Report_1_European Survey_Web - ADAM

Virtual Learning
Environments in Education:
A European Study
Project Title: Innovative Learning Platform
for Vocational Education and Training
Project number: LLP-LdV-TOI-2009-IRL-513
Published: September 2011, Dublin, Ireland
Copyrights: VLEs4VET Project Partners
ISBN: 0-946791-37-6; ISBN13: 978-0-946791-37-8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
OVERVIEW OF THE REPORT
4
Aims and objectives
4
Introduction
4
Methodology
4
Participants
4
Methods
4
DATA COLLECTION
5
Survey questionnaires
5
A follow up survey
5
Response rate
5
OVERVIEW OF PARTICIPATING INSTITUTIONS
6
BACKGROUND AND PLANNING
6
VLE IMPLEMENTATION AND MAINTENANCE
8
Type of Platform
8
CHANGING THE VLE
9
Moodle as the most popular Platform
OPEN SOURCE AND PROPRIETARY PLATFORMS
Open Source Platforms
Proprietary Platforms
10
10
10
HOSTING THE SYSTEM
TECHNICAL IMPLEMENTATION AND MAINTENANCE
VLE Software Installation
Technical Support
11
11
11
11
Technical Adjustment and Costs
12
Cost of Implementation and Maintenance
13
Link with Management Systems
13
Flexibility and Customisation
13
TEACHING AND LEARNING
14
Motivation
14
Training
14
Changes in Teaching and Learning
15
STUDENTS’ EXPERIENCE WITH THE VLE
17
SATISFACTION WITH THE PLATFORM
18
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
20
ANNEXES
2
9
21
3
OVERVIEW OF
THE REPORT
partnership believes that the discussion on the effective use of Learning Platforms should focus more on the
whole context of teaching, which includes pedagogy
and the strategies needed to achieve better learning
outcomes such as staff and student training, as well as
teachers’ continuous professional development (CPD).
Introduction
Over the past 10 years we have seen a rapid adoption of Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) within
mainstream, further and higher education. Institutions
are increasingly turning to VLEs in order to optimise
the time of teaching staff and to provide services for
modern students, who use the Internet as a key tool for
researching information and locating resources.
Despite much work being done to introduce VLEs into
education, their impact on learning is still to be thoroughly understood. This study report is designed to fill
some of those gaps of understanding.
Aims and objectives
The aim of the VLEs4VET project was to support the
exchange of ideas, knowledge and experience regarding VLEs amongst educational institutions, particularly
those in the Vocational Education and Training sector in
Ireland and across Europe and assess the current situation concerning the use of VLEs in educational institutions across Europe, in order to support institutions
that are planning to implement a VLE.
The term Learning Platform or Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) describes a broad range of ICT systems
used to deliver and support learning. At the heart of
any Learning Platform is the concept of a personalised online learning space for the students. This space
should offer teachers and learners access to stored
work, e-learning resources, communication tools and
the facility to track progress.
The key objectives were to: provide considered, clear,
unbiased and practical knowledge based on the experiences of organisations from across Europe; analyse the
impact of VLEs on teaching and learning; address possible barriers to the implementation and effective use of
VLEs in education.
This study report presents one aspect of the work of a
European funded project ‘Innovative Learning Platform
for Vocational Education and Training’ (VLEs4VET).
The project, funded with support from the European
Commission under the Lifelong Learning Programme,
analyses Virtual Learning Environments in different
educational institutions across Europe with a view to
transferring experiences and knowledge into the Vocational Education and Training (VET) sector in Ireland.
Methodology
Participants
The project partners include: Fast Track into Information Technology (FIT Ltd.), City of Dublin Vocational
Education Committee (CDVEC), Consorzio FOR.COM,
Koning Willem I College and City College Norwich.
The Project Partners conducted research activities with
two distinct groups of educational personnel in institutions:
1) Institutional Management / ICT Managers
This study report presents an overview of needs, experiences and preferences of different organisations
across Europe regarding Learning Platforms. It involved
six months of quantitative and qualitative research
activities aimed at identifying trends across Europe
regarding VLEs, to measure their impact on learning
and teaching, but primarily to study their effective implementation and maintenance based on examples and
experience from across Europe.
2) Teachers
Existing research and the project partners’ experience
showed that these two groups of personnel have different perspectives and different understandings of the
purpose and use of VLEs. This understanding directed
the project partners to gather data that would provide
a holistic picture of the use of Learning Platforms in
organisations.
The main sections of the study report describe the
actual state of play in Europe regarding Learning Platforms; facts regarding their selection, and implementation and maintenance. The report also focuses on the
future development of institutional VLEs and attempts
to assess their impact on different educational institutions across Europe.
Methods
Information was collected through three different surveys:
1) An online survey aimed at Institutional Management/
ICT Managers with a focus on understanding VLE
implementation and maintenance
The report explores pedagogical implications related
to integrating Learning Platforms in everyday teaching.
Virtual Learning Environments are becoming more and
more popular; however their integration into education
has been focusing mainly on the technical side of the
VLE and its effective utilisation. The VLEs4VET project
2) An online survey aimed at Teachers with a focus on
their use of VLEs in their teaching practice
3) A follow up survey with specific questions to ICT
Managers from 25 Institutions across Europe selected
on the basis of criteria described later in this report.
4
The Project Partners developed a customised questionnaire inviting the 25 selected Institutions to each
address specific developments of the VLE within their
Institution.
In order to provide fair and comparable data, surveys
were conducted according to a standardised methodology and with a common questionnaire for each target
group. The project research team decided to use the
Survey Monkey web service to create online surveys
and then disseminate links to potential respondents. A
number of consultations took place in Spring 2010 with
several stakeholders in the educational field, in order to
pilot the survey questionnaires.
Results and findings collected from Institutions that
took part in the second stage of the research process
are further analysed and published as Case Studies in a
resource booklet entitled:
“Reflecting on the implementation of the Virtual Learning Environments in organisations in Europe”.
Across the EU Member States 300 Institutions were
invited to participate in the online surveys.
Survey results were analysed using descriptive statistics, including frequencies and percentages. Crosstabulations were calculated for:
DATA
COLLECTION
• Country
Survey questionnaires
• Type of Platform
• Experience in VLE
Data from the questionnaires was mainly collected during the period between Spring and Summer 2010. The
aim was to get one senior/ICT Manager and at least two
teachers in each educational institution to complete the
questionnaires.
• Staff involvement / training
• Technical support.
The quantitative and qualitative approaches used are an
appropriate means of collecting and presenting detailed
information on VLE implementation and maintenance in
an Institution. Project Partners accessed Institutions and
networks with a view to collecting data and transferring
innovation. While the resulting sample of Institutions in
the survey is weighted towards responses from the UK
and the Netherlands, it should be noted that a total of
20 European countries participated in the survey.
The project research team circulated an email with links
to the online questionnaires to 300 Educational Managers across Europe. In addition, Managers were asked
to forward links to the teacher questionnaire to at least
two Teachers in their institutions. The results of the
completed Manager and Teacher surveys were integrated into a single report.
A follow up survey
Response rate
On the basis of the results from the survey addressed
to Educational Managers, the Project Partners selected
a number of European Institutions to be the focus of a
more in-depth study. These Institutions were selected
because they had indicated in the initial survey a particular effectiveness in the implementation and management of their VLEs.
Selection criteria for the in-depth study were as follows:
Between April and September 2010, the Project Partners contacted 300 Education Institutions across EU
Member States with the request to complete the online
questionnaires on Virtual Learning Environments. The
response rate was 26 percent, with 1 in 4 institutions
responding to the Survey. A total of 78 valid questionnaires were received from Managers and 153 from
Teachers.
