National Development Programme in Computer Aided Learning

The National Development Programme in Computer Aided Learning (NDPCAL) was the earliest government funded education programme in the 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 was appointed its Director and operated with a small central team 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.

Origins

During the 1960s and early 1970s various innovative projects in the USA and the UK using mainframe and mini-computers began to develop the field of Computer Aided Learning and there was much debate about its value and effectiveness. The National Council for Educational Technology provided advice to government in 1969 for a national development programme

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, BBC Senior Producer in the Faculty of Educational Studies at the Open University was selected.

Approach and Governance

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

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.

Hooper 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):

1. to develop and secure the assimilation of computer assisted and computer managed learning on a regular institutional basis at reasonable cost
2. 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 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's Computers in the Undergraduate Science Curriculum developed into the Computers in the Curriculum Project and Hertfordshire's Computer Managed Mathematics helped the Advisory Unit for Computer Based Education (AUCBE) at Hatfield develop.

It classified projects into different stages 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.

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. .

• 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 Assisted Learning in Chemistry Director: Dr. P.B. Ayscough Dept. of 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 Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Co.

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 reports some findings about CAL in general:

1. It is the versatility of the computer as an aid that assures its educational future
2. CAL, like most innovation, provides an add-on experience at an add-on cost
3. Much of the learning seen within NDPCAL fell into the category of higher-order learning
4. CAL is a demanding medium for learning - virtually guaranteeing the students engagement
5. Some forms of CAL enforce a strict role of learner on the student - this may need to be complemented by other forms
6. CAL offers the student uninhibitated learning opportunities within a 'privacy of risk'
7. Learning may be inhibited by interface problems - where the student needs to put extra effort into keyboard skills, learning new computer protocols
8. Current CAL still requires more adaption of the student to the machine
9. Students like working on CAL but are drustrated by technical problems
10. CAL is change-oriented not efficiency-oriented
11. CAL supports teacher development since it encourages a team approach
12. 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 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.

They reported some tentative but interesting conclusions in their study:

1. CAL will always be an extra cost
2. There are no realizable cash savings or benefits from CAL
3. Claims that CAL will 'save' academic staff time are oversimplified and unjustifiable
4. Only in very few cases will students sit at CAL terminals for than 20 hours each per annum
5. Precise statements of the cost of CAL are not possible owing to the large number of significant variable factors in the cost calculations
6. The costs differs by orders of magnitude according to the level at which they are drawn - national, institutional, departmental
7. The marginal cost to a department of taking on CAL is usually low
8. The evaluation calculated 'national or total cost per student terminal hour' in the range £4-£15
9. By comparison the cost of conventional means is in the range £0.60-£2.50 per student hour
10. Realistic targets for the use of terminals are in range 500–750 hours per year
11. The time taken to develop science packages varies between 200 and 400 hours
12. Program exchange schemes can achieve significant economies
13. Inter-institutional development has been a success leading to substantial savings
14. Large scale applications of CAL require full-time staff and regular computer time.