Handheld learning ‘09

I attended the final day of the Handheld Learning Conference on Wednesday. The event promoted some of the innovative applications of mobile devices in education but also highlighted research into the effectiveness of these applications and the impact of technology on both society and teaching and learning.

Firstly, stating the obvious, mobile devices give people access to a wide range of functions and communities from wherever they happen to be. Consequently the boundaries between work and leisure are blurring and our lives are more fluid. This presents the education sector with a number of challenges – there is a need to engage differently with students who are used to acquiring information from a wide range of sources at their fingertips and who behave in a very different way from the traditional model. Universities and colleges are, however, geared towards mass production which tends to push towards controlled environments. It was suggested that the trend is to still want devices tailored to specific requirements; this trend may prevent convergence in mobile devices with the result that universities won’t be able to buy a single device to meet all the possible uses of mobile technology. It will be interesting to see whether convergence happens as a result of competition in the market or whether the suppliers will seek to maintain niche positions.

A number of presentations highlighted that, in spite of the pervasiveness of mobile phones, technology still seems to be something of an inhibitor. This was evidenced by a number of case studies. In one, where a single PDA was being used for field work, the one person who was familiar with the technology took control of the device and as a result rather over influenced what was supposed to be group work. In another example, the learning curve for the devices being used on a field trip was so steep that the students reverted to using pen and paper to record data. The presentations offered little in the way of evidence of the beneficial use of mobile devices on field trips. Whilst this could be due to the difficulty of use, it could equally be due to technology leading to different social interactions between the users of devices in field work.

Away from field work, several presentations highlighted the benefits of mobile technology in education. At Abiline Christian University iPod Touches and iPhones were introduced to groups of students and faculty members. The result was that the faculty started experimenting with usage and developing applications. The students felt more engaged with their teaching and felt that group working improved as a result. They were also more likely to attend class. The improvement in student engagement was also highlighted by the faculty members. There remain sceptics though and what the Abiline presentation picked out was that there was need for greater research on the impact of use of mobile devices, measured against control groups to convince the doubters.

Use of mobile devices is not just restricted to learning; they can be deployed to support students. There was one company present at the conference that had developed a number of applications for the iPhone which could interact with institutional systems and GPS to provide information to the student. The Open University adopted a more blended approach, deploying SMS texting, social networks and audio depending on the use. It was interesting to note that the OU’s students took so readily to receiving information by text when some institutions have reported that their undergraduates see their mobile phone as personal space which they don’t want invaded by their institution. The OU had come up with some interesting solutions. They had used audio in a number of ways including a course welcome, FAQs and for pre-exam stress busting.

Overall , an interesting and varied day. The session closed with an awesome presentation from Ray Kurzweil – I won’t attempt to summarise what he had to say largely because my words probably wouldn’t do it justice!

Flexible service delivery – issues highlighted

Friday saw the first meeting of the strategic partners in the JISC’s Flexible Service Delivery programme. The meeting heard presentations from members of the group on what they are doing and what they are looking to achieve from their projects. This in itself should spawn greater collaboration between members and spawn new ideas (and is an approach that the HEFCE Shared Services agenda could have benefited from). As is often the case in such forums, there were a number or recurring themes:

• The need to baseline costs. This is essential in any programme that is looking to demonstrate and deliver benefits. There is recognition that the true costs of providing services needs to be established before the potential benefits can be assessed.
• Lack of understanding by vendors of what the programme is looking to achieve. Although there were a number of positive views expressed by vendors at the suppliers’ event held at the end of July, the feedback from the strategic partners was very much that vendors don’t understand. Whilst sales staff will want to protect their income streams (‘why would you want to buy modules from elsewhere when you can have all of it from us’) any potential loss could be balanced by a strong product in another area and this is perhaps what is not understood.
• Data quality. A number of the presentations echoed the message from the Data Efficiency review meeting held on Thursday last week, A recurring theme was that data in institutions remains in silos and the drivers for maintaining and managing the quality of data usually remains in those silos. There is no understanding that the data is institutional nor that changes in one aspect of that data may have impact on another.
• Governance. There were areas under this heading – the governance of shared services and institutional IT governance and engagement of senior management. Various governance models have been explored for shared services and there is no single solution. One project highlighted that, whilst a loose governance structure may allow greater flexibility it can be offset by the lack of institutional accountability and the budget that comes with it. There was recognition that there still remains something of a disconnection between business and IT when it comes to determining the services that IT departments should provide. Enterprise architecture (EA) is seen as a potential solution to this and although some institutions have demonstrated improvements as a result of adopting EA, not all have managed to engage senior management. Perhaps a case study directed at Finance Directors and demonstrating that EA has delivered effective use of resources may improve engagement.

There is perhaps a risk that programme is too broad and as a result may not maintain the momentum it has achieved thus far. A quick win would help as it would prove the concept and because it will highlight to suppliers that their customers are not wedded to monolithic solutions. In addition, there are still challenges within institutions to moving to a more flexible model.

Importance of data quality

I attended a meeting of the Data Efficiency Steering Group yesterday. The Group was set up to look at recommendations in a report by KPMG on the use of collected data in the higher education sector. The meeting is an interesting mix – on the one hand are the funding councils as the main stakeholders in the data collection and on the other are the various professional associations representing the views of those tasked with collecting, processing and using the data at an institutional level.

There are conflicting demands on the funding councils – they are looking to reduce the administrative burden of collecting data but are under pressure to demonstrate that the sector is meeting its statutory obligations. They also need to work together to achieve a consensus so that comparisons can be made across the whole of the UK and local needs met without ending up with a hotch potch of collections or one unwieldy one. These conflicts were brought into focus when talking about monitoring external examiners to ensure equal opportunities. One funding council representative expressed the view that external examiners should not be included; the sole responsibility was for the institution to ensure that they were appropriate in terms of their academic credibility. Another view was that they should be regarded as employees and included in monitoring. Against this, the institutions highlighted that data on external examiners was not held in a consistent way across the sector – in a number of cases there was no record of such positions on HR databases and monitoring would require an additional administrative burden.

In addition to ensuring that the data collected is appropriate and fit for purpose, there is a second stream of activities aimed at promoting the value of the HESA data itself. Often this is seen as a burden in institutions and there is a lack of senior management ownership of the data. As a consequence, the importance and impact of the data are not always clearly understood in institutions (the consequences of poor data quality only being highlighted with performance indicators or league tables are published). Some institutions are however focusing more on the data they collect and have to submit. As a result they are starting to use the data more effectively within their institutions to highlight problems, and are improving the quality of their own data to reduce the likelihood of mistakes in submissions. Case studies on these institutions may help others improve their game. Guidance on how the data comes together and is translated into performance indicators will also bring some focus on the importance of data quality.

So two strands of activity – making sure the data collected is appropriate, timely and does not increase the burden on institutions and promoting the uses of the data and the need for data quality. Progress is being made but it will take time to deliver on both fronts. There is some overlap with the work of the MIAP programme. It is a measure of how far that particular programme has to go to convince the sector of its value that one of the attendees commented ‘not that that [MIAP] will deliver anything until I am long in retirement’. The aims of MIAP are to improve data efficiency. But thus far, the sector has not been convinced that it will deliver savings or reduce the administrative burden. The proposed pilot studies will be key in demonstrating the business benefits and promoting the programme to the sector.

Peer to peer – close to legislation?

Yesterday UCISA submitted its response to the Government’s latest proposals on the legislative options for dealing with illicit peer to peer filesharing. The issue has been around for some time – it was first raised in the initial paper on Digital Britain – but the initial drafts were not clear as to what was meant by the term ISP. Although the term is in common enough use that it is usually perceived as referring to a commercial provider of internet services, there is a risk that without a clear definition other providers of internet services, whether commercial or private, could be caught by any subsequent legislation. Given that universities and colleges provide internet access for their staff and students, we needed to ensure that the proposals were clear if the sector was not going to be saddled with an additional legislative burden. Thankfully the latest draft was far clearer – the legislation will only apply to commercial service providers.

