Open Learning, Vol. 19, No. 3, November 2004
Learning objects and the e-learning cost dilemma Martin Weller* The Open University, UK
The creation of quality e-learning material creates a cost dilemma for many institutions, since it has both high variable and high fixed costs. This cost dilemma means that economies of scale are difficult to achieve, which may result in a consequent reduction in the quality of the learning material. Based on the experience of creating a masters level course at the UK Open University, the article suggests that the adoption of learning objects represents one possible resolution to this dilemma. They achieve this through the reduction of the fixed costs by four means: reuse, rapid production, ease of updating and cost-effective pedagogy.
Keywords: Cost effectiveness; E-learning; Expenditure per student; Learning objects
Introduction Learning objects represent a new approach to the creation, delivery and manipulation of online learning material. The key idea behind learning objects is that these digital chunks can be reused. The creation of high quality e-learning material can be expensive, and the ability to share objects between or within institutions is one way of reducing these costs and making effective use of resources. The learning object approach in general has generated a good deal of debate and much of it has centred on its potential to radically transform the manner in which educational content is produced, manipulated and experienced by the learner (Rehak & Mason, 2003). Much of this debate has focused on the definition of a learning object, for example, AOL (one of the organizations driving learning object standards) defines it as ‘a portion of a course packaged with sufficient information to be reusable, accessible, interoperable, and durable’ (SCORM, 2001). This suggests their educational context and also three main attributes of learning objects. Others have emphasized the learning aspect, suggesting that a learning object is any piece of educational material that addresses one learning outcome; for example Wiley (2000) defines a learning object as ‘any digital resource that can be reused to support learning’ (p. 7). Many of these definitions are ultimately concerned with the *Institute of Educational Technology, The Open University, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK. Web site: http://iet.open.ac.uk/pp/m.j.weller. Email:
[email protected] ISSN 0268-0513 (print)/ISSN 1469-9958 (online)/04/030293-10 2004 The Open University DOI: 10.1080/0268051042000280147
294
M. Weller
granularity of learning objects, that is their size, which can vary from a single asset to a collection of files; and range from the atomic to the course-in-miniature. In the course outlined in this paper, the developers’ view of learning objects was that of a microcosm or condensed set of components that gave the learner an overview of the subject and pathways for pursuing the ideas in more detail. The instructional design principle underpinning this approach to learning objects centres on the notion of the integrity and autonomy of each object. Whereas some definitions might realize each component as an individual object—e.g., readings, pieces of interactive multimedia, an activity—this approach implemented each object as a holistic learning experience with internal integrity. Wiley (2003) suggests a continuum of objects from small, which are atomic such as single image, to large, which are aggregations of smaller objects, for example a web page with text, images and links. Our objects would tend towards the larger end of this continuum, which means they possess a high degree of internal context. The e-learning cost dilemma There are many motivations behind the uptake of e-learning by universities, including pedagogical considerations, the drive for innovation, meeting the needs of students and maintaining a competitive profile. One of the early motivating factors for senior management to drive the uptake and development of e-learning initiatives was the potential cost benefits they offer. However, many of these initial assumptions were based on the notion of an ‘infinite lecture hall.’ This infinite or large lecture hall view of online teaching is only applicable if there is a low support model for students. This may well be suitable in some topics, for instance web-based training courses in IT might work well as stand-alone products with a good mix of media to explain the concepts. There is little evidence however that higher education students or organizations wishing to develop complex skills would be content with such an approach. Many of the prophesies (Noam, 1996; Noble, 1997) regarding the redundancy of educators or the large-scale courses possible online were based on an assumption of straightforward transferral of the face-to-face teaching model to the online environment. In this scenario, the removal of the physical restrictions on class size and the ability to record lectures would inevitably lead to large student classes and the removal of the need for the educator. However, most educators have quickly discovered that simply transferring their teaching approach from one medium to the other is not effective. For a variety of largely pedagogical reasons the standard lecture is not an effective online teaching method. Most educators, therefore, find themselves adapting their approach and this inevitably means providing more support and being more involved with students, not less. The restrictions on the student to educator ratio remain, and larger class sizes do not become immediately feasible. Similarly, good educators are just as highly valued online as in the real world, so they are not removed from the educational process; if anything their significance in achieving student satisfaction is made greater because of the nature of the online course. The cost benefits of creating e-learning courses are not as great as once envisaged,
Learning objects and the e-learning cost dilemma
295
