whyCAL

7/28/2019 whyCAL

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/whycal 1/25

The Purpose Of CAL Material Development

....................................................................................................................................................................................... 1

24................................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Future Proofing Education.................................................................................................................................................................2

Predicting the Future........................................................................................................................................................................2

Problems Faced by the HE: 1990 and perceived problems for the year 2000..................................................................................4

Promises Promises............................................................................................................................................................................5

Summary.........................................................................................................................................................................................10

The Reality Check or The Truth Behind The Myths....................................................................................................................10

Summary.........................................................................................................................................................................................14

Other Reasons for CAL Development.............................................................................................................................................17

Developing CAL to Improve the Quality of Education i.e. the “Good” Reasons Behind CAL Development............ .......... ..20

References..........................................................................................................................................................................................23

During the mid 1990s CAL was subject to widespread interest. The drive to develop and use CAL

material during this period came about as a response to several pressures both within and

external to the higher education institution.

On the one hand there have always been those individuals who have maintained an interest in

educational technology. Such individuals are often referred to as “technophilias” - those

academics who are "in love with technology", (Dixon, 1992). Isolated in occurrence these

individuals were responsible for the sporadic development of CAL material throughout the 1980s.

However as computer hardware became cheaper and authoring tools such as Authorware

Professional, which allowed the creation of simple programs, became available a steady increase

in CAL material development began. Researchers in the field of learning technology and HCI were

finally presented with the opportunity to develop material which reflected their ambitions. The

emphasis was on improving the quality of learning in particular identifying and addressing the

individual’s needs.

However another reason and the primary one of the early 1990s was the aim of making education

more cost effective and efficient in the face of rising student numbers and limited levels of

resources. The drive was lead by Government backed and HEI governing bodies sponsored

1

7/28/2019 whyCAL


initiatives. In this instance the main the reason for developing CAL material was one of cost rather

than of improving educational quality.

As the wave of CAL research began to take hold in the mid 1990s many more academics began to

take an interest. With the advent of the internet and the opening up of the distance learning market

CAL was seen as a valuable assert in attracting market shares. The associated prestige through

the use of learning technology was highly desired by many departments in particular with regards

to presenting themselves in favourable light towards the TQA. Again CAL material was and still is

being developed for reasons other then improving quality.

Future Proofing Education

Predicting the Future

In their 1992 report, Core Tools for Teaching Activities, the CTISS stated that “The most pressing

need at the moment is for more courseware to be produced and for the training of academics in

the use of courseware and suitable authoring tools.” True enough. Up until this point educational

technology had primarily been developed to improve the quality of learning. However a new and

pressing problem had begun to develop and that was the steady rise in student numbers. The

student population increase began in 1992 (the largest ever increase reported was for the year

1992/1993) with a similar lack of increase in resources. Furthermore articles such as the

aforementioned Core Tools and Government backed reports all echoed each other and implied

that CAL should be used a coping mechanism.

For example the Committee of Scottish University Principals stated that “A fundamental appraisal

of, and a radical approach to, the problem of teaching and learning in mass [my italics] higher

education is now necessary. While the scale of the changes is required is such that an

evolutionary form of development is both inevitable and desirable, there is an urgent need to foster

and introduce innovative approaches and make the most effective use of newer technology"

(Committee of Scottish Principals, 1993). Note the sense of urgency within the statement with

regards to providing a solution to educating the rising student numbers.

2

7/28/2019 whyCAL


7/28/2019 whyCAL


Problems Faced by the HE: 1990 and perceived problems for the year 2000

Along with the rising student population there were a number of issues facing the HEIs in the early

1990s whose effects were compounded by the limited or decreasing level of resources. The

problems facing the typical HEI included:

• coping with increased size of student classes without commensurate increase in resources.

The tutor was faced with the difficulty of having to ensure that the objectives of the lesson

are clearly presented to a large number of students. As Parrington points out

circumstances, descriptions become brief and possibly even inadequate (Parrington et al,

1994).

• providing quality tuition to meet the needs of under performing students. The larger the

class size the greater the proportion of higher, middle and lower ability students. The tutor

has to “spot” the underachievers and allocate sufficient quality time to meet their needs.

Consequently the time required to provide remedial tuition increased proportionally to the

size of the class.

• finding quality time to pursue research interests. Many UK higher education institutions

attach a great deal of importance and prestige towards research and are graded according

to their effort and results. Therefore in addition to lecturing duties many tutors are required

to undertake research in a given number of specialist areas often with a required yearly

quota of journal quality papers to forfill.

• time spent on assessment. The amount of time the lecturer spends on marking examination

papers, project work, essays and so forth increases as the student numbers rise.

Consequently the time frame between the student delivering their course work and its

consequent return from the lecturer increases thus reducing the value of learning through

feedback.

• increased administration. Many lecturers perform additional supervisory duties which range

from organising student intake to running accredited courses.

