1. External Context
In December 2009 the HEFCE established an Online Learning Task Force to help the UK higher education (HE) sector maintain and extend its position as a world leader in online learning. The work of the task force has assumed increasing significance as the implications of the Browne Report and spending review leads most universities to look at alternative and more flexible ways to deliver courses. The OLTF has just (January 2011) published its final report and the body of the report and its recommendations include much of relevance to the review of the institutional VLE.
Central to the conclusions of the OLTF is the need for institutions to see online learning as a strategic issue and not a simple bolt on option. The recommendations urge universities to collaborate more in online learning developments and to engage more in teaching partnerships between technologists, learning support specialists and academics. “Mixed teams working together on the pedagogic and technological elements of online learning will enable institutions to offer innovative, up-to-date, highquality provision ”.
To be successful an institution will need a VLE that is suitable for the demands of its learners, has support from management and that its staff are enthusiastic about. A VLE is not so much about choosing a tool or set of tools but is much more about ensuring that the context within which the VLE operates is ‘right’. Key here are the issues of reliability and staff development and support for the use of the VLE matching staff expectations.
For many years now, the core of an institutional VLE has normally been a commercial system made up of a suite of tools that can collectively be used to manage and deliver learning. Typically these systems have tools to facilitate communication, to upload and make available materials/content, to allow students to undertake online tests and submit coursework electronically and to record marks and track progress and student activity. For years the market was led by 2 ‘off the shelf’ VLE products
Blackboard and WebCT. In 2008 Blackboard purchased WebCT and announced their intention to merge the 2 systems.
In recent years a number of institutions in the UK have started to use an open source VLE (Moodle), and in fact the latest UCISA survey states:
“Although Blackboard (Classic & Web CT) remains as the most used enterprise or institutional VLE, its usage has declined since 2008. Moodle has increased in usage as an enterprise solution and remains the most commonly used VLE platform at a devolved level within scho ols and departments.”
According to UCISA’s survey 35% of institutions use Blackboard as their main institutional VLE, compared to 23% using Moodle and 20% with WebCT. The UCISA figures are based on returns from
91 institutions (out of a possible 167). The Heads of E-learning Forum (HELF) has recently
(December 2010) conducted its own survey and has collected data from 149 institutions. According to these figures, 41% of institutions use Blackboard, 13% use WebCT, 30% use Moodle and 7% use
Blackboard and Moodle. Of the institutions using WebCT (20), since Blackboard’s acquisition of
WebCT, 2 so far have decided to move to Moodle and 2 to Blackboard.
Intere stingly, UCISA’s survey shows that 35% of the institutions that responded to their survey have
VLE’s hosted locally in addition to the main centrally provided institutional VLE. The most commonly cited reason for the local provision was based on a pedagogical rationale to meet specific needs in that department.
An ‘off the shelf’ VLE can support a range of pedagogic approaches from instructor led, through problem based to collaborative learning and others . However, as pointed out by Weller (2007) “some pedagogic approaches are supported more easily than others, and some require a great deal of intervention in order to realise them within the limitations of the fixed set of tools typically found within a VLE ”. The difficulties encountered in translating an academic’s vision of how an online pedagogic approach will work in practice is what often underpins the demand for tools that are not part of the standard set within the chosen institution wide platform.
1 Draft VLE Review Report – Professor Gunter Saunders

Compounding the ‘one version of a VLE tool does not fit all’ situation has been the growth in recent years in the use of Web2.0 tools. These tools, of which there are many, can also underpin a range of online pedagogies but, because of their nature, tend to encourage a more social form of learning. In contrast the more ‘staid’ tools of commercial VLEs that have been designed around content centric models of online learning are seen as much more ‘instructor centred’ than ‘student centred’. Some universities, (the University of Brighton is considered an exemplar), have undertaken a great deal of work to both extend the tool set of their corporate VLE (Blackboard) and create a look and feel for their VLE that is more in tune with the kind of systems that students use in their private lives and that they will encounter when in employment.
Leaving aside the debate of whether an ‘out of the box’ set of e-learning tools can enable the kind of active, student centred learning that most universities seek to promote, there is little doubt that universities are increasingly moving towards using a broader range of tools that are, where possible, integrated with institutional systems and data sources.
2. Internal Context
The review was originally commissioned by the Information Strategy Committee (ISC) but is also of direct relevance to the work of the Learning, Teaching and Student Support Committee (LTSS). The review has been stimulated by significant problems encountered with the Blackboard system at
Westminster in the last 2 years. However a review is also timely given a) the very different ‘climate’ post-Browne and with the new coalition government and b) it is almost 10 years since the last review
(conducted by the then Director of Information Systems) that preceded the institution’s choice of
Blackboard as its corporate e-learning solution.
Blackboard is used by almost all staff in the University and the majority of students rely on it (as a minimum) as a ‘one stop shop’ for information related to their course and modules. It is ‘estimated’ that around 10% of taught modules use Blackboard for activities (e.g. online tests, student collaborative group work) or for the electronic receipt of coursework. The Director Technology
Enhanced Learning has reported annually on the use of Blackboard for several years, previously at
Academic Council and latterly at LTSS. These reports show that online activities such as online tests and electronic submission of coursework have grown consistently in the last 5 years ( report to LTSS
September 2010 ). At Westminster Blackboard is made up of three components, the Blackboard
Learning System (provides the Blackboard sites), Blackboard Portal System (provides customisation potential) and the Blackboard Content Collection (provides file sharing capability, storage and eportfolio tool).
Blackboard comes with the range of tools expected of a ‘single supplier’ VLE. Some, such as the announcement tool, and the content upload facility are used extensively whilst others such as the online test capability (see above) have gradually gathered more and more users over the past few years. Some tools however, such as the peer review tool, instant messaging and many of the tracking facilities are largely unused by staff and students.
Apart from the set of tools that come as part of Blackboard, Westminster also has licences for the
Learning Object suite of Web 2.0 tools (blogs, wikis) and Turnitin (text matching software system).
The former are integrated into Blackboard (they are purchased with plugin capability) and therefore they benefit from use of the same data as the main Blackboard system (i.e. no separate login to use the tools and the tools are automatically accessible to any students drawn into the Blackboard system by the data link to SITS). Turnitin is a standalone external system not integrated* with the institutional
Blackboard installation. The University also has its own Google apps domain (one for students and one for staff) and this environment (which is not integrated with Blackboard) provides a range of functionality (including email, document sharing and collaboration, groups and websites).
In the last few years the use of video recordings to change delivery has become increasingly significant. For example the LPC, a key Law School course, relies heavily on the use of recorded videos made available on the web. Currently the University has multiple technical options for the making and distribution of audio/video recordings. There is currently an ongoing video project, led by
Alex Iacconi in ISLS, that is focussed on rationalising provision with a view to providing recommended approach for video production linked to a secure, stable and easy to use distribution system.
2 Draft VLE Review Report – Professor Gunter Saunders

The library now offers an extensive e-library which, based on evidence collected in the review is an important component of the institution’s VLE. E-books and e-journals accessed via a tab in
Blackboard. Past exam papers are accessible from within each module site via an ‘in house’ developed building block linking the past exam paper database directly with Blackboard.
The look and feel of the Westminster Blackboard installation is pretty much ‘out of the box’. There has been no customisation of look and feel (beyond application of a basic corporate template) and no integration with systems often used by students in their day to day lives (e.g. Facebook).
In addition to the online learning tools and systems that the university provides (see above), some staff also use systems that are not in anyway university owned or approved, to support aspects of learning and teaching. Examples here could include the use of Flickr for students to showcase their work or of Yahoo Groups for online collaboration or of Wordpress blogs for students to undertake aspects of their coursework in an environment that has greater similarities to the World of work.
Another example would be the use of Skype for staff to tutor students remotely in certain circumstances. The extent of such activity (i.e. online learning outside of university systems) is inevitably hard to quantify but it is clearly happening and of greater significance to certain subject areas (e.g. MAD) than others.
The institutional VLE (see figure 2) is therefore made up of activity within institutional systems and activity that happens essentially on the Internet. The majority of activity, and especially activity that realises assessed work, still happens within university owned or ‘approved’ (e.g. Turnitin) systems.
The pattern and extent of activity is consistent with the Technology Enhanced Learning strategic framework published as part of the university’s TEL strategy as a planning tool for Schools (see figure
3).
We are coming to the end of the ISC-led IT infrastructure review process and it clearly identifies
Blackboard as a key element requiring urgent and immediate attention in respect of both resilience and availability. This reflects in part a past lack of strategic planning for the University’s IT storage and systems environment, leading to under-development and associated under-investment, despite this underpinning all other services. This is in direct contrast to the University’s network infrastructure.
Data storage is the most critical element of the University’s IT environment; almost without exception, every key application and service is highly dependent on internal storage, including Blackboard. ISLS run a complex environment and there are a number of known issues with storage services – some do not work to their full capacity, other are incapable of supporting tier 1 services such as Blackboard, some are out of warranty, some are at end of life. ISLS have had to put greater reliance on cheaper storage solutions as these have plenty of space, but they can only handle a specific amount of processes. Work has already begun to consider possible storage solutions, including a move to more external hosting, which will provide the University with a solid environment for the next two to five years and beyond.
*Note Turnitin comes with plug in capability to Blackboard but this does not work for technical reasons at Westminster
3 Draft VLE Review Report – Professor Gunter Saunders

