17
This article was downloaded by: [York University Libraries] On: 19 November 2014, At: 14:28 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Tertiary Education and Management Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtem20 Identifying costs of instructional technology in higher education Frank A. Schmidtlein a & Alton L. Taylor b a College of Education , University of Maryland , Benjamin Building, Room 2211, College Park, MD E-mail: b University of Virginia , 210 Miller Hall, Charlottesville, VA E-mail: Published online: 20 Jan 2010. To cite this article: Frank A. Schmidtlein & Alton L. Taylor (2000) Identifying costs of instructional technology in higher education, Tertiary Education and Management, 6:4, 289-304, DOI: 10.1080/13583883.2000.9967031 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2000.9967031 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Identifying costs of instructional technology in higher education

  • Upload
    alton-l

  • View
    214

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Identifying costs of instructional technology in higher education

This article was downloaded by: [York University Libraries]On: 19 November 2014, At: 14:28Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Tertiary Education and ManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtem20

Identifying costs of instructional technology in highereducationFrank A. Schmidtlein a & Alton L. Taylor ba College of Education , University of Maryland , Benjamin Building, Room 2211, CollegePark, MD E-mail:b University of Virginia , 210 Miller Hall, Charlottesville, VA E-mail:Published online: 20 Jan 2010.

To cite this article: Frank A. Schmidtlein & Alton L. Taylor (2000) Identifying costs of instructional technology in highereducation, Tertiary Education and Management, 6:4, 289-304, DOI: 10.1080/13583883.2000.9967031

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2000.9967031

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representationsor warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Page 2: Identifying costs of instructional technology in higher education

FRANK A. SCHMIDTLEIN AND ALTON L. TAYLOR

IDENTIFYING COSTS OF INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY INHIGHER EDUCATION

ABSTRACT. The current advocacy for rapidly increasing the use of instructional tech-nologies has not been accompanied by sufficient research on the costs of these modes ofinstruction. The purpose of this article is to illustrate the need for more comprehensiveresearch on instructional technology costs and to provide a framework for examiningthese costs. First, to provide context, some current assumptions about the growing useof instructional technology are discussed. Then various categories of costs are described.

THE GROWING USE OF COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY

The development and use of communications technologies are expandingat unprecedented rates across modern societies with significant and unfore-seen consequences. The most visible examples are the vast systems forcollecting and transmitting data used by businesses and public agencies,the rapid development of the internet and World-Wide-Web (WWW),facsimile transmission, cellular telephones, interactive video systems, andglobal position devices. Twigg and Hetrick (1997, p. 4) reported that 83%of today's college students in the United States use the Internet and 40%use it every day. These percentages are continuing to rise rapidly. A surveyof 400 high school seniors who planned to attend college in Fall 1998(Chronicle of Higher Education 1997, p. A25) revealed that two-thirdshad computers at home that were capable of browsing the World-Wide-Web, 72 percent had some form of access to the Internet, and nearly 40%rated themselves as being proficient with computers. However, Lewis andWall (1988) pointed out that, although the pace of technological activityincreased between 1978 and 1988 (and changes have come even faster inthe current decade), "technology advocates and skeptics alike can pointto almost 40 years of obvious discrepancies between promises and prac-tices." Despite the growing use of technologies during the past ten yearsthese discrepancies appear to persist. Overall the transition to employinginformation technology-based instruction has been erratic. Although insti-tutions have reported steady increases since 1990, as recently as 1997 thenumber of colleges using instructional technology as a part of course work

Tertiary Education and Management 6: 289-304,2000.© 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:28

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 3: Identifying costs of instructional technology in higher education

2 9 0 FRANK A. SCHMIDTLEIN AND ALTON L. TAYLOR

is still less than one-third and its use is highest in universities (Green 1997,p. 1). To date, Kenneth Green's annual surveys are the only comprehensivelook at the use of instructional technology.

COMMON ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT USING INSTRUCTIONAL

TECHNOLOGIES

Transformation of current colleges and universities or their replacement

Dire predictions are being made about the disastrous consequences insti-tutions will face if they do not quickly and extensively begin to employinstructional technologies. Many advocating more rapid adoption of thesetechnologies assume that institutions must quickly use them in theirinstructional programmes if they are to avoid being supplanted by newlyemerging 'for profit' and non-profit organisations. Those rapidly adoptingcommunications technologies for instruction and other academic purposespresumably will be delivering education more efficiently and more effec-tively than those relying on more traditional forms and methods of educa-tion. These advocates predict that institutions which do not take advantageof these technologies will have their students lured away by competitorswho do employ the technologies.

