|
The '''National Development Programme in Computer Aided Learning''' (NDPCAL)<ref>This text is a summary of a more detailed description here http://www.edtechhistory.org.uk/organisations/ndpcal.html</ref> was the earliest large-scale education programme in the United Kingdom to explore the use of computers for teaching and learning.
{{multiple issues|
{{Underlinked|date=October 2014}}
{{Orphan|date=October 2014}}
}}
TheFirst '''National Development Programmeproposed in Computer1969 Aided Learning''' (NDPCAL) wasto the earliest[[Department governmentof fundedEducation educationand programme in theScience (UK that explored the use of computers for teaching. It was first proposed to the [[)|Department of Education and Science]] by the [[National Council for Educational Technology in 1969, [[Richard Hooper (civil servant)|Richard Hooper]] was appointed its Director and operated with a small central team administered by the Council for Educational Technology . Itit ran from 1973 to 1977, spending £2.5M to support some 35 projects covering a range of subjects in schools, colleges, universities, industrial and military training.<ref>Hooper R., 1975, Two years On, National Development Programme in Computer Aided Learning, Report of the Director, London: CET</ref>
About half the money was spent on projects in universities and the rest on projects in schools, colleges, industrial and [[military training]].<ref>Hooper R., 1975, Two years On, National Development Programme in Computer Aided Learning, Report of the Director, London: CET</ref> [[Richard Hooper (civil servant)|Richard Hooper]] was appointed its Director and operated with a small central team and the programme was administered by the Council for Educational Technology.
==Origins==
During the 1960s and early 1970s various innovative projects in the USAUS and the UK using [[mainframe]] and mini-computers[[minicomputer]]s began to develop the field of [[E-Learning|Computer Aided Learning]] and there was much debate about its value and effectiveness.<ref>Annett J. and Duke J., 1970, Proceedings of a Seminar on Computer Based Learning Systems, London:NCET</ref> The National Council for Educational Technology providedproduced advice to government in 1969 forto run a national development programme to explore the value of these approaches.<ref>NCET, 1969, Computer Based Learning, A Programme for Action, London: National Council for Educational Technology</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.edtechhistory.org.uk/history/the_1960s/orig_NCET.html |title=1967 - The first NCET|date=October 9, 2014|first=Peter|last=Avis|access-date=2014-10-25 |archive-date=2016-02-15 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160215100522/http://www.edtechhistory.org.uk/history/the_1960s/orig_NCET.html |url-status=usurped }}</ref>
It was four years later that theThe [[Department for Education and Science]] (DES) followingannounced muchin discussion amongst the interested departments and an intervening general election, announced1972 the approval by thethen Secretary of State ([[MrsMargaret Thatcher]]) toof a '"national development programme in computer assisted learning'."<ref>Sheridan, inG. a(1972) DES'Go pressask releasethe datedcomputer' 23The MayGuardian Jun 20, 1972</ref> Following the announcement of the programme, the post of director was advertised and Richard Hooper was selected.
Following the announcement of the Programme the post of Director was advertised.and [[Richard Hooper (civil servant)|Richard Hooper]], BBC Senior Producer in the Faculty of Educational Studies at the Open University was selected.
==Strategy==
==Approach and Governance== ▼NDPCAL's tookstrategy anwas approachto ofwork workingmainly onwith developmentexisting projects within those[[Computer-aided educationallearning|Computer establishmentsAided alreadyLearning]] workingbut inalso the field, or workingto ondevelop feasibility projects with those with good ideas. TheyIt stipulatedrequired joint funding from the host establishment and stipulated effective evaluation and monitoring processes but allowed a significant degree of [[autonomy]] to the projects. The approach of the central team was active and interventionist, working alongside potential projects in their early stages to help develop their design and approach. They required four monthly [[Accounting period (UK taxation)|accounting periods]] and carefully controlling expenditure.<ref>Hooper R., 1977, An Introduction to the National Development Programme in Computer Assisted Learning, British Journal of Educational Technology, 8-3 p165-175.</ref>
▲== Approach and Governance==
Contrary to NCET's recommendations that a non-governmental agency such as itself should direct the programme, the Government decided to retain direct control. (Hooper 1975). NCETCET was asked to provide administrative services to the new programme, and the programme's central staff were NCETCET employees but executive control was to be vested inwith a committee made up of [[civil servants]] from seven government departments plus a group of co-opted advisers. TheThis Programmeprogramme Committee, as it came to be called,committee was chaired by the DES and funded the work through NCET. The Programme Committee was more than just a rubber stamping committee, it held the final say on proposals from the Programmeprogramme Directordirector. andIt also involved itself in [[project evaluation]], setting up sub-committees of three or so of its members to look in detail at a particular proposal or project. ThisAlthough led to 2 project proposals being rejected. Eacheach of the thirty projects had its own [[steering committee but]] national linkage was retainedmaintained becausethrough a member of the national programme committee sitting on each hadproject tosteering havecommittee.<ref>Hooper aR., member1977, ofAn Introduction to the nationalNational Development Programme Committeein onComputer it.Assisted Learning, British Journal of Educational Technology, 8-3 p165-175</ref>
==Setting Up==
From January 1973 to early summer 1973, there was a phase of exploration and consultation and from the summer of 1973 to the end of the year, there was the setting up of the Programmeprogramme's management structure and of the first generation of major projects, notably in the university sector. Richard Hooper was supported by two assistant directors, Mrs Gillian Frewin (from ICL) and Roger Miles (from the Army School of Instructional Technology). They were supported by two other executive posts and three secretaries.