4 Draft VLE Review Report – Professor Gunter Saunders

Figure 3 – Technology enhanced learning framework planning tool
VLE and e-resources - Aims in this part of an e-learning strategy might include: embedding the use of some
VLE tools or approaches more deeply across courses for a range of purposes e.g. to enhance quality of provision perhaps through generating more opportunities for active learning, making existing processes more effective and efficient.
New markets - The bottom left section of the framework focuses on using existing, established technology for new markets/courses and possibly modes of delivery (e.g. wholly distance learning courses). On the basis that the tried and testing technology infrastructure and support can be trusted this part of a strategy would consider how best to use the established approaches for new markets/developments.
Wireless technologies/Web2.0
- The top right section is about the application of newer technologies to existing courses. Of relevance here is the revolution taking place in the use of wireless technologies and the scope to make more use of technology in the classroom. The combination of wireless networks with laptops or PDAs makes it possible to create a classroom space that is fully integrated with the power of the internet available to individual or groups of students.
Explore emerging technologies - The bottom right box is the blue skies area and within this part of any derived strategy there may be a discussion of potential future markets linked to the exploitation of emerging technologies and their application.
3. Aim of the review
As outlined in a paper to ISC (February 2010) the aim of the review was described as:
“Determine current user view of Blackboard at Westminster in relation to its fitness for purpose and in terms of perceived reliability and stimulate debate on the potential of Moodle as an alternative VLE ”.
Whilst initially there was support from ISC for some limited piloting of Moodle at Westminster for comparative purposes it was felt that simply comparing one VLE against another could potentially lead to procurement issues at a later stage. As a consequence the notion of piloting
Moodle with some ‘live’ courses to inform the review was not followed up.
Subsequent discussion of the objectives of the review at LTSS led to the view that:
….It was therefore felt by LTSS that the review of Blackboard should focus on the needs of staff and students – i.e. what do they need from any VLE and such a review should form the basis of any report to ISC (and LTSS) in the future.
5 Draft VLE Review Report – Professor Gunter Saunders

This objective is in keeping with the general approach taken by other institutions that have conducted similar reviews and where choice of the ‘right’ VLE is informed as much by human factors and processes within an institution that can affect whether any IT tool or system becomes widely and successfully used.
Whilst at Westminster the majority of e-learning tools are those available in Blackboard, it was made clear by ISC and LTSS that the review needed to include consideration of other e-learning tools such as Turnitin and systems for the creation and distribution of video recordings (podcasts).
4. Conduct of the Review to date
Both existing recent information (e.g. the School SWOT analyses on e-learning submitted to LTSS in
2010) and new information gathered through interviews, meetings with groups of staff, LTQ committess, an extensive research survey on the theme of technology enhanced learning and a blog have been used to compile a view of the current needs of staff and Schools. a) School SWOT analyses
Discussed at the April 2010 meeting of LTSS the School SWOT analyses ‘collectively’ highlighted major strengths in the institutional VLE as being:
 A VLE used by staff for and valued by students as a ‘one stop shop’

