Costs of Rochester Institute of Technology’s (RIT) site-based and anytime/anywhere (asynchronous) courses were compared to their on-campus counterparts in this preliminary study. Our main objective was to use the model to obtain a detailed, activity-based perspective on the operational costs of delivering distance learning courses. Results are being used as part of the RIT Distance Learning Strategic Plan.
RIT was the second school to use the beta version of the activity-based cost analysis model developed at Indiana University Purdue University-Indianapolis (IUPUI) for the Teaching, Learning and Technology (TLT) Group Flashlight Project. RIT modified the model to fit its business objectives with activities categorized into six course components: faculty preparation, presentation, interaction, assessment, practice/application and evaluation. Within each component tasks were identified and a survey instrument was developed to gather data about time on task, direct costs, and indirect costs for each activity.
Eight courses were selected from a possible 148, representing three colleges, undergraduate and graduate levels. Courses in the 2 primary formats of distance learning were identified: site-based and anytime/anywhere. Experienced distance learning faculty were selected in order to focus on the costs of delivery rather than up-front development. Faculty selected taught both the on-campus and distance learning versions of the courses in the quarter in which the survey was conducted.
Our findings reflected the wide variability in the activities involved in instruction. Faculty time was the largest and most variable portion of the total cost. Faculty’s reported time per student varied by as much as a factor of 3 across the on-campus courses and by a factor of 4 across the distance learning courses.
One surprising finding was faculty’s perception of time. Comparing different formats of the same course, all faculty felt they spent more time teaching the distance learning versions of their courses. The totals of the self-reported hours, however, indicated that only 3 of the 9 distance learning sections consumed more time per student. Five sections consumed about the same amount of time per student and 1 section consumed fewer hours per student in the distance learning version.
The average cost of the anytime/anywhere courses and the site-based courses was roughly the same. The site-based courses had higher average costs supporting interaction and assessment. Anytime/Anywhere courses had higher average costs supporting preparation and practice. Comparing these costs to the average cost per credit hour of on-campus courses from the same college did provide some point of comparison. Results indicated 8 of the 9 course sections in our sample cost the same or less per credit hour than their on-campus counterparts.
Through this study we gained a clearer understanding of our operating costs. We used the on-campus version of the course as a benchmark. Further study is needed to draw conclusions about the technology costs of the anytime/anywhere format, and the impact on faculty time of different technology choices.
A 20-year veteran in distance education, RIT has offered distance learning courses in various formats since 1979 and introduced full-degree programs through distance learning in 1990 when it received a “New Pathways” grant from the Annenberg/CPB Foundation. Currently, RIT offers 20 of its degree and certificate programs in a variety of distance learning formats including synchronous and asynchronous forms.
RIT is in the first phase of a 6-year initiative to triple distance learning enrollment from 3.7% to 10% of total credit hours generated by the university. The Distance Learning Task Force Report indicated that RIT can reach its goal of 10% of credit hours generated within six years, assuming four critical conditions are in place. Those are: a focused and committed marketing effort; serious commitment from the colleges and faculty to produce and offer academic programs and courses of the highest quality; an institutionally-supported faculty development effort; and a supporting infrastructure of staff, equipment, software and training.
The results of this cost analysis were intended to be used to address the following business objectives:
1) Identify all costs associated with teaching a variety of distance learning courses. This information will help determine faculty compensation for teaching and developing distance learning courses, as well as help determine staffing and other resources.
2) Compare the costs of anytime/anywhere and site-based formats. Detailed costs can aid the transition of the college’s current site-based degree program to a site-independent format.
3) Determine costs associated with distance learning staff time and services in order to develop a “price sheet” for departmental charge backs.
4) Determine costs associated with teaching on-campus versions of the selected courses. Provide detailed information for comparing on-campus and distance learning courses that go beyond the current Institute-wide averages.
5) Identify revenue benefits of distance learning courses.
Eight courses from a possible 148 were selected as the
target group (Table 1). We kept the sample small because we were beta testing
the model. Courses were well-established graduate and undergraduate courses
where the faculty member would not be developing a new course for the format.
