Towards Sustainable Open and Distance Learning in the ...

TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE OPEN AND DISTANCE LEARNING IN THE
DEVELOPMENTAL STATE: FINANCING QUALITY DISTANCE
EDUCATION
PIERRE DU PLESSIS
UNIVERSITY OF JOHANNESBURG
Email: pierredp@uj.ac.za
ABSTRACT
Distance education represents a major component of higher education
provision in South Africa. Distance learning is an excellent method of reaching
the adult students. Because of the competing priorities of work, home and
school adult students desire a high degree of flexibility. The structure of
distance learning gives adults the greatest possible control over the time,
place and pace of education.
In 2001, 29% of all full-time equivalent students in public institutions, or 43%
of all headcount students, were enrolled in declared distance programs. It
shows that the use of distance education in higher education has significantly
increased access to higher education (CHE, 2003).
The financial logic of distance education, has in many ways been a response
to education systems that are in crises because they are pushing against their
speaking academic’s ceiling capacity to manage the learning of incoming
students.
However, it has become a dangerous piece of conventional wisdom that
distance learning is less expensive than traditional contact education. This
paper wants to explore how quality education can be financed and what need
to be done so that the quality of distance education is related to the level of
investment in its design.
Keywords: sustainable learning, distance learning, quality, economics,
finances
INTRODUCTION
Distance education is becoming more and more popular as economic forces
encourage, and new technologies facilitate, its spread. There is a tremendous
growth and diversity in distance learning, in the number and type of individuals
learning outside traditional classrooms, in the variety of providers, in the range
and effectiveness of new technologies serving as delivery tools for learning.
1

The quality of open and distance learning (ODL) varies like any other form of
education. Its quality can be the result of a variety of factors, both internal and
external to an open distance learning organization for example, the levels of
skills and expertise of staff, the resources available, weak or strong leadership
efficiency of its administration systems, or the communication infrastructure in
a country.
“Distance education is becoming increasingly global, creating myriad new
alliances as traditional educational institutions join with business, foreign
governments and international organizations to offer and use distance
learning” (Sherry, 1996).
Distance learning is used in a variety of settings and for a broad range of
purposes. Universities use it to increase the number of students who have
access to higher education, companies use it to upgrade the skills of their
employees and to keep abreast of rapidly advancing technologies, individuals
make use of distance learning for their own professional development and to
enhance their career opportunities, governments use distance learning to
provide on-the-job training to teachers and other governmental workers, to
enhance the quality of traditional primary and secondary schooling and to
deliver instruction to very remote rural areas.
Most institutions are concerned to achieve the highest possible quality, but not
all have addressed the management of quality within the organization in a
systematic way as much as they need to. Quality is often judged in terms of
the learning materials, whatever the medium. These are the pivot on which
the whole learning enterprise turns. However, a course is more than materials.
Ideological arguments are made for open learning, economic ones for
distance learning. If it can produce similar results to those of conventional
education at a lower cost, then distance education has a powerful appeal
(Maguire, 2005).
These are grounds for thinking that distance learning may have economic
advantages. There are two sides to the argument. The educational side is the
theory of media equivalence, that there are no significant differences in the
effectiveness of different educational media. The economic side of distance
learning allows a division of labour, in which a group of academics and
producers manufactures teaching material, an organizational machine
distributes it and another group provides a minimum of individual tutorial
support to students.
Economics of scale become possible provided that there are enough students
to justify the manufacturing cost of the first group and student contact is kept
down to contain costs of the second.
Various technologies have been used for distance learning, but print-based
correspondence courses have been and will continue to be the dominant
delivery mechanism in both the developed and the developing worlds.
2

