"I'm tired of listening to all the reasons that we can't get past the barriers to use these technologies for education. What if we appointed a committee to sit down and describe what this would look like in the IDEAL sense?" E. G. Sander, chair, ADEC Board of Directors 1996 -1998
Reflections on Ideal2 - H. Dean Sutphin, committee
chair Cornell University
During ADEC's tenth anniversary year, we have established a new threshold for
implementing distance learning. IDEAL2, by building on basic principles, recommendations,
and tools developed in IDEAL1, has moved from laying the groundwork to engaging
a broad community in implementation. We have sought to listen, encourage, and
promote distance learning within institutions and across universities. While
the focus has been primarily domestic, we have developed international collaboration
that will provide useful information to explore an expanded role for ADEC on
a global scale.
Implementation strategies and material to promote collaboration across the consortium
were disseminated widely to engage the higher education system. Presentations
on IDEAL2 at the Wisconsin distance learning conference, NASULGC, EDUCAUSE,
and the International Council for Distance Learning are a few examples. We have
also engaged in discussions with virtual universities and international consortia
on how we might work together. Tom Fretz, chair of theADEC board, and Janet
Poley, president/CEO of ADEC, often represented ADEC and the work of IDEAL2
at key events. As chair of IDEAL2, I was privileged to make presentations and
carry the message of implementation.
We reviewed the ADEC web site to ensure a foundation for implementing distance
learning and how it could assist us in carrying out the charge to IDEAL2. Product
updates on the web site included a checklist, guiding principles, the learning
center study, turf study, transfer credit, and inventory of distance learning
to reflect the latest information. Just click on IDEAL on the well-traveled
ADEC web page for the most current information. The ADEC webmaster will continue
to keep this section updated.
An IDEAL2 brochure was developed to highlight recommendations, best practices,
checklists, and strategies for eliminating turf barriers for implementing distance
learning. This product was designed for campus distance learning committees
and faculty. It was disseminated widely at national and regional meetings along
with direct mailing to ADEC institutions. (See appendix 1). David Watkins, director
of Cornell University Media and Technology Services, provided leadership for
this important product.
Learning centers at the respective ADEC institutions were reviewed and recommendations
formulated on how these centers can work within the consortium to promote distance
learning across the system. There is potential to formalize a network of learning
center directors. This idea will be pursued within ADEC. Scott Fedale deserves
credit for leading this important analysis. Finally, this publication primarily
highlights results of a national videoconference that provided a highly interactive
town meeting as part of the tenth-anniversary celebration, linking more than
seventy universities. Led by Sam Smith, president of Washington
State University, case examples of successful implementation were spotlighted
along with key presentations by Brian Hawkins, president of EDUCAUSE, and Carol
Twigg, executive director, Center for Academic Transformation, Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute. A live panel discussion and call-in questions provided a quality
forum on implementing distance learning. Valorie McAlpin, associate dean at
the University of Maryland College Park, chaired the planning committee for
this videoconference. She and Scott Fedale, along with the WSU Information Department
for the College of Agriculture and Home Economics staff, deserve credit for
assembling the key program components and delivering the broadcast. The entire
ADEC team pulled together to make the effort a huge success.
Recently, the Kellogg Commission issued a report on the engaged university that
has been received very favorably in higher education. The work of IDEAL2 is
presented as the engaged consortium, engaged in implementing distance learning
across a community of universities to enrich the student experience and the
experience of our faculty in terms of quality, access, relevance, and efficiency.
To that end, we have targeted key audiences such as university presidents, provosts,
chief information officers, information technologists, faculty, and students.
Implementation should not be measured as a one-time event or the exclusive work
of IDEAL2 during 1999 2000 but rather as a continuous process where all our
institutions engage and collaborate. While we have accomplished much, many challenges
remain for the future.
As chair of IDEAL2, I wish to sincerely thank each member of IDEAL2. There were many conference calls, planning activities, and work that could not have been carried out without a highly dedicated team. In addition, the ADEC Board of Directors and, in particular, board chair Tom Fretz and ADEC president/ CEO Janet Poley and her staff were extremely supportive and helpful in carrying out the committee activities. It has been a pleasure to work with such a highly competent and dedicated committee.
"Our challenge is to determine infrastructure and opportunities in distance learning that we can support across the higher education system. This also includes distributed learning in on-campus instruction." H. Dean Sutphin, associate dean, Cornell University
The IDEAL Committees and the National IDEAL Videoconference
On June 13, 1996, the ADEC Board of Directors passed the following resolution:
"Be it resolved that ADEC leadership will promote multi-institutional collaboration and develop a climate to better define interconnected educational business practices and procedures. The Board of Directors challenges ourselves and our colleagues within the consortium to draw upon our collective resources more efficiently through inter-institutional, multi-institutional initiatives and other collaborative efforts. We resolve to better respond to the needs and priorities of our clientele as we use advanced communication technologies together. We further resolve to use ADEC financial resources to support programs consistent with interconnection, interoperability, and collaboration."
The ADEC IDEAL1 Committee, headed by Rosemary Haggett, associate provost for
academic programs, West Virginia University, made the following recommendations
for ADEC and higher education to:
When the ADEC board reviewed the work of IDEAL1, we thought that the recommendations and developments from this group needed broader exposure. We decided that the IDEAL project should continue into a second phase.
I then appointed H. Dean Sutphin, associate dean, Cornell University, to head our IDEAL2 committee. Dean and his colleagues proposed that we hold a national IDEAL videoconference involving some of our important partners.
I am particularly grateful to Sam Smith, immediate past president of Washington State University; Brian Hawkins, president of EDUCAUSE; and Carol Twigg, director for academic transformation at the Pew Foundation, for contributing greatly to this event. Summaries of their remarks are included in the text of this publication. Special thanks also go to Valorie McAlpin, University of Maryland College Park, for chairing the videoconference committee and Scott Fedale, Washington State University, for serving as executive producer for the conference. Washington State University, the University of Illinois, and Cornell University were responsible for important aspects of the production. Erik Anderson, University of Idaho, developed all the conference wraparound materials.
Fifty-seven sites registered for the conference through the ADEC web site, and many of the sites included substantial numbers of participants. Groups and individuals were able to view the conference via satellite and through a web cast. The web cast is still available through the ADEC web site; simply click on the IDEAL button to view the conference and find the materials.
ADEC believes that these IDEAL efforts are an essential aspect of moving our state universities and land-grant colleges into the twenty-first century.
The ADEC Board of Directors will continue to review the progress of our IDEAL
initiative. We thank the IDEAL2 committee for its work and achievements. Our
next step will be to develop a full scope of work for IDEAL3. As chair of the
board of directors, I am asking H. Dean Sutphin to continue to work as a member
of the Board of Directors Executive Committee to chair IDEAL3. Our IDEAL2 initiative
will focus on implementation, addressing the following issues domestically and
internationally:
1. promote the engaged consortium concept in the spirit of the NASULGC engaged
university initiative.
2. continue improving the IDEAL web page, including adding interactive features
and a web-based learning center on learning centers. Scott Fedale of Washington
State University will continue to lead this initiative.
3. develop administrative components related to our partnerships with Internet-based
universities in our mission area.
4. develop collaborations and liaisons as appro priate with the distance education
administrative initiative of EDUCAUSE, the Pew Foundation, and other public,
private, and government organizations and transnational initiatives as appropriate.
A clearinghouse on such an initiative should be added to the ADEC web page.
The board of directors may choose to add additional items to this agenda for
our work in the coming year. Thomas A. Fretz, chair, ADEC Board of Directors
"We cannot be content with the status quo but must begin to experiment with different administrative arrangements for academic programs, professional development, and nonformal education."
"IDEAL1 developed a road map for what distance education could be, and IDEAL2
has set into motion the actions necessary to get us to these goals."
Rosemary Haggett, associate provost for academic programs, University of
West Virginia, IDEAL1 chair, adviser to IDEAL2
President Smith opened the conference with the following remarks:
"A three-year study was recently completed through the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC) that involved about 25 presidents and chancellors of some of the more progressive institutions in the country. One major conclusion was that U. S. universities are going through some evolutionary changes. Most of these changes involve universities moving away from the ivory tower concept toward an emphasis on delivery of courses, usually for credit, at a distance. This has caused an engagement with the public that hasn t occurred for many, many years. Extension has done it, but usually the whole university has not become involved. It has also resulted in some new partnerships and business practices. For example, a number of universities are participating in or actually starting by themselves joint, for-profit ventures involving either distance education or some other form of outreach. ADEC has been very important in all of this because it has been working to make sure that the proper conversations are taking place, for example, the conversation involving some of the outmoded policies in higher education such as geographic services areas. And what do you do with the concept of in-state and out-of-state institutions? Which state handles your financial aid? What do you do in a situation such as in Washington State, where there are some 70 or 80 institutions that have enrolled students in the state of Washington but the institutions themselves are not here? Is this of some concern for regulators or a real opportunity? I think it's an opportunity."
"Higher education institutions' partnerships were most often defined by traditional geographic boundaries and service areas. Today, because of technology, these boundaries are obsolete." Samuel H. Smith, president, Washington State University
Remarks by Brian Hawkins, president, EDUCAUSE
"The four initiatives that might be important to this audience include a readiness set of criteria. Drawn upon Carol Twigg's work on readiness, we re trying to develop a set of tools that are institutional assessment tools, dealing with structure, culture, and technological infrastructure necessary to create distributed learning.
A second initiative is a broad transformative assessment. We re early in the stages of developing this program. It's clear that there is greater demand to figure out how well this new technology works. We haven't done an extraordinary job in traditional methods. It's clear that the new technologies both on campus and off are being called on to demonstrate their effectiveness in new and different ways. What is necessary is focusing on student learning as the primary focus. It s on the learning, not on delivery, not on methods specifically but on the learning that occurs and what contributes that becomes important.
