Digital capabilities survey 2019
Download as PPTX, PDF1 like1,002 views
The survey on digital capabilities has been run three times, with responses from 42 universities and 3 further education institutions. This year's survey provides insight into the impact of new accessibility regulations. It finds that institutions are working hard on accessibility both generally and for digital capabilities. There are recommendations for institutions, working groups, and sector-wide bodies based on the survey findings. Barriers to future development include a lack of time, resources, and senior leadership support. Recommendations include investigating perceived barriers like time and resources, and having senior leadership proactively drive the digital capabilities agenda.
Digital capabilities survey 2019
- 1. Digital Capabilities Group Digital Capabilities Survey 2019
- 2. Digital Capabilities Group Background The survey has now run three times Invited 131 institutions in the UK and Ireland to respond Fourty-two Universities and three FE institutions responded Twenty per cent of respondents say the survey impacts on their practice This year’s survey gives a vivid picture of the impact of new regulations on accessibility
- 3. Digital Capabilities Group We recommend… The report makes recommendations for institutions, working groups, sector wide bodies on the basis of survey findings
- 4. Digital Capabilities Group What do we mean? Yes, across whole institution 31% Yes, by parts of institution 58% No 11% Q1.1 Whether use Jisc definition of digital capabilities Yes, do use other terminology or definition 53% No, just use the Jisc definition 47% Q1.2 Whether use other definition of digital capabilities Use Jisc only 47% Use Jisc and other 42% Use other only 11% Q 1.1 & 1.2 Combined use of definitions of digital capabilities
- 5. Digital Capabilities Group Drivers 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Q2.1 External factors driving development of student digital capabilities
- 6. Digital Capabilities Group Influencers 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Q2.4 Importance of external reports or documents to students
- 7. Digital Capabilities Group Institutional strategy 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Q2.5 Importance of institutional strategies for students
- 8. Digital Capabilities Group TEF? Yes, have taken action 61% No actions taken yet 39% Q2.7 Action taken as result of TEF
- 9. Digital Capabilities Group Who’s responsible? Yes 80% No 20% Q2.8 Specific dedicated roles
- 10. Digital Capabilities Group How does the digicap garden grow? Top down and loosely steered 9% Bottom up 9% Simultaneously top down and bottom up 27%Mix of above approaches 44% Other approach 11% Q2.10 Institutional approach to developing digital capabilities
- 11. Digital Capabilities Group How do we support digicap? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Q3.1 All supporting activities or processes – students Yes No, but working towards this No
- 12. Digital Capabilities Group Accessibility: this year’s big story The section on accessibility in the survey expanded on previous year’s questions From both the closed response items and the free responses it’s clear that many institutions are working hard on accessibility both in general and with respect to digital capabilities
- 13. Digital Capabilities Group Accessibility toolkits 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% MicrosoftAccessibilityresources(43) Browseraccessibilityplugins(43) CreateandverifyPDFaccessibility(Acrobat Pro)(42) Astrategicapproachtoinclusivepracticein education(40) Publishingaccessibledocuments(42) Supportinganinclusivelearnerexperiencein highereducation(41) AccessibleMaterialAuditChecklist(43) Makingassessmentsaccessible(43) BlackboardAlly(44) Sensusaccessservice(43) OfficeAccessibiltyCenter(43) Inclusivelearningandteachinginhigher education(41) APPGATwhitepaperabouttheEUWeb AccessibilityDirective(43) AccessibleOrganisationsblog(42) InclusiveTeachingandLearninginHigher EducationasaroutetoExcellence(41) Accessibilitysnapshotservice(43) RNIBbooksharecollections(43) Supportingwritingandnotetaking(43) Technology,policyandaccessiblepractice (43) ErasmusFutureTeacherresources(43) Q4.1 - Awareness and use of resources Not aware Aware, don’t use Aware, and use
- 14. Digital Capabilities Group Are there sector differences? Yes – higher leverl of awareness in Pre-92 institutions in general. Post-92 institutions much more aware of Blackboard Ally – it seems that may be a key resource for them. Currently it appears Pre-92 institutions are making more use of many resources than Post-92 – except for a few, including the Microsoft Accessibility Resources
- 15. Digital Capabilities Group How accessible do we think we are? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Universitywebsite–public Lecture/classpresentations/ handoutsavailableonlineforall sessions Accessiblewebbrowsing Accessibleintranet/portalforcurrent students AccessibleVLEcontent BaselineVLEstandardswhichinclude accessibilityandinclusion AccessibleWord(orequivalent) documents AccessiblePowerPoint(orequivalent) presentations AccessiblePDFs AccessibleExcel(orequivalent) spreadsheets Recordingofteachingsessions(without captionsandnotes) Alternativeformatseg.audio,ePub, HTML,electronicbraille Otheroradditionalsupportive material,videos,screencasts,non- teachingactivity Recordingofteachingsessions(with captionsandnotes) Q4.2 Student accessibility – availability in practice No % Some % Good % Widespread %
- 16. Digital Capabilities Group But what about staff? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Accessible web browsing Accessible intranet/portal for current staff Accessible Word (or equivalent) documents Accessible PowerPoint (or equivalent) presentations Accessible PDFs Accessible Excel (or equivalent) spreadsheets Alternative formats eg. audio, ePub, HTML, electronic braille Recording of staff facing sessions (without captions and notes) Recording of staff facing sessions (with captions and notes) Q4.2 Staff accessibility – availability in practice No % Some % Good % Widespread % Don’t Know %
