Costs and Benefits in an eLearning context Why and how? Sofia Lundberg Centre for Regional Science at Umeå University (CERUM), Sweden.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
State University – Higher School of Economics
Advertisements

ELene TT European Symposium Paris, 23 November 2006 eLearning & Lifelong Learning Programme Maruja Gutierrez-Diaz DG Education and Culture European Commission.
WORK PLAN WP1. OBJECTIVE To define criteria for assessing teachers training practices that facilitate the use of ICT to promote an effective learning.
WORK PACKAGE 5 Evaluation of Teachers Training Actions European Symposium Teacher training and the innovative use of ICT in HE. Paris, November 23rd 2006.
Teacher Training Actions European Symposium Teacher training and the innovative use of ICT in HE. Paris, November 23rd Aims and results -How weve.
Innovative use of ICT in schools in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Portugal and the United Kingdom Ulf Fredriksson Centre for Research on Lifelong Learning,
Innovative use of ICT in schools based on findings in ELFE project (The European e-learning Forum for Education) Ulf Fredriksson Centre for Research on.
The Challenges of Joint Programmes The View of the Universities Tia Loukkola 10 June, 2010.
European Universities Charter on Lifelong learning Bologna employability seminar Luxembourg, November Howard Davies, senior adviser, EUA.
Lifelong learning: Taking Bologna to the labour market Lars Lynge Nielsen President of EURASHE Leuven Ministerial Conference 28 April 2009.
Report of Working Session 3 Bologna Conference Fostering student mobility: next steps? Fostering student mobility: next steps? Involving stakeholders for.
Regions for Economic Change | LMP Workshop 3C When exchanging is good for innovation: Experiences from the Lisbon Monitoring Platform How can INTERACT.
Technical meeting with the Regional representative offices in Brussels Brussels, 17 March 2009 The INTERACT II Programme – Knowledge Management and Capitalisation.
Lifelong Guidance: A Key to Lifelong Learning – EU Policy Perspective John McCarthy European Commission DG EAC Vocational Training Policy Unit.
Guide to statistics in European Commission Development Co-operation
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development Key Issues on the International Economic Agenda UNCTADs flagship training course for policy makers on.
A deepening of training needs in digital curation Claudia Engelhardt Framing the digital curation curriculum Florence, 6-7 May 2013.
a ADOPTION OF E-LEARNING BY THE ACADEMIC AND INDUSTRY STAFF
The European Students’ Union REPRESENTING STUDENTS SINCE 1982 Fernando M Galán Palomares (Vice-Chairperson) Creativity, learning and academic freedom Creativity.
Europe and Education School Education COMENIUS. The School Education Action of the European Community’s Programme “Socrates” on Education 2 nd phase:
The Swedish National audit Office – IT investments across the borders Presentation at the 6th Performance Auditing of the use of IT Seminar in Beijing,
A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Net Based Nursing Education by Niklas Hanes and Sofia Lundberg, Centre for Regional Science at Umeå University (CERUM), Sweden.
In Europe, When you ask the VET stakeholders : What does Quality Assurance mean for VET system? You can get the following answer: Quality is not an absolute.
Irish Evaluation Network David Doyle, Department of Finance.
Scaling up and scaling out: How the eLene partners are addressing sustainability in European eLearning projects EDEN conference, Naples, June 15 th 2007.
/ department of mathematics and computer science TU/e eindhoven university of technology CEDEFOP workshop: Policy, Practice, Partnership: Getting to Work.
LATE LIFE LEARNING – Discovering the Pathways for Cooperative Learning 2014, June – 2015, May.
‘FLLLEX-Radar as a tool for measuring lifelong learning: experiences of 8 HEI’s across Europe’ Rob Mark Centre for Lifelong Learning, University of Strathclyde,
Diana Laurillard Head, e-Learning Strategy Unit Overview of e-learning: aims and priorities.
United Nations Millennium Action Plan Health InterNetwork World Health Organization April 2001.
ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE AUDIT
Margaret J. Cox King’s College London
