As a consultant for the creation of a new eLearning program, based on everything I have learned, I view the eLearning program like a building.  There have to be elements of foundation, construction, use and functionality, continual updating modifications and maintenance.  With these four aspects in mind, I have devised the following list in order of priority:

1.  Vision: What are the main goals and objectives of the eLearning program? The institution must determine upfront what the purpose and goals of the eLearning program will be.  If there is no established vision, the program will have no direction.  In order to implement an effective eLearning program, the institution has to identify exactly what it wants to accomplish. Only then can any sort of plan or design be developed.  The vision is the fundamental cornerstone on which the program will be built.

2.  SOP:  Who will be responsible for developing, implementing and maintain the eLearning Strategic Operational Plan (SOP)? Before anything else can happen, the institution must devise an SOP in order to know exactly how the eLearning program will work. The strategic plan will determine how the program is develop, resources that will be needed, who will be responsible for different aspects of the program.  The plan will serve as the guide book for the program once it is live.  The SOP may also be adjusted as times change to accommodate users based on needs assessments.  Without a strong viable strategic plan, there may be a great deal of confusion as every element tries to determine how to resolve issues and what exactly needs to be done.  The SOP can prevent or at least minimize waste of valuable resources.

Initially, I had listed funding before design and development. Then I switched it.  But there is an inherently logical correlation between Design, Development and Funding. One cannot happen without the others.  I need to know what the design and development will be in order to determine what resources I need, which will then determine how much funding will be required.  However, if I have no baseline budget, I cannot make definitive decision on which design to choose or how extensively the program can be developed.  I might use other institutional models to make initial determination, but ultimately, these three elements have to be considered simultaneously.

3. Design: What design format will be used for this program? The design can be modeled after an existing eLearning program at another institution. Design engineering can be kept in-house through an IT or program engineering department to keep costs minimal.  On the other hand, it can be outsourced depending on financial limits and if the institution has no internal department to support this task.  The most important factor in design is to determine demographics of the institution’s user population.  The program design will have to focus on current cultural and social trends to respond to user needs that the program will serve. One example, if the program will extend worldwide, then design framework should include the option of presenting tech support in multiple languages.

4. Development: Who will develop the program? This aspect ties in directly with funding but also includes questions of responsibility and ownership of program features.  Will the program be developed as a whole by a single entity, which may be difficult or cost and time prohibitive depending on how expansive the design is. Or, will the development occur as a piecemeal, in stages, by various entities then compiled? This might be a less daunting method, depending on the dimensions of the design, but there may be more glitches due to less unified standard of procedures and more independent creative autonomy.

5. Funding: How will funding be managed and allocated? For eLearning programs, the budget must include initial fees and long term financial support.  The costs analysis must include all aspects of budgeting such as design and development costs, initial fees for infrastructure, ROI for the program (return on investment), continuous technology support costs, payroll (instructors and administrative staff), implementation and evaluation expenses.

6. Quality Assurance:  Who will ensure quality in the program specific to every element, and how will quality be measured?  Meeting industry accreditation standards is the best way to verify quality, but the institution will have to take measures during all phases of program creation and implementation to ensure that there is an established set of quality standards and that it is being followed.  Such measures can also promote a positive reputation which can in turn make or break the program.  Ultimately, the quality of the program will determine how marketable it will be and therefore directly impact its success rate.

7. Infrastructure and Tech Support:  All users have to be provided training on using the program and course specific features.  However, there have to be support measures in place beyond the initial implementation of the program.  As the program grows and technology changes, update modifications are made, and user demographics change, tech support has to be available every step of the way.  If technology support is not in place, several issues can present.  For example, courses within the program may not be successful or users may become frustrated and disgruntled which can damage the reputation of the program and institution.

8. Program Evaluation and Assessment: How will the program be evaluated and how will the assessments be used? The institution will have to decide how to evaluate the various elements of the program.  Each course should conduct its own assessments through surveys and questionnaires.  By doing such the program can determine which courses are worth keeping and which ones should be altered or eliminated.  Further, evaluation of instructors, and overall programs should be conducted as well.

