The types of available technologies used in distance education are divided into two groups: synchronous learning and asynchronous learning though the expansion of the Internet blurs these distinctions. Synchronous learning technology is a mode of delivery where all participants are “present” at the same time. It resembles traditional classroom teaching methods despite the participants being located remotely. It requires a timetable to be organized. Web conferencing, videoconferencing, educational television, Instructional television are examples of synchronous technology, as are direct-broadcast satellite (DBS), internet radio, live streaming, telephone, and web-based VoIP

The asynchronous learning mode of delivery is where participants access course materials on their own schedule and so is more flexible. Students are not required to be together at the same time. Mail correspondence, which is the oldest form of distance education, is an asynchronous delivery technology and others include message board forums, e-mail, video and audio recordings, print materials, voicemail and fax.

An LCMS manages the process of creating, editing, storing and delivering e-learning content. Rather than developing entire courses and adapting them to multiple audiences, an LCMS provides the ability for single course instances to be modified and republished for various audiences maintaining versions and history. The objects stored in the centralized repository can be made available to course developers and content experts throughout an organization for potential reuse and repurpose. This eliminates duplicate development efforts and allows for the rapid assembly of customized content. Some systems have tools to deliver and manage instructor-led synchronous and asynchronous online training based on learning object methodology. LCMSs provide tools for authoring and reusing or re-purposing content (mutated learning objects MLOs) as well as virtual spaces for student interaction (such as discussion forums, live chat rooms and live web-conferences). LCMS technology can either be used in tandem with an LMS, or as a standalone application for learning initiatives that require rapid development and distribution of learning content. Since 2002, collaborative learning has evolved tremendously and became so much more effective. Systems focus more on the learner and the concepts they would like to convey in an effective manner. The orgnaizations try to use systems that will be easily attainable, user friendly, and support the vision of the organization. Some systems are similar from ones described in 2002 simply because those were the early years of elearning and thus can be counted as the foundation of elearning. It’s the same now a days because either asynchronous and synchronous learning is utilized. I agree with both methods simply because sometimes both are necessary depending on the infrastructure of the organization. I do see support for social (cognitive) learning theory interactions like this as necessary in my program because its critical to analyze social cognitives in efforst to make elearing more sufficient and learner friendly.

Funding strategies:

External grants- Refers to grants written by outside sources not related to the organization. In essence, money not within the organization given from another organization with intentions to help the receiving organization achieve its vision with funding, usually  by the government.

Government grants-  Governments have a responsibility to face up to the additional costs that allow from committing to the use of technology for teaching. Governmental funding has some limitations such as affecting the organizations autonomy, short term duration, limited duration.

Technology fees- these costs are the most expensive and associated with the use of information tehcnology at a University or College, some of which tend to be underestimated, or underbudgeted.They are typically broken down into categories of infrastructure, administrative applications, and academic applications.

Central/decentralized funding – ideally, all departments and individual faculty would have a clear and shared vision for where technology fits into the teaching of the institution, and consequently would make rational and appropriate decisions about how funds should be spent. Some situations, funds can be allocated better through departmental control and others through the deans and heads of the department.

Balanced funding- In a context where resources are finte, you need to look at the total picture. Funds need to be balanced between Infrastructure, Administrative applications, and educational applications. One must audit the system and see where more funds need to be allocated depending on the institutions goals and vision.

Partnerships- Technology based distributed learning allows for courses developed in one institution to be available at another.Technology such as videoconferencing and the internet can be used not only to deliver courses from one institution to another but also for administrative course team meetings between both institutions, whatever the distance. Partnerships may help with cost in them being shared, and fight off competition for students from other sources.

I would recommend balanced funding approach if they were to launch an online initiative in the next 12 months. I choose this approach because it’s the most fundamental and makes the most sense. The University of Illinois is a very big institute with various departments of different sizes. A balanced approach  would be necessary with a centralized/decentralized organization. At my institution, each department is handled by the dean or head of the department, hence, decentralized. I think that the U of I has a really good system and structure, but I do think that each department should meet bi annually or sporadically so that the mission of the institute is level across the boarder. Though each department has different goals and objectives to reaching those goals, a vision should be seen that’s equal to each department. Meeting bi annually makes sure that everyone is on the same page. These different funding strategies are essential to different organizations needs for survival and improvement. A needs assessment is the vital action to be taken in order to make that judgement.

After watching the interview with Ryan Thomas, I learned a variety of things about technology use at the University of Illinois @ U-C. From  my understanding, our IT provider is separate from other programs at the University. There should be a close relationship with the IT provider in terms of who to contact about certain issues, what’s the maintenance window when these problems occur, and when to update program. I absolutely agree with Mr. Thomas in that regards, I think that a good relationship should be maintained with any stakeholder affiliated with the University. Both shareholders should know the details and process for all situations that affect one another dealing with technology. In addition to what Mr. Thomas mentioned. I think that monthly meetings should take place between the CIO and IT provider. Doing this will prevent questions and confusion among both department.

After reviewing the talk, I did not find any link between technology infrastructure and educational goals and purposes but rather the goals and purposes as it relates to team building and departmental relationships. In my opinion, he gave great detail about the infrasture and how to manage it. There was more so the vision he expressed explicitly in opposition to the goals, which are very different. The vision is the overall outcome or a finished product, while a goal is much more confined to deadlines. His examples to manage infrastructure were very specific and detailed in regards to the major things from his perspective. For instance, when he had to identify important things dealing with IT and CIO in one minute, he mentioned very interesting points such as: Relationship, Identify Access, and Firewall issues. Both teams must be prepared to deal with any complication in a timely manner. I absolutely agree with Mr. Thomas in holding these three at the top of the priority list.

If all of this was done effectively, the insitution would be better off. He really expressed simplifying processes and not having too many ways to do things to prevent confusion and keeping departments on the same page. I don’t think that any other topics were necessary to be expanded on because of the time restriction. He explained very well the importance of what he listed and why. The only thing I would have recommended with his talk, is that he knew the differences between on and off campus interaction with technology. He seemed to not know the environmental or external factors in dealing with elearning. Lastly, he din’t know the organizational structure at the institution. He was vague in listing the committee that oversees technology with the CIO. He just knew there was a “group of people” that met regularly about the topic.

If you were Ryan Thomas supervisor and had to establish 2 budget  priorities for next year, based on his conversation, what would those priorities be and why?

I would establish 2 budget priorities on firewalls, and simplifying the process to manage the accounts. Obviously, installing the best firewall would prevent so many technical errors in the future and should be one of the  most highest priorities. Investing money in a solution to synchronize the process to manage accounts as long as its a simple solution will minimize or ellinate choas. These fundamentals should be practice more so than others to create a sufficient technological elearning program.