1. Collaborative Distance Learning Projects: Issues and Lessons Learned with TADDA Janet Ross Kendall Director, Distance Degree Programs Washington State University Educause-West 2005

2. TADDA -- Tri-State Agricultural Distance Degree Consortium  Partners -- 3 land-grant institutions:  Washington State University  Oregon State University  University of Idaho  In cooperation with several community colleges  MOU’s signed spring 1998

3. Vision: to provide BS Ag degrees to rural, dispersed audiences

4. TADDA states

5. TADDA Funding  Higher Education Challenge Grant  1997-1999$160,000  Agricultural Telecommunications Programs -- 1998-99$270,000  Fund for Rural American Grant -- 1998-2000$450,000 Total: $880,000

6. BS Agriculture at a distance  By fall 1999 each institution had established a bachelor’s degree that could be earned by students at a distance from the main campus  Students were to be advised by their home institutions

7. Course Offerings  Partners were to decide which institution would develop and offer which core and elective courses – e.g., ag econ  Partners would also decide what concentrations, and courses, they would develop – e.g., animal sciences, plant sciences  Courses were to be cross-listed by each institution

8. Course Offerings (cont.)  Object: financial savings in having only one institution develop each needed course  Small courses would benefit from larger enrollments  Institutions had friendly agreement that no money would change hands, numbers of students served would equal out

9. CHALLENGES --  Cross-listing  Course development  Course delivery  Semesters vs. quarters  Registration  Funding

10. Lessons Learned  Impacts of grant funding -- highly motivating, highly rewarded, but also can be problematic.  must figure out how to both initiate and sustain program  best to get agreements from everyone before applying for grants, but that’s very difficult to implement because of timing issues

11. Lessons Learned (cont.)  The best intentions and visions don’t always bring concrete results  Associate Deans aren’t all-powerful – they weren’t able to require departments to comply with their vision of cross-listing, course development agreements, etc.  Must figure out how to get department and administrative offices’ buy-in  Paying faculty and departments must be considered – good will doesn’t always work  Some faculty need contracts

12. Lessons Learned (cont.)  Can’t overlook consequences of serious discrepancies  Semester/quarter systems  Different delivery modes – department chair and state budget situation made plans impossible to implement