9. Administrative Alignment: How will program be presented to administration? Administrative staff has to be trained in regards to specific aspects of the program.  For example, where and how the program description is listed on the institution’s website and catalogue are implemented by administration. The evaluation of student/user credentials will be determined by administration, most likely admission department.  Staff also needs to route live inquiries regarding the program to the correct department depending on the question.

10. Implementation: Once the program is designed, developed, and funded, how will the program be implemented? The institution has to decide on how the course will go live to include scheduling details, instructor and course line-up, how user qualifications will be determined.  Implementation will also include whom the program is available to and what courses will be required to complete the program.

As I read through “Rethinking Learner Support: the challenge of collaborative online learning” by Mary Thorpe at The Open University, Institute of Educational Technology, UK from 2002, I consider several interesting aspects in terms of resource support. 

 I was most amused by the use of the word “tutor” when referring to the course facilitator.  I assumed that “tutor” was intended as a designation for whoever managed a specific course in ODL.  Thorpe did not clarify or even mention the qualifications of the “tutor”.  I found it interesting because later in the article when describing the changes in online learning, she goes on to differentiate between instructor, facilitator and tutor.  This variation in semantics may not seem significant, but in fact, it is very reflective of the academic support students receive from the course moderator.  In other words, there are inherently different meanings of the function of each.  In one of my previous courses, we had discussed why e-learning courses have or should have facilitators as opposed to instructors, though both are qualified professors/members of the faculty.  Some of my classmates suggested that the terms are synonymous.  I disagree because the level of support provided by each is not the same.  A facilitator allows for more peer interactive learning and less direction from the qualified expert where the academic support is more of guidance than instruction.  With a facilitator, there is much more room for independent student discovery and knowledge acquisition through course materials and peer collaboration and exchange.  While courses with facilitators allow focus on learning in a more Socratic environment, e-learning with an instructor signifies a different type of course, implying a more didactic method with significant amounts of direct instruction issued by the instructor.  To me, this means academic support is more structured and less specific to the needs of each student.  Knowledge acquisition, therefore, depends more heavily on the relationship of the student-to-instructor, rather than peer and whole class group interaction.  I believe this is as true today as it was when this article was written based on the change in terminology over the last several years. For example, in courses where I have used modalities such as Blackboard or e-Luminate live, I find instructors guide the pace and amount of learning and how the learning happens.  In a recent course, I used Scholar (a program designed for predominantly peer-collaborative interactions) as the primary platform.  I found there was much more peer collaborative learning with the emphasis on social cognitive theory.  It also required less support from the facilitator and outside academic sources as each member of the class was able to contribute his/her expertise to form the learning.  The facilitator, Dr. Cope, College of Education at UIUC, provided us with the basic objectives of the class.  Then, as a class we were able to evaluate provided course materials, external sources, and each other’s work to engage in meaningful learning.  Collectively, we determined definitions, understandings, and application of subject-matter text, literature, and supplemental materials such as websites, journal articles, and outside resources.  For this particular class, “learning” developed from peer interactions.  The facilitator simply offered support when specifically requested.  There was no pacing and the only required due date for assignments was by the end of term, again focusing on quality of learning as opposed to structured time sensitive assignments. 

One of the issues the article brings up is the cultural sensitivity to ODL populations.  As an adult learner, with a job and family, the on-line learning modality is critical for continuing education.  Along with that is the need for facilitators who recognize the cultural mentality of an adult distance population.  The focus of academics and success in the program should be on learning, be it collaborative, interactive, or through textual materials.  Because e-learning is expansive in physical location, as well as variety of social cultures, programs now have to consider how much learning should be based on time sensitive structure.  Again, for example, Scholar follows the e-learning foundation Thorpe talks about.  “Learners and tutor work together intensively on personal meaning construction in which learners seek to integrate their own experience with resources provided by the course team or teaching institution.” (Thorpe 2002).  I learned more through Scholar because I was able to engage with and apply  the materials and peer-interactions posted on discussion board at my own pace in a way most relevant to me.  It didn’t matter if it was in the first 2 weeks of class or if took me a little longer.  The facilitator emailed students every week as a courtesy check-in to offer support and answer questions.  I found this to be highly effective.  This left me plenty of room for learning and comprehension.  I went back time and again to review posts by classmates and pose questions to them. I had plenty of time to absorb, reflect, and review material presented  by my peers and in the synchronous sessions (which were recorded if need for future reference).  The stress about time constraints and grades was eliminated because my focus was on increasing/advancing my knowledge base, not just doing things to have them done by a certain time.  My professor noted that ultimately, the final grade reflected the learning which happened because I was able to acquire and demonstrate the knowledge the course provided.

