Invitation 99/20

Learning and teaching support network (LTSN):

Invitation to bid for funds for subject centres

Executive summary

1. Purpose

2. This document describes the new UK-wide learning and teaching support network for higher education, which aims to promote high quality learning and teaching by providing subject-based support for sharing innovation and good practices.

   Key points

3. The network will consist of:
   • 24 subject centres
   • a Generic Learning and Teaching Centre
   • a programme director and co-ordinator.
4. We will initially provide up to £6.2 million a year from January 2000 to December 2002 for the LTSN, of which £5.2 million will be earmarked to support the 24 subject centres. We expect to continue to fund the LTSN for a further two years beyond 2002, subject to an evaluation of the network’s effectiveness.
5. UK higher education institutions are invited to apply for funding to host one of the 24 subject centres. The application process has two stages.
6. Further details of how we will establish the Generic Learning and Teaching Centre will be available in early summer 1999. We will establish a service-level agreement with the new Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education to undertake the programme direction and co-ordination functions on our behalf.

   Action required

7. First stage bids, using the form at Annex D, should be sent to Richard Townend at the HEFCE no later than midday on Friday 28 May 1999.

   Background

8. In September 1998 the UK HE funding bodies published a review of the Computers in Teaching Initiative (CTI) and the Teaching and Learning Technology Support Network (TLTSN) (HEFCE 98/47). The review recommended establishing a subject-based support network for learning and teaching to succeed the CTI and TLTSN. It also recommended that the new network should have a broad focus across all learning and teaching activity.
9. Between October and December 1998 we consulted with the UK HE sector on the proposals set out in the CTI/TLTSN review report. An analysis of the consultation responses is at Annex A. In developing the proposals set out in this document, we have taken account of both the responses to the consultation and the advice of the UK-wide Learning and Teaching Support Network Advisory Group.

   Overview of the LTSN

10. The purpose of the LTSN is to promote high quality learning and teaching in all subject disciplines. It will support the sharing of innovation and good practices in learning and teaching, including the use, where appropriate, of communications and information technology (C&IT).
11. The LTSN will consist of:
    • 24 subject centres
    • a Generic Learning and Teaching Centre (GLTC)
    • a programme director and co-ordinator.
12. We will initially provide up to £6.2 million a year from January 2000 to December 2002 for the LTSN, of which £5.2 million will be earmarked to support the 24 subject centres. We expect to continue to fund the LTSN for a further two years beyond 2002, subject to an evaluation of the network’s effectiveness.
13. We have established a subject-based structure for the LTSN in recognition of the substantial subject-specific element in most issues relating to learning, teaching and assessment, and of the fact that academic staff tend to think about such issues predominantly in terms of their own discipline.
14. The purpose of the GLTC is to provide support for aspects of learning and teaching which are common to many or all subject disciplines. Its core functions will be:
    • providing advice to the sector on generic learning and teaching issues
    • disseminating good practices in the development and use of new learning and teaching methods and technologies
    • knowledge brokering for innovation in learning and teaching.
15. We will provide further details of the process for setting up the GLTC, and of its core functions, in early summer 1999.
16. A programme director will be appointed to manage the network as a whole. Both the subject centres and GLTC will be accountable to the programme director who will have executive responsibility for the programme. We will establish a service-level agreement with the new Institute for Learning and Teaching (ILT) in Higher Education to appoint the programme director and undertake co-ordination on our behalf.

