used to guide our priorities... Developing new analytic tools and capabilities which will require and prompt further development of digital capabilities “Changes to the curriculum which include Digital fluency as a programme attribute” “Changes to the curriculum which include Digital fluency as a programme attribute”
- 34. www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap TEF – importance of driver 34
- 35. www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcapDigital Capabilities Group 1. Defining digital capabilities How widespread is the use of the Jisc definition of digital capabilities? 35
- 36. www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap Jisc definition of Digital Capabilities Q1.1 To begin with, does your institution, or any parts of it, use the Jisc definition of digital capabilities? 36 “By digital literacy we mean those capabilities which fit an individual for living, learning and working in a digital society.”
- 37. www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap Jisc definition of Digital Capabilities 37
- 38. www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap Jisc definition - recommendations 38 R.1.1 Jisc and UCISA work together to review and update the Jisc definition of digital capabilities; this work to be informed by the analysis of the other definitions used by institutions and research undertaken by Jisc on the subject
- 39. www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcapDigital Capabilities Group Survey Overview 39
- 40. www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap Digital Capabilities Survey Report 2017 40
- 42. www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap Survey background • Second survey • Inspired by the UCISA TEL Survey • Complements the UCISA TEL Survey • Identify sector developments/trends • ‘Biennial’ survey • Benchmark 42
- 43. www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap Survey overview • 157 institutions invited to complete (156 in 2014) UCISA members Non-UCISA members invited • Named Institutional Representatives identified • 68 completed (43%) in 2017; in 2014 – 63 • A small number started but didn’t finish 43
- 44. www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap Consultation 1. You/institutions 2. JISC 3. UCISA Groups 4. Society of College, National and University Libraries, SCONUL 5. CILIP 6. Association of Director of Estates (AUDE) 7. Universities Human Resouces 8. Heads of eLearning (HeLF) 9. Association of Learning Technologist (ALT) 10. Staff and Educational Developers Association, (SEDA) 11. Higher Education Academy 12. Association of Graduate Careers Advisory Services, (AGCAS) 13. Higher Education Funding Council for England, (HEFCE) • NUS - future 44
- 45. www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap Survey Sections 1. Context 2. Strategy 3. Delivery, Implementation and Practice 4. Accessibility for all 5. Looking to the Future 6. Concluding remarks • Dropped ’Bring Your Own’ title 45
- 46. www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap Survey Outputs • Digital Capabilities Survey Report 2017 (c200 pages) Pdf and web version • Executive Summary (c4 pages) • 22 Recommendations (10 in 2014) • Conferences – Spotlight on Digital Capabilities, ALT-C, LILAC, UniversitiesUK, Estates • Discussion on the Digital Capabilities Community http:// digitalskillsanddevelopment.ning.com and #udigcap • A series of targeted outputs at specific audiences 46
- 47. www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap Agenda • Recommendations for leaders with responsibility for developing digital capabilities 1. Definition 2. Strategy 3. Delivery, implementation and practice 4. Accessibility for all 5. Looking to the future • Survey overview • Questions 47
- 48. www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap 48 Questions? Gillian Fielding UCISA Digital Capabilities Group www.ucisa.ac.uk/digcap @g_fielding #udigcap #digitalcapability
Editor's Notes
- Image licenced under CC0 licence – no attribution required Photographer: Jose Moreno https://unsplash.com/collections/663084/in-the-resistance?photo=w0eMOcfV2MQ
- GAAD, DSA
- Most widely reported as available was an accessible VLE, with the majority of institutions (84%) of the view this had either ‘good’ or ‘widespread’ availability across the institution. Around three-quarters of all institutions thought the same in respect of lecture/class presentations and handouts (74%) and accessible web browsing (70%). Less widely available across responding institutions were accessible Word documents (49%), accessible PowerPoint presentations (47%) and accessible PDFs (47%). Finally, just over a third of all institutions (39%) said that accessible Excel spreadsheets had either ‘good’ or ‘widespread’ availability across the institution; followed by slightly fewer that felt the same in respect of recording of teaching sessions (34%) and other accessible formats (32%). The high levels of availability are perhaps somewhat surprising, and it may be that there was an element of over-claiming by some institutions. It would certainly be worth exploring in future research what the claimed ‘availability’ amounts to. There may also have been definitional issues at play, for example, the generally high levels of availability of an ‘accessible VLE’ might be due to respondents thinking that the question referred to round-the-clock access and/or access from outside the institution. Alternatively, it could be that some respondents thought that the fact their VLE platform has some accessibility features (eg Moodle Accessibility Block) means that the VLE as a whole is accessible and widely available. Either way, this question is worthy of further refinement and development if it is to be asked in future surveys. Furthermore, this has also been discussed by the UCISA Executive Committee, who feel the development of guidance and standard phrases/questions on accessibility be created for inclusion in tender documents for IT systems reviews.
