Conclusion
Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses are rapidly be coming more common in the field of education. With the economic problems of education continuing, it is safe to assume that calls for such analysis will continue. If cost eval uation is to be used effectively to solve instructional prob lems (rather than as a threat to intimidate educators), those working at the design level need to become aware of the analysis process and start developing solutions to some of the problems that have been discussed or touched on above. First among these problems is the need for output measures that are educationally as well as economically justifiable. Until a learning measure is developed that can be related to both instructional strategies (therefore instructional costs) and to the “higher” goals of education, there will be legitimate criti cism of cost evaluation. Also, there is a need to establish standard terminology and procedures for determining and re porting instructional costs. The development of such stand ards should lead to the establishment of a consistent and ac cessible data base on the costs of instructional technology and make possible the application of cost-effectiveness evalu ation in the formative stages of instructional development where it has the highest potential payoff.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alkin, M. C.Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of instructional pro grams. Center for the Study of Evaluation of Instructional Pro grams, CSE Report No. 25, University of California, Los Ange les, California, May 1969.
Borus, M. E. A benefit-cost analysis of the economic effectiveness of retraining the unemployed.Yale Economic Essays, 1964,4(2), 370–429.
Carter, C. N., & Walker, M. J. Costs of instructional TV and com puter-assisted instruction in public schools. In Committee for Economic Development,The schools and the challenge of in novation. Nev York: McGraw-Hill, 1969. Pp. 320–341.
Committee for Economic Development, Research and Policy Com mittee.Innovation in education: New directions for the American school. New York: Committee for Economic Development, July 1968.
Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E.Final report: Individual differences in learning ability as a function of instructional variables. (Con tract No. OEC 4-6-061269-1217.) Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University, School of Education, March 1969.
Dietrich, J. E., & Johnson, F. C.Cost analysis of instructional tech nology. Paper prepared for the Commission on Instructional Technology, October 1968.
Dyer, H. S., Linn, R. L., & Patton, M. J.Methods of measuring school system performance. Research Bulletin RB-68-55. Prince ton, N. J.: Educational Testing Service, October 1968.
English, J. M. (Ed.)Cost-effectiveness: The economic evaluation of engineered systems. New York: John Wiley, 1968.
Fisher, C. H.Cost consideration in systems analysis. New York: American Elsevier, 1971.
General Learning Corporation.Cost study of educational media sys tems and their equipment components. Vol. 1, Guidelines for determining costs of media systems. Washington, D.C.: Depart ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, May 1968.
Goldman, T. A. (Ed.)Cost-effectiveness analysis: New approaches in decision-making. New York: Praeger, 1968.
Haggart, S. A., et al.Program budgeting for school district plan ning: Concepts and applications. RM-6116-RC. Santa Monica, Calif.: The RAND Corporation, November 1969.
Hirsch, W. Z., & Marcus, M. J. Some benefit-cost considerations of universal junior college education.National Tax Journal, March 1966,19, 48–57.
Jones, G. B.A procedural and cost analysis study of media in in structional systems development.Part B, Instructional cost ana lysis. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education, 1965.
Judy, R. W. Costs: Theoretical and methodological issues. Paper presented at the North American Conference on Cost-Benefit Analysis of Manpower Policies, The University of Wisconsin, Madison, May 14-15, 1969.
Kazanowski, A. D., A standardized approach to cost-effectiveness evaluation. In J. M. English (Ed.),Cost-effectiveness: The economic evaluation of engineered systems. New York: John Wiley, 1968. Pp. 113–150.
Kershaw, J. A., & McKean, R. N.Systems analysis and education. RM-2473-FF. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, Octo ber 1959.
Kiesling, H. J.Multivariate analysis of schools and educational policy. P-4595. Santa Monica, Calif.: The RAND Corporation, March 1971.
Levin, H. M.Cost-effectiveness analysis and educational policy — pro fusion, confusion, promise. Stanford Center for Research and Development in Teaching, Research and Development Memorandum Number 41. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Univer sity, December 1968.
McCullough, J. D.Cost analysis for planning-programming-bud geting cost-benefit studies. P-3479. Santa Monica, Calif.: The RAND Corporation, November 1966.
McMurrin, S. M., (Chm.)To improve learning. Commission on In structional Technology, Committee on Education and Labor, United States House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., March 1970.
Newman, F., (Chm.)Report on higher education. Task Force, United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Wash ington, D.C., 1971.
Prest, A. R., & Turvey, R. Cost-benefit analysis:A survey. The Economic Journal, 1965,75(300), 683–735.
Salomon, C., & Snow, R. E. (Eds.) Commentaries on research in instructional media: An examination of conceptual schemes.Viewpoints (Bulletin of the School of Education, Indiana Uni versity), 1970,46(5).
Seiler, K., III.Introduction to systems cost-effectiveness. New York: Wiley-Interscience, 1969.
Wilkinson, C. L. Needed: Information for cost analysis. Education al Technology, 1972,12(7), 33–38.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wilkinson, G.L. Cost evaluation of instructional strategies. AVCR 21, 11–30 (1973). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02770826
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02770826