The latest consultation included the proposal to include the option for suspending internet access for repeat offenders. The paper made it clear that this would only be used as a last resort and recognised that in such an event it was possible that other innocent members of a household could be punished as a result. Clearly there’s a risk that, in some student houses in the private sector where institutional regulations do not apply, access may be cut off due to an errant resident. That said, similar legislation has proved difficult to introduce and implement in other countries so it may prove a step too far in the UK.

Inside institutions there are regulations for computer use that specifically highlight the illegality of breach of copyright (UCISA has drafted model regulations for institutions to use). Universities and colleges link such regulations with disciplinary measures so any breaches of copyright or illicit filesharing are usually dealt with quickly. However the sector may need to demonstrate that it continues to keep on top of the problem and to deal with any breaches in a timely and effective manner. The rights holders lobby is strong and seem to have the current Government’s ear – there is a risk that if they are not satisfied that the proposed legislation meets their needs then they will seek to extend it to private networks.

MIAP eases forward

The latest meeting of the MIAP (Managing Information Across Partners) HE Advisory Board took place on Wednesday. The programme was borne out of the now defunct Department for Education and Skills (DfES) and has the general aim of improving the information flow across the whole of the education sector. Significant progress has been made in implementing aspects of the programme in the schools and further education sectors but it has had something of a hiatus over the past nine months as the benefits to the higher education sector could not be easily identified. Given that there has been a large investment of funds in the programme, there has been high level encouragement to move the programme on. The implementation team were encouraged to establish a business case for adoption in the higher education sector. A high level case has been prepared but the outlined benefits are not proven and no costings have been included. Consequently a number of pilot programmes are being established to provide the evidence for a more complete business case.

There are potential benefits for learners. The personal learning record (PLR) offers the opportunity for learners to have details stored of all their qualifications in one place, populated by their learning providers, which could then be used in applications for employment or to further study. A pilot of the PLR suggests that most learners would use a report from the system instead of their certificates from awarding bodies and nearly 90% would use the report when applying for employment. Feedback from employers also seems positive but the proof will really only come when the system is used in anger. The data needs to be timely and accurate. There is concern over accuracy as data is not directly drawn from the awarding bodies and not all qualifications are achieved within a formal learning environment (and so are entered by the learner). The latter issue is harder to address and may require a mechanism to distinguish between validated and non-validated qualifications.

There remains much for the programme to do. Engagement varies across the UK; as a priority all of the devolved administrations need to commit to it although if it was adopted in England it could, in my view, still remain viable. The planned limited release of the PLR may mean that many of the teething problems have been identified before the HE sector comes on board. The pilots have to demonstrate that the benefits can be achieved and realise cost savings for all types of institution in the sector. The work outlined takes the programme to 2012; it is probably protected from any potential change in government as it is well established in the schools and FE sectors but there remain a number of challenges it needs to meet to become established in the HE sector.

Business engagement key

The final day of the Universities UK conference saw presentations from the UUK President, Steve Smith, and the Minister for Education and Intellectual Property, David Lammy.

Smith opened by setting out the role of higher education in helping the UK through the recession, highlighting the contribution universities make to the national economy and social justice. The UK HE sector has a strong international reputation which has largely been built on the quality of the sector’s provision in teaching and research, allied with a high level of graduate employment. Universities, he argued, are crucial to the UK recovery and as such there was a strong case for growth and increased investment.

Lammy recognised the value of the sector to the national economy. However, there is no real prospect of increased public funding because, as Lammy observed, the current levels of funding are unlikely to be sustainable in the future. Indeed there was mention that some areas of public funding would be ‘contestable’. What this means in practice is likely to be outlined in the framework for higher education due to be announced by Peter Mandelson later this year.

There was significant emphasis on links with the commercial sector and demonstrating the value of the sector in Lammy’s speech. The framework will “describe the vision of how Government will support universities and employers in working together to balance the supply and demand of high-level skills and the many other economically valuable things that our universities deliver”. The REF (Research Excellence Framework) is likely to include measurements of the economic impact of research and work is underway to identify ways of helping universities make more effective use of their intellectual property. Universities were encouraged to diversify their sources of income with Lammy identifying tailored courses for businesses as one potential income stream.