The third issue has to do with our teaching and learning bridges effort. Much of the experimentation that is going on on our campuses is happening in institutions that made an early commitment in these areas. They are on that leading edge paying perhaps some of the price in dealing with some of the unexpected expense. We think it is very important within EDUCAUSE to do tech transfer, to take those concepts about what is being learned, transfer learning to the other 3,500 institutions of higher education in this country and to our international members. One of the key things that we think has already come out of this is the realization that boutique solutions don t work. You can't find a faculty member, throw a lot of investment at him or her, and try to figure out how that might be scalable it won't work. What we're looking for are courses that involve systemic change and approaches that change more than a given faculty member's course. We should look at when that transformation affects the department the college perhaps the whole university. What are the things that make that happen?
The fourth initiative is development of a conceptual framework for thinking about distributed education. We think we need to parse the problems and complexities associated with distributed education. Should all institutions be involved? Diana Oblinger, CIO, University of North Carolina, and I have been working in this area trying to define the issues: academic preparedness and technical preparedness. Then there are market analyses. If you re going into this arena, what is your motivation? Is it to make money? To serve more students? To serve the community and the broader extended academic community in your region perhaps? Or is it just to improve teaching and learning? In terms of these motivations, we ask different questions about organizational structures, business plans, pricing, and branding. These are four of the initiatives that we are involved in within the National Learning Infrastructure Initiative (NLII) and hopefully they will provide the ability to then create some generalizations, share with the broader academic community, and allow a more rapid dissemination of this distributed technology and the distributed learning process focusing on student learning."
Remarks by Carol Twigg, executive director, Center for Academic Transformation, Pew Foundation .
" The most significant aspect about these cases is we're really seeing in
the whole area of distance learning, a move from an emphasis on access, which
is and continues to be very important, to one as Chere Gibson said on students
success. What that says to me is that we ve learned a lot about how to extend
our campus program. But what we really have to work on now is ways in which
we can improve the techniques that we're using, both in off-campus as well as
on-campus technology-based programs to really improve students' success. Other
key ideas include the following:
1. Marketplace for courses building on efficiencies of scale in these collaborative
efforts.
2. The notion of a learning infrastructure that features
"The most important thing I think that institutions need to engage in when they begin these collaborations is really that exchange of both mutual trust as well as exchange of credits, tuition, all of those things that make programs actually work. These also need more attention and are a big part of building successful programs. They are things like instructional design, incorporating some of these principles that are elaborated by the ADEC Guiding Principles, also the notion of faculty development, there are many people in higher education who think simply because faculty members teach courses, they know something about pedagogy. Faculty, once they engage in new modes of teaching, whether at a distance or in a technology-based format on campus, say, I really didn t think much about what I was doing in terms of pedagogy. These new formats helped me reexamine my own teaching techniques. The importance of support staff is really critical. You really heard loud and clear that the whole notion of quality assurance is resting firmly in the faculty particularly in regard to judgments about courses and curricula and standards just like traditional education. It amuses me when people attack the notion of quality in distance education as somehow being quite different than what goes on on campus. My response has always been, Who do you think are teaching these courses? People who you work with every day. The notion that they suddenly forget what is high quality in education simply because they re doing it in a different format doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Faculty judgment is extremely important in terms of standards. And then finally, the notion of establishing trust. And I think what is important about that is that the collaboration that's going on in the Great Plains program, while it's currently focused on a particular degree program, building that kind of trust and that kind of exchange will serve them well for future collaborations in all kinds of academic areas. And I do agree that we haven t seen anything yet. This is just the beginning. The one thing I will have to take issue with is in relationship to the speed with which these efforts are moving. While I think you need to go work out disagreements and establish mutual trust, there is another world out there that is moving at a much more rapid speed than our traditional academic approaches to these issues. That is the private sector. My idea is not to try to scare people but really to remind people that we may need to accelerate our efforts as we develop these new collaborations. Now, of course what is difficult about collaboration is that it s a lot easier to form a company and do your own thing. So, inevitably, it will be a lot more complicated. But at the same time, I think we need to be thinking a bit more about the pace of change that's going on around us. Finally, I'd emphasize that these cases illustrate this blurring of the distinction between off-campus learning or distance learning and on-campus learning. Certainly, as Valorie McAlpin said, these Guiding Principles, good pedagogy apply equally well to distance environments as well as on-campus environments"
Remarks by Dee Dunn, distance student, Washington
State University
"Distance education . . . can very easily lead to learning in isolation.
My learning experience would have been enhanced had I had the opportunity to
engage in the experiential type activities that have been suggested here this
morning. The focus on collaborative learning for students is an important one.
During every single job interview I've been involved in in the past three years,
every single one asked about my experience with teamwork and cooperative-type
settings. So I think to translate that into distance education learning opportunities
is vital to student success in . . . academics and once they move into the marketplace."