    Subject centres

    Principal functions and activities

17. The 24 subject centres, and their associated subject disciplines, are listed at Annex B. The centres will have a common remit, reflected in a set of principal functions and activities. The precise balance of each centre’s activities should reflect variations in learning and teaching practices across different subject disciplines. The principal functions of each subject centre will be:
    • networking
    • promotion and sharing of good practices in learning and teaching
    • knowledge brokerage.
18. Each subject centre’s principal activities will be:
    1. Supporting academic practitioners in the subject disciplines by maintaining (and, where appropriate, establishing) networks and effective contacts with relevant higher education institutions (HEIs) throughout the UK.
    2. Collating and promoting information on good practices for all aspects of teaching, learning and assessment in the centre’s subject disciplines.
    3. Promoting C&IT-based approaches to teaching, learning and assessment including, for example, the use of the World-Wide Web and materials to support distance learning.
    4. Providing opportunities for professional development in learning and teaching through, for example, workshops, institutional visits, roadshows, swopshops, and consultancy, including an advice service to support practitioners.
    5. Maintaining effective liaison with relevant professional bodies and subject associations, both within the UK and internationally.
    6. Ensuring that practitioners in the subject disciplines are aware of current and potential future pedagogic developments, including the use of C&IT.
    7. Collaborating with cognate subject centres to support inter-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary learning and teaching activity.
    8. Collaborating with the GLTC to ensure that subject centre staff are aware of pedagogic and technological issues that are generic to all or many subject disciplines.
    9. Reviewing, advising on and encouraging discipline-based research and development on learning and teaching, including the use of C&IT, to meet the needs of the disciplines supported by the subject centre.
19. We expect subject centres to:
    1. Tailor their work to meet the needs of the constituent disciplines. Many subject centres will have responsibility for supporting more than one subject discipline. Many of the principal activities set out above will provide support to all the disciplines within a single subject centre. However, we expect that each subject centre will need to provide some support that is specific to each of its constituent disciplines - as a minimum we would expect each centre to support some form of practitioner network for each discipline that wishes to maintain a separate network.
    2. Promote employability and key skills, as they relate to the centre’s subject disciplines.
    3. Take full account of the diverse learning needs of the range of student groups that make up the HE student population, such as students with learning difficulties or disabilities.
    4. Collaborate as appropriate with activity supported through other appropriate HE special funding programmes.
20. The 24 subject centres will support learning and teaching at all levels in the subject disciplines covered by the 42 standard subject units, as defined by the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA). The choice of 24 centres reflects our view that, to be effective, each centre should have enough resources to employ a critical mass of staff.
21. There may be a small number of subject disciplines that feel they would be more appropriately located within another subject centre as listed at Annex B. We will consider arguments to relocate a discipline to a more appropriate subject centre, but we do not expect to increase the number of subject centres beyond the 24 currently proposed. In making such arguments disciplines should note that we do not expect individual subject centres to work in isolation but to collaborate closely with related subject centres to support inter-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary activity. Where a discipline wishes to present an argument to be re-located to another centre it should have both a clear rationale for doing so and strong support from the new subject centre’s disciplines.
22. Where two or more subject centres have a close relationship, for example Medicine and Subjects Allied to Medicine, there may be an argument to merge them. We will consider such arguments, but only where they have strong support from the subject disciplines’ communities.

    Operational models

23. We would normally expect bids for subject centres to be made by a single host HEI (a unitary centre) that will manage the centre’s activities across the UK. A unitary centre would provide a critical mass of staff in a single location to allow more efficient co-ordination of a centre's activities, although this may be supplemented by expertise drawn from outside the host institution.
24. However, in a limited number of cases it may be appropriate for a collaborative grouping, for example two or more institutions or one or more institution working with a subject association or professional body, to bid for a subject centre (a distributed centre). Any bid to establish a distributed centre must provide a strong rationale for doing so, and set out clearly the strategy for managing the relationship between the partners.
25. Within a distributed centre we would not prescribe the allocation of resources to, or the management of relationships between, the collaborating partners. However, we would contract with only one of the partners (this must be an HEI) which would act as lead institution for the purpose of allocating funds. The lead institution would then be responsible for sub-contracting the activities of the subject centre to the other partners.

    How to bid for subject centres

    Which institutions are eligible?

26. All higher education institutions funded by the HEFCE, HEFCW, SHEFC and DENI are eligible to bid to host a subject centre. We expect a wide geographical spread of centres to reflect the UK-wide nature of the LTSN.
27. Although professional bodies or subject associations are not eligible to bid to host or lead a subject centre they could play a prominent role. They would need to secure a partner HEI through which funds could be routed. In other cases, we would expect host and lead HEIs to demonstrate in their bid that they have the active support of the relevant professional bodies and subject associations.
28. FE colleges directly funded by the HEFCE are not eligible to bid as host or lead institutions but may provide appropriate expertise to support the bid of a lead HEI.

    The application process

29. Evaluations of previous special funding programmes have concluded that a two-stage application process improves the quality of funded projects:
    1. In stage one we invite UK HEIs to submit a detailed bid to host a subject centre, against the assessment criteria set out in Annex C.
    2. The LTSN Advisory Group will consider stage one bids and respond in one of the following ways:
       1. Where the Advisory Group takes forward to stage two only one bid for a particular centre, we will provide feedback on the stage one bid to allow it to be fine-tuned. In such cases we would expect minimal adjustments to be made to a bid at stage two.
       2. Where the Advisory Group does not wish to take forward a bid to stage two, we will provide the bidder with feedback on the reasons for this decision.
       3. Where the Advisory Group wishes to take forward to stage two more than one bid (multiple bids) for a particular centre, we will encourage the bidders to work together to produce a single stage two bid that has the broad support of the appropriate subject disciplines.

