Activities and Accomplishments
All curricular offerings and Master's programs were approved by college/university
processes. North Dakota State University taught Family Systems (Fall
2000) to 24 students and will teach Financial Counseling (Summer 2001;
current enrollment is at 22). South Dakota State University taught Family
Economics (Spring 2001) to 22 students. Faculty demonstrated (June 2000)
courses offered during the 2000-2001 academic year. This was a very rich experience
for all, as several comments were offered to enhance the Internet delivery of
courses, and faculty who will teach subsequent semesters, gained insights and
ideas for development of subsequent courses. CFP® Board's Board of Examiners
registered the master's degree programs, as the Great Plains-IDEA on-line curriculum*
offered at Iowa State, Kansas State, Montana State, Nebraska, North Dakota State,
Oklahoma State and South Dakota State. The term of registration is for 3 years,
starting June 1, 2000, and running through May 31, 2003. The Board of Examiners
commented that curriculum appears very exciting - solid and traditional, yet
* Iowa State University: Masters. in Family & Consumer Sciences, Specialization in Family Financial Planning (an on-line curriculum offered by universities working together in the Great Plains-IDEA consortium)
* Kansas State University: M.S. In Family Studies and Human Services, Specialization in Family Financial Planning (an on-line curriculum offered by universities working together in the Great Plains-IDEA consortium)
* Montana State University: M.S. in Health and Human Development, Option in Family and Consumer Sciences, Emphasis in Family Financial Planning (an on-line curriculum offered by several universities working together in the Great Plains-IDEA consortium)
* South Dakota State University: M.S. in Family and Consumer Sciences (an on-line curriculum offered by several universities working together in the Great Plains-IDEA consortium)
* University of Nebraska-Lincoln: M.S. in Family & Consumer Sciences, Specialization
in Family Financial Planning (an on-line curriculum offered by several universities
working together in the Great Plains-IDEA consortium). The parenthetical language
is subject to change, but the CFP® Board does want our materials to mention
Great Plains-IDEA for clarity. The CFP® Board's Staff also has permission
from the Board of Examiners to register the master's programs from North Dakota
State University and Oklahoma State University at such time as they are [campus]
approved, subject, of course, to any additional paperwork necessary. [North
Dakota State is currently pursuing registration now that their Master's degree
has been approved; and Oklahoma State is currently in process of obtaining approval
for their Master's degree.] (The Board of Examiners would register those programs
through May 31, 2003, too, so that all registration renewal applications can
be coordinated, just as we coordinated our initial application package.)
Faculty decided to implement pairing of each instructor with another faculty
member to serve as a "course monitor" to assist in assessment of course projects,
to maintain standards and academic integrity of the program and to serve as
a support system for faculty as they teach each course. Two evaluation subcommittees
were formed, one addressed plans for obtaining intake data (as baseline for
comparisons with exit data at completion of the degree program) and one addressed
plans for Assessment and Evaluation of Learner Outcomes. A subcommittee was
appointed to address development of the Practica experiences (B. Enevoldsen,
D. Haynes, M. Fitzgerald and J. Grable). The faculty affirmed pre-requisites
for the Case Studies and Practica courses. The faculty decided to adjust target
enrollment to 8 students from each of the 5 institutions for 2000-2001, and
to monitor target enrollment each successive year. An extensive list of tasks
to be accomplished were formulated, and persons assigned to these tasks. Faculty
are using the listserv (firstname.lastname@example.org)
to discuss issues relative to the content and delivery of the master's degree
Planning meeting of faculty in family financial planning and their
college administrators were held June 17-18 and October 28-29, 1999, June 5-7,
2000 and Oct. 30-31, 2000, and May 21-22, 2001. Kansas State has secured a URL
for the web-site. Subsequent to registration of the family financial planning
masters degree with the CFP Board of Examiners, wording for a new brochure advertising
the program was approved by the CFP Board, including mention of Great Plains-IDEA
inter-institutional program. Several issues relative to lowering inter-institutional
barriers were discussed, and as a result, Joan Laughlin volunteered to work
with Graduate Dean Merlin Lawson (currently Chair of the Big-12 Graduate Deans
Council) as a facilitator among the graduate deans. Virginia Moxley shared the
vision for extending the project through potential funding from the Learning
Anytime Anyplace proposal submitted to FIPSE.
The administrators reviewed the sessions with the family financial planning
faculty. Generally, college administrators are very pleased with the ownership
felt by the faculty for the program, and share perceptions that the program
is well launched, but will need continuing support and encouragement from campus
administrators. The faculty should hear from Jan Poley at the next session about
emerging technologies, and keeping course development flexible to adapt to alternate
delivery methods. We began to develop a list of issues to present to the Graduate
Deans for their input at the next session.