4

7/28/2019 whyCAL


Promises Promises

As a consequence of the impending strain on resources the government and the HEI governing

bodies promoted the use of CAL material with a view that it would alleviate if not solve the

problems outlined above. Accordingly a number of promises or predictions were outlined in both

Government and HEI literature concerning the potential and ability of CAL to redress the

forthcoming and existing problems.

However it appears that the government and educational bodies overrated the ease with which

CAL materials would perform and overestimated its impact. Thus the promises made with regards

to the effect CAL would have on the current methods of education proved to be naive.

The promises can be broken down into the following:

CAL will help to reduce or stabilise the cost of education as the student numbers continue

to rise

During the early part of the 1990s there were dramatic rises in student numbers without a

corresponding rise in funding (Durling, 1992). Under such conditions where there is a limited level

of resources more efficient methods of teaching in terms of time and cost were being sought.

Many turned towards CAL as a potential solution as indicated by a report produced by the UFC

(Universities Funding Council) in which they stated “…many policy makers concerned with higher

education believe that CBL can do much to allow the system to absorb extra students without

commensurate extra funding”, (Universities Funding Council Information Systems Committee,

1992). The prevailing opinion of the HEI mangers (Vice Chancellors and Principles) was that the

present system of teaching would be too expensive to maintain and many saw computers as a

more cost effective solution – a viewpoint which was to filter down to the tutors. The consequence

was a renewed level of interest in developing CAL and exploring the possibilities of its use though

for reasons based on cost rather than quality.

The view that CAL could alleviate the forthcoming numbers crisis culminated in the Universities

Funding Council launching the TLTP (The Teaching and Leaning Technology Programme) as

reported by the Higher who stated that the aim of TLTP was to encourage “the development of new teaching methods, and the use of new educational technology to provide for more students at

5

7/28/2019 whyCAL


lower cost ”, (Griffiths, 1991) [my italics]. The primarily focus and the reason for the inception of the

TLTP was one based upon using CAL as a means of reducing cost as the number of students

rise. Indeed at the initial launch the TLTP promised “The aim of the programme is to make

teaching and learning more productive and efficient by harnessing modern technology. This help

institutions to respond effectively to the current substantial growth in student numbers...” ) [my

italics].

The same message was taken up by other organisations notably the CTISS (CTI Support Service)

who stated that CAL would offer the academics “new ways of coping with increasing numbers of

students” (CTI, 1993). Eventually the view point filtered down towards the academic. For exampleDurling stated that “…CAL will be useful for peripheral studies…particularly in view of the difficulty

of obtaining high quality tuition in some supporting subjects…and the decreasing amount of

available time by full-time tutors. It is therefore likely that CAL will be seen as a cost effective

means of delivering tuition”, (Durling, 1992).

So due to the pressures both within and without the HEIs to solve the rising numbers crisis CAL

became regarded as a cost effective solution – a way of reducing the unit cost of education.

CAL will free up the tutor’s time by allowing them to substitute the traditional lecture and

tutorial format with that of computer aided learning

It was commonly believed that CAL would free up the tutor’s time through its perceived capability

to substitute for the more traditional forms of instruction in particular the lecture, i.e. the tutor sits

student infront of a CAL program and leaves them to it. As a result this would allow the lecturer to

spend their time more efficiently by targeting the weaker students and spending a proportionally

greater time on research. Thus there would be more effective use of lecturer’s time. In other words

CAL would increase educational efficiency.

So in effect the lecturer’s role would change from that of the deliverer of knowledge to that of the

facilitator - a role which many thought was not only inevitable but also a requirement. As one

source put it in The Higher “Lecturers should become managers of teaching rather than direct

conveyers of information”, (Griffiths, 1991).

6

7/28/2019 whyCAL


Similarly the traditional form of course delivery would alter from a “dependence on contact hours

as the prime management tool for teaching towards measures based on quality, innovation and

effective teaching,” (Committee of Scottish Principals, 1993). It was postulated that should a

student fail to understand the contents of a lecture rather than ask the lecturer their first port of

call would be the CAL package. It was hoped that this would reduce the amount of students who

would normally proceed straight to the lecturer every time they fail to understand a concept, (Peel,

1994). The outcome would be that the student will use the staff more efficiently. In this context

CAL was looked upon as an opportunity to increase efficiency savings.

So in a sense the substitution of traditional methods with CAL would lead to greater flexibility in the

tutor’s time by reduction of the lecturer - student contact time, (Davies et al, 1995). However such

promises, while not necessarily mentioning cost but rather the implementation of a new learning

strategy, are primarily concerned with the reduction of the lecturers hours as an answer to the

limiting level of resource and increasing student numbers. Again the promise is based not upon

quality but on one of economics.

