1. In outline, the terms of reference for the study were: to identify and map existing C&IT materials in use in learning and teaching in higher and further education (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 UK HE and FE; review the effectiveness of existing provision for disseminating materials; review relevant institutional policies in HE and FE education 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 review was undertaken by The Higher Education Consultancy Group, the Commonwealth Higher Education Management Service, and the Further Education Development Agency (FEDA) working together as a partnership.

2. 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.

3. 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 work by the Further Education National Consortium (FENC) and the National Multi Media Consortium (NMMC) in FE, we have been unable to collect significant evidence of C&IT courseware designed to be transferable other than in the most limited sense. 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), this is being undertaken for specific purposes and with little intention to transfer materials.

4. 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, we have been able to find little evidence of publishers entering the HE and FE markets 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 selling 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.

5. With the agreement of the funding bodies' steering group for this study, data were collected in the CITADEL database on C&IT materials that have been developed by, and are in use in, UK HE and FE, and have the potential to be transferable. To this extent it is an important test of 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.

6. 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; data were entered for 86 institutions. At first glance, this figure seems low, and suggests a high 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. These items were supported by over 200 written responses from institutions on C&IT policy and implementation. Respondents were asked to identify both the development and funding arrangements associated with the production of C&IT materials. Clear themes emerged: overwhelmingly materials are being produced for a single institution, and 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.

7. 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.

8. 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. 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.

9. An initial analysis of teaching and learning strategies in English HE 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 teaching and learning strategy. This is, of course, not to say that planned activities are not taking place, rather that 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 review there is evidence that a small but significant minority of HE institutions already view the development of C&IT in strategic terms, and that they emphasised the importance of this perspective for planning purposes.

10. The Further Education Funding Council (FEFC) has produced an Information Learning Technology (ILT) Development Strategy on networking lifelong learning. It examines the current state of planning on C&IT in teaching and learning, and recommends that all colleges be encouraged to adopt a model C&IT strategy for good practice. As in the HE sector, the majority of colleges appear to have little by way of a detailed C&IT strategy for teaching and learning, 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.

11. 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 being the support that C&IT can potentially provide to disabled students, though this did not feature widely in the data collected.

12. To date, we have found no HE institutions which 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 that 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. It 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 has not been borne out by UK studies produced to date, including the recent review of Information Technology Assisted Teaching and Learning (ITATL) for the funding bodies. To this end, it may be easier for any radical changes in C&IT use to come about from new providers (eg, the private sector or the UfI), although this is only likely to happen in the fee paying parts of the HE and FE markets.

13. In a wide range of institutions, multiple barriers were identified to the use and adoption of C&IT materials, and are reported in the study. These expand on those previously noted in reports such as the evaluations of TLTP, and the review of the Computers in Teaching Initiative (CTI) and the Teaching and Learning Technology Support Network (TLTSN). Particularly in FE, a lack of adequate hardware remains a major barrier to many teachers, and is reported on in a recent survey for the FEFC undertaken by the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTa). Numerous colleges observed that a significant proportion of their users had no regular access to the internet, and many only had access to shared computer facilities. When combined with the resourcing, staffing and quality 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 Development Strategy acknowledges that C&IT is now central to the management and delivery of FE. We agree, and recommend that all HE and FE institutions should include C&IT provision as a core part of their planning process, and in particular their teaching and learning and information strategies.

14. 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. An international survey (reported in Chapter 4 and Appendix B) 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, including in a separate study commissioned by the HEFCE.

15. 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. Many respondents to this survey were worried by the infrastructure aspects of the increasing use of C&IT for teaching and learning, and saw these 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.

16. 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 teaching and learning. These include the activities by FEDA and BECTa within FE; and in HE the introduction of 24 new subject centres to replace the CTI centres, and the new Generic Learning and Teaching Centre (GLTC). In particular, a number of possible functions for the GLTC in relation to C&IT are proposed.

17. 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, we see 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.

18. 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 the UfI), which 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 potentially be made available at a charge, and sold to institutions outside the UK at full cost. An alternative 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 in delivering courseware of an appropriate standard, consistency, and shelf-life. They suggest that centrally driven approaches to courseware development are always likely to suffer from problems with development, implementation, updating and ownership.

19. From the funding bodies' point of view, the key question to answer in relation to any case for further funding for developing 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 be justified only 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 we can only make a general response.

20. We have therefore reviewed 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 are unable to find convincing reasons to support such an initiative. Instead – for mainstream provision – we see the development of C&IT materials primarily as an institutional responsibility, supported as necessary by inter-institutional collaboration. Although we do not support additional central funding for producing courseware, we do see a need for a 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 are designed to strengthen the advisory and support services offered to institutions in this area, and we commend such arrangements. We also see 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.

21. 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 we see no role for any central funding in the further commissioning of materials. Similarly, in the case of 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.

22. 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 especially 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 ILT 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, and 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.

23. A number of weaknesses in current dissemination arrangements are noted in the report. Among the issues that 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; and a clarification of the intellectual property rights (IPR) and copyright on the use of materials. In making recommendations we are concerned to build on existing good practice in both HE and FE. Within HE we recommend 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 teaching and learning, and does not overly concentrate on the technical aspects of provision.

24. 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 America's Learning eXchange (see Chapter 4). We therefore recommend that such a database is created by the GLTC.

25. 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 the funding bodies' Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) and some publishers. Such a question raises a number of strategic issues, and 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.

26. 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 portal which will provide access to a wide range of information on UK higher education, and to providers of HE. So far as C&IT materials are concerned, we see 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 internet site, for ease of access. Similarly, distance learning programmes operating overseas may need treating in a discrete way so that information can be easily obtained from a potentially wide range of international enquiries. Such an enhancement to the concept of the UK HE Mall should enable it to provide information on the increasing range of C&IT based programmes that are likely to develop. Accordingly we recommend that the UK HE Mall site explicitly includes information on C&IT and distance learning based programmes.

27. It follows from the above that while we believe that 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, we have proposed to 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 and others. 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.

28. However, the extension of subject centres and the GLTC to FE is not without its operational problems, including those 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 many. We recommend that the participation of FE within the new HE teaching and learning structures be considered by the funding bodies as part of an overall review of collaboration between the sectors.