(Traducci\u00f3n al espa\u00f1ol al final del post)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
ORMOND SIMPSON<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Palabras clave: CUED<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cMoney, money, money\u201d (Abba)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n As I get older I\u2019ve found that I\u2019ve become more and more interested in money. Not personally of course \u2013I would never have gone into teaching otherwise\u2013. But I\u2019ve become concerned about trying to understand the way money is used in online learning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After all, everything we try to do for our students is depended on the resources we have to teach and support them. Whether that\u2019s improving the quality of our teaching materials or the amount of support we give them, it all comes down to money. But that money is often seen as a barrier \u2013 I\u2019ve lost count of the number of times I\u2019ve had an idea for improving student support only to be told \u2018Sorry – there\u2019s not enough money for that\u2019. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The institution as factory<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n So think of your institution as a factory. It takes in a raw material \u2013 a new student \u2013 and invests resources (money) into teaching materials and support for that student. Eventually it hopefully turns out a finished product \u2013 a qualified graduate. Now in an actual factory \u2013 producing cars say – its managers would have a very clear idea about the relationship between its initial investment and the value of the final car on which it could make a profit. In other words they would undertake a cost-benefit analysis and get a clear idea of the return on their investment. What would happen if we apply that to our student?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Royalty free image downloaded from Pexels<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Cost benefits and returns on investment<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n I focused on student support where it seemed to me we had evidence that could be analysed for financial returns. I worked out that if you had a student support activity costing \u00a3P per student which increased student retention by n%, then the \u2018cost per student retained\u2019 was \u00a3100P\/n. (The proof of this equation is naturally left as an exercise to the reader\u2026[1]<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Thus for example, a few years ago in the UKOU we made a pre-course phone call costing \u00a310 per call to new students which appeared to increase retention on their course by about 5%. So the cost per student retained was \u00a3(100 x 10)\/5 = \u00a3200. So far, so absurd. If this figure was correct who could possibly justify spending \u00a3200 to retain one student? Well no \u2013 until you look at the benefit that one student would bring in.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In those pre-student-loan days the UK Government grant to the UKOU was based on the number of students completing their courses each year, and was about \u00a31100 per student. In addition we reckoned that the more students we retained the fewer we had to recruit the following year to replace the losses and keep student numbers steady. In those days it cost the UKOU nearly \u00a3500 to recruit each new student (God knows what it is today). Let\u2019s guess we might save about \u00a3100 of that, then the total benefit per student retained in grant income and marketing savings was \u00a3(1100 + 100) = \u00a31200. <\/p>\n\n\n\n So we had a cost per student retained of \u00a3200 and a benefit per student retained of \u00a31200 – a surplus of \u00a31000 per student retained and a return on investment of 1000\/200 = 500% which even a banker might envy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Other funding arrangements \u2013 the UoLIP example.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n That was then of course. Now funding arrangements for the UKOU are different and it depends on a combination of government grant and students fees. Similarly other online institutions have a mixture of funding arrangements \u2013 do you know all the sources of the money for your institution? The International Programme of the University of London (UoLIP) for example depends on student fees for various different services such as exam fees. So it gets a lot more complicated than my simple \u00a3100P\/n. And the benefits arise not from any grant, but from successful students carrying and paying another set of fees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But it\u2019s still possible to do calculations. In my recent paper \u2018Student Support in Online Learning\u2014We Need to Talk About Money\u2019<\/em>[2]<\/a> I took UoLIP for example, and estimated the following formula for the increase in income from n% extra students taking the exam and re-registering for the next module:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u00a3[(n\/100)N(F + E – S – V\/N) – NP]<\/p>\n\n\n\n where n, N and P are as before, F = the UoLIP tuition fee, E = the exam fee, V = the institutional overhead and S = the student related cost.