This report presents the results of a survey carried out as part of a project entitled "Guidelines on the acquisition and use of computer-based learning materials". The project's main aim is the production of a framework within which teaching staff can make informed decisions about the acquisition, development and use of computer-based resources for teaching and learning.
The survey was carried out to establish how learning technology
is currently used throughout the university. Four main categories
of learning technology are discussed: courseware; the World Wide
Web; communications technology; and other utilities and resources.
This report presents the results of the survey and discusses its
main findings. Several conclusions about the use of learning technology
at Lancaster University are presented.
Funding for this project was provided by the Innovation in Higher Education Unit at Lancaster University.
I am very grateful to the following people, who took the time to provide the information needed for this report:
Susan Armitage Peter Goodyear Greg Myers Margaret Bayman Virginia Hardy Sol Picciotto Carol Bellard-Thomson Tony Heward Brian Robinson Bob Bliss Graeme Hughes Christine Steeples Fred Botting John Hughes John Stewart Emily Brady Peter Hurley Alan Thomson Paul Carling Patrick Hynes David Tonks Graham Dean Colin Jex Granville Tunicliffe-Wilson David Denver Geraint Johnes Michael Twidale John Dodds Steve Lane Dianne Wall Gordon Elliott Jamie Munro Lisa Whistlecroft Brian Francis
Apologies must go to anyone who contributed to this report but who I have unintentionally omitted from this list. Every effort was made to interview all computer reps in all departments, but in a few cases this proved impossible in the time available.
Technology-supported learning at Lancaster University
Dr. Karen Valley
Centre for Studies in Advanced Learning Technology (C SALT)
Department of Educational Research
The IHE funded project "Guidelines on the acquisition and use of computer-based learning materials" began in September 1994 and ran for one year. Its main aim was the production of a framework within which teaching staff can make informed decisions about the acquisition, development and use of computer-based resources for teaching and learning. During the first stage of the project, a survey was carried out to establish how learning technology is currently used throughout the university. This interim report presents the results of the survey.
Most universities are currently considering how best to use computer-based learning materials for undergraduate and postgraduate teaching. At Lancaster, many departments have already taken steps in this direction. However, the overall picture is somewhat confused, and there is as yet no clear university policy relating to this fundamental change in teaching practice.
There are several key stages in the process of adopting learning technology. The first is identifying good opportunities for its use, and avoiding potentially disastrous areas. Another key stage can involve identifying the best method of acquiring resources, such as buying existing products, producing them in-house, or contracting the work out. The final key stage is ensuring that learning technology is embedded in its situation of use in the most effective way possible.
The main objective of the survey was to establish the extent to which technology is used to support teaching and learning, throughout the university. The survey aimed to establish not only what type of technology is being used in each department, but also how it is being used, who it is being used by, and, for some categories, whether it was developed in-house or acquired off-the-shelf.
The results of the survey will help spread awareness about what
is happening in each department, in order to:
promote good practice
provide pointers to pockets of expertise
prevent people duplication of effort
help shape university policy on learning technology
highlight key needs.
The initial project proposal focused on the acquisition and use of courseware (software with built-in teaching and learning goals). However, as the project progressed this was deemed to be too narrow a focus, particularly in view of emerging policy promoting the use of groupware and conferencing systems within the university. The scope of the project was therefore broadened to include all uses of learning technology.
Four main categories of learning technology were identified. These
were:
courseware
communications technology
the World Wide Web
other utilities and resources
The term courseware is used to describe software specifically designed for educational use: software that teaches users about a particular topic, concept or procedure. A piece of courseware should have clear learning objectives, and will ideally engage the learner in a number of interactive activities, although the amount of interactivity offered can vary. Types of courseware commonly in use in HE include tutorials, drill programs, and tutorial simulations.
This category does not include software that facilitates or supports learning but has no built-in teaching goals. For example, many simulation packages allow learners to manipulate variables within simulated environments, but provide no tutorial support or guidance, and make no attempt at assessment, error diagnosis or remediation. Such packages would not be classed as courseware. However, in conjunction with other teaching methods they can be valuable teaching and learning tools. Software of this type is included in the Utilities category below.
This category covers electronic mail and conferencing environments. The latter includes both synchronous conferencing (where the participants are all logged on at the same time) and asynchronous conferencing (where the participants can participate in the conference at any time).
Synchronous conferencing tools allow simultaneous connectivity between people who are physically separated. Tools allowing synchronous working include videoconferencing, audiographics and desktop videoconferencing, and shared workspaces. Videoconferencing technology allows, for example, groups of students at multiple sites to connect to a lecturer located elsewhere. Learners can see and hear a lecture via visual and auditory display screens, and can ask questions. Lecturers can see and hear the different groups of learners, and can respond to individuals directly.
Desktop conferencing and audiographics are also synchronous tools. They support interaction and small group working, often featuring a shared workspace that each person can see, control, manipulate and edit. Small windows allow the group to see who is talking. Such systems have been used to support distance learning in remote sites, e.g. where learners are located at some distance from the tutor. This technology can emulate one-to-one teaching situations and one-to-small group tutorial seminars.
With asynchronous communication tools, learners need not work simultaneously and have some degree of flexibility in terms of their learning location. Messages can be created and sent at one time and read at another. As participants are not connected at the same time, any contribution to a discussion has to be made in a permanent way, for example in a textual message. This permanence allows conversations to remain, for each participant to revisit, to reflect upon and to reuse.
Asynchronous systems include electronic mail, on-line bulletin boards, computer conferencing systems and networked communal discussion databases (often termed groupware or "knowledge construction" environments).
Computer networks can have a number of levels: a network in one room, a network at a particular site, the universities network (JANET), and beyond. A global "internet" of connected computer networks makes it possible for all computers to communicate, regardless of platform (Macintosh, Windows, UNIX and so on), and with a variety of communications technology (such as cables, telephone lines, satellite, micro-wave).
Initially the power of the Internet remained largely confined to a relatively small set of researchers. With the arrival of the World-Wide Web (The Web, WWW or W3), many more have become aware of it, and for most people the Internet is the World Wide Web. Previously, the Internet was used for predominantly text-based electronic mail. The Web brought graphics, sound and video, and more importantly, a user-friendly graphical interface. It is now relatively easy to search for, link to, and transfer information anywhere in the world. The essential concept of the Web is hypermedia: the ability to click on highlighted text or images, in order to move to another document, possibly on another computer in a different country. The World Wide Web is developing rapidly, and is being used increasingly for teaching and learning.
The utilities category covers software that is used to support teaching, but which does not do any teaching itself. Examples include simulation software, statistical packages, spreadsheets, databases, electronic data sets, and language analysis software.
Many departments now encourage students to use word-processing packages for essay and report writing, and packages such as PowerPoint for the production of presentation materials such as overheads. Software of this type has not been included here.
The first stage of the survey was to identify the computer rep for every department in the university, and, with their permission, to send them a questionnaire. This was followed by a short interview with each rep, in order to discuss the answers given in the questionnaire. The method of initial questionnaire plus one-to-one follow-up interview ensured a response rate of close to 100%. Interviewees were asked to provide information for everyone in their department, as far as possible. In cases where computer reps where uncertain about particular areas, follow-up calls were made by the interviewer to the teaching staff concerned. Table 1 shows the main areas covered by the questionnaire and interviews.
Category Scope of possible answers
Type of package or the name of the package, utility or tool
tool its main features and functionality
its aims
Users year 1, 2 or 3 undergraduate
postgraduate
campus-based or distance learners
Acquisition provided centrally
bought off-the-shelf (cost?)
acquired through contacts elsewhere
Development who developed it?
when was it developed?
what development tools were used
Context of use free access self-study
lab-based workshops
illustrative material in lectures
Success evaluation by students or staff
informal view
Problems and needs awareness
availability / applicability of resources
management
Table 1: Scope of the survey questionnaire
Data from the completed questionnaires was analysed qualitatively. A summary of the main findings for each category is presented here, and a full discussion of these findings is presented in the next section.
Although a high percentage of departments make use of software packages in teaching, only a few use courseware on a regular basis. Most of those interviewed were aware that courseware for their subject existed, but gave a number of reasons why it was not used by teaching staff in their department. We return to this point below.
In general, the courseware used is of the "drill-and-practice" type where learners are presented with concepts or procedures and then given practice through question answering or problem-solving activities. A useful feature of some packages is the ability to substitute different data sets, to allow students to work with a range of material. Some packages also provide report writing facilities.
Courseware is only used in undergraduate teaching, and mainly supplements the material covered in lectures. It is usually regarded as an optional extra. In only one case was it proposed that a particular piece of courseware could replace lectures entirely (although with some face-to-face tutorial backup), thus making its use compulsory. Courseware is also used to replace practical classes where students might normally carry out experimental work. In one example, the courseware does some initial teaching about the nature of the experiment being carried out, and then takes the student through its main stages.
There are two main contexts in which courseware is used. In supervised lab sessions, students are usually shown the main features of a package and then given exercise to work through, with support available from supervising staff if needed. With the self-study approach, students are expected to use the package in their own time. It was suggested that if basic topics on a course can be covered in self study courseware packages, seminars can then concentrate on more advanced topics.
