by Derek Morrison, 24 June 2009 (updated 25 June 2009)
N.B. The views expressed in this posting are the author’s own and should not be construed as representative of any other individual or organisation.
Coincidence or convergence? Synthesis or accidential synergy? Putative zeitgeist?
There has been a recent set of announcements and reports that I think benefit from being viewed in aggregate rather than separately.
- The Digital Britain report which I commented on in my recent Digital Britain report published – read carefully (Auricle, 21 June 2009).
- The UK political think-tank Demos publication of its JISC-supported report The Edgeless University, a project exploring the impact of technological and social change on universities in which the report argues:
… technology in higher education is not just about virtual learning environments, but is increasingly central to how institutions provide learning and facilitate research. Technology has made research and learning possible in new places, often outside of institutions. Far from undermining them, this is creating exciting opportunities for universities to demonstrate and capitalise on their value. Doing so will take strategic leadership from inside institutions, new connections with a growing world of informal learning, and a commitment to openness and collaboration. This is the radical role of the ‘Edgeless University’.
- And then there was yesterdays (23 June 2009) press release Universities set to go online for millions from the new UK super-ministry of Business Innovation and Skills (BIS). For non-UK readers BIS recently replaced the only two-year-old Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS) and incorporates the HE sector in its brief. The nub of the press release was the creation of:
… a new task force to ensure our universities become the first choice across the world for on-line distance learning
So what clues does the announcement offer regarding the thinking behind the announcement? We should perhaps reflect on this extract:
The Taskforce will include senior representatives from Microsoft [and Apple], who will join Martin Bean, the next Vice Chancellor of the Open University, the British Council, HEFCE, JISC and Universities UK. The BBC has agreed to advise the task force as and when appropriate.
The taskforce and OLIF initiative appears to have been informed by Sir Ron Cooke’s October 2008 report Online Innovation in Higher Education on how the UK could become a “world leader” in e-learning. Sir Ron Cooke is Chair of the JISC Board and, as the open letter on the BIS site indicates, both he and Dr Malcolm Read, Executive Secretary of JISC have been advising at this political level and so would appear to be the conceptual, and perhaps courageous, midwives of the initiative.
So what can we make of the above three initiatives?
First, I would highlight the words “online” “distance” and “learning”. There now seems to be a preference for the ‘o’ word rather than the ‘e’ word in government circles. So perhaps we should be waving goodbye to tired old “e-learning” from the last decade and saying hello to new young fresh “online learning” which will now help UK inc to walk towards its new bright economic future. That’s fine as ‘o’ its marginally better than ‘e’ although I still have major concerns about such concepts being utilised as derivative technology-centric vehicles of public education policy and massive public expenditure. It’s just too tempting for politicians to seek, and vested interests to promulgate, technological solutions to economic, social, and educational challenges. Those of us who work in this arena know that achieving sustainable and positive change takes time and that such a need seldom aligns with political or funded project agendas and deadlines.
Second, both the The Edgeless University and BIS announcement of the £20 million Open Learning Innovation Fund (OLIF) to stimulate UK universities to develop the “market” for online distance learning would seem to be resurrecting at least part of the UK e-Universities (UKeU) concept, a project originally championed by HEFCE. On this occasion HEFCE is apparently also putting up 50% of the £20 million and BIS the other half. Peter Maddleson talks about the OLIF in tomorrow’s Guardian (25 June 2009). But quite honestly, £20 million isn’t a lot for something this ambitious, but it will inevitably attract some attention given the deeply troubled history of UKeU. Hopefully it will be different this time around. For readers not familiar with UKeU or who wish a quick refresher I have added a postscript to this posting.
Third, the membership of “Online Distance Learning Task Force” hardly appears unbiased in its orientation. Apple? Microsoft? I note that the Higher Education Academy, QAA, or membership organisations like ALT don’t seem to have been involved or have been invited to sit at the table. Also, Tom Watson’s, the then UK Minister for Digital Engagement announcement of a government action plan for Open Source in Public IT projects, i.e. Open Source, Open Standards and Re–Use: Government Action Plan (Cabinet Office 24 February 2009) is not, on the basis of this announcement, influenced the thinking of the initiative’s architects. Watson’s action plan was meant to open the way for using open source when it will deliver best value for money. We should perhaps note that, the Conservative Party has asserted that £600 million could be saved by using open source in public IT projects. See also Can we build a world with open source? (Guardian 5 March 2009)
In summary, we seem to have a concerted move to restimulate online learning and particularly online distance learning as a UK export activity. If this grows legs there will be considerable challenges ahead because, as everyone who has worked in online or – and – distance learning knows, anyone who gets into this because they think it is easier or cheaper will soon be enlightened by the realities of sustaining a quality service supported by experienced staff and students with increasingly high expectations of what they are getting from HE for their money. It’s also worth noting that some HEIs either eliminated their distance learning operations or shrunk them to marginal activities in the last decade so I’m not sure whether a total of £20 million for the whole sector will be encouraging those HEIs to ramp up their activities into significant sustainable operations any time soon. The risk is, therefore, of pilots, more pilots, which don’t scale or generalise or innovation, more innovation; which is just so easy when technology is involved; but achieving sustainable positive change is just so much harder and takes so much longer than political attention spans or other imperatives can usually allow for.
Finally, the UK OU is an excellent world-class institution which does distance education (including online distance education) extraordinarly well. It would be wise not to assume, however, that its configuration and methods are always applicable or acceptable to the way many other, equally excellent, UK HE institutions choose to deliver higher education. Achieving good quality online learning requires considerable people and infrastructure development. Good quality distance learning requiring considerable people and infrastructure development. Good quality online distance learning requires …
Postscript – a quick reprise of UKeU
The UK e-Universities (UKeU) initiative collapsed in 2004 and this was followed in 2005 by a report from the UK Parliament Education & Skills Committee (2005) which highlighted how £50 million was wasted on the UK e-Universities (UKeU) initiative. UKeU was intended to be a major transformation initiative underpinned by a business model developed with the assistance of PricewaterhouseCoopers which launched in 2000 with £50 million of public money to market and deliver UK university degrees via the internet.
Apart from the PricewaterhouseCooper business model the policy rationale for UKeU had been informed by a number of other sources including the 2000 CVCP/HEFCE report on ‘The Business of Borderless Education’ which had highlighted the opportunities and challenges of the emerging “virtual learning market”. A key driver for establishing UKeU appears to have been the perceived transformational nature of technology itself in enabling a potentially global reach for Higher Education; a reach which offered both opportunities for UK HEIs, but also challenges because powerful international competitors would no longer be constrained by geography. The model promulgated the benefits of aggregated effort through UKeU as the vehicle rather than through the potentially under-capitalised efforts of individual HEIs or groups. The demise of the UKeU initiative was a very painful experience for the UK HE sector and for a time had a significant impact on sector confidence regarding central initiatives although, arguably, work by the Academy and JISC since this time has enjoyed better sector support.
I also considered UKeU from another angle in Wiring the NHS – echoes of another? (Auricle, 5 December 2008)
Addendum – Related media articles
- Technology revolution stops at classroom doors, Rebecca Attwood, Times Higher Education, 23 June 2009
- The Open University – 40 today, and a genius for our times, Peter Maddleson secretary of state for Business, Innovation and Skills writing in the Guardian (24 June 2009)
- Drop-out students get help to finish their degrees at home, Polly Curtis (Guardian, 24 June 2009)
The Polly Curtis article highlights something not in the Peter Mandleson item. Apparently, Gordon Brown suggests that the £20 million OLIF will also be funding new “Centres of Excellence for Online Learning”, i.e.
“An approach to higher education that emphasises accessibility and flexibility has put the UK at the forefront of e-learning, and to build on this achievement [we have] a new £20m fund to support centres of excellence for online learning. I am also supporting the Open University with additional funding to further its role as a national leader, working with other institutions, to develop distance learning.”
Five loaves and three fishes comes to mind.