• Awareness of the importance of VLEs to develop
educational aims as part of the overall vision of the
Institution;
Please note: Not all responses were relevant for this
report and some details were therefore excluded. For
full data please contact the Project Consortium.
• Accomplishment of a needs analysis and action planning prior to VLE implementation;
• Effective linking with the institutions’ Management
Information System (MIS) and administrative systems;
• The perceived motivation of Teachers to use the VLE
effectively (based on the percentage of teachers that
use the VLE without any mandatory request);
• Attention to effective and pedagogical staff training;
• Existence of a formal evaluation of the quality and
impact of the VLE.
5
OVERVIEW OF
PARTICIPATING
INSTITUTIONS
of respondents (56.4%) between 19-25 years.
BACKGROUND
AND PLANNING
In order to understand why and how Institutions decided to use a VLE, the Project Partners asked Managers
to identify the main reasons for implementing a VLE.
Managers were asked to select a maximum of three options from a list of eight:
The 78 Institutions participating in the Survey represented a range of different educational sectors; 50% of
them represented Vocational Education Training colleges (Fig. 1).
1. Provision of resources to support teaching and learning outside school/college hours
2. Provision of services to suit a range of student needs
3. Better communication between teachers and students
4. Offer online learning activities
5. Provision of blended learning opportunities
6. Provision of distance learning opportunities
7. Cost savings
While 20 European countries participated in the study,
the majority of the respondents were located in the
Netherlands and in the UK (28.2 % and 25.6 % respectively). The remaining 46.2 % represented Educational
Institutions located in 18 European countries, including:
Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland,
France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain and Sweden.
− Defining a Strategy and an Action Plan
− Identifying the technology that will work best for the
organisation
− Designing, implementing and customising particular
e-learning solutions.
Accredited Awarding Organisation, UK
The following advice was given by the Educational
Managers for the VLE pre-implementation phase:
‘Decide what you want to do, develop a policy and
make a solid plan’
‘In every case we prepared the effort as a real project with a project leader, project objectives, time line,
check moments etc. We wanted to start with the ‘early
adopters’ group (i.e. teachers who are always eager to
start something new) and then organise show moments
that would tease others to join’.
‘Complete a detailed Needs Analysis’
‘Create a whole-institution vision’
‘Focus on your needs first of all’
The top three options selected by the managers
were as follows:
‘Start with educational goals and use a VLE to implement these goals’
1. Provision of resources to support teaching and learning outside Institution/College hours
‘Focus on the learning functionality required, informed
by your learning strategy’
‘The institution has a 5 year development plan for VLE
use, supplemented by a more detailed series of annual
plans. Student consultation took place through a series
of pilot projects, investigating aspects of classroom
use of the technology. Staff were consulted through a
number of workshops and questionnaires’.
Managers were also given the option to answer “Other”
when indicating the main reason for VLE implementation. The following “Other” reasons were given:
− More accurate assessment data and greater staff collaboration at times
− Increased variety in teaching-methods
− Increased achievements among learners.
The Educational Managers were aware that setting up
a VLE is not just about a new technology. It involves
changing an Institution’s culture and processes. According to Managers, the Institution has to develop
an ‘e-strategy’ and a vision of what their VLE should
offer. Based on this strategy, the planning, installation
and implementation of the VLE can follow a prescribed
route and lead to clear outcomes.
6
‘We developed several action plans mainly for the
benefit of potential investors. In practice getting started
and involving users in incremental improvement is
more effective in a fast moving technological world.
Formal plans rarely survive the first engagement with
the users. Our strategy was to start with something
low cost and useful and then to build in more features
depending on the demand from users. This is an ongoing process’.
Vocational Education and Training College, Belgium
“Cost savings” and “time savings” were not identified
as important reasons for implementing a VLE. “Provision of distance learning opportunities” was also not
considered an important reason. This may have been
influenced by the fact that only 8 out of the 78 Institutions surveyed were Open Universities.
Responses to questionnaires showed that participating
Institutions tended to be larger in size; 25 out of the 78
Institutions (32 %) had more than 10,000 students and
an additional 26 (33 %) had over 1,000 students. The
average age of students was considered to be young
with 34.6% students under 18 years of age and over half
− Establishing educational goals in line with the Institutions mission
‘Map the implementation to the overall strategy of the
Institution’
3. Provision of services to suit a range of students’ needs.
The surveyed Institutions varied considerably in size,
ranging from a maximum of 200,000 students to a
minimum of 20 students.
On the basis of feedback from staff, parents and pupils,
negotiate the necessary specifications with suppliers’. Co-educational Secondary Comprehensive School, UK
− A pre-planning phase, based on needs analysis, in
order to understand the e-learning needs of prospective users
8. Time savings
2. Better communication between teachers and students
The size of participating Institutions ranged from a
minimum of a few dozen to a maximum of over 1000
staff (Fig. 2).
your plans in an open meeting with parents and pupils.
The following elements were identified as essential
for successful VLE implementation:
‘Plan, review, plan’
‘Compare what you want with what the VLE delivers’
Specialist Technology College, UK
‘Be motivated and determined to implement the project’
‘It is a slow process. It takes at least five years to get
geared up. Don’t worry about that - it gives time to
reflect’.
‘We revised the needs of students and decided to use a
VLE. In the action plan we included teachers as content providers. For this we had to provide the tools for
content authoring and to teach teachers how to use the
tools, so they could do it themselves. We also had to
find support at senior management level of the university to encourage teachers to provide e-learning possibilities. Teachers had to be motivated and get additional
benefits from offering e-learning to the students. We
also had to find people who could teach the teachers
and provide additional support in the process ’.
In the phase of Post-Survey Interviews the Project Partners asked Managers of selected Institutions to describe
the methodology for developing an Action Plan.
Approaches to action planning included:
‘Take stock of existing ICT infrastructure.
Assess and try to develop the commitment of senior
staff and governing bodies.
E-Learning and Technology University, Lithuania
Clarify with senior staff all potential funding sources for
a major initiative.
‘Consult with your teachers and students. They are the
ones who will be using it and it is vital that the system
you deliver is appropriate to their needs’.
Invite tenders from up to 6 suppliers and narrow list
down to the 3 best competitors.
‘If it is possible, involve parents in the consultation
process too. Moving to a VLE is a culture change for all
involved and it is important to get ‘buy-in’ from everyone right from the outset’.
Communicate your ICT Vision to all teachers and seek
feedback from them.
With increased staff commitment and motivation, share
7
implement a VLE for effective teaching and learning
should not be under estimated. Time for implementation is needed!’
‘No teacher should feel ‘left out’ but feel that all staff
has equally fair access and support. No pupil should
feel that they don’t have fair access or are ‘elbowed
out’. Parents should feel involved, particularly through
Home Access schemes’.
The majority of the Institutions that had been using
their chosen VLE for more than two years were more
satisfied with the results than the new adopters. They
highlighted the fact that time is crucial; it takes time to
see the benefits of a VLE. In most cases the first year
after VLE implementation was spent on setting up the
system and going through all the technical problems
and more generally becoming familiar with the use of
the Platform.
‘I have regularly established ‘Subject Representatives’
in institutions who meet every month to discuss issues and also receive first level notice of new software
which is then cascaded down within their subject areas
or departments. This has always been seen as a positive activity which ensures a fair distribution of sometimes limited resources’.