Courses were selected from both the synchronous and asynchronous forms of
existing distance learning courses. Courses selected also had on-campus
versions taught in the same quarter by the same instructor. One course was
taught in 3 different formats in the same quarter, making 9 sections of 8
courses in the sample.
The selected faculty were not new to the distance learning format. Our purpose was to compare the costs of delivering course work rather than the costs of up-front development time and faculty training. Another advantage of having experienced faculty participating in this project was that they could better delineate tasks and recall what it takes to be thorough and complete.
Faculty taught their courses in both a distance learning and on-campus format during the quarter the study took place. The project team believed it was important to conduct the survey in the quarter that the courses selected were being taught so that the information would be as accurate as possible.
This was our first cost study and the data we were
gathering was personal to faculty (i.e. how they spend their teaching time),
therefore we selected faculty who had a track record of being supportive of
distance learning projects. The selected faculty members are considered among
the best RIT faculty and are proponents of distance learning within their
departments.
Staff consisted of a course developer, operations manager, project coordinators, faculty associates, and technical and clerical staff. This group interacted with faculty by coordinating schedules for recitations, phone conferences and course materials. They also distributed materials, tests, quizzes and returned student work; helped to set up and administer online conferences; and designed evaluations for courses.
Other participants included media production staff members who developed and produced the various media used (video and audio tapes, web pages, print materials, etc.). Support personnel within each faculty member’s department were also included in the study.
|
College |
Lower Division 100-200 level |
Upper Division 300-500 level |
Graduate Level |
Major |
Formats |
|
Applied Science and Technology |
|
X |
|
Electrical Engineering Technology |
Site On-Campus |
|
Applied Science and Technology |
|
X |
|
Mechanical Engineering Technology |
Site On-Campus |
|
Applied Science and Technology |
X |
|
|
Environmental Management |
Anytime/Anywhere On-Campus |
|
Applied Science and Technology |
|
|
X |
Information Technology |
Anytime/Anywhere On-Campus |
|
Science |
X |
|
|
Mathematics |
Site, KEY On-Campus |
|
Science |
X |
|
|
Mathematics |
RAITN On-Campus |
|
Liberal Arts |
|
X |
|
Economics |
KEY On-Campus |
|
Liberal Arts |
|
X |
|
Political Science |
Anytime/Anywhere On-Campus |
We evaluated the costs of three types of instructional outputs in this study: courses taught using traditional means (on-campus courses); courses taught using technological means in a site-based format; and courses taught using technological means in an anytime/anywhere format. For each type of output, we determined the activities and tasks that drive costs and developed activity grids (data worksheets). To determine the cost of each activity, we gathered data on direct and indirect costs including salaries, facilities, equipment, supplies and services. We also surveyed faculty and staff to determine time spent on each task.
On-Campus - traditional classroom instruction.
Anytime/Anywhere - asynchronous instruction using a range of technologies including FirstClass conferencing, telephone conferences, web resources, videotape, audio tape, and CD-ROM. Faculty use any combination of these technologies.
Site-Based - RIT has three site-based programs:
Electrical/Mechanical Engineering Technology Degree (E/MET)- Students meet in groups at community colleges and corporate sites. Courses use the Optel Telewriter (audio and graphics) for live interaction; videotapes and print materials for presentation are used asynchronously. Faculty visit the sites several times per quarter. Testing is done with proctors at the sites. Some faculty use e-mail to support interaction.
KEY Program (K-12) - This is a high school program that uses the Optel Telewriter (audio and graphics) for live interaction. Students also use videotapes and print materials for presentations in a class setting. Faculty visit the schools several times per semester and students come to RIT once per semester. Students meet in regularly scheduled, high school classes. Some asynchronous technology is used. Students take RIT courses for both high school and college credit.
RAITN (K-12) - (Rochester Area Interactive Telecommunications Network)- A high school program that uses live, two-way audio and video for class-to-class instruction to sites. FirstClass is used to distribute print materials and to support some asynchronous communication outside of class time. Students take RIT courses for both high school and college credit.