Systems available to help with plagiarism detection/online submission
Major weaknesses highlighted were:

Insufficient time for staff to develop/support for expansion

Staff unfamiliar with what is possible/available and a lack of guidance

Unreliable IT infrastructure
Collectively Schools outlined a range of opportunities focussed around new course developments, new markets and enhancement of the student experience.
Identified threats were as follows:

Insufficient time and resources

Reluctance from some staff/lack of confidence

Reliability of the technology/infrastructure/insufficient support

Disconnection with students/devaluation of face-to-face

External private and public providers of online/blended learning

Financial crisis impacting on number and type of staff

Loss of local support

Limitations of Blackboard

Change of VLE b) Interviews with staff
Early in 2010 the Director of Technology Enhanced Learning interviewed nearly 28 staff users of
Blackboard to gather some preliminary views about the review and specifically about Blackboard (see paper to the February 2010 meeting of ISC).
Staff views on the nature of the review
It was generally agreed that staff and students needed to be consulted widely on any potential change given the extensive degree to which the use of the VLE has become embedded into daily life at Westminster. It was also generally felt that the focus of the review should not revolve around licence costs but rather a) does the VLE provide what you currently need b) are you in any way limited in what you do (with respect to TEL) by the VLE at Westminster and c)
What, if anything, stops you from using the VLE more with students both in and out of class?
The staff view of Blackboard
6 Draft VLE Review Report – Professor Gunter Saunders


Blackboard was one of the better corporate systems at Westminster (leaving aside the major problems that have occurred at the start of both of the last 2 academic years)

Blackboard is generally easy to get ‘used to’ although there were a range of specific gripes about the limitations of individual tools in Blackboard

The need for a reliable system was stressed. This was particularly critical for ‘real-time’ events (e.g. coursework submission, online tests, e-portfolio work and other student led work that could be conducted in class). The growing perception seems to be that
Blackboard is ‘down’ too often (note that respondents were urged to think around the recent troubles).

With reliability an issue, not just online but within classrooms (due often to issues identified as not directly due to Blackboard but rather with problems accessing it) the question of whether any other system similar to Blackboard would be any more ‘reliable’ in the Westminster context was often raised

A major role for Blackboard was as a ‘one stop shop’ for students on a course because they could access all the key information and updates for all modules in one place

Blackboard was seen as ‘settled’ if you wanted to use it on a module or course basis.
However if you wanted to operate a slightly different model e.g. teach seminar groups rather than whole modules, teach across modules, mix students from different subject areas then this was not easily achievable.

Many staff still do not know the extent to which Blackboard can be customised at user level (e.g. the capability to disable components within individual sites was not well understood) and allied to this was the view that there were too many tool options made available by default.

It was clear that whilst Blackboard has a good range of tools that can support a variety of pedagogic approaches, the tools were often seen as limiting by comparison to ‘free standing’ tools available outside of the university. A good specific example here is that of e-portfolios where the existing system in Blackboard is very limited for example in terms of amount of storage space and capability, due to institutional security policies, to share a portfolio with non-members of the university IT community. c) Research into staff perceptions of Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) at Westminster
This work, undertaken as part of an inter-disciplinary research project ( link to full report ) investigated what technologies staff are using, whether it was a success or not, and what barriers the staff perceived to be limiting their use of TEL in their normal teaching activities. In spring 2010 an online questionnaire was distributed to the staff of the University. The questionnaire collected the following data: demographic variables; school; job role; internet self-efficacy; attitudes to the different TEL they have used within the University; experience of TEL at Westminster; perceived barriers to using TEL at
Westminster. The sample size was 118.
Demographic, School & Job Description:
7 Draft VLE Review Report – Professor Gunter Saunders

The majority of responses were from the academic staff within the University. It appears that the sample obtained reflects the diversity of the academic staff population within the University, gaining a spread of responses from various age ranges, sexes and Schools.
Of greatest relevance to the review of the institutional VLE is the data collected on e-learning tools staff currently use and what they plan to (or not) use in the future (see figure below).
8 Draft VLE Review Report – Professor Gunter Saunders

