|
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 Computer Aided Learning''' (NDPCAL) was the earliest government funded education programme in the UK1969 to explore the use[[Department of computersEducation forand teaching.Science First proposed to the [[(UK)|Department of Education and Science]] by the [[National Council for Educational Technology in 1969]]. it ran from 1973 to 1977 spending £2.5M to support some 35 projects covering a range of subjects.
About half the money was spent on projects in universities and the rest on projects 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>. [[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 various innovative projects in the USAUS and the UK using [[mainframe]] and mini-computers such as [[PLATO (computer system)|PLATOminicomputer]]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.<ref>http://www.edtechhistory.org.uk/history/the_1960s/orig_NCET.html</ref> Threeto years laterexplore the Departmentvalue forof Educationthese andapproaches.<ref>NCET, Science (DES)1969, followingComputer muchBased discussionLearning, amongstA theProgramme interested departments and an intervening generalfor electionAction, announcedLondon: theNational approvalCouncil byfor theEducational Secretary of State ([[Mrs Thatcher]]) to a 'national development programme in computer assisted learning'.Technology</ref>Sheridan, G. (1972) 'Go ask the computer' The Guardian Jun 20, 1972</ref>{{Cite Followingweb the|url=http://www.edtechhistory.org.uk/history/the_1960s/orig_NCET.html announcement|title=1967 of- theThe Programmefirst theNCET|date=October post9, of2014|first=Peter|last=Avis|access-date=2014-10-25 Director|archive-date=2016-02-15 was advertised|archive-url=https://web.archive.andorg/web/20160215100522/http://www.edtechhistory.org.uk/history/the_1960s/orig_NCET.html [[Richard Hooper (civil servant)|Richardurl-status=usurped Hooper]], BBC Senior Producer in the Faculty of Educational Studies at the Open University was selected.}}</ref>
The [[Department for Education and Science]] (DES) announced in 1972 the approval by then Secretary of State [[Margaret Thatcher]] of a "national development programme in computer assisted learning."<ref>Sheridan, G. (1972) 'Go ask the computer' The Guardian Jun 20, 1972</ref> Following the announcement of the programme, the post of director was advertised and Richard Hooper was selected.
==Strategy and Governance== ▼NDPCAL's strategy was to work mainly with existing projects in Computer Aided Learning but also to develop feasibility projects with those with good ideas. It required joint funding from the host establishment and stipulated effective evaluation and monitoring but allowed a significant degree of autonomy to the projects. NCET was asked to provide administrative services to the new programme, and the programme's central staff were NCET employees but executive control was with a committee made up of civil servants from seven government departments plus a group of co-opted advisers. The Programme Committee, as it came to be called, 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 Programme Director and 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. This led to 2 project proposals being rejected. Each of the thirty projects had its own steering committee but national linkage was retained because each had to have a member of the national Programme Committee on it.<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> ▼
==Setting UpStrategy==
NDPCAL's strategy was to work mainly with existing projects in [[Computer-aided learning|Computer Aided Learning]] but also to develop feasibility projects with those with good ideas. It required 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>
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 Programme'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. ▼
▲== Strategy and Governance==
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.
▲NDPCAL's strategy was to work mainly with existing projects in Computer Aided Learning but also to develop feasibility projects with those with good ideas. It required joint funding from the host establishment and stipulated effective evaluation and monitoring but allowed a significant degree of autonomy to the projects. NCETCET was asked to provide administrative services to the new programme, and the programme's central staff were NCETCET employees but executive control was with 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 because each had to havethrough a member of the national Programmeprogramme Committeecommittee sitting on iteach project steering committee.<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>
==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.
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==
NDPCAL set up two independent evaluations: 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)<ref>MacDonald B., 1977, The Educational Evaluation of NDPCAL, British Journal of Educational Technology, 8-3 p176-189.</ref> was carried out over a period of three years evaluation project and reported findings about CAL in general:
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>
#* 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 uninhibited 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 frustrated 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.
The 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>
===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.
#* CAL will always be an extra cost ▼They reported some tentative but interesting conclusions in their study:
#* 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 ▼#* 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 .▼▲# CAL will always be an extra cost
▲# There are no realizable cash savings or benefits from CAL
▲# Claims that CAL will 'save' academic staff time are oversimplified and unjustifiable
# Only in very few cases will students sit at CAL terminals for than 20 hours each per annum
# Precise statements of the cost of CAL are not possible owing to the large number of significant variable factors in the cost calculations
# 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.
==References==
{{Reflist}}
[[Category: EComputer- learningaided design]] ▼[[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]]
| 