Co-educational Secondary Comprehensive School, UK
Seven different Platforms were identified by respondents as being in use. A high percentage of Institutions
(34.6%) were using Moodle (Fig. 3)
VLE IMPLEMENTATION
AND MAINTENANCE
An interesting result from the Survey was that 51.3% of
the Institutions chose the option “Other” for the type of
VLE they were using, thus indicating that they did not
use any of the systems that the Project Partners identified as being common within the EU Member States.
These institutions are located in the Netherlands and
use closed / proprietary Platforms: N@tschool, Fronter,
It’s Learning and Livelink.
Type of Platform
Of the 78 institutions that were surveyed, 58 had been
using their chosen Platform for more than two years
and could share knowledge and experience in effective VLE maintenance. Only five institutions had implemented a VLE less than 6 months ago and they declared
some difficulties in organising teaching using the VLE.
Observations included:
‘Blended learning is more difficult to implement than
we expected. Teachers have not enough time to work
on their own skills needed to support blended learning’.
‘The time and resources that are needed to successfully
The Institutions (15 %) that chose Moodle as their new
VLE did so for two main reasons:
− Reliable support plus training by the provider
− Integration in a document sharing and communication system
1) Moodle is an Open Source Platform and therefore
available free of charge
− Integration in an online Student follow up system
2) Moodle is eminently customisable.
− Integration with an on line report sheet system
These findings indicated that Institutions with wide
experience of using VLEs needed to personalise and
customise the Platform to suit their Institutions’ needs,
rather than relying on “off-the-shelf” packages.
− Username / password integration with the city wide
email system within 2 years after launch.
Of the Managers surveyed 24.3% indicated “More learning features” as the main reason for changing their VLE,
18.9% indicated “Better opportunities for teaching” and
13.5% indicated “Cost savings”.
Specialist Technology College, UK:
− Number of institutions in local area using the same VLE
− Easy possibility to programme and staff skills requirements
Further reasons identified by Managers for changing
their VLE included:
− Support available from the VLE provider
− Standardisation for all Institutions
− Support available from local authority
Suggestions included:
Accredited Awarding Organisation, UK:
− Consider the options available carefully
− Flexibility to customise code and produce our modules,
− VLEs may help Institutions stay focused on the
purpose of this software - supporting teaching and
learning. The important thing is that Institutions are
selecting the best software solution for their needs.
‘It is a slow process. It takes at least five years to get
geared up. This gives time to reflect on the implementation and strategy’.
− Cost /student or teacher/year
General suggestions for choosing a VLE for the organisation:
− Use more than one VLE. It is good to provide alternative methods of accessible learning
‘It is important to find ‘quick wins’ for teachers and
students to get them to work with the VLE’.
Vocational Education and Training College, Belgium:
− Costs.
− Look at as many systems as possible before making
up your mind
Another 33% of Institutions from the Netherlands had
changed their VLE to N@tschool and Fronter. Both are
proprietary Platforms which have large active user
communities in the Netherlands.
Below are some of the criteria use by a sample of institutions when selecting their VLE.
− No single solution was satisfactory
− Upgrade and buy out of WebCT by Blackboard
− Local Authority named its preferred provider
− Greater flexibility and control of the user interface
− Better technical support.
− Open Source according to Open Source principles
− Scalable for global reach
Moodle as the most
popular Platform
− Significant global support and sustainable development
− Language translation support.
Moodle is the Platform most used among the Institutions surveyed (34%). This result is in line with the
general statistics reported across Europe and certainly
within the UK VLE sector.
CHANGING
THE VLE
The data from the survey indicated that 44.4% of Institutions moved to Moodle after having used different
Platforms in the past and 40.1% of them were completely satisfied with the new Moodle Platform:
An interesting finding in the data was that 47.4% of the
Institutions surveyed had previously implemented a VLE
that was different to the one they were currently using.
These were the most experienced Institutions, with a
clear mission and a high percentage of teachers using
the VLE regularly. 38% of these Institutions were from
the UK. They had moved from proprietary Platforms to
the following systems mainly:
‘Students and teachers use the Platform with total satisfaction’
‘It is adapted to our needs and allows us to add new
activities throughout the year’
− Moodle
‘Moodle provides more possibilities to develop our
on-line platform if the needs and expectations of the
students grow’.
− UniServity
− Drupal
Of the Institutions using Moodle 48.1% were partially
satisfied with the Platform:
− Sharepoint 2007 (with more planning to move to
Sharepoint 2010 when released).
‘Moodle alone cannot fulfil current need. The use of
social media is increasing as a complementary method’
UniServity, Drupal and Sharepoint are content management systems that allow building and combining a VLE
within their structures.
8
‘Moodle is excellent, but it is part of a bigger ‘virtual
9
institution’ including email, shared directories, Web
2.0 rich web sites that are all integrated to provide a
comprehensive virtual institution where teachers, learners, non-teaching staff and parents all have access to a
personalised online system. We still need to coordinate
our technical abilities, educational goals and teaching
material and develop a support system for the training
of colleagues’.
OPEN SOURCE
AND PROPRIETARY
PLATFORMS
− Need for qualified IT-personnel to run the server
park and implement the updates of the Open Source
software
− The knowledge about the system is with one or two
members of the team and there is a risk when they
leave the organisation
− Lack of programming skills in Institution to support
Open Source development
− The perception of some users will be that it must be
inferior if it is not owned by a big company.
Proprietary Platforms
Advantages identified:
Managers were asked to identify the advantages and
disadvantages of both an Open Source Platform and a
Proprietary Platform in order to help Institutions identify the different aspects to consider when selecting a
Learning Platform.
− Set up of the Platform is done with its internal staff
and makes the initial implementation easier
− Training and support is part of the package
− Contractual requirement to provide a service of a
certain quality
Some Managers preferred an Open Source Platform
while others preferred the Proprietary one.
− More stable solution
Open Source Platforms
− Access to good Research & Development team is
supported by the provider
Advantages identified:
− Centralised resource of ideas and information on new
developments, particularly concerning compatibility of software, availability of software catalogues,
peripherals etc.
− Free to download
− Low start-up costs
− Constantly evolving and getting better as big community of developers can access the programme
coding set and add new features
It is worth noting that while an Institution, based on the
availability of VLEs on the market today, can make an
informed choice about which one is the most suitable
for them, it must be kept in mind that this might not
necessarily be a fixed choice for the future. New products and new concepts in VLEs are under development
all the time. Managers need to monitor these developments and appreciate that in the future the decision to
use a VLE at all may need to be considered.
HOSTING THE SYSTEM
− Limitations of a commercial package - it is not tailor
made
− It works with certain paradigms that are not necessarily the ones the Institution wants to adopt
− Can be changed to perform any function that the
Institution wishes
− Once locked into one system it is difficult to change
− Less dependency on third parties
− It cannot be developed, so it is hard to adjust it to the
needs of users
− Institution is not tied to any contracts, can alter how
it works, access a wide range of upgrades and modules at no cost and integrate it into other systems to
make a true “virtual institution”.
− More time is required to wait for updates.
The Survey results indicated that the Managers that
preferred Proprietary Platforms were generally those
that were implementing a Platform for the first time as
the provider guarantees technical support and training
for staff members.
Disadvantages identified:
− Open Source Platforms are free to download but
not free to use. An organisation might have higher
training costs and other technical costs than with a
Proprietary Platform
− Knowledge of support staff is not constant and not at
highest rates
Smaller Educational Institutions stated that they struggled to meet the costs associated with a VLE, even if
based on Open Source software. Some Managers suggested that a collaborative approach between Institutions could be a solution. Multiple Institutions could
10
− The Platform was deployed internally by an initial
research project and later by a dedicated department
− A teacher with good experience in ICT installed the
Platform.
