About

Logo for learning organisation

The conference was designed as a forum for senior management staff who had particular responsibility for the overall strategic direction of the use of IT in teaching and learning within their university.

The overall aim was to share practice and experience on the introduction of new technologies into teaching and learning. The web event took place 4th September 1997, the meeting took place on 26th September 1997.

The Web Forum

Each presenter’s link directed users to a page containing their slides. Next to each slide, two icons were available:

  • Comment Icon – Clicking this opened a discussion window displaying all comments related to that slide. The Comment icon next to a speaker’s title slide provided an outline of all discussion areas for that presentation.
  • Audio Replay Icon – Clicking this played the speaker’s commentary for the slide. The Audio icon next to the title slide initiated a full replay of the speaker’s presentation.

A full replay of the webcast was also available through the Webcast interface.

The discussion areas included topics related to individual speakers such as John Arbuthnott, David Chiddick, and Diana Laurillard, as well as broader discussions like the Meeting on 26th September 1997, the Learning and Teaching Advisory Committee, and the Overall Discussion Area.

A tip was provided for users working with two browser windows (Slides and Discussion), recommending they arrange them on the desktop so that both remained partially visible. This allowed for quick switching between them with a single click. Clicking on a slide’s Comment icon updated the Discussion window with the relevant conversation, but users might have needed to manually bring it to the front—unless using a Mac with Netscape 2/3, which usually handled this automatically.

Learning.org replay screens in colour

Meeting Review

Milton Keynes 26 September 1997

The final part of the Learning.Org conference took place as a one-day meeting in Milton Keynes, bringing together all participants from the Webcast and Web Forum. While the Web Forum remained open, this in-person event focused entirely on group discussions among 35 university representatives.

Given the extensive presentations and Q&A sessions that had already occurred, the meeting was structured around discussions on Best Practices, Barriers, and Recommendations. The day began and ended with a plenary session chaired by Professor Diana Laurillard, with Professor John Arbuthnott and Professor David Chiddick also serving on the panel.

During the main session, small group discussions were held to exchange ideas, and the final plenary strongly emphasized the establishment of the Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (ILT). As a result, Professor Arbuthnott committed to drafting a follow-up paper titled A Learning and Teaching Advisory Committee, outlining interim proposals to advance this initiative.

Key Discussion Points

Best Practices

  • Developing university-wide information and learning strategies to highlight challenges and boundaries.
  • Integrating IT into teaching and learning strategies rather than treating it separately.
  • Ensuring courseware costs were accounted for within institutional budgets.
  • Encouraging staff to share experiences through internal web platforms, research seminars, and collaborative networks.
  • Supporting staff development through peer-led training and secondments.
  • Securing commercial funding and learning from successful models such as the “Scottish Knowledge” broker.

Barriers

  • Resistance to cultural change due to job security concerns, traditional academic mindsets, and reluctance towards strategic planning.
  • Lack of senior management commitment to IT integration and staff development.
  • Poor investment in IT infrastructure, outdated management structures, and reluctance to share learning resources.
  • High costs of software licensing, student computer ownership, and inadequate financial planning at some institutions.

Recommendations

  • Investing in IT for Higher Education, moving away from competitive bidding for funding in favor of formula-based distribution.
  • Establishing the Institute for Learning and Teaching in HE (ILT) to provide staff training, accreditation, and pedagogical research.
  • Developing top-level management training programs to ensure university leadership understood the role of IT in education.
  • Creating large regional sabbatical centers for the development of educational IT, allowing academics to focus on teaching research and innovation.

The meeting concluded with a strong consensus on the urgency of implementing these recommendations, particularly the rapid establishment of ILT.

Meeting Proposal

A Learning and Teaching Advisory Committee

Summarised from John P Arbuthnott’s original proposal, 28 October 1997

The need to encourage the use of IT in learning and teaching had long been recognized, with significant insights gained through initiatives like TLTP and CTI. However, as highlighted in HEFCE’s report on IT and Teaching and Learning, quantifying the costs and benefits remained challenging. Despite this uncertainty, ignoring the issue was not an option, especially given the growing interest in the USA and the computer industry.

The UK possessed a world-class network infrastructure with strong electronic information services. While it was a leader in IT use for research, no clear evidence suggested a similar lead in learning and teaching. At the national level, interest and enthusiasm existed, as seen in Learning.Org, but there was a lack of coherent strategy beyond central initiatives like TLTP, CTI, FDTL, Scottish Knowledge, and Knowledge Gallery. The University of Industry had clear objectives in this space, but overall coordination was lacking.

The primary issue was not a shortage of participants but a lack of coordination, as supported by the Gibbs report commissioned by HEFCE. Numerous stakeholders, including commercial companies, software houses, publishers, and institutions like the OU, were already engaged. What was needed was a national strategy, coordination of network activity, promotion of new developments, and a central platform to showcase UK higher and further education.

The National Committee of Inquiry for Higher Education recommended that the proposed Institute for Learning and Teaching (ILT) take the lead in addressing this issue. However, ILT would take time to establish and might not initially have the resources to prioritize this area. Delaying action was not in the UK’s best interest.

To address this gap, it was suggested that a Learning and Teaching Advisory Committee (LTAC) be established as soon as possible. This body would include key stakeholders such as HEFCE, HEFCW, SHEFC, DENI, FEFC, FEFCW, the Scottish Office FE branch, and CVCP, with ILT joining once operational. The DfEE and DTI could participate as observers. Further Education was considered crucial both as a user and provider of foundational material. Over time, LTAC’s role could evolve to integrate with ILT.

LTAC would operate with a small but effective team and focus on:

  • Developing a rolling five to ten-year strategy for IT in Learning and Teaching.
  • Promoting cost-effective IT use by disseminating best practices and addressing human and organizational challenges, including resistance to externally developed materials.
  • Recommending user-friendly tools and platforms for institutions to adopt.
  • Commissioning studies on the technical, social, and economic impacts of IT in education.
  • Conducting market research to identify gaps in IT-based teaching materials and facilitate collaborations between stakeholders.
  • Acting as a central hub for UK-based educational IT resources.

LTAC would need senior HE and FE representatives to ensure credibility within the academic and funding communities. Its operational team would require adequate resourcing, including senior staff capable of strategic planning and engagement with academic and industry leaders.

While LTAC would not fund special initiatives, its primary costs would stem from staffing, with a core team located in a single hub to maximize efficiency. Despite advancements in virtual communication, in-person collaboration remained essential for effective teamwork.

The next step in this proposal was to seek consensus from the key stakeholders to move forward.