Weighing Air: Measuring the Costs of Learning Technology in the UK. A Planning Framework. Charlotte Ash - Sheffield Hallam University, UK.

Introduction Project funded by the JISC 6 month break-neck study Project director - Professor Paul Bacsich Project manager - Charlotte Ash Three additional researchers Additional support from Sheffield Hallam University

Main Aims  To identify the hidden or unrecorded costs of Networked Learning  To produce a planning document and financial schema using which an accurate picture of the costs involved can be reached  To reach operational outcomes Main Challenge

Barriers to Accurate 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  Each previous methodology uses a different vocabulary - need to uniform before analysis

Networked Learning  Synonymous with “online learning”, technology-enhanced learning” and so on  Can be identified by extent that a computer replaces or enhances the tutor “using a networked computer for the purposes of learning, blurring the boundaries between on-campus, distance and flexible learning”

Hidden Costs  Two types of hidden cost  Fundamentally Unrecorded  Absorbed without trace staff and student home PCs additional energy and insurance opportunity costs

Weighing Air  Invisible  Special tools needed  Henry Cavendish ( )  Law of Conservation of Mass: the total mass of the reactants in any chemical reaction is exactly equal to the total mass of the products  Same atoms  Different molecules Same costs  Different categories

Context  Funding for Higher Education in the UK  teaching and learning based on student enrolment  research based on grading system  addition funds available on bidding basis  Drive for greater transparency  Student fees and participation  Moving from traditional campus based paradigm  Meeting the demands is stretching Universities

Methodology Broad literature review Student SurveyCase Studies Sectoral Survey Consultation

Outcomes Lifecycle Model Financial Schema Planning Document

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

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...

Planning and Development Production and Delivery Maintenance and Evaluation The Three- phase Model

Breakdown of three-phase model

Rechecking against literature The new model was rechecked against the literature - including training based sources which were more Activity Based Costing orientated

The Financial Schema  Traditional financial model underpinning the UK HE sector is defective in four ways: No Stakeholders No Division of Academic Time No Account of Individual Activities Crude Overhead Allocation

Schemas analysed  Analysed around 10 different schemas  Opted for an Activity Based Costing system  Based the schema on the 1997 KPMG work  Factored in the 1999 Flashlight Cost Analysis Handbook  Also included work by other authors in the area

Financial Schema

The planning document  Resonate with financial managers, planners, administrative and academic staff  Make apparent what costs to record and where  Similar features to financial schema  To use the HEFCE planning document (1999) with the Bates (1995) ACTIONS methodology

Conclusions It is impossible to test, as well as develop, a framework of this nature in just six months Therefore we have recently been awarded an extension project to continue this work Outcome will be a Handbook and case studies detailing the usage of the framework in an educational setting

Thank you for listening For further information about the project, visit the Costs of Networked Learning Web page: Charlotte Ash Sheffield Hallam University, UK