Cross analysis of “installation method” and “type of
platform” indicated that the Institutions, where the VLE
software had been installed by the External Technicians, were mainly located in the Netherlands and were
using one of the four proprietary platforms: N@tschool,
Fronter, Livelink and It’s learning. In addition, the VLE
was hosted externally even though the maintenance of
the system was given to an internal dedicated technician. Most Dutch institutions have already experimented
with earlier VLEs. The migration towards a new Platform
therefore needed to ensure continued functionality and
a guaranteed import of data from the old one.
− Less flexible and customisable than an Open Source
Platform
− Institution is in control of design and development
− The Platform is web-based and does not need a
software installation
Another possibility to host the system might be with a
commercial provider or a subcontracted company that
hosts data systems. Amongst the Institutions surveyed,
60% were hosting the VLE internally (Fig. 4).
Disadvantages:
− Can be developed and adjusted to the needs of
learners and teachers faster
Only 7% of Managers chose the option “Other” with the
following reasons given:
Whether an Institution opts for a Proprietary Platform
or an Open Source Platform, a solution for hosting the
system needs to be defined. It might be on an Institution’s server or off-site.
− Helpdesk and training support is provided.
− Easy customisation due to their flexibility. Modular
design allows anybody to create additional modules
and features
Of the Institutions surveyed 58% installed the VLE
software internally. In most cases this was done by
an Internal Technician (36.8%) or by the ICT Manager
(21.1%). In 36% of the Institutions an External Technician installed the software (Fig. 5).
Important note:
− Costs are fixed
− Global support community helping each other out
VLE Software Installation
access a VLE from a central hub and share the resource
and the costs. Staff and students could access joint
resources such as shared lesson plans, focus groups or
group tutorials and using videoconferencing and podcasting students from different Institutions could listen
and learn from shared lectures.
Note: The “Other” option was chosen when the system
was “hosted both internally and externally” or “webbased”.
TECHNICAL
IMPLEMENTATION AND
MAINTENANCE
Having defined a Strategy and Action Plan as well as
identifying the Platform that works best for the organisation, it is time for implementation. This includes
distributing tasks and roles amongst staff as well as
making technical adjustments.
However, many Institutions had their Platform outhosted. In these cases, the hosting provider had the
specific knowledge and skills to fine-tune the application to the preferences of the Institution while ensuring
that no external person accessed its servers.
Some Institutions hired experienced technicians from
other organisations. A number of Colleges outsourced
all technical support. Many Institutions have learnt from
the past and only opt for turn-key solutions including
training of key users (functional application management). These Institutions also tended to favour outhosting.
Technical Support
In 77% of the Institutions surveyed the technical support for the VLE maintenance was internal - in 59% of
11
and increase the use of VLEs,
Many vocational training groups (e.g. painters, car mechanics, forklift drivers) have no significant need for a
VLE or access to a VLE on a daily basis,
The VLE must be SCORM (Sharable Content Object Reference Model) compliant’.
Accredited Awarding Organisation, UK:
the cases it was a dedicated technician (Fig. 6).
Of the institutions surveyed 34.7% had encountered
some technical problems with the implementation process of the VLE including:
− Lack of flexibility
− Difficulties with setting up different modules
− Problems with administrative data transfer
− Functional difficulties when trying to upgrade
− Regular problems with the ldap-server
− Difficulties with setting up the structure and software
− Frequent problems with accessing the Platform.
During the second phase of the research activities Project Partners asked Managers of selected Institutions to
outline the main problems encountered during the VLE
implementation process.
Vocational Education and Training College, Belgium:
‘Budget, Computer illiteracy of many teachers in a vocational institution.
‘We simply had to learn how the system worked from
scratch, bearing in mind that the core code was in
rapid development when we started and that we were
adapting the environment for a very specific purpose.
We used Moodle and Drupal in parallel. After seeking
feedback from users, we decided that Drupal was better
for the way we needed to adapt the Virtual Learning Environment. The code was better quality and the design
cleaner. To facilitate user access, it is important to keep
users informed of changes as development takes place
and to keep the user interface consistent, while constantly adding more functionality’.
Cost of Implementation
and Maintenance
and communication within institutional communities,
including leaders, managers, teachers, and governing
bodies. “More efficient transfer of data and automation
of data management for assessment, target setting and
transferring information between teachers, learners,
parents, institutions and other agencies can be done”.
Only 30% of the Managers surveyed had calculated the
costs of the implementation and maintenance of the
Platform thanks to a monthly or yearly overview. Open
answers were not forthcoming and did not give a clear
idea of the investment of each Institution.
The main advantages include:
• Better communication of goals among staff, managers
and leaders
Of the Managers surveyed 34% felt that the Institution experienced a cost impact in terms of: ‘Reusable
resources and learning objects’ and ‘Higher productivity time’.
• Reduced administrative burden in Institutions
• More effective monitoring and managing of teaching
Many of the Institutions (40.5%) were planning to invest
additional money in further development of their current Platform (Fig. 8).
Some major obstacles have to be overcome to make the
link between a VLE and Management Systems possible.
It requires strategic level collaboration and coordination between administrative staff and teaching staff. In
addition, it requires technical infrastructure that allows
transferring administrative data.
Flexibility and Customisation
The implementation of the Platform required (Fig. 7):
− An adjustment of IT Infrastructure (networks, software etc.) in 61% of Institutions
− A greater number of computers available for open
access in 49% of Institutions.
The need to choose one system that would meet the
needs of all secondary institutions in the city, Teachers
have great problems in changing their teaching styles
• Enhanced recording and tracking of learner data
• Increased support for the development of the Institution and wider community.
Technical Adjustment
and Costs
− Better speed/capacity of the Internet connection in
60% of Institutions
• Better coordination of tracking and analysis of Institution data,
In order to help practitioners to create effective online
learning solutions, a Platform should be flexible and
customisable. Only 5 out of 78 Institutions surveyed did
not customise their Learning Platform.
Link with Management Systems
A Management Information System is a large database
system which can be used for managing institutional
data (attendance, records, reports etc.) and tracking
students’ progress. This system allows Institutions to
store almost all of their information electronically. Most
importantly, this data can be easily shared with authorised users, records can be easily searched, and reports
can be generated and accessed online.
40% of the Institutions surveyed reported that their
VLE platform was linked to the College MIS. As the MIS
provides Institutions with the essential information to
support personalised learning strategies, the advantages of linking a VLE and a MIS are clear. By improving the
quality of the data collected, it is possible to manage it
more effectively to support teaching and learning.
53.3 % of the Institutions also had a link between the
Platform and the College Administration System which
was useful for tracking student records (exams, results
and grades, fees). In 56% of the cases it was possible to
transfer data about students between College Administration Systems easily and seamlessly.
Each Institution surveyed identified some missing functionalities that they would like to add to their Platforms.
These included:
− E-portfolio (e.g. a joint portfolio used by students,
college and dual vocational companies to assess
learning outcomes)
− Web 2.0 functionalities such as blogs, wikis and social software (e.g. Facebook)
− Stack database applications for managing the award
of certificates
− Use of RSS feeds
− YouTube Channel
− Virtual Text Books
− Screen Capture
− Video Conference.
The Managers surveyed suggested linking the three
systems from the beginning. Using the three systems
at the same time improves coordination of information
12
13
TEACHING AND
LEARNING
Comments on teaching and learning included:
“If education is the job, then find out how a VLE can
support it to make it better.”
“A VLE is not about saving money but about better
learning and teaching.”