Other
Interative Classroom
Online Simulations
Links to Library eResources
Other sources of online Audio/Video Podcast
Personally developed online Audio/Video Podcast
Discussion Boards for reasons not listed
Discussion Boards for continued class discussions
Discussion Boards for GIS activities
Discussion Boards for FAQs
Online Testing - Formative
Online Testing - Summative
Wikis for other reasons not listed.
Wikis for ePortfolios
Wikis to facilitate collaborative learning
Blogs for other reasons not listed.
Blogs for micropublishing
Blogs to encourage reflection on learning
0% 20% 40% 60%
Currently Using Considered Using Used in the past Percentage
80% 100%
The 2 most commonly used technologies are linking to library e-resources and linking to videos/podcasts that have been made by other ‘experts’. There is however growing interest from academic staff in developing their own video podcasts and in making greater use of web 2.0 technologies and particularly blogs to encourage reflection on learning.
Barriers to staff engagement in the use of TEL tools
The 5 most significant barriers highlighted were:
1. These methods cause additional workload to my responsibilities;
2. I have limited time available for teaching development;
3. There is limited support available (e.g. technical and/or administration) for new methods;
4. There is limited availability of School resources to allow the use of TEL methods;
5. There is limited availability of University resources to allow the use of TEL methods.
Clearly, staff perceive barriers to use of TEL within the University of Westminster; however once people start to use the TEL tools they are largely positive about the support available from the
University/School and the ease of use of the TEL tools. The data suggests that if the University or a
9 Draft VLE Review Report – Professor Gunter Saunders

School wishes staff to make increased use of TEL within their teaching, they need to provide resources in terms of time, equipment and support.
From the sample in this research, it was clear that staff who had higher Internet self-efficacy (ISE) were more likely to embrace TEL. However, when one examines the variables that staff indicate as barriers to their use of technology, the focus is on practical / resource issues, and not ISE-related factors such as the questionnaire option “I feel I do not have the skills required to use these methods”. d) Blogging on what staff want from a VLE
A blog was set up in November 2010. From over 100 academic staff invited to comment on a JISC derived statement of what a VLE should be able to do and provide 10 contributed extensive comments and discussion. These can be summarised as follows:
What staff would like from a VLE
The most common justification for having a VLE and its significance was that in the (near) future more and more students will not be travelling into university regularly and therefore face to face groupwork, seen by many as a cornerstone of effective learning, will become increasingly difficult (amongst other group and individual activities).
Collectively the blog contributions can be summarised as having made the following main points:
The VLE should be:
And
A blend of tools linked together by the VLE
Able to cope with increasingly large numbers of students on single modules
Reliable and support continuity
Needs to embrace new technologies (e.g. M-Computing)
Needs to make it easy for students to engage with each other (as they do for example through social networking systems)
Our current VLE is:
Unreliable
Too cluttered with too many unused options
Has a primitive unfriendly interface that is not student centred
Lacking in the tools characteristic of the current job market
5. Conclusions and Preliminary Recommendations
Blackboard
The (mainly) academic staff who have contributed to this review overwhelmingly see the significance of Blackboard as the cornerstone of Westminster’s VLE. Its significance as a ‘1 stop shop ’ for students on all matters related to the delivery of their module and course seems undeniable. It is also clear from the responses that staff find the tools within our VLE (which apart from Turnitin and possibly for a few staff WIMBA, is Blackboard) generally easy to use and the support they receive in using them to be acceptable, once they start using the tools. However it was emphasised in all discussions on the topic of support that local support was valued most. In addition there was real concern from all Schools that the recent loss of local support fro online was already impacting on developments and enthusiasm.
10 Draft VLE Review Report – Professor Gunter Saunders