Technology-based instruction's effects on student access and choice

Wide-spread adoption of instructional technologies is promoted as a meansto increase greatly student access to an affordable education. Students,from their homes, offices, or nearby classrooms, will be able to have abroader selection of subjects and majors, be able to schedule their involve-ment in ways that accommodate their varying commitments, and will beable to draw on the resources of multiple institutions. There is no doubtthat significant increases in distance, or off-campus, learning opportunitiesare occurring. However, important questions need to be answered aboutwho will benefit most from such programs and about the economics ofthe enterprise. For example, will it replace a portion of current residentialundergraduate and graduate instruction or will it be largely serve place-bound, older, self-motivated, adults? Must it focus principally on trainingor can it also achieve the broader objectives of a liberal education? Willdistance education have economic advantages over residential programsif similar instructional quality is maintained? Will most or all institutionsengage in extensive distance learning or will this largely be the missionof a few institutions? Will a new type of institution emerge to engagein distance education or will existing institutions largely incorporate this

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:28

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 4: Identifying costs of instructional technology in higher education

IDENTIFYING COSTS OF INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 291

mission? Many decisions currently are being made on the basis of untestedassumptions about the answers to these questions.

Predictions that new technology-based institutions will eliminate orgreatly reduce the number of students enrolled in traditional institutionsassume that there will be a redistribution of current enrollments amongpostsecondary education institutions. Over time, the use of instructionaltechnologies undoubtedly will modify some aspects of pedagogy at tradi-tional institutions, perhaps helping them retain resident students. However,the more extreme views, that new and highly innovative institutions orprofit-making organisations using these technologies are likely to displacetraditional institutions, do not appear warranted. What is more likelyto happen is that a few new or transformed, highly flexible and entre-preneurial, public and private institutions will emerge to complement thetraditional institutions. The high costs of employing distance learning tech-nologies are likely to result in a shake-out of participants, with a few globalinstitutions becoming the major 'players' because of their economies ofscale and global reach. A considerable portion of these new competitor'sstudents probably will come from developing new markets; mostly olderand 'place bound' persons who, in the past, would not have engaged inpostsecondary education, or from students in regions or countries withlimited access to postsecondary education.

The effects of technology on instructional quality

A further assumption about the benefits of these technologies is that theiruse will permit instruction to become better tailored to students' individualeducational objectives. Proponents believe that the use of the technologieswill facilitate use of new theories of learning, such as concepts of 'activelearning' and 'constructive learning.' The character of this instructionaltransformation seems somewhat obscure but many persons are convincedthat a revolution toward 'learning centred' instruction is coming and it willbe facilitated by the capabilities and imperatives of instructional technolo-gies. Massy and Zemsky (1995, p. 2) argue that information technology hasthe potential to offer mass customisation, which allows faculty to accom-modate individual differences while providing 'improved convenience' forboth students and faculty. Some predict that books will become passé andlibraries will be radically transformed.

The research dealing with the relative effectiveness of technology-based instruction has been inconclusive. Many critics maintain that insti-tutional leaders, and professors in particular, are stubbornly resistingtaking advantage of the capabilities emerging technologies offer for savingresources and improving instruction while others argue that instate-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:28

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 5: Identifying costs of instructional technology in higher education

2 9 2 FRANK A. SCHMIDTLEIN AND ALTON L. TAYLOR

tional improvements have to emerge from faculty initiatives, not fromadministrative pressures.

The effects of technology on institutional productivity

A major assumption of those promoting more rapid use of instruc-tional technology is that it will lead to substantial productivity increases.Economists have examined the impact of technology on productivity forthe entire national economy and this topic was the subject of a 1998 U.S.Department of Commerce report. The report concluded that:

"The key question is whether all the investment in information-processing equipment is making the economy more productive." As thereport ('The Emerging Digital Economy', U.S. Commerce Department,April 15,1998) candidly acknowledges, some economists think it is givinga major boost to productivity while others "remain skeptical As yet,there is limited direct evidence in government data that investments ininformation technology have substantially raised productivity in manynon-information technology industries" (John M. Berry 1998, p. El).

A more recent article hi the New York Times (Lohr 1999) reportedpossible links between corporate investment in technology and non-farmproductivity gains. The writers reported that some of those formerly skep-tical about the contributions of technology to productivity growth wererethinking their views in the light of current U.S. productivity increases.Between 1985 and 1998, corporate investment in technology increasedfrom about 27% of all spending on business equipment to about 50%.However, prominent economists remain skeptical about any cause/effectrelationship, suggesting low interest rates have been primarily responsiblefor recent productivity growth.

