Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing the Costs and Benefits of Educational Technology

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology

Abstract

Educational technology is often cited as a means to improve educational outcomes and reduce costs, leading to greater quality and efficiency in learning and instruction. Yet research that attempts to assess the costs and benefits of educational technology is limited, making it difficult for educators and policy makers to make efficient decisions. This chapter reviews international research on the effectiveness, costs, and cost-effectiveness of educational technology and provides a set of core conclusions from this literature. The chapter also describes methodological challenges to assessing costs and benefits of educational technology and suggests areas for future research. The chapter concludes with lessons learned for educators and educational decision makers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Rumble (1986) offers a helpful distinction between effectiveness and efficiency: “It is possible to be effective without being efficient, but it is not possible to be efficient without also being effective. Effectiveness will depend upon the quality and quantity of the output. Efficiency will depend not only on these factors but also on the consumption of resources as an input to the system” (pp. 69–70).

  2. 2.

    An effect size represents the difference between the means of the treatment group and the control group, which is standardized by dividing by either the pooled standard deviation or the standard deviation of the control group (Harris, 2009).

References

  • Angrist, J., & Lavy, J. (2002). New evidence on classroom computers and pupil learning. The Economic Journal, 112, 735–765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arizona Learning Systems. (1998). Preliminary cost methodology for distance learning. Arizona Learning Systems and the State Board of Directors for Community Colleges of Arizona.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee, A. J., Cole, S., Duflo, E., & Linden, L. (2005). Remedying education: Evidence from two randomized experiments in India (NBER Working Paper No. 11904). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee, A. J., Cole, S., Duflo, E., & Linden, L. (2007). Remedying education: Evidence from two randomized experiments in India. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(3), 1235–1264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates, A. (1995). Technology, open learning, and distance education. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belfield, C., & Levin, H. M. (2010). Cost-benefit analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of education (3rd ed., pp. 199–203). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A. C., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., et al. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1243–1289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., & Wozney, L., et al. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 379–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carnoy, M., & Levin, H. (1975). Evaluation of educational media: Some issues. Instructional Science, 4(2), 385–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carnoy, M., Rabling, B., Castano-Munoz, J., Duart Montoliu, J., & Sancho-Vinuesa, T. (2011). Who attends and completes virtual universities: The case of the open university of Catalonia (UOC). Higher Education. Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/s10734-011-9424-0.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chudgar, A., & Luschei, T. F. (2009). National income, income inequality, and the importance of schools: A hierarchical cross-national comparison. American Educational Research Journal, 46(3), 626–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53, 445–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eicher, J.-C., Hawkridge, D., McAnnany, E., Mariet, F., & Orivel, F. (1982). The economics of new educational media (Cost and effectiveness overview and synthesis, Vol. 3). Paris: The UNESCO Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, S. (2008). Technology-enhanced learning in developing nations: A review. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(1), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Harris, D. N. (2009). Toward policy-relevant benchmarks for interpreting effect sizes: Combining effects with costs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(1), 3–29. doi:10.3102/0162373708327524

    Google Scholar 

  • Heyneman, S. P. & Loxley, W. A. (1983). The effect of primary-school quality on academic achievement across twenty-nine high- and low-income countries. American Journal of Sociology, 88(6), 1162–1194.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Jamison, D. T., Klees, S. J., & Wells, S. J. (1978). The costs of educational media: Guidelines for planning and evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R. (1994). Will media influence learning: Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, H. M., Glass, G. V., & Meister, G. R. (1987). Cost-effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction. Evaluation Review, 11(1), 50–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, H. M., & McEwan, P. J. (Eds.). (2001). Cost-effectiveness analysis: Methods and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luschei, T. F., Dimyati, S., & Padmo, D. (2008). Maintaining e3-learning while transitioning to online instruction: The case of the Open University of Indonesia. Distance Education, 29(2), 165–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Machin, S., McNally, S., & Silva, O. (2007). New technology in schools: Is there a payoff? The Economic Journal, 111(July), 1145–1167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, H. D., Tatto, M. T., Djalil, A., & Kularatne, N. (1991). The cost-effectiveness of distance education for teacher training (BRIDGES Research Report Series, no. 9). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rice, J. K. (1997). Cost analysis in education: Paradox and possibility. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(4), 309–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Ross, S. M., Morrison, G. R., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Educational technology research past and present: Balancing rigor and relevance to impact school learning. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1, 17–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouse, C. E., & Krueger, A. B. (2004). Putting computerized instruction to the test: A randomized evaluation of a “scientifically based” reading program. Economics of Education Review, 23, 323–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Rumble, G. (1986). The economic perspective. In G. Rumble (Ed.), The planning and management of distance education (pp. 63–85). London: Croom Helm.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Rumble, G. (1999). Costs analysis of distance learning. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 12(2), 122–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumble, G. (2001). The costs and costing of networked learning. Journal for Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 75–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, M. (2010). Examining the effects of educational technology programs: Challenges and strategies. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of education (3rd ed., pp. 88–94). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spector, J. M. (2005). Time demands in online instruction. Distance Education, 26(1), 3–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Tamim, R. M. Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P. C., & Schmid, R. F. (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning: A second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 4–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsang, M. C. (1995). Cost analysis in education. In M. Carnoy (Ed.), International encyclopedia of economics of education (2nd ed., pp. 386–392). Tarrytown, NY: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2006). Teachers and educational quality: Monitoring global needs for 2015. Montreal: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, L. (1982). The economics of educational media. London: The Macmillan Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Jian Gao for excellent research assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Educational Studies, Claremont Graduate University, Harper Hall 213, 150 East Tenth Street, Claremont, CA, 91711, USA

    Thomas F. Luschei

Authors
  1. Thomas F. Luschei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas F. Luschei .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Department of Learning Technologies, C, University of North Texas, North Elm 3940, Denton, 76207-7102, Texas, USA

    J. Michael Spector

  2. W. Sunset Blvd. 1812, St. George, 84770, Utah, USA

    M. David Merrill

  3. , Centr. Instructiepsychol.&-technologie, K.U. Leuven, Andreas Vesaliusstraat 2, Leuven, 3000, Belgium

    Jan Elen

  4. Research Drive, Iacocca A109 111, Bethlehem, 18015, Pennsylvania, USA

    M. J. Bishop

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Luschei, T.F. (2014). Assessing the Costs and Benefits of Educational Technology. In: Spector, J., Merrill, M., Elen, J., Bishop, M. (eds) Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_19

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation