Higher Education in Europe, Vol. XXVI, No.

2, 2001

The Implementation of e-Learning in Higher Education in

the United Kingdom: The Road Ahead

TERRY A. GOODISON

The quality assurance bodies for higher education in the United Kingdom, particularly HEFCE
and QAA, have concluded that the information and communication technologies can serve as
powerful stimuli for improving the three principal instructional functions in higher education
institutions: teaching, learning, and assessment. Thus, quality ratings will increasingly be
in uenced by staff competence in the use of these technologies and, as a result, institutions must
make efforts to generalize their use. HEFCE is setting up a Learning and Teaching Support
Network and a Generic Learning and Teaching Centre intended to provide subject-based support
for the sharing among higher education institutions of innovation and good practice. The
Council is also proposing to set up an e-University that would operate commercially as a
clearing-house, outsourcing many of its activities to a core of selected campus universities. Many
view this proposal as a threat to traditional universities.

IMPACT OF THE CONSTRUCTIVIST PARADIGM ON TEACHING

Higher education in the United Kingdom, as in many other countries, is experiencing a
period of rapid change, not only because of advances in technology, but also because the
constructivist paradigm (understood in its broadest sense) has begun to have an impact upon
the teaching context in virtually every department of every institution. Change on this scale
brings with it many opportunities for renewal and improvement, but also provokes stresses,
strains, and con icts that could hinder or even derail the process, thus negating potential
beneŽ ts. By providing a synoptic view of the current state of the art in higher education at
the national level, this article will highlight some of the key issues that need to be addressed
if higher education institutions in the United Kingdom are to be successful in integrating
information and communication technologies into their mainstream provision.
In order to make sense of what is happening in the United Kingdom at the moment, it
might be useful to consider the model of tertiary education proposed by John Biggs in 1993
(pp. 73–85), just before the technological and educational changes referred to above really
began to gather momentum. Drawing upon the work of Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1971) in
general systems theory, Biggs views tertiary education as an open system with its own
ecology:

In the ecology of a system, a change to any one component will, depending on the
state of equilibrium already achieved, either effect change throughout and thereby
create a new equilibrium and hence a new system, or the changed component will
be absorbed, the system reverting to the status quo. (Biggs, 1993, pp. 73–85)

The model he proposes consists of several nested micro-systems wherein “each subsys-
tem attempts a steady state of equilibrium not only internally between its own components,
but also with other systems, the immediately superordinate one in particular”. Visually, the
model is represented as in Figure 1.

ISSN 0379-7724 print/ISSN 1469-835 8 online/01/020247-16 Ó 2001 UNESCO

DOI: 10.1080/0379772012008264 2
248 T. A . GOODISON

FIGURE 1. Ecology of the higher education system in the United Kingdom (the horizontal double-headed
arrows represent forces towards equilibrium within micro-systems, and the single vertical arrow
represents forces towards equilibrium across systems). Source: Biggs (1993).

At the time that Biggs was writing his article, the key relationship, in macro terms, was
still the one between the teaching context and the surrounding departmental structures, even
though, as Biggs readily admitted, the balance of forces was tending to favour the larger
sub-systems:
It is true that classrooms can affect departments; departments, faculties; and
faculties, institutions; but it is more likely that the lines of force will go from the
larger to affect the smaller system. (Biggs, 1993)

But since 1994, the situation has changed quite radically.

IMPACT OF THE QUALITY ASSURANCE AGENCY FOR HIGHER EDU-

CATION
Despite the abundance of published material on the implementation of information and
communications technology (ICT), little mention has been made, within the context of the
United Kingdom, of the signiŽ cance of the impact of the Quality Assurance Agency for
Higher Education (QAA), but it has played a major role in deŽ ning the educational context
in which ICT implementation is being debated. Over the last seven years, Ž rst the Higher
Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and then the Quality Assurance Agency
for Higher Education have been conducting a national review of the quality of teaching,
learning, and assessment (amongst other things1) across all academic subjects throughout
England and Northern Ireland (alongside very similar processes in Scotland and Wales). Its
methods are based on teaching observation, the evaluation of the quality of student work,
1
“Teaching, Learning, and Assessment” make up just one of the six aspects of provision that are reviewed. The
other Ž ve are: “Curriculum Design Content and Organization”, “Student Progression and Achievement”, “Student
Support and Guidance”, “Learning Resources”, and “Quality Management and Enhancement ”.
 E-LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE UNITED KINGDOM 249