Many claim that educational applications of communications technolo-gies will help overcome limits to productivity in higher education resultingfrom its labour intensive nature (Twigg & Hetrick 1997; Twigg 1996).Massy and Zemsky (1995, p. 8) argue that: (1) "given the differentialgrowth rates of labor and technology, one can expect positive long-termreturns on investment even when returns are negligible during the first fewyears"; and (2) "technology-based solutions also tend to be more scalablethan labor-intensive ones . . . one should expect that additional studentscould be accommodated at lower cost with technology than with traditionalteaching methods." However, they conclude that:

...technology has not made the instruction more efficient - because computers gener-ally have raised costs, not reduced them but technology can, and must, increase theproductivity of instructors if colleges are to curb labor costs, hold down tuition, and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:28

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 6: Identifying costs of instructional technology in higher education

IDENTIFYING COSTS OF INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 293

compete with profit-making companies that will become bigger player in education in thefuture, (p. A17)

Heterick (1991, p. 12), however, questions use of the rationale thatproductivity increases justify adopting technologies. He believes that "Wemust find our way out of the tar pit of justifying technology applicationsbecause they demonstrate tangible cost savings and into the integrationof technology because it significantly improves the learning process."Pepi and Scheurman (1996, quoted in Nash 1998) argue, paraphrasingEmerson, that "Computer technology is in the saddle and it is ridingus" (p. 229). They liken the ascendancy of computer technology withincolleges of education to Hans Christian Andersen's tale, "The Emperor'sNew Clothes'. Nash lists a number of critical questions about tech-nology and concludes that ".. . the delivery system should be a secondaryconsideration to the pedagogical strategy."

Promotion of instructional technologies is similar to past fads

Proponents' frequently uncritical enthusiasm for rapidly transforminghigher education through use of instructional technology has many simi-larities to past educational fads (Birnbaum 1999). Those who raise ques-tions about the current state of technology applications, its costs, andpotentially negative pedagogical consequences of an uncritical, prematurerush for the adoption of these innovations are bearing the burden of proof;not its advocates (Young 1998). They frequently are criticised as resistingchange for self-serving purposes or labeled as anti-technology "Luddites"(Neal 1998). Neal, reacting to pundits' assertions that new institutions aregoing to 'steal our students' and lead to the demise of current institutions,observes that "Faculty members sense that this hysteria has little basis inreality, and the evidence suggests that they are correct" (1998, p. B5).

Despite the enthusiasm of many leaders, and the substantial invest-ments being made in instructional technologies, mass adoption will beconstrained by the myriad of problems that accompany most significantinstitutional changes. The calls for major, rather than incremental, changesin higher education fail to recognise the incremental nature of institutionalchanges processes. Jones (1995) notes that:

After numerous encounters with this paradox - the maintenance of the status quo in theface of compelling arguments for change and reform - it has become increasingly apparentto us that institutions are in fact behaving rationally. They are responding directly to theincentives and constraints that actually exist around them. Devising change strategies thatare likely to work therefore requires much more conscious recognition of the relationshipsbetween institutions and their external environments than has been typical in the past.(Jones 1995)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:28

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 7: Identifying costs of instructional technology in higher education

2 9 4 FRANK A. SCHMIDTLEIN AND ALTON L. TAYLOR

Institutions operate in the cybernetic ways described by Birnbaum (1988).Staff and faculty at various levels, in various roles, attempt to balanceoff a variety of competing demands. If instructional technology applica-tions are perceived to produce values exceeding those of other competinginvestments of resources and time, then faculty and staff will adopt them.

COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE OF INSTRUCTIONAL

TECHNOLOGIES

Paucity of research on costs of instructional technology

Much of the research on the uses and costs of information technologyby colleges and universities has been anecdotal and does not focus onthe full range of costs, although more significant cost studies are nowbeing proposed (e.g. Jewett 1998; Lawrence, Dey & Heller 1999). Costassessments typically have been limited case studies of one componentof the instructional technology system. The studies that have been donefrequently ignore the costs of infrastructure, technical support, trainingand related activities. Gladieux and Swail (1999) conclude that promisesof cost savings may be false:

Part of the promise of virtual technology is to deliver instruction at reduced cost. But to doso it will have to break with history. Most educational technology introduced over the past50 years has supplemented and often enhanced - not supplanted - traditional classroominstruction, thus adding to its cost, not reducing it. Cutting-edge information technologytends to be expensive and have a short half-life, straining education budgets, not relievingthem. (p. 15)

They also note that it is unclear whether online instruction will producesavings for students. Some institutions are charging more for on-linecourses than for on-campus courses. However, students may realise savingin time and travel costs. There appears to be a growing gap betweenpublic and institutional expectations for using instructional technology andavailable resources (Gilbert 1998).