CAL will shift the context of learning from lecturer supported to student centred

The implementation of CAL will be through the adoption of student centred approach to the

curriculum. The student takes responsibility for their own learning. This is a natural extension of

the aforementioned promise whereby the replacement of the lecture with CAL leads towards

student centred learning.

Along with the interest in new methods of instruction many academics saw the opportunity to

increase the student’s autonomy over their learning. The general opinion was that CAL material

offered the opportunity for self paced learning and would increase the student's motivation to learn

and so facilitate active learning.

The move towards making the individual being responsible for their own learning came about as a

result of the rising student population crisis. It was feared that the traditional one to one tuition

would be the first casualty of the rising numbers (Durling, 1993) and as such the use of CAL

7

7/28/2019 whyCAL


7/28/2019 whyCAL


While not entirely untrue such predictions were a few years ahead of their time and only now are

we beginning to see students of such competence entering into higher education.

The cost of CAL will decrease and exchange will increase as development takes place over a

national scale The creation of a CAL program has always traditionally been viewed as a one off

process involving an initial high level of finance. The pay off would be in the future where, as new

technology becomes available, then what once took years to develop would take mere months as

the technology becomes much more capable and the cost relatively lower.

Initially CAL was viewed as being too expensive to develop on a single institution level.Consequently many developers sought to reduce the cost of development by implementing

production over a national scale which resulted in the formation of the TLTP and the CTI

(Computers in Teaching Initiative). Both the CTI centres and many of the TLTP projects were

devoted to a specific subject area and involved collaboration between institutions. It was hoped

that the resultant CAL material would consist of a “core” of common objectives for each subject

thus negating the effects of the Not Invented Here Syndrome and resulting in increased uptake,

portability and lower cost.

The time necessary to create CAL material was also expected to fall as institutions moved from

formative stages in which the pioneering work was done to a more mature phase helped by the

sharing of software and materials. In other words the present developers would learn from the

experience of their predecessors.

As a result of the development of common subject CAL material the CTI predicted that the idea of

readily available course materials will take root as CAL will penetrate the mainstream syllabi

across all disciplines, (CTI, 1992a). This would lead to greater interchange between HEIs - a

situation further aided by the new modular approach to education.

So the production of CAL material will be taken to a more cost efficient national level and

streamlined into specific subject centres. The products would feed the demand for readily

available course materials.

9

7/28/2019 whyCAL


Summary

Many of the promises or predictions at the time are indistinguishable since CAL was perceived as

the single solution to a number of evils. However it is clear that CAL was also seen as a tool withwhich would allow the lecturer to free their time, the students to take responsibility for their own

learning, the cost of education to stabilise or even decrease and generally an improvement in the

efficiency of education as student numbers rise.

However in looking at the above one has to ask “Where does the improvement of the quality of

learning fit in?” The promises made little mention of improving the current quality of education and

those that do mention it in passing – as a secondary consequence to the main effects of suingCAL. There seemed to be a general consensus (simply because it is never mentioned) that the

quality of education in the 1990s was already high as it was and the problem was to keep it at that

level as student numbers rise – CAL was seen as the key to this. The emphasis however should

be on developing CAL to improve the quality of learning, rather than as a coping mechanism for

student numbers, which can only happen if the development is centred around re evaluating the

subject as it is currently taught.

The Reality Check or The Truth Behind The Myths

Obviously when viewed from the present it is all too easy to criticise the aforementioned promises

on the basis of their naivety. Nevertheless it is a necessary task to deconstruct such promises to

show the reality of the situation, the true possible impact of CAL, which was being obscured by the

evangelical tone of the predictions.

The use of CAL in the conventional setting often lasts and are as frequent as the more normal

modes of instruction, i.e. the CAL material involves the same level of attention on the part of the

student as that required by the lecture. Thus it is possible that one hour of CAL material could

readily substitute for one hour of lecture and so substitution on this basis is feasible. In reality

though the lecturer’s time is not any freer than it would be if there were no CAL and indeed they

may spend more time performing new additional duties relating to the programs use. For example

registering students, creation of passwords, booking the appropriate rooms and technology and

solving attendant problems associated with the use of such technology.

10

7/28/2019 whyCAL


There are also some students who do not possess the necessary confidence or desire to use the

CAL material voluntarily or, even when they are instructed to do so, in the appropriate manner, i.e.

they may only view half the contents a situation which is impossible in the lecture. There is also

the question as to whether the students understand how to use the program, in terms of

navigation, and the content therein. Obviously as I have already mentioned there may be those

students with sufficient computer literacy who feel comfortable without the tutor’s presence.

However for the one or two students who are lacking in these skills they may end up seeking the

tutor’s advise which is what CAL promised to avoid in the first place - the lecturer having to serve

the needs of the student on a face to face basis. Under such circumstances the lecturer may beobliged to organise introductory sessions. So the time gained through replacing lectures with CAL

would be lost as the tutor would be required to help familiarise the students with the package

CAL requires both guidance and support. It is not enough to provide a CAL application, even one

which has been well designed, and leave the students to intuitively use it. Guidance is required in

its usage (Siviter et al, 1992). Therefore the lecturer is still required to be present in a “class room”

type context, but instead of providing information on the actual subject they are there for technicalsupport - a situation many would may not feel comfortable with.