indeed Fielden (2002, p. 12) claims that ‘in general, online instruction costs more than traditional instruction and, if development time is fully costed, the full extra cost will be substantial’. This is compared with face-to-face education. Traditional distance education has always been more expensive, but has succeeded through a Fordist model of economies of scale. There is still a view that economies of scale can be achieved in e-learning, as with traditional distance education. For example, Bassi (2000) claims that ‘the economics of e-learning are highly dependent on the number of learners involved. The greater the number of learners, the greater the probability that economies of scale will make e-learning an attractive proposition from a cost perspective’. However, these economies are proving difficult to achieve in models of e-learning that require high levels of student support. This arises because of the difference between fixed and variable costs in course production and delivery. The traditional distance education technologies have high fixed costs, but relatively low variable costs. That is, the initial production cost is high, but then the price per student is relatively low. If we look at the making of a television programme or video, this is costly to produce, requiring expertise in scripting, camera operators, lighting, sound and editing as well as the use of expensive equipment, and is often filmed in a variety of locations with all the attendant travel and subsistence costs. However, once it is made, it is relatively cheap to reproduce (for example using videocassettes), so the costs do not increase greatly with the number of students. Such high fixed costs require a number of students to reach a ‘break-even’ point and so are well suited to large population courses which run for several presentations. Variable costs, on the other hand, are those that increase with the number of students. For example the payment of part-time tutors does not achieve economies of scale—the larger the population on a course, then the greater the number of tutors required. Computer mediated communication (CMC) (in any form, but let us assume the most common type of asynchronous text based conferencing) is the basis for most online courses. It requires moderators to promote student dialogue in various discussions areas, tutors to run and support collaborative activities and experts to provide help and advice in support conferences. These all represent variable costs. The degree to which these are an integral part of the course will depend on the course design and pedagogy. A constructivist approach that promotes dialogue, collaboration and student guidance will rely heavily on computer conferencing; indeed some would argue that this dialogue is the course. Such an approach therefore carries a high variable cost component (e.g., Annand, 1999). Bates (1995) analyzed several educational technologies in terms of their cost structure. He uses cost per student study hour to provide a comparable measurement between technologies. This is specified as cost per student study hour ⫽ total cost of materials (number of hours spent studying the material X total number of students over the life of the course). He compares several different technologies, including computer mediated communication (CMC) and computer based learning (CBL). The study of CBL shows three scenarios: high end development, such as in-house,
296
M. Weller
bespoke developed multimedia, medium end development, which might be realized through working with a software consultancy firm, and low-end development which represents uncustomized ‘off-the-shelf’ products. All three scenarios follow the same pattern, that is they have high initial, fixed costs associated with development or purchase, but low variable costs, so they are then relatively cheap as student numbers increase. When this is compared with the CMC study, a different pattern is seen. Here the costs increase proportionally as student numbers increase. Bates claims that ‘total costs rise directly with student numbers. There is relatively little front-end investment in these courses, and if interactivity, a major feature of CMC, is to be effective, the number of instructors increases with the number of students. Instructors are the main cost with this technology’ (p. 223). What many institutions are now struggling with is balancing these two elements. Many online courses have both high fixed costs, for instance in producing online CAL, and also high variable costs because they have a strong CMC model.
The Open University experience A masters level course, Learning in the connected economy (LCE), was developed at the UK Open University. The course represented one third of a Masters Degree in Online and Distance Learning. The course lasts for eight months and provides approximately 450 student study hours. The pedagogical approach of the programme is constructivist and student-centred, using asynchronous collaborative discussion and online activities as the core learning modes. LCE had 45 students from all over the world. The course examines the impact of the Internet and connectivity on learning from an individual, organizational, implementation and social perspective. It covers areas such as costing e-learning, organizational change, learning objects and online communities, as well as exploring new technologies such as instant messaging, collaborative tools and blogging—that is, web-logging, the keeping of an online diary which others can read, post comments to and subscribe to. What makes LCE different from the other courses on the programme, and indeed from most higher education courses, is that it is written entirely in learning objects. The course consisted of approximately 120 learning objects. During the development of the course seven different types of learning object emerged. These can be summarized as: • Instructional objects: standard explanatory text, covering a specific topic, with little student interaction beyond some reflection. These are in the form of text, animation or a webcast. Approximately 15 objects are of this type. • Individual activities: structured around some introductory text, suggested third party readings, an activity and some reflection questions. These represent the majority of the learning objects, with approximately 60 in this category. • Companion activities: activities linked to a database, as described above. There are six activities of this type.