Internet efficacy and use of TEL
Based on assessment of respondents (to the Research into staff perceptions of Technology
Enhanced Learning (TEL) at Westminster) there is no evidence that internet efficacy is a key determinant in whether or not staff engage with the tools within the Westminster VLE. This supports the view that Blackboard is easy to use, which was one of the main factors that led to its adoption by the University originally.
This is not to say that staff do not complain about the way in which the many tools in Blackboard work in their own right. There is always criticism that can be gathered from users over the features of any online learning tool which is normally linked to the ‘vision’ that an individual has as to how a particular online learning approach needs to work in their context. An ‘off the shelf’ tool is never going to match everyone’s precise expectations. Custom designed tools are inevitably better but normally complete custom design is only possibly when users are few.
Reliability
Whilst staff consider Blackboard to be one of the better corporate systems, reliability is an issue especially a) when there are ext ended periods of ‘downtime’ as has occurred at the start of the last 2 academic years and b) when staff are trying real time activities and either network issues (for example) or load issues (for example when too many students attempt an online test). In the former scenario, which affects all users, the ‘one stop shop’ criticality of Blackboard becomes very apparent especially as new students, directed to Blackboard for critical information and communications, struggle to get through to the system. In the latter situation, whilst all users may not be directly affected, the failure of the system during say an online test/exam has a major impact on students and staff alike.
The student record system
In addition to reliability derived from technical issues, the dependency of Blackboard on data from the student record system is also something commonly cited as a limitation on the utility and value of the
Blackboard system at Westminster. This is often seen by those who do not appreciate the connection between the 2 systems as ‘Blackboard reliability’.
What staff say they want to do with TEL
The data collected to date suggests that significant numbers of staff do wish to make greater use of certain tools within the VLE suite and that high on the list of reasons for why their progress is limited are a) time constraints to make the necessary developments and b) the unreliable nature of the system. There are also still real concerns over ensuring that the correct balance is ‘struck’ between face to face and use of online tools and systems. It is clear from previous surveys of students conducted at Westminster (and from recent national and international surveys) that students generally value face to face contact with their tutors and accordingly significant numbers of staff are worried that too much emphasis on the VLE can devalue face to face work.
As mentioned above, the range of tools that are available in Blackboard are considered to be appropriate for the majority of respondents at Westminster, given especially that the main focus for
Blackboard remains dissemination of information and communication. However, when it comes to online learning activities it is clear that some staff, (and indeed some online learning activities), either need greater reliability/resilience from the system or they need a tool or a variant of a tool that
Blackboard does not currently offer. This can be linked either to the pedagogic design or process design of the activity or it can be purely technical and linked for example to issues of scale and load.
A specific example here would be e-portfolios. The e-portfolio tool in Blackboard is rudimentary
11 Draft VLE Review Report – Professor Gunter Saunders

setting certain pedagogic design limitations. The Blackboard system at Westminster only allows a relatively small amount of content to be stored by individual students and in addition it is not possible to share a portfolio easily with an external audience (employers for example). Portability of e-portfolios in the current system is also an issue.
Another example would be the area of online test/exams and coursework submission. Load seems to be an issue in circumstances where more than 100 students (anecdotal evidence) simultaneously take an online test and yet there are now cohorts of student well in excess of that number that could potentially sit a test at the same time. Although a threshold number is not possible to cite (even from anecdotal evidence) whilst the coursework submission tool in Blackboard works well in principle, there are too many occasions when the Blackboard system ‘falls over’ around deadline times. Whether this is due to network issues or load issues or both at different times is not clear.
Where staff believe that they need a tool or variant of a tool that Blackboard does not currently offer it is the general view that such tools should be integrated into the Blackboard environment, sharing the data that the system already draws on (from the identity management system and student records).
The look and feel of Blackboard
There have been many comments made about the look and feel of the Blackboard system at
Westminster that can be summed up by phrases such as ‘it looks old, ‘not very student-y’ and ‘not very modern looking’. It is the general feeling of staff that the interface to the VLE should be both supportive and relevant to the students and the subject area of study. The Media, Art & Design
School in particular has special needs here. This group of staff are forward thinking and feel that they should be inventing ways of communicating to students in virtual space that reflects the imagination of the School. This is simply not possible for them in the current Westminster installation of Blackboard.
Compared to other Universities Westminster has done little to customise the look and feel of its
Blackboard installation. Compared to say the University of Brighton (but there are others)
Westminster’s ‘out of the box’ installation looks jaded (see figures 4 and 5 below). The ‘old’ feel to
Westminster’s installation of Blackboard is compounded by the fact that the university is not using the latest version of Blackboard (Blackboard 9.1) which was designed to have a more modern web2.0 feel to it.
12 Draft VLE Review Report – Professor Gunter Saunders