Print is still the cheapest technology and even if the costs of using high-tech
dissemination tools falls below those of print, it will be some time before many
countries have adequate infrastructures (Halse & Terzoli, 2002).
DEFINITION AND CONTEXT OF DISTANCE LEARNING
Distance learning is the process of transferring knowledge to students who
are separated from the instructor (teacher) by time and/or physical distance
and are making use of technology components, such as the internet, video,
DE’s, tapes and other forms of technology to accomplish learning (Campbell,
2003).
The California Distance Learning Project (CDLP) defines distance learning as
follows: “Distance learning (DL) is an instructional delivery system that
connects students with educational resources. DL provider educational
access to students not enrolling in educational institutions and can augment
the learning opportunities of current students. The implementation of DL is a
process that uses available resources and will evolve to incorporate emerging
technologies.” (http://www.cdlponline.org/index.cfm)
Distance learning is what should occur if special consideration has been taken
regarding course design, instructional techniques, communication mediums,
and organization and administrative issues associated with the distance
education program. Knowledge transfer should transpire despite “the fact that
the instructor and student are geographically separated by time or distance”
(Moore& Kearsley, 1996).
Distance education is a systematic organized form of self study in which
student counseling, the presentation of learning material and securing and
supervising of students’ success is carried out by a team of teachers, each of
whom has responsibilities. It is made possible at a distance by means of
media which can cover long distance.
“Distance learning and distance education are terms used synonymously in
education and learning technologies. It is deemed that distance learning has
been a method of teaching and learning for many individuals for at least one
hundred years,” according to Moore & Kearsley, 1996).
SIGNIFICANCE OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
Educators of adults face the challenge of serving a student population and
society that is increasingly diverse. Moving into the 21 st century, the adult
population is expected to be the fastest growing segment of high education
and, older students will constitute the majority.
3

While distance education is already a fact of life for most universities and an
increasing number of community colleges, knowing the “intrinsic problems and
overcoming them will be critical to successful implementation of distance
programs on a large scale in the future” (Kinnaman, 1995).
In distance learning, students and teachers will find themselves playing
different roles than is the norm in traditional education. The teacher is no
longer the sole source of knowledge but instead becomes a “facilitator to
support student learning, while the student activity participates in what and
how knowledge is imparted” (Harry, 1992). Distance learning requires a
collaborative effort between student and teacher, inbounded by the traditional
limits of time, space and single instructor effort.
Technology has also changed the face of education. Advances in
telecommunications technology has opened up the possibility of personal and
group interaction in distance education. Both computer and audio
conferencing permit the introduction of class discussions without the group
meeting face-to-face. Phone calls and electronic mail replaces personal office
visits. The distance learner can now have almost the same instructional
contact and interaction as the student on campus. But remote access
education does not need to eliminate all the benefits of human contact. In fact,
“the proliferation of the modern teleconferencing and the World Wide Web
provides a rich expanse of both information and contacts that were previously
unavailable” (Gulusha, 2004).
FLEXIBILITY
From a pedagogical point of view, distance education offers the students
flexibility – flexibility of scheduling the possibility of proceeding at one’s own
pace, the opportunity to study without having to travel and in the best funded
programmes, individualized attention from the lecturer (NADEOSA, 2005). At
the same time, distance learning, when reduced to individualized self-study,
can be isolating. Much of education consists of dialogue; the lack of a formal
structure and timetable in distance learning can be detrimental to the training
experience and lead to poor motivation and high-dropout rates.
SUSTAINABILITY OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
Sustainability open and distance education is one in which it is operated in
meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability
of future generations to meet their own need (Daniels, 2004), has opened,
……” the purpose of open and distance learning, is to facilitate sustainability
development. Sustainability has assumed a dimension that will be difficult to
undermine in any education, socio-economic programmes.
4

Daniels (2004) identified six factors of success and sustainability. These are:
Clarity of purpose and intention. The purpose and the intention for
embarking on ODL must be well stated in a very clear, specific and
unambiguous manner.
Economic Structure. Any Open University that aspires to be great and
provide quality education should be financially buoyant. When open
and distance learning institutions are economically viable, they depend
less on government. The implication of this is farfetched. In the
developing countries, many ideas and innovations cannot be sustained
because most of the institutions depend majorly on government
subvention. “In a situation where (Salawu, Olugbenga & Kayode, 2010)
institutions are independent of the government, sustainability is best
experienced. This also reduces government intervention in the running
of the institutions. In such a situation, creativity innovativeness and
ingenuity is encouraged.”
Institutional Structure. For open and distance learning to record
successes, there is a need for the institution to enjoy institutional
autonomy.
Leadership. Another major ingredient of sustainable open and
distance learning is an effective and efficient leadership especially at
the foundation years. Good leadership, according to Daniels (2004) is
also crucial at the time of change. Good leadership has the potential of
revitalizing and re-energizing institutions that are moribund and less
functional. Good leadership provides and enabling environment to
allow for the institution to achieve the purpose for which it was
established. “Thus a good leader is an embodiment of talent, vision,
energy, resources and commitment to achieve targets and in fact goes
beyond attaining the maximum capacity of the system” (Salawu, et al,
2010).
It is the responsibility of a good leader to appoint the right people to
occupy right positions. Where all these are absent, the leadership
becomes weak, inactive, insensitive and may risk failure (Pradhan &
Deshmukh, 2001).
An Effective and Balanced Teaching and Learning System. This
means the provision of high quality education that satisfies the
aspirations of the students to the extent that they wish to come back to
the institution for further studies and feel proud to recommend the
institution to others seeking knowledge. “In order to achieve this, there
is a need to provide interesting and high quality study materials
effective student support and good logistics, perfect conduct of
examinations and almost immediate, hitch free registration and
effective tutorials where they are provided” (Salawu, et al, 2010).
5

