1. Virtual learning environments (VLEs): an evaluation of their development in a sample of educational settings Nick Gadfield HMI 5 March 2009

2. Background to the survey

• Remote communication is by any standards a growing, more routine part of life and possibly learning

• We wanted to see how VLEs how were developing as part of this change

• Between January and May 2008 inspectors visited 18 colleges, six primary and two secondary schools, three work-based learning providers, three adult and community learning providers and one local authority

• Inspectors also were given access to remotely review five college and four school virtual learning environments without visiting the establishments

3. What is a VLE?

• A range of definitions and names

• We took the use of computers to allow remote access to learning

• Or VLEs could be also/part of (each with their own definition!)

• • Learning management system (LMS)

• • Course Management System (CMS)

• • Learning Content Management System (LCMS),

• • Managed Learning Environment (MLE),

• • Learning Support System (LSS)

• • Online Learning Centre (OLC)

• • Learning Platform (LP)

• • Education via computer-mediated (CMC)

• • Online Education

4. Methodology

• Selection was a mix of those where reports had commented on the use of a VLE and some at random.

• • Between September 2005 and December 2007 Ofsted carried out over 17,000 routine school inspections. In only 39 of the reports (0.2%) was there a mention of the use of a VLE or similar system.

• • Comments were more frequent in reports on colleges (20%) and other settings

• Visits were one day, one inspector, based on a structured approach but open to reviewing initiatives

5. Visits

• We appreciated the welcome and help we got

• In nearly every visit there were impressive individuals or managers who were enthusiastic about VLEs

• However, we did not find any one institution that had a fully comprehensive and well used VLE

6. Key findings

• VLEs were still at an early stage of development

• VLEs were most effective in institutions where staff were increasingly using technology to improve learning in the classroom or workshop

• There was no correlation between effective VLEs and a particular subject area

• Better providers had support from individual VLE/ILT champions whole provider training not as effective

7. Key Findings

• The best VLEs had strong support from senior managers with good resources for development and maintenance

• Learners content, rather than enthusiastic to use VLEs; regular use for communication (assignments in/back, notices) and in bursts for projects

• The self-assessment of VLEs and their impact on learning was underdeveloped

• • Quality assurance may be a future issue

• Systems costs were not seen as a major issue by colleges, and to a lesser degree by other providers

• • But staff time to create and upload material was a concern

8. Key findings

• VLEs mainly accessed on-site by college students and school pupils; more remote access in adult and community learning

• Work-based learning providers saw particular potential, but development of material was a concern

• Very little use of VLE for shared learning across providers (only one example of Diploma work seen)

9. Suggestions for Further Developments

• More central guidance on, or provision of, common course materials

• Continuing (LSC) funding for work-based learning developments

• Providers to

• • Continue developments, with help to individual staff (training and time) and learners

• • Routinely review the effectiveness of their systems

• • Set up quality assurance arrangements

• • Work jointly on VLEs where appropriate (diplomas?)

10. Finally

• Again a thank you to the staff and learners in all the providers visited or contacted for their help

• Questions?

• • Including the question not posed in the report will VLEs every really take off in institutions where learners do physically attend??