HEFCE, HEFCW, SHEFC, DENI, FEFC, JISC, UfI, CHEMS, HECG, FEDA

Ref 99/60

October 1999

Communications and information technology materials for learning and teaching in UK higher and further education

Summary report

(The full report is available electronically.)

Foreword

Both the HE and FE sectors are currently placing greater emphasis on promoting and developing high quality learning and teaching, and recognise the potential contribution of communications and information technology (C&IT) materials to this area.

Within both HE and FE there are already many C&IT-related learning and teaching initiatives, at both institutional and national levels, yet no systematic picture had been developed of how widely C&IT materials were being developed or how well they were being disseminated for wider use.

To address this issue the UK HE and FE funding bodies and the University for Industry commissioned this study to review the production and use of C&IT materials, and their transfer and take-up across the HE and FE sectors.

The report will be of great interest to a range of stakeholders including academic staff involved in the development of C&IT materials, senior institutional managers, and national policy makers.

To make the report more accessible we have produced this summary version which sets out the key findings of the study. The full report will be available at the end of November.

Contents

Introduction
Data on C&IT materials
Institutional practice
Staffing
Finance and infrastructure
Future approaches to development and dissemination
Future collaboration between higher and further education
List of acronyms

Introduction

1. This summary report sets out the main outcomes of a study commissioned by the UK HE funding bodies, the Further Education Funding Council (FEFC), and the University for Industry (UFI) into the use of communications and information technology (C&IT) materials for learning and teaching within UK higher and further education (HE and FE). The focus was on transferable materials produced by institutions themselves and available for use throughout the sector. The full report is over 100 pages in length, so this summary version has been produced for wide circulation. The full report contains much information that will help inform institutional policy in this area.
2. In outline, the terms of reference for the study were: to identify and map existing transferable C&IT materials in use in learning and teaching in HE and FE in the UK, and to review some of the key issues in the institutional implementation of such materials. At a policy level it was charged to review: the general technical awareness and understanding of C&IT in teaching and learning in UK HE and FE; the effectiveness of existing provision for disseminating materials; relevant institutional policies in HE and FE which are likely to influence significantly the need for, and role of, a coordinated national service; and to place findings in the context of activity in other countries. The study was undertaken by The Higher Education Consultancy Group (THECG), the Commonwealth Higher Education Management Service (CHEMS), and the Further Education Development Agency (FEDA) working together as a partnership, with Allan Schofield acting as project director. The study was overseen by a joint UK HE and FE funding body steering group.
3. The tender document supplied by the funding bodies defined C&IT material for use in learning and teaching as being 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". In practice, this has been taken to include a range of C&IT activities relevant to teaching and learning; the production of courseware initially distributed through the use of disk or CD-ROM, although now increasingly web based; the use of productivity tools to provide an alternative form of communication between students and tutors or amongst students; the use of web based virtual learning environments; the development of IT based assessment systems; the attempted integration of C&IT with institutional management information systems (MIS) and aspects of course administration and management; and so on.
4. The challenge to the effective development and dissemination of C&IT materials comes from a number of sources. In addition to operational, organisational, financial, and pedagogic issues, a particular problem concerns the expectations of individual developers and institutions. Outside the Teaching and Learning Technology Programme (TLTP) and some Computers in Teaching Initiative (CTI) centres in HE and Further Education National Consortium (FENC) and National Multi-Media Consortium (NMMC) in FE, the study has been unable to collect significant evidence of C&IT courseware designed to be transferable, other than in the most limited sense, and most development work is being undertaken by staff for their own teaching. In the institutions where significant activity in C&IT is taking place (often the development of virtual learning environments and distance learning programmes), this is being undertaken for specific purposes and with little intention to transfer materials.
5. Perhaps crucially for the broader issues of dissemination, with a small number of exceptions, attempts to interest commercial publishers in institutionally produced courseware (including TLTP) have largely failed, despite the fact that development costs have already been covered. More generally, the study has been able to find little evidence of publishers entering the HE and FE markets for producing courseware other than on very specific projects or in a limited range of subjects (primarily in vocational areas, much of which is oriented at GNVQ levels), although greater interest is being shown in developing whole virtual programmes and courses in some areas, and also in selling courseware direct to students and parents at the secondary level. In summary, the general approach to the dissemination, transfer and embedding of courseware falls short of meeting institutional needs for future C&IT use, and fails to meet funding body expectations. In HE at least, the shortfall is likely to be met through institutionally owned materials being produced that will be disseminated through market mechanisms.