As an adviser for a New Online Program Committee at a newly created private university, I would highly recommend beginning with a centralized option for the management of education technology.  The categorization of different aspects of educational management will depend on the number of actual students enrolled, faculty members, courses offered, and support staff available.  Assuming there is only one physical campus location as the university is in its youngest stage, I might suggest elements of the model Bates described regarding Academic Technologies for Learning at the University of Alberta (182) which offers an all encompassing technology support structure.  Also, the university is not established enough for bureaucracy and divisional hierarchy to act as forces against each other, although the primary goal of each is fundamentally the same, to offer sound education and conduct excellent research.  Established universities face the burdensome task of implementing technological change as well as changing perceptions and attitudes towards technological renovations. Because this is a new university, the “tone” for technology can be set as a positive one right from the start allowing for a more successful centralized structure where there is a technology “hub”.  Also, I would also inquiry about budget plans the university is working with before I recommend a final model.  Because it is a private university, funding might be less of an immediate concern than at a public university.  The more important goal at first might be establishing a reputation for offering superb quality technology based education.  There maybe ways to focus on implementing the strongest educational technology model which will be more expensive on the front end but less costly in the long run.  Including elements of a  decentralized model, where faculty at the college level retain their autonomy and creativity, might attract greater academic talent.  Ultimately, I would need to identify what are the primary goals objectives, and limitations of a young university. Most likely, I would recommend a heavily centralized model with the most attractive components of a decentralized structure.

Funding can certainly be complicated for technology in public schools. However, in places such as my school district (grade 9-12), students can definitely benefit from an on-line initiative.  This is a district where drop-out and truancy rates are high and learning rates are low predominantly because of external circumstances such as children skipping school to stay home and babysit for their siblings because both parents must work, or where students themselves must work because of poverty.  If these students could access on-line courses from their homes or remote locations, they might at least be able to continue their learning. Because government funding of public schools is already limited, one way the district can allocate funding for online education is by re-distributing resources to reduce face-to-face classes with the highest truancy rate.  Additionally, another source of funding for this type of program might be a partnership between the district and college education programs, charitable and non-profit organizations and corporations with a designated philanthropic ideal, the latter being the most lucrative.  The corporations would greatly benefit in that they would be developing a talent pool from which they could select potential future employees. This would be sort of a scholarship program on a grand scale, intended for the school or district rather than for individual students.  Because the future of economics and business lies in technology and communications, I would present this option as more than just viable, in fact, most desirable option because students would be able to learn in a modality most parallel to the real world.  They will be even better prepared to enter the workforce before they necessarily complete college which many of them may not even have the opportunity for. The ROI for the corporation will be exponential as more and more students use the on-line courses, especially if the school can demonstrated a reduced truancy rate.  In addition, there would be an underlined marketing schema for the company and its products.