    Timetable

30. The timetable for establishing subject centres is:

    Date	Event
    No later than midday on Friday 28 May 1999	Stage one bids submitted to the HEFCE
    Early July 1999	The funding bodies will either: invite the bidder to submit a stage two bid and provide feedback to help them do so not invite the bidder to submit a stage two bid and provide feedback on the reasons for this.
    No later than midday on Friday 20 August 1999	Stage two bids submitted
    End of September 1999	Bidders are informed of the final outcome of the bidding process
    October - December 1999	Institutions begin work to establish the subject centres
    January 2000	Official launch of the subject centres

31. We recognise that stage two of the bidding process takes place during the summer period when academic staff may not always be available at their institutions. In single bid cases (see paragraph 28b.i) we do not expect this to cause undue difficulties as the work required at stage two is not expected to be substantial. However, where multiple bids are received for a subject centre (see paragraph 28b.iii), and we ask bidders to work together to produce a single bid, the timing of stage two may prove difficult. In such cases we may extend the stage two deadline beyond 20 August 1999. We will advise all bidders whether we expect them to meet the 20 August stage two deadline in our feedback on stage one bids.

    How to submit a stage one bid

32. Institutions submitting a stage one bid to host a subject centre should:
    1. Complete the bid cover sheet at Annex D.
    2. Develop the detail of their bid, taking into account the assessment criteria and information requirements in Annex C. The assessment criteria represent the key features we would expect to see in a bid to host a subject centre. Institutions are strongly recommended to address all the assessment criteria in their bid.
    3. Send 15 copies of their bid, including the cover sheet, to Richard Townend at the HEFCE no later than midday on Friday 28 May 1999. One copy must be single-sided, unbound and with all pages numbered. We will not accept late bids, or facsimile or e-mail copies. Bids should be no more than 10 sides of A4 excluding annexes.
33. The LTSN Advisory Group will assess all stage one bids. In early July we will:
    • inform all bidders of the outcome of stage one
    • provide them with feedback against the assessment criteria in Annex C
    • provide details of our requirements to those institutions invited to submit a stage two bid.

    Funding for the LTSN

34. We will initially support the LTSN for three years from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2002. We expect to provide funding for a further two years beyond 2002 but this is dependent on a positive outcome from an evaluation of the network, which we will commission in 2001-02. For the first three years we will provide £6.2 million annually broken down as:
    • programme director and GLTC - £1 million
    • 24 subject centres - £5.2 million.
35. For funding purposes we have classed each subject centre as either standard or large (see Annex B), based on the size of the constituency to be covered. We measured the size of each centre’s constituency as the number of UK HEIs actively providing for undergraduate and post-graduate taught students in a particular discipline. For the purpose of this funding model we defined an active institution as one with 30 or more full-time equivalent (FTE) undergraduate and postgraduate taught students in a particular subject discipline.
36. We have not used total UK-wide FTE student numbers in each subject discipline as an indicator of the size of a subject constituency because the cost to a subject centre of working with a single department should not vary significantly with the size of that department.
37. The total annual funding from the UK HE funding bodies for individual subject centres is:
    • standard centre - a maximum of £180,000 each year
    • large centre - a maximum of £240,000 each year.
38. These totals include funding to pay support costs, but only as they relate to each centre’s activities. Institutions should be able to demonstrate that they have robust costing systems in place which conform to the funding bodies’ guidance on costing (see HEFCE M 13/97). We may ask institutions to provide details of how the support costs were calculated.
39. Funds for the LTSN’s first operating year will be drawn from the funding bodies’ 1999-2000 academic year funding allocations. However, for the purpose of allocating funds to each subject centre, institutions should note that the operational year is the period 1 January to 31 December, and it is to this period that all subject centres’ annual budgets must relate.

    Management and monitoring

40. We would expect each subject centre to be led by a director who is a senior academic with a proven track record of leadership and pedagogic development, drawn from the subject communities covered by the subject centre. The director will be responsible for the delivery of the centre’s activities and outputs.
41. The LTSN programme will be managed and monitored by a programme director. All subject centre directors will report directly to the programme director and will be required to submit monitoring information as a condition of grant. The programme director will appointed and managed by the Institute for Learning and Teaching which will be contracted by the funding bodies to manage and co-ordinate the LTSN.