“Share the vision of how the use of the VLE can improve
both learning and teaching.”
of need, i.e. ‘How can I help you make your work more
enjoyable, more productive, saving time, better quality
etc’. Secondly, you should understand their approach to
ICT. Some teachers accept advice, others ask for help,
some respond only to competition, others respond
when they understand that their tenure or professional
credentials rely on a good competency report for ICT.
Thirdly, it is helpful to organise the display of student’s
work from all subject areas, both on the VLE and physically on the campus. This soon encourages teachers not
to be left out of the displays’”
“Find support within the Institution’s authority to encourage teachers to provide e-learning opportunities.
At the University teachers are rewarded with additional
benefits if they provided e-learning lessons for their
students”.
− It starts with people - they have to do it, they have to
want it
Further Education College, UK:
− Get the teachers involved early in the process,
− Give work incentives for staff to innovate and provide
training and support to use the system,
− Start with your teachers’ champions and let them
involve other teachers step-by-step,
in-house training (50%) and that 38% of Teachers did
not receive any formal training.
Some Teachers fully embraced the VLE system and
used interactive tools to save time and enable, if not
self guided learning, a form of learning that allowed
the student to learn at their own pace and time. These
teachers changed from being the source of knowledge
to being an influencer and role model of class culture.
By connecting with students in a personal way that addressed their own learning needs and by moderating
discussions and activities, they facilitated a collective approach towards achieving the learning goals of the class.
“Our strategy very much revolves around the benefits
the system brings to the student and teacher”.
Training
‘A VLE urges teachers to rethink the way they work’.
‘Invest in teachers training – it’s vital!’
Teachers stated that their satisfaction with the technical
and pedagogical support in using the VLEs was satisfactory. (Fig. 10 and Fig. 11).
− Find quick wins for teachers and students and get
them to work with the VLE.
Of the Teachers surveyed 57.7% were required to use
the VLE within their learning delivery. In Institutions
where the use of VLE was not required, the estimated
percentages of teaching staff using the VLE was still
high (between 70 - 90% of the staff). Throughout more
in-depth interviews with Educational Managers from
those organisations, the Project Partners identified different strategies for staff motivation and engagement.
“Provide the National Vocational Qualification in ICT (IT
User Qualification) referenced to the European Qualification Framework as a desirable outcome for the learners and make it less than 50% of the cost of competitors’ versions. Focus on Web Software and Collaborative
Technologies so learning to use the system provides
some of the credit towards an internationally recognised qualification. Design the qualifications to cover
the statutory requirements of the UK National Curriculum so that teachers can use existing good practice,
making change manageable and reducing rather than
adding to work loads. Provide much of the facilities
for which VLE vendors are charging large amounts of
money freely hosted as value added.”
− Support teaching and learning outside of Institution/
College hours.
The functions of the VLE most frequently used by
Teachers (rate of 80% based on the Survey responses) were
Co-educational Secondary Comprehensive School, UK:
− Uploading of content and resources
− Class lists
− Notice boards
− Assignments and assessments
− Bookmarking.
Educational Managers who took part in the Survey are
aware that teacher education and training should be
focusing more on the pedagogy aspect of the VLEs and
not just on the technical skills needed to use them. The
training should help teachers to understand how to use
the Platform in a way that adds value to the students’
learning experience.
Online learning is not a passive process where the
learner relies solely on the instructor to provide a learning content. It is also not a lecture-oriented course
when interaction only takes place between the student
and the content or the student and the teacher. Practitioners need to transform their teaching style and move
from a traditional way of giving instructions to students
to a more socio-cultural way of creating knowledge.
Teachers (70%) who took part in the Survey stated that
the training they received on VLEs was sufficient to
meet their needs.
14
The main reasons for using the VLE among Teachers
were as follows:
− Uploading additional materials to further support learning
Investment in teacher training is vital. Of the surveyed
Institutions 65% offered in-house training to their
staff and indicated satisfaction with the quality of the
training delivered. 58% of Institutions are planning to
increase the number of teacher users and involve new
staff in the VLE training.
Accredited Awarding Organisation, UK:
However, the majority of Teachers who took part in the
Survey combined traditional classroom teaching with
technology mediated interactions without fundamentally changing their pedagogical style. This group still
rated their satisfaction with the training received on VLE
as good and they indicated daily or weekly access to the
Learning Platform. Even Teachers with more than two
years experience of using a VLE and with daily access to
the Platform were using the VLE as an additional support in and outside of the classroom rather than as an
integral part of their teaching practice.
− Improving communication with students
A successful application of technology in education
means that many systemic changes have to take place
in the Institution. The effective use of the VLE in the
learning delivery requires a different mindset about
teaching as well as the acquisition of teaching strategies
that are beyond those needed in traditional learning
environments.
− Assess faculty-perceived incentives and obstacles,
“Firstly, it is important to meet teachers at their point
number of 40 years experience. 65.4% of the surveyed
Teachers were using the VLE for more than two years.
E-Learning and Technology University, Lithuania:
Motivation
Educational Managers recognised the importance of
having motivated teachers and outlined the following
factors in support of motivation:
The following graph (Fig. 9) shows that the training
provided to Teachers across Europe was mainly
The VLE functions least used by Teachers were:
− Web conferencing
− Synchronous collaboration tools (chat)
− Student home pages
− Blogs
− Wiki.
Changes in Teaching
and Learning
This European Study has analysed the extent to which
practitioners across Europe changed their teaching and
learning strategies after the implementation of a VLE in
their Institution. A total number of 153 Teachers participated in the Survey. On average they were teaching
for 13 years with a minimum of 1 year and a maximum
‘To be an ‘e-teacher’ it is not enough to have the technical skills to use the VLE and a computer. Even if the
teacher gets as far as constructing a course containing
texts or animations, the pedagogical approach is very
often traditional instruction’.
Teachers experienced the following difficulties in using
the VLE:
− Creating an audio or video lesson is difficult for 58%
15
− Use third party software within the VLE is difficult for 70%
− Author your own resources on the VLE faster and
more efficiently and Organise and manage a chat or
forum is difficult for 43%.
At the same time, Teachers declared their satisfaction
with the use of the VLE in their teaching practice (Fig. 12).
These findings indicated a certain disparity between the
desire of the Institutions to implement a VLE and the
day-to-day usage by teaching staff. This reiterated the
need for effective communication of the overall strategy
and a focus on the training of staff. Training should not
be limited to the technical usage of a VLE but should
also look at the underpinning values of using VLEs in
teaching and how this links in with the overall mission
and strategy of the Institution.
16
STUDENTS’ EXPERIENCE
WITH THE VLE
of Teachers responded that their students received only
a short VLE introductory course in the class (Fig. 13).
Amongst the Teachers who took part in the Survey,
35% stated that their students received an introductory
course on the use of the Platform and are still receiving
continuous support in working with the VLE system. 42%
More than half of the Teachers surveyed were partially
satisfied with the quality of the VLE introduction to the
students (57%).
One Teacher stated: ‘It is very important to teach
students how to be an effective on-line learner. Being IT competent does not make a student an effective
e-learner’.
The chart below (Fig. 14) confirms that students were
using the Platform in a traditional way. This is most
likely influenced directly by teachers’ attitudes and their
traditional way of practice with the VLE.
The results reflected Teachers’ perception of the use
of the online tool by students. Teachers stated that
students do not use wiki, chat, and forums and do not
have a personal blog or website. This is possibly linked
to the Teachers’ use of the VLE. If the course is structured in a traditional pedagogical style it will leave no
room for self-directed personal learning supported by
innovative activities and tools.
