Defining Open, Distance, Drop-In and E-Learning for Funding Purposes

Defining Open, Distance, Drop-in and e-Learning

Defining Open, Distance, Drop-in and e-Learning for Funding Purposes

A Report prepared for the Welsh Assembly Government

Professor Tony Toole

e-College.ac Ltd

September 2009

CONTENTSPage

Acknowledgements3

1.Executive Summary4

2. Introduction5

3.Rationale and Methodology6

4.A Definition of Distance Education9

5.The Costing of Learning Support Systems13

6.Course Development and Maintenance22

7.Course Delivery27

8.Logistical and Regulatory Support30

9.A Funding Model for Distance Education31

10.Conclusions and Recommendations34

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Case Studies

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to a number of people who contributed to this research project and assisted in the refinement of the outcomes and in the drafting of this report.

I am particularly grateful to Professor Paul Bacsich, who provided a regular stream of relevant information from the national and international community of practice, and also to Dave Howells and Mike Williams at Coleg Sir Gâr for their input to the distance and e-learning discussions, overheads calculations and costing models.

Thanks are also due to the other members of the project advisory group who participated in the research discussions and provided feedback on the research outcomes and the emerging funding model.

Finally, I am grateful for the support & guidance provided by Julie James and Geoff Hicks from DCELLS in the Welsh Assembly Government.

1.Executive Summary

This project was carried out on behalf of the Welsh Assembly Government to review the funding of open, distance, drop-in and e-learning as part of the NPFS. Since 2006 such provision has been funded at one-third of the base CEU rate and this exercise was designed to arrive at a funding formula that better reflected the costs of delivering these provisions.

The objectives of this research study, then, were to:

Establish a well defined, yet adaptable definition of open, distance, drop-in and e-learning to be applied under the NPFS; identify the costs associated with the delivery of these types of provision; and make recommendations for different levels of funding appropriate to this type of delivery.

The researchwas carried out by Professor Tony Toole of e-College.ac Ltd in collaboration with an advisory group of key stakeholders representing this type of provision in Wales. The methodology included a period of desk research evaluating costs and funding models, followed by discussions with each of the advisory group members about costs and funding in their particular areas of responsibility. Case studies of provision were created and conclusions drawn about development and delivery costs. This led to the creation of proposals for an appropriate funding model.

An early conclusion drawn was that distance learning was the only true mode of delivery that could be directly compared with campus-based delivery. It was therefore decided that the project would concentrate on defining distance learning for funding purposes and that the other types of delivery would be incorporated in the analysis and funding considerations.

The definition of distance learning needed to be precise and clearly distinguishable from campus based learning. It was decided that was more properly described as distance education and was defined as:

Distance education is the institutional or organisational provision of support for learners that involves no on-site attendance or face-to-face contact on the part of the learner. The distance learning support will provide an equivalent level of academic quality and learning experience as on-site, face-to-face delivery for the same learning outcomes;

The costing analysis showed that at low student numbers, distance learning costs were higher than campus based delivery. As student numbers increased, distance learning became progressively cheaper to deliver per student.

Two funding models were proposed, based on the analysis, which treated delivery as a mixed-mode continuum with 100% campus-based learning at one end and 100% distance learning at the other. The models determined the allocation of CEUs for a particular qualification depending on the delivery mode mix.

The recommendations arising from the work were that the funding models be tested with education providers involved with this type of provision and to formally consult across the sector.

Once a model is agreed and implemented, it is further recommended that it be evaluated annually.
2. Introduction

The National Planning and Funding System in Wales aims to provide funding for the post-16 education sector (non-HE) in a fair, equitable and transparent way[1].

A review of the NPFS formula in Wales in October 2006 established a short to mid-term funding methodology for open, distance, drop-in and e-learning that made funding available at one third of the CEU base rate. It was agreed that a methodology based on the actual costs of delivery would have been preferred and that a further review would take place when an acceptable definition of each delivery method had been agreed and the true costs of delivery had been established. This was seen as part of the goal to have full harmonisation of the funding methodology across all delivery methods by 2009/2010.

This document reports on the outcomes of a research study, commissioned by the Welsh Assembly Government, that had the objective of defining these types of learning provision for funding purposes, analysing the costs of development and delivery, and making recommendations for funding that applied to all forms of post-16 provision.

