Staff time
In order to use technologies to provide more flexible learning, the investment in staff time (to prepare materials, facilitate learning and to develop expertise in the medium) is significant. This is the case for all media, but the investment in time depends on the medium used; for example, print and audiotape materials usually take less time to prepare than video or computer based materials. Multimedia materials take a much greater time investment, as do materials designed to be delivered over the World Wide Web. Tony Bates, a recognized expert in the field of educational technology, estimates that preparation time for preprogrammed computer based learning is about ten times that for print materials.¹¹

Sometimes, instructors who pilot educational technologies are released from some assigned work in order to learn the new system and how it can best be used for teaching and learning. Not only can this entail additional staffing costs but instructors often comment that their time investment in the new technology is significantly more than they were officially allocated.

As noted in the section on access, investing in learner support is essential if the program is to provide successful learning. This means allocating staff time for tutoring and counseling as well as for instruction and facilitation. As well, some new learning technologies require coordination and support from a project manager and technical staff.

Potential impacts on educators
Costs of technology can affect the viability of agencies that do not have technology and increase pressures for cost recovery for those that do. Both of these factors can constrain educational objectives.

For non profit agencies, or agencies that provide learning or training on a cost recovery basis, it may not be feasible to invest in technologies for learning. Agencies serving immigrant populations or literacy providers who typically operate on very limited funds may not be able to accommodate educational technology at all, much less provide sufficient equipment for their learners to use. This can mean limited or no access to grants that require technology, and/or loss of learners to other organizations.

Institutions and organizations that have invested in new learning technologies may face higher costs that must be recovered. A number of observers have pointed out that the cost of materials development for the new learning technologies may well be beyond the means of individual public sector institutions, and that partnerships, either among public institutions or between public institutions and private sector organizations, will be necessary to cover the high development costs.¹² In the drive toward cost recovery there may be a tendency to enroll larger numbers of students than the rest of the system can support in terms of tutoring, study skills and counseling.

Alternatively, institutions may sell courseware to other institutions whose learners mayor may not have the same needs as those for whom the materials were originally designed. For example, a business development program for urban learners was subsequently provided on a cost recovery basis to women living in remote northern communities. The material reflected a very different experience from theirs in terms of community situations, social expectations, transportation and communication issues and types of businesses they could operate.

Highly visible investments in new technology may overshadow the less visible but essential human interaction involved in tutoring and advising. Such a skewed picture lends itself to the view that learning is tantamount to delivery and receipt of information, rather than human growth and change. Cost cutters within an institution may be tempted to see the human interaction as expendable, rather than an integral part of the learning experience.