   Data on C&IT materials

6. With the agreement of the funding bodies’ steering group for this study, data on transferable C&IT material developed by UK HE and FE institutions but available for use across the sector were collected in an on-line database (CITADEL) with data being directly entered by institutions. The CITADEL database will shortly be available from the Institute for Learning and Teaching’s web-site at http://www.ilt.ac.uk. To this extent one important test of the seriousness of institutions in introducing C&IT for teaching is whether materials production warrants a high enough priority from institutions for resources to be spent on its development. It is, of course, acknowledged that a methodology based upon self-declaration has a number of potential flaws, not least of which is information about the survey not reaching relevant staff within institutions.
7. Of the 308 items entered into the database, 54% were from HE (165 items), and 24% (73 items) from FE, with the balance being from other sources, and data were entered for 86 institutions. At first glance, this figure seems low, and suggests a degree of under-declaration of materials. However, an analysis of the HE and FE originated materials held in the various CTI databases for the whole sector suggests a comparable figure of internally produced items when scaled up for the sector as a whole. The study is therefore confident that the majority of transferable materials available for use were documented from those institutions responding. These items were supported by over 200 written responses from institutions on C&IT policy and implementation. Respondents were asked to identity both the development and funding arrangements associated with the production of C&IT materials. A clear theme emerges: that overwhelmingly materials are being produced for a single institution, and that external funding has been provided in only approximately one third of cases. The data supplied by respondents suggest that in many cases such funding has been small, and has only made a partial contribution to costs.
8. A significant, and disappointing, element in the data is that none of the material recorded was specifically designed to assist learners with learning difficulties or disabilities, although efforts are now being made to address this, for example through projects in TLTP Phase Three. However, some FE colleges have provided specialist hardware for learners with disabilities or delivery vehicles such as verbal browsers for blind and partially sighted learners.
9. Project data broadly confirm the findings of the recent review of TLTP, that the majority of staff use much less C&IT courseware than other forms of electronic productivity and communication tools. To this extent, although there is clearly extensive activity within many institutions, much of it is experimental and still has to penetrate widely to the level of individual staff. In other words, on the basis of the activity reviewed, the more exaggerated claims of some of the advocates of the use of C&IT in teaching and learning have not been validated, and the use of C&IT in teaching does not yet occupy a central role within either HE or FE. This is not to say that the many activities currently being undertaken will not make a significant change to the way teaching takes place, simply that there is a long way to go before the institutional reality about the use of C&IT matches some of the rhetoric.

