UCISA digital capability survey 2017

Editor's Notes

• #9: Image licenced under CC0 licence – no attribution required Photographer: Jose Moreno https://unsplash.com/collections/663084/in-the-resistance?photo=w0eMOcfV2MQ
• #13: GAAD, DSA
• #14: Most widely reported as available was an accessible VLE, with the majority of institutions (84%) of the view this had either ‘good’ or ‘widespread’ availability across the institution. Around three-quarters of all institutions thought the same in respect of lecture/class presentations and handouts (74%) and accessible web browsing (70%). Less widely available across responding institutions were accessible Word documents (49%), accessible PowerPoint presentations (47%) and accessible PDFs (47%). Finally, just over a third of all institutions (39%) said that accessible Excel spreadsheets had either ‘good’ or ‘widespread’ availability across the institution; followed by slightly fewer that felt the same in respect of recording of teaching sessions (34%) and other accessible formats (32%).   The high levels of availability are perhaps somewhat surprising, and it may be that there was an element of over-claiming by some institutions. It would certainly be worth exploring in future research what the claimed ‘availability’ amounts to. There may also have been definitional issues at play, for example, the generally high levels of availability of an ‘accessible VLE’ might be due to respondents thinking that the question referred to round-the-clock access and/or access from outside the institution. Alternatively, it could be that some respondents thought that the fact their VLE platform has some accessibility features (eg Moodle Accessibility Block) means that the VLE as a whole is accessible and widely available. Either way, this question is worthy of further refinement and development if it is to be asked in future surveys. Furthermore, this has also been discussed by the UCISA Executive Committee, who feel the development of guidance and standard phrases/questions on accessibility be created for inclusion in tender documents for IT systems reviews.
• #20: Two activities and processes were thought to be particularly important: internally provided training in digital capabilities (already in place and contributing in the eyes of 77% of respondents added to which a further 22% that thought their institution was working towards this) and IT policy/infrastructure enabling of innovation, e.g. a software upgrade (73% and 17%). Next in the list in terms of importance was the development of innovative pedagogic practices (62% and 35%).   Of note is that the same three activities and processes were also thought to be in place and important in developing student digital capabilities (all were in the top five activities for students). Thus, action in respect of these activities and processes can only help develop both staff and student digital capabilities.
• #22: Section 2 of the survey was Strategy: looking at the drivers for DC development – 1. external factors (student expectations, employability, disability, TEF, etc); 2. external reports and documents; 3. institutional strategies (T&L Strategy); 4. TEF; 5. institutional roles responsible for development of DC and the 6. institutional approach to development.
• #26: Staff and students were asked separately. Above are the results for students.
• #27: Ostensibly ICT strategy has lost importance, Student Experience has increased in importance but new options in 2016 questionnaire were: Employability strategy Disability Support strategy ere new options in 2016 survey.
• #33: A third of responding institutions (35%) had taken action as a direct result of TEF which they felt had (or would) impact on the development of staff and student digital capabilities; this left two-thirds that had yet to take action. Probably reflects that the sector is still getting to grips with the implications of TEF and associated requirements. “In looking at the results from these questions, we should be aware that the sector is still getting to grips with the implications of the TEF and the requirements it will impose upon them. Indeed, it will be important to monitor and assess the extent to which the emphasis on employability within the TEF leads to a greater emphasis on the development of student digital capability. “ Section 2.4
• #34: But those who have taken action as a result of TEF are doing some good work. The report highlights some actions: Comments 1 and 2: Several comments about embedding TEF planning into strategy Comment 2: taken the requirements of TEF and implementing (or planning to) Learning Analytics to try to increase retention. Comments 3 and 4: Also concrete actions have been taken as a result of TEF. Comment 3: Again learning analytics, this time identify that the tools and data require staff to have sufficient DC to use. Comment 4: TEF has resulted in curriculum wide changes that explicitly incorporate Digital Fluency as a part of it.
• #35: So 35% of institutions had done something as a result of TEF. Had the rest not done so because they don’t think it’s important? No, it is an important driver (Q2.6). Quotes 2.4.1 The resulting mean score of 3.37 is consistent with the earlier ratings of the importance of TEF as an external factor driving digital capabilities. In respect of students it was felt to be the 6th most important factor with a mean score of 3.02; TEF was thought more of a driver in relation to staff (4th and 3.35). However, it was still the case that the top three external factors across both students and staff (increased student expectations and requirements, increased focus on student employability and student surveys) were all thought to be more important drivers than TEF. 2.4.2 Looking ahead it appears that those that had not already taken action thought that TEF would be a more important driver of the development of student and staff digital capabilities (perhaps acknowledging the need to catch up in response to TEF).
• #36: 2014 Exec Summary Section 1: Defining digital capabilities There was a great degree of similarity in the definitions and descriptions of digital capabilities used by individual institutions. Common themes included the ability to choose appropriate technologies, embedding digital tools into teaching or research, and ensuring that infrastructure and support are adequate. Some comments acknowledged that digital capability requirements vary between roles and subject areas. Recommendation 1: UCISA should work with other agencies, such as Jisc, to adopt a standard definition of digital capabilities. We recommend institutions use this definition where they have none. This shared definition would make benchmarking easier and enable the sector to share resources and exemplars. Specific competencies and baseline measures could be developed from this, either sector wide or institution specific, to enable competency or fluency to be demonstrated in specific roles or disciplines.
• #38: Yes by parts : “some of the more common references were to the Library or the Technology Enhanced Learning team/unit making use of the definition”. Others mentioned that while there was some central use of the definition, its widespread adoption was more limited. Others mentioned that while there was some central use of the definition, its widespread adoption was more limited We tend to use the Jisc definition of digital literacy within relevant central support services (e.g. library service, education support, careers), however its use across academic Schools is not consistent. NB: Response rate: 68 responses, a response rate of 43%. (90% C.I. +- 8%)
• #39: If we are going to push for a shared definition then it needs to be right one.
• #43: First of a biennial study Development of digital capabilities across the UK HE sector Benchmark
• #44: UCISA Digital Capabilities Survey Survey of UK HE institutions 63 respondents Data gathered Summer 2014 Sections on: Definition Strategy Delivery, Implementation and Practice Bring Your Own Supporting Differentiation and Inclusion Looking to the Future 156 institutions invited 96 institutions provided a survey rep 63 surveys returned – 41% response rate Executive summary – distribute Full report now available online 10 recommendations
• #46: Context Strategy Delivery, implementation and practice Accessibility Looking to the future Concluding remarks