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If, like me, your eyes glaze over at this point then you might prefer a graphical representation of the cost \u00a3P of an activity versus the increase in retention n% using data from UoLIP:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Increases in retention that fall above the line will produce a positive return for UoLIP. For example an activity cost of \u00a310 that produces an increase in retention of more than about 1.3% will produce a positive return on investment for UoLIP.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Your institution?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Your institution will have different formulas depending on your funding arrangements, the results of retention-increasing activities and their cost. And it may look like an impossibly complex task to understand the money flows involved in increasing student retention. But online institutions are full of highly intelligent analysts, statisticians, accountants, and academics. There is also the potential game changer of artificial intelligence to be applied to student support. It\u2019s high time the talents of such staff be applied to the complex challenges of evaluating the role of money in online learning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [1]<\/a> Oh alright. Say you apply your support activity costing \u00a3P per student to N students, gaining an increase in retention of n%. Then the total cost is NP and the number of extra students retained is Nn\/100 and the cost per student retained is \u00a3NP\/(Nn\/100) = \u00a3100P\/n. <\/p>\n\n\n\n [2]<\/a> International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning Volume 24, Number 4 <\/p>\n\n\n\n ISSN 1492-3831 https:\/\/www.irrodl.org\/index.php\/irrodl\/article\/view\/7241\/5955<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n @OrmondSimpson<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n #blogCUED #C\u00e1tedraUNESCOdeEducaci\u00f3naDistancia, #CUED, #asesoresCUED<\/p>\n\n\n\n C\u00f3mo referenciar esta entrada:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Simpson, O. (12 de julio de 2024). Online student support and retention. we need to talk about money. Blog CUED <\/em>https:\/\/blogs.uned.es\/cued\/blog\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Ormond Simpson is a consultant in distance and online education, working most recently as Visiting Fellow at the London University International Programmes. He was previously Visiting Professor at the Open Polytechnic of New Zealand, and Director of the Centre for Educational Guidance and Student Support at the UK Open University, being one of the greatest experts in drop-out prevention in distance education. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Hay que hablar de dinero\u00bb: apoyo y retenci\u00f3n de estudiantes en l\u00ednea<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u00abDinero, dinero, dinero\u00bb (Abba)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A medida que me hago mayor me interesa cada vez m\u00e1s el dinero. No personalmente, por supuesto, porque de lo contrario nunca me habr\u00eda dedicado a la ense\u00f1anza. Pero me he preocupado por intentar comprender c\u00f3mo se utiliza el dinero en la ense\u00f1anza en l\u00ednea.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Al fin y al cabo, todo lo que intentamos hacer por nuestros alumnos depende de los recursos de que disponemos para ense\u00f1arles y apoyarles. Ya se trate de mejorar la calidad de nuestro material did\u00e1ctico o de la cantidad de apoyo que les damos, todo se reduce a dinero. He perdido la cuenta de las veces que he tenido una idea para mejorar el apoyo a los estudiantes y me han dicho: \u00abLo siento, no hay dinero suficiente para eso\u00bb. <\/p>\n\n\n\n La instituci\u00f3n como f\u00e1brica<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Piense en su instituci\u00f3n como en una f\u00e1brica. Recibe una materia prima -un nuevo estudiante- e invierte recursos (dinero) en material did\u00e1ctico y apoyo para ese estudiante. Al final, con un poco de suerte, obtiene un producto acabado: un titulado cualificado. Ahora bien, en una f\u00e1brica real, por ejemplo, de coches, sus directivos tendr\u00edan una idea muy clara de la relaci\u00f3n entre la inversi\u00f3n inicial y el valor del coche final con el que podr\u00edan obtener beneficios. En otras palabras, realizar\u00edan un an\u00e1lisis coste-beneficio y tendr\u00edan una idea clara del rendimiento de su inversi\u00f3n. \u00bfQu\u00e9 pasar\u00eda si aplicamos eso a nuestro alumno?