So in fact even if CAL were to be substituted for the lecture content of a course the tutor may still

be faced with additional demands on their time. So there is the risk that the tutor gains little in

terms of free time. If CAL were added to an existing course where there is no substitution of

current teaching methods, i.e. as a “bolt on”, such a situation may even add to the lecturers

current duties. However on a more positive note there may be a trade off in that for the relative

increase in the tutor’s duties the students may experience a higher quality education *.

* providing the quality of the CAL material surpasses that of the medium of instruction which it replaced.

CAL material fails to increase efficiency on a cost perspective simply due to the development

costs involved alone. Basically the package will have to be used many times before efficiency

gains occur. Even where the product in question was developed elsewhere there are some

marginal costs associated with its use, e.g. booking workstation rooms, use of assistant post

graduate students or technical personnel.

11

7/28/2019 whyCAL


Furthermore as Davies (1995) points out that even if efficiency were to be achieved it may only be

from the perspective of the lecturer. The student on the other hand may experience a high level of

inefficiency where the material is hard to work through. For example where a one hour lecture is

replaced by a poorly designed CAL package which requires four hours to work through. In addition

the student may also spend a disproportionate amount of their learning time concentrating on how

to use the program rather than actually learning from it.

One of the more commonly held beliefs was that the degree of computer literacy possessed by the

average student was such that it would pose little threat to the integration of CAL material into thecurriculum. It was considered that the current generation of students would, through their

experience of computer related material in the secondary sector, possess the ability to grasp the

complexities of CAL material. In addition they would possess the necessary confidence to

navigate through a variety of CAL pedagogies unaided which otherwise would have been

demanding of the previous generation of students.

But this is not necessarily true. The expected explosion of CAL material within the secondarysector never materialised. Students are entering into higher education with computer skills but

which are based on simple word processing, spreadsheet use and basic navigation of the

operating system, e.g. simple knowledge of using Windows 95. In other words they are still not

equipped with the necessary background to use CAL material effectively and without encountering

any difficulty. Consequently their expectations of the use of CAL within the course may not be so

high as feared in the early 1990s.

This is compounded by the unforeseen but recent drive towards the mature student market. For

example 30 % of the students attending the University of Hertfordshire consist of mature students.

Consequently the range of ability with regards to using CAL is stretched over the student

population. A large proportion of the mature students have never encountered the Internet before

and having been subjected to a previous educational environment grounded on traditional forms of

instruction require guidance to exploit it in a learning context. It therefore falls to the tutor to

provide continuing support to those students using CAL.

12

7/28/2019 whyCAL


Over the last decade the cost of hardware and authoring software has steadily decreased.

Developers recognised this during the early 1990s and were of the opinion that in the future CAL

development would take place at a lower cost. But this is only true to a point. Advances in

technology and authoring software is a continual process pushing the limits of what is achievable

in CAL development further beyond the developer’s initial expectations. So the cost of CAL

development will always remain high since new technology is constantly pushing forward

boundaries resulting in ambitious projects.

In addition due to market demands and competition new authoring technologies are constantly

arriving on the market while current ones undergo continual upgrading. This often results in earlier CAL products becoming unmodifieable which is particularly unfortunate for those subjects which

require regular updating and so contributes towards their obsolescence. The problem of

modifiability was recognised as far back as 1992 (Davies, 1992). Authorware Professional was put

forward as the best solution to the dilemma. However Authorware has undergone extensive

alterations over the last two years and now those products created using version 2 cannot be

updated with the current version. So the ideal of inexpensive CAL production through the lower

cost of technology has failed to materialise. Current technology is continually being replaced bynew technology on a rapid scale with the cost remaining the same. The only change is that the

newer technology is capable of much more.

In addition to the cost of new hardware and software there are also peripheral costs which are not

related to the material itself but rather its usage. For instance the costs involved in the

administration of the material, the booking of extra rooms, the purchasing of extra resources and

training staff to use the application.

It was always postulated that CAL development would be cheaper through greater interchange

between HEIs. In other words although the material was developed at one institution and therefore

some level of finance was involved the cost would be negligible for other institutions as they would

not have been involved in the developmental process. However there are a number of limiting

factors which affect the transfer of CAL material across the HEIs. First is that the developing

institution often seeks some form of cost recovery for the production of the material. In the current

13

7/28/2019 whyCAL


climate of limited funds the buying in of courseware as opposed to the possibility developing it in-

house at a cheaper cost does not always sit well with HEI managers.