The work was carried out over a seven month period beginning in January 2009 and concluding in July 2009. It involved a period of desk research that examined similar studies relating to course costing and funding models for this type of provision in the UK and internationally.

As noted in section 5, the literature is extensive on the subject but lacks both currency and detail. The development of distance learning and the other types of provision have been historically linked to the communications technologies of the day. As technologies have changed, so have the delivery methods and the costs associated with them.

To satisfy the needs of this exercise, only methods and technologies in current use are applicable and relevant for costing purposes. There is very little current literature available that provides data on true costs of development and delivery.For that reason this report uses data directly from course development and delivery activities in Welsh institutions where it is available.

An analysis of course development and delivery costs is presented here and refers to working documents that are available on the project website[2]. Summary information is provided in this report but the source documents are available if the full detail and methodology are of interest.

Two funding models are proposed, based on the cost analysis. Both are designed to reflect the approach used in the existing NPFS methodology and presented as a basic model and then a more detailed model. The intention is that they should be tested and commented on by practitioners as part of a refining process.

The report concludes with a summary of conclusions and outcomes arising from the research study, and makes a number of recommendations for subsequent actions and future work.

3. Rationale and Methodology

3.1 Project scope

The scope of this research study was set out in the contract aims and objectives which were to:

An initial evaluation of open, distance, drop-in and e-learning revealed that these types of provision were not equivalent and represented different aspects of educational delivery. The distinction between them being that:

Distance Learning is a Mode of delivery;
Drop-in learning is a Component of delivery;
e-Learning is a Means of delivery;
Open Learning is a deliveryPhilosophy.

This distinction may be illustrated by demonstrating that all four types of provision could be combined in the same course delivery mix:

A Distance Learning course, delivered by e-Learning and including Drop-in face to face sessions, designed to apply Open Learning principles.

These considerations led to the conclusion that the objectives of the project would be met by:

Focussing on Distance Learning as a Mode of delivery;
Viewing Distance Learning as being at one end of a mixed-mode spectrum of delivery with Campus-based Learning at the other end;
Treating e-Learning and Drop-in Learning as types of provision within that mix;
Considering Open Learning where it influenced the context of the delivery;
Analysing the costs of Distance Learning relative to those of Campus-based learning, thus informing funding decisions along the whole mixed-mode spectrum.

3.2 The research question

The question this exercise was designed to answer is:

What is the cost of Distance Learning provision in comparison with the established costs of Campus-based Learning provision? What recommendations can be made regarding the funding of this type of provision under the NPFS?

Supplementary questions were:

What contributions do e-Learning and Drop-in Learning make to the costs of Distance Learning?

Given the growing impact of ICT and the Internet on educational delivery, what are the likely implications for the funding of educational delivery in the future?

3.3 Project boundaries

The project boundaries were set as follows:

The analysis was to be carried out at course level and all non-direct costs at that level would be included in the overheads calculation;
Only the costs to the institution would be considered. Although students, employers and other stakeholders often make a contribution to course resourcing, only institutional costs are relevant in funding decisions;
The aim would be to determine costs relative to those of campus-based delivery. This is in recognition that historical cost data is unlikely to be applicable, but that relative costs and trends will be useful;
A specific objective of the research was to consider potential reductions in funding for this type of provision and the outcomes of the analysis will address this issue.

3.4 Methodology

The project began with an initial assessment and scoping of the task. A meeting was held with the WAG Funding Policy Manager and the planned project advisory group of key stakeholders was set up. A series of individual meetings was held with each of the advisory group members to discuss their roles in the project, to discuss the way the exercise would impact on their area of responsibility and to use that information to refine the project plan. The advisory group members were:

Name / Role / Institution
Mike Williams / Director of Academic Services / Coleg Sir Gâr
Haydn Blackey / Head of Innovations in T&L / University of Glamorgan
Dave Howells / Head of e-Learning / Coleg Sir Gâr
Angelo Conti / Director of ILTS / SwanseaCollege
Rob Humphreys / Director for Wales / Open University
Christine Major / Senior Policy Manager / WAG
Richard Spear / Director for Wales / NIACE
Paul Bacsich / Funding Consultant / Sero Consulting
Jeff Greenidge / Director for Wales / Ufi Cymru

The advisory group met to discuss and approve the final project plan. This initial phase ended with the setting up of a project website to house all the project documentation and resources. This website was used throughout the project to share work-in-progress and to build a substantial research resource base.