The IUPUI model identified eight major activities for administering a course or program:
· Concept/Projections
· Prepare Course Content
· Prepare Instructors
· Prepare Materials
· Market
· Enroll
· Instruct
· Evaluate
To meet our objectives, we narrowed our focus to the operational cost of instruction only and used the six major activities that are our primary course components:
· Preparation
· Presentation
· Interaction
· Assessment
· Practice/Application
· Evaluation
Within the activity categories we identified approximately
10 tasks. The tasks were the steps taken by faculty, Distance Learning staff,
Activity: Presentation
Tasks: Develop details of course content
Plan Lectures
Identify & Gather Existing Materials (text, readings, media)
Determine Media Format
Schedule/Obtain Production Resources
Produce Own Materials
Produce Materials with ETC
Create Production Material
Caption/Transcribe
Costs associated with each task were identified and data
sought for the activity grids through the university accounting office and
distance learning records. Most costs associated with distance learning were
available through
media production (student time, staff time, facilities time, materials, captioning)
faculty compensation for up-front development (not included)
media duplication
media licensing
media distribution costs (scanning, file processing)
postage
transcription of non-captioned media and audioconferences
telephone charges for audioconferences
telecommunications line charges
student audio bridge operators
audio cassette supplies and postage
orientation mailings (how-to information for students)
mailing and faxing costs to exam proctors
marketing costs (not included)
advising (not included)
academic program development (not included)
service desk costs
technical support costs
telecommunications line charges at sites
site visits
RIT and site conferencing equipment
facility costs
proctor fees
site coordinator fees
(With the exception of facility costs per square foot, costs for the identified tasks were not available at the detail needed for this study.)
room (cost per square foot for facility)
installed equipment
AV service
media support
library
copying
sign language interpreters and note takers
In order to isolate delivery costs, we chose to normalize faculty costs so that our results would not reflect variability in salaries and the differences in adjunct and full-time compensation. We used RIT’s average salary and benefits for full-time faculty to make the hourly cost the same in each course. Also included in faculty hourly cost was an estimated average for office cost per square foot, computer, furniture, supplies, telecommunications and overhead.
Detailed information was used to populate the hourly cost worksheets for distance learning staff. Data included individual salary and benefits, office cost per square foot, furniture, supplies, equipment, telecommunications, and overhead.
Data for the building cost worksheets for the classrooms, distance learning offices and production facilities were obtained from university accounting and facilities.
The most complex part of the study was surveying faculty and staff to determine hours spent on each task. The survey matrix evolved from a written, essay-style survey form to a more complex and detailed interview grid. The team decided that with the small sample group, interviews rather than a stand-alone survey would be the most effective way to gather time information. Interviews would help ensure consistent interpretation of the tasks and allow interviewers to probe for complete information. The final interview matrix form, while complex, detailed task steps and the things that are often taken for granted as significant steps in teaching a course. It should be noted that although many faculty and staff acknowledged the distinct tasks in the matrix, they often could only recollect blocks of time spent on groupings of tasks.
In the developmental stages of the survey, the team worked closely with a faculty associate in Distance Learning Services and several faculty familiar with the department and the Flashlight Project. These faculty were involved in creating the matrix form, drafting the request for participation, and running through mock interviews with the working model. Faculty participation gave the team an important perspective on how the study and the survey would come across to the study group. It was critical in helping define the language used in the survey to ensure it was the language used by faculty to describe their course work and tasks. It was also key to getting “buy in” for this project.
The matrix evolved from a simple, one page essay-style presentation to the more complex and detailed interview matrix with cover letter finally produced by the team. The cover letter was an invitation to participate. It introduced the survey to faculty and noted their experience with the Distance Learning process. It spoke of their support of Distance Learning Services and the recent adoption of the growth plan outlined in the Distance Learning Task Force Initiative. It described the importance of their participation in our ongoing study to improve processes and procedures.
With the matrix in a final draft stage and the letter developed, a staff member and faculty member were asked to participate in mock interviews. This gave the team a chance to become more familiar with the material, hear how participants may respond and develop responses to what may be difficult or confusing topics or issues. It was at this point that the importance of defining terms became an issue the team had to solve.
