1. ALT Policy Board – 12 July 2001 Jonathan Darby University of Oxford jonathan.darby@conted.ox.ac.uk The Economics of e-Learning for Remote Students

2. ALT Policy Board – 12 July 2001 Mission statements Department for Continuing Education  To make the University of Oxford, and the quality of education and scholarship that it represents, assessable to men and women in ways which complement the University’s provision for its resident members Technology-Assisted Lifelong Learning  To build on Oxford University’s international pre- eminence to create Internet-mediated courses and educational services of the highest quality

3. ALT Policy Board – 12 July 2001 Rationale The Department’s mission Technology can help meet unmet needs Flexibility is at a premium in lifelong learning Technology can reduce costs and raise quality The future success of the Department could depend of learning technology

4. ALT Policy Board – 12 July 2001 Life cycle of an organisation

5. ALT Policy Board – 12 July 2001 Restarting the lifecycle

6. ALT Policy Board – 12 July 2001 Are online courses as good as traditional ones? Aspects of learning  orientation  motivation  information acquisition  elaboration  clarification  confirmation (Noel Entwistle)

7. ALT Policy Board – 12 July 2001 Are online courses as good as traditional ones? Aspects of learning  orientation  motivation  information acquisition  elaboration  clarification  confirmation (Noel Entwistle) Best mode  face-to-face  Online  online 1:9 face-to-face:online

8. ALT Policy Board – 12 July 2001 Student differences Traditional  plenty of time  in the studying groove  want to be told what they need to know  limited life experience  not in a position to pay full cost Distance learning  limited time  highly motivated but “out of practice”  usually have specific learning needs  highly relevant life experiences to share  may be able to pay full cost

9. ALT Policy Board – 12 July 2001 Economic differences Traditional  most funding already committed  motivation is to improve quality of teaching  no new money  must work with existing system Distance learning  creating new business  motivation is to serve new markets  new students bring additional income  can work alongside existing system

10. ALT Policy Board – 12 July 2001 The TALL approach Learning objects used as atomic particles in course architecture Learning objects conceptualised though linking spinal documents Highly specified and systematised processes for course specification, production, validation and delivery

11. ALT Policy Board – 12 July 2001 Why learning objects? Economy of production/maintenance Economy of learning time Clarity of purpose – single learning outcome Simplicity of use Potential for reuse/personalisation But Must be kept small and “single issue” to realise benefits

12. ALT Policy Board – 12 July 2001 What does a learning object do? It defines and directs a learning activity Content  Audiographic  Text, etc Non-content-based learning  Self assessment  Group task  Assignemnt, etc

13. ALT Policy Board – 12 July 2001 Why spinal documents Differentiates structure and content Orientation – clear what needs doing Support for alternative navigational approaches Respects different learning styles/preferences Enables use of learning objects

14. ALT Policy Board – 12 July 2001 Course development stages Feasibility assessment Course specification Resource allocation and planning Learning object creation Assembly of alpha course version Testing and review cycle Delivery and evaluation Course respecification and redevelopment

15. ALT Policy Board – 12 July 2001 Online course design objectives Simplicity Consistency Familiarity Accuracy Navigability Economy Clarity Granularity Legality Documentation

16. ALT Policy Board – 12 July 2001 Online course design approach Thorough market research  large markets  niche markets Very small learning components Multiple media (not multimedia) Central role for tutor Continuous revision  20% of initial development costs per annum

17. ALT Policy Board – 12 July 2001 Working with limits Quality  defining learning object mix to give best learning experience for the subject Time  figure optimum course that can be delivered by fixed deadline Cost  identify best mix of learning objects for budget

18. ALT Policy Board – 12 July 2001 Less is more In (conventional) CPD each student on average needs 30% or course  prior knowledge  not relevant to work Solution  needs analysis/assessment of prior learning  concept mapping/knowledge representation/learning pathways  individualised courses  mentoring

19. ALT Policy Board – 12 July 2001 Development team Programme director (20%) Project manager (40%) Academic course director (50%) Subject specialist course designer (100%) Learning technologist (50%) Information technologist (50%) Graphic designer (50%) Content authors (100%) Administrator (40%) Evaluator (25%) Marketer (20%) External assessor (5%) One year half-time course:

20. ALT Policy Board – 12 July 2001

21. Development costs

22. ALT Policy Board – 12 July 2001 Per course delivery costs Course maintenance and update  10 to 20% of development cost  £25,000 ($40,000) to £50,000 ($80,000) Server costs  £10,000 ($16,000)

23. ALT Policy Board – 12 July 2001 Per student delivery costs

24. ALT Policy Board – 12 July 2001 Student costs Course fee  £2500 ($4000) Computer system if not already owned  £0 to £1000 ($1600) Internet access (4 hours per week)  £100 ($160) Printing  £20 to £60 ($32 to $96)

25. ALT Policy Board – 12 July 2001 Years to break-even

26. ALT Policy Board – 12 July 2001 Minimising costs without compromising quality Development  avoiding multimedia  working to a fine level of granularity  tight project planning and monitoring  establishing market before starting Delivery  delivering all materials via the Internet  using part-time tutors  automating administration Activity Based Costing (ABC)