National infrastructure costs

Many of the uses of instructional technology are supported by a vastnational and international system of computers and other communica-tions devices linked by cable and by ground and satellite transmitters; the'information superhighway.' This system obviously is extremely costly tocreate and maintain. These costs, however, are supported by a number ofgovernmental and private parties and, consequently, typically are viewedas 'givens' and, typically, are not factored into institutional decisions on

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:28

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 8: Identifying costs of instructional technology in higher education

IDENTIFYING COSTS OF INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 295

instructional technology. These costs are similar in some ways to thoseincurred by one buying an automobile. Automobile ownership entailssupporting the national highway system, traffic police, and the extensivesystem of automobile related facilities and services. These are real costs ofownership but typically have a marginal effect on individuals' automobilepurchase and use decisions. Rapidly growing world-wide communicationssystems support the needs of nearly all sectors of society and, there-fore, discussions of their costs generally are more salient in national thanin institutional decision making. Nevertheless, someone has to pay theprorated portion of these costs that relate to education and, therefore,they should be recognised when analysing the productivity of instructionaltechnology.

Institutional infrastructure costs

Institutions require a communications network and associated equip-ment to link classrooms, buildings and dormitories together. Campusnetworking requires a major institutional commitment and a significantshare of institutional resources. The University of Maryland, College Parkspent $25 million installing its fiber optic network, of which $5 million wasfor the equipment (Rood 1998). Part of the costs was attributable to havingto install cable in old buildings with poured concrete walls that were notdesigned for such installations. In addition, the older buildings had fewelectrical outlets, limiting classroom use of computers. Rood reports thatstudents are now requesting that the university provide wireless access tothe internet.

At the University of Virginia, McCormick and Bergland (1997) reportthat the University pays approximately $470 per person per year, or $4.8million, for basic technology services for 25,000 people (students, facultyand staff). Current administrative costs are over $5.7 million per year tooperate, maintain and support technology. The University of Virginia iscurrently developing a Cost of Services Model to help deal with legitimateand seemingly limitless demands for technology services in a limited budetenvironment.

Larger institutions in the U.S. generally have high speed networks.However, costs of these systems have delayed their installation at manysmaller institutions. Elmira College, a small, private, liberal-arts collegewith about 1,150 students, currently estimates that it will cost about $800thousand to install a fiber optic network at its campus, funds it cannoteasily obtain. Despite this cost, they believe making this investment soonwill be necessary if they are to compete for students with other institutions.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:28

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 9: Identifying costs of instructional technology in higher education

2 9 6 FRANK A. SCHMIDTLEIN AND ALTON L. TAYLOR

Hardware costs

The costs of computers, printers and other peripherals have declined at aremarkable rate. However, usage, with virtually every faculty member andstudent possessing a computer at some institutions (Resmer, Oblinger &Mingle 1995), probably has not lessened the total investment institutionsare making in equipment. Additionally, the incredible rate at which thetechnology is progressing is resulting in personal computers becomingoutdated within three years. For example, in 1997 the 18 communitycolleges in Maryland conducted a study of the investment required toup-grade their computers to accommodate contemporary software andthe World-Wide-Web. The estimated cost was approximately $95 million.Hawkins (1991) observed that all too often institutional investments andcommitments have been in the form of: "...one-time expenditures oncapital acquisitions. Microcomputers have not been viewed as capital-ized assets needing replacement or renewal" (p. 29). There is very littleevidence this situation has changed much since he made this observation.

Software costs

The general purpose software employed in computer-related instructionaltechnology applications typically is up-graded every two or three years andmust be replaced or enhanced to maintain currency and compatibility. Soft-ware used for instructional purposes is costly and the frequent up-gradesrequire a good deal of user relearning, temporarily reducing productivity,even though new software is becoming increasingly 'user friendly' andrequires less learning time than earlier versions. However, user friendli-ness is coming at the price of larger, more complex programs that requirelarger, faster computers. The costs resulting from the regular up-gradingof software must be factored into examinations of the productivity ofinstructional technology.

Communication costs

Use of technology to provide distance learning involves significant recur-ring communication costs required to provide links with students and formarketing these instructional programs and courses. Bartolic-Zlomislicand Bates (1996) report that a comprehensive project on tele-learning at theUniversity of British Columbia experienced start up costs that were higherthat expected for distance learning. However, they believed that on-linecourses could be cost-effective, especially if marketed internationally.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:28

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 10: Identifying costs of instructional technology in higher education

IDENTIFYING COSTS OF INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 2 9 7

Technical support costs

Green (1996) found that providing technical support is a priority issuefacing about one-fourth of the campuses surveyed. However, informa-tion about costs for computer support services is illusive because ofthe complexities in accounting for salaries, purchases, maintenance,unexpected repairs, upgrades and the use of outsourcing to provide addi-tional support (Guernsey 1998). Institutions typically have instructionaltechnology support offices that provide general assistance for technologyusers and some have specialised facilities, such as rooms equippedfor interactive video instruction and conferencing, that have techniciansassigned. Faculty while using a technology, such as interactive video, mayrequire a full-time technician to operate equipment. In many circumstancesrapid repair service is necessary in order to avoid costly delays duringinstruction. A few institutions are now 'outsourcing' their technologyservices.