Figure 4
Figure 5
In summary the majority view seems to be that Blackboard needs to be much more reliable than it currently is and ideally should have some tools that are tailored more specifically to the online learning activity that they are intended to facilitate or deliver. In addition there is a need to make
Blackboard at Westminster ‘feel’ more vibrant, alive and student centred.
Turnitin
The Turnitin text matching service is not used by all members of staff. Currently Turnitin is a standalone system that users access with a username and password that is different to the credentials used to sign in to University systems, including Blackboard. The general view from users is that it is desirable for Turnitin to be integrated as part of the Blackboard system.
Video recordings and Podcasts
There is evidence of an increase in the number of staff wishing to record and distribute video and audio files. There is also evidence of confusion over the mechanisms available to use for both production and distribution. Similarly, there is growing interest in video conferencing and synchronous delivery through a virtual classroom facility. Currently in this area the university is piloting the use of
WIMBA, a system designed to facilitate a range of real time online interactions.
13 Draft VLE Review Report – Professor Gunter Saunders

Google apps
There is some anecdotal evidence of an increase in use by staff of Google apps. A particular recent growth has been in the use of Google Sites for students to make and share e-portfolios. This is a move that has been driven by scalability issues related to the Blackboard system at Westminster.
Another example relates to the Blackboard Gradebook, which is slow on modules with large numbers of students, where staff are using Google docs to share coursework marks.
Recommendations
The university should continue to use Blackboard as a key component of the institutional VLE and implement the following recommendations:
The Blackboard System
1. Upgrade to Blackboard 9.1 as soon as it is feasible to do so.
2. Explore options for an more stable storage and systems environment so as to provide to users of Blackboard with an installation based on clear expectations of reliability (usable up time) and durability (acceptable load for activities such as online tests and online coursework submission*).
3. Determine and implement the best option for the integration of Turnitin into the Blackboard system
* It is suggested that the aim should be reliability of 99.9% and that it should be possible for 500 students to take an online test at the same or to submit coursework electronically at around the same time. (99.99% uptime and a 500 student limit for online tests and coursework submission are provided through a hosted solution from Blackboard)
Using online learning tools other than those available through Blackboard
1. Put in place a clear and transparent mechanism to enable Schools to use, for sound pedagogic/subject related reasons, online learning tools different to the default set provided by Blackboard that are either operated ‘in-house’ (i.e integrated with Blackboard) or are freely available on the Internet and not integrated at all with University systems.
2. Develop a policy for the use of Internet based tools and systems to support learning and teaching at Westminster. This to include clear guidelines on the role of Google apps within the
Westminster VLE*
3. Ensure that an alternative systems for student e-portfolio production and distribution is put in place, taking into account the recent review of ePDP conducted by Westminster Exchange
* the policy will include recommendations to ISC on which apps should be made available to staff and students
Support for online learning developments
1. Review current provision for online learning support at the interface between the user and the tools made available within the broader context of support for the VLE (i.e. the connection and interworking between system administrators, online learning support and ISLS IT liaison staff and HR)
2. Provide clear guidance to users on the production and distribution of video and audio content guided by the outcomes of the video project being led by Alex Iacconi (ISLS). This to include recommendations on systems for video conferencing and streaming.
14 Draft VLE Review Report – Professor Gunter Saunders

Look, feel and Customisation of Blackboard
1. Create a modern look and feel to Blackboard at Westminster with the aim of creating a more dynamic, vibrant and student centred VLE that can be customised at School level to suit the academic subject.
Licencing
1. From 2012/13 purchase from Blackboard the Learning System and Portal components but not the Content Collection part of Blackboard.
2. Enter into a 3-5 year licence agreement with Blackboard subject to a clear ‘roadmap’ for the future development of Blackboard and with a clear understanding of exit strategy.
Future Timetable
Information Strategy Committee (ISC) – 17 February 2011
Joint ISC/LTSS workshop – 28 February 2011
LTSS – 16 March
UEB – 5 April
Academic Council – 6 April
15 Draft VLE Review Report – Professor Gunter Saunders