HeLF UK HE Research on Tablet
TechnologiesDr Barbara Newland
Dr Neil RinganLindsey Martin
Aim of surveyTo find out:
provision, policies and support of tablet technologies in UK HE
the impact on learning and teaching
the impact on Heads of eLearning
To share information on policies, guidelines and case studies
A network of senior staff in institutions engaged in promoting, supporting and developing technology enhanced learning
Over 130 nominated Heads from UK Higher Education institutions
A regular programme of well attended events
Represents the interests of its members to various national bodies and agencies including the Higher Education Academy and JISCwww.helf.ac.uk
Heads of eLearning Forum (HeLF)
Definiton“tablet technology” is defined as:
“a portable computer that uses a touchscreen as its primary input device.” (http://www.techterms.com/definition/tablet)
For example, an iPad, Nexus10, Microsoft Surface or Kindle Fire.
This survey is not directed at smartphones or laptops, although it is appreciated that the distinctions are a grey area.
The survey was available: to HeLF members who were asked to respond with regard to their knowledge of
their own institution
in March/April 2014 and took about 10 minutes to complete
The questions were a mixture of closed multiple-choice/multiple-answer and multiple selection as well as open response type
Participants were assured that all data collected in the survey would be held anonymously and securely
No personal data was asked for or retained unless the participant indicated a willingness to be contacted in the future
The results were analysed using quantitative and qualitative methods
48 responses from 131 HeLF members – 37% response rate
Methodology
Main findings Approach is patchy – based on individuals and some
departments rather than institution wide
iPads dominate
Policies – generally, less than a fifth have polices but up to 75% are considering them
Project funding in about 60% institutions
Used more for administration than learning and teaching
Minimal impact to date on the role of Head of eLearing and learning technologists but indications that this will change
Pattern of adoption is similar to the the Electronic Management of Assessment (EMA) approach 4 years ago … except in the impact on the role
Purchasing tablets
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Academics
Administrators
Students
Purchasing preferenceSimilar percentages of staff were allowed their
choice of tablet as not allowed with a similar amount of variance. Students were less likely to be able to choose.
iPads are the greatly preferred choice by institutions and departments if there is not a free choice
Lending tabletsJust over half the institutions have a scheme to
lend tablets. More lending happens locally and to academics more than students
All, except 1, scheme lend iPads with a third also lending Androids
There is a mixture of responsibility for lending with the main lenders being IT Services or the eLearning Team. In some cases academics can lend them to students.
Percentage having a tablet (either institutionally provided or owned by
the individual)?
0 - 25% 26 - 50% 51 - 75% 76 - 100%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Senior managementAcademicsAdministrative staffStudents
Academic use of tablets
0 - 25% 26 - 50% 51 - 75% 76 - 100%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
AdministrationeFeedbackDuring f2f sessionsDuring field work
Policies
BYOD a
cade
mics
BYOD s
tude
nts
Switc
h it
On
Pape
rless
mee
tings
Remot
e m
anag
emen
t05
101520253035
Yes
No
Under con-sideration
AppsDepartments and individuals fund the purchase of
apps for academics, administrators and students
Most individuals create their own ID
Most tablets are not supplied with a core set of apps
If apps are supplied they include: Airwatch, Aurasma, Blackboard mobile, eduroam, Explain Everything, Goodreader, iAnnotate, Meraki, Nearpod, Rosetta Stone, Skype, Turnitin, University, Virtual desktop and some subject specific
University funded scheme
Departmental scheme
No project funding
Funding
Impact on role
Significant Minimal None0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
On your role as Head of eLearning eg policy develop-ment, infrastructure consultationThe role of the learning technol-ogists eg support, development
Indications for the low impact on role
Mainly used for administration rather than teaching
Purchasing and lending more by IT Services than eLearning team
Increasing interest in using tablets for eFeedback and eMarking using software such as Turnitin app for iPad
There are opposite extremes in the impact on the role from the large amount of support required from departments in which nearly everyone has a tablet compared to the minimal support required from departments in which few people have them.
There are indications that the level of support and the impact on the role will increase.
Project evaluations, case studies and policies
Corporate device policy http://www.brad.ac.uk/itservices/media/itservices/allfiles/documents/mobile-device-usage-policy.pdf
Policy and guidelineshttp://www.brighton.ac.uk/clt/resources/blended-learning/blended-learning-policies/
Reflections on the use of Tablets at UCS 2012/13https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12497737/reports/TabletsatUCS201213.pdf
https://www.academia.edu/4492028/Persuasive_Learning_Design_through_Context_Engineering_LTRI_CS
Mobile survey and projectshttp://blogs.northampton.ac.uk/learntech/?s=MALT
Case studies including enhancing the formative assessment environment http://www.ucisa.ac.uk/~/media/Files/publications/case_studies/ASG_Effective_Use_Mobile%20Learning
Staff traininghttp://totallyrewired.wordpress.com/page/4/
Projecthttp://technologyenhancedlearning.net/ipadsforillustration/
Project and appshttp://blog.yorksj.ac.uk/ipadproject
Further investigation Why the low impact on the role of Head of eLearning and learning technologists in
relation to learning and teaching. Using tablet technologies in f2f can make the sessions more interactive and change the role of the academic.
Where do Heads of see their role/input going (strategy/policy/best practice case studies/training & support) and that of their teams?
Why the significant difference between developments in which the entire department has tablet technologies compared to those who don't. How will this develop in future?
How do they plan to get there – what strategies do they intend to adopt?
How do e-learning units work with IT colleagues in terms of tablets, particularly in regard to device set up and configuration when purchased, accounts for downloading apps (personal or institutional), device and app management (bulk licensing downloading, synchronizing etc) policies for loaning devices. How does the push from TEL units in terms of using apps to support academic practice link in with how devices are configured?
Could we build a consensus on a core set of apps to support L&T and associated admin? There are local differences and drivers but there will also be a core of ‘must-haves’ that it would be helpful to surface.
Summary Approach is patchy – based on individuals and some
departments rather than institution wide
iPads dominate
Policies – generally, less than a fifth have polices but up to 75% are considering them
Project funding in about 60% institutions
Used more for administration than learning and teaching
Minimal impact to date on the role of Head of eLearing and learning technologists but indications that this will change
Pattern of adoption is similar to the the Electronic Management of Assessment (EMA) approach 4 years ago … except in the impact on the role
Dr Barbara Newland [email protected]
Dr Neil [email protected]
Lindsey [email protected]
Contact details
Recommended
