7.1. The distance learning provider
7.2. The purchaser
7.3. Importance of student support
7.4. Benchmark measurements
7.5. Student fees
Cost-effectiveness analysis is the evaluation of alternatives taking into account both their costs and their effect in producing an outcome or set of outcomes. Clearly the measurement of cost-effectiveness is normally a complex science. This is even more true in distance education where not only is it extremely difficult to assess or to place a value on the outcomes; even the appropriateness of the choice of the set of outcomes is not universally agreed. Furthermore, as the last section demonstrated, different outcomes are deemed to be more or less important by different stakeholders.
For the teaching institution, cost-effectiveness of distance education is often measured in terms of factors such as the number of students taught per unit cost compared with conventional teaching and, for instance, the payback period of capital development costs.
However, the financial systems of many of the UK Universities make it extremely difficult to assess merely the cost of distance education, let alone its cost-effectiveness. This is particularly true of institutions operating in mixed-mode where distance education costs may not be easily disentangled from conventional teaching costs. This problem was also identified by Sharrat and Foster (1991):
'It was extremely difficult to measure in any meaningful way how much a particular course or programme cost' (13)
For sponsors of students on distance programmes (individuals, employers or other organisations) costs are invariably measured in comparative terms with conventional face-to-face courses. Cost-effectiveness on the other hand, is seen as very subjective. Sharrat and Foster indicate that
'Many of the benefits associated with DL do not translate into direct economic benefits for the consumers.' (13)
This is confirmed by the 1989 Department of Employment study:
'The cost-benefits of open learning could not be judged simply by the cash outlay on open learning versus the cash spent on more traditional methods. The improved logistics of training were at least as important.' (12)
The report goes on to say that not only was open learning found to be substantially cheaper, the most frequently cited reasons for employers choosing it were:
· trainees on multiple sites
· trainees working different shifts and work patterns
· line managers reluctant to release trainees
· large numbers being trained in a short period
· alternative forms of training not available.
There were also significant business advantages:
· financial performance improved in 70% of branches (Building Society)
· error rates in manufacture down by 3%
· reduced customer complaints
· 41% increase in success rate of calls (sales engineering)
· 25% fewer 'helpline' calls (microcomputer firm)
· sales increased by 50% (chemical industry).
Many of the cost savings identified by employers as arising from distance methods are those achieved through the use of trainees' own time as they study independently, frequently at home. It is clear, however, that there are dangers: independent study can easily become isolated study and carries the risk of delayed/slow completion and of dropout.
Support for the learner is therefore vital. This should be provided either by the educational institution or through an integrated and structured company training programme which might involve some form of mentoring. Good distance education practitioners would employ student support strategies routinely in the form of: academic tutors, personal tutors, telephone and face-to-face sessions, newsletters and other networks. Such support tends to be labour- and therefore cost-intensive, but lack of support for open learners can actually reduce overall cost-effectiveness by contributing to an increase in dropout rates, or delayed/slow completion of training programmes through demotivation and isolation from tutors and from peer groups.
One of the reasons why it is difficult to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of engineering distance education training is the absence of a realistic benchmark measurement. Within companies indicators such as reductions in down-time, wastage and absenteeism are used, as are increased quality and productivity. However, it is difficult to attribute these benefits directly to training, since the process implies many assumptions and also requires long-term measurement.
Very few organisations appear to have carried out such a survey, with the exception of some UK academic institutions including the Cleveland Open Learning Unit (COLU), the OU and the Open College which have measured some outcomes of courses. COLU in particular was able to attribute significant improvements in the areas mentioned above to their training programme.
However no work has been identified which has undertaken a longitudinal study of the effectiveness of engineering distance education, and little, if any, work comparing the cost-effectiveness of distance as opposed to conventional learning in relation to improved work performance.
Many employers and students consider distance and open learning cost effective purely on basis of actual cost. Student fees for distance learning courses generally compare favourably with full-time costs. Taking into account the fees for a conventional course together with the working time lost, open learning can cost between 70% and 80% less than traditional training.
However, the greatest obstacle to the increased up-take of distance education by the mass population in developing countries remains the cost. In the UK, fees often amount to the equivalent of a few weeks' or months' salary to the average worker. In Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka, as in most other developing countries, the same fee is prohibitive, being equivalent to perhaps 10 years' full salary to the average worker. The gap also appears to be widening and, of course, the growing numbers of unemployed also have no realistic access to this level of education. Ability to purchase can be slightly improved by in-country development of courses but, as governments cut back on education budgets, the means to deliver quality distance education continues to decline. As Fagbamiye (1995) points out:
"The problem is thus to continue to increase access where the means available to beneficiaries continues to dwindle at an alarming rate. (14)
However exporters of distance education need to be more aware of the economic circumstances of individuals and organisations in developing and emerging countries. The low penetration into overseas markets from (especially UK) distance education providers is a direct result of this lack of appreciation of the price-sensitivity of courses abroad. The adherence to 'UK prices' results in an almost exclusive 'expatriate' enrolment or a reliance upon company-sponsored students. As a result the large resource of distance education materials available in the UK is having little impact on satisfying the high demand for education in developing countries.
Initiatives such as 'exporting Education' from the Overseas Projects Board of the Department of Trade and Industry can help considerably. In addition, and for certain circumstances, aid agencies might need to consider direct subsidy of course fees.