and scrutiny of the systems in place to monitor standards in teaching and learning (e.g.,
student evaluations, external examiners’ reports, etc.).
The signiŽ cance of these subject reviews for higher education institutions should not be
underestimated. First, the review process itself is very demanding and resource-intensive,
particularly for the subject staff being reviewed. It has come under Ž re from the Committee
of Vice-Chancellors and Principals (CVCP—recently renamed “Universities UK”) for this
very reason. Secondly, as is made clear in the HEFCE consultation document, Learning and
Teaching: Strategy and Funding Proposals (1998), the strategy of the organization will be
to “encourage and reward high quality teaching and learning”, and institutions are advised
that the results of QAA subject review should be a central element in their bids to the
Council for additional funding from its Teaching Quality Enhancement Fund:
We would expect the outcomes of the TQA [i.e., subject review] process to be a
signiŽ cant part of institutions’ evidence of high quality provision, but not necess-
arily the sole evidence. (Para. 24)
In other words, success in a QAA review will have an impact upon further improvements
in funding for teaching and learning activities, and universities are very conscious of this
requirement.
From the rather narrow perspective of ICT implementation, the impact of QAA subject
review has had important consequences, most of them positive. On the positive side, it has
succeeded in focusing attention on the quality of the learning experience of students and on
the structures that support it and has thus strengthened the position of those arguing that the
role of ICT is precisely to support and enhance student learning. Whereas previously the
champions of technology-based learning were perhaps viewed as peripheral to the main
work of departments, their enthusiasm and commitment have become positive assets in the
climate engendered by the advent of QAA subject review. Making the change to a more
constructivist, student-centred approach, if only in order to meet the standards set by QAA,
has greatly helped the case for ICT-based learning. On the negative side, however, subject
review absorbs large quantities of staff time and, by focusing attention on the effectiveness
of routine administrative matters, it might be viewed as a distraction, taking time and
resources away from other developments.
What, then, are the criteria applied with respect to teaching, learning, and assessment at
the level of subject review? Its key features, with respect to teaching, learning, and
assessment are that the review teams, made up of subject experts chaired by a non-special-
ist, investigate the strengths and weaknesses of provision within the following framework
(QAA, 2000):
—Providers are expected to have a teaching, learning, and assessment (TLA) strategy.
—The programme of work should develop and assess appropriately (in relation to the
subject’s aims and objectives):
• knowledge and understanding;
• key (transferable) skills;
• analytical skills;
• subject-speciŽ c skills, including practical/professional skills.
—Strengths and weaknesses in teaching are to be identiŽ ed with regard to:
• clarity of learning objectives;
• quality of materials;
• student engagement and participation.
250 T. A . GOODISON

—Clear and appropriate learning outcomes are expected, and learning should be effectively
facilitated in terms of workloads, guidance, supervision, and resources.
—Assessment should match learning outcomes, be clear and transparent, and promote
student learning.

In terms of what goes on in classrooms, this approach is rather coarse-grained and leaves
some signiŽ cant gaps. There is no speciŽ c mention of student–student collaboration, for
example, but at least this approach has the merit of concentrating attention on the following
key aspects of the learning experience that have been brought into focus by the construc-
tivist approach:

—student engagement and participation;

—the close relationship between learning and assessment;
—the cultivation of understanding as well as the acquisition of skills and knowledge.

Clearly, the approach to teaching and learning implicit in this framework is far removed
from the “transmission” model or the “quantitative outlook” (Biggs, 1994) which are among
the favourite targets of certain educational technologists seeking to promote computer-based
alternatives to “traditional” or “formal” classroom teaching. But what is perhaps more
signiŽ cant in these developments is that classroom teaching is now embedded in a much
wider system, of which the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education is a key
component.
To return, brie y, to the Biggs model of the educational ecosystem: “When any aspect
of the learning/teaching context is the focus of attention”, he writes, “the micro-system of
which that is a part, and the adjacent systems with which it may interact, need to be taken
into account.” This perspective is precisely the one adopted by the Quality Assurance
Agency that expressly links the teaching, learning, and assessment aspect to the other Ž ve
aspects, namely:

—curriculum design, content, and organization;

—student progression and achievement;—student support and guidance;
—learning resources;
—quality management and enhancement.

For example, the overall teaching, learning, and assessment strategy of a subject is linked
to curriculum design, content and organization, and learning resources. The teaching
component of that strategy is linked to resources and staff development, and student
learning is linked to student support and guidance and resources. So, largely as a result of
the methodology used by the Quality Assurance Agency, what has changed in the United
Kingdom, in terms of the Biggs model, is that the departmental structures that are relevant
to teaching, learning, and assessment are now strongly conditioned by institutional bureauc-
racy (in the form of the quality procedures of universities), and these in turn are strongly
conditioned by political pressures in the form not only of QAA subject review, but also of
QAA institutional audits which scrutinize quality management and enhancement at institu-
tional level. To evoke Biggs’ terms, the entire system in being re-balanced in order to Ž nd
“an appropriate equilibrium” between the teaching context and outside pressures; in effect,
a new system.
It is no longer primarily the components in the next micro-system in the hierarchy
(departmental structures) which are having the greatest effect on the teaching context. The
most important pressures are coming from the periphery, from the Higher Education
 E-LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE UNITED KINGDOM 251

TABLE 1. Quality Assurance Agency subject overviews (1996–2000)

grades (percent) Classroom observation

Overall TLA grades (percent)
Number of
Subject providers 3 4 2 3 4 2

Sociology Not given 40 59 1 47 40 13

General Engineering 35 20 69 11 “approximately Not
60 percent given
were graded 4”
American Studies 20 45 55 0 54 41 5
Linguistics Not given 35 65 0 61 30 9
Electronic and Electrical 76 24 68 8 “most were Not
Engineering graded 3 or 4” given
French* Not given 20 73 7 43 40.5 14
Communication and 59 20 72 8 58 35 7
Media Studies
History of Art, Architecture, Not given 35 65 0 53 37 9
and Design*

* The asterisk indicates that there were grades of 1 for teaching observation in these subjects, i.e., that
some of the sessions observed were deemed unsatisfactory.

Funding Council for England and the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.
These are being transmitted directly to departmental level by the institutions.
How, then, has the system as a whole adjusted to the advent of QAA subject review?
Institutions and departments have been obliged to formulate teaching and learning strategies
(the Higher Education Funding Council for England now provides detailed guidelines on
this topic as on many others [HEFCE, 1999a]) and to put in place, or review, their quality
procedures in teaching, learning, and assessment (TLA). The amount of change that these
activities have generated can be gauged by reading the subject overviews published so far
by the Quality Assurance Agency.
The information in Table 1 was extracted from a total of thirty-nine subject overviews
available at the time of writing.2 As some of the overviews date from 1994–1995, when the
QAA methodology did not produce quantitative data on teaching, learning, and assessment,
they have been excluded. The subjects in the table re ect a balance between the humanities
and technology-based subjects (broadly construed). Those with very small student enroll-
ments, such as African Studies, have been omitted.
It should be borne in mind that subject specialists are responsible for these ratings. These
people are not educational specialists in any sense, but are carefully selected in terms of the
breadth and relevance of their experience and have received three days of intensive training.
A Grade 4 means “makes a full contribution to the attainment of the stated learning
objectives”; a Grade 3 means “a substantive contribution”, and a Grade 2 means “an
acceptable contribution.
The most signiŽ cant feature of these data is that relatively few overall teaching, learning,
and assessment grades and relatively few classroom observations are classed as 2, i.e., as
2
The results of the reviews completed so far, on an institution-by-institution basis, can be found at:
, http://www.qaa.ac.uk/revreps/subjrev/bysubname.htm . . The overall conclusions of these reports, describing the
academic health of each subject across the full range of institutions, are at , http://www.qaa.ac.uk/revreps/subjrev/
overviews.htm . .
252 T. A . GOODISON

no more than “acceptable”. Subject reviewers are clearly not unhappy, generally speaking,
with the quality of teaching and learning in these subjects, a pattern that is repeated in all
the other overview reports. This result could, and perhaps should, be viewed as a measure
of the success of the efforts that subject teachers have made to conform to the demands of
the QAA methodology, despite the burdens that doing so has imposed on departments and
institutions. Through the mechanism of QAA subject review, a certain level of satisfaction
with the progress being made in teaching, learning, and assessment has gained ofŽ cial
sanction, both inside and outside the universities, and several institutions, having been
awarded high grades at review, have announced their success globally, via the Web, in
unambiguous terms.
The overview reports indicate that a process of change is certainly underway. The
conclusions of reviewers do much to dispel the myth that the bulk of teaching, learning, and
assessment in British universities can still be characterized as “traditional” or “formal” in
nature. It was perhaps only to be expected that Communication and Media Studies should
be praised for “a wide range of well-considered teaching and learning approaches” which
include “lectures, seminars, workshops , demonstrations, tutorials, peer group learning,
production projects, small group and team work, Ž lm screenings, case studies, and critical
reviews”. What may be a little more surprising to some is that engineering subjects, which
in the past have been perceived to be failing to develop deep approaches to student learning
(Ramsden, 1992), now appear, in the case of the better providers at least, to be embracing
change:
Providers achieving the highest grade generally deploy a wide range of teaching
and learning methods, including CAL and use of the Internet. In the best examples,
the use of directed and independent learning is well integrated with taught
elements. (Electrical and Electronic Engineering, in, Ramsden, 1992)

DIFFICULT ENTRY OF THE INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION

TECHNOLOGIES
The reports also indicate that specialist reviewers are aware of the importance of infor-
mation technology and the Internet for teaching, learning, and assessment, and that
implementation varies greatly both within and between subjects. Comments made in the
Sociology overview will strike a chord with a great many university teachers in the United
Kingdom:
Where there are close links with the central services, and staff are committed to
IT, the associated software, databases, and support are usually available. In such
institutions, students were keen and competent in the use of E-mail and the Internet
and made full use of the existing resources. However, considerable improvement
could be made in the development and application of IT skills. (in, Ramsden,
1992)
As this comment implies, the use of information technology and, latterly, information and
communication technology, in teaching and learning, has in the past largely been a function
of the enthusiasm and commitment of small groups of staff within particular subjects,3 but
there is new evidence, in the form of university strategies for teaching and learning, that
3
An example of the level of commitment and the technical expertise deployed by such early adopters is the paper
by Paul Kenyon, “The Nature and Nurture of Vivid Interactive Web-Based Teaching and Learning Materials”
(ALT-C99 6th International Conference).
 E-LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE UNITED KINGDOM 253

