Portal Project Evaluation Report Executive Summary - University of ...

TITLE:
THE STUDENT PORTAL­GREENWICH GATEWAY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EVALUATION REPORT OF THE FIRST YEAR OF
OPERATIONS 2006­2007
BACKGROUND:
The Student Portal was implemented during August
2006 as the first phase of a major University initiative to
provide a single secure gateway, available 24x7 to
students and staff working on and off campus, to key
systems and information resources provided by the
University. The initial development funding was
£120,000 from the e­learning project funding, which
paid the costs of a seconded Project Manager, a JAVA
developer and some consultancy. Part of the project
methodology was to build in feedback and evaluation to
ensure that the Portal was meeting the needs of
students and improving their learning experience. The
results of the formal on­line evaluation exercise carried
out between the 13 th to 23 rd March 2007, which are
summarised in the attached Executive Summary,
indicate that the first phase of the Student Portal has
achieved its objectives, and provides a sound basis for
current and future developments.
RECOMMENDATION:
COUNCIL to note that the evaluation of the first year
implementation of the Student Portal phase of
Greenwich Gateway indicates that it has met its
objectives and provides a sound basis for continued
improvement of the information environment to support
students in their learning.
FULL REPORT: The full evaluation report is available at :
http://www.gre.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/9
9411/PortalEvalReport.pdf
Greenwich Gateway Phase One Evaluation Report Executive Summary Version
7 th November
1

The Student Portal­ Greenwich Gateway
Evaluation report of the first year of operation 2006­07
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Introduction
Greenwich Gateway­ the student portal for the University of Greenwich was launched
at the beginning of the 2006/2007 academic year. It was the first phase of the
University Portal project to deliver Portal facilities to support all members of the
University. The first phase objectives were to:
· Identify and prioritise user requirements
· Develop content to meet the requirements identified by users
· Consider and identify how existing services could be integrated in to the
Portal
· Develop and implement a student facing portal for the 2006/07 academic year
· Develop and implement a training programme that ensured successful
implementation
· Develop campus­wide policies regarding the use of the portal and its
associated technologies.
The project was overseen by a Portal Steering Group chaired by the Pro­Vice
Chancellor (Learning and Quality). Technical leadership was provided by Corporate
Information Systems (CIS) within the Office of Information and Library Services.
Clifton Kandler was seconded from the Business School to act as Project Manager.
The JISC guidelines for project management were used. Each School and Office was
invited to nominate a Portal Co­ordinator. They were critical in advising on and
providing content for the various information tabs and channels and communicating
on training needs. First line user support is provided by the OSCARS team within
Information and Library Services (ILS), backed up by Web Services and the technical
developers within
Part of the project management plan included an initial evaluation of the first phase of
the student portal project, which was carried out by means of an on­line survey of all
staff and students over a week in March 2007. The purpose of this was to get some
systematic across University feedback on the initial Student Portal to supplement and
enrich the data obtained from the feedback channel and on­line requests for help.
The results of the evaluation have already influenced further developments and a
significant number of the suggestions made have been acted upon.
Impact­ Usage
A total of 17984 individual students accessed the portal during the first year of
operation between October 2006 and August 2007­ representing some 71% of the
total potential user population­ including students studying out of country. The major
period of growth in use was in the first term of the year, but use (penetration)
continued to steadily increase throughout the year.
Snapshots of weekly patterns throughout the year showed a consistent pattern of
highest total use on a Monday, with relatively less use at the weekends. A typical
Greenwich Gateway Phase One Evaluation Report Executive Summary Version
7 th November
2

week showed more users on­line to the portal on Sundays after 6.00pm through to
midnight than on Thursdays and Fridays.
Cummulative Unique Portal Logins
29/09/06 ­29/08/07
25000
Number of Users
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
29/09/2006
29/10/2006
29/11/2006
29/12/2006
29/01/2007
28/02/2007
29/03/2007
29/04/2007
29/05/2007
29/06/2007
29/07/2007
29/08/2007
Date
Figure 1. Cumulative Unique Portal Logins over first 12 months
Take­up of the portal across the Schools was broadly in line with the percentage of
students from each school represented in the university population. The two main
exceptions to this were the Computing and Mathematical Sciences (CMS) School
and the Business School. The Business School was the heaviest user overall
accounting for 21% of total logins and 30% of average weekly logins. This was
largely driven by the extensive use of WebCT by the School. CMS take up was
relatively low due to their heavy use of an internally developed portal/intranet facility.
Figure two shows the portal access for schools relative to potential users.
School
Potential
users 2006/07
Percentage of
School Unique
Portal users of
School Potential
Users
Percentage of
School Average
Weekly Portal
Users of School
Potential Users
Architecture & Construction 2392 82% 30%
Business School 4215 93% 58%
Computing & Mathematical 2680 60% 11%
Sciences
Education 4580 55% 22%
External & Combined Studies 634 9% 2%
Engineering 1225 73% 31%
Greenwich Maritime Institute 63 70% 14%
Health & Social Care 3271 86% 35%
Humanities & Social Sciences 2720 83% 47%
Medway School of Pharmacy 1324 28% 11%
NRI 96 68% 25%
Science 2050 71% 30%
Total 25280 71 32
Greenwich Gateway Phase One Evaluation Report Executive Summary Version
7 th November
3