There is also the continuing problem of the NIH. Most staff are only willing to use the material if

they can modify it to reflect their own view of the subject. Others may only use the material if it is

either extremely cheap or free. As is often the case under these circumstances the courseware will

not be used within the context for which it was designed for - the primary exposition of the subject

but rather as an additional resource. The students are referred to the material as opposed to being

required to work through it within the lecture and it is down to their self discipline to use it in the

appropriate manner.

The uptake of CAL material based on the same subject is often hampered by the traditional

competitive elements which exist between HEIs which relates back in part to the NIH but is also

grounded in market competition. Murphy et al (1992) found great reluctance on other academics

taking up software developed outside their department. Many institutions are willing to share

material but there will always exist an element of rivalry which may effect how much interchange

actually takes place and whether the HEIs are content to teach a particular subject using the samemethod.

A final barrier towards CAL uptake over a large scale is that such an undertaking requires some

form of central organisation which can manage the process and to whom developers can report

back to. A coherent national strategy of guidelines and standards is required which has so far

been absent and only recently with the creation of the ILT (Institute for Learning and Teaching) are

we beginning to see progress in that direction. At present the transfer of CAL material is still based

upon cost as many institutions see CAL development as a profitable exercise. So to an extent the

transfer of CAL material between HEIs is happening but is limited by traditional factors and

certainly has not achieved the utopian outlook held by the early 1990s developer.

Summary

So what is the reality of the situation? Certainly student numbers are at an all time high with the

Government planning to introduce a future 80,000 by the year 2002. The educational needs of thecurrent student population are being met though not through the use of CAL alone as expected or

14

7/28/2019 whyCAL


at the cost and quality desired. The needs are being met through the increase use of staff time

primarily at the expense of free time and research.

As a consequence staff now have little time to consider even exploring the usage of currently

available CAL material for inclusion within their course let alone to develop it. And where CAL has

been successfully integrated it has only been possible through release of staff time since the

material often requires additional duties on the part of the lecturer.

Needless to say many of the promises were unrealistic though in the distant future they may come

true, e.g. increased student competency and widespread distribution of core subject CAL material,but not within the timescales originally envisaged (by the year 2000 in most cases). The cost of

hardware will always be an unknown but constant factor and the increase in mature student

market means that we are at least one generation away from receiving students with computer

literacy.

Instead of facilitating the teaching of extra students computers should play a part in enhancing

education. When developed as a means of coping with extra numbers CAL merely sustains thequality of teaching rather than adding to it and if that quality is poor to start of with – what then?

Unfortunately the development of educational technology was then and is now cost driven rather

than being a response to the learning needs of the student and the teaching needs of the

institution. For example the rationale for the inception of the TLTP, which came to represent the

majority of CAL development during the 1990s, was to achieve greater efficiency in teaching in

HEIs, especially in large classes, by use of new technologies, (LTRG, 1999). Accordingly the

projects were obliged to respond to this maxim in their bids for funding by estimating efficiency

gains thus contributing to the cost conscious drive behind CAL development in the early 1990s

which directly contradicted the prime reason for developing CAL and that was to improve quality.

Perhaps the promises themselves are not essentially naive – they were correct in the context of

their time. The early 1990s developer obviously could only guess what was on the horizon. And in

view of the naivety of the promises it is not foolish to have had these expectations of educational

technology it is just that we need to have a clear understanding of what is achievable and what is

15

7/28/2019 whyCAL


realistic if CAL is to be a success. In the words of Newble and Cannon as quoted by Davies

(1995) “we must not be seduced by the novelty nor must we let the opportunities they present

pass us by”.

However few if any of the promises concerning CAL actually centred around improving the quality

of learning and if they did so it was with regard to maintaining the current quality of learning while

keeping down costs. For example it has often been stated that CAL would automate the process

of marking and this would save time. However what should have been said is that CAL offers the

opportunity to improve lecturer feedback on student actions by speeding up assessment. You

might ask the question “Does this matter since the end result is the same and that is the studentreceives feedback on their actions?” Well the answer is yes it does matter since such a promise

made on the grounds of cost savings places the development of CAL and hence lecturer’s

perception of it within a different context – that of a labour saving one rather than one in which the

quality of learning comes first.

So the reasons behind CAL development need to be stated in their correct context otherwise there

is a danger of the developed material being placed within a labour / cost saving context where thelittle learning that occurs is still provided by the traditional methods. Under these circumstances

CAL tends to be in the form of an add on to the main course and subject to voluntary usage on the

student’s part rather than as part of the main staff:student contact period where the material is

supported within a lecture framework - part of an integrated approach to learning.

16

7/28/2019 whyCAL


Other Reasons for CAL Development

As a consequence of the drive to create CAL material during the early part of the decade interest

in educational technology is now at an all time high. Many academics are now aware of the

potential of CAL to improve the quality of education. However material is still being created to

serve other purposes – many of which are of recent origin.