The University of Maryland at College Park maintains a number oftechnical support units and a few classrooms especially equipped foremploying instructional technology. The largest units support students,faculty and staff for all campus-wide computing labs and networks, aswell as computing in the residence halls. The current cost to maintain twoof these units is roughly $450,000 and $150,000 per year respectively.The University of Virginia pays $190 per year per person for studentsand faculty who use technology-equipped classrooms. Also, the cost tomaintain the public computer labs was $1.4 million in 1996 (McCormick& Bergland 1997).

The labour market for persons engaged in technology support serviceshas tended to be very tight, bidding up the costs of recruiting and retaininghighly competent staff. In addition, as institutions employ technologies,the numbers of low cost clerical staff frequently is reduced, only to bereplaced by more highly paid technical persons. These costs of highersalaried personnel frequently are not explicitly recognized when assessingthe costs of instructional technology.

Faculty training and 'opportunity' costs

The extent to which faculty are trained to utilise newer instructional tech-nologies appears to vary by discipline and age of the faculty member.Faculty in fields such as physics and engineering were pioneers in devel-oping many of the current technologies. Their technical training oftenprovides them with the skills needed to utilize technology with a minimumof training. Similarly, younger faculty who have 'grown up' with tech-nology and received training or experience during their educational years

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:28

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 11: Identifying costs of instructional technology in higher education

2 9 8 FRANK A. SCHMIDTLEIN AND ALTON L. TAYLOR

may require less training. Nevertheless, for most faculty, considerabletraining will be required, especially for those who feel challenged by tech-nology in general. The cost of this training is significant. Many institutionshave a faculty training unit with staff assigned. Other forms of traininginclude sabbatical leaves to learn instructional applications of technologyand gain experience using them, reduced course loads for training, andsending faculty for specialized training. Some institutions provide facultywith small grants to learn about and develop use of technology.

Faculty engage in a variety of activities related to their scholarly,research, instructional, and public service responsibilities. They mustcurtail some of these activities if they are to make a significant commit-ment to using instructional technology. What often is viewed as resistanceto change are rational calculations of the relative importance of devotingtime to using educational technology as compared to the value of then-other engagements.

Student access and training costs

Students incur a variety of costs related to their use of instructional tech-nologies. McCarthy (1998) observes that little has been written regardinginformation technology's biggest end-user: the college student. She notesthat a great deal of attention has been given to rising tuition levels butlittle to the fees students are charged to pay for improved computer labs,software and Internet access. Kenneth Green (1998) found that 45.8%of U.S. colleges and universities are relying on student fees as a way tounderwrite the cost of using information technology on campus. In theNational Survey of Information Technology in Higher Education, he notesthat the use of mandatory student fees at four-year public institutions hasrisen over 15% in just three years, hovering around a 59% usage rate.Students attending such universities pay on average $140 in informationtechnology user fees (Green 1997, p. 3). McCarthy (1998) speculates thatinstitutions may seek to impose 'course fees' on students taking coursesthat involve costly technology, similar to the laboratory fees frequentlycharged for science classes. She suggests one consequence of the highcosts of instructional technology could be limits on institutional choiceand access for students with lower incomes.

Other costs passed on to students include software purchases and thecost to print documents at campus computer labs. Some institutions requireincoming students to purchase their own computer. In fact, 9% of theinstitutions Green (1996, p. 9) surveyed 'require or strongly recommend'the purchase of a personal computer. Another phenomenon revealed inGreen's (1997) study is the advent of 'computer competency' requirements

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:28

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 12: Identifying costs of instructional technology in higher education

IDENTIFYING COSTS OF INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 299

for undergraduates, which are imposed by a growing number of institu-tions, including 46.5% of all public four-year colleges. Institutions arebecoming concerned about the types of uses student make of computersand how proper usage can be assured without monitoring (which wouldraise constitutional issues). Some institutions are formulating user codesof conduct.

