You are in :

Communications and
information technology
in learning and
teaching

Study
specification

 

 

Summary

1.      This is a specification for a joint HEFCE, HEFCW, SHEFC, DENI, JISC, DfEE, FEFC, CVCP and SCOP study. The purpose of the study is to audit the range of existing activity in the use of communications and information technology (C&IT) in learning and teaching in both higher and further education.

2.      In light of the results of this audit we will take a view on the need for a single vehicle to co-ordinate and promote existing and new C&IT-related activity in learning and teaching. We may then decide to commission a scoping study to advise us on establishing such a vehicle.

Background

3.      The report of the Dearing Committee has increased the emphasis on the promotion of excellence in learning and teaching. Dearing identifies the need to support more effectively institutions in their use of C&IT based learning and teaching materials (Dearing Report paragraphs 8.27 to 8.36). In particular this is seen as an important part of the role for the proposed Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (ILTHE) (Dearing Report paragraphs 8.70 to 8.73).

4.      The Institute is being taken forward by a Planning Group (ILTPG) comprising representatives of the funding councils and representative bodies. The ILTPG set up a specialist sub-committee to consider further the role of the ILT in C&IT. The ILT should be established in Autumn 1998. However, it is likely that the initial focus of the ILT will be accreditation so it may not be in a position to promote C&IT in learning and teaching in the short term.

5.      There is a need to address the issue of C&IT in learning and teaching. For example, the HEFCE's new learning and teaching strategy notes:

"There are currently many separate national and institution based initiatives concerned with the development and delivery of C&IT in learning and teaching, most prominent among them the TLTP. We need to co-ordinate existing activity and promote new developments as well as provide a shop window for IT materials from UK higher and further education. While this may become a function of the Institute for Learning and Teaching in the longer term, the need exists now. We could develop, in partnership with the representative bodies, JISC and other bodies, an operational arm to focus on the development of C&IT in learning and teaching. In particular, we could identify and promote the cost effective use of C&IT in learning and teaching and broker links between providers and users, producers and marketing agents, teachers and IT specialists."

6.      The UK funding bodies recently commissioned a review of the Computers in Teaching Initiative (CTI) and the Teaching and Learning Technology Support Network (TLTSN). The review aimed to assess the effectiveness of the two programmes and to examine how they might be taken forward in the context of other C&IT related activity in HE.

7.      The main findings of the review, relevant to this study, are:

  1. Institutions believe that CAL (Computer Assisted Learning) and C&IT can enhance some aspects of learning and teaching. However, in general institutions are under-utilising CAL and C&IT and need external sources of information, expertise and assistance to help them make better use of it.


  3. There are so many different national initiatives in the use of C&IT that it creates confusion in the sector. There is no one-stop-shop for information and assistance on either a subject basis or on a generic technology basis.


  5. Resources are being wasted through unnecessary duplication (for example, in videoconferencing or in using the web for teaching). However, the report also notes that there are significant gaps in coverage of C&IT in learning and teaching.


  7. The review report recommends the establishment of a single "Generic Technology Centre (GTC)" to advise the sector on the implementation and use of new technologies to support learning and teaching. The recommended functions of the GTC are:


    1. Knowledge management and brokerage.


    3. Maintenance of a demonstration and showcase facility, both static and mobile.


    5. Review, evaluation and advice on the use of (new and emerging) learning technologies.


    7. Dissemination of good practice and of experience of implementation from funded demonstrator projects.


Terms of reference

8.      Whilst there is support for a co-ordinated vehicle to promote and disseminate C&IT in learning and teaching, we do not yet have a comprehensive information base of the range of activity where C&IT supports and enhances learning and teaching. Therefore, we are inviting tender proposals for a study with the following terms of reference:

  • To identify and map the range of existing activity in the use of C&IT in learning and teaching in higher and further education in the UK. The current activity should be analysed within the wider context of production, support, quality assurance, staff development, dissemination and deployment. Where possible the study should collate and review existing costing and evaluation methods associated with activity identified in the audit.


  • To describe the objectives of existing activity, and identify its target audiences.


  • To identify the infrastructure consequences of existing activity (e.g. network impact, security, out of hours access to campus).


  • To advise on the effectiveness of existing provision for disseminating materials, experience and good practice, and to advise on whether a co-ordinated service (central or distributed) would be of value.


  • To place findings in the context of activity in other countries. The UK has a world class network infrastructure with electronic information services to match. Its lead in the use of C&IT to support research is clear, but there is little evidence we enjoy such a lead in exploiting C&IT for learning and teaching.

9.      For the purpose of this study C&IT is defined as material for use in learning and teaching of a standalone or networked type, including interactive learning support and web delivered materials. This does not include activities such as routine use of email, conferencing or productivity tools unless they are being used as direct delivery tools for learning and teaching.

10.      In light of the study findings we will consider further establishing a co-ordinated vehicle to promote and disseminate C&IT in learning and teaching.

Methodology

11.      We will not prescribe the methodology for the study. Tenderers are invited to adopt a methodology that best meets the terms of reference. However, the successful tenderer is likely to consider the key individuals and organisations including:



Selection process

Tender proposals

12.      All tender proposals must include:

  • a detailed methodology for the study
  • a detailed timetable of the proposed work, broken down into phases as appropriate
  • a detailed breakdown of the total cost of the study, and the basis on which this is calculated, including VAT and any additional expenses
  • details of staff who will be responsible for the project, with summaries of any previous work relevant to this study.


13.      Tenderers must identify who will manage the study. The study manager will be primarily responsible for ensuring that all specified outputs are delivered in accordance with the agreed timetable.

14.      The steering group would expect the successful tenderer to have the following skill/experience:

  • excellent communication skills
  • marketing, research, and analysis skills
  • knowledge and understanding of higher and further education and their stakeholders
  • appropriate knowledge of the use of IT to support learning and teaching
  • extensive experience of electronic communications and the World Wide Web.

15.      In evaluating tenders, the steering group will pay particular attention to the following criteria (not listed in any particular order):

  • the methodology for the study
  • the track record of the tenderer in past projects of a similar nature
  • the experience and qualifications of the staff proposed for the contract
  • the quality assurance and control procedures adopted by the bidder
  • the value for money of the proposal. (Tenders are likely to be in the £40-50,000 range and must clearly demonstrate that they represents good value for money.)


16.      Tenderers should send eleven hard copies of their proposal to Richard Townend at HEFCE by midday on Friday 9 October 1998. Proposals received after this time will not be accepted. Proposals must not exceed six sides of A4, excluding annexes. Facsimile and e-mail copies will not be accepted.

17.      Shortlisted tenderers will be invited to discuss their proposals with the study steering group at the HEFCE offices in London.

Steering group

18.      The study will be managed by a steering group of members from the HE and FE funding bodies. The successful tenderer will be required to report progress periodically to the steering group.

Timetable

19.      The study will run to the following timetable:

  • Tender proposals to be submitted by midday on Friday 9 October 1998.


  • Shortlisted tenderers will be invited for interview at the HEFCE offices in London on Tuesday 10 November 1998. No alternative dates are available.


  • The final report should be completed in March 1999.

Further Information

20.      For further information, or to discuss any aspect of this specification, please contact:

Richard Townend
Policy Development Officer
HEFCE
Northavon House
Coldharbour Lane
Bristol BS16 1QD

Tel. 0117 931 7115
E-mail r.townend@hefce.ac.uk

Last updated 8 October 2002