Learning objects and the e-learning cost dilemma
297
• Collaborative activities: these require students to engage with fellow students in a joint task, either synchronously or asynchronously. There are eight activities of this type, although they often run over several weeks. • Technical activities: these require students to explore appropriate technologies, for example instant messaging, blogging, collaborative tools, etc. These can be individual or collaborative in nature, depending on the technology. There are five such activities. • Narrative objects: these are present at the start of each module and each unit, providing an integrative framework for students. There are approximately 25 of these objects. • Assignments: there is an assignment at the end of each block and the overall end of course assignment, making five such objects. The course was developed with future adaptation, reuse and updating in mind. For example, it is our intention to divide the course into smaller courses, corresponding to each of the modules. There is also the potential to adapt the course for different markets, e.g., different geographical audiences or different market sectors such as Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and commercial training. In addition, the subject area of the course is one that is changing rapidly, so the ability to update easily between each presentation was also necessary. In order for these aims to be met there needs to be as little dependency between objects as possible. Thus, each object is autonomous so that it can be reused, removed or altered with relatively little consequence on the remaining material. Learning objects and the e-learning cost dilemma Learning objects represent one possible resolution to the e-learning cost dilemma outlined above. There are also others, which are by no means exclusive, for example collaborations with partner institutions, adoption of off-the-shelf materials and Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs), etc. Based on our experience at the OU, learning objects can address the dilemma set out above in four ways, most of which alleviate the issue of the high fixed costs of production: • • • •
Reuse Rapid production Ease of updating Cost effective pedagogy
Reuse This is the main claim and drive behind learning objects—that they can be reused across institutions, courses, subject areas and countries. However, although there are a number of learning object repositories available, there is little evidence of widespread reuse of objects. Partly this is a ‘critical mass’ problem—reuse is only viable when you have a large selection of different objects to select from. So while
298
M. Weller
potentially reuse is significant, currently it is not being put into practice in a significant manner across the higher education sector. However, even without extensive and large-scale reuse there are cost benefits of learning objects in this area. The first is reuse within an institution, so that material can be reused on different courses. This overcomes some of the rights and trust difficulties associated with inter-institutional reuse. Another potentially very significant area of reuse is in the area of reversioning. As institutions seek to appeal to different markets, be they specific market sectors, localities, cultures, or educational levels, then reversioning courses to suit particular markets gives them an advantage over ‘one-size-fits-all’ models. It is much easier to reversion courses that are constituted from learning objects, because they are independent, and can be altered relatively easily, compared with the traditional linearly integrated course. Material from LCE has been reused to create a ten-point introductory undergraduate course, T186, Understanding e-learning: a guide for teachers and learners. The production time for this course is one month, approximately a sixth of that required for similar courses in the same programme (which are, in themselves, rapid production compared with traditional OU courses). This course is comprised of 32 learning objects, of which 20 were reused from LCE. The majority of the remaining objects are in the form of ‘narrative objects’ (Weller et al., 2003b), which provide the educational narrative through the course, and assessment objects. Objects from all modules of LCE were reused, including technology activities on using instant messaging and blogs, collaborative activities where students share learning objects, individual activities such as costing a hypothetical course and conceptual objects (not activity based) such as an overview of virtual learning environments. In nearly all cases the objects had to be reversioned to meet the needs of the different audience on T186. The typical alterations required to objects were: • Level of student direction: at masters level the instructions for students were less explicit and directive. • Case studies and scenarios: LCE was aimed at a global audience and so case studies and scenarios reflected this, whereas T186 was aimed primarily at a UK audience. • Intensity of activity: some of the activities were removed or simplified for T186, given the shorter timeframe and introductory nature of the course. • Range of readings: LCE made extensive use of external articles, but many of these were removed or alternatives found to meet the different time, level and interest focus of the T186 audience. That changes were required for nearly all the objects supports Wiley’s (2003) conjecture that automated reuse of learning objects is not possible and may not be desirable. While automated reuse may be a goal for one particular sector of the learning objects community, it should not be the only goal, as the reuse of material from LCE to T186 demonstrates that considerable savings are possible with human modification and assembly of objects.
Learning objects and the e-learning cost dilemma
299
Rapid production Learning in the connected economy was produced in nine months, by a small course team, consisting of three academics and a project manager. This represents a fundamental improvement on the traditional course production cycle at the Open University which averages around three years and usually involves large course teams of 20 or more staff. The use of the learning object approach contributed to this rapid production in a number of ways: • Use of external consultants: it has traditionally been difficult to incorporate the material of external consultants into a deeply integrated course text. The modular approach of learning objects facilitates this, since objects are not reliant upon each other and do not need to follow a specific style. • Rapid content agreement: because objects do not refer to each other, it was possible to reach quick agreement as to course content, as one piece of content did not impact directly upon another. • Parallel production: the independent nature of objects meant that different objects could be authored at the same time, rather than in a linear sequence. • Modularization of authoring tasks: being able to chunk material into smaller units than the conventional teaching text meant that authors could manage writing in-between other tasks. It was not necessary to have a large time allocation devoted solely to writing. • Activity-based: as we shall see later, the approach most suitable for object development was an activity-based one. This meant there was less reliance upon the author to fill all of the student study time with specifically authored reading material. Instead, third party material and activities accounted for much of the specified study time.
