The Hidden Costs of Networked Learning The Impact of a Costing Framework on Educational Practice Professor Paul Bacsich and Charlotte Ash Sheffield Hallam University, UK

Introduction  Paul Bacsich and Charlotte Ash  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

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 - need to uniform before analysis

Study Methodology detailed literature review of over 100 sources sectoral survey of UK HEIs seven case studies based on interviews with key staff survey of students at Sheffield Hallam University consultation with other projects and experts world-wide

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

Barriers

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

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”

Planning Document and Financial Schema Multi Level Activity Based Costing Based on HEFCE Time Recording Flexible Overheads Three-phase Model Time Division Includes Stakeholders

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

Course Lifecycle Model Planning and Development Production and Delivery Maintenance and Evaluation Three-phase model of course development

Impact on Stakeholders

Top Management  Believe that Networked Learning is positive but are often unwilling to channel the funds  Believe that a costing framework will help track the costs and encourage individuals to partake  Pedagogical evidence needed to increase uptake - cost is not necessarily the main barrier  Agree with our approach as it is based on recent announcements by the Funding Councils

Academic Staff  Absorbing a large quantity of the Hidden Costs  Self purchased home computers, Internet charges and consumables  Time is considered a main problem by academic staff  Academics on the whole support the study conclusions but do not like the ideas of some form of time-sheet

Academic Management  Welcome the approach as it may empower them to negotiate with service depts on overhead issues  Concerned about the implementation of an academic staff time monitoring system  Concern about the planning/financial focus of the framework being applied to education  Must engage in creative dialogue with administrators using a common vocabulary

Service Departments  Concerned about charging on usage basis rather than by estimation  This includes the method of usage-based charging

Administration and finance staff  Brunt of additional work likely to fall on administrators  Greater co-ordination needed  Finance awareness raising  Managing customer expectation

Students  Not part of this paper

Further Work  Harmonisation of our work with other countries  USA  Canada  Australia  Europe  Further development, consideration and testing of the framework  Concentration in other areas - like further education

This presentation and details about the project can be found at - Thank you for listening