Off-the-shelf courseware is mainly obtained from commercial companies; from contacts in other institutions; from Computer in Teaching Initiative (CTI) centres; or through the Teaching and Learning Technology Programme (TLTP). Many computer reps try to keep track of available courseware for their subject area and to keep teaching staff informed about new developments.
Some departments have been able to buy courseware at reduced rates or have been given systems for nothing in return for becoming involved in evaluation. However this can often mean putting up with "buggy" software while a package is still under development.
The main benefit of buying off-the-shelf courseware is the saving of expensive development costs. However, it can be difficult to find courseware that covers the right material for a course, or that presents the material in the "correct" way. We return to this point below.
Only a few departments have developed their own courseware, and only two departments have someone whose job involves development of courseware and other teaching software for staff. Many people feel that they do not have the necessary skills to develop courseware nor the time needed to acquire those skills. Others are equipped with some of the necessary skills (such as programming expertise) but for various reasons do not wish to use them.
Most development work carried out by individuals is on small, one-off systems to explain a particular procedure or concept. Larger packages have mainly been developed by a consortium of departments, usually from several institutions, within the context of projects funded by programmes such as TLTP.
The tools used to develop courseware are standard programming languages (such as C), and programming environments such as Hypercard, Toolbook, and Visual Basic. No use of commercial authoring systems (such as Authorware or IconAuthor) was found.
The main benefit of developing your own courseware is that you have control over the scope and nature of the package. However, development costs can be prohibitively expensive.
Only a small number of departments make compulsory use of electronic mail for staff-student contact. However, most departments now make informal use of e-mail for contacting groups of students. It is also a means whereby students can contact staff at any time, without having to wait for scheduled office hours, This was regarded as both an advantage (it is less intrusive, and enquiries can be answered at a time that suits staff members) and a disadvantage (staff can feel they are "on call" all the time). Staff also expressed concern about their mailboxes potentially becoming overloaded with trivia.
Use of e-mail for staff-student contact was generally perceived as useful where use was small-scale, but problematic for larger groups. This is partly do to with the logistics of setting up the system. For example, creating a group mailing list for a first year undergraduate group might involve typing in over 150 user names. It was suggested that this could be made easier by having a facility that allowed staff to create group e-mail lists from the university database. It is understood that this facility will become available shortly.
Only one department requires all of its undergraduate students to learn how to use e-mail. This is a department with a high percentage of exchange students, and e-mail is regarded as being particularly good for maintaining contact when they are away from Lancaster. Another department finds e-mail to be useful for helping distance learners feel involved and in touch.
Electronic mail has also been used with moderate success by one department for setting tutorial assignments; for collaborative work between students; and for the provision of tutorial support. However, there it was felt that its use was heavily dependent on the enthusiasm of the two staff members involved.
Some departments are starting to use electronic mailing lists as an alternative to conferencing. Use is not compulsory, and the lists are used to distribute supplementary materials and for discussion purposes.
There are three main asynchronous conferencing systems used within the university: Caucus, FirstClass, and Lotus Notes. Caucus is a Unix-based system, and with the demise of the central Sequent machine it will no longer be available after July 1996. Notes and FirstClass both support Mac and PC access, and have graphical user interfaces. FirstClass is a standard conferencing system, while Notes is a groupware environment that supports many forms of group-based activities, including conferencing. It is likely that the university will adopt Notes as its main asynchronous conferencing system.
Several departments said that they had tried to use Caucus but had given up after relatively short periods of time. It was suggested that this lack of success could be due to problems with the Caucus interface: it is seen as being too difficult for novice users. One department continues to use Caucus with undergraduates, replacing revision seminars with informal electronic discussions.
The most consistent long-term use of asynchronous conferencing is on postgraduate distance learning programmes run by two departments. Conferencing is used to provide course members with tutorial support from tutors and from their peers in the period between face-to-face residential sessions. Although use is not compulsory, it is strongly recommended, and one of the entry requirements for the courses is access to appropriate equipment. Both courses have used Caucus for several years, and both are now in the process of switching to Notes.
Other departments also expressed an interest in using Lotus Notes, but were concerned about availability: while Caucus is available campus-wide, Notes is only available at a couple of sites.
At least one department plans to use FirstClass once its computers are fully networked. The system will be used to distribute handouts and other course materials, for e-mail, for group discussion and for electronic submission of assignments. Use of the system will be compulsory for all 2nd & 3rd year undergraduates.
Some groups use bulletin boards as an alternative to asynchronous conferencing. The most commonly used is the Lancaster-based, student-run LuBBs. In one instance LuBBs is used very successfully with 3rd year undergraduates, to provide them with a discussion forum and to encourage the use of computers as a normal activity. In this case use was completely voluntary. Another group also switched to LuBBs after an unsuccessful attempt at using Caucus. There, the students (3rd year undergraduate) were already used to using LuBBs, and preferred it to Caucus. Again, use was voluntary. Here, the system was mainly used for administration: there was little content discussion, with student input consisting of mainly technical questions. In both cases, a great deal of tutor effort was expended in seeding discussions and keeping them moving.