Flexibility, promptness and alertness are some of the actions to be
taken to ensure that the teaching and learning system is not only
effective and balanced but sustainable.
Intellectual Excitement. Daniels (2004) is of the view that students
will enjoy their institution and help to make it sustainable, if they find
their studies intellectually or practically exciting. Students must realize
that the education they are receiving is to act as a change factor and as
“a catalyst which should propel them to become more enlightened by
making them realize that they are entitled to almost unlimited
opportunities” (Salawu, et al, 2010) and quality.
Quality has become a dynamic concept that has constantly adapted to a world
whose societies are undergoing profound social and economic transformation.
Old notions of quality are no longer enough, despite the content, there are
many common elements in the pursuit of a quality education, which should
equip all people to be fully participating members of their own communities
and also citizens of the world (UNESCO, 2003).
Quality is the characteristic of the products and service on organization offers.
Quality in ODL programmes thus means quality of graduates it produces and
quality of learning experiences it provides. “Quality Assurance is a deliberately
planned and systematic process of determining and ensuring that adequate
and acceptable standards, scholarship, human and material infrastructure are
put in place, maintained and enhanced” (Ogunsanya & Mohan, 2007).
According to Murgatroyd & Morgan (1993) “quality assurance refers to the
determination of standards, appropriate methods and quality requirements by
an expert body, accompanied by a process of inspection or evaluation that
examiners the extent to which practice meets these standards.”
From the definitions of quality assurance, it is apparent that the major concern
of quality assurance is determination and enforcement on the part of an
organization in meeting up with the set quality standard as a means of
satisfying the clients or the consumers of the product or service (Salawu, et al,
2010).
The guaranteeing quality in distance education is a central challenge across
the world. Too many students have been duped into parting with their hardearned
money and giving of their precious time to pursue – educational
programmes where their chances of success are minimal or the programmes
for which they are enrolled are worthless. Sadly, distance students are easily
exploitable, because they are scattered and isolated.
POLICY ENVIRONMENT OF DISTANCE LEARNING IN SOUTH AFRICA
In 1994, the African National Congress (ANC) document: A Policy Framework
for Education and Training outlined a vision of a future ‘well-designed and
6

quality distance education system based on the principles of open learning’
(ANC, 1994: 78) that would contribute to increase education was prioritized,
as was a commitment to an open learning approach:
The African National Congress commissioned SAIDE, the South African
Institute for Distance Education, to organize a review of current distance
education and also propose ways in which distance education could
contribute integrally to the proposed education and training system. This
review as carried out in early 1994 by an international team of very prominent
distance educator experts. It was deeply critical of much of the distance
education on offer in South Africa but identified a number of explicit roles that
distance education could play in transformation of education.
In 1995 White Paper on Education and Training, the first policy statement on
education from the newly elected government took, up this theme, stating:
The dimensions of South Africa’s learning deficit are so vast in relation
to the needs of the people, the constitutional guarantee of the right to
basic education, and the severe financial constraints on infrastructural
development on a large scale, that a completely fresh approach is
required to the provision of learning opportunities (DoE, 1995: 28).
The term ‘open learning’ was understood in the White Paper, as follows:
Open learning is an approach which combines the principles of learner
centeredness, lifelong learning, flexibility of learning provision, the
removal of barriers to access learning, the recognition for credit of prior
learning experience, the provision of learner support, the construction
of learning programmes in the expectation that learners can succeed,
and the maintenance of rigorous quality assurance over the design of
learning materials and support system.
South Africa is able to gain from worldwide experience over several
decades in the development of innovative methods of education,
including the use of guided self-study, and the appropriate use of a
variety of media, which give practical expression to open learning
principles (DoE, 1995: 28)
Explicit policy around education was then to be taken up within the
policy documents of the different sectors. Given the significant
provision of distance education in higher education, considerable
attention was given to distance education in this sector.
HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY
The official post-apartheid higher education process began in 1995 with the
National Commission on Higher Education (NCHE). It was required to
formulate a vision and policy proposals to ensure development of a well-
7