17
SATISFACTION WITH
THE PLATFORM
tion to increase the number of teacher users and 63.5%
will train additional teachers and new staff in using the
VLE.
Generally, Managers are slightly less satisfied with the
VLE (Fig. 16) than Teachers (Fig. 17).
The VLE implemented, completely fulfilled the initial
expectations of 21 of the Institutions out of the 78
surveyed.
A cross-tabulation of the Survey results indicated that
in addition to choosing the right type of Platform,
satisfied Institutions had initially enough experience
in managing the Platform internally, solving problems
and customising the VLE. Those Institutions were also
able to make effective use of the Platform to fulfil their
learning objectives as well as students learning needs.
Additionally the Platforms were linked to the College
Administration System and MIS.
Among Survey respondents, 59% of Institutions indicated that the VLE partially fulfilled their initial expectations. The Educational Managers outlined the importance of the “TIME” factor:
‘We still need to coordinate our technical abilities,
educational goals and teaching material and develop a
support system for the training of colleagues’,
Fig. 18 show preferences among Teachers regarding the
benefits that a VLE brings into their learning practices:
Rapid technological advancement and uptake amongst
the younger generations has resulted in today’s teachers having to learn to communicate in the language
and style of their students if they are to relate young
students learning experience to their wider societal experience. Reducing the knowledge gap between digital
immigrants and digital natives among teachers is a key
to successful VLE implementation.
‘No Platform is perfect; you have to combine to reach
the result you are looking for’.
There are also Institutions that justify their partial satisfaction with the Platform based on the fact that they
continuously look out for more learner-centred and
open solutions.
Some Institutions outlined difficulties in Teachers’ involvement:
− Most teachers need a lot of support before they are
able to use the VLE effectively; they do not immediately see the opportunities of the system,
− Teachers find it hard to change their ways of working
− Much depends on staff understanding of pedagogy
that involves technology.
Among Institutions surveyed 58% indicated their inten-
18
19
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
MOTIVATION
This Study Report analysed the evidence of how Virtual
Learning Environments are being used and their potential benefits for teaching and learning practice. It looked
across different sectors and took a European wide
perspective in considering the potential implications for
Ireland.
What have we learnt that is transferable to practice
in the Irish VET sector?
POLICY
PEDAGOGY
Keep VET learner needs in mind throughout the entire
selection and implementation process.
Do not focus on the technology part of the VLE only
– look at the pedagogy and how the VLE can enhance
learning delivery and improve students’ learning experience. At the end of the day there is a risk that the
Learning Platform will become another expensive piece
of equipment with no influence on the quality of learning outcomes.
Identify coherences between relevant national and organisational policy recommendations and the new ICT
initiatives.
EXISTING GOOD PRACTICE
Locate examples of existing good practice in terms of the
technical and educational integration of ICT and VLEs.
NEEDS ANALYSIS
Understand and identify the needs of your organisation
by following a structured and rigorous needs analysis
process prior to the Platform selection and implementation. The Needs analysis process will ensure an informed decision on the VLE selection and narrow down
potential risks that may arise in the future. Remember
that there is no such thing as ‘one solution fits all’ and
the outline of your needs and main expectations will
lead to a successful selection process.
Build or draw on existing relationships with relevant external bodies as a source of advice and support during
the selection and implementation process.
GOALS
Establish educational goals that you would like to
achieve with the VLE and make sure that they are in line
with your organisations’ overall mission.
STRATEGY AND ACTION PLAN
Define your strategy for the VLE selection and outline a
detailed Action Plan for the Platform implementation.
Establish or realign internal organisational structures
so that they are positioned to enable the selection and
implementation process.
TECHNOLOGY
Understand how to motivate your teachers and involve
them in the VLE implementation process from the beginning. Find ‘quick wins’ for the teachers that will show
some immediate benefits that the VLE can bring to their
teaching practice. Acknowledge and build upon any
previous related ICT initiatives within the organization.
Identify the system that will work best for your organisation. It is useful to engage IT Managers and technicians in this process to ensure that the technology side
of the needs analysis will include all technical aspects of
your organisation.
CHAMPIONS
Involve staff in the selection, pilot and implementation
stages as a means of building a pool of expertise within
the organization while simultaneously ensuring a sense
of ownership over the new ICT.
Start with small steps by involving some teachers in the
VLE implementation. Train them to become VLE champions. Later on they will become mentors to the rest of
the team and will train all staff on the use of the VLE.
STUDENTS
Engage your students from the beginning and make
them feel involved in the VLE process implementation.
PATIENCE
Take your time - implementation is a long path.
Remember that a VLE is just another tool in a good
teacher’s repertoire. It’s not an end in itself.
DISSEMINATION
Share experiences and disseminate products as widely
as possible as a means of further professionalising the
VET sector in the context of the spectrum of lifelong
learning.
An organisation can make an informed choice about
a VLE based on the availability on the market and as
a result of a detailed needs analysis. However, it must
always keep in mind that this will not necessarily be
a fixed choice for the future. New products and new
concepts in relation to VLEs are under development at
all times. Any education institution must be aware of
these developments and understand that, in the future,
its choice of the VLE - or even the fact of using VLEs at
all - may need to be adapted.
20
ANNEXES
Annex 1
VLEs4VET Project Partners:
FIT Ltd is a registered charity funded by the ICT industry and government. Its objective is the progression of people within disadvantaged communities and their integration into mainstream society through
access to training in ICT. Its methodology is building collaborations between industry, government
(agencies) and local communities. FIT instigates initiatives to support disadvantaged people gain indemand ICT skills and to overcome the digital divide; develops curricula, assessment selection procedures, and training initiatives. It makes agreements with national training and education providers and
local development organizations to run FIT courses. FIT has a Board made up of senior figures from the
ICT industry (e.g., AOL, Siemens, SAP, IBM, Microsoft, PayPal etc) and a Curriculum Subgroup made up of industry experts and
vocational training experts which research, review and approve new marked led curricula.
City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee (CDVEC) takes responsibility on behalf of its College
Principals for an extensive range of projects which are implemented and managed by the various centres
including Schools, Colleges of Further Education, Youthreach Centres, the Curriculum Development Unit
and the Prison Service. CDVEC is the largest Vocational Education Committee in the Republic of Ireland.
While spatially its administrative area is limited by the city boundary, its ambit extends nationally. It delivers
a broad range of educational courses, and provides a wide variety of complementary and supplementary services, to over 12,000 fulltime students and 17,500 part-time adult students. It employs over 3,800 staff and its annual expenditure in excess of €190 million
indicates the extent of its activities. City of Dublin VEC is a member of the European Foundation for Open and Digital Learning (EFODL).
Consorzio FOR.COM. is an interuniversity consortium based in Rome with offices in Northern and
Southern Italy. FOR.COM develops and delivers Open Distance Learning courses at different levels (postgraduate programmes, specialization courses and continuous vocational training courses), utilising the
educ@mpus e-learning platform and managing online tutoring activities in order to promote collaborative learning among remote users. Consorzio FOR.COM. has extensive experience in the development,
implementation and experimentation of the following distance learning tools and software: E-learning
platforms (including the experimentation of open source platforms), M-learning portals, TV-learning
platforms, Integrated systems, Interactive and multimedia learning objects and Pedagogical agents.
Koning Willem I College is a medium sized regional centre for vocational training and education, where
high-quality technology and purposeful creativity form the basis for trailblazing learning processes.
It is a Dutch Community College, in fact the first one in the country. The College provides a wide variety
of occupational programmes and courses, ranging from all kinds of technical, IT and business courses
in Economics, Health Care, Sports and Welfare, Architecture, Design, Fashion, Theatre and Multimedia.