As an alternative to conferencing, one staff member has started a subject-specific discussion group on the Web, which undergraduates are encouraged to participate in.
There is currently no use of synchronous conferencing for teaching and learning within the university. However, some departments are investigating the available options, and as the required equipment becomes less expensive and more reliable, a rise in the use of synchronous conferencing for teaching would be expected.
There is one machine with videoconferencing capability within Marketing and Commercial Liaison (University House). Although this is intended to support links between businesses and schools, it is often possible for other members of the university to use it. One person has used the facility for research group meetings with another institution. To date this is the only known use by academic staff.
Most people within the University access the WWW using browsers such as lynx, Netscape or Mosaic, with Netscape being the most widely used.
The University has a home page on the World Wide Web, and most departments now have a set of pages linked to it. Although the form of these varies a great deal, their content is similar. They generally have links to staff members home pages, and to course descriptions, main research areas and so on.
Use of the Web for teaching and learning is not yet widespread, and where it exists is mostly optional, very informal and ad hoc. In a few cases the information provided (such as course information and handouts) is unavailable elsewhere, effectively making use of the Web compulsory. In one instance, use is compulsory because it is integral to the subject matter of the course.
The slow speed of the Web was seen as a major problem, and the lack of computing resources for students was identified as a significant barrier to making use of the Web compulsory. The increased risk of plagiarism was also mentioned as a possible disadvantage.
Two main types of Web use were identified:
location and provision of resources by staff;
searching of the Web by students, to locate resources for projects
and other course work.
One additional use integrated asynchronous CMC with the Web in the form of a bulletin board. This was developed in house, and is used by 3rd year undergraduates. Its use is compulsory in that coursework descriptions and other course materials are only available there, and use of the system is assessed.
Many staff now use the Web to locate teaching materials such as data sets, research papers, software and courseware demos and tutorials, and authentic materials for language teaching. Materials can be downloaded and stored locally, and then made available to students directly. Alternatively students can be given a list of useful Web sites, either on paper or on-line as a Web page: the latter saves students having to type often very long addresses, and provides direct access to resources. The most useful lists are found to be those which give not only the address of the resource but also an indication of what students can expect to find there (much like an annotated reading list). In at least one department prospective exchange students are provided with the Web site addresses for potential exchange universities.
Only a few departments use the Web for provision of teaching resources such as course handouts, lecture notes (often expanded), overheads from lectures, and even audio-visual materials such as scanned images (e.g. maps), video clips, and fragments of music. Provision of audio visual materials was identified as a particularly good use of the Web: for example it allows students to see materials that may have been used during a lecture but which for obvious reasons they would not be able to take away with them. Unfortunately copyright remains a significant problem.
Some departments make resources available week-by-week so that students can't look ahead. Others make all materials available at all times. An advantage of the latter approach is that it can act as advance publicity for a topic, both for current and for future students.
Many people stated that they would not wish course material such as their lecture notes to be available "globally", as this would leave them open to plagiarism. This is a particularly sensitive area where the staff members' own research is being presented.
Many books, especially those that are no longer in copyright, are now available on the Web. These are provided locally by teaching staff and elsewhere by other institutions (for example in electronic libraries). This can be an invaluable resource, particularly for students who cannot afford textbooks.
An alternative to use of the Web for provision of course materials is use of the local area network to allow students direct access to a dedicated partition of a server or of a course tutor's hard disk. This is discussed in more detail below.
Students can use the Web to locate resources for course projects and dissertations. Some students already do this on their own initiative, but only a few departments actually direct students to the Web as a source of information and resources. This type of use is compulsory in one department where 3rd year undergraduates are expected to track down their own resources for project work, from a given starting point.
The Web is also used in this way within another IHE project, funded under the 1995-96 round. Here, Lancaster students are collaborating with students from linked departments in an Irish and a North American university. The project participants track down Web resources on a specific topic, and share and discuss their findings using Caucus.
Included within this category is any software that is used to support teaching and learning, but which does no teaching itself. This is by far the most widely and successfully used category of learning technology within the university.
Several departments make use of simulations in their teaching. There are many different types of simulation package available, but in general they allow users to manipulate variables in a simulated environment, and to monitor the effects of their manipulations. Simulations are particularly effective for demonstrating effects and outcomes that students would not be able to observe otherwise. Examples include simulations of nuclear reactions, different levels of gravity, and alternative economic models. The simulations included in this category have no inbuilt teaching component, and usually provide little in the way of feedback other than observable effects. For example, they would not advise on the wisdom of one particular strategy over another, suggest alternatives, or even point to relevant features of the strategy adopted.