The interview/talk with Ryan Thomas was very informative and interesting.  I agree with him a great deal about the importance of managing technology especially;y for distance learners who can not just walk over to the campus help desk to resolve technology issues. Special circumstances have to be considered when dealing with distance education because there may also be the issue of time difference.  If UIUC is to keep up with advances in on-line learning, it has to provide support to all its students with whatever issues they face.  Therefore, knowing how to get help in case of emergencies (such as system shutdowns) is crucial.  If an entire program is wholly on-line, then there have to be measures in place in case of system failures.  Mr. Thomas is right that there can be technology issues at any time and the best way to be prepared is to know how to access your resources. I am very impressed by his awareness and suggestion that colleges have specific program management plans in place because programs are specific to the college/university.  I also hadn’t given much thought to firewall issues. He is definitely right on target that firewalls and identity access have to be managed very carefully because they are security features.   He acknowledged that k-12 programs have these issues more than others but he didn’t really explain why. Maybe he didn’t know why. In any case, if I was Mr. Thomas’s supervisor and had to allocate budgeting for two priorities based on this conversation, it would be to ensure resources to support on-line course infrastructure and availability of resources to resolve identity access management issues so students would not have difficulty getting on-line in their designated programs.  As a student, I would be extremely discouraged and frustrated if I tried to access my moodle or cites account and had issues all the time.  Such issues reflect badly on the program and the university.

So, as we progress in an e-learning environment, there are many issues that come to mind in regards to e-learning management.  I hadn’t before considered all the facets that comprise e-learning.  Because I never had to think about the different parts of e-learning and how everything comes together, I also never considered all the possible “glitches”  and problems that have to be addressed. Not to mention, I hadn’t realized the level of quality that needs to be established and maintained specific to e-learning classes and to e-learning overall.  I looked at the website for several universities, the on-line courses they offer, their understanding of what constitutes e-learning and how they manage their e-learning systems.  Not only are the criteria for e-learning course composition different from school to school, but the measure of quality is not exacted by regulated standards. The biggest questions that come to mind are: How do I know which e-learning programs are the best choice when selecting college courses?  How do I measure if my investment is worth the value?  Should the quality of learning be assessed by the reputation of the University or the e-learning program? For example, is my Master’s degree from UIUC on-line HRD program really and truly the same as the face-to-face program simply because both must adhere to certain reputable standards of UIUC? Or, how do I know that my education will be more valuable/knowledge acquisition be more effective if I go to UIUC rather than an on-line school which is less noted, such as American Intercontinental University?  Ultimately, what makes “e-learning” definitively quality learning and what role does e-learning management play in determining which programs are better than others and why?

As I have been reading through both Bates and Moser, I am intrigued by the way both authors view the adoption of support for faculty in regards to technology and online learning.  I definitely agree with Bates on the urgency of providing adequate and continual training and support for faculty.  Though Bates looks at several methods by different institutions, the most effective method seems not necessarily based on monetary incentive but rather time based.  The value of time is also something Moser addressed in his article as being of utmost importance to faculty.  Since many professors are focused on research, teaching (face-to-face or on-line) can be a cumbersome and exhausting addition to their work load.  One might think that any technology that can ease this burden would be welcomed.  But neither Bates, nor Moser find this to be the case. In fact, both find a noticeable amount of resistance and perhaps even a little resentment by the faculty.  Therefore, it is more imperative than ever before that institutions ensure not only excellence in the quality of training and support but also in the quantity and validity of the type of training.  In order to reduce negative emotions, the organizational should also consider how useful the training and support is by frequent assessments through surveys or other modalities.  Lack of understanding of required and needed support and training can mar the harmony between faculty and administration by minimizing the faculty’s confidence in technology based learning.  Show them how to use the technology and how to self-support. Show them how to make it work when they have small issues so they don’t have to wait for a response from another individual in regards to trouble shooting when necessary.  These little steps can demonstrate the effectiveness in adequate training.  But the on-going support piece has to be there also.  If faculty is going to be required to embrace technological advances, then there has to be a positive support team who can assist, evaluate and correct complex issues when they arise. No one can be expected to understand technology based teaching and learning without the right training and a strong support structure.  What good are the advances in technology if no one is willing to learn and implement it. But in order to learn and implement it, of course there have to be the right tools for the job but also a strong training program.  In other words, its not just important to know what you need to make technology work, but you need to know how to use it to make it work for you.  And, all this has to be done within the framework of established funding limitations.  Guidelines for training/support have to be viewed and established with overall institutional educational goals in mind.  I believe both Bates and Moser underline this in their depiction of faculty training and support models.