It was important to define terms and time definitions to ensure consistency in the interviews. Documenting information and placing it in the correct sections of the matrix was also essential for consistent data collection. The team defined the six major activity categories as follows:
Preparation - the time needed to prepare for course delivery. It involved the assessment of a faculty’s expertise using the format equipment and software; understanding Distance Learning processes and procedures; and general faculty preparation for delivery of an existing course.
Presentation - the preparation that went into the course materials. It included all elements of planning lectures, gathering materials, scheduling short-term production sessions (for updates to the original materials produced up-front) and distributing materials.
Interaction - the class time, after class discussions, chat sessions, office hours and travel to sites if appropriate.
Assessment - tests and quizzes.
Practice/Application - special projects, papers and labs.
Evaluation - the process of developing, distributing and assessing course evaluations.
Per Quarter - this was defined as a one time allotment of time spent per quarter on a specific activity or task.
Per Week - This seemed to be the easiest breakdown for tasks because faculty and staff could recall the time per day or week they spent on a certain task.
Per Student - This was asked in reference to evaluation of student work such as tests, quizzes and projects/papers. Faculty were asked to determine time spent evaluating a quiz, for example, and time per student. This way there were at least two ways to evaluate this time—it would be obvious that more time would be spent on a larger class of students.
During interview sessions, the background of this project was discussed briefly. The faculty and staff interviewed were told more about the need for the information, how it would be used and a general time line for gathering and processing the information. One of the more important elements was confidentiality. Each faculty member was assured that information would be discussed with only the core group working on the matrix; all general information would be presented anonymously. No faculty would be referred to directly. Although the material would be made public, it was agreed that any notations would be general, such as “Information Technology course,” rather than “John Doe’s Telecommunications course.”
Each member of our team was familiar with the participating faculty members and knew the elements of their courses. This background enabled us to uncover detailed information about the tasks and activities. There are many facets to delivering a course, yet to a faculty member, they are so common place that they are often taken for granted.
It was important also to have a personal touch to this survey. A face-to-face discussion about confidentiality seemed to increase cooperation and good will. In hindsight, this method also served as the best way to gather significant anecdotal information. This material was an added dimension of the survey and reinforced, for the first time, some of the impressions only heard in informal conversations with faculty and staff.
Tandem interviews were done for the first few sessions until the team’s interviewing and reporting processes became repeatable and routine. One member of the interview team would ask the questions while another wrote the answers. It was a way to have full concentration on what was being said and then to have a dual perspective on the information. It was also a back up situation in the case of intense, lengthy sessions. Several sessions went a half hour, others took as long as two full hours.
Interviews were also conducted with staff in Distance Learning Services and in the academic departments. The team found that participants had difficulty separating time for individual faculty or individual course support. For example, when preparing for a new quarter, staff members contacted faculty through interoffice mail or e-mail as a group. Letters were all developed at once. Averages and percentages were used to tease out reasonable time estimates for individual courses.
The sample provided us with information on 1/3 of the KEY
courses, 1/6 of the RAITN courses, and 1/10 of the other site-based courses.
This gave us a good picture of the cost drivers of these site-based formats.
However, the diversity in cost drivers in the anytime/anywhere format were not
well represented by the three courses across three departments. Costs for
courses in the on-campus format were unavailable at the detail required for the
activity-based model. To get an approximation for comparison, we used the
average cost per credit hour by college. Results
indicated 8 of the 9 course sections in our sample cost roughly the same or
less to deliver per credit hour than their on-campus counterparts (Table 2).
Table 2: Cost Per Credit Hour
(To ensure confidentiality,
figures are adjusted to a base value that shows relative relationships.)
|
Course |
|
Site-Based Course Cost Per Credit Hour |
Anytime/Anywhere Course Cost Per Credit
Hour |
|
Engineering Technology |
$69 |
$64 (E/MET) |
|
|
Engineering Technology |
69 |
54 (E/MET) |
|
|
Environmental Management |
69 |
|
$69 |
|
Information Technology |
69 |
|
30 |
|
Mathematics* |
48 48 |
26 (E/MET) 16 (KEY) |
|
|
Mathematics |
48 |
109 (RAITN) |
|
|
Economics |
32 |
10 (KEY) |
|
|
Political Science |
32 |
|
35 |
* Two distance learning sections of this course were included in the study.