- 17. Digital Capabilities Group Barriers to future development? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Lackofmoney(i.e.fundingtosupport development) Lackoftime Departmentculture Lackofsupportstaff Lackofawarenessofavailablesupport Lackofresourcestosupportdigital capabilities Competingstrategicinitiatives Institutionalculture Lackofcommitment Lackofseniorleadershipsupport Lackofincentivesorrecognition Lackofstrategy Changingadministrativeprocesses Lackofavailabilityofsuitablephysical and/orvirtualspace Lackofaccesstosupportstaff (differentcampus,time) Lackofaccessto/capacityof infrastructure Lackofaccesstoappropriatekit.E.g. mics,camerasonPC Technicalproblems Inappropriatepoliciesandprocedures Q5.1 Inhibiting factor Students Staff
- 18. Digital Capabilities Group What’s important? “It is almost impossible to have a strategic approach to DC without a champion who lives DC at the top of the institution. It means we have to try win hearts and minds which is a slow, incremental process with many competing priorities meaning it is not necessarily at the top of staff concerns.” “Digital capability of staff has been recognised for years as an issue but finding funding to actually do new things to try to improve it has somehow never gotten the traction it needs. Now student capabilities are high on the priority list for employability reasons.”
- 19. Digital Capabilities Group Any recommendations? Lots! That institutions investigate the perceived issues of (lack of) time and resources as barriers to the development of digital capabilities – are such barriers a reflection or consequence of other issues, such as a lack of priority, institutional commitment or senior leadership support? That senior leadership within institutions should pro- actively drive the digital capabilities agenda (including accessibility, inclusion and universal design) across all areas of their institution by appointing an executive with sole responsibility for this. Institutions should consider a dedicated role to implement the EU Directive and maximise on the benefits therein.
- 20. Digital Capabilities Group When can you queue for a copy? SPOTLIGHT ON DIGITAL CAPABILITIES 4 June 2019 - 5 June 2019 tinyurl.com/dcgspotlight2019
Editor's Notes
- #2: Who are the DCG? What is the survey? What will it tell you?
- #3: The survey allows institutions to reflect on where they are and where they are going; to develop a strategic orientation by thinking globally; to look at where they are in relation to other organisations.
- #5: Year on year we have seen growth in the adoption of single definitions of digicap, with the Jisc definition firmly in the lead. Close to half of institutions only use the Jisc definition.
- #6: Students, students, students: employability leads closely followed by student experience and satisfaction. Has HEAR had its day? Academic drivers don’t feature much outside of some specialist niches.
- #7: Jisc! And ucisa. Sconul still just in the top 10. The discovery tool is rising through the rankings.
- #8: Teaching and learning – to be expected; library – almost a tradition; disability/accessibility coming up the ranks – not surprisingly.
- #9: 61 % have taking action on digicap as a result of the TEF! 43% noted action on policy or strategy; 33% changes to the curriculum; is the TEF going to mainstream digicap?
- #10: No change from previous survey results overall. However, we saw that Post-92 institutions are substantially more likely to have specialist roles than Pre-92. Why?
- #11: It’s a mix. Given the massive diversity in size and constitution of the institutions this is not surprising. Can an institution develop a coherent strategy and implement a concrete policy set with a bottom up, loosely steered management approach? The ~10% who choose one or the other – do they have anything in common? Do they show like results?
- #12: The importance of accessibility is underlined by its prominence here where the question is about general support for digicap. That aside, there are some interesting cases where the aspiration far outstrips achievement. Local action plans; centralised action plans; and including digicap in learning outcomes for programs and courses.
- #13: Institutions responding reflected what is obviously a major concern in the sector right now. The responses demonstrate that accessibility is a factor not only in mainstream academic access for institutions but also central to thinking about digicap for a good number.
- #14: Across the responses there is relatively low awareness of accessibility resources but the aspiration indicates this will grow. Shout out to blackboard ally as a growing influence and to the technology policy and accessible practice and Erasmus future teacher resources.
- #15: We can’t claim that there’s a clear picture here except perhaps for the assymetric awareness of Ally.
- #16: Websites are generally thought to be widely accessible; handouts, presentations are widely available – but how accessible are they? Recording of teaching sessions (a wider notion than just lecture capture) is least widely implemented.
- #17: The picture is less good. Many fewer services and resources appear to be widely accessible for staff than for students.
- #18: Money; staff; culture; time resources…. Much the same for staff and students… No big change from 2017 – some rankings have changed
- #19: A variety of answers, but organisational and funding challenges feature in responses.
- #20: It’s a mix. Given the massive diversity in size and constitution of the institutions this is not surprising. Can an institution develop a coherent strategy and implement a concrete policy set with a bottom up, loosely steered management approach? The ~10% who choose one or the other – do they have anything in common? Do they show like results?
- #21: Be there or be square.