Skip to main content
Log in

Modelling benefits-oriented costs for technology enhanced learning

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The introduction of technology enhanced learning (TEL) methods changes the deployment of the most important resource in the education system: teachers’ and learners’ time. New technology promises greater personalization and greater productivity, but without careful modeling of the effects on the use of staff time, TEL methods can easily increase cost without commensurate benefit. The paper examines different approaches to comparing the teaching time costs of TEL with traditional methods, concluding that within-institution cost-benefit modeling yields the most accurate way of understanding how teachers can use the technology to achieve the level of productivity that makes personalisation affordable. The analysis is used to generate a set of requirements for a prospective, rather than retrospective cost-benefit model. It begins with planning decisions focused on realizing the benefits of TEL, and uses these to derive the likely critical costs, hence the reversal implied by a ‘benefits-oriented cost model’. One of its principal advantages is that it enables innovators to plan and understand the relationship between the expected learning benefits and the likely teaching costs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The author was responsible for the consultation and development of the strategy, as Head of the E-Learning Strategy Unit at the DfES from 2002–2005.

  2. Ministerial Moving Young Minds seminar, see www.eife-l.org/news/releases/epBETT2006.

  3. Further research and development is taking place as part of the JISC Design for Learning Programme, within the project ‘User-oriented planner for learning analysis and design’, see http://www.wle.org.uk/d4l. Both the original version of the model, which generated the Tables in thie paper, and the current version of the model are available to download as Excel spreadsheets.

References

  • Bartolic-Zlomislic, S., & Bates, A. W. (1999). Investing in on-line learning: Potential benefits and limitations. Canadian Journal of Communication, 24(3).

  • Bates, A. W. T. (2005). Technology, e-learning and distance education (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

  • DfES. (2003). Five year strategy for children and learners. Retrieved from www.dfes.gov.uk/publications/5yearstrategy/.

  • DfES. (2005). Harnessing technology: Transforming learning and children’s services. Retrieved. from http://www.dfes.gov.uk/publications/e-strategy/links.shtml.

  • Ehrmann, S. C. (2002). Evaluating (and Improving) benefits of educational uses of technology: WCET. http://www.wcet.info/projects/tcm/whitepapers.asp.

  • Ellis, R. A., & Moore, R. R. (2006). Learning through benchmarking: Developing a relational, prospective approach to benchmarking ICT in learning and teaching. Higher Education, 51, 351–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrett, R., & MacLean, D. (2004). Pricing online learning: Practice, rationale & transparency (Briefing Note): Observatory on Borderless Higher Education. www.obhe.ac.uk.

  • Guri-Rosenblit, S. (2005). Implementation process of e-learning in higher education. Higher Education Policy, 18, 5–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HEFCE. (2005). Use of costs to inform the funding of teaching JM Consulting and PA Consulting. www.hefce.ac.uk/learning/funding/trac/.

  • HMT. The Green Book: Appraisal and evaluation in central government. Retrieved from www.hm-government. Retrieved from treasury.gov.uk/economic_data_and_tools/.

  • Jewett, F. (2002). TCM/BRIDGE Project––Applications of the “Mini-BRIDGE” Model to Technology Costing Methodology Cost Data. http://www.wcet.info/projects/tcm/whitepapers.asp.

  • Jones, D., & Matthews, D. (2002). The transformation of instruction by Iiformation technology: Implications for state higher education policy. Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications. http://www.wcet.info/projects/tcm/whitepapers.asp.

  • Landauer, T. K. (1995). The trouble with computers: Usefulness, usability and productivity. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leadbetter, C. (2004). Learning about personalisation: Innovation Unit, Department for Education and Skills.

  • Madrick, J. (1998). Computers: Waiting for the revolution. New York Review of Books, 45(5).

  • NATFHE. (2003). On-line learning: The lecturer experience. Retrieved from www.natfhe.org.uk/.

  • Nicol, D. J., & Coen, M. (2003). A model for evaluating the institutional costs and benefits of ICT initiatives in teaching and learning in higher education. Association for Learning Technology Journal, 11(2), 46–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • OBHE. (2003). Redesigning teaching and learning in higher education using ICT: Balancing quality, access & cost. The Centre for Policy and Change in Tertiary Education, University of Surrey & The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education. www.obhe.ac.uk/resources/.

  • OECD-CERI. (2005). E-Learning in tertiary education: Where do we stand? OECD.

  • Perraton, H., Creed, C., & Robinson, B. (2002). Teacher education guidelines: Using open and distance learning. UNESCO.

  • Rumble, G. (2001). Analysing costs/benefits for distance education programmes. The Commonwealth of Learning.

  • Schmidtlein, F. A., & Taylor, A. L. (2000). Identifying costs of instructional technology in higher education. Tertiary Education and Management, 6, 289–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinberg, D. C. (2004). The business model of e-learning in UK higher education. Industry and Higher Education, 12(3), 187–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Twigg, C. (2002). Improving quality and reducing costs: Designs for effective learning using ICT. Observatory on Borderless Higher Education. www.obhe.ac.uk.

  • Twigg, C. A. (2003). Improving learning and reducting costs: New models for online learning. Educause(September/October), 28–38.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diana Laurillard.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Laurillard, D. Modelling benefits-oriented costs for technology enhanced learning. High Educ 54, 21–39 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-006-9044-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-006-9044-2

Keywords

Navigation