Courses are available at four levels from assistant to specialists levels and from trainee to entrepreneur.
The college deploys centralized expert teams for Innovation and Learning Processes, e.g. task force implementing an LMS. The College has experienced several learning management systems and is now moving to a next level. Koning
Willem 1 College is a member of the European Foundation for Open and Digital Learning (EFODL)
City College Norwich is a large, predominantly vocational, college of Higher and
Further education with around 14,000 to 16,000 students per annum, 1600 of these
studying at higher levels. It has six National Skills Academies – Finance, Manufacturing, Creative and Cultural Skills, Hospitality, Environmental Technology and Enterprise. In 2008 and 2011, the college achieving the LSC’s Training Quality Standard
(TQS) awarded for excellence in working with employers and for two consecutive
years (2008 and 2009) received a National Training Award for its employer focussed work. It also received the Association of
Colleges (AoC) Award for Widening Participation for its work with students with Aspergers and in 2009 the AoC’s President’s
Award for the same area of work. The college leads on e-learning in a variety of domains: its use of Blackboard as its VLE;
virtual worlds such as Second Life and its use of social media applications in the support of teaching and learning. City College
Norwich is a member of the European Foundation for Open and Digital Learning (EFODL).
21
Annex 2
VLEs4VET Project outcomes:
Annex 3
List of Institutions participating in the European Study*:
1) ‘Virtual Learning Environments in Education: A European Study’
2. Koning Willem I College
This research report describes education organisations across Europe, defining their experiences, needs and
preferences regarding Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs). The report will be of interest to different education
organisations that are considering implementing or changing a Learning Platform.
3. Universidade Aberta
1. Education Centre for Deutsche Telekom
4. Instituto de Biomecánica de Valencia
2) ‘Selecting a Virtual Learning Environment - The experience of City of Dublin VEC’
5. UC Sealand
This report has been developed in a format of advice and support for Vocational Education and Training sector in
Ireland in selecting and implementing Learning Platform solution.
7. The Learning Machine Ltd.
6. Secondary Electrotechnical School in Kosice
3) Continuous Professional Development materials for VET Teachers:
8. Burgas Free University
- ‘Basic ICT for VLEs’
9. Polish Open Academy of Management in Lodz
10. University of Central Lancashire
- ‘What is a VLE?’
11. Notre Dame High School, Sheffield
- ‘Benefits of a VLE’
12. Tideway School
- ’20 quick wins’
13. ROC Midden Nederland
- ‘Initial lessons in VLE usage’
14. Universita’ Degli Studi Gugliemo Marconi
- ‘20 Quick Wins with Moodle’
15. Helicon Opleidingen
- ‘Moodle: A teacher’s guide’
16. Hogeschool Rotterdam / University of Applied Scienses
- ‘Extending Moodle’
4) ‘Reflecting on the implementation of the Virtual Learning Environments in organisations across Europe’
17. UNED
The final product of the project will present sharing of the practical experiences of VLE implementation within
Vocational Education and Training sector across Europe.
18. Warwickshire College
All Project materials are available to download at www.vles4vet.eu
19. West Suffolk College
20. Adam Smith College
21. Regio College
22. Albeda College
23. Stockport College
24. Tideway School
25. Cyprus University of Technology
26. The College of West Anglia
27. ROC de Leijgraaf
28. FOR.COM. Consorzio Interuniversitario
29. Suffolk New College
30. Zadkine OC Gezondheidszorg, Laboratoriumtechniek en Optiek
31. Tasmanian Polytechnic
32. Farringdon Community College
33. ROC van Twente, Hengelo en Almelo
34. Barnet College
35. Salpaus Further Education
36. Skarpnäcks folkhögskola, Skarpnäck, Sweden
37. Helicon Opleidingen VMBO groen Den Bosch
38. Auto College Aalborg
22
23
Annex 4
Questionnaire for Managers
39. Sundbybergs Folk High School (folkhögskola)
40. Roc van twente, Mbo-College VM&M
41. Spark of Genius
1. Name of the Institution
42. Gilde Opleidingen
43. Oberstufenzentrum Informations- und Medizintechnik
44. City College Plymouth
2. Your position in the organisation
3. Country
4. Type of Institution
45. ROC Gilde Opleidingen locatie Geleen
46. VDAB
47. Trafford College
48. IDAN
49. Helsinki City College of Culinary Art, Fashion and Beauty
50. University of Applied Sciences Technikum Wien
51. Foundation Gaudete
• Higher education
• Further/Vocational education
• Adult education
• Post-primary
• Primary School
• Other
5. Estimated number of students
52. Leonardo Lyceum CDO
6. Average age of students
53. Trafford College
54. Friedrich-List-Schule
55. Universidad de Sevilla
56. Vellinge local education authority / Vellinge community
57. North West Regional College
58. University Fernando Pessoa
59. Kaunas University of Technology
*Please note that some of the Institutions that participated in the Survey wished to stay anonymous.
• under 18
• 19-25
• over 40
7. Number of staff
• less than 50
• 51-200
• 201-500
• 501-1000
• over 1000
8. Are teachers required to use the VLE?
• Yes
• No
9. E
stimated percentage of teaching staff that are using the VLE
10. How long has your organisation been using a VLE?
• less than 6 months
• more than 6 months and less than 2 years
• more than 2 years
11. What type of Platform do you currently use?
24
• Moodle
• Claroline
• Ilias
• ATutor
• Sakai
• WebCT 9
• Blackboard
• Other
25
12. What was the main reason for implementing a VLE Platform? Please choose max 3 options:
• Other
• Provision of resources to support teaching and learning outside school/college hours
20. Which operative system do you use for your Platform?
• Provision of services to suit a range of student needs
• Linux/Unix
• Better communication between teachers and students
• Microsoft Windows
• Offer online learning activities
• Apple Macintosh
• Provision of blended learning opportunities
• Other
• Provision of distance learning opportunities
21. Which browser do you use for your Platform?
• Cost savings
• Mozilla Firefox
• Time savings
• Internet Explorer
13. T
o what extent does the Platform fulfil your initial expectations?
• Opera
• not at all
• Google Chrome
• partially
• Safari
• completely
• Other
• I’m not sure
22. Does the VLE have a modular extensible architecture?
14. H
as any other VLE been used by your organisation in the past?
23. Did you customize VLE for your organisation?
• Yes • No
• No • Yes
15. W
hat is the main reason for changing the VLE Platform?