   Institutional practice

10. An initial analysis of teaching and learning strategies in English HE institutions undertaken for the funding bodies suggests that only a relatively small number of institutions have identified the enhancement of the use of C&IT as a major part of their learning and teaching strategy. This is, of course, not to say that planned activities are not taking place, but in most institutions they are generally not being viewed in strategic terms. The analysis also observed that "mechanisms for managing coherent implementation of learning and teaching strategies were rare". However, from returns to this study there is evidence that a small but significant minority of HE institutions already view the development of C&IT in strategic terms, and they emphasised the importance of this perspective for planning purposes.
11. Within FE the new FEFC Information Learning Technology (FEFC ILT) Development Strategy on networking lifelong learning examines the current state of planning on C&IT in learning and teaching, and recommends that all colleges be encouraged to adopt a model C&IT strategy for good practice. Like the HE sector, the majority of colleges appear to have little by way of a detailed C&IT strategy for learning and teaching, although rather more have considered the issue in general planning terms, often in relation to enhancing the infrastructure and network. However, among a relatively small number of active colleges there are cases where a clear strategy has been adopted, with associated targets and performance indicators.
12. Within those institutions and departments that are active in the use of C&IT it is possible to detect a number of key drivers. These include: the personal interest and commitment of the head of the institution; building on existing distance learning provision (particularly supporting international initiatives where the threat of increasing international competition exists); the perceived need to build a market niche in the provision of C&IT to aid student recruitment; supporting moves towards student centred learning; underpinning collaboration with other providers, including the University for Industry (UFI); and widening participation. In some cases institutions have identified a further driver as the support that C&IT can potentially provide to disabled students, though this did not feature widely in the data collected.
13. To date, we have found no HE institutions that explicitly intend to use C&IT as a means of reducing expenditure, although some hope (rather than expect) that this may be the case in the long term. However, amongst some FE colleges which are actively pursuing C&IT, cost reduction was mentioned in a small number of responses. Such a finding contrasts sharply with those who have proposed that C&IT based distance learning provision provides an opportunity to reduce expenditure, and suggests that institutions rightly regard it as difficult to gain the cooperation of staff to produce materials that might, in turn, lead to reductions in staffing expenditure in the long run. More generally the claims that C&IT leads to cost reductions or efficiency gains have not been borne out by UK studies produced to date, including the recent Information Technology Assisted Teaching and Learning (ITATL) review for the HE funding bodies (see HEFCE Research Series – July 1997). To this end, it may be easier for any radical changes in C&IT use to come about from new providers (e.g. the private sector or UfI), although this is only likely to happen in the fee paying parts of the HE and FE markets.
14. In a wide range of institutions, multiple barriers were identified to the use and adoption of C&IT materials, and these expand on those previously noted in reports such as the evaluations of TLTP (see HEFCE 99/39), and the CTI and Teaching and Learning Technology Support Network (TLTSN) review (see HEFCE 98/47). In both HE and FE they include:
    1. Uncertain cost commitments and internal resource allocation strategies which make investment decisions difficult, particularly for the many small institutions in the sector.
    2. Lack of a reliable and adequate infrastructure and network, including technical support to deliver courseware. In general, FE colleges suffer from particularly severe infrastructure problems.
    3. The rapid changes in technology which have made investment and development decisions difficult.
    4. Licensing costs for some software which are perceived to be high; this may limit its use to a small number of sources and preclude installation on a network.
    5. In many institutions a lack of leadership and senior management support for C&IT initiatives both at senior levels and also among deans or heads of departments.
    6. Heavy workloads and conflicting priorities for staff in all institutions, and difficulties in the use of C&IT by the large numbers of part-time staff within the sector.
    7. Lack of current student demand except in relation to C&IT used as part of distance learning programmes, and where the use of IT is integral to the curriculum (this issue should not be confused with extensive student use of IT for word processing and related purposes).
    8. A lack of expertise in various aspects of both courseware design and development and the IT implications.
    9. A lack of available courseware of an appropriate standard and quality to provide a proven approach to future development.
15. More specifically, within HE, additional barriers include: the lack of a culture in some institutions that supports innovation in teaching; the dominating influence of the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE); the fact that evidence on the effectiveness of C&IT based learning is mixed; and the general difficulties associated with various forms of both individual and institutional collaboration. However, the successful collaboration on some TLTP and Fund for the Development of Teaching and Learning (FDTL) projects, and also within the work of some CTI centres suggests that collaboration is possible if carefully undertaken and grounded in meeting actual needs.
16. Within FE, the work of the Further Education Development Agency (FEDA) and others plus data collected for this study suggests that whilst some of the constraints on take-up in HE also apply, there may be fewer barriers to innovation associated with conflicting priorities, and a greater willingness to collaborate typically exists. However, other constraints are found, including an underdeveloped infrastructure. Even more than in HE, it is evident that pressures caused by heavy workloads often leave little time for innovation or the development of new materials. It is also clear that the size of many of the smaller FE institutions causes major resourcing problems in the development of new materials, and the provision of a suitable infrastructure on which they can be used. However, this may be balanced by the fact that the culture of FE may be more receptive to the use of C&IT materials than parts of HE, and the prospect of their widespread use to improve quality and widen participation may be more readily accepted by academic staff. Moreover, the fact that most HE courses are designed by the staff who teach them inevitably adds an additional barrier to the use of materials developed elsewhere, in a way that does not apply within FE to the same extent.
17. When combined with the other issues addressed in the report it is clear that the effective implementation of C&IT materials in teaching and learning poses a challenge for HE and FE institutions that many have only just begun to recognise. The FEFC ILT Development Strategy acknowledges that C&IT is now central to the management and delivery of FE, as does HEFCE’s support guidance on institutional learning and teaching strategies. Therefore, all HE and FE institutions should look to include C&IT provision as a core part of their planning process, and in particular their teaching and learning and information strategies.