Remarks by Barry Willis, distance educator, University of Idaho
"For faculty and students to have a quality experience, three factors always
converge:
1. adequate technical and logistical support and appropriate faculty training;
2. incentives: whether it's release time, load adjustments, that whole family
of incentives needs to be looked at critically if we re to look for quality
projects and process in the long run;
3. evolving the academic culture that all this will take place in. We need to
have a culture that rewards and recognizes the commitment that faculty make
as they're teaching at a distance.
That goes as far and as deep as you can possibly make it. Into promotion and
tenure policies, general academic policies. If you can get those three factors
in place, the quality will follow."
"It is very difficult to know where we are going to be in 10 years. Essentially it is a question of how broad is your bandwidth. I believe there will be a blurring between on-and off-campus delivery. The development in technology is so phenomenal that our ability to transfer information and knowledge will take a quantum leap." Merlin Lawson, graduate dean, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Case Study 1 - KENTUCKY Prepared by Kim Ragland, Ph. D., extension specialist for distance learning, University of Kentucky, ADEC PCO
In 1991, the Agricultural Subcommittee of the Kentucky Council of Higher Education (KCHE) , consisting of the deans and chairs of all the state's institutions of higher learning with agricultural degree programs, met to discuss the outdated vision of agriculture that exists among many high school administrators and counselors. To meet the growing demand for well-trained agricultural scientists, the colleges and universities needed a broader pool of bright, motivated young people interested in agriculture with strong backgrounds in chemistry, biology, mathematics, and physics. However, the widely held view of agriculture as a production career with limited opportunity was restricting the pool of Kentucky youth entering these institutions with interest in agriculture.
To counter the "cows and plows" image of agriculture, the members of the Agriculture Subcommittee decided to work together to provide college-level, agricultural science courses to the high schools for advanced placement and college credit. The goal of this plan was to demonstrate the highly scientific and technological basis of modern agriculture as well as to provide incentives to the college-bound wishing to accumulate college credits before enrollment.
The first hurdle was to determine how credit would be granted. The KCHE agreed to allow the seven participating institutions (University of Kentucky, Berea College, Eastern Kentucky University, Kentucky State University, Morehead State University, Murray State University, and Western Kentucky University) to teach the courses cooperatively and grant advanced placement credit by locally agreeable rules. Each institution then set up its procedure for handling the advanced placement credit. Students achieving passing grades on the final examination would be provided with a letter stating the grade earned. A student wishing to obtain the college credit would then enroll in the on-campus equivalent of the course at any participating institution, pay tuition to that institution, never go to class or take the equivalency examination, and the grade would appear on the local transcript at semester's end.
The second hurdle, a delivery method, was solved by partnering with Kentucky Educational Television and using its Star-Channels, a closed satellite system in every Kentucky school. Finally, a syllabus and teaching team for Introduction to Animal Science, the first course attempted, had to be created. Faculty assigned from all seven institutions decided what content should be included and divided it up by interest and training among the 11 instructors involved. The course was first offered in the spring of 1992 and has been offered each year since.
Subsequently, Introduction to Wildlife Conservation and Introduction to Plant Science have also been offered using the same model. Introduction to Agricultural Economics is currently in development to round out the offering, giving students the opportunity to earn up to 12 credits in agriculture before they reach a college campus. The procedure for creating and teaching a course has become simpler with time as faculty and institutions have seen the value of the model. The courses are now taught strictly via videotape to reduce the amount of time involved for faculty and to increase the visual nature of the offerings. Although distance learning faculty from the University of Kentucky coordinate registration, enrollments, and grades and UK faculty serve as the primary instructors for all the courses, the courses continue to be open to participation by faculty from all the cooperating institutions to the mutual benefit of the entire group.
Lessons Learned
Team teaching is a must. Creating a semester-long course that is visual enough
for a video medium and providing all the support materials that need to accompany
the videotapes is very time consuming. Keeping the videos and materials up to
date year to year is an additional burden that would tax the energies of any
single professor.
A support staff for faculty is essential. Faculty must have access to a videographer and editor to create the video roll-ins that are the real strength of a visual medium course. Because many of the faculty involved are not accustomed to teaching freshman-level courses, much less high school students, they need assistance in designing appropriate support materials and lecture notes. And, finally, faculty need administrative support to handle enrollments, registrations, invoicing, payments, stocking and delivery of books and tapes, evaluations, test distribution, grading, and grade notifications. These are very time-consuming tasks that must be done on a tight schedule to meet the needs of all the high schools involved. Committing that kind of time and effort is above and beyond the call of duty for teaching faculty. Moving to videotape rather than recreating the entire course each year has cut down on the time required of participating faculty.
We now spend more time on the first taping, creating a visual, complete package; we then plan to revamp most lectures every three to four years rather than annually. The exceptions to this rule are lectures containing current issues and those addressing inventory numbers and values.