The administrators discussed next directions. Four characteristics are thought to be important for future initiatives: less than a critical mass of faculty at each institution; sustaining enrollment generated through a degree or certificate program; well defined, unmet needs; and employment opportunities for persons who complete the program. Three topics are potential for development: Gerontology (M. Winter and G. Sanders, task force leaders); Family and Consumer Science Education (L. Nichols and V. Clark, task force leaders); and Adolescent Development. Names of persons to serve on the FCS Education task force were generated, a needs assessment planned, and potential strategies for addressing the issues suggested. One additional idea, placed on hold, was for a degree/certificate in family policy. One related issue was the interest of the University of Alabama in joining the family financial planning initiative. The faculty had discussed the issue, and decided that further division of courses would affect individual campus' commitment to Graduate Deans that students would complete 12 hours at the degree-awarding institution. The administration supported this decision, adding that institutions seeking to join an initiative should be part of the start-up efforts, rather than after-the-fact. This principle will be used for future initiatives.
In Attendance (October 30, 1999)- Iowa State University: John Mayfield, Associate
Dean, Graduate College. Kansas State University: Ron Trewyn, Dean of Graduate
School; Jim Guikema, Associate Dean of Graduate School; David Stewart, Assistant
Dean of Continuing Studies; Sue Maes, Director of Continuing Studies; John Murray,
Interim Associate Vice Provost for Research. University of Nebraska: Merlin
Lawson, Dean of Graduate Studies; T. Newell Decker, Associate Dean, Graduate
Studies; Arnold Bateman, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Extended Education; Randy
Leach, Director Business Operations, Division of Continuing Studies. North Dakota
State University: William Slanger, Interim Graduate Dean. Oklahoma State University:
Wayne Powell, Dean Graduate College; Jim Hromas, Dean University Extension.
South Dakota State University: David Hildebrand, Dean Graduate School. Texas
Tech University: Ronald Anderson, Senior Associate Dean Graduate School; Suzanne
Logan, Associate Vice Provost Extended Learning.
The assembled group discussed six factors: (1) Academic integrity of the program;
(2) Revenues; (3) Credentials of faculty; (4) Measures of productivity; (5)
Facilitating student access; and (6) Faculty rewards. Consensus of the assembly
was that the program must be supported as proposed as an inter-institutional
program offered by several institutions. This proposal is much more futuristic
than attempting to make it fit the current graduate model. Critical to this
process will be each institution having the program approved as an inter-institutional,
collaborative program by their respective levels of approval mandated by campus
policies. Each campus would like to have a listing of current faculty and their
credentials, and a statement that successor faculty will have similar credentials.
The Graduate Deans asked for documentation of the history of the Great Plains
Deans effort and the development of this program by the faculty. Joan Laughlin
drafted this document (attached) for use by Graduate Deans in the campus approval
process. Plans were to meet, October 2000 to assess progress, problems and barriers.
Graduate Deans, In attendance, Oct. 31, 2000: Iowa State University: John Mayfield, Associate Dean, Graduate College; Kansas State University: Jim Guikema, Associate Dean of Graduate School; University of Nebraska: Merlin Lawson, Dean of Graduate Studies; T. Newell Decker, Associate Dean, Graduate Studies; North Dakota State University, Velmer Burton, Graduate Dean; Oklahoma State University: Jack Vitek
Associate Vice President; South Dakota State University: David Hildebrand,
Dean Graduate School; Michigan State University: Karen Klomparens, Graduate
Dean; Texas Tech University: Allan Headley, Associate Dean, Graduate School
The Graduate Deans reported back on decisions as well as issues they wished to see addressed. The decisions included:
Facilitating student application to multiple universities: Use Visiting Student status or Prompt Admit; Waive the application fee; Have common form across all institutions; and
Have campus coordinator supply information on protected web site.