Ease of updating In a rapidly changing field such as e-learning, there is a continual need for updating. Within conventional course models with printed units this is obviously problematic and costly, but even with online courses it is time consuming if the material is deeply integrated. A change to one aspect of the material may necessitate changes elsewhere and maintaining this internal cross-referencing is a complex task. The autonomous nature of learning objects removes most of this cross-referencing and so updating becomes greatly simplified. In essence, new material can be accommodated either by editing an existing object, or by simply creating a new one. For example, the current course material has an object examining the use of blogging as a learning technology. This particular technology may well become less popular (or simply so pervasive as to not merit special attention) in future years. There will undoubtedly be other technologies which are of interest and so new objects can be written about this and the current blogging one replaced, with no impact on any other material. This allows the course to remain current and appeal to popular trends without being substantially rewritten every time.
300
M. Weller
Cost-effective pedagogy Although learning objects are said to be pedagogically neutral, and indeed LCE used a variety of approaches, it was the author’s experience that an activity-based approach was well suited to the nature of learning objects and also provided a rich learning experience for students. Most of our objects tended to take the structure of a general introduction to the topic, a selection of third party materials, and then an activity. The types of activity students engaged in include: • The exploration of an instant messaging client for its potential as a learning technology. • Sharing memorable learning experiences via a database. • A debate using synchronous and asynchronous technologies. • Costing the use of different media in a course with varying scenarios. • Sharing learning objects on a particular subject. • Critical analysis of journal articles. • Preparing PowerPoint presentations for a hypothetical scenario. • Role-playing reactions to an e-learning proposal. • Exploring commercial web sites with set criteria (for example, relating to accessibility or personalization). These all provide students with a rich and varied learning experience, which makes material active. They are also relatively easy to implement and low-cost. None of them require bespoke software or media, such as simulation environments or animations. Arizona Learning Systems (1998) estimated that a three-unit Internet course based around text alone cost $12,000, whereas one based on simulations cost $250,000. While the actual figures may be debatable, the ratio seems to hold true with other estimates of 18 hours to develop one hour of instructional online material that can be delivered independently of the expert, but would be primarily text-based (Boettcher, 1999). Estimates from the Open University (Rumble, 1997) show that approximately 200 hours of development time is required for every hour of student study time for bespoke developed CAL (computer assisted learning). The authors of LCE averaged development time at approximately 10–20 hours per student study hour, using the activity-based learning object approach. While this may not compare particularly favourably with face-to-face teaching, it does compare well with most forms of media used in traditional distance education. This is not to suggest that every online course should consist solely of text, and Learning in the connected economy contained a number of other media, including animations, audio and webcasts. However, the activity-based approach provides a cost-effective means of producing study material that is also rich and interactive for students. A highly interactive course does not necessarily translate as one with a wide range of expensive technology and media. An activity-based approach can be implemented regardless of learning objects, but the use of objects does lend itself to this method. In this respect, learning objects may be a useful means for educators to engage with the demands of online materials, acting as a semantic ‘coat-peg’ on which to hang their pedagogy. The question for
Learning objects and the e-learning cost dilemma
301
the author of a learning object (in our interpretation of them) becomes not ‘how can I explain this subject to students?’, but rather ‘what activity can I create for students to engage with this subject?’ By reframing the question thus, it is the author’s contention that educators can create learning material that is suited to the online medium, provides a rich learning experience and is cost-effective. Conclusion In this paper the potential benefits of the learning objects approach has been compared with that of traditional distance education, not face-to-face education. Making such comparisons is notoriously difficult. In assessing the costs of moving to online delivery, Oliver et al. (1999) found that it was difficult to calculate absolute values, stating ‘it is clear that many costs will be hard to quantify, but that these may be used as the basis of informed qualitative reasoning’. Fielden (2002, p. 12) concludes that ‘The process of costing online courses professionally can be very time consuming and complex’. So, while the learning object approach has offered some obvious benefits for the LCE team, a far wider and more thorough costing analysis would need to be undertaken to substantiate fully these claims. For this to occur, the learning object approach would