The Hidden Costs of Networked Learning Professor Paul

The Hidden Costs of Networked Learning Professor Paul Bacsich Sheffield Hallam University

Summary • • Aims Structure Literature Review Sectoral Survey Case Studies Student Views Outcomes Dissemination

Aims • Develop a Schema for the “Costs of Networked Learning” – especially Hidden Costs • Scope: – focus on UK – focus on HE not training or FE – focus on costs not benefits (overt or hidden)

Structure • • 6 -month study Funded by JISC via CALT Director: Paul Bacsich Lead RA: Charlotte Ash Two 6 -month RA posts Travel, consumables Assistance from other SHU staff

“Hidden Costs” • Phrase is not in common usage • Web searches show the phrase is used in several contexts: – ICT – project management – women’s issues – health, transport, law, home life, etc – and sex sites?

Usages found • • Hidden cost of going to college Hidden cost of networked PCs Hidden cost of software ownership “Hidden cost of low bandwidth” “Hidden Costs of Split Assignments” “Hidden Cost of Postemployment Benefits” “Hidden Cost of a Puppy-Mill Puppy” “The Price You Pay: The Hidden Cost of Women's Relationship to Money” (Randall)

Literature Review 1 • • Useful bibliographies esp Rumble Usual methods to chase sources Rate of accretion slow Usual “grey lit” and Web issues Literature is “containable” (100) Mostly in English (we think) Bias to Distance Ed Much of it quite old, some new sources in last 4 years

Literature Review 2 • • About 100 “relevant” articles Only 3 mentioned “hidden costs” Under 12 “nodes of expertise” Key “training” articles relevant

Sector Survey 1 • All 173 HEIs approached, over 100 responses (60% replied) • Correlated with Noble and UCISA figures for 1998 • Qualitative and Quantitative • High total PCs does not mean High student PCs • Staff PC ratio 1: 1 • Student PC ratio 1: 9

Sector Survey 2 • • Inconsistent results Scope issue: What is NL? Costs are little considered New Unis have “better” student: computer ratios than old

Sector Survey 3 • IT expenditure minimal • Little awareness of specific costing • Little uniformity of costing, within and between Institutions • Universal development and costing framework needed to compare costs of NL

Response Rate • The response rate was excellent • There were no significant differences between response rates for different types of institution

IT Expenditure %

Case Studies 1 • 7 institutions – 6 anonymous + SHU • 2 -day visits by 2 interviewers • Range of interviewees – from PVCs through Directors and Deans to “working academics” • On the whole, positive reception by institutions – but usual diary problems

Case Studies 2 • NL prevalent in all types of HEI • Detailed cost analysis of NL not on HEIs’ agendas • But HEIs aware that cost analysis is firmly on HEFCx agenda • Little central/strategic direction of NL • Organisational barriers to accurate costing eg timesheets a major issue • Reluctance to look at “overtime”

Hidden Costs • • • Inconsistency and non-granularity Not a barrier to institution Innovation has hidden costs Cost of costing Costs of collaboration Unscheduled staff-student contact Cost of copyright Cost of training (and not training) Cost of under-utilisation

Student Views 1 • • Survey at SHU of 750 students (400 reps) 11% response rate Integrated NUS study Costs incurred by students Student employment Student PC ownership Feelings about NL

Student Views 2 • • • 75% own a PC, 29% on Internet average £ 81 p. a. on consumables 37% pay < £ 2. 50 travel, 18% more 49% work < 16 hours/week… 68% believe NL increases costs to them Time is seen as main cost – opportunity cost?

Student Views - quotes • • I have found NL more flexible NL absolutely essential I felt I had to buy a computer main cost is printing (cost/sheet) lack of networked computers were always busy software seems complicated not adequate training provided - much time is wasted

Wider UK HE context • • • Dearing said little on cost-effectiveness Some earlier studies of costs of NL Agenda of “value for money” of IT KPMG report on HE finances Joint Costing and Pricing Steering Group (of HEFCEx) • OST Research Funding Transparency Review

Wider context • UK “Moorfoot school” – Shepherd, Crabb, Temple • “HE/DE school” – Rumble, Curran, Bates • Cal State - Jewett “Bridge Model” • US AAHE/Annenberg Flashlight – “Ehrmann school” • Early EU “media substitution” work • Western Coop work in progress

Outcome • Schema with the following features – Multi-level – Multi-stakeholder – Activity Based Costing – Flexible allocation of overheads, including consumption based

Dissemination 1 • Final Report – Annexes – Web site – listserv • Ed-Media (Seattle, June) – “work in progress” session • Online Educa (November) – whole strand on cost-effectiveness

Dissemination 2 • • • FLISH 99 (Sheffield, May) Sunderland (July) IMUA (Edinburgh, September) ALT-C (September) WICHE Conference (November) ASCILITE (Brisbane, December)

Other recommendations • Support JCPSG work towards coherence, including application to (conventional) T&L • Need to select software • Need to co-ordinate surveys • Institutions want to bring NL fully into Quality process • Institutions want to look at perceived barriers, e. g. ease of use

Further work needed • • • Trialing the schema Study on FE Schools sector UK countries/regions e. g. for FE International work, esp. with EU, Australia (Hidden) Benefits of NL

Thank you for listening Paul Bacsich Head of Virtual Campus Sheffield Hallam University