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.