more coherent policies are being formulated with regard to ICT-based learning, even though
it still plays a minor role within the thinking of most universities in regard to teaching,
learning, and assessment.
As regards ICT-based learning, what these strategies reveal is that a majority of
institutions:
—are still in the planning and target-setting phases;
—have adopted a gradualist approach, i.e., building slowly upon what are considered to be
Ž rm foundations (some institutions invoke successful outcomes of QAA subject review
as support for this strategy);
—are committed to a devolved model in which the centre (through teaching and learning
units/centres and information technology services) supports information and communica-
tions technology-based learning in departments;
—are not planning to use information and communication technology to integrate teaching
and learning with other student support systems;
—are using a centrally controlled competitive bidding strategy as a way of promoting
information and communications materials development;
—do not regard materials-based learning (whether based on information and communica-
tions technologies or not) as a viable replacement for classroom contact.
In some cases, especially when institutions are adopting a more radical and proactive
approach (Guildhall and Bangor, for example), the language used in the strategy documents
is strongly prescriptive. Guildhall, having already invested heavily in networked hardware
and software, especially in administration, “requires all departments to develop by June
2001 a viable three-year programme of IT-based support for their students’ learning” and
charges its Learning, Teaching, and Skills Development Working Group with the task of
monitoring these programmes annually. At Bangor, a decision was taken that by September
2000, ICT would be “a commonly used component in all students’ learning experience”.
But there are genuine reasons for doubting that these types of objectives can be achieved
in such short periods of time. As Derek Rowntree remarked in an article on materials-based
learning Ž rst published in 1999:
Many institutions are good at willing the ends … , but not all are so good at willing
the means. Policy statements come cheap; making them work is rather more costly.
(Rowntree, 2000)
Over and above any personal reasons that staff might have for baulking at the prospect
of ICT-based learning, such as lack of knowledge of or conŽ dence in technology, there are
serious institutional obstacles that have to be overcome.
One of the most important of these obstacles is the widespread assumption that
converting existing teaching materials to a Web format is unproblematic. The Keele
University strategy document contains just such an assumption:
Plans are well advanced to provide staff with the facilities to create Web
documents easily and make them accessible to their students. (Keele University,
1998)
This attitude makes a certain amount of sense in that Keele “does not envisage the use
of ICT to replace productive staff teaching time”. In other words, staff will put their lecture
notes on the Web in their own time but will continue to teach in face-to-face mode.
However, when classroom contact is to be replaced by ICT-based learning, the need for
staff development and teaching remission becomes a major issue, and a modest commit-
254 T. A . GOODISON

ment to basic ICT training for all academics is simply not adequate. Staff members need
to be trained by successful practitioners in the art of writing materials for distance learners
and conducting on-line discussion groups (for example) and then they need signiŽ cant
amounts of time, and the assistance of production specialists, in order to produce viable end
products. But even if such levels of support are made available, there is no guarantee that
staff will wish to embark on such a demanding enterprise unless they are convinced that:
—a secure and robust technological infrastructure will ensure effective delivery;
—their own teaching and their students’ learning, will beneŽ t;
—their career prospects will be enhanced;
—teaching excellence is genuinely valued vis-à-vis research;
—they feel a sense of ownership of the whole enterprise.
This last point is most disturbing in the current climate in the United Kingdom and could
prove to be a decisive stumbling block on the road to ICT implementation. The top-down
approach cannot, of itself, deliver change and might even be counter-productive. Within
most institutions, there is strong departmental resistance to diktats from the centre,
especially when it is perceived that insufŽ cient resources are being made available to
achieve the outcomes that have been decreed. In addition, there is a widespread perception
amongst many academics in the sector that the information and communications technolo-
gies are a management tool designed to cut costs and, ultimately, stafŽ ng levels. Overcom-
ing these obstacles and ensuring ownership by those who have to deliver ICT-based
learning requires commitment from top management, resources, time, extensive consul-
tation, and an effective rewards system. In short, what is needed is the kind of deep and
broad institutional change that will take years of consistent policy and planning to
accomplish.

A CODE OF PRACTICE FOR DISTANCE EDUCATION

Provided that such a long-term perspective is adopted, however, there are hopeful signs that
many British universities will succeed in adapting their teaching and learning to the new
technological realities. On the one hand, the technologies themselves are becoming more
robust and can provide the levels of functionality that are required in teaching, learning, and
assessment, and contemporary campus networks can offer the kinds of performance that
users expect. On the other hand, it seems likely that the continuing in uence of the Quality
Assessment Agency in shaping institutional policies in terms of quality control will have a
positive impact on the institutionalization of ICT-based learning.
The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education has already published a Code of
Practice which covers the main elements of “a comprehensive quality assurance process for
higher education” (QAA, 1999). One element of this Code of Practice, published in January
1999 in draft form, consists of guidelines for distance learning (QAA, 1999), which is
viewed as having four dimensions, two of them directly relevant to ICT-based learning,
whether used to support students on, or off, campus:
—Materials-based learning … refers to all the learning resource materials made available
by the programme provider.
—Learning supported from the providing institution remotely to the student is that
dimension of a system of distance learning that refers to deŽ ned support and speciŽ ed
components of teaching provided remotely for individual distant students by a tutor from
the providing institution.
 E-LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE UNITED KINGDOM 255