Figure 2. Actual Portal Logins Compared to Potential Usage.
The relatively low percentage of potential users reached from the school of Education
is explained by the high percentage of students within the PCET network and the use
of schools own online learning environment for those students independently of the
portal. The figures for the Medway School of Pharmacy probably arise from its
position as a joint school. The role of the Portal for this School requires further
investigation and discussion with the School.
Findings from Portal Survey
900 respondents participated in the survey during the 13 th to 23 rd March 2007. 1 st
years made up nearly half of the respondents, 40% were 2nd and 3rd years and the
remainder of the sample were staff. The profile of respondents reflected the user
university population.
Graphical representation of the responses to selected questions
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
Percent
30.0%
58.68%
20.0%
10.0%
14.07%
17.03%
0.0%
Strongly agree Agree Niether agree
disagree
7.6%
Disagree
2.61%
Strongly
disagree
Portal has all the functions and services that I would
expect it to have
50.0%
40.0%
Percent
30.0%
46.84%
20.0%
10.0%
24.12%
14.52%
10.73%
0.0%
Strongly agree Agree Niether agree
disagree
Disagree
3.79%
Strongly
disagree
The portal has improved my access to information provied
by the university
Greenwich Gateway Phase One Evaluation Report Executive Summary Version
7 th November
4

40.0%
30.0%
Percent
20.0%
37.58%
34.14%
10.0%
14.9%
8.28%
5.1%
0.0%
Strongly agree Agree Niether agree
disagree
Disagree Strongly
disagree
The portal has enabled me to be more productive
Areas where the portal received positive comment are as follows:
· Improved access.
· Time savings.
· Clarity and ease of use.
· Having everything in one place.
· Library and access to online journals.
· The need to only have one ID to log­in to the various University systems.
· Off campus access
Examples of feedback received:
“Excellent web­site! I'm well impressed with it. Is it possible to set portal.gre.ac.uk to be my
home page for when I log on from the Uni computers?”
“On first sight this seems to be a useful system for all”
“This is a fantastic idea, I wish it had come sooner. Thank you”
Areas identified by users for improvement:
· Access to past exam papers
· Integration of WebCT email in to the Portal email
· Improved staff search
· Access to information on staff availability
· Information on upcoming events
· School department announcements area
· Access to personal web pages
Areas where the portal received critical comments were:
· Lack of training (staff and students)
· Lack of knowledge (lecturers)
· Not enough use made of announcements
· Link on the University website
· Athens
· WebCT
· Portal Time­out
Greenwich Gateway Phase One Evaluation Report Executive Summary Version
7 th November
5

· Difficulties in finding the information that was needed
· Email client poor compared to alternatives(staff)
· Lack of a staff Portal
· Difficulties accessing the Portal off­campus
· Help material
· Portal downtime.
Main follow up actions
A number of the technical issues identified by users in the survey had been picked up
as they occurred and dealt with. The “ATHENS” issue around single sign on for
electronic journals and databases was complex one involving individual publishers in
some cases and took some time to fully resolve. The current Student elements of the
Portal for 2007/08 contains many of the improvements based on the feedback
including:
· Improved help material including a range of multi­media self help material
· Improved student training for first year students within the induction
framework
· Clearer sign posting of portal content
· Improved content
· Self service facility for users to modify how the user’s name is shown, portal
time­out etc.
The launch of the Staff Portal in October 2007 is increasing the exposure and
engagement of staff with the Portal, which should improve some elements of student
assistance, as the survey indicated that for many students the first point of contact for
assistance was their lecturer.
A communication project has been set up to improve and refine the ability to send
targeted announcements to groups of students and/or staff, and the Information
Strategy group has been asked to assist in the development of communication
policies and protocols to support this.
A major email project has been established to deliver a single all staff email system
integrated into the portal with associated diary management functionality and other
facilities.
Conclusion
Overall the first phase of the portal project has met the main objectives. Recent
evidence from the National Student Survey has reinforced the findings of both this
study and other feedback. The indications are that the portal has established its’
importance relatively quickly as the gateway through which students access key
aspects of the systems and information provided by the university.
The introduction of the portal has highlighted several pre­existing systems and
business process issues such as the management of user accounts, multiple email
systems and the appropriate use of communication tools. Significant work is now
underway involving a wide range of stakeholders to resolve these.
Clifton Kandler
Web Services Manager
Information & Library Services: Corporate Information Systems
Greenwich Gateway Phase One Evaluation Report Executive Summary Version
7 th November
6