ADEC IDEAL Committee Executive Summary of Recommendations

ADEC IDEAL COMMITTEE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

SO WHAT IS IDEAL?

Management experts agree that it takes approximately 10 years for an industry to build competitive advantage and to do so requires 1) upgrading human skills; 2) investment in products and processes; 3) building clusters; and 4) penetrating markets with programs and products that cost less, improve quality and services and create demand for new products and services. Adequate flexibility to experiment is essential - inappropriate controls, outmoded structures and processes and poorly designed resource strategies must be addressed to achieve the goal.

RECOMMENDATIONS

We recommend that the Board endorse the IDEAL Committee philosophy: Our philosophy is based upon working toward 1) comparability, 2) flexibility, 3) creativity, 4) transparency, and 5) common agreements and understandings. We must formulate administrative and standard setting processes that encourage faculty to be creative and innovative while supporting high quality, relevant and rich learning experiences.

A. ACADEMIC CREDIT TRANSFER BETWEEN ADEC INSTITUTIONS

A.1 RECOMMENDATION: Ideally, the policy of land grant institutions accepting courses for general credit among our institutions should more clearly delineate standards for transfer of credit within major areas of study. We recommend that the following be used to determine COMPARABILITY: 1) course objectives - stated in knowledge, attitude and skills terms, 2) detailed curriculum - outline of course content; 3) written description of instructional process, including laboratory and field work; 4) textbook and reading list requirements. Instructor's credentials would also be considered. We recommend that courses meeting a standard of 80% comparability should count toward a comparable degree requirement and should be accepted for transfer among ADEC member institutions.

A.2 RECOMMENDATION: Ideally, we recommend that ADEC's on-line distributed database system be expanded in consultation with the ADEC Administrative Council and ACOP leadership. Faculty should be involved in the design of the database templates through face-to-face sessions and technology assisted collaboration. Faculty will then participate in completion of the distributed database. This database will be the essential foundation for common numbering systems, equal credit hours for equal work and an increased ability to share, compare, account and increase access over time to learning when and where it is needed.

B. ACADEMIC CREDIT TRANSFER BETWEEN ADEC INSTITUTIONS AND OTHERS

B.1 RECOMMENDATION: Ideally, we recommend that the database tools described in A be used to facilitate appropriate academic credit transfer to insure fair and equitable evaluation of existing courses taught at junior and community colleges. We recommend a consortium wide endorsement of the October 28, 1970 policy of the directors of Resident Instruction, North Central Region, provided to the IDEAL Committee by member Dave Mugler (See Appendix 2). We recommend continued linkage and partnership arrangements with these institutions, cooperation on curriculum design and use of specialized Advanced Placement Courses.

C. INSTATE/OUT-OF-STATE TUITION AND CHARGING PER CREDIT HOUR

C.1 RECOMMENDATION: Ideally, we recommend that ADEC have a commonly agreed upon basis for charging students enrolling for courses by distance. We recommend a modification of the system used by the National Technological University (NTU). All ADEC member institutions should be surveyed annually for their per credit hour distance tuition rate - as well as for a per credit hour audit rate.

C.2 RECOMMENDATION: Ideally, ADEC should establish a per credit hour fee in addition to the tuition charged by the originating institution that can be shared with the institution enrolling the student in the distance course. This should be established at a level that will encourage institutions to take courses from each other.

C.3 RECOMMENDATION: Ideally, "special" distance education fees should be eliminated. ADEC needs a rationalized, simplified pricing system that creates incentives for originating and home institutions, including return of tuition funding in part to departments doing the work, and that can easily be supported by "smart" software.

D. DEVELOPMENT OF "SMART" SOFTWARE

D.1 RECOMMENDATION: Ideally, the ADEC Consortium should work with its partner, the National Center for supercomputing Applications (NCSA), and other public, non-profit and private sector partners to develop the "smart software" to be used for interconnection/interoperability among ADEC member institutions, associates and affiliates.

E. ELIMINATING TURF BARRIERS - INCLUDING OUTREACH STRUCTURES, CONTINUING EDUCATION AND PUBLIC/EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION OPERATIONS ON CAMPUS

E.1 RECOMMENDATION: Ideally, ADEC should be a major force across the country for "turf" elimination. Turf problems should be mapped and specific remedies agreed upon in the consortium.

E.2 RECOMMENDATION: Ideally, ADEC should build a collaborative infrastructure to achieve competitive advantage in the international education market.

E.3 RECOMMENDATION: Ideally, ADEC should create access to educational opportunities - programs, products and services as a one-stop shop. Ideally, a large number of ADEC institutions will need to make known through multi-institutional collaboration and statements that past approaches to administration and standard operating procedures and management controls may not be cost-efficient or satisfactory for program development and customer satisfaction. Ideally, ADEC should be a catalyst for process changes that will be more to the benefit of the institution and its publics into the future.

F. DEVELOP MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL CURRICULUM

F.1 RECOMMENDATION: Ideally, ADEC should collaborate with ACOP and the Council on Human Sciences to design and test a faculty based, market driven, collaborative process.

F.2 RECOMMENDATION: Ideally, curriculum and courses should be developed with teams of the high quality faculty chosen to work together across institutions. A system for assuring instructional design and technology resources should be assured. It should be anticipated that the core design can be flexed and modified, shifting the lead institution as appropriate over time and in matching to the market. The International demand for these programs should also be considered, particularly in the Asian countries and Africa.

G. DEFINE ACADEMIC/ADMINISTRATIVE BARRIERS TO DESIGN AND DELIVERY OF DISTANCE EDUCATION

G.1 RECOMMENDATION: Ideally, ADEC should now take a positive, entrepreneurial approach to this issue, rather than analyzing every barrier.

G.2 RECOMMENDATION: Ideally, the ADEC vision and the work of the IDEAL Committee should be made highly visible - the program should be promoted - administrators, boards of governors, professional societies and important others should be fully briefed. The effort should be designed to tell the ADEC story - becoming a World Class Distance Education Consortium - with high quality programs and products, accessible locally and globally at a price people can afford. Relationships building including major national and international leaders should be an explicit part of this recommendation, including building relationships with new partners in the private sector and with international institutions, organizations and agencies.

H. REVIEW QUALITY DISTANCE EDUCATION CRITERIA AND ASSESSMENT TOOLS

H.1 RECOMMENDATION: Ideally, ADEC should take the responsibility to do the staff work required to build upon, improve and make more specific for land grant institutions the Quality Principles in Appendices 5 and 6.