planned, integrated, high quality system of higher education, the vision and
policy needed to address unjust regularities and inefficiencies inherited from
the apartheid era, and to respond to the new social cultural and economic
demands.
PARTICIPATION AND ACCESS
The NCHE advocated substantially increased participation rates in higher
education. It emphasized the role that resource-based learning and distance
education could play with respect to expansion, to the principle of redress as it
applies to those previously denied higher education opportunities, as well as
their role in meeting the growing economic and other imperative for flexible
lifelong opportunities (DoE, 1996:6.4.5/119).
Echoing the sentiments of the 1995 White Paper, White Paper 3: A
Programme for the Transformation of Higher Education (DoE, 1997) endorsed
the notion that distance education and on-campus, resource-based learning
have a crucial role to play in “addressing the challenges of expanding access,
diversifying the body of learners, being responsive to the needs of nontraditional
students, for example, those already in employment or who need to
earn in order to meet study costs, and enhancing quality with the context of
limited resources” (DoE: 26).
In 2001, the Ministry of Education’s National Plan for Higher Education (MoE,
2001) set revised targets for participation rates and, for the first time, for
graduation rates and ratios for enrolment among different fields of study, thus
dramatically refining the notion of increased participation. With regard to the
notion of access for groups previously marginalized, the report has a separate
outcome on ‘broadening the social base of students’, emphasizing in
particular workers, mature learners, and the disabled (ibid: 28). No special
mention is made of the role of distance education in this regard, perhaps
because of the Ministry’s concern expressed in their report on the quality of
distance education provision.
COST EFFECTIVENESS
Particular emphasis was placed on cost-effectiveness of distance education in
the NCHE report (NCHE, 1996). It gave, as its reason for proposing to
expand distance education more than ‘contract’ education, relatively lower;
cost per qualifier’ in distance education institutions (ibid: 95). It goes on to
suggest that increased use of resource-based learning and distance
education would contribute to greater efficiency in the use of resources.
The White Paper on Higher Education encouraged resource-based learning
and distance education throughout the higher education system, as, it argued,
‘the quality and success of teaching need not be dependent upon staff levels
rising in tandem with increased enrolments. In other words. …better use can
8

e made of scarce and costly physical resources scholarship and teaching
expertise’ (DoE, 1997: 26). The White Paper did however caution about the
efficiency and effectiveness of much current distance education provision
(ibid: 27).
NEW POLICY IN DISTANCE HIGHER EDUCATION
In 2003, the Minister of Education requested the advisory body, the Council
on Higher Education (CHE), to provide advice on a range of issues around
regulation, funding and co-ordination of distance education.
FINANCIAL LOGIC OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
Ideological arguments are made for open learning, economic ones for
distance education. If it can produce similar results to those of conventional
education at a lower cost, then distance education has a powerful appeal.
There are grounds for thinking that distance education may have economic
advantages. There are two cornerstones to this argument. “The educational
cornerstone is the theory of media equivalence: that there are no significant
differences in the effectiveness of different educational media … The
economic cornerstone …. Distance education allows a division of labour, in
which a group of teachers and produces manufactures teaching material, an
organizational machine distributes it, and another group provides a minimum
of individual tutorial support to students” (Perraton, 2000: 119).
However, it has become a dangerous piece of conventional wisdom that
distance education is less expensive than traditional contact education.
Research on comparative costs has not been undertaken on a consistent or
comprehensive enough basis. Some studies have looked at institutional costs,
others at public expenditure costs, and others at total economic costs. Some
have examined recurrent costs but neglected capital costs. However, when
distance education enrolls large numbers of students on each course in order
to reap large economies of scale, distance education can be more costefficient
than conventional institutions. “Furthermore, distance education
institutions can be more cost-efficient than conventional institutions when they
offer high-quality learning materials and tutorial support for students, thereby
securing satisfactory retention and graduation rates” (Dhanarajan, 1994). If
they do not achieve satisfactory retention and graduation rates they may well
be much more expensive.
In distance education, major expenses are incurred in designing courses,
particularly if they involve the use of expensive media and technologies. This
can become a bottomless pit of expenses, since it is always possible to add
more person-power or seek more expensive media and technologies. A broad
generalization that has fairly high reliability for distance education is that the
9

