|
}}
The '''National Development Programme in Computer Aided Learning''' (NDPCAL) was the earliest large government funded education programme in the UK thatto exploredexplore 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 and the programme was administered by the Council for Educational Technology . It 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>
==Origins==
During the 1960s and early 1970s various innovative projects in the USA and the UK using mainframe and mini-computers such as [[PLATO (computer system)|PLATO]] 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 provided advice to government in 1969 for a national development programme<ref>http://www.edtechhistory.org.uk/history/the_1960s/orig_NCET.html</ref> and over three years later the Department for Education and Science (DES), following much discussion amongst the interested departments and an intervening general election, announced the approval by the Secretary of State ([[Mrs Thatcher]]) to a 'national development programme in computer assisted learning' in a DES press release dated 23 May 1972.
It was four years later that the Department for Education and Science (DES) following much discussion amongst the interested departments and an intervening general election, announced the approval by the Secretary of State ([[Mrs Thatcher]]) to a 'national development programme in computer assisted learning' in a DES press release dated 23 May 1972.
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.
==Approach and Governance==
ContraryNDPCAL took an approach of working on supporting existing projects but also working on feasibility projects with those with good ideas. It required joint funding to NCET'scome recommendationsfrom thatthe ahost non-governmentalestablishment agencyand suchstipulated aseffective itselfevaluation shouldand directmonitoring but allowed a significant degree of autonomy to the programmeprojects<ref>Hooper R., the1977, GovernmentAn decidedIntroduction to retainthe directNational control.Development (HooperProgramme 1975)in Computer Assisted Learning, British Journal of Educational Technology, 8-3 p165-175</ref>. NCET was asked to provide administrative services to the new programme, and the programme's central staff were NCET employees but executive control was to be vested in 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. ▼NDPCAL took an approach of working on development projects with those educational establishments already working in the field, or working on feasibility projects with those with good ideas. They stipulated joint funding and effective evaluation and monitoring but allowed a significant degree of autonomy to the projects.
▲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). NCET was asked to provide administrative services to the new programme, and the programme's central staff were NCET employees but executive control was to be vested in 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.
==Setting Up==
|
