+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Feasibility Study A Mythical High School (AMHS) 1234 School Lane Anytown, CO 12345 Prepared by...

Feasibility Study A Mythical High School (AMHS) 1234 School Lane Anytown, CO 12345 Prepared by...

Date post: 27-Dec-2015
Category:
Upload: nickolas-webb
View: 216 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
Popular Tags:
39
Feasibility Study A Mythical High School (AMHS) 1234 School Lane Anytown, CO 12345 Prepared by OMDE606 9040 Group 2 Committee Jack Boeve Joanne Deitsch Joyce Reitor Katie Skillrud Mariam Mukhni Mary Anne Llorin
Transcript

Feasibility StudyA Mythical High School (AMHS)1234 School LaneAnytown, CO 12345

Prepared byOMDE606 9040Group 2 CommitteeJack BoeveJoanne DeitschJoyce ReitorKatie SkillrudMariam MukhniMary Anne Llorin

Agenda

• Introduction• Course Related• Course Overview• Course Details

• Cost Related• Cost Ingredients• Cost Analysis

• Media Justification• Conclusions

Group 2 Committee Feasibility Study

Introduction

Introduction [1 of 2]

• A Mythical High School (AMHS) convened a committee to analyze offering an online Advanced Placement Chemistry course

• Per U.S. Census Bureau in 2013 (File & Ryan, 2014)• 84% have a computer• 74% have Internet access• 73% have high speed connection

• Can an online offering break even or be profitable with a year of development, a year of maintenance and six years of presentation?

Background

Introduction [2 of 2]

• Narrative• Jack Boeve• Mariam Mukhni

• Cost Analysis• Mary Anne Llorin• Katie Skillrud

• PowerPoint Presentation• Joanne Deitsch• Joyce Reitor

Committee Members

Course Overview

Course Overview [1 of 4]

• Students with disabilities• Homeschooled students • Students who experience bullying • Future offerings: Districts that do not offer such programs

Target Study Population

Course Overview[2 of 4]

• Course development: Year One• Course delivery: Years Two through Year Seven• Course maintenance: Year Four concurrent with original

curriculum presentation• 12 week course with eight units offered three semesters per

year

Course Basics

Course Overview [3 of 4]

• Blackboard offers a reduced fee for small institutions consisting of fewer than 1,000 students (Trotter, 2008)

• Cost share of $1,000 per annum

Learning Management System (LMS)

Course Overview [4 of 4]

• User friendly• Collaborative and student-centered• One location for course documents and communications• Electronic assignment submission, tests, and grade book• Web-based tools built in• Peer and self-assessment• Technical support available

Learning Management System (LMS) Benefits

Course Details

Course Details[1 of 2]

• 30-minute video to orientation to online learning/course• 30-minute video orientation to Blackboard• 30-minute slideshow presentation per unit• Open Educational Resource (OER) virtual lab• https://phet.colorado.edu/

• 30-minute virtual seminar per unit• High-quality OER textbook• OER supplemental readings

Course Materials

Course Details [2 of 2]

• Set of practice problems per unit• 30-minute quiz per unit• 60-minute midterm exam• 120-minute final exam

Student Assignments/Assessments

Cost Ingredients

Cost Ingredients [1 of 7]

• T1 line treated as a sunk cost• Administrative support $5000 per annum• Development team• Instructional/graphic designer, instructor, web media

developer• Presentation team• Instructor, Blackboard, administrative team, teaching

assistant, and advisors• Media costs taken from OMDE 606 coursework (Huelsmann,

2015)

Assumptions

Cost Ingredients [2 of 7]

• Administrative/Technical• 10% of per annum salary ($50,000) = $5,000 per annum

• Learning Management License• 10% of annual license fee ($10,000) = $1,000 per annum

• Instructor• 100% of per annum salary ($15,000) = $15,000 per annum

Total Annual Overhead Cost: $21,000 per annum

Ingredients: Overheads

Cost Ingredients [3 of 7]

• One-Way Presentations• Orientation to Online AP Chemistry, Orientation to Blackboard

LMS, Lessons• Multi-Way Presentations• Virtual Seminar

• Text-Based Content• OER Textbook, Supplementary Readings

• Assignments/Assessment• Quiz, Practice Problems, Midterm and Final Exams

Total Development Costs: $76,915

Ingredients: Development Costs

Cost Ingredients [4 of 7]

• Maintenance will begin in year four of the course offering• OER textbook• Supplementary readings• Lessons

Total Maintenance Costs: $4,770

Ingredients: Maintenance Costs

Cost Ingredients [6 of 7]

• Materials• Virtual Labs will be curated from OERs, PhET Interactive

Simulations available through the University of Colorado. There will be no cost incurred.