quality at the subject matter and pedagogy (course) is related to the level of
investment in its design.
COST STRUCTURE OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
Financial data on distance education is extremely limited with regard to
developing countries and South Africa in particular and often does not offer
insight into the economics of mixed mode institutions offering distance
education courses.
Distance education in South Africa has always been funded less generously
than face-to-face education. It rests on the rationale provided internationally in
the literature that distance education is more cost effective than face-to-face
education. It means that for the same revenue, distance education claims to
be able to provide more student places.
To understand average costing data, it is necessary to have some
understanding of the nature of costs and the cost structure of open and
distance learning (ODL) systems. Management accounting has evolved.
“Tradition notions of fixed and variable costs have been embedded in the
much richer framework of committed and flexible costs. Costs arise from the
acquisition and use of organizational resources” (Abriox & Ferreira, 2009).
The majority of expenses are determined by the commitment to create a
productive capacity to develop and offer courses and an infrastructure to
manage and support students (Rumble, 1997).
TYPES OF COSTS
Committed costs embrace for example most personnel costs, costs of
computing and telecommunications systems, and depreciation on buildings
and equipment. Committed costs are unaffected by how much the
organization uses the committed resources. Committed costs are distinct from
flexible costs, which are paid for only in the amounts used. Examples of
flexible costs are payments to contact course authors, the postage costs of
delivering materials to students, telephone call charges, and payments to
tutors for assignment marked. Flexible resources do not have a capacity
defined for them because their supply (and capacity) can be adjusted up or
down to meet actual demands.
DISTANCE LEARNING RELATED COST ELEMENTS
According to Rumble (1999) any ODL system involves the following cost
element:
the initial capital cost of the business. This includes costs for buildings,
equipment, grounds, furniture and information and communication
10

technology (ICT). These costs are driven by the size of the operation
and the extent to which functions are undertaken in-house or bought in
(Abrioux & Ferreira, 2009).
the costs of sustaining the business as an operation. These costs
(overheads) include the costs of direction and general management
(finance, purchasing, estates that is buildings and grounds running and
maintenance costs) and depreciation on plant and equipment. These
are committed costs that arise from a management decision to provide
a capacity to operate at a given level and in a certain way.
the costs of developing a curriculum and the materials used in courses.
Some of these costs are committed and some are indirect common
costs arising from the decision to create a capacity to develop and
support a given curriculum (for example, there is a body of academic
staff who are charged with the task of developing a maintaining a
curriculum, permanent editors, designers and managers in the
production office). Other costs are flexible, in other words, money is
spent only if the activity takes place. Here it can refer to consultants
that are hired to unite materials for courses. “If course materials are
used over a period of years, the cost of developing materials can be
seen as an investment and hence as a capital cost then can be
annualized over the life of a course” (Rumble, 1999).
the cost of presenting courses. Here we refer to costs that are incurred
annually (cost of academic management of the course profile, cost of
packing and dispatching course materials), together with all the cost
that are incurred every time the course is presented (cost of developing
new assignments and examination papers, cost of face-to-face tutorials
and the monitoring of course computer-based conferences, the cost of
getting materials to students.
the committed and flexible costs incurred in supporting students.
These costs include student admission, registration, billing and fee
collection, allocation of tutors and support services. Both the flexible
course presentation costs and the flexible student support costs are
themselves a function of a range of activity related costs driven by an
appropriate volume of activity. For example, among the cost elements
might be the following:
- cost of assignment marking – the number of students on the
course
- number of assignments set
- the average rate of submission of assignment
- assignment marking fee paid to tutors or markers.
11

