OMDE 606 Learning Journal

Post #6 Group Project Reflection

Working with my study group to create a distance education course taught me many useful things about distance education budgets.

The number one thing I learned is that there is a very high entrance fee, that can make it very challenging for a brick and mortar school to “experiment” with distance education.  We decided that our institution would be using Moodle due to its ease of entry and of course, from the individual’s point of view, freeware.  Acting as an institution, however, the fees quickly became very high and we ultimately determined it was completely untenable for only a single course.  Just “getting their feet wet” cost the institution an initial $70,000 with maintenance costing approximately $30,000 every year (Roth, 2000).

The high entry costs makes me wonder, how many universities would be more willing to experiment with distance education if there wasn’t such a large gateway commitment?  Is there a practical way for small institutions to access the distance education market?  I think our theoretical small community college will benefit from this imaginary program, and others could as well.

REFERENCES

Roth, J. (2009). How Much Moodle Really Costs...? Retrieved April 12, 2015, from http://interactyx.com/social-learning-blog/how-much-moodle-really-costs/

 

Post #5 One Way or Two Way

There are many advantages to numerous different types of media in the distance education setting. One important thing to consider in the cost of these different media is the kind of interactions that are involved.  Broadcast television can be considered “cheap” because it can be distributed one way to many students simultaneously (Bates, 2005). For comparison, more interactive and two-way interaction such as through an interactive web session requires a limit of x number of students per teacher to maintain effectiveness.  If the number of students goes up – so does the number of teachers.

In many way this seems to come down to some of the old efficient vs. effective arguments.  Not all types of lessons are appropriate for all media; a highly visual lesson may be served by a purely video media but the lack of feedback can result in learning incorrectly or quitting completely due to lack of support or motivation. Two way interaction may cost more but can help ensure learning correctly as well as providing the support that ensures learning is effective and students are able to succeed.

REFERENCES

Bates, A. W. (2005). Technology, e-learning and distance education. London New York: Routledge.
  
Post #4

Cost Effectiveness vs. Cost Efficiency  in advertising

Advertising seems like it can walk a potential line in cost effectiveness vs. efficiency that can be challenging for an institution to maintain.  Any money spent on advertising is money that could be spent on hiring more quality teachers, updating textbooks, additional media etc. things that could make their course better.  If presumably they are purchasing these quality teachers etc., are they being cost efficient?  And if they aren’t are they being cost effective? 

Case Study

The Apollo Group’s (which owns the University of Phoenix) marketing budget consisted of 23.7%, of their entire revenue in 2009 (Harkin, 2012).  This is reflected in their profit which increased from $632 million in 2006 to over $1 billion in 2010 (Harkin, 2010). This would appear to be very cost efficient.  Looking, however, at the retention rates the Apollo Groups overall withdrawal rate is significantly higher than the sector-wide average with the withdrawal rates for their associates program reaching 66.4% (Harkin, 2010). Are they truly a cost effective program?

REFERENCES

Harkin, T. (2012). Apollo Group Inc. Retrieved from: http://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/for_profit_report/PartII/Apollo.pdf.

 

Post #3

Thoughts on Depreciation and the Cost of Education

The high depreciation on the value of the technology used in distance education (computers, audio visual equipment) vs. the value of the costs of more traditional education (buildings, desks) as outlined by Rumble (1997) can be deceptive.   Rumble estimates the shelf life of audio visual equipment as 7 vs. a building’s at 50 years (1997).  What this doesn’t seem to take into account is the length of time schools may be able to use equipment that may have notably depreciated in value but are still usable.  This is particularly applicable to software which may quickly no longer be current but does not necessarily have no value. Institutions can continue to utilize out of date technology, in some case, depending on the technology at hand with little to no detriment. 

Maintenance costs can also be lower due to the costs of patching software for little to no cost as opposed to requiring construction.

REFERENCES

Rumble, G. (1997). The costs and economics of open and distance learning. London: Kogan Page.

 


Post #2
A Response to Rumble

The viewpoints evinced by Rumble in Social Justice, Economics and Distance Education (2007), are ones that strike a particular cord with me personally. I do think the purpose of a government is to improve the lives of its citizens, and therefore to do everything its power to keep them from leading “bad lives.” My personal political beliefs line up with Rumble’s and I have had antagonistic debates with libertarians on exactly this subject. I do think, however, that his argument involving the benefits of distance educations being cost-related are deeply flawed.


One thing my studies to this point have taught me is that distance education is not inherently cheaper than traditional schooling. While some of the costs related to the physical upkeep and maintenance of a traditional school such as the building itself, student transportation, and other physical costs are non-existent there are new and different ones to take their place such as technology and training. Start-up costs, for example, are generally far more extensive than for a flesh and mortar school since they involve completely adapting curriculum to the new medium.


I agree with Rumble on many key points, I do think that distance education can help bring QUALITY of education to areas that need it, but I disagree with what I perceived as a fundamental tenant of his argument.

REFERENCES


Rumble, G. (2007). Social justice, economics and distance education. Open Learning: The Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 22(2), 167 -176.

Post #1

Elixir or Snake Oil

Since in the debate I was assigned to was the “opposed” argument, which is one I am actually quite vehemently “opposed” to, I would like to explore why education is an elixir and not snake oil after all.  

One of the strongest arguments I felt was ignored by Wolf in terms of macro benefits was that not all value to society involves economic growth.  Education serves many purposes in a society aside from purely economic, including knowledge and professions that do not require imports.  How economically sound is it for a country to “import” all of its doctors, engineers, and teachers?  These professions and many other “educated professions” are needed by countries in order to function effectively. 

Since educated adults are more likely to be employed (Wolf, 2002) the cost of unemployment to the government can be factored in to the macro economic benefits of education. In 2012, unemployment benefits cost the United States government $520 billion (CNN, 2012).  According to the senate budget committee in 2011 the United States spent approximately $1.03 trillion on welfare (Sessions, 2011). Forget the cost, can the country really afford the uneducated?

REFERENCES:

CNN. (2012). Unemployment benefits cost. Retrieved from: http://money.cnn.com/

Sessions, Jeff. (2011). CRS report: Welfare spending the largest item in the federal budget. Retrieved  from:   http://www.budget.senate.gov/

Wolf, A. (2002). Elixir or snake oil? Cann education really deliver growth? In A. Wolf (Ed.), Does education matter? Myths about education and economic growth (pp. 13- 55). London: Penguin books.