The purpose of the guidelines is “the assurance of quality of provision and the security
of academic standards of programmes of study and awards”. These take the form of a set
of precepts deŽ ned as “those key matters which an institution might reasonably be expected
to be able to demonstrate that it is addressing effectively through its own relevant quality
assurance mechanisms”. These precepts are instantiated in terms of “outline guidance” the
purpose of which is to:
… offer suggestions on quality assurance and control which institutions can use,
elaborate, and adapt according to their own needs, traditions, cultures and decision-
making processes.
As far as the implementation and development of ICT-based learning is concerned, it
would appear that institutions will be expected to conform to a set of standards the scope
of which is the whole institution, not simply the subject or the department. The guidelines
cover six main areas (QAA, 1999):
(i) system design;
(ii) programme design, approval, and review;
(iii) the management of programme delivery;
(iv) student development and support;
(v) student communication and representation;
(vi) student assessment.
And the approach is determinedly systemic:
The strength of the chain of system and programme design, implementation,
delivery, support, student communication, and assessment … lies in its weakest
link.
Of the twenty-three precepts which are spread across the six aspects listed above, four
in particular are worth emphasizing in this context (the full list of precepts is available at
, http://www.qaa.ac.uk/public/dlg/append2.htm . ).
Taking a point-by-point look at the four guidelines:
—System design:
· Precept 3: Prior to offering programmes of study by distance learning, an institution
should explicitly design and test its system for administering and teaching students at
a distance. … The guidelines supporting this precept make speciŽ c reference to
designing and preparing learning materials, identifying appropriate media, testing lines
of communication, and Ž eld testing materials.
· Precept 5: A providing institution’s plans for offering programmes of study by
distance learning should be Ž nancially underwritten for the full period during which
students will be studying in them and at a level that safeguards the quality and
standards to which the institution is committed. The guidelines ask for “realistic
projections” and “Ž nancial policies” with regard to the expenditure and income
associated with the distance learning system.
—Programme design, approval, and review:
· Precept 6: The academic standard of the awards “will be demonstrably comparable
with those of awards delivered by the institution in other ways and consistent with any
benchmark information recognized within the United Kingdom.
256 T. A . GOODISON

—The management of programme delivery:

· Precept 13: The providing institution is also responsible for ensuring that each distance
learning programme of study is delivered in a manner that provides, in practice, a
learning opportunity which gives students a fair and reasonable chance of achieving
the academic standards required for successful completion. The guidelines stress the
need for training and staff development for administrative as well as for academic staff
and also the need for effective communication between all persons involved in the
provision.
To satisfy the quality requirements in regard to system design in a purely technological
sense implies the use of a single, institution-wide system that is professionally supported.
Administratively speaking, the system will have to embrace a range of functions much
wider than the programme of study, including the integration of administrative functions
within the same technological framework (e.g., student registration, student records, support
and guidance, and so on). The purchase and maintenance of an integrated system is only
a small part of what needs to be funded. As far as the production of materials is concerned,
staff development in instructional design will become essential, even if certain elements of
the production process are devolved to a specialist centre, and the training needs of
administrative staff cannot be ignored. All of the above will be expensive and will require
careful central planning even if ICT-based learning for on-campus students is the main
objective of the institution, rather than the full-scale distance learning option.
The precept on academic standards embodies an important principle so far as ICT-based
learning is concerned. It is not up to educational technologists “to deliver excellence in
teaching and subject-matter content to learners” as Naidu et al. (1999) would have us
believe. Provided that the quality of the learning experience is demonstrably equivalent to
face-to-face delivery, the switch to ICT-based learning can be justiŽ ed simply in terms of
gains in efŽ ciency for students (for instance, more  exible study time scheduling and
reductions in the costs for travel and accommodation) and for the institution (provision of
classrooms and levels of classroom usage). It may be, of course, that as ICT-based learning
takes root, students and staff will begin to realize the academic advantages that this mode
of delivery can bring, and there is some evidence that this realization is occurring within
the Open University.4
In terms of the management of the programme, the relevant precepts and guidelines stress
the issue of the prior skills of students, their knowledge and experience, the need for
interactive materials, and the importance of effective communication.
There are a number of issues here. First of all, a full introduction for all new students
to the on-line learning and support system is a necessity and also, incidentally, a natural
target for a materials-based approach, perhaps in the form of a CD-ROM which simulates
an on-line system. Secondly, students should be involved in the progressive development
of the whole system, not simply the learning materials and the design of the interface. It
is necessary to listen to students. It is not sufŽ cient to simply set up administrative
structures. What matters is the  ow of information between administrators, teachers, and
students. Course management issues need to be addressed rapidly and effectively and, as the
guidelines point out, administrative inefŽ ciencies could easily undermine the whole struc-
ture:
4
Figures quoted for 1998 indicate that unsatisfactory ratings for courses using IT are much higher when the course
has only recently incorporated IT (21 percent) as compared to courses in which it has been embedded for a number
of years (6 percent). See D. Laurillard, “Technology Strategy for Academic Advantage” (Open University,
, http://www2.open.ac.uk/LTTO/internal/tsaa/strategyupdate98.doc . , unpublished) .
 E-LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE UNITED KINGDOM 257

… poor general management or an inadequate administrative infrastructure can

negate otherwise good practice in the provision of distance learning.
If a home-based student is able to save signiŽ cant amounts of time by engaging with ICT,
he or she will not want to have to spend time in a bureaucratic paper-chase around the
ofŽ ces of his or her university trying to get administrative issues resolved.

