Module+3


 * Module 3 - The Cost-Effectiveness of Distance Education**

This was a very busy module, with lots of interesting readings and thought-provoking discussions! This module contained 11 separate topics, and Professor Huelsmann started the module with a brief introduction. The general topic was cost effectiveness and cost efficiency, and how the cost analysis we discussed in previous modules applies to the distance education student./institution.

Question – is being cost effective, efficient? And – is being efficient, cost effective? Is it possible to have both, and also not have either? In order to be both, one needs to carefully look at the institution, the course, and the student population.

Cost Efficient = being effective without wasting time or effort or expense Cost Effective = being economical interms of the goods or services received for the money spent

Reading one of the assigned articles in this introduction took me back to my first semester in the MDE program, where we read about various theories and how they apply to distance education. I posted the following in the conference:

// Thanks for including this article as an introduction to the module. It's been several semesters since I started the MDE program - and it was a nice refresher to revisit the view from these experts: // // Looking at the costs and economics of distance education, I now understand better what is involved in the various methods and technologies - for example, the costs required to teach asynchronously vs. synchronously, the chosen medium, etc. As distance education designers and instructors, there are so many factors that will make DE cost effective and/or cost efficient. // // Nancy // Hülsmann, T. (2008). Peters, Holmberg, Moore - a personal configuration. // Distances et Savoirs, 6 //(3), 455-479.
 * // Holmberg, empathy approach //
 * // Peters, industrialized form of education //
 * // Moore ////, transaction distance //

During our second topic of the conference we had Greville Rumble as our guest speaker, author of our course textbook, “The Costs and Economics of Open and Distance Learning.” It’s always interesting to have a guest speaker – especially when you’ve read books or articles they have authored in previous classes and then you now have the “master” available for any question(s) you want to ask! The required readings for this section included Chapter 13 (Cost-efficiency) and Chapter 14 (Cost effectiveness). I posed the following to Professor Rumble:

// Dear Professor Rumble, //

// Chapter 13 in The Costs and Economics of Open and Distance Learning discusses cost effectiveness. In particular, effectiveness can be measured against an absolute standard, relative effectiveness, weighted average across a range of variables, or, the quality of a student's performance. All of these approaches seem reasonable, however, I tend to question the accuracy of measuring the quality of a student's performance. The text mentions "comparing the results of students in their final examinations with their results in an entry test taken before they started the course" (p. 163), which seems reasonable. As a student, and not a teacher, instructor, or designer, I wonder if that measurement is one that can be reliable or accurate. I can imagine many variables coming into play with students, especially the typical DE student which is the adult learner, from course deadlines, personal issues, professional conflicts, etc. Sometimes the "adult learner" just gives what they can - and it may not be reflective of the instructor or the course design. //

// Just questioning, do you believe measuring the quality of a student's performance - reliable? //

// Many thanks, //

// Nancy //

Rumble, G. (1997).// The costs and economics of open and distance learning //. London: Kogan Page.

He replied that although testing may not be reliable because of variation in processes, exams, and examiners – sometimes it simply comes down to interpretation.

We next looked at efficiency and cost-effective ratios, such as comparing open and distance learning with conventional education to determine which program was more efficient. However, trying to save costs to be more efficient, doesn’t guarantee that you will be more cost-effective. What’s crucial with open and distance learning is to have high enrollments, a limited range of courses, with long shelf lives.

There were definitely some “aha” moments during various sections of the conference, especially while reading through the case studies of The Open University, IGNOU, and COU. I was amazed (again) at the size of these institutions. For example, COU has 44 provincial RTVUs, 956 branch schools (city), 1,875 working stations (county), 3,292 teaching venues, and 60,000 tutorial centres! []. And, my reply to a post regarding IGNOU:

// Wow - just looking at the student enrollment numbers for IGNOU (3,000,000) and UMUC (196,000) - one can definitely understand the term economies of scale! //// When considering the average cost per student, we obviously consider the number of students, but how does the location of the university affect the average cost also? Just thinking here - obviously it would probably cost more to take a course at UMUC then IGNOU...however, if I wanted to get a degree, couldn't I enroll in the [|Master of Education] program at IGNOU, which costs 36000 R, and save considerable money? // // **36000 Indian rupees = 795.7548 US dollars** //