Over the recent years there has been a growing climate of public demand for educational quality

and above all else accountability. This has resulted in many HEIs focusing on some form of quality

assurance, mainly in the form of the TQA. Today IT is seen as a major example of educational

quality. Consequently many departments are beginning to invest time and money into developing

IT based material in the effort to present themselves in a more favourable light towards the

accrediting authorities.

Related to this is the drive towards training staff in IT skills through accredited professional

development courses (e.g. the NVQ). Of particular focus is the training of staff in IT skills which

often involves the creation of websites to support and accompany their courses. This is regarded

as a small step away from the creation of actual CAL material *. Perhaps we are beginning to see

the emergence of the new generation of computer literate lecturers initially promised by HE

literature in the early 1990s?

A further outcome of the recent quality assurance climate is the move towards the use of records

of learning. Many universities require their staff to keep all evidence of student work and this is

often expedient through electronic format – databases.

* The majority of course supporting websites are sadly little more than word processed course

notes converted to HTML – which is akin to CBL in my opinion.

Much of the above, e.g. basic IT skills, database record keeping, staff development, may be

considered to be of little relation to actual CAL material but they do contribute to the overall

atmosphere conducive to the development of learning technology. Taking this further it can be

stated that a high presence of CAL within an institution will improve its image and current standingwith regards towards other institutions. In other words the use of CAL has market potential.

17

7/28/2019 whyCAL


Remember despite the moves towards collaboration on a national basis the individual HE

institution is at competition with its neighbours, albeit not openly. The current climate of

competition centre around three areas all related to quality: students, tutors and research. Today

CAL is often viewed as a competitive advantage and those institutions with a history of innovation

through IT may be looked upon favourably by prospective students, staff and research grant

bodies.

CAL material is now more than ever viewed as the solution to the problem of increasing diversity

of students. As always large class sizes are still an issue however the range of abilities for the

current student population is large if not mixed due to the recent influx of mature students. Inaddition we have over recent years experienced an expansion of the overseas market both in

terms of visiting foreign students and distance learning, the latter being aided by the arrival of the

internet.

In addition many students previously excluded from HE sector are now able to returning

education. Exclusion is often due to many reasons not least being the entry requirements to attend

the institution in the first place. However we are now seeing students for whom as little as 5 yearsago, would not have even considered the possibility of attendance. By this I am referring to single

parents, the part time employed, the disabled and those individuals living in remote locales who

find themselves unable to leave. In all cases the internet has broken down barriers and has

allowed education to arrive on the door step. In particular we are now seeing a breakdown in

geographical barriers. For instance it is now possible to organise distance learning via the internet

and to allow those individuals who due to reasons of culture were at one point forbidden to learn

specific subjects. A recent example is the distance learning course in Health Law, run by the

University of Hertfordshire, whose virtual campuses include black South African universities and

Saudi Arabian women colleges.

So with the distance learning market opening up many universities, in particular the former

polytechnics are following the example of the Open University by making learning material

accessible over the internet. And a natural extension of the use of the internet for course delivery

is the inclusion of learning technology mainly in the form of on line assessments, (e.g.

QuestionMark Perception).

18

7/28/2019 whyCAL


I have previously mentioned more and more graduates are returning to university – but what does

this mean? As the proportion of mature students increases and we are in fact beginning to see a

change in the student population in terms of basic learning skills and ability. Many HEIs are

rethinking their approach not only towards teaching but of what should be taught in today’s

climate. Consequently we are now seeing more courses which have a high mixture of academic,

vocational and transferable skills with an emphasis in deeper level learning, e.g. Paramedic

Sciences and Midwifery. As a consequence there is still an ever more demand for high quality

learning in particular CAL.

I have also mentioned earlier that it is often believed student’s today, because of their continual

exposure to all things technical, are highly skilled in IT and therefore expectant of a high CAL

component in the course delivery. Consequently those institutions who invest substantially in CAL

may be looked upon favourably by the prospective student – marketing and competition again. In

reality though many students are neither expectant or highly skilled. However they may still be

attracted by the novelty of the using the Internet and by extension CAL as a means of learning. It

is this perception which lecturers are trying to meet today when they consider using educationaltechnology. In particular there are those staff who feel that they should either develop or buy in

CAL for two specific reasons. The first being to “jump on to the bandwagon” – they see other staff

members using the technology and are in fear of being left behind, while the second is based on

the assumption that students cannot learn in any other environment.

CAL is now viewed by some more as an opportunity for research rather than as a tool for

improving education. In the past there were those who were not involved found little incentive,

particularly in the early 1990s where the labour intensive activity meant less proportion of time

pursuing research, missing out on promotion opportunities and ghettoisation by fellow colleagues,

(Dixen, 1992). However today as a result of ever increasing constraints being placed on the tutor’s

time one ideal solution has been to combine the demands of the research quota with that of

developing technology. Research in CAL is still a new and exciting area and there are many

avenues which the developer can take to publicise their results. In addition to the normal journal

based publications there are also other research outlets in the field . For instance during the last

through years through the efforts of subject specific CTI centres and ALT (Association for Learning

19

7/28/2019 whyCAL


Technology) themed conferences are becoming more common place. In addition presence of on-

line journals devoted to technology in teaching is increasing.