THE OPEN UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND ICT-BASED

LEARNING
As institutions gradually increase their use of ICT-based learning, subject review teams of
the Quality Assurance Agency, drawing upon this part of the Code of Practice, will be
looking for evidence of the kinds of measures outlined above. If past experience of subject
review provides an indication of what to expect, this process will help rather than hinder
the implementation process by encouraging institutions to adopt a realistic and well-
grounded approach to the issues. However, the cost implications are signiŽ cant, especially
given the current funding background . Even the Open University, with years of experience
and a structure designed to support distance learning, is far from sanguine about the
problems inherent in the move to ICT-based learning, and the problems for campus
universities that do not have access to resources comparable to those of the Open
University, will almost certainly be more severe.
Despite the structural differences that distinguish the Open University from campus
universities, the problems that both parties face regarding the implementation of ICT are not
overly dissimilar. To begin with, the Open University is not envisaging a rapid and
comprehensive switch to new technologies and is proposing, instead, a gradual move to a
mix of traditional distance learning methods and technology-based methods. Over a
Ž ve-year period, from 1997 to 2003, it foresees that “the total proportion of student time
spent on technology-based study [will be] approximately one-third, which for most courses
will be sufŽ cient” (Laurillard, 1998, para. 15). Nor does the Open University envisage
rejecting traditional methods such as print “because it is very efŽ cient for students and
staff”, and face-to-face tutorials, “because students will always need personal contact”. So
the differences between the Open University, on the one hand, and campus universities, on
the other, are, in a sense, simply a question of the degree of face-to-face support that a
student can expect. It is instructive, therefore, to consider brie y the approach of the Open
University to the use of new technology.
The Open University began planning the introduction of new technology in 1994. The
end-point of its current planning phase, as indicated above, is 2003. In line with the QAA
precepts and guidelines, its perspective is holistic:
If we are to achieve the potential value it offers, it [technology strategy] cannot
remain a peripheral, optional activity within our teaching, any more than it could
within our internal administrative systems. The overall aim is to integrate technol-
ogy into the mainstream of our teaching and research activities … (Laurillard,
1998, para. 105)
However, the Open University is very much concerned by the costs of the transition to
new technology and views effective planning as a way of reducing these costs in terms of
both staff development and material resources. The principal mechanism for achieving these
objectives is the quality assurance process:
258 T. A . GOODISON

QA mechanisms require technology development projects to observe a user-

centred design and evaluation methodology, in order to ensure that usage is
progressive, adaptive, and cost-effective, and that the University captures the
experience gained. (Laurillard, 1998, para. 6)
The implications of this statement are particularly interesting for most campus-based
universities. First, members of quality assurance teams at university and departmental level
simply do not have the expertise, in many cases, to fulŽ ll this function; so, the integration
of ICT-based methods risks being seriously compromised. Yet, unless appropriate quality
assurance procedures are put into place, it is difŽ cult to see how universities can satisfy the
expectations of the Quality Assurance Agency with regard to the design and testing of
innovations.
Second, the Open University approach links the creation of an effective institutional
knowledge base to the work of quality assurance, thus creating a “framework that enables
organizational learning, and the dissemination of good practice” (Laurillard, 1998, para. 4).
This way of proceeding is potentially a most fruitful way of bringing the development of
ICT-based learning into the mainstream of the teaching and learning process. Institutions
which, unlike the Open University, do not have sufŽ cient staff with the relevant expertise
might consider making current members of quality assurance committees a target for early
and intensive staff development. In this way, one of the barriers to ICT implementation, the
conservatism of the existing committee structures, could be effectively lowered.
The detailed planning and the time-scale of the gradual move of the Open University to
partial implementation point the way forward for campus universities, but the Open
University has two considerable advantages. First, its staff is already committed to the
materials-based approach and can have a degree of conŽ dence that the transition has been
thought through and that the structures exist to support them in making the adjustment.
Second, the decision to integrate, technological, administrative, and academic systems has
already been taken and is being implemented.
In many campus universities, these conditions are at some distance from being met, and
so one can expect that the time-scale for implementation may be even longer, assuming that
management is successful in establishing, at an early stage, effective partnerships with the
departments and the staff members who have to deliver against the targets set.

CURRENT INITIATIVES FOR E-HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE UNITED

KINGDOM
Before concluding, it might be worthwhile to mention brie y three more initiatives that
have relevance for the future of information and communications technologies in the United
Kingdom. The Ž rst of these is the Learning and Teaching Support Network (LTSN), an
initiative of the Higher Education Funding Council for England to create twenty-four
subject centres plus a Generic Learning and Teaching Centre (GLTC) with the aim of
promoting “high quality learning and teaching by providing subject-based support for
sharing innovation and good practices” (HEFCE, 1999b). According to this scheme, each
of the subject centres will be charged with, inter alia:
—promoting communication and information technologies-based approaches to teaching,
learning, and assessment, including, for example, the use of the World Wide Web and
materials to support distance learning;
—ensuring that practitioners in the subject disciplines are aware of current and potential
future pedagogical developments, including the use of communication and information
technologies;
 E-LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE UNITED KINGDOM 259

—collaborating with the Generic Learning and Teaching Centre to ensure that subject staff
are aware of pedagogical and technological issues that are generic to all or many subject
disciplines;
—reviewing, advising on, and encouraging discipline-based research and development on
learning and teaching, including the use of communications and information technologies
to meet the needs of the disciplines supported by the subject centre.