Three courses in the sample group were offered both on-campus and in the anytime/anywhere format: a political science course, an environmental management course and an information technology course. The three courses were from two different colleges. We compared the college’s average cost per credit hour for the campus format, with the cost per credit hour calculated by the model for each of the three anytime/anywhere courses (Table 2).
Results showed that the political science and the environmental management courses had roughly the same cost per credit hour as their college averages (Table 2). In contrast, the information technology course was less than half (43%) of its college’s average cost per credit hour. This course also generated significant net revenue from graduate tuition.
Other differences between the on-campus and anytime/anywhere formats of the same courses included differences in reported time by faculty in various course activities. For example, in the information technology course the faculty hours per student were roughly the same between the two formats (Table 5). The faculty member reported twice as many hours in preparation activities for the distance learning format. This increase, however, was balanced by fewer hours in presentation and interaction activities. In the environmental management course, the faculty member reported more than a 20% increase in hours per student in the distance learning version (Table 5). In this case, there were fewer hours reported for assessment activities but significantly more hours reported for interaction activities in the distance learning version.
The political science course is an example of a course going through an incremental update. The faculty member reported more than 2 1/2 times as much time per student in the distance learning version than the on-campus version of the course (Table 5). The increased hours reflect updating activities such as learning a new software product for class discussions; more time in identifying and gathering existing materials to incorporate into the course; creating new presentation materials; and additional hours evaluating student’s online participation. Reported hours in interaction, assessment, practice and evaluation activities were roughly the same in both formats.
The three anytime/anywhere courses in the sample represent less than 3% of the courses in this format. The diversity of cost drivers is not well represented by such a small sample. The anytime/anywhere courses in the sample cost roughly the same or less than the average cost per credit hour for their colleges (Table 2). They also took faculty the same or more hours per student to deliver (Table 5). More study is needed using a larger sample to draw more comprehensive conclusions about the anytime/anywhere format.
Five courses (a total of six sections) in the sample were offered both on-campus and in a site-based distance learning format: two engineering technology courses, two mathematics courses, and one economics course. We compared the average college-specific cost per credit hour for the campus format with the cost per credit hour calculated by the model for each course. Results indicated that 5 of the 6 sections cost the same or less per credit hour in the distance learning site-based format (Table 2.)
The two courses with the lowest costs per credit hour were a mathematics course and an economics course offered to high schools using the Optel Telewriter system (KEY program) (Table 2). One reason the costs to RIT were low is that the high school teachers oversaw most of the assessment and practice components of the courses. Technology costs were also low because the Telewriter data conferencing technology is older, low-cost, and used for many courses. On the revenue side, these courses broke even due to contract rates.
One section of a site-based math course used two-way audio and video over fiber (RAITN program) and had the highest total costs per credit hour due to high capital and telecommunications costs (Table 2). The course’s total costs per credit hour were more than twice the costs per credit hour of its college average. The direct and indirect costs of the technology more than doubled the cost of the course. Contract rates were not sufficient to cover the costs.
Two site-based engineering
technology courses (E/MET program) used the Optel Telewriter technology. Their average cost per credit hour
was 15% less than the average cost per credit hour of on-campus courses in
their college (Table 2). One section of a math course was also offered with
this technology. It cost 46% less per credit hour than its college average
(Table 2). These distance learning courses had moderate total costs resulting
from the costs for site coordinators and proctors and reported staff time to
support site logistics. Two courses generated moderate net revenue from
tuition. The other course generated high net revenue from a corporate contract
that covered a significant portion of the costs.
The distance learning versions of
the two engineering technology courses averaged 27% fewer faculty hours per
student than their on-campus counterparts (Table 5). Most of this time was savings in presentation
activities since this component used videotapes. Faculty also reported spending
relatively fewer hours in interaction activities in the distance learning
versions. The math course consumed 25% more hours per student of faculty time,
despite significant reductions in presentation, primarily due to increased
preparation and travel to sites (Table 5).
None of the courses in the sample
were taught in both a site-based and anytime/anywhere format. However, we can
make some general comparisons. The average cost of the anytime/anywhere courses
and the site-based courses was roughly the same (Table 3). The site-based
courses had higher average costs supporting interaction and assessment
activities. The anytime/anywhere
courses had higher average costs supporting preparation and practice
activities.
