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.