Hooper<ref>Hooper R., 1977, An Introduction to the National Development Programme in Computer Assisted Learning, British Journal of Educational Technology, 8-3 p165-175.</ref> describes their approach as active and interventionist, working alongside potential projects in their early stages to help develop their design and approach. They also focussed on good project management requiring four monthly accounting periods and carefully controlling expenditure. In this work Hooper and his team was steered by the Programme Committee and all proposals for projects and policy came to it for approval.
The programme formulated two main aims over its lifetime (Hooper, 1975, p17):
# to develop and secure the assimilation of [[Computer-assisted learning|computer assisted]] and computer managed learning on a regular institutional basis at reasonable cost
# to make recommendations to appropriate agencies in the public and private sector (including Government) concerning possible future levels and types of investment in computer assisted and computer managed learning in education and training.
Two evaluations were set up, one to consider the educational benefits and one to consider the financial aspects.
==Breadth of Projects==
This first government funded programme to look at the use of computers focused on their use for learning other subjects ratherother than about computers or[[Computer programming them|programming]]. It supported some 35 projects, seven in schools, a number in higher education but the majority were based on the [[British armed services’services]]’ growing interest in developing more automated and managed approaches to training. The [[Computer hardware|hardware]] was limited; the computers were large expensive cabinets of complicated electronics accessed mainly by paper tape with [[Teletype]] printouts but already the focus was more on the way technology could be used to improve teaching and learning than as a subject in its own right. This dichotomy continues throughout this history and different policies struggled with, and often confused this difference.
NDPCAL funded a wide range of different projects - of different types, covering a range of subjects and age ranges sectors. Some of these, such as [[Chelsea College of Science and Technology|Chelsea College]]'s Computerscomputers in the Undergraduateundergraduate Sciencescience Curriculumcurriculum, developed into the Computerscomputers in the Curriculumcurriculum Projectproject and [[Hertfordshire|Hertfordshire's]] Computer Managedcomputer-managed Mathematicsmathematics helped the Advisory Unit for Computer Based Education (AUCBE) at [[Hatfield, Hertfordshire|Hatfield]] develop.
It classified projects into different stages<ref>Hooper R., 1975, Two years On, National Development Programme in Computer Aided Learning, Report of the Director, London: CET</ref>
Stage 1 - Design and Feasibility - a project that shows that a particular application of CAL or CML is feasible by developing and piloting applications. ▼Stage 2 - Development and Transferability - the creation of a working system for increasing numbers of students across a number of institutions. ▼Stage 3 - Model Operation - a fully operational project able to act as a model for others. ▼Stage 4 - Assimilation and Dissemination - national funding is being phased out and the institution has taken ownership with other new institutions taking it up. ▼
▲* Stage 1 - Design and Feasibility - a project that shows that a particular application of CAL or CML is feasible by developing and piloting applications.
About half the project funds were spent on projects in universities and polytechnics, about one-sixth of the project funds was spent on schools based projects and the rest on military and industrial training. Some of the projects are listed below. <ref>For a full list and their details see http://www.edtechhistory.org.uk/history/the_1970s/ndpcal_projects.html</ref>. ▼▲* Stage 2 - Development and Transferability - the creation of a working system for increasing numbers of students across a number of institutions.
▲* Stage 3 - Model Operation - a fully operational project able to act as a model for others.
▲* Stage 4 - Assimilation and Dissemination - national funding is being phased out and the institution has taken ownership with other new institutions taking it up.
▲About half the project funds were spent on projects in universities and [[Polytechnic college|polytechnics ]], about one-sixth of the project funds was spent on schools based projects and the rest on military and industrial training. Some of the projects are listed below. <ref>For a full list and their details see http://www.edtechhistory.org.uk/history/the_1970s/ndpcal_projects.html</ref> .
* Computer Based Learning Project on Applied Statistics for Social Science, Leeds University - Director: J.R. Hartley
* Computer Assisted Learning in Engineering Sciences Director: Dr. P.R. Smith Faculty of Engineering, Computer Assisted Teaching Unit, Queen Mary College. ▼* Computer AssistedBased Learning inProject Chemistryon Director:[[Applied Dr.Statistics]] P.B.for AyscoughSocial Dept.Science, of[[Leeds PhysicalUniversity]] Chemistry,- TheDirector: UniversityJ.R. ofHartley Leeds.
▲* Computer Assisted Learning in Engineering Sciences Director: Dr. P.R. Smith Faculty of Engineering, Computer Assisted Teaching Unit, [[Queen Mary College ]].