In the context of the gradualist, subject-based strategy adopted by most universities, this
approach is to be welcomed, since it will provide institutions with the extra support they
will need to motivate and support their staff in making the sorts of cultural changes that are
inherent in the move to ICT-based teaching and learning. The second initiative, the creation
of the Institute for Learning and Teaching (June 1999), is closely linked to the Ž rst in that
one of its roles will be to manage the Learning and Teaching Support Network and so
provide co-ordination between the activities of the two organizations. This move is also to
be welcomed, as it seeks to increase the prestige of teaching and learning in British
universities in which research has traditionally held pride of place. The institute describes
itself as a “professional body for all who teach and support learning in higher education in
the United Kingdom” (HEFCE, 1999b) and aims “to enhance the status of teaching [and to]
improve the experience of learning and support innovation in higher education”.
Finally, there is the latest HEFCE proposal, the e-University. In February 2000, HEFCE
issued a circular letter to Vice-Chancellors and Principals in the United Kingdom outlining
the nature of the “e-University” project (see , http://www.hefce.ac.uk/Pubs/Circlets/2000/
c/04 00.htm . ). The basic motive for the initiative was the need for the United Kingdom
to seize a signiŽ cant share of the markets to which the major virtual and corporate
“universities” have gained access, especially in the Ž eld of Continuous Professional
Development and postgraduate courses. The e-University is not intended to become a new
institution but a public/private partnership, formed around a small core of higher education
institutions, and possessing the resources necessary to create a virtual university. Consul-
tants charged with conducting a preliminary study of the e-University concept reported in
October 2000 (HEFCE, Pricewaterhouse Coopers Report, 2000).
One might have thought that since the main purpose of the e-University project appears
to be one of providing the United Kingdom with a powerful global presence in the virtual
learning market, it would have relatively little impact upon the development of information
and communications technologies within British universities, especially those outside the
select core of institutions that will be full members. However, the authors of the report view
the matter differently:

Thus the aim is that the e-U concept should encourage and facilitate new thinking
within British universities and help them develop and make imaginative use of the
emerging e-learning technologies. Again, this should be of value to all UK HEIs.
The e-U must show, by its example, that on-line learning can, and should, be of
high quality while also being interactive,  exible, and exciting.

The overlap with the Learning and Teaching Support Network is manifest, and the
likelihood is that academics will have a strong preference for operating within the
subject-centred structure of the Network rather than within a commercially driven enterprise
such as the e-University. The report acknowledges that the e-University “must secure the
support and input of the UK HE sector” in order to bring the project to fruition, but it is
difŽ cult to see how this can come about on the basis of the proposals currently being made.
260 T. A . GOODISON

For example, the report suggests that the functions of materials producer, assessor, and
academic tutor could, and perhaps should, be separated out:
There may well be universities, or even companies, which would be willing and
able to provide, on a fee charging basis, specialist tutorial support for material
produced by others. (Para. 78)
Each learning module would also need to be assessable externally, and an
indication of the form and nature of such assessment should be built into its design.
This would assist bodies or institutions—other than the original designers—which
accepted the module as valid for their award and which wished to assess their own
learners. (Paras. 55–56)
More importantly, perhaps, the report does not view the e-University itself as an
awarding body, which poses the problem of guaranteeing the coherence and the academic
integrity of awards based on modules drawn from a range of sources. The report recognizes
that this problem is a very difŽ cult one to solve and sees itself as “an awarding body of last
resort” (para. 97). But this position sends out a clear signal to academics: if you collaborate
with this institution you may be feeding a creature that could one day make you redundant.
Finally, the suggestion is made that the central administrative functions could also, along
with tutoring and assessment, be contracted out:
The e-U should be an exemplar of functions such as internet-based registration,
student tracking and payments systems, maintenance of the databases and reposito-
ries of various kinds (both the modules for learners and the “learning objects” for
providers). Some or all of this could be contracted out. (Para. 162)
Fragmentation on this scale is strongly reminiscent of the aftermath of the privatization
of British Rail with its Byzantine complexity and unresponsiveness to demands for
improvements in customer service. One can only imagine the response of Quality Assur-
ance Agency reviewers when asked to comment on the coherence, responsiveness, and
robustness of the services offered by the e-University to support the learning experience.
The example of the e-University proposal is most instructive. It throws into stark relief
the value of much that has been done, and is being done, to further enhance the quality of
the student learning experience as a whole, including its accessibility via new technology,
and it serves to alert academic staff to the threat that information and communication
technologies could pose to their profession unless they take control of the technology and
develop it in ways that do not con ict with their commitment to the quality of student
learning. To leave the information and communication technologies in the hands of those
who worship at the shrine of “branding” and preach the values of the fast-moving and risky
world of e-business would be to abandon education to those who see it chie y as a means
of making proŽ ts.

