TO: Lawrence H. Pitts, MD
Chair, Academic Senate
SUBJECT: Review and Recommendations Relating to Developing a Policy on Distance Learning
DATE: November 12, 2000
At your request, the Task Force on Distance Learning has reviewed the matter of distance or web based learning and hereby transmits the following report.
|
RECOMMENDATIONS: Key Guiding Principles that Should be Followed in the Development of a Policy on Distance Learning
|
• UCSF should be responsible for the technological delivery of distance learning courses and for providing appropriate forms of assistance and support personnel to faculty members for development of distance learning course materials.
• The proposed Center for Instructional Technology should be the primary source for development, maintenance and delivery of distance education.
• The resources required for distance learning courses should not strain resources for traditional, classroom delivered studies.
• University authorship ownership policies applied to traditional classroom instruction should equally apply to distance education.
• UCSF must develop specific policies that address the right of both faculty authors and the University.
• UCSF sponsored distance learning courses must be incorporated into a tuition or registration fee structure that addresses the direct and indirect costs of offering the course.
• UCSF must create standard policies for that address the distribution of funds generated from instruction and sale of distance education courses.
• The decision to implement distance learning courses must be the responsibility of each School and must consider a variety of issues, particularly accreditation requirements.
• The technology and modalities selected for teaching must be appropriately matched to the course objectives and the targeted content of the course.
• Distance education courses should comply with all of the standard practices, procedures and criteria that have been established for traditional in-classroom courses.
• Students taking distance learning courses must be held to the same requirements of academic honesty as students enrolled in traditional classroom courses.
• Distance learning courses must incorporate an evaluation of the course, the faculty members, and student learning consistent with other classroom based courses.
• Prior to the development and implementation of a formal UCSF policy on distance learning, a thorough budget analysis should be undertaken to determine costs and potential returns associated with the development and maintenance of distance learning classes.
• UCSF should consider the appointment of a dedicated project leader to coordinate and manage distance learning efforts.
The Academic Senate Task Force on Distance Learning developed a series of guiding principles that could serve as a broad foundation for creating policy for distance or web based learning. These guiding principles are intended to help assure excellence in teaching and learning at the University of California; protect against depersonalization of learning, and extend the magnitude and range of students who have an opportunity to study with the University of California. The Task Force is sufficiently concerned about and warns against "technology-driven education" which can sometimes be the focus in this age of high technology. Rather, the Task Force believes that effective learning should drive the development of new teaching modalities, including the development of web based classes. The Task Force members believe that distance learning is an important concept, albeit with significant risks. The task force members recommend that a UCSF distance learning policy be created in a timely manger, even though several areas of concern must still be addressed as an integral part of developing these policies.
Some of these areas of concern include:
• The challenge of designing courses which sustain academic excellence.
• Obtaining necessary resources for facilities, equipment and other expenses.
• Time involvement for faculty members developing and using distance learning courses.
• Evaluating teaching within the distance learning framework in terms of faculty promotion.
• Hiring and retaining qualified technical staff.
• High speed Internet and computer access for faculty and students.
• Reliable and valid methods of student, course and faculty evaluation.
• Academic honesty of students.
• Copyright and ownership protection for faculty.
• Developing a consistent Distance Learning policy appropriate for all UC campuses
In preparing this summary document on distance learning, the Task Force referred to several published reports for background and guidance. The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has published position papers on distance education, copyright and intellectual property. The Task Force also reviewed the document from the Consortium for Educational Technology for University Systems; the National Research Council Committee Report on Intellectual Property Rights in the Emerging Information Infrastructure; the article, "Who Owns Online Courses and Course Materials: Intellectual Property Policies for a New Learning Environment" by Carol Twigg and the report of the Office of the President, "University of California Policy on Copyright Ownership." In addition, a survey of numerous institutions such as UC Berkeley and Arizona State University provided resources on current practices and policy recommendations.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A Task Force on Distance Learning was formed in June 2000 by Chair of the Academic Senate, Lawrence Pitts, to examine and produce recommendations on the subject of distance learning and on the proposed Center for Instructional Technology. The Task Force was requested to represent the UCSF perspective on distance learning and make recommendations that could be incorporated into a UC-wide policy on distance learning. Chair Pitts appointed Nancy Byl, PhD, PT and Mark Ryder, DMD to lead the Task Force. Over the course of the past several months, the Task Force conducted four meetings; in addition, two subcommittees were formed to focus on and present recommendations on copyright and academic issues. The Task Force also consulted with Marguerite McIntyre from the Copyright Office for additional assistance with copyright issues.