On-site facilitators must teach the course along with the college faculty on video. When students simply watch the videos without additional instruction from a local facilitator, very few achieve passing grades on the final examination. However, when the facilitator watches along with the students, quizzes and tests students locally throughout the year, helps students learn the skill of listening for key words and concepts, encourages students to interact with the faculty, and demonstrates concepts taught in the videos through hands-on activities, pass rates on the final examination have reached 100 percent.
It is essential that students have a detailed set of notes that follow exactly the on-camera presentation. High school students do not have the note-taking skills necessary to choose key words from lectures or to flip from place to place in the notebook without distress. Without the detailed notes, facilitators tell us they spend hours rewinding and reviewing. With the notes, students can progress through a lecture without stopping, leaving the local facilitator time to give quizzes, homework, and local hands-on activities. It is possible for rival institutions to work together as long as all institutions are willing to share the credit for the project and a mutually beneficial model is used.
High school programs are yearning for advanced scientific instruction in the field of agriculture. The courses have been taken by high school students in nearly 30 states. The limiting factor for high schools in states outside Kentucky is the ability for those students to obtain credit at nearby institutions
"Working with the Council on Post-Secondary Education was not as big a barrier
as we anticipated. It was one of the easier parts."
Carla Craycraft, director, Agricultural Communications, University of Kentucky
Case Study 2 "QUALITY" Distance Teaching and Learning
Prepared by Valorie F. McAlpin, associate dean, communications and information
technology,
University of Maryland -CollegePark, ADEC Program Panel
Quality is Key
Distance teaching and learning is an exciting phenomenon that in many respects
is revolutionizing twenty-first-century education. It is causing us to reexamine
the pedagogy of in-class instruction while also giving some thought to the quality
of our distance education products.
As administrators and faculty, we think we have some idea of quality in a residential experience, and learning outcome is certainly one in- dication. But what are some of the other quality indicators for distance teaching and learning? Are there pedagogical differences between distance and face to face learning? Why is quality so important in a distance environment?
The IDEAL report includes six guiding principles that answer these questions on quality. The principles also highlight best practices for quality distance teaching and learning.
The ADEC Guiding Principles
What the Experts Say
In this case study, three nationally renowned distance educators critically
examined the ADEC Guiding Principles. The following is a summary of their reactions:
The learning experience must have a clear purpose with tightly focused outcomes
and objectives.
The learner must be actively engaged.
Chere Gibson, professor and researcher, University of Wisconsin, Madison:
"Learning outcomes and objectives are important, but there's an awful lot of
value in the unplanned or serendipitous learning that takes place. Goals and
objectives allow learners to be strategic. Adult learners come with their own
goals and objectives. Goals and objectives provide only a partial foundation
for evaluation. Goals must do more than provide access. Design courses for active
and engaged learning."
"We can do more than provide access--we can provide success and that's what
we're all striving for."
The learning environment must make appropriate use of a variety of media.
Learning environments must include problem-based as well as knowledge-based
learning.
Connie Dillon, distance learning professor and researcher, University of Oklahoma, describes approaches she uses to achieve problem-based learning in her distance classrooms: "Give students concepts to apply in a real-life setting (often used in an introductory course with a case study required at the end) . Give students a problem to solve, then review with them the concepts they ve used, often unwittingly. Problem-based learning provides opportunities for engagement. Problem-based learning provides a context for new learning and opportunities for the transfer of learning."
Learning experiences should support interaction and the development of communities
of interest.
The practice of distance learning contributes to the larger social mission of
education and training in a democratic society.
Ben Shneiderman, professor and researcher in the Institute
for Advanced Computer Studies at the University of Maryland, describes an interesting
teaching/ learning philosophy that he calls "relate-create-donate":
"Relate-create-donate involves students working in teams, creating technology
products for the benefit of someone outside the classroom. An example of relate-create-donate
includes students working in teams to prepare site-specific technology recommendations
for a retirement home. Student teams visit the site, teach skills to residents,
and prepare a report that goes directly to the director of the retirement home.
Active and experiential learning is what makes education so exciting."
"The gift of the technology is that it empowers students to do quite wonderful things and to collaborate even at a distance on building something that's theirs."
Summary
According to our experts, quality in distance education includes active
learning, engagement, collaboration, problem-based learning, and real-world
problem solving. And as you might guess, these characteristics apply equally
to face-to-face environments. Dynamic new educational technologies provide us
with a fascinating array of knowledge products -- products that enhance learning
and ultimately will make these quality indicators just our normal way of doing
business in the twenty-first century.
"Relate-create-donate involves students working in teams, creating technology
products for the benefit of someone outside the classroom."
Ben Shneiderman, professor and researcher, Institute for Advanced Computer
Studies, University of Maryland-College Park
Case Study 3 TADDA: Increasing Access to Educational
Programs through Collaboration
Prepared by Erik Anderson, University of Idaho, ADEC PCO
The Tri-State Agricultural Distance Delivery Alliance (TADDA) is a cooperative distance education degree program developed by the University of Idaho, Oregon State University, and Washington State University, the three land-grant universities in the Pacific Northwest. TADDA offers a bachelor's degree in general agriculture to distance learners in the tri-state area.