FACTORS AFFECTING COSTS
The complexity of this cost structure is hidden by simple measures such as
the average cost per student, the average cost per graduate and the average
cost per putative instructional hour. Several key factors (Abrioux & Ferreira,
2009, Rumble, 1999) do affect the average cost.
total number of students. The more students there are, the more that
committed institutional costs will be spread across the student body,
bringing average costs down.
cost of course options. “To maintain their academic credibility and cater
for minority interests, most institutions have to offer a large number of
courses. The more courses there are, the greater the level of initial
investment in their development and the greater the annual expenditure
in maintaining and replacing the” (Rumble, 1999). Mandatory courses,
lower level courses and courses in popular subjects will generally have
more students than other courses. Institutions still find that the cost of
small-population courses is effectively carried (Rumble, 1999) by the
efficiencies reaped on courses attracting large numbers of students.
number of years over which a course is presented without any changes
to the materials. The longer the life of a course, the longer the period
over which the annualized costs of development will be spread.
“Long course lives are problematic because subjects evolve, and dated
courses will reduce the overall quality of the programme” (Bakia, 2002).
choice of media and technologies. Each technology (Bakia, 2002,
2003) has its own cost structure. The flexible element in the cost will be
driven by different factors, such as student heads, student courses,
ratio of tutors to students and proportion of assignments returned for
correction and size of tutorial group.
According to Cawthera (2002) research has shown that:
(1) “The print, audio and pre-recorded instructional television media
tend to be cheaper” and
(2) The most expensive technologies tend to be face-to-face tuition and
computer-based teaching and learning “which includes hardware,
software, connectivity, electronic, library and other site access, and
academic and technical support, varies, enormously, depending on
what is offered” (Bakia, 2002).
type of learner support offered. The high cost of face-to-face support
means that its use should be limited if costs are to be kept down. In
practice, as Bakia (2002: 41) observes, many distance education
12

projects have high variable (flexible) costs as well as substantial costs
arising from the investment in materials and support systems for
students.
If institutions wish to keep costs down (Rumble, 1999), they should
- Avoid cost-inducing actions, such as using copyrighted materials where
high fees need to be paid for usage.
- Pass costs on to the student, either as charges or by moving the
system boundaries so that the students pay for activities that the
institution might have paid before.
- Adopt structures and labour policies that minimize costs. Employ
people on contract for service to develop course and teach students,
rather than as full-time employees. “Establish working practices that
reduce cost of labour, example by designing courses to be wrapped
around existing textbooks rather than developing new materials”
(Rumble & Koul, 2007).
- Use technology to increase the student load per academic.
- reduce cost of labour by replacing expensive academic labour with less
well-trained adjunct labour, which is less costly.
Table 1 summarises the many factors the impact costs.
Table 1: Major factors affecting costs in distance learning (DL).
(Rumble, 1999).
Factor
What it
affects
How the factor affects the cost
Total
student
numbers
Unit costs
Flexible
costs
Committed costs of capital including course
development and costs incurred in sustaining the
business will be spread across students. Units costs will
therefore be higher if students numbers are low and
lower and if student numbers are high.
Total student-related flexible costs will rise in line with
student costs.
13

Courses
presented
Capital
costs
The more courses presented, the greater will be the
number that need to be developed, resulting in a rise in
the capital cost of the curriculum.
Course
lives
Capital
costs
The longer that courses are presented before being
withdrawn or remade, the greater will be the number of
years over which the capital costs of their development
can be annualized, and therefore the lower the sum that
needs to be spread across the student body as a whole,
or across the students taking the particular course.
Media and
Technology
choice
Committed
costs and
flexible
costs
Each medium/technology has its own cost structure.
Therefore, media and technology choice will affect total
costs, total committed costs and flexible costs in
different ways.
Face-toface
support
Flexible
costs
The amount of face-to-face support that needs to be
provided will be driven by decisions about the size of
groups and the number of hours to be given to each
course member. The total number of hours required will
rise as student numbers, and hence group numbers,
rise. In large-scale systems, relatively modest increases
in student numbers can generate considerable
increases in cost.
Course
design
parameters
Committed
costs and
flexible
costs
Design parameters – including decisions to create all
materials internally, buy in materials (and whole
courses) or merely create study guides to existing
textbooks that students have to buy themselves – will
impact on costs in a range of ways.
Course
module size
Working
practices
and hence
capital
costs
Large modules (e.g., requiring 50-100 hours of study)
will, depending on design decisions, need teams to
develop the materials. This incurs higher transactional
costs as team members interact. Smaller modules can
often be developed by one or two people, thus reducing
transactional costs.
Cost
recovery
through
cost sharing
Committed
and flexible
costs
Decisions to get students to pay for goods (e.g., text)
and services used at cost, cost plus and less than cost
will influence the extent to which variables in course
design affect the institution or the student.
14

