In a comment added to my own Auricle article MPs attack e-university bonus payments I drew attention to the UK Parliament's video streaming service which transmits many of the proceedings of our legislature. Because no sacrifice is too great for our Auricle readership I sat through the whole 2 hours 14 minutes of the evidence about UKeU given to the Parliamentary Education and Skills Committee. In this article I report my experiences both from a consumer and learning technologist perspective. Now … if you're sitting comfortably I'll begin. I know it was only talking heads but the whole thing was actually very interesting. OK the video quality wasn't broadcast standard but it was plenty good enough and most importantly the sound quality was excellent.
I suspect I probably gained as much as, or perhaps even more than, someone who was actually sitting in the committee room itself; and I could pause the video so that I could stretch my legs or, as I did, view the process over a couple of days. Also didn't quite catch that point? … then simply rewind. I got a real sense of presence and of the cut and thrust between the committee members and those being probed. So as a learning resource it was useful and, yes, video was appropriate because the whole process had an emotional element which is what video excels at.
But a viewer needs to actively engage with such material rather than consume it passively. I'm aware 2 hours 14 minutes may have been 2 hours 13 minutes too long for some people but, for me, it sure beat jumping in a train to London and losing a day's productive work time. Also, as a component of a future case study it would be hard to beat.
So dear reader if you're interested in UKeU as a case study but are really time poor, here are a few sample video timecodes which highlight key events in the action. I've gone for this method because I think it conveys, as best I can, the reality of such events, including frequent returns to themes and topics which are obviously still exercising members just when you think the Committee has moved on.
At:
23m-29m - Sir Howard Newby outlines the UKeU timeline
45m - Members focus on the UKeU platform.
52m - Should the matter be referred to the Public Accounts Committee?
56m - Lack of a revised clear business plan.
60m - Failure to attract private funding.
1.03 - Lack of identification of key markets.
1.05 - HEFCE believes blended learning market is large but experience has shown that there is a very small market for unsupported e-learning.
1.09 - Bonuses. The Operating Company Board didn't need to inform HEFCE.
1.12 - Link between performance and bonuses was suprisingly loose.
1.15 - Sir Howard Newby unaware of bonus scheme that the Operating Company Board had put in place.
1.16 - Committee asks if bonuses discussed with Secretary of State. Sir Howard Newby contends that they had to abide by the law and pay up.
1.17 - HEFCE contends that a private sector initiative has to accept high risks with unpredictable consequences.
1.18 - Committee asks why an e-university couldn't have been given to a consortium of UK universities or the UK OU. HEFCE contends that there was more support for an inclusive rather than an exclusive model.
1.22 - University of Phoenix put forward as example of a successful blended learning model.
1.23 - Chairman states “… where it becomes scandalous is this bonus thing … what on earth was going on?” … HEFCE responded that their belief was that the bonus system was designed to attract and retain staff from the private sector.
1.26 - The Committee asks to see PriceWaterhouseCoopers reports which had been part of the scoping exercise for the UKeU.
1.27 - Committee asks what was done about advising ministers about the level of risk and advising David Blunkett the then Secretary of State before he made the announcement regarding the setting up of an eUniversity. HEFCE responded that a Risk Register had been set up in 2001 and that the Department for Education and Skills had accepted this RR. And, yes, David Blunkett had advice before the announcement.
1.30 - The Borderless Higher Education Report commissioned by Universities UK had fed into the decision making process for setting up UKeU.
1.31 - Sir Howard Newby agrees to send a copy of the Risk Register to the Committee.
1.32 - Chair asks who else should be interviewed - Sir Howard Newby proposes the UKeU Holding Company, PriceWaterhouseCoopers and John Beaumont the Chief Executive of UKeU.
1.34 - Sun Microsystems not forthcoming with information to the Committee? They had no actual capital investment in the scheme?
1.39 - Sir Howard Newby only became aware of the bonus scheme on the resignation of the Operating Company Board following the HEFCE Board decision on winding up UKeU.
1.41 - Committee asks where does the biggest failure lie. Sir Howard Newby believes it is a marketing failure. Sir Howard Newby contends that UKeU platform is an advance on existing e-learning platforms!!!
1.43 - Fathom and Western Governors' University put forward as examples of similar failures.
1.44 - Committee asks if Nigel Bannister Director of Sales and Marketing get a bonus? Yes but it was only 3%!
1.44 - Switch of focus to the future of e-learning generally. Chair doesn't want the UKeU experience to inhibit e-learning generally. Asks what are the lessons?
1.45 - Sir Howard Newby responds the key lessons are not to be technology driven, be learner centred and recognize that the pedagogy is different from chalk and talk. The future, he contends, lies in the blended model with a recognition that there is more to being a student than sitting in front of a computer screen. The move is towards individual universities or groups of universities pushing forward high quality blended learning.
1.47 - Committee asks what about the circa UKeU 900 students? Sir Howard Newby responds that 145 are still using the UKeU platform but the majority will finish soon or will be migrated to institutional platforms. Likelihood is that only 20-30 students will have needs specific to the UKeU platform.
1.49 - British Council's very successful marketing scheme.
1.50 - British Council's projection for overseas student demand for UK Higher Education (coming to the UK) could be as high as 870,000 by 2020.
1.51 - Committee asks how far has HEFCE planned for large numbers suggested by the British Council? Sir Howard Newby responds that overseas market projections carry risks, e.g. subject to overseas political changes influencing market.
1.52 - Committee asks about impact on HE system of large numbers of incoming overseas students. Sir Howard Newby thinks that the country could absorb these numbers but no institution should become over-dependent on overseas students. He also believe that such incoming numbers will not disadvantage but actually enrich the experience of UK and EU students.
1.54 - Sir Howard Newby believe that between now and 2006 HEI's need to prepare their branding, their marketing, and their individual position. HEIs need to develop their own capacity to identify and operate in these markets, whether home or overseas.
1.56 - The UK's HE Learning and Teaching Support Network (LTSN) is viewed as a successful example of educational innovation by the Committee.
1.58 - CETL's and Higher Education Academy (HEA) put forward as new promising examples.
1.59 - Sir Howard Newby emphasizes need to reinvent the vocation of teaching and learning. The HEA will have an important role in this.
2.03 - Within the HE sector as a whole overseas student income makes a modest profit of 7% on turnover.
2.04 - Committee proposes that according to the British Council the real money lies in Masters, postgraduate and short courses. Sir Howard Newby agreed.
2.05 - There was a naive belief (now gone) that pure e-learning, i.e. unsupported, was a means of expanding HE with reduced costs.
2.06 - The UK provides the equivalent of three universities (45,000-55,000 student places) to accommodate the inflow of EU students (in comparison to the outflow of UK students to other EU institutions).
2.09 - Chair asks if this is a cause of resentment in UK students. Sir Howard Newby responds “not yet”.
2.10 - Sir Howard Newby contends that there are also signficant advantages to the inflow of overseas and EU students., e.g. filling gaps in shortage subjects like Science and Technology. Also he suggests that overseas students bring more than financial benefits to the UK HE sector.
2.14 - Session ends.
