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.