National Development Programme in Computer Aided Learning: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 11:21, 17 December 2020

Revision as of 06:15, 7 February 2021

Line 4:

==Origins==

During the 1960s various projects in the US and the UK using [[Mainframe computer|mainframe]] and [[mini-computers]] 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 (renamed Council for Educational Technology (CET)) produced advice to government in 1969 to 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>http://www.edtechhistory.org.uk/history/the_1960s/orig_NCET.html</ref> After much discussion amongst the interested departments and an intervening general election, the [[Department for Education and Skills (United Kingdom)|Department for Education and Science]] (DES) announced in 1972 the approval by the Secretary of State ([[Margaret Thatcher]]) to 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 Programmeprogramme, the post of Directordirector 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==

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 also focussedfocused on good project management requiring four monthly 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>

==Governance==

CET was asked to provide administrative services to the new programme, and the programme's central staff were CET employees but executive control was with a committee made up of civil servants from seven government departments plus a group of co-opted advisers. This Programmeprogramme Committeecommittee was chaired by the DES. The Programme Committee was more than just a rubber stamping committee, itand 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. Although each of the thirty projects had its own steering committee national linkage was maintained through a member of the national Programmeprogramme Committeecommittee sitting on each 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 (civil servant)|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 and computer managed learning on a regular institutional basis at reasonable cost

Line 20 ⟶ 21:

==Breadth of Projects==

This first government funded programme to look at the use of computers focused on their use for learning other subjects rather than about computers or programming them. It supported some 35 projects, seven in schools, a number in higher education but the majority were based on the armed services’ growing interest in developing more automated and managed approaches to training. The 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's Computer Managedcomputer-managed Mathematicsmathematics helped the Advisory Unit for Computer Based Education (AUCBE) at 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.

Line 39 ⟶ 45:

==Evaluation==

NDPCAL set up two independent evaluations: an educational evaluation carried out by the [[University of East Anglia]] and a financial evaluation by 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]] and provided a good summary of the benefits and disadvantages:<ref>MacDonald B., 1977, The Educational Evaluation of NDPCAL, British Journal of Educational Technology, 8-3 p176-189.</ref>