    Further information

42. If you wish to discuss the bidding process for the subject centres, or the LTSN more generally, please contact:

    Richard Townend, HEFCE tel 0117 931 7115, e-mail r.townend@hefce.ac.uk
    (for subject centres 16-24, see Annex B)

    Alison Allan, HEFCW tel 01222 761 861 e-mail a.allan@wfc.ac.uk
    (for subject centres 1-7, see Annex B)

    David Beards, SHEFC, tel 0131 313 6520, e-mail dbeards@shefc.ac.uk
    (for subject centres 8-15, see Annex B)

Annex A

Summary of responses to the CTI/TLTSN review consultation

Overview

1. This annex sets out the key points from the UK HE funding bodies’ consultation (see HEFCE circular letter 36/98, HEFCW W98/80HE) on the recommendations from the CTI/TLTSN review, which took place between October and December 1998.
2. The consultation sought comments on proposals for a subject-based support network for learning and teaching in UK HE including:
   • a series of subject centres to support the sharing of learning and teaching good practices and innovation on a subject basis
   • a Generic Technology Centre (GTC) to advise the sector on the use of new and emerging technologies to support learning and teaching
   • a Central Management Unit (CMU) to manage the overall network.
3. We received 205 responses which were generally strongly supportive of the proposals. The remits of the subject centres and CMU were generally accepted, but there was widespread support for a broader pedagogical remit for the GTC.
4. Other key messages were support for:
   • rationalisation of the existing range of learning and teaching initiatives in HE
   • further engagement with the ILT
   • making best use of appropriate existing expertise from CTI centres
   • the need to take account of multi-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary activities.

   Subject centres

5. There was strong support for the proposed remit of the subject centres. Suggestions for additions to the remit were diverse, but focused on the provision of a high quality service which added value, promoted research and innovation, and encouraged dissemination. Respondents felt that subject centres’ activities should be pedagogically, not technologically driven, but that C&IT was an important part of a wider approach to learning and teaching.
6. Respondents felt that a balance should be struck between the demands of a national strategy and the diverse needs of each subject discipline. Subject centres would require some flexibility to fit national demands to the needs, and stages of development, of their communities. The CMU was seen as playing a key role in setting and maintaining this balance.
7. Respondents felt that subject centres’ activities should include:
   • liaison with relevant professional bodies and subject associations
   • establishing contact with every institution delivering programmes in the subject disciplines covered by each subject centre
   • workshops, roadshows, conferences, e-mail discussion groups and the maintenance of a high quality Web site.

   Bidding process

8. There was a clear view that the invitation to bid for subject centres should specify, in detail:
   • the principal services to be provided by each subject centre
   • the level and duration of available funding
   • the preferred operational model for subject centres
   • the nature of monitoring and evaluation.
9. There was strong support for the view that bidders should be able to demonstrate:
   • a track record of appropriate subject expertise
   • commitment to the development of learning and teaching
   • the commitment of the lead institution to support the subject centre
   • the support of their subject community, including relevant professional bodies and subject associations.
10. In making funding decisions, respondents wished to see the UK HE funding bodies:
    • make best use of existing expertise
    • undertake a wholly transparent and competitive tendering process
    • take account of the diversity of the HE sector, as well as considering the geographical spread of subject centres
    • ensure that the subject centres provide a high quality, value for money service.

    Number of subject centres

11. Some respondents wished to see a larger number of centres, such as one centre for each QAA standard subject unit. However, there was general recognition of the need for, and potential advantages of, some level of aggregation based on QAA units. Most respondents indicated that the number of proposed centres was about right, or required minor amendment.
12. The broad distribution of disciplines to subject centres proposed in the CTI/TLTSN review was accepted. Some minor modifications were suggested to avoid splitting any single QAA standard subject unit across more than one subject centre.

    Generic Technology Centre (GTC)

13. There was strong support for establishing a Generic Technology Centre, although respondents suggested that the centre's remit should be broadened to include the promotion of all generic learning and teaching practice, rather than focusing exclusively on C&IT-based approaches. Responses were mixed on the operational model for the centre, with a slight majority in favour of establishing a distributed centre.
14. Many responses pointed to the need to establish a clear relationship between the centre and the funding bodies’ Joint Informations Systems Committee (JISC), whilst others were uncertain as to how the GTC would interact directly with institutions.

    Central Management Unit (CMU)

15. Respondents supported the proposed remit for the CMU. The need for a management and monitoring function was acknowledged, but there was concern that this should not impose an undue burden on the subject centres or the GTC.
16. Respondents wished to see the Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education undertake, or at least be linked very closely with, the work of the CMU.