There were some common themes in the two presentations. Both recognised that the sector needs to market itself better to highlight the quality of provision and the contribution universities make to the economy and community. There was also agreement that the sector, in common with the country as a whole, faces a challenging few years. On the opening day of the conference it was noted that, in the US, endowment and private investment in higher education had fallen dramatically. Assuming the same trend in the UK suggests that private investment is unlikely to grow until the recovery is well underway. Universities will be subject to many of the same financial constraints and will be looking to cut services and programmes in order to remain efficient or, in some cases, just to survive. It seems to me as if universities are being handicapped just at the time they are being asked to lead the country out of the recession.

Money matters…

First full day of the Universities UK conference. UUK is the Vice-Chancellors organisation and the V-Cs were gathering in Edinburgh with finances very much at the top of the agenda. And there was little good news to report.

The opening presentation was from Fiona Hyslop the Minister for Education and Life Long Learning in the Scottish Parliament. She outlined some of the challenges facing higher education in Scotland – falling funding was one but the decline in the number of eighteen year olds is also a factor. With redundancy a feature of the current economic climate, Scottish institutions will need to refocus on retraining adults returning to the sector or entering the sector for the first time. A natural progression is to develop courses specifically for business to ensure the graduates are appropriately trained for a given sector. The emphasis has thus far been on knowledge transfer. Fiona Hyslop was promoting knowledge exchange – a two way process where knowledge is transferred to business but where business defines the skills that it needs. Whilst this will bring more people into HE, the question is whether this can be delivered in a cost effective manner – how much effort is involved in designing the bespoke parts of courses over required to tailor an existing provision to an industry’s requirements?

The second presentation looked at the situation in the US. The recession has seen a growing number of students remaining at home when they study and a significant number of students electing to defer their study. There have been severe cuts in some states which have led to major changes in policy in public institutions – increases in fees, courses ceasing and increasing class sizes. Some believe that the sector will never recover from the impact. Private institutions which relay on endowment income are affected to a greater extent. A number of institutions have had to borrow to offset the falling income in addition to taking cost cutting measures.

The Obama administration is taking steps to prop up the education sector. A significant amount of funding is being pumped into the sector to try and maintain levels of funding, to grow research in specific areas and to grow the community colleges in general and completion in those institutions specifically. Partnerships with commerce and industry again featured prominently in the plan. The US administration has chosen to invest in the sector. It will be interesting to hear what David Lammy has to offer the UK sector when he speaks to the conference on Thursday.

Immigration system – phase nearing completion

What will probably be the last meeting of the Tier 4 IT Working Group before the new release goes live was held yesterday (Monday). The meeting outlined the progress on the development of the Sponsor Management System (SMS) for Tier 4 of the points based immigration system. UKBA and a number of higher education staff involved advised that the user acceptance testing had largely gone well with only a few minor defects identified and some points to be fed into guidance and policy for clarification. The bulk data transfer upload was tested as part of UAT but only with sample data supplied. The first sample data files from student records systems suppliers will be tested later this week – it is hoped that there will be further opportunities to test the bulk transfer files later in the year ahead of the date when use of the SMS becomes compulsory. The bulk data transfer toolkit will be relaunched later this month and will include the validation rules used within the SMS after the file has been uploaded, sample files and the CAS lifecycle. Those involved in the testing also noted that they need to provide better guidance on the use of the system for their own staff to reflect how the entry clearance officers assessing applications will use the data entered. It is hoped that this guidance will be made more widely available to ensure that there is consistency in the data entered and less risk that applications will be rejected through poor data quality.

The plans for the next release of the SMS software, due in the first quarter of 2010 were also outlined. This release will contain the fourth bulk update (to update fee information) and a number of other enhancements identified through use of the system for Tiers 2 and 5. The release will also include improved functionality for submitting change of circumstances.