Transcript building and composite GPAs: a registrar's issue, Need to show courses as transfer courses, Students might sign-off on blanket transcript request so registrars can transfer credits, Issue - transfer of C grades, may not necessarily count towards degree
Admitted, but not Enrolled Students: 0 credit enrollment (SDSU) or dummy enrollment
-eligible for financial aid; -health insurance; -library card
Tuition Waivers, reduced tuition for employees - can't be granted to other institutions
Comprehensive Exams: Chair of committee from home campus; members of committee from alliance campuses
GRE: use most restrictive policy , but ask faculty to look at more flexibility
Issues that Graduate Deans asked to be addressed include:
Minimizing the time between application and acceptance: student and department delays are issue; Web Site: How to be admitted, How to register, Links to individual campuses,
Needs campus calendars for last day to add; last day to drop, etc.; Library Access/Cards
essential for home campus; recommend access to all libraries of the consortium - Student access and Faculty access; Filing Program of Studies: Should not be a problem for ffp program - its an individual campus issue; Time-limit to degree: need recommendation from faculty because of immediacy of content
A faculty development LearnShop was held July 19-23, 1999 at the University
of Nebraska. The LearnShop was designed on objectives of 1) facilitating inter-institutional
faculty cooperation through 2) implementing effective learner-centered instructional
design while 3) learning to use courseware for web-based instruction. Twenty-four
faculty from six institutions (Iowa State University, Kansas State University,
University of Nebraska, Oklahoma State University, South Dakota State University
and Texas Tech University) participated in the week-long workshop. LearnShop
"enthusiasm" ratings [on a scale of 1 - 10, where 1 = boring and 10 = exciting]
increased over the course of the week; 7.29, 7.81, 8.33, 8.92, 9.04 on Monday,
Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, respectively.
Learners offered meaningful comments about their learning. Among the comments relative to the objective of learner-centered instructional design were these verbatim quotes:
"Thinking/focusing on learner centered vs. teacher centered instruction was what I gained.."
"There are a lot of opportunities to assist our student learning that are not being used. This was a good overview of what can be done."
"Teacher-centered, content-centered, and learner-centered methods of instruction."
"I appreciated the instructional design model."
"I learned the importance of structuring the course before starting."
"The worksheet 1 on designing learning activities was a highlight."
"Use the web environment for interaction not reading papers!"
"I learned the importance of hands-on activity as part of the learning process."
"I learned to first take the 'students' perspective."
"Getting hands-on from the students' perspective - before getting into the 'how-tos' of the setup - was enlightening."
Learners appreciated the opportunities to work with others, and expressed the willingness to share and learn from each other in these ways:
"We enjoyed working with peers! God's grace."
"Strengths are faculty working together, could be the beginning of teams forming."
"Sharing ideas with others - seeing what others did was great."
"Lots of talented/creative people attended this workshop."
"Learned a lot from other people's presentations. Got a clearer understanding of the differences among WebCT, CourseInfo and LearningSpace."
"Everyone is helping everyone."
At the conclusion of the week, participants were asked to rate (on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 = high) several factors during the week. These included:
cooperation and interaction with fellow team members ......................... = 4.92
support from the management team and support personnel.................... = 4.50
confidence in the effectiveness of the software....................................... = 3.93
confidence in the effectiveness of the hardware...................................... = 3.80
confidence to proceed with development of a course............................. = 4.69.
These ratings are indicative of some frustrations participants experienced during the LearnShop (a thunderstorm took out electricity on campus, and the server went down!) and that they need more opportunities with software and hardware to become completely comfortable in these new environments. Several offered concluding comments:
"A great workshop."
"Great presentations. Really enjoyed evening speaker re: copyrights."
"Thank you for making this workshop possible for us. It was great!"
Although the week was very labor intensive for the LearnShop instructors, for
these 24 learners, it was a difference maker.
4. Dissemination of Project Outcomes.
Poley, J., & Weber, M.J. (2001, April). Fostering collaboration and cooperation:
Great Plains Inter-institutional Distance Education Alliance. International
Council on Distance Education. Dusseldorf, Germany.
Weber, M..J. (2001, March). Great Plains Inter-institutional Distance Education Alliance: Family Financial Planning program. American Distance Education Council. Tampa, FL
Maes, S., & Moxley, V. (2001, April) Building and sustaining strategic
alliances for distance education programming. University Continuing Education
Association, Philadelphia, PA.
Hilderbrand, D., & Moxley, V. (2001, April). A national model for making
a multi-institutional (distance education) degree program work academically
and administratively. Midwestern Association of Graduate Schools, St.
Enevoldsen, B., Cramer, S., Stenberg Nichols, L. & Farris, J. ( 2001,
April). The "Great IDEA:" Inter-institutional Internet-based Master's program.
Collaboration for the Advancement of College Teaching and Learning.
Poley, J., Laughlin, J. & Sutphin, D. (2000). Learning Oriented Policies in a Bandwidth Crazy World. Educause's National Learning Infrastructure Initiative, New Orleans, LA, Jan. 20, 2000.
Haynes, D. (2000)."Sharing Ideas:
Inter-institutional Masters Degree in Family Financial Planning." Western
Regional Home Management and Family Economics Educators, Denver, CO, October
Moxley, V., Laughlin, J, Haynes,
D. & Robertson, L. (2000). Technology based inter-institutional masters
and post baccalaureate family financial planning certificate programs: development
and implementation issues. American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences,
Chicago IL, June 27, 2000.