    Staffing

18. The report reviews a number of issues concerning staffing and the use of C&IT materials, and notes a wide variety of institutional practice, from a relatively small number of cases where major staff development initiatives are occurring, through to the majority where relatively little coordinated activity is taking place. A number of respondents to the study noted the rise of a new group of professional staff involved in roles around the evolving support for learning and teaching. These 'new professionals' come from various sources (e.g. subject disciplines, IT-related projects including TLTP, educational development, and so on). The current locations are often relatively new creations, reformed groupings or project teams. Many such staff are reported not to have permanent contracts, and the newness of their activities inevitably means an absence of established career profiles, career models and ready comparators. In that sense the situation mirrors that of new disciplines - or indeed new enterprises - where strengths in commitment, enthusiasm, self-awareness, self-assurance, and entrepreneurialism tend to be hallmarks of success. However, neither the use or availability of such staff, nor issues associated with recruitment featured prominently in institutional responses. From the information received, the implication appears to be that most institutions are generally pursuing an evolutionary approach, with the main area of activity focusing upon enhancing staff development opportunities and the provision of support mechanisms.
19. So far as staff development is concerned, the report reviews a number of national initiatives that have taken place (for example, Teaching and Learning in Scottish Metropolitan Area Networks (TALiSMAN) and Quality in Information and Learning Technology (QUILT) in FE) and seeks to identify some of the key issues for institutions that have emerged. From such initiatives, and the diversity of institutional practice also reviewed, a number of crucial questions are raised for further discussion within relevant bodies (for example, the Institute for Learning and Teaching in HE and FEDA in FE). These include, but are not limited to:
    1. What is the most appropriate mix of encouraging, enabling and mandating staff development in relation to C&IT? How can the majority of staff be enthused or persuaded that training and development in the use of C&IT in teaching and learning is a cost effective use of their time?
    2. What is the most appropriate means of delivering such training and development? Is it solely dependent upon institutional organisation, mission and culture, or are there generic issues that transcend such matters?
    3. How can institutions make best use of the available talents and expertise (internally and externally) in a manner staff perceive to be relevant to them?
    4. Should specific minimum standards be set for training and development in terms of the use of C&IT in teaching and learning? If so, who should set them (e.g., institutions or an external body such as the Institute for Learning and Teaching)?
    5. How are the dangers avoided of setting static minimum standards in what is perceived as a rapidly developing field?

    Finance and infrastructure

20. So far as financing and infrastructure are concerned, few institutions engage in detailed forms of financial analysis involving calculating the actual costs of C&IT, and an international survey (reported in Chapter 4 and Appendix B of the main report) also found very few examples of a formal appraisal of the costs and benefits of C&IT activities. In practice, it is not surprising that no workable method of cost analysis has emerged, and the difficulties in developing one are enormous in both practical and conceptual terms. However, work continues in this area.
21. The report reviews a number of approaches to reducing the costs of C&IT, including greater collaboration in purchasing commercially available software licences or courseware, and notes that the Combined Higher Education Software Team (CHEST) deals are available to all HE and FE institutions. As the market for such materials becomes increasingly global, there is scope for international links between CHEST and other similar academic consortia to ensure that the UK benefits from sound purchasing arrangements made in other systems. Accordingly the report recommends that Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) encourages CHEST to explore all available international alliances for consortium purchasing, possibly as an agent for those professional groupings or subject centres who will be aware of international products.
22. Purchasing of IT hardware is an area where very significant discounts have been obtained in some jurisdictions. The study is fully aware of the difficulties in trying to get numbers of institutions to agree on specifications and timing for bulk purchases, but believe that further efforts must be made to overcome these in order to ensure the sector pays the minimum for its hardware. The recent infrastructure survey for the FEFC by the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTa) has estimated that the sector needs to buy 110,000 PCs in order to bring its stock up to date, and a further 100,000 to improve provision to an agreed access level of 6:1. Many institutions are now planning to move to a replacement cycle of three years instead of five years, due to the need to keep up with rapid technological changes. JISC could revisit the issue of hardware purchase for both FE and HE, by exploring the feasibility of establishing an information service alerting all those in the system to the best purchasing opportunities available at any time.
23. The significant shortfall in hardware provision in FE colleges has already been noted, and it seems certain that this cannot be overcome without central funding from the additional £74 million provided by Government for this purpose. Data collected in HE from a 1998 survey of Computer Centre Directors indicated a sector average of one workstation per 11.4 students, whilst a recent Universities and Colleges Information Systems Association (UCISA) survey estimated the figure at 1 per 9.7 students. This indicates that HE currently has in the region of 100,000 workstations and would need to almost double this figure to reach an access level of 6:1.
24. Many respondents to this survey were worried by the infrastructure aspects of the increasing use of C&IT for learning and teaching and saw them as one of the main blockages to quicker progress. Such infrastructural issues involve: space implications, the internal network, external networks and the access they offer to those within and outside the campus, technical questions and issues such as security.