The guiding principles developed by the Task Force, which follow, are organized in three parts: Academic Issues, Resource/Facility Issues and Copyright and Ownership Issues. We hope these guiding principles will be useful in the finalization of distance learning policies by academic and administrative leaders. We also hope you will insist that faculty, experienced in distance learning, are included in this group and that UCSF faculty will work with other campuses to develop an appropriate policy applicable across all campuses.
Respectfully submitted,
Task Force on Distance Learning
Nancy Byl, PhD, PT, Co-Chair (Medicine)
Mark Ryder, DMD, Co-Chair (Dentistry)
Chris Cullander, PhD (Pharmacy)
Barbara Dodson, MA, MD (Medicine)
Warren Gold, MD (Medicine)
Gail Persily, Library
Michael Strizich, Director, Student Information Systems
Meg Wallhagen, RN, PhD, GNP (Nursing)
Joan Wood, PhD, AGRC Coordinator
Prepared by:
Judy Dang
Administrative Analyst
Academic Senate Office
ACADEMIC SENATE TASK FORCE ON DISTANCE LEARNING
Guiding Principles for Distance Learning
I. Principles on Academic Issues
II. Principles on Resources/Facilities
III. Principles on Copyright and Ownership
|
I. PRINCIPLES ON ACADEMIC ISSUES
|
• Each school and each program must be accountable for its own accreditation and quality regarding educational requirements, with some advising by the Academic Senate Committee on Courses of Instruction.
• Distance education courses should comply with all of the standard practices, procedures and criteria that have been established for traditional in-classroom courses. When teaching to the same objective, courses using different media should be equivalent in terms of content, learning expectations and workload. Historical benchmarks and course objectives should be used to determine appropriate credit hours for equivalent teaching using different education media.
• The development of distance education technology should not be used to reduce, eliminate or consolidate full time faculty positions. There will be no reductions in the number of FTE positions as a result of distance education classes being added to the class schedule. When additional time is required to develop and maintain distance learning courses, additional faculty, support personnel and resources at all levels should be added as needed.
• The expectations of students for academic resources required for learning should be clearly defined and should be consistent for classroom teaching and distance learning. If multiple modalities of teaching are used, the resources should be fairly allocated to support in-classroom as well as distance learning.
• The technology and modalities selected for teaching must be appropriately matched to the course objectives and the targeted content of the course. Some face-to-face contact seems to be desirable in distance-based learning coursework, but research is needed to determine if this is an essential component.
• Students taking distance education courses should be held to the same requirements of academic honesty as students taking traditional courses. The student must consent to academic honesty when they register for a distance learning course or are admitted to a distance learning academic program.
• While progress continues in the technology of test taking and evaluation of students, there is no foolproof means of assuring completely fair and independent test taking in distance learning courses. Central resources should be provided to allow faculty to take advantage of current testing technologies. The ultimate responsibility for providing a fair evaluation of each student’s performance should remain with the instructor of record for each course.
• UCSF should implement a process to assure that students are able to evaluate the teaching performance of faculty members who offer distance education courses. Faculty members participating in the distance education program should be evaluated in the same manner as all faculty members in accordance with the appropriate provisions of institutional policy.
|
II. PRINCIPLES ON FACILITY/RESOURCES
|
• UCSF is responsible for the technological delivery of distance learning courses. This support is considered part of the usual and customary equipment and resources available to support all faculty teaching. This includes ensuring that:
• Distance learning courses should not drain campus resources and not deter students from coming to campus.
• Identification and assurance that basic and necessary technology and equipment are identified and in place to develop and teach distance-based courses.
• Resources for distance learning represent the current state-of-the-art technology available.
• UCSF provides appropriate and timely training and technical support for faculty members.
• Continued technical and curricular training courses for potential users be available as new technologies and are added to the resource center.
• UCSF will provide appropriate forms of assistance and support personnel to faculty members and students to develop distance learning courses:
• Provisions will be made for all administrative, technical and library support as needed.
• Graduate assistants and/or student employees will be made available on a priority basis to support faculty members in the delivery of distance education courses.
• Assistance will be provided to the faculty member or the Department to develop study guides, teaching aides and other course materials.
• UCSF must ensure that systems for multi-modal education work successfully and include administration, registration, data security, advising/counseling, local support, faculty and overhead costs.
• UCSF will provide adequate support services at both the transmitting and receiving sites for all distance education classes.
• UCSF must assure and provide the necessary infrastructure for learning through multiple modalities, including the foundational network and telecommunications structure at the originating and receiving campus.
• UCSF must assure repair, updating and maintenance of hardware and software programs included for distance learning.