Cramer, S.L., Enevoldsen, B.L.,
Combs, E.R., Farris, J., Fitzgerald, M., Grable, J., Hira, T., Laughlin, J.,
Moxley, V., Stenberg-Nichols, L., Winter, M.,& Sanders G. (2000) Emerging
Technology: The challenges of inter-institutional distance education collaboration
and course development, American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences,
Chicago IL, June 26, 2000.
Cramer, S., Combs, E.R., Enevoldsen,
B., Farris, J., Fitzgerald, M., Grable, J., Hopkins, J., Laughlin, J., &
Sanders, G. (2000). An inter-institutional distance education masters program
in family financial planning: Application of technology to course development
and delivery, Proceedings of the Eastern region Family Economics and Resource
Management Association, Champaign, IL. February 17-19, 2000.
Cramer, S., Laughlin, J., Enevoldsen,
E., Farris, J., Jones, J., & Cantrell, J. (1999). "An Inter-institutional
Masters Program in Financial Planning," Association for Financial Counseling
and Planning Education (AFPCE), Practitioner's Forum, " Scottsdale, November
Craig, Karen; Enevoldsen, Bernadine; Cramer, Sheran; Laughlin, Joan; Jones, Joyce; Mason, Jerry; Farris, Judy; and Cantrell, Joyce. (1999). Inter-institutional collaboration: Distance education M.S. in family financial planning. Annual Meeting American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences, Seattle, WA. June 27, 1999.
Clark, V.L., Sanders, G.F. &
Stammen, R.M. (1999). Building a User Friendly Environment: The Challenge of
Technology in Higher Education. Kappa Omicron Nu Forum, 11(1), 43-54.
Laughlin, J. (1999). Model for
Distance Learning using Advanced Information Infrastructures. Kappa Omicron
Nu Forum, 11 (1), 69-78. www.kon.org/forum/laughlin.html
Moxley, V. (1999). Advanced Information
Infrastructures: The Human Interface. Kappa Omicron Nu Forum, 11 (1),
Draper, D.C, Laughlin, J., Stammen,
R.M. & Sanders, G.F. (1999). Capacity Building for Distance Education. Journal
of Family and Consumer Sciences. 91 (3), 103-107.
5. Leveraging of Resources
The following grant proposals were
Great Plains-IDEA. The enhancement
of teaching and learning: Sharing the expertise of distance education pioneers.
USDA Higher Education Challenge Grant, Laurie Stenberg Nichols, P.I. Oct. 2000-Sept.
2003, $250,000 (in review).
Great Plains-IDEA. Assessing an
inter-institutional masters program in family financial planning. ADEC Agricultural
Telecommunications Pre-Proposal, Lona J. Robertson, P.I.. 2000-01. $75,000 (not
selected for full proposal).
Great Plains-IDEA. A national model
for inter-institutional post-baccalaureate distance education programs. FIPSE
Learning Anytime Anywhere Partnerships. Virginia Moxley, P.I. October 2000-September
2003. Funded for $1,073,779.
Great Plains-IDEA. Inter-Institutional
Postbaccalaureate Program in Family Financial Management
FIPSE Comprehensive pre-proposal
(not selected for full proposal). Virginia Moxley, P.I. 2000-2002, $608,622
Great Plains-IDEA. Building a Sustainable
Communications Network. ADEC Agricultural Telecommunications Pre-Proposal. S.
Maes, P.I., 2001-02. (not selected for full proposal).
Great Plains-IDEA. Beyond Courses:
Adding Value to a Distance Education Graduate Program. ADEC Agricultural Telecommunications
Pre-Proposal. V. Moxley, P.I., 2001-02. (selected for full proposal).
Mary Winter attended the Rural Risk Management Initiative hearings in Kansas City, September, 2000 and submitted written testimony. Great Plains-IDEA will continue to monitor progress with the expectation that we will prepare and submit a proposal to facilitate delivery of financial management programming to extension educators who are working with farm families in financial crisis. Key points included: (1) The focus of educational programming efforts developed need to be the family, not just the producer. Family income and farm income (and corresponding risks) are an integral whole, as are family and farm production. In most farm families, decision-making is a family affair, with couples weighing the issues to reach agreement. (2). We should not shy away from gathering data about improvement in farming income and in the quality of life for farm families. (3) There seemed to be consensus among those offering testimony that regional administration of the funds would be best. Such administration should be flexible enough to accommodate multi-state partnerships across regions as well as within designated regions.