There are also many potential sources for funding. For example Government backed initiatives,

educational research bodies, commercial and industry sources and even the more traditional

based funding councils (EPSRC). So there is the increased opportunity to win funding and the

gaining of prestige in what is seen by many to be a relatively new area of research. The type of

staff involved in such activity are usually technophiles - tutors who are attracted to use of IT to

the extent that they learn more about the technology than is actually required for the job at hand.

Developing CAL to Improve the Quality of Education i.e. the “Good” Reasons Behind CALDevelopment

So what are the “good” or what can be regarded as the “legitimate” reasons for developing CAL

material? The author is of the opinion that all CAL material development should take place in

response to redressing an identified learning need. Specifically for those situations where the

current traditional methods are failing to redress repeated problems in teaching a particular subject. In other words the traditional forms of instruction are failing to teach students specific

educational objectives.

Under these circumstances CAL should be developed with the explicit aim of producing specified

learning outcomes within the student’s performance. The students should be able to learn from the

technology and exhibit specific learning behaviours which cannot be produced by use of any other

form of instruction.

However the above implies that CAL is to be developed and used as a remedy or a last resort

wherever other methods fail. The tutor should not be restricted to developing CAL applications in

situations where current methods are performing unsatisfactory. Indeed there is the case that,

where current methods of instruction are deemed to be producing satisfactory results in terms of

learning, CAL should still be developed and integrated into the course simply to investigate the

possibility that even further improvement may be obtained.

20

7/28/2019 whyCAL


So basically CAL and its development should be concerned with improving the actual quality of the

learning experience itself.

There are also other justifiable reasons for the use of and creation of CAL. First and foremost is

that CAL offers the opportunity to teach material which was previously not possible. For instance

multimedia applications are capable of exhibiting animations illustrating complex relationships

between principles and movies of events which are not practical to re create within the lecture

theatre environment (e.g. machine working, medical operations, geological processes). Admittedly

such examples can be illustrated by the use of video, however within a CAL application the movies

and animations are often incorporated in such a way as to compliment each other and aresupported by text, diagrams etc. CAL also offers a new way of teaching through complex

simulations. For example students are able to view and interact with simulations of laboratory

experiments. Again this is no match for the actual demonstration itself however such complex

learning environments allow the students to explore and define the limits of the simulation and to

take processes beyond their breaking point, something which is impossible in the real world.

So CAL when used properly can significantly alter the learning environment and now with theadvent of the internet it has increasingly become possible to shift the responsibility of learning

towards the student. The internet promotes student centred learning in a number of ways: first

there is greater access to materials over the web – the majority of students are able to search

across the Internet and go beyond the resources held by their own institution and investigate those

held by others; second is through the use of email and email attachment, it is a relatively simple

task for the user to submit an answer or word processed document and receive a response from

the tutor thus enhancing the quality of learning through feedback and improving the relationship

between tutor and student; and finally the development of synchronous and asynchronous

discussions groups (e.g. Net Meeting and Lotus Notes), where students are able to “meet” online

and discuss, argue or work as a team over various issues. The advantage of the on line

discussion is that unlike those of the real world everyone’s view can be heard (or seen in this

case) and those who are not comfortable with arguing face to face are able to enjoy the relative

anonymity provided by email. So the internet provides an effective supportive framework which

can be capitalised upon when used in conjunction with learning technology – either as part of the

internet itself or as a stand alone application.

21

7/28/2019 whyCAL


So CAL when used appropriately helps place a greater emphasis upon student centred learning.

The student is given a degree of autonomy as to how active their role is within the learning

process. They can be highly proactive and explore the technology to the fullest or take a more

passive role and let the events unfold before them – let the technology guide them through the

subject material. In comparison with the more traditional methods however the student is always a

passive participant. By developing CAL which promotes student centred learning we are also able

to accommodate different styles of learning. The student is free to choose their own direction of

learning, the pace at which they learn and the strategy or style of learning. However as the rest of

PhD considers this area in greater detail allowing student autonomy with regards to the direction of learning may not be the wisest of CAL design strategies.

Whether by novelty or by good design CAL stimulates the student and in doing so sustains

interest and increases the motivation to learn - possibly even resulting in pleasurable learning! So

there is an argument for either using or developing CAL materials in order to improve the student’s

attitude towards learning.