* Computers in the Undergraduate Science Curriculum Director: Dr. I. McKenzie, University College London ▼* Computer Assisted Learning in Chemistry Director: Dr. P.B. Ayscough Dept. of [[Physical chemistry|Physical Chemistry]], The University of Leeds.
▲* Computers in the Undergraduate Science Curriculum Director: Dr. I. McKenzie, [[University College London ]]
* Hertfordshire Computer Managed Mathematics in Schools Director: Dr. W.Tagg, Advisory Unit for Computer Based Education
==Evaluation==
Evaluation was an important part of NDPCAL's approach. It set up two independent evaluations as well as building in evaluation through its regular project reviews and assessments. The two independent evaluations were: an [[educational evaluation]] carried out by the [[University of East Anglia]] and a financial evaluation by [[KPMG|Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Co]].
The Educational Evaluation, UNCAL (Understanding Computer Assisted Learning) was carried out over a period of three years evaluation project and reported findings about CAL in general. Its findings echo many of the later findings of the effectiveness of [[e-learning]] :<ref>MacDonald B., 1977, The Educational Evaluation of NDPCAL, British Journal of Educational Technology, 8-3 p176-189.</ref>
===Educational Evaluation===
This was carried out by Barry MacDonald and a team from the [[University of East Anglia]] running a three year evaluation project - UNCAL ( 'Understanding Computer Assisted Learning). MacDonald<ref>MacDonald B., 1977, The Educational Evaluation of NDPCAL, British Journal of Educational Technology, 8-3 p176-189.</ref> reports some findings about CAL in general:
#* It is the versatility of the computer as an aid that assures its educational future
#* CAL, like most innovation, provides an add-on experience at an add-on cost
#* Much of the learning seen within NDPCAL fell into the category of higher-order learning
#* CAL is a demanding medium for learning - virtually guaranteeing the students engagement
#* Some forms of CAL enforce a strict role of learner on the student - this may need to be complemented by other forms
#* CAL offers the student uninhibitateduninhibited learning opportunities within a 'privacy of risk'
#* Learning may be inhibited by [[Interface (computing)|interface]] problems - where the student needs to put extra effort into [[Keyboard layout|keyboard]] skills, learning new computer protocols
#* Current CAL still requires more adaption of the student to the machine
#* Students like working on CAL but are drustratedfrustrated by technical problems
#* CAL is change-oriented not efficiency-oriented
#* CAL supports teacher development since it encourages a team approach
#* At present CAL development requires access to high level computer expertise.
===Financial Evaluation===
The financial evaluation was carried out by John Fielden of the management consultants, Peat Marwick, Mitchell & Co. As Fielden explains<ref>Fielden J., 1977, The Financial Evaluation of NDPCAL, British Journal of Educational Technology, 8-3 p190-200</ref> the decision to consider financial implications was down to Richard Hooper whose rationale for a financial evaluation was mainly based on the fact that CAL was a high cost innovation and that most evaluations, particularly in the USA, had avoided considering cost-implications.
TheyThe financial evaluation reported some tentative but interesting conclusions in their study that again reflect later findings on [[e-learning]]:<ref>Fielden J., 1977, The Financial Evaluation of NDPCAL, British Journal of Educational Technology, 8-3 p190-200</ref>
#* CAL will always be an extra cost
#* There are no realizablerealisable cash savings or benefits from CAL
#* Claims that CAL will 'save' academic staff time are oversimplified and unjustifiable
#* The time taken to develop science packages varies between 200 and 400 hours ▼# Only in very few cases will students sit at CAL terminals for than 20 hours each per annum
#* Inter-institutional development has been a success leading to substantial savings ▼# Precise statements of the cost of CAL are not possible owing to the large number of significant variable factors in the cost calculations
#* Large scale applications of CAL require full-time staff and regular computer time. ▼# The costs differs by orders of magnitude according to the level at which they are drawn - national, institutional, departmental
# The marginal cost to a department of taking on CAL is usually low
# The evaluation calculated 'national or total cost per student terminal hour' in the range £4-£15
# By comparison the cost of conventional means is in the range £0.60-£2.50 per student hour ▼# Realistic targets for the use of terminals are in range 500–750 hours per year
▲# The time taken to develop science packages varies between 200 and 400 hours
# Program exchange schemes can achieve significant economies
▲# Inter-institutional development has been a success leading to substantial savings
▲# Large scale applications of CAL require full-time staff and regular computer time.
▲#They Bycalculated the 'national or total cost per student terminal hour' in the range £4-£15 by comparison the cost of conventional meansteaching iswas in the range £0.60-£2.50 per student hour .
==References==
{{Reflist}}
{[[Category:EducationComputer-aided in the United Kingdomdesign]]
[[Category:Education in the United Kingdom]]
[[Category:Educational technology projects]]
[[Category:Governmental educational technology organizations]]
[[Category:Information technology organisations based in the United Kingdom]]
[[Category:United Kingdom educational programs]]
[[Category:E-learning]]
| 