The second phase of the project was a desk research exercise that had the objective of gathering all relevant literature relating to the different types of delivery. It also examined educational costing models and the outcomes of similar research exercises aimed at identifying the true costs of educational provision. Also during this period a framework was devised for structuring the case studies to be completed in the final phase of the exercise and two prototypes were tested with the relevant stakeholders.

The outcomes of the second phase defined the approach taken in the third phase. It was clear by this stage that, not only were detailed costings and funding models for these types of educational delivery scarce, those that were available related to delivery scenarios that were not representative of current practice. It was also the case that accurate and up-to-date costings of campus-based delivery against which distance learning delivery was to be compared, were not readily available.

The decision was therefore taken to assume that the current application of the NPFS to conventional delivery was based on a sound and current assessment of total true cost, as no doubt it is, and to base the evaluation and recommendations on a comparison of selected key cost areas where evidence was available.

It was also decidedto apply activity-based costing rather than traditional cost accounting when assessing the costs of course development and delivery. This decision was made because activity based costing apportions indirect costs more accurately and, for the types of delivery being considered, indirect costs werelikely to be a major determinant of overall cost.

However, the literature had also shown that the full application of activity-based costing was itself a major barrier to arriving at both a swift outcome and a model that was easily adapted for different delivery scenarios. A third decision was therefore taken to seek a pragmatic adaptation of activity-based costing that minimised the complexity, whilst delivering a usable course-level costing for funding purposes.

The third phase of the project addressed this issue and arrived at a method that is described in this report. The outcomes led to a direct comparison of costs for distance learning delivery with those for campus-based delivery. This enabled a proportional funding modifier to be derived based on current standard CEU allocations.

The final phase of the project involved the testing of this model, with the assistance of the advisory group, with a range of key deliverers of distance education. Information from the evaluation of this testing led to the refinement of the model and the recommendations made in this report.

4. A Definition of Distance Education

4.1 Introduction

The purpose of defining and describing distance education here is to synthesise a descriptor from a range of sources that is representative of the mode of delivery as currently practiced. The intention is that this descriptor be used to analyse the costs of such delivery and hence the resource support that is needed for its effective delivery. This measure of resource support can then be used to determine, where eligible, the level of public funding to be made available for this mode of delivery.

An initial comment about terminology: The original intention in this exercise was to define and describe distance learning for funding purposes. However, there is an important distinction between this term and that of distance education that has implications when considering costs and funding.

Distance education describes the system that is designed to facilitate distance learning. Distance learning is what the distance learner does. The educator does the educating, the learner does the learning.

It is the education support system that is being analysed here for funding purposes and, hence, the definition and descriptor will be for distance education.

An initial comment about the rationale for distance education: Distance Education has, until recently, been mainly about access. Its primary purpose has been to provide for learners who are unable to, or do not wish to, participate in campus based learning.

Access remains a major factor, but the recent developing affordances of the internet have begun to impact on conventional delivery and provide a level of flexibility and choice for learners in the way they engage with their learning.

It is likely, therefore, that the outcomes of this study will be relevant to the future funding of campus based delivery as well as to off-campus learners.

This section will consider definitions of distance education (and distance learning, where appropriate) in the literature. It will then describe typical implementations illustrated by case studies of current practice. Based on this information, a definition and descriptor of distance education to be used for funding purposes will be proposed.

4.2 Definitions of Distance Education

Garrison[3] proposed what is probably the most succinct definition:

Distance education is, in the final analysis, education. The only real difference is that the majority of communications between teacher and student is mediated.

Holmberg[4] in his book entitled Growth and Structure of Distance Education is more descriptive:

Distance education includes the various forms of study at all levels which are not under the continuous immediate supervision of tutors present with their students in lecture rooms or on the same premises, but which, nevertheless, benefit from the planning, guidance and tuition of a tutorial organization.