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Coste-beneficio y rendimiento de la inversi\u00f3n<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Me centr\u00e9 en el apoyo a los estudiantes all\u00ed donde me pareci\u00f3 que ten\u00edamos pruebas que pod\u00edan analizarse en funci\u00f3n de la rentabilidad financiera. Calcul\u00e9 que si una actividad de apoyo a los estudiantes costaba P\u00a3 por estudiante y aumentaba la retenci\u00f3n de estudiantes en un n%, el \u00abcoste por estudiante retenido\u00bb era de \u00a3100P\/n. (La demostraci\u00f3n de esta ecuaci\u00f3n se deja naturalmente como ejercicio para el lector… ).<\/p>\n\n\n\n As\u00ed, por ejemplo, hace unos a\u00f1os en la UKOU realizamos una llamada telef\u00f3nica previa al curso a los nuevos estudiantes, con un coste de 10 libras por llamada, que parec\u00eda aumentar la permanencia en el curso en un 5% aproximadamente. As\u00ed que el coste por estudiante retenido fue de \u00a3(100 x 10)\/5 = \u00a3200. Hasta aqu\u00ed, absurdo. Si esta cifra fuera correcta, \u00bfqui\u00e9n podr\u00eda justificar el gasto de 200 libras para retener a un estudiante? Pues nadie… hasta que se analiza el beneficio que aportar\u00eda un estudiante.<\/p>\n\n\n\n En aquella \u00e9poca anterior a los pr\u00e9stamos a estudiantes, la subvenci\u00f3n del Gobierno brit\u00e1nico a la UKOU se basaba en el n\u00famero de estudiantes que terminaban sus cursos cada a\u00f1o, y era de unas 1.100 libras por estudiante. Adem\u00e1s, calcul\u00e1bamos que cuantos m\u00e1s estudiantes retuvi\u00e9ramos, menos tendr\u00edamos que contratar al a\u00f1o siguiente para compensar las p\u00e9rdidas y mantener estable el n\u00famero de estudiantes. En aquella \u00e9poca, a la UKOU le costaba casi 500 libras contratar a cada nuevo estudiante (Dios sabe cu\u00e1nto cuesta hoy en d\u00eda). Supongamos que nos ahorr\u00e1bamos unas 100 libras, por lo que el beneficio total por estudiante retenido en ingresos por becas y ahorro en marketing era de (1.100 + 100) = 1.200 libras. <\/p>\n\n\n\n As\u00ed que tuvimos un coste por estudiante retenido de 200 \u00a3 y un beneficio por estudiante retenido de 1200 \u00a3 – un super\u00e1vit de 1000 \u00a3 por estudiante retenido y un rendimiento de la inversi\u00f3n de 1000\/200 = 500% que incluso un banquero podr\u00eda envidiar.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Otros mecanismos de financiaci\u00f3n: el ejemplo del UoLIP.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Eso era entonces, por supuesto. Ahora, la financiaci\u00f3n de la UKOU es diferente y depende de una combinaci\u00f3n de subvenciones p\u00fablicas y tasas de matr\u00edcula. Del mismo modo, otras instituciones en l\u00ednea tienen una combinaci\u00f3n de mecanismos de financiaci\u00f3n. \u00bfConoce todas las fuentes de financiaci\u00f3n de su instituci\u00f3n? El Programa Internacional de la Universidad de Londres (UoLIP), por ejemplo, depende de las tasas que pagan los estudiantes por distintos servicios, como las tasas de examen. As\u00ed que la cosa se complica mucho m\u00e1s que mis simples \u00a3100P\/n. Y los beneficios no proceden de ninguna subvenci\u00f3n, sino de que los estudiantes que aprueban llevan consigo y pagan otra serie de tasas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogs.uned.es\/cued\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/273\/2024\/07\/pexels-pixabay-128867-1024x1024.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogs.uned.es\/cued\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/273\/2024\/07\/Sin-titulo-1-941x440.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nOrmond Simpson<\/h3>
\u00a0
He has worked, given keynote presentations and run workshops in 17 countries in Africa, South America, India, China, the West Indies, South Korea, and Europe. His latest book is \u2018Supporting Students for Success in Online and Distance Education\u2019 (2012, Routledge).\u00a0
\u00a0
He has written many book chapters and journal articles. As he says, he originally graduated with a degree in theoretical physics, but he believes that the task of developing really effective distance student support is just as challenging as finding a Theory of Everything\u2026<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogs.uned.es\/cued\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/273\/2024\/07\/Sin-titulo-2-941x440.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n<\/figure>\n\n\n\n