CONCLUSION
The analysis presented above has concentrated almost exclusively on the forces at the
periphery of the Biggs model, those that, since 1993, have been bearing down increasingly
upon what is, after all, the key component in the educational ecosystem: the teaching
context itself. The growth of the information and communications technologies, which has
taken place since that time, has opened up channels of communication and access to
information which have irrevocably changed higher education. What ICT cannot do,
 E-LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE UNITED KINGDOM 261

however, is to change the way in which students come to understand the processes of
learning itself.
The work of William Perry (1988) at Harvard, conducted thirty years ago, is still as
meaningful and relevant to teachers in higher education today, irrespective of the type of
institution in which they work.5 Perry, like others in the phenomenographi c tradition, is
interested in the stages of learning which students go through, rather than in their individual
differences, “academic ability, special talents, or disabilities”:
The variations I wish to describe are less static [than individual differences]; they
have a logical order, and most students tend to advance from one to another in
response to teachings or readings that impinge on the boundaries of their intelligi-
ble universe of the moment. (p. 148)
and he describes a process whereby students progress from thinking at Stage 1:
Authorities know, and if we work hard, read every word, and learn Right Answers,
all will be well.
to the point where they realize, at Stage 9, that:
This is how life will be. I must be wholehearted while tentative, Ž ght for my values
yet respect others, believe my deepest values right, yet be ready to learn. I see that
I shall be retracing this whole journey over and over—but, I hope, more wisely.
(pp. 146–147)
All university teachers, on many occasions, have watched this type of process unfold
over the duration of their students’ careers at universities. Helping students to make these
changes is perhaps one of the best ways of capturing what it is that teachers in higher
education really do. By working together with colleagues as well as with outside agencies
such as those described above, and by exploiting the power of modern communications,
teachers can make the processes by which students gain their intellectual autonomy less
arduous and frustrating but, in the Ž nal analysis, it is the depth and quality of the
communication between teacher and student within the learning context that counts.

REFERENCES
BERTALANFFY, L. VON. General Systems Theory. London: Penguin, 1971.
BIGGS, J. B. “From Theory to Practice: A Cognitive Systems Approach”, Higher Education Research
and Development 12 1 (1993).
BIGGS, J. B. “Student Learning Research and Theory—Where Do We Currently Stand?”, in, G. GIBBS,
ed. Improving Student Learning—Theory and Practice. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff Develop-
ment, 1994.
HEFCE. Learning and Teaching: Strategy and Funding Proposals. Document 98/40. Bristol: Higher
Education Funding Council for England, 1998, , http://www.hefce.ac.uk/learning/ltmain.htm . .
HEFCE. Institutional Learning and Teaching Strategies: A Guide to Good Practice. Document 99/55.
Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England, 1999a, , http://www.hefce.ac.uk/Pubs/
hefce/1999/99–55.htm . .
HEFCE. “Learning and Teaching Support Network (LTSN)”, in, HEFCE Publications. Document
99/20. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England, 1999b, , http://www.ilt.ac.uk/
about/default.htm . .
5
Perry provides an anecdotal and entertaining version of his work in Ramsden (1988). See Chapter 7, “Different
Worlds in the Same Classroom”.
262 T. A . GOODISON

HEFCE. PricewaterhouseCoopers: Business Model for the E-University. Report 00/44. Bristol:
Higher Education Funding Council, 2000, , http://www.hefce.ac.uk/Pubs/hefce/2000/00–
44.htm . .
KEELE UNIVERSITY. Strategic Plan 1998–99/2001–2002. Keele: Keele University, 1998, , http://
www.Keele.ac.uk/depts/rg/rghome.htm . .
LAURILLARD, D. “Technology Strategy for Academic Advantage”, Open University of the United
Kingdom, 1998 (unpublished internal document), , http://www2.open.ac.uk/LTTO/internal/tsaas-
trategyupdate98.doc . .
NAIDU, S., BARRETT, J., and OLSEN, P. “Improving Instructional Effectiveness with Computer-Mediated
Communication”, in, QAA. Code of Practice. Gloucester: Quality Assurance Agency, 1999,
, http://www.qaa.ac.uk/public/COP/codesofpractice.htm . .
QAA. “Guidelines for Distance Learning”, in, QAA. Codes of Practice. Gloucester: Quality
Assurance Agency, 1999, , http://www.qaa.ac.uk/public/dlg/contents.htm] . .
QAA. Subject Review Handbook: September 2000 to December 2001. Gloucester: Quality Assurance
Agency for Higher Education, 2000.
RAMSDEN, P., ed. Improving Learning: New Perspectives. London: Kogan Page, 1988.
RAMSDEN, P. Learning to Teach in Higher Education. London: Routledge, 1992.
ROWNTREE, D. G. F. “Motivating Teachers for Materials-Based Learning”, in, G. SQUIRES and G.
JACOBS The Changing Face of Learning Technology. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2000.