Annex B

List of 24 subject centres and associated subject disciplines

* As listed in the Bulletin of the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (No. 4 October 1998).

**(S = standard size, L = large size)

Annex C

Guidance on making a bid for a subject centre

1. Institutions should submit a bid of no more than 10 sides of A4. To guide institutions on the structure and content of bids this annex provides:
   1. The assessment criteria against which the LTSN Advisory Group will assess both stage one and stage two bids for subject centres. Institutions should address all the criteria.
   2. Details of key information which must be included in all bids.

Assessment criteria

AC1. Principal and subject specific activities. The extent to which the bid will fulfil the principal activities (see paragraph 17 of the main document), and any additional activities specific to the subject centre (see paragraph 18a of the main document).

AC2. Staff expertise. The track record, expertise in, and knowledge of the subject centre’s senior staff in all aspects of learning and teaching activity in the subject discipline, or disciplines, listed at Annex B for each subject centre, and in management and leadership.

AC3. Use of existing expertise. The extent to which the proposed centre builds on the expertise and outputs of existing learning and teaching activities and initiatives.

AC4. Support of subject disciplines and associations and professional bodies. The extent to which the bid has the UK-wide support of the relevant subject disciplines, including the subject associations and professional bodies.

AC5. Inter-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary work. The nature and extent of the proposed subject centre’s commitment to inter-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary work, both between its subject disciplines and with other subject centres, where this is appropriate.

AC6. Management and co-ordination. The nature and extent of the strategy for managing and co-ordinating the subject centre’s activities.

AC7. Monitoring and evaluation. The nature and extent of the strategy for monitoring and evaluating the activity of the subject centre, and responding to any findings.

AC8. Institutional commitment. The nature and extent of the commitment of the institution(s) involved in the bid to support the activity of the subject centre.

AC9. Value for money. The extent to which the effectiveness and efficiency of proposed activity represents value for money to the UK HE funding bodies, including any proposals to generate other income for the subject centre.

Information required

2. In addressing the criteria set out above, bids will need to include all of the following information:
   1. A statement about the aims and rationale of the proposed subject centre.
   2. Details of the proposed centre’s key staff, including any staff not from the lead institution, and their collective knowledge and skills to meet the requirements set out in paragraphs 17 and 18 of the main document. Particular attention will be given to the qualifications and professional standing of the subject centre’s proposed director.
   3. Clear mechanisms showing how the subject centre’s principal activities will be delivered, including clear service targets and deliverables, against which the work of the centre can be monitored and evaluated. This should include proposals to support practitioners working throughout the UK.
   4. Clear mechanisms showing how any additional subject specific activities will be delivered, including clear service targets and deliverables, against which the work of the centre can be monitored and evaluated. Bids should identify any discipline-specific characteristics that justify a particular mode of operation, or choice of activities, for a subject centre.
   5. Details of, and a rationale for, how the use of C&IT will be supported, promoted and integrated, where appropriate, with other pedagogic approaches.
   6. Details of a communication and information strategy setting out plans to interact with all the subject disciplines within each centre, and proposals to interact with relevant inter-disciplinary areas and major areas of overlap with other centres.
   7. Evidence that the proposed centre has significant and active support from its subject disciplines, and relevant professional bodies and subject associations.
   8. Evidence that the proposed centre will build on the expertise and outputs of existing learning and teaching activity and initiatives. This should include, for example, existing programmes such as the Computers in Teaching Initiative (CTI), the Fund for the Development of Teaching and Learning (FDTL) and Teaching and Learning in Scottish Metropolitan Area Networks (TALiSMAN), and other activity supported by other bodies and relevant subject association and professional bodies.
   9. Details of the proposed management structure, including a named subject centre director who will be accountable for the centre’s activities. Robust management arrangements are especially important in bids for distributed centres.
   10. Evidence of the commitment of the bidding institution(s). This might be demonstrated through, for example, a financial contribution to the centre, the provision of administrative support, IT access and office space, or through access to appropriate institutional staff development programmes.
   11. A full and detailed annual budget breakdown for the period 1 January to 31 December 2000 (see paragraphs 36-38 of the main document), and further outline budgets, including any income projections, for calendar years 2001 and 2002. Budgets must relate clearly to centres’ activities and show expenditure on all areas such as staff, running and support costs, equipment and funding for principal activities. Bidders should not assume that, if successful, they would receive the maximum level of funding for each centre (as set out in paragraph 36 of the main document).

Annex D

Bid for a LTSN subject centre: cover sheet