• No • Yes
• Costs savings
24. What missing functionality has been added by modules?
• Better opportunities for teaching
25. What missing functionality, if any, would you like to add to your Platform in the future?
• More learning features
26. Is there a link between the Platform and the College MIS (Management Information System)?
• Recommendation
• Other
27. Is there a link between the Platform and College Administration System?
• No • Yes
16. How is the VLE hosted?
• Externally
• Internally
28. Is it possible to transfer data about students between College Administration Systems easily and seamlessly?
• Other
• Vendor/external
• ICT Manager/ Coordinator
• Internal technician
• Other
• Internal dedicated technician
• General Internal technician
• Vendor / External
• Other
• No • Yes
30. Have you ever calculated the cost of the implementation and maintenance of the Platform?
• No • Yes
31. Are you planning to invest additional money?
18. Who provides technical support to the VLE?
• No • Yes
29. Have you encountered any technical problems with the implementation of the VLE?
17. Who installed the VLE software?
• No • Yes
• Yes, in changing to a different VLE
• Yes, in further development of current VLE
• No
• I’m not sure
32. Have you experienced a cost impact?
19. The implementation of the Platform has required:
• an adjustment of structures (networks, software etc)
• better speed / capacity of internet connection
• greater number of computers available for open access
26
• No • Yes
33. What type of cost-impact have you experienced?
• Saving time
• Higher productivity time
27
• Reusable resources and learning objects
• Other
34. If not yet, are you expecting to see cost savings?
• No
• Yes
• I don’t know
35. Across the school / college, in terms of learning quality, what do you see as the benefits of using a VLE?
Please TICK all that apply:
• Better communication between teachers and students
• Effective use of learning resources
• Open access to learning materials for students
• On-line space for staff discussions and cooperation
• More effective independent learning
• Ability to carry out work for students when teachers are absent
• Enhanced opportunities for learning from home
• On-line dissemination of school / college information
• More effective goal setting and monitoring
• Cost – savings
• Other
• Change the VLE supplier/manufacturer
• Update/upgrade the software
• Increase the number of teacher users
• Increase the numbers of students (being able to reach students everywhere in the country or abroad)
• Reach different target groups
• Train teachers/ new staff to use the VLE
• Link to the college MIS (Management Information System)
• Other
• In-house training
• Peer to peer training
• Self-training
• None
• Other
• User – friendliness
• Level of interaction among users
• Ability to customize
• Accessibility for international users
• Accessibility for students with special needs
40. Consider each of the following statements and TICK the boxes that most closely match your opinion:
• The VLE enables more effective sharing of the learning resources
• Using the VLE has increased my workload
• Staff ICT skills have improved thanks to VLE usage
• The VLE saves teachers’ time
• The VLE offers new way of planning your work
• The VLE is a good investment
• The VLE has increased teachers ‘productivity
• The VLE has improved the quality of teaching in the school / college
• I am able to use all the functions of the VLE without technical support
• The VLE enables to monitor student learning in more effective way
• Completely unsatisfied
• Partially unsatisfied
• Partially satisfied
• Fully satisfied
42. What three pieces of advice would you give to a school/ college considering investing in a VLE?
43. Any other comments you would like to make about your experience with using the VLE
44. Name
37. What is your current strategy for teacher training in the use of VLE?
• External training
• Course management
41. How do you feel overall about the VLE in your organisation?
36. Your plans for the future in terms of the VLE (please select no more than two options)
45. Position
46. Address
47. Phone, e-mail
38. Are you satisfied with the training that teachers received?
• No • Yes
39. Please rate your satisfaction with the VLE Platform using the following aspects:
• Frequency of system errors
• Overall Platform design
28
29
Annex 5
Questionnaire for Teachers
• Synchronous collaboration tolls (chat)
• Student home pages / blogs
2. Teaching subject
1. Name of the Institution
3. Number of years in teaching
4. Country
5. How long have you been using a VLE?
• Asynchronous discussion (forum)
• Import/export of learner data (including to examination board)
• Assignments
• Assessment / bookmark
• Assessment / e-portfolio
• Wiki
• less than 6 months
10. Consider each of the following statements and TICK the boxes that are closest to your opinion:
• more than 2 years
• Moodle
• Ilias
• Other
• more than 6 months but less than 2 years
6. Type of VLE used
• The VLE improves my teaching
• The VLE has encouraged communication with my colleagues outside of work hours
• Claroline
• Blackboard
7. How often in your work as a teacher do you use a VLE?
• Daily (use almost every day)
• Weekly (use on average 1-2 days per week)
• Monthly (use on average 1-2 days per month)
8. Why did you decide to use the VLE? (TICK all that apply)
• Request to do so by management
• Support teaching and learning outside school/college hours
• Access work files from home
• Upload additional materials to further support learning
• Increase the use of ICT in my teaching
• Use an innovative and alternative learning tool
• Support personalize learning path for students
• Support different learners’ needs
• Improve my communication with students
• Other
• Using a VLE adds extra interest to my teaching
• The VLE has encouraged communication with my students outside of work hours
• The VLE enables me to respond better to students’ individual needs and abilities
• Students like using the VLE
• Using the VLE wastes my time
• Using the VLE has helped to improve my ICT skills
• The VLE helps me organise my work better
• I think my students learn better with the VLE
• I can add content to the VLE easily
• The VLE supports learning of students with different disabilities
11. What training have you received in terms of administrating the VLE (e.g. uploading material, setting up a
course etc.)?
• In-house
• Self-taught
• External
• None
• Other
12. What training have you received in terms of using the VLE’s functions (e.g. preparing the course materials, student assessments etc.)?
• In-house
• Self-taught
• External
9. Indicate which of the following VLE functions you have used in your work as a teacher and rate the usefulness of each feature:
• Course outline
13. Length of the training
• Class lists
• Notice board
• Lesson Plan
• 4 hours or less (half a day)
• 2 days long training
• Upload of content and resources
• E-mail
• Other
• Course Calendar
• None
• day long training
• week long training
• semester long training
14. How often the training is repeated (frequency)?
• Web conferencing
• Video Lesson
30
• Never
• Once a year
31
• Regularly (a number of times within a year)
• Other
15. Was the training you received on the VLE sufficient to meet your needs?
• Give them a short introduction course in class
• Give them an introduction course and continuous support about how to work with the system
22. Your students:
• Actively participate in the online course
• Very unsatisfactory
• Work on assignments with other students using an electronic medium (e-mail, list-serv, chatgroup, forum)
• Can’t say
• Very satisfactory
• Very unsatisfactory
• Can’t say
• Completely unsatisfied
• Very satisfactory
• Neutral
• Yes • No • I’m not sure
19. Referring to the following VLE functions, please tick the most appropriate answer
24. Overall level of satisfaction with the VLE
(I need more training / I feel confident)
• Completely unsatisfied
• Partially unsatisfied
• Partially satisfied
• Fully satisfied
• No • I’m not sure • Yes
16. How would you rate the technical support available to you in terms of using the VLE?
• Unsatisfactory
• Satisfactory
17. How would you rate the didactical support available to you in terms of using the VLE?
• Use e-mail to communicate with teachers
• Access other online materials related to course content
• Manage a personal blog
• Manage an individual website
• Produce and upload multimedia materials
• Use a VLE to create a personal training path
• Prefer a group discussion
• Unsatisfactory
23. What do you think about the quality of the VLE introduction to the students?
• Satisfactory
18. Is the VLE technically reliable for your teaching practice?
• Design a Course
• Upload content and resources
• Use online resources for lesson planning
• Create an audio or video lesson
• Partially unsatisfied
• Partially satisfied
• Fully satisfied
25. Any other comments about your experience with using the VLE.
• Deliver a lesson
• Set up and fine tune online resources
• Create online tasks
• Organise and manage a chat or forum
• Use third party software within the VLE
• Manage assessment mechanisms
• Author your own resources on the VLE faster and more efficiently
• Share resources within a community of practice or staff area
20. Please, rate your satisfaction with the VLE Platform using the following aspects:
• Frequency of system errors
• Course management
• Overall Platform design
• User – friendliness
• Ability to customize
• Accessibility for international users
• Accessibility for students with special needs
• Support of didactical practice
21. What was done to introduce the system to the students?
• Give them the URL and a short instruction to login
32
33
NOTES
NOTES
34
35
The VLEs4VET project has been funded with support from the European Commission
under the Lifelong Learning Programme. This publication reflects the views only of the
author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made
of the information contained therein.
36
Graphic design and DTP by Hummingbird Studio Ireland / www.hmbs.ie / [email protected] / 086 3999993