Course design and development costs

Design and development of courses that make proper use of technologyare generally expensive. Twigg (1996, p. 20) reported that developmentcost estimates for courseware are roughly $50,000 per instruction hour,or about $3 million per course. DiElsi (1999), drawing from an articleby Dr. Judith Boettcher (1998), Executive Director of the Corporation forResearch and Educational Networking (CREN), reports that the amount ofacademic work required to produce one hour of student learning varies bydelivery mode:

. . . it takes about 18 hours of faculty time to develop one hour of Web instruction. Three-credit courses usually include a minimum of 40 hours of class instruction that should besupplemented by an additional 80 hours of student work. Given these figures, it would take720 hours of academic work to produce the equivalent of 40 hours of Web instruction.This is equivalent to 488 hours a week for each week of a 15-week semester - more than afull-time job to develop one course, (p. 14)

Courses typically are designed by the faculty members providing theinstruction. However, some institutions, particularly those engaged indistance learning, employ course designers who supply and train facultyhow to teach courses using technology. Commercial firms also aredesigning 'courseware' for use in college and university classrooms. Somefunds for courseware development are supplied by federal and foundationgranting agencies. However, the cost and availability of validated course-ware appears likely to constrain expanded use of instructional technologyunless the federal government makes a major commitment to providesupport.

Administrative and legal costs

Copyright hurdles also create cost problems. DiElsi (1999) raises the ques-tion of who 'owns' courseware? The faculty member who developed it orthe college? Should a faculty member who develops a course receive aroyalty if another faculty members teaches the course using these coursematerials? He recommends that ownership policies and student supportand marketing policies should be established before committing to adistance learning programme, stating that: "An accurate budget cannot be

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:28

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 13: Identifying costs of instructional technology in higher education

3 0 0 FRANK A. SCHMIDTLEIN AND ALTON L. TAYLOR

completed unless monetary values are assigned to all budget factors . . . ".Green (1998) reports that roughly a third of research universities report thatthey have some type of policy addressing faculty-developed intellectualproperty. Privacy and security issues also entail costs (McCollum 1998a).Methods to limit access to confidential records have long been an issue.Also, efforts expended to prevent and deal with the effects of 'viruses' arewell publicised. The issue of on-line copyrights has pitted university librar-ians against the publishing industry. In general, university librarians arepushing for 'fair use' of electronic products, which allows them to avoidthe cost of copyright. Publishers are pushing for the passage of federallegislation to carve-out electronic documents from this rule (Guernsey1998, p. A27).

Steinbach and Lupo (1998) describe 'hidden legal traps' that have costimplications for distance learning programmes. These include obtainingapprovals from accrediting agencies and state higher education boards,complying with intellectual property laws, and obtaining user agreementfor use of materials. Recently the AAUP protested the accreditation ofJones International University by the North Central Association, the firston-line education venture to receive approval from a major accreditationagency. They objected to having instructors teach course using coursesprepared by others, the over-use of part-time instructors, and the lackof emphasis on faculty research and scholarship (The Masie Center, Inc.1999). Dealing with such challenges can be costly.

Less tangible costs

In addition to the costs of employing instructional technology, describedabove, there are less tangible factors. Some persons express concern aboutthe lack of human contact and interaction resulting from people spendinglarger portions of their time communicating by means of technology. Thelimited availability of qualified staff to engage in and support instructionaltechnology also imposes costs. Having marginally qualified staff decreasesproductivity and raises the salaries of qualified persons who are in highdemand.

Another threat to productivity is what one might term 'Internet addic-tion' (Kandell 1998). There are numerous reports of both students andfaculty 'surfing' the Internet for long periods of time while neglectingtheir primary responsibilities. In addition there is the well known hazardof 'solitaire' and other games that come 'loaded' on most computers.

A further concern is the potentially negative effects of information over-load. Email, voice mail message recording, facsimile transmission, pagersand cell telephones are tremendously increasing the access people have to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:28

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 14: Identifying costs of instructional technology in higher education

IDENTIFYING COSTS OF INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 301

one another. Unless ways are discovered to manage this avalanche of infor-mation, people will have to sort through huge quantities of information tofind that which is relevant and requires attention.

CONCLUSIONS

Technology investment planning needed

The rapid development of instructional technologies, their complexities,and their substantial costs could lead one to conclude that most institutionswould be engaged in extensive planning to guide their investments in thisarea. However, Green (1998) reports:

Just under half of US colleges have a strategic plan for information technology, more than60% do not have an IT financial plan, and only about two-fifths have an IT curriculum plan.Moreover, two-fifths have an instructional plan for using the Internet, less than a third havea plan for using the Internet in their distance learning initiatives, and only a fourth havea campus policy regarding intellectual property for WWW-based instructional resourcesdeveloped by faculty.

Steve Gilbert (1995, p. 21) of the TLT Group (an affiliate of the Amer-ican Association for Higher Education) urges institutions to consider thefollowing questions when devising strategic information technology plans:1) is a new committee or task force needed to develop policies and plans, 2)which 'educational tasks' are better served by the use of information tech-nology, and 3) how do we develop a plan to fund the role of informationtechnology? The recommendations of the National Commission on theCost of Higher Education (1998) expressly state that college and univer-sity leaders should articulate the results of 'self-reviews' to the 'campuscommunity and institutional constituents' with information on a variety ofexpenditures including technology (Goodling 1998, p. 1). The Commis-sion's recommendations also instruct colleges and universities to seek outdifferent kinds of 'partnerships' in order to curb costs effectively (p. 2).Green (1997, p. 3) urges college and university administrators to resist'the temptation' to use student fees to quell budget woes, mostly becausesuch actions do little to address the underlying needs for a long-rangeinformation technology infrastructure and plan. Twigg and Heterick (1997,pp. 171-219) recommend institutions' and states' oversight boards focuson: 1) developing a 'consortia of partners' for providing technologies; 2)making a long-term investment in computer networks for instructionalprogramming, rather than video networks; and 3) creating partnershipswith software/courseware providers for high enrollment courses.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:28

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 15: Identifying costs of instructional technology in higher education

3 0 2 FRANK A. SCHMIDTLEIN AND ALTON L. TAYLOR

These recommendations for planning point out a need for thoughtfulconsideration of technology costs. Research on this topic is urgentlyneeded. Higher education's conventional planning and budgeting cyclesfrequently do not accommodate the rapid product development cycles fornew information technologies. New approaches to planning are needed inthis field that do not hinder prompt, flexible, entrepreneurial initiatives.

Another major impediment to planning is the serious lack of researchand policy analysis on the nature and full range of the costs involved ininstructional technology. Most policy discussions of instructional tech-nology take place at far too high a level of generality. The planning calledfor, until more research has been done, is likely to rest on far too manyuntested and inaccurate assumptions. The planning too often will be drivenby frequently false hopes of savings. Without in-depth research, there willcontinue to be a tendency to invest too large a proportion of available fundsin infrastructure, equipment and software and far too little into the othercosts noted above; particularly course development, training, and technicalsupport.

REFERENCES

Bartolic-Zlomislic, S. & Bates, T. (1996). Assessing the Costs and Benefits of Telelearning:A Case Study from the University of British Columbia, http://research.cstudies.ubc.ca/

Berry, J.M. (1998). Not All Figures Compute in a Digital Economy, The Washington Post(April 16), E1.

Birnbaum, R. (1999). Higher Education Fads (unpublished book manuscript).Bimbaum, R. (1988). How College Work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Boettcher, J. (1998). How Much Does It Cost to Develop a Distance Learning Course? It

All Depends, Syllabus Magazine (May).Chronicle of Higher Education (1997). College-Bound Seniors Turn to the Internet, The

Chronicle of Higher Education (April 25), A25.DiElsi, J. (1999). Successful Budgeting for an Effective Distance Learning Program,

College Planning and Management (Issue 4, April), 2, 14.Gilbert, S.W. (1995). The Technology 'Revolution': Important Questions About A Work

in Progress, Change (March/April), 6-7.Gilbert, S.W. (1998). Punished for Success. The TLT Group, American Association for

Higher Education, 1 Dupont Circle, NW, Washington, DC.Gladieux, L.E. & Swail, W.S. (1999). The Virtual University and Educational Opportunity.

The College Board (April), p. 35.Green, K.C. (1996). The Campus Computing Project: the National Survey of Information

Technology in Higher Education. Encino, CA.Green, K.C. (1997). More Technology in Syllabus, More Campuses Impose IT Require-

ments and Student Fees, The Campus Computing Project: the National Survey ofInformation Technology in Higher Education.

Green, K.C. (1998). The 1998 Campus Computing Survey, www.campuscomputing.net,November.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:28

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 16: Identifying costs of instructional technology in higher education

IDENTIFYING COSTS OF INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 303

Green, K.C. & Gilbert, S.W. (1995). Great Expectations: Content, Communications,Productivity, and the Role of Information Technology in Higher Education, Change(March/April), 8-18.

Guernsey, L. (1998). Exploring the Future of Electronic Books and Journals: Publishersand Librarians Wrangle Over Issues of Pricing and Intellectual Property, Chronicle ofHigher Education (June 19), A27.

Guernsey, L. (1998). Survey of Small Colleges Tracks Their Computing Costs, Chronicleof Higher Education (January 16), A27.

