A New Cost Analysis Model for Networked Learning

Charlotte Ash Sheffield Hallam University, UK

Introduction

Charlotte Ash, Professor Paul Bacsich and three other researchers

Sheffield Hallam University, UK 6 month study Funded by the JISC, part of the Funding Council

for Higher Education in the UK Aim - to produce a planning document and

financial schema that together accurately record the Hidden Costs of Networked Learning

Terminology

Networked Learning synonymous with ‘online learning’ and ‘technology

enhanced learning’ Hidden Costs

costs which are fundamentally unrecorded (staff and student personally incurred costs) or absorbed into larger budgets (and consequently can not be attributed an individual activity)

Examples of Hidden Costs

Increased telephone call bills for students due to Internet usage to access lecture notes, course conferencing and assignments

Entertainment expenses incurred by academic staff at conferences but not reimbursed by the Institution

The usage of research funding to bolster teaching resources - or visa versa

Distance Learning to Networked Learning

Long tradition of costing open and distance learning Greville Rumble (1997), Tony Bates (1995) DL born out of need to reach greater numbers of

students than capable using conventional methods NL is an extension of DL for the Information Age In addition, the educational climate dictates that

conventional classroom-based models need to be costed too

Moonen’s Barriers to Costing

No agreement about which costs to take into account Reliable data unavailable - no systematic collecting Costs are unstable and evolving Some data is confidential and not publicly available

Moonen, 1997

Bacsich et al, 1999

Each previous methodology uses a different vocabulary - therefore we need to uniform the structure before analysis can take place

We found these barriers to Networked Learning

Lack of training in new technologies Lack of transparent tools Lack of pedagogical evidence to support a move Lack of standards Lack of water-proof network

And these barriers to costing

Reluctance to consider timesheets Reluctance to acknowledge overtime Inconsistency and non-granularity of internal

accounting Worries about the move to Activity Based Costing Inhibition of innovation once the costs are know “Cost of Costing” “Cost of having done the Costing”

CNL proposed...

Three schema to assist the recording of costs: A Course Lifecycle Model A Financial Schema A Planning Documents

Each will be presented and followed by discussion on the key issues

The Course Lifecycle Model

The Course Lifecycle Model

Cost items recorded from literature Current educational costing models analysed Traditional financial accounting deemed

inappropriate for exposing hidden costs Consultation with academic staff at SHU Five stage cyclic model proposed With three stage human resources model

The five-phase model

Lifecycle model - testing

During the Institutional interviews academics, management and administrators

At a one day workshop experts in online learning from education and

industry

A three-phase model was proposed...

Course Lifecycle Model

Planning and Development

Production and Delivery

Maintenance and Evaluation

Three-phase model of course development

Breakdown of three-phase model

Planning andDevelopment

collecting materials coming up with - or being told -

the idea writing user guides or course

publicity

Production andDelivery

curriculum delivery duplication of materials tutorial guidance

Evaluation andMaintenance

quality assurance exercises replacement and updating of

materials evaluation against course aims

Discussion Points

How well does this model resonate with your view of the course lifecycle?

Is it simple enough to promote usage or in its simplicity does it overlook the main areas of importance?

What changes need to be made to make this course lifecycle model comprehensive and acceptable to those who will use it?

Financial Schema and Planning Document

The Financial Schema

Traditional financial model underpinning the UK HE sector is defective in four ways:

No Stakeholders

Crude Overhead Allocation

No Division of Academic Time

No Account of Individual Activities

Planning Document and Financial Schema

Multi-level

Activity-Based Costing

Flexible Overheads

Three-phase Course Lifecycle

Model

Based on previous works

Multi-stakeholder

Time DivisionTime recording

Financial schemas analysed

Analysed around 10 different schemas Opted for an Activity Based Costing system Based the schema on the 1997 KPMG and Joint

Funding Councils work Factored in the 1999 Flashlight Cost Analysis

Handbook Also included work by other authors in the area

Financial Schema

Stakeholder dimensionExpendituredimension Institution Student Staff

Total

Staff costs

Depreciation

Expenses

Overhead

Total

See paper for examples of costs in each category

Planning Framework

Based on HEFCE 1999 - an appraisal framework Factored in the pedagogic framework from Bates

(1995) Forms a series of guidelines for planning

Networked Learning activities Making it apparent when, and which costs, to

record

Caveats

Further development, consultation and testing is needed

Conventional Teaching and Learning must be costed by the same methodology to allow for comparisons

Need to locate and trial finance software for the new era of Activity Based Costing

Discussion

How universal should the methodology be? Should each institution adopt its own spin on an

accepted methodology? Should international partners be expected to provide

the same level of information for joint activities? Will there be sector-wide analysis of the costing

information provided or should it be for internal purposes only, except when jointly agreed upon by those involved?

Top Level Conclusions

From the Study

In order to accurately record the Costs of Networked Learning you must have a universally accepted

method of what costs to record and how in place from the start which takes into account all stakeholders

From the Literature

Much of the literature formed interesting background

reading but failed to travel far enough towards operational conclusions to be taken (individually) as

a basis

The KPMG, and later JPCSG, work was of interest - as was the US Flashlight work

Examples were taken from the training sector for their focus on Activity Based Costing

From the Sectoral Survey

The survey established that Networked Learning is taking place - quite extensively- in the UK

There is no accepted method of what to record and how - or even whether costs should be recorded

From the Case Studies

Six Universities chosen from the survey to represent

the sector, plus Sheffield Hallam University

Networked Learning is mainly delivered by a small number of enthusiasts but pockets of innovation are

starting to influence a wider audience

Universities were moving towards Networked Learning for similar reasons - improving access and

quality without increasing costs

The Future

Further Work

CNL Phase Two - starts May 2000 Takes theoretical framework and develops practical

handbook - trails in three departments and faculties

Moving into other areas - the real cost of IT, business models for learning, etc.

Moving into the evaluation of effectiveness - substantial work within the FE sector

Details about the project can be found at - http://www.shu.ac.uk/virtual_campus/cnl/

Thank you for listening