    Future approaches to development and dissemination

25. The proposals made in this report for the future development and dissemination of C&IT materials attempt to take full account of both current and proposed structures for supporting learning and teaching. These include the FEDA and BECTa activities within FE, and in HE the introduction of 24 new subject centres, and the new Generic Learning and Teaching Centre (GLTC) – collectively the Learning and Teaching Support Network (see HEFCE 99/20). In particular, a number of possible functions for the GLTC in relation to C&IT are considered.
26. So far as the development of new C&IT courseware is concerned, this will be strongly influenced by the forms of markets that develop for HE and FE, and the consequent forms of production and collaboration. Broadly, the report sees five main markets developing, with materials being produced in varying ways. These will influence whether the commissioning of new materials is required from public funds and whether it is appropriate to do so. These markets are: existing mainstream provision of publicly funded programmes in HE and FE; the use of C&IT at post-first degree level on fee paying programmes; the use of C&IT in commercial, training, and other trading activities; the use of C&IT and distance learning on international programmes delivered overseas; and the use of C&IT in the UK to widen participation in HE and FE and to create new provision in all its forms.
27. An important question is, therefore, how new materials should be produced. One vision of the future sees new C&IT materials being identified and commissioned by an agency established for the purpose (in addition to UfI) that might be related in some way to the proposed GLTC in HE or to FEDA and BECTa in FE. From any such central initiative, materials could be made available at a charge, and sold to institutions outside the UK at full cost. An alternative approach sees materials arising naturally from individual and institutional activity, and builds upon the gradualist approach favoured by the majority of HE and FE institutions. Advocates of this approach cite the difficulties of TLTP and other initiatives to deliver courseware of an appropriate standard, consistency, and shelf-life, and suggest that centrally driven approaches to courseware development are always likely to suffer from problems with development, implementation, updating and ownership.
28. From the funding bodies' point of view, the key question to answer in relation to any possible case for further funding for the development of courseware is one of purpose: what would the objective be and what benefits would result? From the evidence available it is clear that modest experiments in developing courseware within existing course structures are unlikely to yield any benefits in terms of cost effectiveness or efficiency. They can therefore only be justified in terms of enhancing the quality of provision, or as innovation funding for institutions to use in developing their own materials, either individually or collaboratively. Whether such a purpose meets the needs of individual funding bodies must be for them to assess, and the report can only make a general response.
29. The report therefore reviews the case for further central coordinated activity in the commissioning of new materials to be used in the first of our five areas (existing mainstream provision), but is unable to find convincing reasons to support such an initiative. Instead - for mainstream provision - the development of C&IT materials should be primarily an institutional responsibility, supported as necessary by inter-institutional collaboration. Although additional central funding for producing courseware is not supported, there is a need for central advisory service to assist both institutions and individual academics in developing courseware. As proposed by the review of CTI and TLTSN, the new structure of subject centres and the GLTC in HE is designed to strengthen the advisory and support services offered to institutions in this area, and the report commends such arrangements. It also sees a continued need for limited funding to support innovation and experimentation on other aspects of the development of C&IT materials, for example work on learning environments, and so on.
30. For both fee paying post-first degree programmes and commercial trading activities the development and use of C&IT must be the responsibility of institutions, and there is no role for any central funding in the further commissioning of materials. Similarly with C&IT based distance learning for full fee programmes, there is no case for any centrally funded support in commissioning new C&IT courseware, and provision should remain a matter for institutions. In the face of likely future competition from publishers and other parts of the private sector, institutions would be wise to invest in the enhancement of C&IT if it is in their strategic interests to do so. By definition, such C&IT material will be commercially protected, and dissemination will be through sales.
31. An entirely different position occurs in relation to meeting government targets for widening participation in HE and FE, where the greater use of C&IT and distance learning has considerable potential. In particular the work of the UfI is crucial for the development of the sector - and particularly FE. It is the view of the FEFC ILT Development Strategy that traditional resources, especially staff and buildings, are unlikely to be available in sufficient quantity to meet enlarged enrolment targets, and that "a wider and more imaginative use of information and learning technology should go some way to assist in achieving these targets". However, it is not clear that the total commitment to widen participation through the use of C&IT and distance learning will - or even should - be met wholly through the UfI initiative; the existing funding bodies may need to review their funding arrangements to institutions to encourage wider participation. If further support is required for this purpose, it will be important to ensure that C&IT is effectively used, and there may be scope for commissioning additional courseware in low cost and high volume areas.
32. A number of weaknesses in current dissemination arrangements are noted in the report, and among the issues which need attention are: information on the availability of C&IT materials; an evaluation of the quality of materials before purchase; good practice guidance on the materials in use; the development of collaborative arrangements for developing and disseminating materials; a research function in regard to the effectiveness of C&IT materials in use; a clarification of the intellectual property rights (IPR) and copyright on the use of materials; and so on. Existing good practice in both HE and FE needs to be built on, and the GLTC and the new subject centres may be best placed to undertake this with other bodies. Within HE it recommends that these other functions should be undertaken by the GLTC and subject centres working together. Such a proposal reflects the need to ensure that dissemination is seen in the context of providing overall support for learning and teaching, and does not overly concentrate on the technical aspects of provision.
33. In addition to courseware produced by individual staff, institutions will be producing whole programmes or courses for their own use, and made available on a commercial basis, often for distance learning purposes. Such items are now starting to appear but are mainly restricted to the area of business and management education. They will only be available for use under licence with IPR strongly protected, and quality assurance arrangements are likely to be negotiated between provider and supplier. Dissemination arrangements will be institutionally based, although there will be a need for an electronic database of programmes on the model of the Learning eXchange in the USA (see Chapter 4). Such a database could be created by the GLTC.
34. The HE and FE system has no obvious forum which brings together institutions, funding bodies, publishers, IT and telecommunications providers, and other relevant organisations. Hence a brokerage role is required to build upon those links which do exist, for example between JISC and some publishers. To the extent that such a question raises a number of strategic issues, providing an answer lies outside the terms of reference for this study, any views we offer have to be primarily concerned with the need for and provision of C&IT materials. At a system wide level a considerable amount might be gained by creating a forum whereby key organisations in developing the technology infrastructure associated with UK HE and FE could come together to explore joint strategic issues to their mutual advantage, and both JISC and the GLTC should be involved. However, at the level of the production and use of C&IT materials the case for a specific brokerage function is less strong.
35. The ITATL report reviewed the extent to which - particularly for programmes run overseas - any central marketing initiative was required to support programmes using C&IT, and we return to this issue as one aspect of dissemination. Within HE separate discussions are also currently taking place on the proposed development of a ‘UK HE Mall’, a single internet site which will give access to a wide range of sources of information on UK higher education, including providers of HE. So far as C&IT materials are concerned, there are two main issues: the sales of virtual programmes and courseware; and advisory and guidance services concerning the availability of a wide range of subject based material which will be primarily web based. Information on the availability of virtual programmes could be treated in a similar way to that for traditional programmes, albeit perhaps grouped together within a different part of the site, for ease of access. Similarly, distance learning programmes operating overseas may need treating in a discrete way to enable information to be easily obtained from a potentially wide range of international enquiries. Such an enhancement to the concept of the site should enable it to provide information on the increasing range of C&IT based programmes that are likely to develop. Therefore, the UK HE Mall could explicitly include information on C&IT and distance learning based programmes.