Hawkins, B.L. (1991). Preparing for the Next Wave of Computing on Campus, Change(January/February), 24-28.

Hetrick, R.C., Jr. (1991). Academic Sacred Cows and Exponential Growth, CAUSE/EFFECT 14(1), 9-14.

Jewett, F. (1998). California State University Bridge Project, [email protected], D. (1995). NCHEMS News. Boulder, CO: National Center for Higher Education

Management Systems, October, p. 2.Kandell, J.J. (1998). Internet Addiction on Campus: The Vulnerability of College Students,

CyberPsychology and Behavior 1(1), 11-17.Lawrence, J.H., Dey, E.L. & Heller, D.E. (1999). An Investigation of Technology-Enabled

Learning Environments (a research proposal). University of Michigan: Center for theStudy of Higher Education.

Lewis, R.J. & Wall, M. (1988). Exploring Obstacles to Uses of Technology in HigherEducation. Discussion paper presented at: Technology in Higher Education: A RoundTable. Washington, DC: The Academy for Educational Development, Inc., Dec. 6-7.

Lohr, S. (1999). Computer Age Gains Respect of Economists. The New York Times (April14) CXLVIII (51, 492).

Massy, W.F. & Zemsky, R. (1995). Using Information Technology to EnhanceAcademic Productivity. White paper prepared for the Educom National LearningInfrastructure Initiative (NUI) Wingspread Conference, June. Obtained on-line atwww.educom/program/nlii/keydoc/massy.html.

McCarthy, S. (1998). Information Technology and its Use in Higher Education: The Effectson Students - Cost, Access and Learning Productivity. Unpublished paper. Departmentof Education Policy, Planning and Administration, University of Maryland, CollegePark, May 4.

McCormick, S. & Bergland, V. (1997). Technology Costs: Under the Magnifying Glass.Http://www.itc.virginia.edu/virginia.edu/fall97/costs/all.html

McCullom, K. (1998). Study Offers a Glimpse of Scope and Cost of University ComputerProblems, The Chronicle of Higher Education (July 2). http://www.chronicle.com/daily/98/070201t.htr

Nash, J.B. (1998). Thinking Through the Issue of Teaching With Technology, UCEAReview (Spring) XXXIX(2), 1, 8, 12-13.

National Commission on the Cost of Higher Education (1998). Straight Talk About CollegeCosts and Prices: Report of the National Commission on the Cost of Higher Education,January 21. Obtained on-line at www.acenet.edu.

Neal, E. (1998). Using Technology in Teaching: We Need to Exercise Healthy Skepticism,The Chronicle of Higher Education (June 19), B4-B5.

Pepi, D. & Scheurman, G. (1996). The Emperor's New Computer A Critical Look at OurAppetite for Computer Technology, Journal of Teacher Education (May/June) 47(3).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:28

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 17: Identifying costs of instructional technology in higher education

304 FRANK A. SCHMIDTLEIN AND ALTON L. TAYLOR

Resmer, M., Oblinger, D. & Mingle, J.R. (1995). Computers for All Students: A Strategyfor Universal Access to Information Resources. Obtained on-line at www.educom.edu/programs/nlii/keydocs/csu.comps.4.kids.html.

Rood, J. (1998). Director of Communication and Business Services, University of Mary-land, College Park, MD (Personal conversation with the author).

Steinbach, S.E. & Lupo, A.V. (1998). The Hidden Legal Traps in Distance-LearningPrograms, The Chronicle of Higher Education (February 6), A52.

The Masie Center, Inc. (1999). Protests Over On-Line Campus. In E. Masie (ed.),Technology and Learning Updates. http://www.masie.com.

Twigg, C. (1996). Academic Productivity: The Case for Instructional Software. Reportfor the Broadmoor Roundtable, Colorado Springs, Colorado, July. Obtained on-line atwww.educom.edu/program/nlii/keydocs/broadmoor.htrn].

Twigg, C. & Heterick, R.C., Jr. (1997). The NLII Vision: Implications for Systems andStates. Written for the NLII-SHEEO Seminar on the Public Policy Implications of theInformation Technology Revolution, November. Obtained on-line at www.educom.edu/program/keydocs.

Young, J.R. (1998). University of North Carolina Criticized for Plan to Require Studentsto Own PC's, The Chronicle of Higher Education (May 22), A29.

Zemsky, R. (1995). An Interview, Crosstalk (October) 3(3), 2.

FRANK SCHMIDTLEIN

University of MarylandCollege of EducationBenjamin Building, Room 2211College Park, MDEmail: [email protected]

ALTON TAYLOR

University of Virginia210 Miller Hall

Charlottesville, VAEmail: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:28

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14