Simulations of this type are generally used for illustration in lectures and tutorials; by students during supervised lab sessions; and by students for self-study sessions in their own time.
Most of the simulations used are off-the-shelf purchases, with only a small number developed in-house. Several people expressed a desire to develop their own simulations, but said that they are restricted by lack of resources (particularly time).
Many departments instruct students in the use of statistical analysis packages and other packages for numerical manipulations. A number of different packages are used within the university, and both off-the-shelf and home-produced packages are in evidence.
The packages themselves provide no tutorial support, but a large body of teaching materials have been developed around them. This includes both paper based materials and electronic materials such as data sets and macros.
Data sets for use with statistical analysis packages are available from many sources (see below). Departments normally either use cut-down versions of these or create their own example data sets, particularly to illustrate subject-specific techniques.
Statistics packages and their supporting materials are used by undergraduates from all years, across a range of subjects. They are mainly used during supervised lab sessions and for self-study.
Where spreadsheets are used in teaching their use is similar way to that described for statistics packages (above): they are supported by a range of paper-based and electronic materials, and are used with example data sets in lab classes and for self study.
In one department course lecture notes and related resources are made available to students as Windows help files, linked to an Excel spreadsheet. The files use hypertext to provide information on a number of topics and concepts. They are available over the local network for campus-based students and are provided on disc for external students.
Use is also made of macros for teaching. These are pre-stored routines that can be manipulated to show the effect of different values. Spreadsheet macros have advanced to the point where they are now effectively simulation tools. Used with back-up materials, they can provide a great deal of tutorial support for students.
Databases are used by several departments. The most common use is of large, commercially produced databases of textual materials such as current affairs and business information, research material, periodicals and anthologies. Students can download relevant material and can usually create a personal database that is a subset of the larger one.
Databases of material are also supplied for students to analyse. In one instance use of a database is coupled with analysis package which performs cluster analysis on the stored data.
The two main problems identified with database use are the logistics of providing training for new users, and potential abuse of the system, for example where students download and print out large amounts of material that is already available in hard copy.
Electronic data sets are now widely available, and are used by several departments for teaching (often in a cut-down version). Students can analyse and manipulate the data using statistics packages, databases and spreadsheets, and it is available for student projects.
Types of data available include UK Census data, language corpora, British Election Study data, local election results, parliamentary constituency results, financial data such as the London share prices, and financial futures and options. Access to electronic data is available through CD-ROM (e.g. in the library), via the World Wide Web or through commercially available databases.
Several language analysis tools are used with language corpora developed both at Lancaster and elsewhere. Some of the tools used are available off-the-shelf; others have been developed in-house, either from scratch or through adaptation of existing tools. The tools are used by undergraduates and postgraduate students, in class teaching, in supervised lab sessions, and for self-study (for example for project work).
Computer Aided Assessment is regarded as a low-tech alternative to courseware, providing templates for a number of different types of testing. CAA is used in one department for self-testing by students. The system presents users with a number of multiple choice questions selected at random from a question pool, and provides additional explanatory material through hypertext Windows help files.
Computer Aided Design and drafting packages are occasionally used by year three undergraduates for specialised project work.
It was suggested by several people that reference materials such as "Books in Print" and the Oxford English Dictionary should be available over the university network.
Other uses of learning technology were identified that did not fit into any of the above categories but were nonetheless judged to be useful.
A few departments use local computer networks to give students access to course handouts, overheads, lecture notes and other electronic resources. This normally involves part of the hard disc of a lecturer's machine being made publicly available over the network (all other parts of the hard disc remain private and cannot be accessed).
Anything which may be of use to students can then be copied to this public area, and the files can be accessed from any computer connected to the local network. Use of networks in this way involves virtually no extra effort on the part of the lecturer: most resources are already in electronic format, and only need to be copied to the shared space. The network is usually easier to access than the World Wide Web, and is significantly quicker.
The main disadvantage is that when they access the shared space all students see is a directory of files. Unless highly meaningful folder and file names are used, or an index file is available, searching for relevant items can be frustrating and time-consuming. An additional disadvantage is that this can place a huge demand on laser printers, as students print out the resources that they find. It also moves the cost of printing away from departments and on to students. In some instances, server-based materials are also backed up by distribution of paper copies, to ensure that all students see the material. It is therefore likely that any benefits of this approach come from convenience rather than from attempts to reduce paper consumption.