    Future collaboration between higher and further education

36. It follows from the above that while a limited number of further dissemination initiatives are required within HE, all our proposals can be undertaken within the new GLTC and subject centre framework, and thus unnecessary duplication of activity can be avoided. Similarly in FE, activity should build on the existing structures involving FEDA, BECTa, and so on. However, such a conclusion raises the question of future cooperation between HE and FE, and the extent to which FE institutions can have access to the GLTC/subject centre structure, and HE to the work of FEDA, BECTa, etc. The recent past has seen a welcome increase in collaboration between HE and FE in relation to a number of aspects of IT provision, and the practical arrangements for implementing our proposals on C&IT materials provide an opportunity for extending such collaboration further.
37. However, the extension of subject centres and the GLTC to FE is not without its operational problems, including that of how additional funding will be provided, particularly in a sector with a traditional hostility to top-slicing. In addition, if FE participation is to be effective it will be important for its potential contribution to subject centres to be valued, and for there to be sufficient understanding of the needs of the sector. A small number of additional centres may also be necessary for subjects unique to FE, and the role of existing initiatives will require careful consideration. Clearly this issue needs to be reviewed in a broader context than just a concern with C&IT materials, but it deserves attention, and the potential advantages of closer collaboration are strong. Accordingly, the participation of FE within the new HE teaching and learning structures should be considered by the funding bodies as part of an overall review of collaboration between the sectors.

List of acronyms