Abstract
<p>Given the ongoing alarm regarding uncontrollable costs of higher education, it would be reasonable to expect not only concern about the impact of MOOCs on educational outcomes, but also systematic efforts to document the resources expended on their development and delivery. However, there is little publicly available information on MOOC costs that is based on rigorous analysis. In this article, we first address what institutional resources are required for the development and delivery of MOOCs, based on interviews conducted with 83 administrators, faculty members, researchers, and other actors in the MOOCspace. Subsequently, we use the ingredients method to present cost analyses of MOOC production and delivery at four institutions. We find costs ranging from $38,980 to $325,330 per MOOC, and costs per completer of $74-$272, substantially lower than costs per completer of regular online courses, by merit of scalability. Based on this metric, MOOCs appear more cost-effective than online courses, but we recommend judging MOOCs by impact on learning and caution that they may only be cost-effective for the most self-motivated learners. By demonstrating the methods of cost analysis as applied to MOOCs, we hope that future assessments of the value of MOOCs will combine both cost information and effectiveness data to yield cost-effectiveness ratios that can be compared with the cost-effectiveness of alternative modes of education delivery. Such information will help decision-makers in higher education make rational decisions regarding the most productive use of limited educational resources, to the benefit of both learners and taxpayers.</p>
Highlights
At least since the 1990s concerns have arisen over the increasing costs and decreasing productivity of higher education, with technology-based reforms being promoted as a solution for institutions of higher education (IHEs) struggling to educate larger numbers of students with a wider range of incoming preparation and learning styles (e.g., Twigg, 1992; Rumble, 1997; Bowen, 2012, 2013; Barber, Donnelly, & Rizvi, 2013)
We contacted by e-mail individuals who appeared to be knowledgeable about Massive open online courses (MOOCs) or online learning based on their position in deciding whether and how to engage with MOOCs, experience teaching or planning MOOCs, or relevant research and publications
The major cost drivers we identified in MOOC production and delivery were: the number of faculty members, administrators, and instructional support personnel participating in the process; the quality of videography; the nature of the delivery platform; programming for special features such as computer code auto-graders, virtual labs, simulations, or gamification; analysis of platform data; and technical support for participants
Summary
At least since the 1990s concerns have arisen over the increasing costs and decreasing productivity of higher education, with technology-based reforms being promoted as a solution for institutions of higher education (IHEs) struggling to educate larger numbers of students with a wider range of incoming preparation and learning styles (e.g., Twigg, 1992; Rumble, 1997; Bowen, 2012, 2013; Barber, Donnelly, & Rizvi, 2013). As early as the 1970s, the Open University in the United Kingdom was able to offer distance education courses at a large enough scale to render institutional costs per student below the costs of similar courses at traditional campuses (Laidlaw & Layard, 1974). Costs per student for a fine arts course offered by Florida Gulf Coast University dropped from $132 to $70 after it was transformed from an on-campus course into a fully online course. It is not clear, what method was used to establish costs or which personnel and other resources were included in the cost calculations. What method was used to establish costs or which personnel and other resources were included in the cost calculations. Twigg (2003) acknowledges that the NCAT estimates do not include costs development and transition from traditional to re-designed version, but she argues that they do not reflect savings that can be achieved by increasing retention, reducing space utilization, or eliminating similar courses
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
