Material case for mixed-up culture

Multimedia teaching techniques will only thrive if there is a radical change in the way courses are structured, Jonathan Darby argues. Anyone who has been observing the educational technology scene for any length of time cannot fail to be struck by the many false dawns there have been. Language laboratories in the 1960s were one such - a useful tool for aspects of language learning but not the complete revolution in language teaching methods they were claimed to be.

In the early 1980s, huge amounts of time and effort went into coaxing useful work out of Apple II and BBC microcomputers, but looked at from the vantage point of computers now these applications look puny. Yet they were hailed as great breakthroughs. Even where technology has taken off in other spheres it has often failed to make the same impact in education. Television is a good example: a dominant force in the home but little used in schools and colleges.

So what are we to make of multimedia? What difference will it have made to higher education in, say, five years' time? There is a rising crescendo of expectation surrounding it. But there is a wariness, a nagging feeling that we have been here before and all is not what is seems. I do not wish to dispute the power of multimedia, but this in itself is not enough to ensure its success in the sector.

The likely impact of multimedia can only be seen in the context of the way university courses are conceived and taught. While a course syllabus may be set by the department or faculty, the way in which it is taught is normally left to the lecturers. This makes all courses highly personal and subject to revision whenever lecturing responsibility is passed on to someone else.

This poses a dilemma for multimedia designed to support courses: how to make products suitable for all individually crafted courses? This dilemma faced the projects in the Teaching and Learning Technology Programme (TLTP). Some would argue that the "Not Invented Here Syndrome" is so strong in academia that any attempt to produce computer-based learning materials targeted at university courses is bound to fail.

This is not supported by a survey into academics' use of courseware materials commissioned by a working party of the Joint Information Systems Committee in 1992. Almost 70 per cent of the 400 respondents indicated that they would be interested in using computer-based learning programmes developed by national consortia, although they had valid criticisms of what was available.

An approach adopted by many TLTP projects has been to seek to identify a common core of topics likely to be included in all introductory courses. This approach is proving successful, although it does not offer a solution to using technology to support teaching at a more advanced level.

The solution advocated is often "authoring for all" - giving academics the tools to create applications. This works for the committed enthusiast but the time and effort required, although diminishing as authoring tools improve, is too great to be realistic.

TLTP could be seen as a response to a severe shortage of computer-based learning materials in higher education - a courseware famine. Production costs are being met and the products freely distributed within higher education. The problem is being solved, but only in the short term. Famine relief can lead to a dependency culture.

TLTP is intended to demonstrate convincingly that learning technology has a place in the mainstream of higher education but it could impede the emergence of a free market for multimedia there. The myth that academic software costs little or nothing is being perpetuated. In the medium and long term development must be self-sustaining. What are the true costs? Is multimedia a luxury we are unlikely to be able to afford in quantity? Is this why we have so many examples of the potential of multimedia in higher education but so few full-strength applications?

I recently carried out a survey of TLTP projects. The following findings are based on a preliminary analysis of the data (36 responses). Two-thirds of TLTP projects are developing multimedia applications. For most, multimedia is not an optional extra but the means by which their objectives can be achieved. On the other hand those who are not employing multimedia see it as having little relevance to their students' needs.

It would seem a reasonable assumption that multimedia increases the cost of producing computer-based learning materials. A startling finding of the survey is that far from costing more, multimedia costs half as much to produce per delivery hour as non-multimedia (approximately Pounds 2,500 as against Pounds 5,000).

Could this be because multimedia is a less efficient learning vehicle forcing students to spend more time than they need? Or is it a reflection of the ease with which existing materials can be integrated into a comprehensive teaching resource?

By comparison non-multimedia computer-based learning requires a much higher degree of reworking of existing material. However, much of what is suitable for incorporation into multimedia packages is subject to copyright and cannot be used without lengthy and costly negotiation.

Despite the apparent production-cost advantage enjoyed by multimedia student-hour costs remain high (this is the cost per hour of student use during the lifetime of the product). The mean cost for TLTP projects is around Pounds 30 per hour of student use, too high to be sustainable. But, 20 per cent of projects (all using multimedia) had costs below Pounds 1.

The key factor in determining these costs is the number of students using the software. Projects estimated annual usage at between 100 and 10,000 students. Development of software for use by 1,000 students or less is unlikely to be viable without subsidy. The key to sustained development may be developing an international market or other UK markets. This will require inbuilt flexibility and acceptance of the idea of repurposing at the point of delivery.

There is, however, another approach to the use of multimedia in higher education which gets away from the problems posed by the diversity of courses. That is to view multimedia as a learning resource, with other resources such as journals, encyclopaedias and textbooks. In this context multimedia is best coupled to communication technology to give students access to the vast amount of information on the Internet. As only a tiny fraction of it will interest any particular student, guidance and efficient search tools are essential. This offers a new role to libraries as guides and information retrieval-skills trainers, in keeping with the movement from holdings to access .

Multimedia's impact in higher education is limited by the way in which courses are conceived and taught. If there is a general move towards more independent resource-based learning then the use of multimedia will grow rapidly. The power of multimedia as a concept will ensure that it is used but the manner of its use is hard to predict. We can say with certainty that the future will surprise us.

Jonathan Darby is head of the Computers in Teaching Initiative Support Service at the University of Oxford and president of the Association for Learning Technology.