need to be adopted widely through the university, a process that is only just beginning. The experience of the LCE team has been that learning objects have helped reduce the production time and the effort required for updating. However, there have been a number of additional costs in this approach. These include the time taken for the authors to learn to use the content management system of the UKeU platform. Other factors include the cost of developing such a platform (which in this case was born by the UKeU). In this case the authors were all keen to use new technologies and familiar in doing so. For such an approach to be adopted across an institution would involve considerable resource in staff training both in using the tools effectively (or employing sufficient educational technologists to liaise with authors) and, crucially, development in writing material that is suitable for the learning object approach. So the adoption of such an approach on an institutionwide scale brings some concurrent costs, but equally the benefits in terms of reuse become greater with increased uptake, as the pool of reusable objects grows. A number of these benefits could be accrued from any e-learning initiative, regardless of whether it adopted the learning object approach or not. For example, there are savings on the production of physical items (printed units, videocassettes, CDs, etc), and the production cycle for online courses is generally shorter than for print-based ones. However, it is through the use of learning objects that these benefits are combined with others (such as reuse and easy updating) to compensate for the initial investment in technology and the additional load required in supporting such courses, with the result that e-learning begins to look economically viable and live up to some of the initial promise made regarding its cost effectiveness. Online courses represent a cost dilemma for providers in that they combine the potential for high variable and high fixed costs. By using a learning object approach some of these costs can be reduced. The four main benefits the learning object
302
M. Weller
approach offers are reuse, rapid production, ease of updating and cost-effective pedagogy. Only ease of updating influences the presentation costs of a course, the other three factors relate mainly to the initial fixed production costs. As such, learning objects may represent only a partial solution, but if they offer significant savings this will allow educators to concentrate on the area most relevant to students, namely support and guidance. References Annand, D. (1999) The problem of computer conferencing for distance-based universities, Open Learning, 14(3), 47–52. Arizona Learning Systems (1998) Preliminary cost methodology for distance learning, Arizona Learning Systems and the State Board of Directors for Community Colleges of Arizona, Report, August 21. Bassi, L. (2000) How much does elearning cost? LineZine: Learning in the New Economy. Available online at: http://www.linezine.com/2.1/features/lbhmec.htm (accessed 1 October 2004). Bates, A. W. (1995) Technology, open learning and distance education (London, Routledge). Boettcher, J. V. (1999) How much time does it cost to develop a distance learning course? It all depends …. Available online at: http://www.cren.net/ ⬃ jboettch/dlmay.htm (accessed 29 September 2004). Fielden, J. (2002) Costing e-Learning: is it worth trying or should we ignore the figures? The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, Report, August. Noam, E. (1995) Electronics and the dim future of university Science, 270, 247–249. Noble, D. (1997) Digital Diploma Mills: Part I: The automation of higher education. Available online at: http://communication.ucsd.edu/dl/ddm1.html (accessed 5 July 2004). Oliver, M., Conole, G. & Bonetti, L. (1999) The hidden costs of change: evaluating the impact of moving to on-line delivery, paper presented at the FLISH99 Conference, Sheffield, 25–27 May. Available online at: http://www.shu.ac.uk/flish/oliverp.htm (accessed 1 October 2004). Rehak, D. & Mason, R. (2003) Keeping the learning in learning objects, in: A. Littlejohn (Ed.) Reusing educational resources for networked learning (London, Kogan Page). Rumble, G. (1997) The costs and economics of open and distance learning (London, Kogan Page). SCORM (2001) Sharable Content Object Reference Model, Version 1.2, Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative. Available online at: http://www.adlnet.org/ (accessed 21 September 2003). Weller, M. Pegler, C. & Mason, R. (2003a) Working with learning objects—some pedagogical suggestions, ALT-C, Sheffield University, 8–10 September. Available online at: http:// iet.open.ac.uk/pp/c.a.pegler/ukeu/altc.doc (accessed 5 July 2004). Weller, M., Pegler, C. & Mason, R. (2003b) Putting the pieces together: what working with learning objects means for the educator, paper presented at the eLearn International conference, 9–12 February, Edinburgh. Available online at: http://iet.open.ac.uk/pp/ m.j.weller/pub/elearn.doc (accessed 5 July 2004). Wiley, D. A. (2000) Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: a definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy, in D. A. Wiley (Ed.) The instructional use of learning objects (The Agency for Instructional Technology and the Association for Educational Communications and Technology). Available online at: http://www.reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc (accessed 1 October 2004). Wiley, D. A. (2003) Getting axiomatic about learning objects. Available online at: http:// reusability.org/axiomatic.pdf (accessed 8 July 2004).