At least one department now has a system of videotaping lectures and making them available to students on a short loan basis. Audio lectures and other audio-visual resources are also available. In the past videotaping was done by the department concerned. However, it is now done by the TV unit, in order to get professional quality results. A possible long term goal of this exercise is to market the materials produced (for example to distance learners).
Discussion of the results of the survey is split into three main parts. In the first part, we discuss some of the successful uses of technology within the university. The second part analyses the many problems and barriers surrounding the development and use of learning technology. The third part of the discussion outlines the perceived needs of departments and groups.
Some of the most successful advances have been made through use of simple technology that is not directly intended for teaching and learning but which nonetheless supports it very well. This includes use of electronic mailing lists for course administration, group discussion and assignment submission; and use of local networks (through servers and shared hard discs) for easy provision of resources on a campus-wide basis.
Another major development is that many commercially available software packages such as spreadsheets and databases are now powerful enough and flexible enough to be used successfully as teaching and learning tools. They have facilities for the development of macros and templates that allow them to be used like a simulation package, and they often support links to Hypertext help files. These can usually be produced directly from lecture notes, and can be tailored to different teaching situations.
Asynchronous conferencing has been used successfully to provide tutorial support for distance learners. It is easy to see why this is. The flexibility offered presents many advantages to distance learners, who often have to fit study time around the constraints of home and of work. Asynchronous conferencing enables widely dispersed groups of learners to remain in contact with one another and with tutors, and provides an open forum for discussion as well as for the sharing of knowledge, skills and experience. The success of computer conferencing can be very dependent on high tutor involvement, for example through seeding of new discussions and through regular contributions to existing ones. However, it can be argued that this high level of involvement is no more than tutors would have to give anyway to campus-based learners.
Overall, most people view moves towards wider use of learning technology as necessary to cope with increasing student numbers, and are fairly positive about it. For example, it was suggested by several people that using technology to teach basic topics can free tutors to talk to students about more important things. Only a few seem to view such changes as threatening.
Many of those interviewed said that although they would like to use learning technology within their teaching, they did not know enough about what was available for their subject, and did not have time to find out. There is an enormous range of courseware available for some subjects, and it would be very time-consuming to sift through the range in order to find relevant packages. This problem was echoed throughout the survey, and I return to a fuller discussion of it below.
Many people also expressed a reluctance to experiment with packages. They see the cost of failure as being too high, and prefer to stick to more reliable, tried and tested teaching methods.
Computers in Teaching (CTI) centres are specialist centres set up for most subject areas in higher education. The remit for the centres is to provide the information, advice and training needed to enable all lecturers in higher education to use computers to support their teaching. Most centres have a mailing list and send out information regularly, and many departments are in regular contact with their CTI centre. Unfortunately, most of those who are in touch with CTI centres seem to find them of little use. It is not clear why this is, and perhaps needs further investigation. One possibility is that most centres act as a general repository for all electronic resources for a particular subject. They often do little or no evaluation of packages, and as such provide little beyond the standard technical information to allow teaching staff to make comparisons between packages. It therefore still involves a significant amount of time (and often expense) to establish which packages meet a particular set of teaching needs and to weed out good packages.
The results of the Teaching and Learning Technology Programme (TLTP) projects have had a similarly lukewarm reception. A few departments have been involved in TLTP consortia, and have had input into the design, development and evaluation of packages. Of departments who have not been involved, only a few are aware of TLTP projects in their area. Not surprisingly, those who have been involved in TLTP consortia are more positive about the courseware produced and seem more likely to use it in teaching, at least as an optional extra. Those not involved were negative about TLTP results overall, and several people commented that a lot of TLTP money has been spent on "re-inventing the help file". This suggests that tutor involvement in the design and development of software for teaching is a key factor in its success.
It has been proposed that use of learning technology can possibly offer relief from teaching burdens, but that it presents real costs with regard to human contact with students. Many of the arguments against the use of computers for teaching seem to adopt a polarised position, seeing "teaching by people only" on the one side, and "teaching by computers only" on the other. Just as it would have been absurd to say that with the arrival of books teachers were no longer needed, such an extreme position regarding computers is similarly absurd. Computers are useful tools for teaching and learning, and, used correctly, can provide staff and students with many benefits. However, they cannot (and should not) entirely replace staff-student interaction.
Use of communications tools such as e-mail and conferencing can leave tutors feeling that rather than only being available to students during set office hours, they become available at all times. Although many people have no problem ignoring electronic communications until a convenient time, others feel that they must respond to all communications instantly. It is clear that tutors cannot be available to students at all times, no matter how easy and convenient the means of contacting them. One solution to this problem is to have set electronic office hours where student mail is dealt with. This can be backed-up by rapid acknowledgement of any received messages so that students know that you have received their message and will deal with it as soon as possible.