Table 3: Average Cost by Activity
(To ensure confidentiality,
figures are adjusted to a base value that shows relative relationships.)
|
|
Asynchronous Average Cost |
Site-Based Average Cost |
|
Preparation |
214 |
68 |
|
Presentation |
706 |
665 |
|
Interaction |
621 |
847 |
|
Assessment |
158 |
324 |
|
Practice |
266 |
103 |
|
Evaluation |
10 |
3 |
|
Total Costs |
$1,975 |
$2,010 |
Looking at cost type also
illustrates the difference between the two formats (Table 4). Costs for the
anytime/anywhere format are primarily faculty time. Costs in the site-based
format are primarily other costs such as site fees and technology costs. The
biggest differences occur because the site-based courses had average “other”
costs nearly 2.5 times those of the anytime/anywhere format. Courses in the
anytime/anywhere format, on the other hand, had 66% higher average faculty
costs than the site-based courses. Some of this increase in faculty time is due
to the format and some of it reflects the different nature of the courses
themselves.
Table 4: Average Cost by Type
(To ensure confidentiality,
figures are adjusted to a base value that shows relative relationships.)
|
|
Anytime/Anywhere Course Costs |
|
Site-Based Course Costs |
|
|
Other Costs |
450 |
23% |
1107 |
55% |
|
Faculty costs |
1362 |
69% |
822 |
41% |
|
Staff Costs |
163 |
8% |
81 |
4% |
|
Total Costs |
$1,975 |
100% |
$2,010 |
100% |
One surprising finding was faculty’s perception of time. Comparing different formats of the same course, all faculty felt they spent more time teaching the distance learning versions of their courses. The totals of the self-reported hours, however, indicated that only 3 of the 9 distance learning sections consumed significantly more time per student (6-16 hours more per student). Five sections consumed roughly the same as the on-campus versions (1-3 hours difference). One section consumed significantly fewer hours per student (10 hours less) in the distance learning version. (Table 5.)
Table 5: Reported Faculty Hours Per
Student
(To ensure confidentiality,
figures are adjusted to a base value that shows relative relationships.)
|
|
On-Campus Course Hours Per Student |
Site-Based Course Hours Per Student |
Anytime/Anywhere Course Hours Per Student |
|
Engineering Technology |
27 hrs. |
17 hrs. (E/MET) |
|
|
Engineering Technology |
17 |
15 (E/MET) |
|
|
Environmental Management |
27 |
|
33 hrs. |
|
Information Technology |
18 |
|
17 |
|
Mathematics* |
8 8 |
10 (E/MET) 5 (KEY) |
|
|
Mathematics |
8 |
36 (RAITN) |
|
|
Economics |
7 |
5 (KEY) |
|
|
Political Science |
8 |
|
20 |
In analyzing what faculty members were doing that was different in their distance learning classes, differing activities included: developing weekly study guides for students as additions to the syllabus; for the more lab-based courses, adding more problem examples in written supplemental guides and more class demonstrations in videotaped lectures. One faculty member stated that she developed more tests, quizzes and writing assignments. She believed she could better assess student understanding of material with the additional materials since she could not see students in a classroom where a confused look is more evident.
Some of the faculty also prepared additional materials for their distance learning classes, which enhanced the on-campus sessions as well. Others noted that that some of their time was spent presenting not only content material but also use of technology. Some of this additional course presentation was on electronic research techniques, along with helping newcomers use equipment.
The primary purpose of this preliminary study was to gain a better understanding of our operating costs. The findings have been very useful in identifying the major differences in activities and costs between the different formats of distance learning. However, further study is needed in order to draw conclusive comparisons between distance learning and on-campus formats. More work is required to obtain cost data at the activity level for on-campus courses. A larger sample is required to better understand the anytime/anywhere format. Also, future studies may want to consider another method of time study instead of using self-reported time for faculty and staff.
Results from this preliminary cost analysis have provided the following answers to the key business questions posed at the start of this study.
1) Identify all costs associated with teaching a variety of distance learning courses.