Labour
employment
policies
Capital
costs and
flexible cost
Using contracts for service for course developers and
course tutors will reduce the level of committed cost put
into hiring staff on contracts of service. In general, this
will therefore reduce the capital costs of developing
courses and ensure that the flexible costs of teaching
are no more and no less than those needed to deliver
the courses.
Labour
substitution
policies
Flexible
costs
Using less expensive labour – for example, graduate
students rather than more qualified staff as tutors and
assignment markers – will reduce the flexible costs of
teaching.
THE COST OF TECHNOLOGY
One of the arguments of using technology is that it brings the unit cost of
education down. In distance education (Orival, 2000: 138), this has been done
through the achievement of increases in productivity following the substitution
of capital (in the form of technology) for labour (teachers).
“One of the strongest arguments for using test, reusable audio and video, and
ICT as a repository of information in education rather than using face-to-face
teaching is that it shifts some of the teaching from the teacher to the medium,
helping to bring down the unit cost of education, provided that student
numbers are high” (Coley, Cradler & Engel, 1999).
However, as Orival (2000: 147) points out, “the costs of ICT are linked to a
global market in hardware, software and consumables. Thus the cost does not
really differ significantly between developed and developing countries”.
WAY FORWARD
Various proposals have been put forward to argue the case for increased
percentages of subsidy being granted to distance education. Government
proposed the 50% funding formula for distance education. Proposals for the
range between 65% and 75% of total subsidy are being put forward.
The arguments are based on the sound logic that distance education
effectively is more expensive than the old correspondence education.
To simply increase the subsidy provides no assurance for better quality or
improvement if delivery. While improvements in quality of delivery are
required, these should be preceded by careful planning to ensure that
additional funding will indeed be used to improve quality.
15

Larger distance education programmes are being used to cross-subsidize
small, unsustainable programs. One of the reasons for introducing distance
programmes internationally has been to expand access to higher education
delivery in key areas, rather than to provide a comprehensive suite of
programmes across all learning disciples.
If small-scale distance education programmes in niche areas are considered a
priority, strategies need to be developed to support them and by costing then
carefully.
Supply raising the subsidy for distance education programmes is likely only to
perpetuate and inherently inefficient financial situation, rather then requiring
institutions to reflect critically on what their priorities are where rationalization
needs to take place.
If the subsidy for distance education require more than 50% subsidy, it is
critical that such programmes demonstrate exactly how they propose to
achieve these goals, before they are granted additional funding. Applying a
blanket increase is likely to perpetuate inefficient financial, without providing
any guarantees of improved quality of delivery.
CONCLUSION
We know enough about what makes distance education expensive, and more
or less are able to control costs. We also know that if distance education is
properly designed, distance education can work delivering a quality of
education that is at least as good as that in traditional institutions. We can
therefore design distance education systems that will deliver a significant
increase in the number of institutions available at a reasonable cost,
compared to the alternative strategy of expanding traditional institutions.
Determining cost-versus-price templates for any nontraditional program has
one critical advantage: those involved must examine cost issues – a topic
often less than appealing to faculty (Taylor & Parker, 2003). Course fees are
obviously insufficient to fund development in distance education, but
understanding actual costs can be useful in arguing for more state support for
distance education programmes. Legislators often think that distance courses
are cheaper than resident courses because they don’t understand the fine
expertise, and technology required to develop a distance course.
16

REFERENCES
Abrioux, A.M.X., & Ferreira, F., 2009: Perspectives on Distance Education.
Open schooling in the 21 st Century. Commonwealth of learning: Vancouwer.
African National Congress. 1994: A Policy framework of Education and
Training, Education Dept, African National Congress. January, 1993.
Bakia, M., 2002: The Costs of Computers in Classrooms: Data from
Developing Countries. TechKnowlogia 4 (1) (January – March): 63-68.
Available at: wwwtechnknowleogia.org/TKL. Issue Number = 15.
Bakia, M., 2003: The Economics of Open and Distance Learning in Primary
and Secondary Schools. In the Open Classroom: Distance Learning in and
out of school. Bradley, J., (ed). Kogan Page: London.
Campbell, T., 2003: Distance Education Best Practices Manual. Retrieved
from https://mycampus.phoenix.edu.
Cawthera, A., 2002: Computers in Secondary Schools in Developing
Countries: Costs and other issues. Department for International
Development: London. Available at:
wwwz.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/computersinsecschools.
Coley, R.; Cradler, J & Engel, P. 1999: Computers and Classrooms: The
status of Technology in US schools. Educational Testing Service: Princeton,
NT.
Council on Higher Education. 2004. Enhancing the Contribution of Distance
Higher Education in South Africa: Report of an Investigation led by the South
African Institute for Distance Education. Pretoria: CHE.
Council on Higher Education. 2004: Policy Advice Report: Advice to the
Minister of Education on Aspects of Distance Education Provision in South
Africa Higher Education. Pretoria; CHE.
Daniel, J.A.S., 2004: The Sustainable development of Open and Distance
Learning for Sustainable development. Being a text of paper presented at the
Commonwealth of Learning Institute, Strategies for Sustainable Open and
Distance Learning, Dunsmuir Lodge, Sydney. 9 June.
Department of Education. 1997: White Paper 3: A programme for the
Transformation of Higher Education, Government Gazette, vol 386, no 18207,
15 August, 1997.
Department of education, 2001: National Plan for Higher Education,
Government Gazette, vol 429, no 22138, 9 March, 2001.
17