Another justifiable reason for CAL development centres around the issue of interaction. Well

designed CAL programs offer a high level of interaction whereby the user is prompted to respond

to the events unfolding before them. However there are various forms of interaction: the basic

involving clicking an on screen button to access another page while the relatively higher level

requiring the user to respond to a given query and in return displaying the appropriate feedback

concerning the student’s action. It is the latter with which we are primarily concerned. High level

interactions can identify the learning needs of the student and the areas within the material with

which they are struggling with. By responding to the student’s actions the program is responding to

their misconceptions of the topic and through corrective feedback the student is able to re-

conceive their answer and try again. Taking this further diagnostic interaction of this sort serves

the needs of the students on an individual basis something which is impossible within the typical

lecture context. CAL used within this context can help bring a group of students to a common level

of knowledge for a particular subject.

22

7/28/2019 whyCAL


Finally CAL allows the tutor to gain a more accurate level of understanding of the student’s

performance through automated data collection. Again this is a form of diagnostic CAL whereby

the tutor is able to determine the quality of performance for the student class as a whole and gain

some idea of the areas where current teaching methods are failing. When developed for this

purpose CAL is a valuable aid towards the assessment of current teaching strategies and of their

re-evaluation leading towards improved teaching.

However although the reasons outlined above can be deemed as being the appropriate motives

for which CAL should be developed, the expected outcome of improved quality may fail to

materialise if the development has been poorly planned. In other words there are those developerswho create CAL applications with the best intentions, however through ignorance or otherwise

produce inadequate material while still expecting to see an improvement in quality. For example

there is the current trend of converting PowerPoint slides or Word documents into HTML pages

and placing them on the web. The tutor is under the impression that they are now using learning

technology when all they have done is simply re-displayed their lecture notes in another format –

another medium of presentation. There has been no attempt to change the leaning environment.

However despite this staff still naively expect to see an improvement in student performance. Theuse of technology in any shape or form will not necessarily produced the desired learning

outcomes careful thought and consideration is require and one must learn to avoid the usage of

technology for the sake of it and be aware of its true potential and its limitations.

So the development of CAL material on the basis of uninformed decisions and aims results in poor

usage of educational technology. However this does not necessarily result in failure, as many may

think, but simply little or no change in the quality of education as experienced by the student - they

will neither gain or lose from such efforts since the quality of education remains unaltered.

References

Committee of Scottish Principals, Teaching and learning in an expanding higher education

system: executive summary , The CTISS File, Number 15, CTISS Publications, University of

Oxford, (April 1993)

23

7/28/2019 whyCAL


CTI, Core Tools for Core Activities, A report from the CTI, CTISS Publications, University of

Oxford, (April 1992a)

CTI, Editorial, The CTISS File, Number 13, CTISS Publications, University of Oxford, (April 1992)

CTI, Teaching and Learning Technology Programme (TLTP), Editorial, The CTISS File, Number

15, CTISS Publications, University of Oxford, (April 1993)

CTI, Editorial, A review of learning and teaching innovation in UK higher education, CTI Annual

Review 1997/98, CTISS Publications, University of Oxford, (1998)

Davies, M. L., and Crowther, D. E. A., The benefits of using multimedia in higher education: myths

and realities, Active Learning, Number 3: Teaching with Multimedia, CTISS Publications,

University of Oxford, (December 1995)

Davies, P., Scarborough, S. and Brailsford, T., Authorware Professional: multi-platform icon

authoring , The CTISS File, Number 13, CTISS Publications, University of Oxford, (April 1992)

Dixon, M., The Uptake of IT as a teaching aid in higher education: a social science perspective .

The CTISS File, Number 14, CTISS Publications, University of Oxford, (October 1992)

Durling D. (1992), Computer aided learning for students of industrial design , Number 13, CTISS

Publications, University of Oxford, (April 1992)

Griffiths, S., New Deal for Mass Teaching , The Higher, (1st November 1991)

Murphy, B., Murphy, C. and Hathaway, B., The teaching of CAL in chemistry: a progress report ,

The CTISS File, Number 13, CTISS Publications, University of Oxford, (April 1992)

Parrington, N. and Ferguson I., The use of hypertext and the world wide web in teaching and

assessing software engineering , Active Learning, Number 1: Computer Assisted Assessment,

CTISS Publications, University of Oxford, (December 1994)

Peel, A., Computer Aided Assessment Through Hypermedia, Active Learning, Number 1:

Computer Assisted Assessment, CTISS Publications, University of Oxford, (December 1994)

24

7/28/2019 whyCAL


Secretary of State for Education and Science, Higher Education: A New Framework , HMSO,

London, (May 1991).

Siviter, D. and Brown, K. Hypercourseware. The CTISS File, Number 13, CTISS Publications,

University of Oxford, (April 1992)

Universities Funding Council Information Systems Committee, The Report of the Information

Systems Committee Courseware Development Working Party , Beyond Lectures, CTISS

Publications, University of Oxford, (July 1992)

25

Documents

whyCAL