• Student Support• Assignment Grading: 16 units at $10 = $160• Advising, per hour and group of 10: 24 units at $15 = $12

• Given a class of 30 students

• Variable cost per student: $172.00

Ingredients: Presentation Costs

Cost Ingredients [7 of 7]

• Two classes for both Fall and Spring semesters• 30 students per class

• One class in Summer semester• 20 students per class

• Student fee is $700.

Total Anticipated Annual Enrollment: 140 studentsTotal Anticipated Enrollment: 840 studentsTotal Anticipated Income ($700 x 840 student): $588,000

Income: Tuition

Cost Analysis

Cost Analysis [1 of 6]Ingredients: Annualization

• Initial Development Annualization Costs• Spread through the seven years of the project at 5%• $13,292 per annum

• Maintenance Annualization Costs• Spread from maintenance year to end of the project at 5%• $1,345 per annum

Cost Analysis [2 of 6]Total Costs

Cost Analysis [3 of 6]Total Cost Calculations

Cost Analysis [4 of 6]Break Even Calculations

Cost Analysis [5 of 6]Average Costs

Cost Analysis [6 of 6]Average Cost Calculations

Media Justification

Media Justification [1 of 4]

• Multimedia • Computer-based resources • Interactive computer-marked assignments• Instructor graded assignments• Computer-based tools• Blackboard learning management system

Media Types

Media Justification [2 of 4]

• Students• Ease of Use and Reliability• Costs• Teaching• Interaction and Interactivity• Organizational Issues• Novelty• Speed

SECTIONS Dimensions

Media Justification [3 of 4]

• The SECTIONS model covers the use of media in campus based as well as distance education (Bates, 2005).

• Using a technology selection model is important as it:• Applies to a variety of learning contexts• Addresses operational and educational issues• Enables decision making on various levels, i.e., institutional,

tactical and strategic• Addresses various media and technology based differences,

affords hybrid usage of media for different learning contexts• Is cost effective and pragmatic• Allows for the implementation of new emerging technologies

SECTIONS Model

Media Justification [4 of 4]

• Our specific targeted audience contains a unique demographic and various educational needs. The SECTIONS framework meets this need.

• The goal of this course is to foster and develop skills in the student population groups that otherwise would not be able to take advantage of such courses.

• The use of the SECTIONS model to analyze the rich media choices and the costing exercise would be most beneficial to our study.

SECTIONS Model

Conclusions

Conclusions [1 of 2]

• This AP Chemistry course is fully online and serves demographically diverse and geographically dispersed high school students.

• The course will help students gain skills which include:• Chemistry concepts, comprehension, and understanding• Computer literacy• Critical thinking and analysis• Time management• Multimedia and technologies used in future workforce• Understanding of e-learning and distance education

Student Outcomes

Conclusions [2 of 2]

• The course is financially feasible:• 140 students per annum for six years = 840 total

students• Aggregate unit cost is $172• Average cost per student starting at $1,925 and

declining to $464• Costs will be offset by revenue of $700 per student

totaling income of $588,000 in year seven • The break even point is 465 students occurring in year five• Total profit is $198,096 in year seven

Financial Feasibility

References

References [1 of 3]

Bates, A.W. & Poole, G. (2003) Effective teaching with technology in

higher education. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Bates, A.W. (2005). Technology, e-learning and distance education

(2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge.

File, T., & Ryan, C. (2014). Computer and Internet use in the United

States: 2013. American Community Survey Reports (ACS-28).

Retrieved from

http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications

/ 2014/acs/acs-28.pdf

References [2 of 3]

Huelsmann, T. (2015). Module 5: Costing educational technologies II: E-learning

[Course module discussion]. Retrieved from University of Maryland University

College: https://learn.umuc.edu/d2l/le/content/56877/Home

Rainie, R., & Cohn, D. (2014, September 19). Census: Computer ownership, internet

connection varies widely across U.S. Retrieved from

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/19/census-computer-

ownership-internet-connection-varies-widely-across-u-s

Trotter, A. (2008, June 13). Blackboard vs. Moodle: Competition in course-

management market grows. Education Week. Retrieved from

http://www.edweek.org/

References [3 of 3]

U.S. Census Bureau. (2014, September 18). Census bureau’s

American community survey provides new state and local

income, poverty, health insurance statistics [Press release].

Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-

releases/2014/cb14-170.html


Recommended