The alliance also includes a four-year institution and several community colleges in the region. The TADDA program uses a "2+2" degree completion model to provide the complete undergraduate general agriculture curriculum. The community colleges supply the lower-division courses and the land-grant universities provide the upper-division course work. Students in the region are able to enroll at the degree-granting institution of their choice but may take courses developed at any institution in the program.
Courses developed for the TADDA program are mutually accepted among the three degree- granting institutions. Because of their proxim- ity, the University of Idaho and Washington State University already had a procedure in place for sharing or "cross-listing courses" New arrangements were established to enable the Oregon State University courses to be accepted at the other institutions and vice versa. Acceptance of courses by the degree-granting institutions is not automatic, however. Departments rigorously review the TADDA courses to assess course quality, instructor qualifications, and the suitability of the course work for the curriculum.
Numerous administrators from the alliance institutions have cooperated to help make TADDA succeed. The administrators include provosts, registrars, financial aid officers, librarians, and distance and continuing education coordinators. "Without their help we couldn t have gone forward," said Michael J. Burke, associate dean of the Oregon State University College of Agricultural Sciences. Among the challenges addressed by the partners were differing registration procedures, dissimilar time schedules, and incompatible technical delivery systems.
Some obstacles still remain for TADDA. For example, the distribution of tuition and fees is unresolved. At present, the student fees generated remain with the institution in which the student enrolls. Another challenge is the need to establish an incentive system that rewards faculty and departmental participation in the program.
The TADDA program has been in full operation for just over a year but is already achieving results. One Idaho student and one Washington student are expected to complete their degree requirements by the end of the fall 2000 semester and will become the program's first graduates.
The three TADDA degree-granting institutions often compete for students in the Pacific Northwest region. The alliance is an example of institutional collaboration for the purpose of sharing courses and programs as a distance education consortium. Through collaboration, TADDA is increasing access for distant learners in the tri-state area to a high-quality bachelor's degree program in agriculture.
Strategies for Achieving Success in a Collaborative, Interinstitutional Environment
Lessons Learned from TADDA
To achieve the goals set by a consortium, it is imperative for the partner institutions
to work together as a group or a system rather than operate independently. The
following strategies will help a consortium or collaborative group achieve its
goals:
Vision and Mission
Develop a unified vision and mission for the consortium. As the consortium develops,
it will face many obstacles that could threaten to derail the group. When the
partners stay focused on the collaborative vision, they are less likely to act
autonomously or adopt competitive behaviors.
Communicate
It is critically important for group partners to hold regular meetings. Face-to-face
meetings should be held at least once a year. The partner institutions could
take turns hosting the in-person meetings. Phone conference calls and videoconferences
should be used to facilitate group meetings. A listserv also is an effective
communication tool.
Lead
Each participating institution should assign a coordinator or director for the
project. The coordinator must be empowered by his or her administration to make
decisions that will affect the institution so as to get the job done. The consortium
should appoint one person to be the provisional leader. This leadership assignment
could be rotated among the group.
Sustain
Every obstacle that must be overcome by the consortium presents an opportunity
for one or more partners to withdraw. Sustaining the group over time will be
the greatest challenge. Employing the strategies outlined above will help the
collaborative group to carry on.
References
Gatliff, B., and F. C. Wendel. 1998. Inter-Institutional Collaboration and Team
Teaching. American Journal of Distance Education 12(1): 26 37.
McGill, M. A. , and S. M. Johnstone. 1994. Distance education: An opportunity
for cooperation and resource sharing. In Distance Education Strategies and Tools
ed. B. Willis, 265 275.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology Publications. National Network
for Collaboration. (1995) Collaboration framework: Addressing community capacity.
Available online at crs.uvm.edu/nnco/collab_framework.html.
"Washington State University and the University of Idaho had a long-standing policy to allow cross listing of courses. We did not have this with Oregon State so we developed a different arrangement. We identify the faculty teaching courses for TADDA as affiliate faculty at WSU and Idaho." Larry Makus, University of Idaho
THE GREAT PLAINS INTERACTIVE DISTANCE EDUCATION ALLIANCE (IDEA):
"An Inter-Institutional Masters Program in Family Financial Planning" Prepared
by Janet Poley, president, ADEC
The Great Plains IDEA is a consortium of seven colleges of human sciences/ family and consumer sciences. This collaboration began in 1994 in response to an initiative launched by the University of Nebraska to offer course work in the fall of 1994 leading to a master of science degree. The University of Nebraska sought partners who would join their efforts by delivering or receiving courses. The deans meet twice a year in work sessions and hold bimonthly conference calls to further faculty development in distance education instructional design and technology, develop collaborative and cooperative approaches among faculty and institutions, and provide impetus for program development (with emphasis on post-baccalaureate credit and noncredit programming).