Dr Elena Luchinskaya, Lancaster University/ Leeds Metropolitan University, UK.
Multilateral Project for Development of Innovation Project Duration: 18 months Partners’ Meeting, 16 – 18 December 2007, Sofia Tanya Pancheva/University.
Learning Technologies for C21 st Roy Beattie –Services Integration Director C2k.
BLENDED LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION: UTILITY OR FUTILITY?
TEEB Training Session 3: From Concepts to Action.
FLLLEX – Final Evaluation
European Broadband Portal Phase II Application of the Blueprint for “bottom-up” broadband initiatives.
Developing Strategies to support staff in the delivery of blended / online learning Judith Smith, Department of eLearning 21 April 2005.
Nordplus Adult AD_2012_1a28886 How to Challenge an Adult to Teach an Adult.
SAMO PAVLIN, UNIVERSITY OF LJUBLJANA – COOPERATION BETWEEN HEI AND BUSINESSES - WHY DO WE NEED TO COOPERATE? CMEPIUS, LJUBLJANA 25. OKTOBER 2013 LOOKING.
Elene-ee Kick-off Meeting – UMEA, Sweden 2006 – 02- (27/28) e-learning and Digital divides (WP 4) Adel Ben Youssef ADIS – University of Paris Sud
Whole School Approach To To Careers Education Information Advice and Guidance INSET 15 th February 2012.
1 Women Entrepreneurs in Rural Tourism Evaluation Indicators Bristol, November 2010 RG EVANS ASSOCIATES November 2010.
Addressing User Needs Lena Åström Statistics Sweden International Consulting Office Bishkek May 2006.
Teachers and the Quality Imperative for EFA International Task Force on Teachers for EFA 6-7 July 2010 Amman, Jordan.
“ BIRD Project“ 1 Broadband Access, Innovation & Regional Development” Broadband Access, Innovation & Regional Development” Project Description Ulrich.
EDPQS in 10 minutes: Overview of European Drug Prevention Quality Standards (EDPQS) With financial support from the Drug Prevention and Information Programme.
Bernhard Chabera Brussels, 1 June 2010 Approaches and progress towards the implementation of LLL strategies and policies in the Member States.
DETERMINE Working document # 4 'Economic arguments for addressing social determinants of health inequalities' December 2009 Owen Metcalfe & Teresa Lavin.
Are Coffee and Cakes Enough? Incentives for Mainstreaming Technology-Supported Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Online Educa Berlin, Dec 5 th.
The industrial relations in the Commerce sector EU Social dialogue: education, training and skill needs Ilaria Savoini Riga, 9 May 2012.
WP3 Indicators of e-learning Partners : CANEGE, Centro METID Politecnico di Milano, Polish Virtual University Thierry GARROT University of Nice Sophia.
ENCHASE “ENHANCING ALBANIAN SYSTEM OF QUALITY ASSURANCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION: APPLICATION OF THE PROCESS AND OUTCOME BASED METHODOLOGY ”
Revisions Proposed to the CIS Plan by the Global Office Misha V. Belkindas Budapest, July 3-4, 2013.
ELearning Socrates Minerva Concertation Meeting Helsinki 3 July 2006 « Dissemination and Exploitation of Results » Janette Sinclair European Commission.
Inclusive By Design project Policy perspective Presentation of the first results.
Implementing the LLL Charter Michael H örig EUA Programme Manager Nicosia, Cyprus 22 November 2010.
Developing entrepreneurial activities and abilities via international virtual programs Edit Lukács Assistant professor University.
Interim report from the ELFE 2 study visits in Slovenia, Poland and Latvia: analysis of practices and experiences in schools and Teacher Education Institutions.
1 First Nations Economic Development Readiness Questionnaire Presented By: Ontario First Nations Economic Developers Association and Ministry Of Economic.
Libing Wang, Chief of EISD, UNESCO Bangkok The 7 th TCU International e-Learning Conference 2016: Disruptive Innovation in Education, July 2016,
Agenda Summary of performance Q2 & Q3
FINANCING TVET TVET COSTING, DIVERSIFIED FINANCING SYSTEMS AND COST REDUCING STRATEGIES.
Planning of the first tasks
ICT PSP 2011, 5th call, Pilot Type B, Objective: 2.4 eLearning
Background to SPEAK Ongoing discussions on the need for change of the Swedish planning system. Example of reports from the Swedish Environmental Protection.
“CareerGuide for Schools”
Business Administration Programs School of Business and Liberal Arts Fall 2016 Assessment Report
Presentation transcript:

Costs and Benefits in an eLearning context Why and how? Sofia Lundberg Centre for Regional Science at Umeå University (CERUM), Sweden.

Agenda Costs and benefits in an eLearning context – what can departments and teachers learn from such an analysis? Short presentation of the eLene EE – project Note: Very general presentation – there are several important differences that are not explained. For example how higher education is financed.

Why bother about costs and benefits? Resources are limited and have alternative use. Is there a better use of the resources we plan to invest? Reasonable condition: The use of ICT in higher education should be efficient

Important difference Analysis of costs and benefits Cost-benefit analysis Is there a difference? Yes! Is it important? Yes (again)! What is the difference and why is it important?

Analysis of costs and benefits Whom: –Department –Faculty –University –Firm Objective function: Balanced budget (or profit maximization) Central questions: –Do we reach more students by the use of ICT in our learning processes? –Do our students perform better due to the use of ICT in our learning processes? –Are their scale opportunities that results in lower per student cost due to the use of ICT in our learning processes? Ends when the student is trained Alternative case to the planned investment: –What can the department etc do with its resources instead?

Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) Whom: –Society: Local -, County -, State level, Region, International - the geographical boarder is flexible! Objective function: maximize individuals welfare Central questions: –Are there added values that are not measured by traditional investment analysis? –With these added values taken into consideration is the investment motivated from the societys (defined by the geographical boarder) point of view? Do the costs exceed the benefits? The students occupation after training is central Alternative case to the planned investment: –What is the alternative occupation of the trained student?

The difference between analysis of costs and benefits and cost-benefit analysis The Society

Example: Case study of a Nursing Program, North Sweden 31 students enrolled in a netbased Nursing program in Northern Sweden Provider of training: Umeå university Financed by: Swedish central, county and local government and Umeå University Added costs compared to on campus traditional Nursing program: Yes! About twice as high per student cost. Alternative case: No nursing training and students would remain in their occupation prior to education.

Example: Case study of a Nursing Program, North Sweden Cost side (Rumble, 2001): –Costs of developing online learning materials: –The cost of e-delivery: –The cost of e-administration: –Loss of production: Benefit side (region): Production value Net outcome: Efficient use of resources from the perspective of the society: here defined as a region (13 municipalities in Northern Sweden). Exact figure not so interesting – look at the sign (or relation to an alternative)! Same as a analysis of costs on e.g. department level

eLene EE: Main Purpose Main purpose: This project aims to increase knowledge of the incentives to create virtual campuses and to initiate teaching methods in education and training built on virtual mobility and the effects of elearning and if it is efficient. Target Groups: elearning units (for example HEI, schools, firms, external providers), learners (e.g. students, un-/employed people), financiers (private as well as public), and decision makers. Financed by: DG EAC/23/05 (eLearning Programme) Virtual Campuses Period February 2006 – January Grand finale: Conference in Paris November 2007.

eLene partners that take part in eLene EE UOC: Open University of Catalonia PVU: Polish Virtual University UMU: Umeå University (Project coordinator) CANEGE: French consortia of five universities METID: Politecnico di Milano Interdisciplinary! Information:

eLene EE specific areas WP 1 - Costs/benefits of elearning: –The main question in WP1 is whether or not e-learning is an efficient use of resources, i.e. what are the main benefits and costs for the society? –One important aspect of the analysis is to consider effects, or outcomes, for different stakeholders (e.g. students, universities, and policy makers). –Although an investment may be beneficial for one stakeholder, it might not be beneficial for another. This raises the question of how costs and benefits should be divided between stakeholders in order to create a correct incentive structure. –Empirical: case studies (questionnaire to students and documented information about costs) –Models: Literature Review

eLene EE specific areas WP 2 - Student performance of elearning –The main questions in WP2 are if the uses of ICT affect student performance and if the uses of ICT affect student performance differently depending on the subject? –These are two important questions that need attention in order to ensure quality in and efficient training from virtual mobility including the right choice of tools available from existing technology. –WP2 aims to provide answers to these questions with hypothesis and data from ongoing training. –Students performing well are a condition for creating benefits in the context of WP 1. –Empirical: Data from different courses and programs in different countries complemented by a questionnaire to students and teachers. –Models: Literature Review

eLene EE specific areas WP 3 - Indicators of elearning –Main target is to work on indicators relevant at HEI level and indicative for the regional, state or European ICTs policy. Our challenge is collecting data on indicators of e-learning progression in HEI with information characterize them and useful to aggregate and analyze data on policy perspectives. –Example of simple indicators: Number of users of a specific tool, number of coursers etc.

eLene EE specific areas WP 4 - Digital divides and elearning –While the dividend of Educational ICTs seems obvious, countries may not meet the appropriate conditions in using these technologies and may fall under the digital divide. These technologies may enhance social exclusion and different groups of the societies will not benefit from these technologies. The aims of this Work package 4 are threefold: –First, we want to characterize the variety of digital divides in matter of educational ICT and to understand how to bridge them? –Second, we want to illustrate the differences of the Digital Divide in terms of Uses. What factors contributing to it as well as its various forms. A special focus on the concepts of Digital Choice and Digital Trajectories will be done. –Third, what are the main explanations of digital divides in matter of performances? Why some institutions, students, countries are performing better than others? Is there any productivity paradox on the High Education sector? Is there a Skill Biased Technological Change in matter of Educational ICTs.

Summary Difference in approach and objective function depending on if we perform An analysis of costs and benefits A cost benefit analysis (CBA) It is important to do both! Why bother? To ensure that you get the best value for money! eLene EE: both types of analyses are performed. More information Contact information Future ideas: Netbased higher education (ICT in higher education) as a local policy tool?! Questions?