- Two activities and processes were thought to be particularly important: internally provided training in digital capabilities (already in place and contributing in the eyes of 77% of respondents added to which a further 22% that thought their institution was working towards this) and IT policy/infrastructure enabling of innovation, e.g. a software upgrade (73% and 17%). Next in the list in terms of importance was the development of innovative pedagogic practices (62% and 35%). Of note is that the same three activities and processes were also thought to be in place and important in developing student digital capabilities (all were in the top five activities for students). Thus, action in respect of these activities and processes can only help develop both staff and student digital capabilities.
- Section 2 of the survey was Strategy: looking at the drivers for DC development – 1. external factors (student expectations, employability, disability, TEF, etc); 2. external reports and documents; 3. institutional strategies (T&L Strategy); 4. TEF; 5. institutional roles responsible for development of DC and the 6. institutional approach to development.
- Staff and students were asked separately. Above are the results for students.
- Ostensibly ICT strategy has lost importance, Student Experience has increased in importance but new options in 2016 questionnaire were: Employability strategy Disability Support strategy ere new options in 2016 survey.
- A third of responding institutions (35%) had taken action as a direct result of TEF which they felt had (or would) impact on the development of staff and student digital capabilities; this left two-thirds that had yet to take action. Probably reflects that the sector is still getting to grips with the implications of TEF and associated requirements. “In looking at the results from these questions, we should be aware that the sector is still getting to grips with the implications of the TEF and the requirements it will impose upon them. Indeed, it will be important to monitor and assess the extent to which the emphasis on employability within the TEF leads to a greater emphasis on the development of student digital capability. “ Section 2.4
- But those who have taken action as a result of TEF are doing some good work. The report highlights some actions: Comments 1 and 2: Several comments about embedding TEF planning into strategy Comment 2: taken the requirements of TEF and implementing (or planning to) Learning Analytics to try to increase retention. Comments 3 and 4: Also concrete actions have been taken as a result of TEF. Comment 3: Again learning analytics, this time identify that the tools and data require staff to have sufficient DC to use. Comment 4: TEF has resulted in curriculum wide changes that explicitly incorporate Digital Fluency as a part of it.
- So 35% of institutions had done something as a result of TEF. Had the rest not done so because they don’t think it’s important? No, it is an important driver (Q2.6). Quotes 2.4.1 The resulting mean score of 3.37 is consistent with the earlier ratings of the importance of TEF as an external factor driving digital capabilities. In respect of students it was felt to be the 6th most important factor with a mean score of 3.02; TEF was thought more of a driver in relation to staff (4th and 3.35). However, it was still the case that the top three external factors across both students and staff (increased student expectations and requirements, increased focus on student employability and student surveys) were all thought to be more important drivers than TEF. 2.4.2 Looking ahead it appears that those that had not already taken action thought that TEF would be a more important driver of the development of student and staff digital capabilities (perhaps acknowledging the need to catch up in response to TEF).
- 2014 Exec Summary Section 1: Defining digital capabilities There was a great degree of similarity in the definitions and descriptions of digital capabilities used by individual institutions. Common themes included the ability to choose appropriate technologies, embedding digital tools into teaching or research, and ensuring that infrastructure and support are adequate. Some comments acknowledged that digital capability requirements vary between roles and subject areas. Recommendation 1: UCISA should work with other agencies, such as Jisc, to adopt a standard definition of digital capabilities. We recommend institutions use this definition where they have none. This shared definition would make benchmarking easier and enable the sector to share resources and exemplars. Specific competencies and baseline measures could be developed from this, either sector wide or institution specific, to enable competency or fluency to be demonstrated in specific roles or disciplines.
- Yes by parts : “some of the more common references were to the Library or the Technology Enhanced Learning team/unit making use of the definition”. Others mentioned that while there was some central use of the definition, its widespread adoption was more limited. Others mentioned that while there was some central use of the definition, its widespread adoption was more limited We tend to use the Jisc definition of digital literacy within relevant central support services (e.g. library service, education support, careers), however its use across academic Schools is not consistent. NB: Response rate: 68 responses, a response rate of 43%. (90% C.I. +- 8%)
- If we are going to push for a shared definition then it needs to be right one.
- First of a biennial study Development of digital capabilities across the UK HE sector Benchmark
- UCISA Digital Capabilities Survey Survey of UK HE institutions 63 respondents Data gathered Summer 2014 Sections on: Definition Strategy Delivery, Implementation and Practice Bring Your Own Supporting Differentiation and Inclusion Looking to the Future 156 institutions invited 96 institutions provided a survey rep 63 surveys returned – 41% response rate Executive summary – distribute Full report now available online 10 recommendations
- Context Strategy Delivery, implementation and practice Accessibility Looking to the future Concluding remarks