Peder Saether Symposium (March 9-10, 2000)

Dr. Saul Fisher Presentation

Home | About | Background | Program & Proceedings | Participants | Readings

CSHE > Events > Peder Saether Symposium > Program & Proceedings > Dr. Saul Fisher Presentation

Dr. Saul Fisher, The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation

We have just heard three different approaches to costs. The first one, presented by Chris Curran, focused on costs per se; the idea is to figure out what factors influence costs and get some measure of the cost data associated with on-line education and, in the particular cases discussed, distance education. The second speaker, Rector Haaland, spoke on measuring costs with respect to efficiency. In cost-efficiency measurement, one looks at how to maximize what one might be able to get for a given cost. And our third speaker, Professor Mårtensson, spoke on cost-benefit analyses of a broad sort: what are the general benefits to be weighed against the costs of using instructional technology, on-line education, or having virtual universities?

What we have been pursuing at the Mellon Foundation—for about three years now—is a program sponsoring research at universities in the United States (with one project in South Africa), where we aim to capture another measure altogether: cost effectiveness. The idea is to see what, against the costs of delivering instruction in an on-line or technology-enhanced way, one can purchase as far as effectiveness is concerned. We are particularly concerned with pedagogic effectiveness, which might be construed as one flavor of benefit, but it is specifically a flavor that represents a dear concern of universities worldwide. How are we supposed to capture data regarding pedagogic effectiveness? Our view is that we need hard numbers, and the numbers that are available, for better or worse, we will probably get from looking at pedagogic outcomes.

We are supporting experiments that look at the use of instructional technologies in classes taught with and without a given technological intervention. After a course or set of courses is run over a period of time, investigators measure the pedagogic outcomes and institutional costs of teaching both the traditional and the technologically-enhanced ways.

Is it possible, in measuring the usefulness of instructional technology, to hold the curriculum and pedagogy constant? Many people worry that you cannot hold them constant, that they must change once you start using different technologies. That may or may not be the case, and if so, it may be the case to a greater or lesser extent. We are eager to see how they might be held constant, to get the most focused comparative measure possible, of whether teaching is more or less cost-effective with or without technological enhancements.

This overview of our program highlights a contrast with other cost-related studies such as those that were discussed this morning: the Mellon studies are aimed at isolating the effect of the technological medium on the ratio of costs to pedagogic effectiveness.

Naturally, this is not the only way to learn about the usefulness of instructional technology. Yet we think it is an important approach from a policy or research perspective. Consider a stakeholder in a traditional university who wants to make a judgment as to the worth of significant capital investments in on-line education, for example, as part of a general palette of educational offerings. As an administrator, faculty member, or student and consumer of education, that person will want to know whether he is getting the same the same effectiveness, or ‘bang for the buck’, in teaching online as he would get in a course taught in the traditional way. After all, traditional instruction will presumably still be an ongoing concern within many existing universities—as an offering in some subjects, at any rate.

That’s a small way of introducing our program. If you are interested, there is more information available on the Mellon website and in a recent paper written by myself and Tom Nygren (of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation). I am happy to discuss the issues at greater length. But let me close here and thank the other speakers for providing me with a little time to explain how the research we are sponsoring can be contrasted with some of their helpful ideas. Thank you.