Today I have been thinking very much about the e-Learning process and how it translates to real world business environments. During all my graduate class work so far, I assumed most of what I have been learning correlates directly to the way business and companies in general operate. I think everything I’ve understood up to now has been intriguing as well as innovative. Now, chapter 3 has complicated my understanding quite a bit.  Bates presents the advantages and disadvantages of two possible models of managing e-learning.  First, the Lone Ranger model allows professors to maintain their independent creativity and autonomy in teaching while relying on graduate students for technological expertise.  On the other hand, project management, a rather different approach, requires that faculty work as a team to develop common “core” in projects. There are clear advantages and disadvantages to both. Yet, I find it difficult to chose which would better serve a university’s goals. I hope that I am able to devise or discover a program which combines the best of both.   While I am reading the chapters of the book, various posted resources, case studies and other links, I “see” the practical and pragmatic application of both methods.  If project management, which can be very expensive because it functions as a structured team requiring technology and subject matter experts, allowed room for individual teaching independence as allocated by the Lone Ranger model, then professors might be more inclined to agree to a knowledge repository based model.  A knowledge repository based model would encompass the structure of project management where the professors become the “experts” on technological facets as well as subject matter.  By using the system to generate and fine tune knowledge in teaching, the university could develop a significant KM (knowledge management) repository.  Every item in the repository can be cited/copyrighted which would then be accessible to all other members of the project management team.  The only conflict might be the determination of communal goals as opposed to individual discoveries and objectives.  Not sure yet how to resolve that but may find an answer with further research.

So here I am, trying to decide between vision and planning. I don’t think one can be valued more than another because they are undeniably intertwined.  Strategic planning and institutional visions are equally fundamental in developing a sound e-learning program. Both also have limitations depending on the type of institution being discussed. No program can be designed, developed and implemented without either of these elements.  Without vision, there would be no model to determine in which direction to develop e-learning.  Without planning, no vision can be effectively executed into action.  Bates seems to emphasize vision as a more important foundation, because strategic planning has its disadvantages.  Vision clearly forms the program in terms of structure and goals/objectives.  It also serves as a “benchmark” for assessing the success of a program.  Therefore, it can be recognized as the core of any e-learning model.  But, though strategic planning may have its limitations in university programs because it must keep up with constants changes and the question of autonomy in teaching, planning offers a support to the vision, which is invaluable.

Yes, institutions which have a top-down power structure such as the military and private businesses can implement strategic planning easily.  However, if a university wish to keep pace with changing social environment (technology and otherwise), it must  use strategic planning to organize departments, distribute functions, and allocate resources.  Bates might be right that in organizations like universities, strategic planning may work better at the department level. But that is not to say the entire university as an institution can’t have a strategic plan.  This plan can be the foundation for departmental planning features.  Even if professors, who are considered subject-matter experts in their fields, wish to retain creative autonomy in teaching while focusing on their research, departments can still espouse the fundamentals of university wide standards and follow a strategic plan. Personally, I think both, vision and strategic planning, can be balanced to accommodate clients/students and facilitate optimum-learning.

E-learning, in my opinion, is a constantly advancing, technologically based learning modality which surpasses traditional classroom learning because of its accessibility and varied course options. Learning is comprised of knowledge sharing amongst peers, students, teachers, and even communities.  The impact of learning about knowledge management inherently contains real world application, concerns, and issues. Because e-learning can reach beyond local establishments, it provides a more diverse forum to harness from a much greater talent pool.  Sharing ideas, challenges and solutions can come from many places in many forms.  E-learning is also more capable of infiltrating across various fields of subject matter.  For example, issues that arise in the field of HR in regards to personnel training and management can be addressed by theories and solutions from the perspective of the school of management and the school of education.  As a student, I like the idea that my classmates may have different perspectives because they come from different fields, different parts of the world, and different schools of thought.  We are always in different physical locations so we are influenced by different environments.  We can each contribute extensively varied information and/or knowledge to resolve concerns that impact an organization which may or may not be located in different communities.  This kind of learning is much closer to real world situations where organizations must strategically incorporate understanding of different people from different fields to achieve a common goal.