a new cost analysis model for networked learning charlotte ash sheffield hallam university, uk
TRANSCRIPT
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