The partnership has resulted in a network of faculty and administrators working to enhance collective efforts in post-baccalaureate education within the Great Plains region ( www.okstate.edu/hes/ued/gpdc/) . The Great Plains IDEA works closely with the American Distance Education Consortium (ADEC)
In May 1997 a faculty team participated in a Great Plains IDEA faculty development
workshop and designed a master s degree in family financial management. In June
1998 the deans decided to support this faculty idea and asked faculty for further
development of the program. The faculty developed objectives for the program,
courses, course descriptions, assessment of learner outcomes, and formative
and summative evaluation criteria. The work of the faculty was captured in a
pre-proposal submitted to the ADEC Agricultural Telecommunications Program.
The project was selected for preparation of a full proposal
(www. adec.edu/ag-telecom/funded/3-47.html), which was funded.
From June through October 1999 faculty further refined the curriculum and submitted to the CFP Board of Standards to register this program. CFP and Certified Financial Planner are federally registered service marks of the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards. The Board of Standards lists 106 competencies that must be included in the course work, and faculty designate which competencies will be covered in the courses they teach. This program has been accepted for registration.
In spring 2000 the Great Plains deans met with the graduate deans from their institutions to work through campus procedures for approval of the program and curriculum. Factors used for discussion were integrity of the program, costs and revenues, redentials of faculty, measures of productivity, facilitating student access, and faculty rewards.
The Great Plains IDEA recently learned that they will receive a coveted Learning Anytime, Anyplace (LAAP) grant from the U.S. Department of Education.
"We avoided playing games. . .we needed to treat faculty from other campuses
with respect equal to our own."
David Hilderbrand, dean, Graduate College, South Dakota State University
"We found that people in other institutions are as trustworthy as faculty at
our own."
Joan Laughlin, associate dean, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
"The graduate deans met with the deans of human science in Kansas City. We
thought we would be tweaking processes so in some cumbersome way we could have
a program. From the onset of the meeting everything was out the window. We were
no longer thinking about how to use rolls of duct tape and bandages and try
to make a collaboration in some bulky way. We had to develop a new approach
a new system to make a collaboration work."
James Gukima, interim associate graduate dean, Kansas State University
ADEC IDEAL2 Committee
H. Dean Sutphin, IDEAL2 chair, Cornell University
Rosemary Haggett, IDEAL2 adviser, IDEAL1 chair, West Virginia University
Erik Anderson, University of Idaho
Kirby Barrick, University of Illinois
Harold Benson, Kentucky State University
Scott Fedale, Washington State University
Annie King, University of California Davis
Dave King, IHETS
Al Lingg, NASULGC
Valorie McAlpin, University of Maryland College Park
Tim Murphy, Texas A& M University
Janet Poley, ADEC
David Watkins, Cornell University
ADEC IDEAL2 Videoconference Task Force
Valorie McAlpin, University of Maryland-College Park, chair
Scott Fedale, Washington State University, executive producer
Erik Anderson, University of Idaho
Jim Hamilton, University of Illinois
Janet Poley, ADEC
Craig Wood, Kentucky State University
ADEC Board of Directors
Thomas A. Fretz, chair Dean of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University
of Maryland College Park
Eugene G. Sander, past chair Vice provost and dean, College of Agriculture,
University of Arizona
Daryl Lund, secretary - Dean, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell
University
John Kelly, treasurer - Vice President for Public Service and Agriculture, Clemson
University
James Zuiches, legislative chair - Dean, College of Agriculture and Home Economics,
Washington State University
Kirvin Knox, chair, International Task Force - Associate provost, Colorado State
University
Rosemary Haggett, IDEAL2 adviser - Associate provost for academic programs,
West Virginia University
Carolyn Brooks, dean, School of Agricultural and Natural Resources, University
of Maryland, Eastern Shore
David Chicoine, dean, College of Agriculture, Consumer and Environmental Sciences,
University of Illinois
Walter Hill, dean, College of Agriculture, Environmental and Natural Sciences,
Tuskegee University
C. Oran Little, dean and director, College of Agriculture, University of Kentucky
James L. Oblinger, dean, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, North Carolina
State University
Bobby Moser, dean, College of Agriculture and vice president, Agricultural Administration,
The Ohio State University
David King, ex officio, ADEC Program Panel, executive director, Indiana Higher
Education Telecommunication System
Alan Moeller, ex officio, assistant treasurer, assistant vice chancellor, Institute
of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Nebraska
Janet Poley, ex officio, president/CEO, ADEC
H. Dean Sutphin, ex officio, IDEAL2 chair, associate dean and director of academic
programs, Cornell University
Thayne Dutson, vice chair Dean, Agricultural Sciences, Oregon State University
Cornell University is an equal opportunity, affirmative action educator and
employer.