Computer based learning is seen by some as being expensive on student time, involving a steep learning curve. There are two main factors that must be addressed here. If students are not computer literate, then lack of familiarity with the technology can often get in the way of its successful use for learning. Many departments would like to be able to expect students to have a basic level of computer literacy. This argues for some form of centralised computer familiarisation classes for all undergraduates (see below). The second factor concerns the ease with which particular packages or tools are more or less easy to use, even for computer literate students. While this will vary from student to student, some of the potential problems can be alleviated by introducing students to the technology during supervised lab classes, rather than expecting them to teach themselves.
Some departments feel that large (and increasing) student numbers prevents them from making as much use of technology as they would like. With some intakes approaching 200-300 students, staff feel that they cannot set up conference discussions, provide resource sites on the Web, or make available software for students to use, even on an optional, self-study basis. There are not enough computing resources available for staff to be able to depend on students getting access when they need it. An additional problem cited is that with such large student numbers, it is often difficult to spot problem cases easily if there is too much reliance on technology.
It is clear that "technology for the sake of it" does not work well, and that any learning technology must have a clear and well defined purpose that matches a perceived learning need. For example, many of the available courseware packages are perceived to be no more than on-line text books, offering none of the advantages of a book (such as portability and the ability to add personal annotations), and having many disadvantages.
Lack of applicability is a major problem with regard to courseware use. Many find that the available courseware for their area either does not cover the right material, or presents it at the wrong level or in the wrong way. It is therefore often difficult to fit it into a course directly, and thus it is usually available as an optional extra. While it is likely that the "not invented here" syndrome may be at work in some cases, it is also clear that much of the courseware aimed at higher education does not meet the needs of educators. An obvious way round this is to opt for in-house development. However, this is an expensive option (see below).
Conferencing is regarded by some people as being more suitable for arts subjects: they find it hard to see how it could be useful in subjects such as engineering or maths, where subject matter tends to be more black and white, and answers are more obviously right or wrong, providing no basis for discussion. Such an argument seems to assume only one model of use for conferencing: that of a discussion forum. However, there are several successful models of conference use, including electronic seminar and electronic tutorial models, as well as knowledge repository models, where for example sets of frequently asked questions (and answers) about a particular subject develop over time and are available to all users for reference purposes. Conferencing is also regarded as only being useful for distance learners. However, the flexibility offered by asynchronous conferencing, where users need not be in a prescribed place at a prescribed time, where a permanent log of interactions is kept, and where several different models of use are possible, suggests that more traditional, campus-based students could also benefit from its use.
The emergence of groupware systems such as Notes which support other forms of collaborative activity as well as conferencing, and which support a variety of media, suggests that potentially this type of technology could have much to offer all learners.
A key need that was mentioned repeatedly was that of being able to depend on a reasonable level of computer literacy in all students. Although many departments undertake to provide undergraduate students with computer skills, this is usually not done until the second year, when they can be more certain that a student is "theirs". It seems wasteful that many departments are essentially providing the same training in parallel. There is a strong argument for centralised, computer familiarisation courses, that would be compulsory for all undergraduates (with exemptions where appropriate). The basic course could be run initially during Freshers week, with refresher courses and courses covering more advanced topics provided throughout the first year. This would ensure that departments could adopt computer-based teaching solutions in the knowledge that students need only be taught how to use particular systems, and not basic computer skills.
Any use of technology for learning depends on students having access to computing resources. Although the number of computers available to students is increasing, it is clear that it is unlikely that the university (either centrally or through individual departmental provision) will be able to provide enough machines to support the entire undergraduate and postgraduate population. One solution that would partially alleviate the problem is networking of student accommodation. This would allow students with their own machines to plug into the campus network and hence to access the facilities available in computer labs (e-mail, WWW, conferencing, bulletin boards, shared hard disks, and so on).
In fairness, it should be pointed out that the full extent of the access problem is not clear. Computer labs are often empty until late morning; "couldn't get on to the computer" is set to replace "couldn't get hold of the readings in the library" as a favourite excuse; and it is well known that many students leave assessed work until the last possible moment, guaranteeing that demand for resources will exceed supply. However, it is clear that even if there is not a problem now, continued growth in student numbers will ensure that things can only get worse. While student access remains a serious problem, the use of computers to support teaching and learning can only ever be an optional extra.
Teaching staff wishing to use technology need to consider several important issues: what they are going to use; how they are going to use it; and, if not provided centrally, how they are going to acquire the required resources and whether or not it is worth developing their own. If they want to purchase an off-the shelf system, they need to find out what is available and what packages best meet their needs.