Through this study we have identified the various cost types and cost drivers in distance learning. We have gained a stronger understanding of our direct and indirect costs and we have a preliminary perspective on staff and faculty time.
2) Compare the costs of anytime/anywhere and site-based formats.
The anytime/anywhere format appears to have cost advantages over other formats primarily because it doesn’t require sites and their associated staff and equipment costs. Further study with an expanded scope and a larger sample is needed for a better understanding of key cost drivers in this format including faculty time, costs to support interaction, and up-front development costs.
3) Determine costs associated with distance learning staff time and services in order to develop a “price sheet” for departmental charge backs.
Through this study we have identified the range of staff services we provide and have a glimpse into the time they consume. More comprehensive and accurate staff time reports are needed in order to develop a complete price sheet.
4) Determine costs associated with teaching on-campus versions of the selected courses.
Data for on-campus instruction beyond the Institute-wide averages were not readily available. We used average cost per credit hour by college as our cost comparison. We were not able to compare apples with apples.
5) Identify revenue benefits of distance learning courses.
This preliminary survey was essential for gathering data
about costs of delivery. It also served as a way to learn about other factors
that influence a department supporting or not supporting distance courses. Here
are some faculty comments that illustrate the advantages and disadvantages of
the anytime/anywhere format.
Two faculty recalled students from on-campus who also took their distance learning courses. They found that these students spoke up more in Distance Learning than they ever did in the classroom setting.
The survey also brought out discussion about expectations of timely responses and concerns about computer literacy. “Students think that e-mail is instantaneous and that faculty respond as soon as they get the messages from students,” said one faculty member. Student expectations of response times are higher in the distance formats than on-campus.
“This is communication
of the future and people need to see it that way,” said one faculty member.
The same principles of communicating, presenting and articulating are as
necessary to the distance format as on-campus. This faculty perceived some of
his students as taking advantage of the freedom of Distance Learning, but
without the discipline needed to succeed.
In reference to distance learning courses as more time consuming to faculty, some faculty found that some remedial work was required. One student told his professor when corrected because of poor use of grammar and spelling errors, “this is not a grammar class.” Three faculty emphasized that they are getting sub par work, even in the graduate classes, and must advise students about writing basics.
Perhaps some of the time that faculty believe they are spending in the distance format is remedial work, or perhaps the format itself is such that it emphasizes writing skills or students’ lack of them.
Some faculty members found that the FirstClass conference was a good way to see the progression of student knowledge. Conference submissions by students were a good way to see not only how much they participate, but “the richness of their conversations” (meaning the depth of their understanding of the materials), said one faculty member.
Flexibility and control were terms used repeatedly by faculty to describe success in the Distance Learning format. “Faculty must give up control as an autocrat in front of class, students define structure for themselves,” said one faculty member.
Finally, the survey brought out concerns about faculty promotion and compensation. Some faculty discussed the concepts of good teaching vs. faculty development: what constitutes development—increased content knowledge through research or development of new and improved teaching methods of delivery? Does the increase in technological know-how advance the faculty on the tenure track or is it seen as less than valuable; are research of content material and publishing the most important factors in promotion?
The IUPUI model is a strong and flexible foundation for developing individual school models. The ability for us to interact with the IUPUI model designers was important to the development of our individual application of the model. We recommend that there be some involvement with the IUPUI staff as consultants to develop common matrices, to define essential terms and concepts and to act as advisors for the costing data.
The basics of the model and the how-to sections are clear. They are simple enough to get the concept. For our purposes, we could have used three things:
1. Task Development: we developed very detailed tasks following our instructional design model. However, faculty and staff reported back in numbers that grouped the tasks together. Having a common understanding of terms was critical for gathering accurate data and we spent a lot of testing out the terms we used. Suggestion: more detailed examples and suggested vocabulary.
2. Data Collection: we chose to interview rather than use questionnaires because of the complexity of our tasks and to make sure the terms were clear. Through this process we also gathered valuable anecdotal information. Suggestion: example survey questions.
3. Time Studies: we relied on self-reported time estimates for time on task which can lead to unreliable conclusions. Suggestion: information on more scientific time study methods.