Dhanarojan, G. 2003: Best Practice: Then and Now in VS Prasad (ed). Best
Practices in Open and Distance Education, pp109 – 124. Hyderabad (India):
Booklink Corp.
Galusha, J.N., 2004: Barriers to Learning in Distance Education.
http://168.144.129.112/Articles.Barriers%20to%20learning
Government of National Unity. 1995: White Paper on Education and Training,
Government Gazette no 16312, Cape Town, Parliament of the Republic of
South Africa.
Halsa, G.A., & Terzoli, A. 2002: Open Source in South African Schools. Two
Case Studies. Centre of Excellence in Distributed Multimedia, Rhodes,
University. In Highway Africa 2002, August 21-23, 2002, Johannesburg, South
Africa.
Harry, K. 1992: Distance education today and tomorrow: A personal
perspective. Educational Media International, 19(3), 189-192.
Kinnaman, D. 1995: The future of distance education. Technology and
Learning, 15(4), p58.
Maguire, L. 2005: Literature Review – Faculty Participation in Online Distance
Education: Barriers and Motivations: In Online Journal of Distance Learning
Administration viii (1). Retrieved from www.westga.edu.
Ministry of Education. 2001: National Plan for Higher Education, Pretoria.
Ministry of Education. National Commission on Higher Education (NCHE)
1996: NCHE Report: A Framework for Transformation, Pretoria: NCHE.
Moore, MG., & Kearsley, C., 1996: Is there a cultural problem international
distance education? In Melody Thompson (ed). Proceedings of Conference on
Internationalism in Distance Education. Pennsylvania: University Park.
Murgatroyd, S., & Morgan, C.,1993: Total Quality Management. Buckingham:
Open University Press.
NADEOSA, 2005: Designing and Delivering Distance Education: Quality
Criteria and Case Studies from South Africa, Johannesburg, NADEOSA.
Ogunsanya, M., & Mohan, B.M., 2007: Reflections on Quality Assurance in
Open Distance Learning. Workshop on Performance Indicators for Quality
Assurance in Distance Higher Education. Colombo.
Orival, F., 2000: Finance, Costs and Economics. “In Basic Education at a
Distance. Yates, C & Bradley, J (eds). Routledge Falure: London.
Perraton, H., 2000: Alternative Routes to Formal Education: Distance
Teaching for School Equivalence. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
18

Pradhan, A., & Deshmukh, A., 2001: Best Practice in Distance/Open
Education System: The YCMOU Experience. Paper presented at the
International Colloquium on Emerging Scenario in Distance Education (19-20
November, 2001), New Delhi.
Rumble, G. 1997: The Cost and Economics of Open and Distance Learning.
London: Kogan Page.
Rumble, G. 1999: Technology, Distance Education, and Cost. Journal of
Education and development in the Caribbean 3(2): 91-104;
Rumble, G., & Koul, B.N., 2007: Open Schooling for Secondary and Higher
Secondary Education: Costs and Effectiveness in India and Namibia.
Commonwealth of Learning: Vancouwer, pp18-30.
Salawu, I.O., Olugbenga, D., & Kayode, F., 1020: Sustainability Indices as
measures of service delivery in Open and Distance Learning Institute in
Nigeria. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education – TOJDE. January
2010, vol 11(1).
Sherry, L. 1996: Issues in Distance Learning. International Journal of
Educational Telecommunications 1(4), 337-365. Retrieved from
http://carbon.cudenver.edu.
Taylor, T.H., & Parker, G.D., 2003: Confronting Cost and Prizing Issues in
Distance Education. http://net/educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/eqmoqeq.pdf.
19