© 2000 by Cornell University Produced by ADEC and Media and Technology Services
at Cornell University 8/00 MTS90596
A*DEC American Distance Education Consortium
Appendix I
ADEC and IDEAL1
The Context
On June 13, 1996, the ADEC Board of Directors passed the following resolution:
Be it resolved that ADEC leadership will promote multi-institutional collaboration
and develop a climate to better define interconnected educational and business
practices and procedures. The Board of Directors challenges ourselves and our
colleagues within the consortium to draw upon our collective resources more
efficiently through inter-institutional, multi-institutional initiative and
other collaborative efforts. We resolve to better respond to the needs and priorities
of our clientele as we use advanced communication technologies together. We
further resolve to use ADEC financial resources to support programs consistent
with interconnection, interoperability, and collaboration.
The board chair at the time, E. G. Sander, then appointed the Ideal Distance
Education Administration Language (IDEAL) committee and charged its members
with examining issues and barriers to collaborative program and business development.
Eight issue areas were identified for study and recommendations:
The outcomes of the individual task groups assigned to address each point of the charge has resulted in a body of work, recommendations, tools, and future charges for implementation known as IDEAL1. The complete report is available on the ADEC Web site at www.adec.edu.
So What Is IDEAL?
The report of the IDEAL committee is intended to stimulate the future-oriented
thinking and conversation that we must have to ensure that we continue to have
a world-class higher education system ready to meet the twenty-first century.
It is neither prescriptive nor suggestive of revolution. It does suggest that
we cannot be content with the status quo but must begin to experiment with different
administrative arrangements for academic programs, professional development,
and nonformal education in our core mission areas, locally, regionally, nationally,
and internationally.
In short, the report recommendations challenge the consortia and higher education
in general to
Implementation
The resulting recommendations and discussion pieces from IDEAL1 produced a series
of guidelines and tools. We summarize them here but highly recommend that administrators
and faculty look at the ADEC Web site to understand and contemplate the depth
and vision of the IDEAL1 effort.
A. Guidelines for Articulation of Distance Courses Offered through ADEC
The guidelines relate to uniform standards for transferring agricultural, natural resource, veterinary, and human science distance course credits among member institutions. Thirty-six academic deans are signatories to this document. The full text is available on the Web site.
B. Distance Education-Ready Checklist
Environmental forces are pushing higher educational institutions into the new
age of information-and consumer-driven markets. A real issue is the transformation
of the existing higher education environment over time into a new learning industry
that will be global, span K-12 learning, and involve a far greater range of
learning enterprises. The Distance Education-Ready Checklist can help institutions
assess where they stand in the development of distance education delivery. The
checklist poses more than forty questions under five categories: institutional
commitment, registration, faculty issues, marketing and partnerships, and records
and credit banking. The questions are designed to help individual institutions
focus on current and emerging issues in distance education. For example:
C. Eliminating Turf Barriers
This document stresses several suggestions that can help an institution address the formidable and complex "turf" issues that vary from university to university and college to college. Its suggestions address capacity, interest, knowledge, and collaborative possibilities. It promotes standards, evaluation, and quality issues in the process of reducing the "barriers" to a manageable few.
D. The ADEC Telecommunications and Development Grant Awards
In cooperation with CREES/USDA, almost a million dollars has been directed nationally in support of distance learning efforts--from credit courses to extension programs to planning grants. More recently, more than $50,000 was awarded to eight projects encompassing a dozen collaborating universities. The money leveraged additional resources that helped develop learning modules such as "Medical Nutrition Therapy", " Master Gardener Botany Training", "Integrated Natural Resource Management", "Horticultural Distance Learning Modules," and others. The projects were developed under one of IDEAL's best products--the guiding principles.
E. The Guiding Principles for Distance Teaching and Learning
The principles are intended to serve as guidelines for identifying and evaluating Web-based credit courses and nonformal educa-tional programs that may be developed for face-to-face as well as distance instruction. They address support for services and admin-istrative policies and are included on the ADEC Web site. The guiding principles are: Design active and effective learning. Support the needs of learners. Develop and maintain the technological and human infrastructure. Sustain administrative and organizational commitment.
They suggest a clear purpose for the learning experience, tightly focused outcomes and objectives, learners who are actively engaged, and the use of a variety of media. Most critically, they exhort faculty to empower learners through new knowledge using a modular development process and the encouragement of critical thinking.
The deans and academic heads that make up the Board of Directors of the ADEC consortia are pleased with the thoughtful work of the teams that developed the IDEAL report, tools, and guidelines. Now the challenge is implementation. To that end, IDEAL2 is charged with furthering the work of IDEAL1. We invite your active participation, discussion, and help in the coming months to create a true collaborative and consortial approach to distance education.
Please refer to the ADEC Web site for the complete IDEAL1 documents, our searchable course database, news, international and business partnerships, and discussion of emerging issues and technologies.
For more information please contact:
Janet Poley, ADEC President
Box 830952 C218 Animal Science
University of Nebraska-Lincoln Lincoln, NE 68583-0952
Voice: 402-472-7000
Fax: 402-472-9060
E-mail: jpoley@unl.edu
www.adec.edu