Another assigned reading was Rumble’s article entitled “Social justice, economics and distance education.” Although distance education has given many individuals an opportunity to receive an education, who benefits the most from that education – the individual or the society? Also, who should pay for the education – state and federal governments, or the individual? Should education be publically or privately funded? Distance education has the opportunity to enrich the lives of others. The bottom line? “…there is a moral case for ensuring that education is given to everyone, irrespective of their economic circumstances. Making appropriate use of distance education will almost certainly be the least costly and most efficient way of doing this. In this context of the issue of who pays for it, and how much, are key concerns” (p. 175).

Rumble, G. (2007). Social justice, economics and distance educaiton. Open Learning: //The Journal of Open and Distance Learning,// 22(2), 167-176.

Later in the module I read an interesting article entitled “Costs and quality of online learning.” I laughed at the comment – which is very true in many contexts – that “one gets what one pays for” (p. 156). This is true in so many things, especially distance education. The author state that “while costs may be reduced by performing functions more efficiently, costs may also be reduced by allowing a slippage in quality or by cutting back on richness of the learning experience” (p. 156). I agree. As institutions, course designers, or instructors, I think we really need to pay attention to what we are giving the student population, in terms of quality and quantity. In addition, we don’t want to give them everything just so they have it – we want to make sure we are giving each individual exactly what they need. We don’t need to produce materials that are not going to be used! If an institution decides to change their mode or operation, they need to consider the costs, advantages, and disadvantages. “Retooling for new methods of delivery involves considerable investment, and the investment needs to be justified in terms of the return it is likely to generate over time” (p. 160). Just thinking that something new should be added to a course just because everyone else is doing it, doesn’t always make sense (or CENTS!).

Inglis, A. (2008). Costs and quality of online learning. In W. J. Bramble, Panda, S. (Ed.),// Economics of distance and online learning // (pp. 132-161). London: Kogan Page.

Our last section was entitled “the ‘vulnerability debate’ revised,” where we questioned why CBUs might consider going dual mode, and how the Internet has affected the market. My response and thoughts follow:

// **Why are CBUs going dual mode?** // // Is it for overcapacity, equity consideration, or commercial reasons? My initial reaction is for commercial reasons – being able to benefit and capitalize on the market that is being created by the Internet and the technological advances. Many institutions see an opportunity to expand into a growing market – the market of the adult student and other students who want and need to achieve an education online or at a distance. As Rumble mentions, DTUs, such as the UK Open University, were created because existing universities were not interested in accepting part-time students (2004, p. 69). Therefore, many institutions are changing their mode from the traditional CBU, or a DMU, or are building separate institutions specifically for their DE program (University of Maryland / UMUC; Penn State University / Penn State World Campus, just to name a few). //

// However, not every institution can convert to a dual mode institution and provide effective and efficient online learning. Planning, design, support, and investment must occur so that an institution does not merely try to convert their traditional class materials into an online format and think they have created an online course. Likewise, an instructor who has never taught online should not be expected to successfully facilitate or teach an online class without their own instruction and guidance. As stated by Curran, “the modern university…is an institution nonetheless well adapted to inducing and coping with change, and well practiced in responding to the contemporary needs of the communities it serves” (2008, p. 41). //

// **Effect of the Internet – good or bad?** // // The Internet continues to expand the opportunities for individuals to receive an education. All institutions are able to benefit from the Internet and the advances in technology – CBUs, DTUs, and DMUs. Institutions can now reach audiences not only in developing countries, but rural areas in our own country that before were not able to learn by communication technologies such as the Internet or Cable TV. I see the Internet’s effect a win for individuals and institutions. //

// Nancy //

Curran, C. (2008). Online learning and the university. In W. J. Bramble, Panda, S (Ed.), Economics of distance and online learning (pp. 26-51). London: Kogan Page.

Rumble, G. (2004). The competitive vulnerability of distance teaching Universities (1992). In G. Rumble (Ed.), //Papers and debates on the costs and economics of distance education and online learning// (Vol. 7, pp. 67-88). Oldenburg: bis.