So a phase of the development is near to closing. There hasn’t been a great response to UKBA’s request for institutions to advise them whether they expect to start using the system in the trial phase but it is hoped that there will be a sufficient volume to ensure that the SMS is at least working correctly even if there has not been the opportunity to fully test the bulk data transfers between the systems. There is still work to be done but the technical aspects are probably the least of the problems. What isn’t clear is whether institutions have considered the procedures they need to implement in order to manage this process, or whether there is a consistent approach by overseas agents processing applications. The latter is something that will only be highlighted by using the system. The former was certainly flagged up at a UCISA event and I believe has been highlighted by UKBA on their roadshows. But a number of those present at the Working Group still appeared to only be focussing on the technical side…

Regional network delivery challenges

The UCISA Executive met yesterday in Sheffield and the proposed changes to the regional delivery of JANET services on the agenda.

A number of years ago a number of metropolitan area networks (MANs) were established to deliver the JANET service to institutions within their given regions. Over the course of time, some of the MANs implemented or procured additional services but some also failed with the result that operation reverted to JANET (UK). The proposal is to move to a direct delivery model operated by JANET (UK).

There are advantages of a single provider managing the service from end to end. It should ensure consistency both in terms of the network infrastructure and the level of service to connected institutions. There should be lower unit costs for procurement as greater volumes of network equipment will be being purchased from suppliers at a given time. On the other hand the successful MANs have responded to the needs of their customers and are providing added value services such as dual connections to the network for their members (a sensible step for institutions to take in these days of high dependency on the network for all aspects of an institution’s business) and procured services such as email filtering. The regional focus of the MANs also allows greater engagement with the local community in line with the Government’s desire for HEIs to play a role in meeting the needs of the wider community in their region.

The business case for moving to the direct delivery model has not been made (at least has not been made publicly) and may be difficult to make given the diversity of service provision from the MANs. There are concerns that the level of service may not be maintained and that the local focus is lost. Not everyone is wedded to the current model – provided the service delivers what the institution wants does it matter where it has come from? The challenge will be to demonstrate that the new model can deliver the same level of service in a more cost effective manner.

Challenges to flexible service delivery

I viewed a Gartner webinar a couple of days ago on Software as a Service (SaaS). As I followed the seminar I looked to apply some of the thinking to the Flexible Service Delivery (FSD) programme being run by JISC.

The FSD programme has evolved from a number of different strands of activity, one of which is shared services. The webinar suggested that CIOs needed to guard against the assumption that SaaS is automatically cheaper and provided examples where this had not proved to be the case. There were a number of questions regarding future resourcing that needed to be considered as part of the business case for SaaS. However, focusing on SaaS as a replacement technology is not necessarily the right approach – since there is greater emphasis on the customer experience there is perhaps as much justification for looking at SaaS as a way of enhancing and extending a service for less than it would cost in house.

There will be a period during transition from on-site to off-site services when the IT department will be meeting the costs of both; consequently there is a need to ensure that that transition is as short as possible. A related point was that there is a need to develop an integration strategy when considering implementing SaaS solutions. That strategy gets more complicated as the number of off-site solutions increases. It is recognised that the FSD programme needs to define a process model for higher education institutions which would be used to identify areas that could be delivered through SaaS/shared service models. It would ease the implementation strategies for institutions if that template defined business models themselves tightly and was used to produce standard definitions of interfaces and data transitions between the individual processes.

The webinar also talked about the need to establish a governance policy with SaaS providers. Governance is an issue that has been raised in many discussions on shared services and CIOs will need to consider the level of service their institutions need from a service provider, including establishing their disaster recovery capabilities, service uptime, management of releases (particularly an issue if there are interfaces with other applications), etc.

All these areas (and more) need to be considered when building the business case. The projected future resource requirements (essentially a comparison of resource with SaaS and without) need to be considered but perhaps tempered with an estimation of the added value that a new service may deliver. The cost of interfacing applications needs to be considered as well as the standard of the service that an institution requires of its provider. The baseline costs will vary between institutions; where the FSD programme has most potential is to ease the integration costs by defining the business process models and driving standardisation of interfaces. The suppliers will then need to be encouraged to adopt those standards. In my view this will be the biggest challenge to the programme.