Many staff say that they do not have the time to carry out even some of the above tasks, let alone all of them. Some would also argue that doing so is not necessarily a good use of their time, particularly in view of the fact that the university gives little or no credit for such activities. Staff feel that they are better to spend their time on research output. This has led to a situation where there are several people with the skills needed to develop electronic teaching and learning resources, but who have no motivation for doing so. It is interesting to note that some universities are now starting to credit staff for the development of computer based materials, and are prepared in some cases to buy-out time for staff to do so.
If teaching staff are not to develop their own resources, then the task must fall on support staff. It is relatively easy to get technical support, either centrally or in some cases from departmental support staff. However, there appears to be a need for support of a different kind: support from staff with technical and subject matter expertise and who have an interest in teaching and learning. They could carry out the tasks described above, and could play an active role in helping teaching staff adopt technology that best meets their teaching and learning needs. Where needed, they could also undertake development, liaising closely with teaching staff. The requirement for subject matter expertise suggests that this support needs to be provided on a departmental basis. Such support currently exists in only a very small number of departments, but the need for more is clearly there.
While carrying out this survey it became obvious that although most people feel that they want to (or at least need to) make use of some form of learning technology, many are unsure where to start. A lot of departments are working in isolation, and many are trying to tackle similar problems in parallel. There is great duplication of effort and often of expenditure. An unexpected side of the survey was that interviews with departmental computer reps often became a means of disseminating ideas regarding the use of learning technology. On several occasions a question about whether a particular category of technology was used in a particular way resulted in further questions from reps about how they might adopt that type of use.
There is a need for better communication between departments: there must be greater collaboration, through the sharing of resources, knowledge and practice, as well as of practical information. It is not clear how this can best be achieved. An obvious solution is some form of electronic communication mechanism. One outcome of the Computer Users Open Day held in January 1995 was the setting up of special interest groups for courseware and for conferencing. The courseware group operates as a mailing list; the conferencing group as a Caucus conference. While there was enthusiasm at the time for both groups, they are now used only rarely. Many people who have only recently begun to take an interest in learning technology may not even be aware of them.
This report and the resulting guidelines will help make departments aware of what others in the university are currently doing, and of the many options open to them with regard to the acquisition, development and use of learning technology. We would suggest that the university gives serious consideration to the setting up of mechanisms to facilitate cross-departmental collaboration. This requires not only a means of communication, but the delegation of someone whose remit is to work actively on spreading awareness, on ensuring that resources, knowledge, practice and information are shared, and that collaborative relationships are fostered between departments with similar goals.
Little in-house evaluation has been done on the effectiveness of learning technology, or on student acceptance of technological developments. One department has found that students are against the wholesale replacement of lectures, suggesting that they like the discipline of timetabled classes. This suggests that where "teaching by computer" is to replace lectures and seminars, it is likely to be more successful if carried out at least partly in timetabled lab classes rather than being made available solely on a free-access, self-study basis.
It is interesting to note that a separate evaluation of courseware effectiveness has found that although students were positive and enthusiastic about the systems used, there is little observed improvement in performance or skill level over conventional teaching. There are as yet no quantifiable results. This suggests that use of courseware and other software for teaching and learning should be carried out for reasons of efficiency rather than effectiveness.
Overall however, there is a great need for large-scale evaluation of learning technology throughout the university.
The are several conclusions that can be drawn from this survey:
There is a wide range of learning technology available, and a number of ways that it can be used to support teaching. Many of those who could benefit from using this technology are not aware of the range of options available to them.
Simple, often generic technology can often support teaching and learning as effectively as more complex, dedicated technology.
Uptake and use of courseware is not at all widespread, in spite of the huge number of packages available. This is due to a number of factors, including lack of applicability; lack of awareness; lack of any perceived benefits; and lack of credit for development work.
Involvement of teaching staff in the design and development of electronic resources for teaching is a key factor in its success.
Although some staff members have the necessary development skills, and others are willing to learn, very little development of electronic learning resources will take place unless credit for it is given by the university.
There is a need for support staff who are responsible for the adoption of learning technology within departments. Such staff would need technological skills, an understanding of the subject matter, and an interest in teaching and learning.
There is a strong need for compulsory teaching of basic computer skills to all undergraduates on admission to the university.
Access for students will continue to be problematic. Networking campus accommodation is seen as one partial solution.
Mechanisms must be instituted on a university-wide level that actively work towards better dissemination of information and sharing of knowledge, skills and practice.
The next stage of the project is to create a framework within which the kind of decision making needed for the adoption of learning technology can be carried out. This process will be influenced by factors such as our experience in this area, current practices at Lancaster, as described in this survey, current practice at other universities, and recommendations for good practice which are beginning to appear in the literature.
The guidelines will be aimed at a non-technical audience. They will describe the range of technology available and the options for its use, will give pointers to resources and resource providers, and will provide examples of best practice.