• UCSF-sponsored distance learning courses must be incorporated into a tuition or registration fee structure that addresses the costs of course preparation, faculty time and creativity, transmission and receiving of the communication. The policy should also address the indirect costs associated with space, equipment purchase, upgrades and maintenance, and personnel support contributed by the campus and the Center of Instructional Technology.
• The Task Force supports the proposed Center for Instructional Technology as the primary and source for supporting the uniform development, maintenance and delivery of distance learning courses. The Center for Instructional Technology should be adequately funded to support the campus-wide needs for development, delivery and maintenance of distance learning courses. If the proposed Center for Instructional Technology cannot meet faculty needs, a faculty member may request approval to use outside vendors for consultation and development of distance learning courses.
• Given the expanded enrollment of students in distance learning courses, tuition from these instructional opportunities must be allocated back to the campus, the department, the library, and the Center for Instructional Technology in order to cover the costs of increased use of University resources.
• Students should have access to resources (e.g., authenticated access to Library resources) required in a distance-education course. No restrictions should be based on physical location.
• Issues of licensed materials and access to electronic media for distance learning students must be addressed when learning extends beyond the campus site.
• Future contract negotiations for electronic media and licensed materials and data bases must be carefully defined in terms of restructuring policies to accommodate existing students and the potential expansion of the student base beyond the campus.
• At UCSF, there are a variety of parallel units related to information systems that contribute to instruction in the classroom, and the community (including IRTS, ENS, Medical Center, classroom support, video conferencing and the Center for Instructional Technology). Coordination of these diverse units, perhaps under a central Information Technology Office, is essential for uniform implementation of educational programs.
|
III. PRINCIPLES ON COPYRIGHT AND OWNERSHIP
|
Faculty require incentives to make the time and effort required to develop technology-based instruction worthwhile. The Pew report concluded, "institutions need to ensure faculty that the results of their investment belong to them, not the institution."
The University policies applicable to faculty-authored materials in traditional classroom instruction should apply equally to distance education. These policies would include: a) Faculty ownership of scholarly/aesthetic works, including lecture, course handouts and syllabi developed by regular UC faculty and b) Faculty control of methods of presentation and selection of course materials.
A policy should be developed to address the rights of both faculty authors and the University under the following circumstances:
• Course material is digitized and distributed via the Web/Internet under the University’s auspices.
• Course material is developed for use as a contribution to a collective work.
• Two or more faculty merge written materials with the intention of creating an integrated course as joint authors.
• The University must create standard policies for distance learning that address the distribution of funds generated such as:
• Funds received by the faculty member for providing instruction must be consistent with the Compensation Plan for the University.
• Funds received by a faculty member license of copyrighted course materials owned by the faculty author or inventor should be allocated and expended as determined by the faculty author or inventor consistent with University policy.
• Funds received by co-owners will be fairly allocated to each individual according to predetermined plan greed upon by both parties.
• Funds received from the license of copyrighted course materials, owned jointly by the faculty member and the University, should be allocated and expended in accordance with University policies. If copyrighted distance learning course material is commercially licensed, royalties should be shared amongst the faculty authors, authors’ department (s), and the Center for Instructional Technology in accordance with prior agreement among the parties and in accordance with University policies.
• As per the CETUS report, the key factors for evaluating the rights of faculty versus the University with regard to "new works" should be "(1) the creative initiative for the new work; (2) the control of its content; and (3) any extraordinary compensation or support provided by the university." Extraordinary compensation and support should be defined as "levels beyond the usual compensation or support generally available to others in the same employment situation."
• Faculty authors should be able to exercise control over the disposition and dissemination of their work, specifically to control such things as accurate attribution of authorship and the integrity of the work that may be associated with their names and reputations, including derivative works.
• A faculty member’s course presentation should not be recorded without faculty member’s prior knowledge and consent. Such recordings should not be re-used or revised without the written consent of the faculty member. Copyright of recordings of courses and course presentations should be owned by the faculty member(s) as in the case of traditional course materials. Faculty should exercise control over the future use, modification, and distribution of recorded instructional material.
References
American Association of University Professors, "Statement on Copyright," 1999.
American Association of University Professors, "Statement on Distance Education," 1999.
American Association of University Professors, Special Committee on Distance Education and Intellectual Property Issues "Suggestions and Guidelines: Sample Language for Institutional Policies and Contract Language," 1999.
Consortium for Educational Technology for University Systems (CETUS), "Ownership of New Works at the University: Unbundling of Rights and the Pursuit of Higher Learning," 1997.
National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Intellectual Property Rights in the Emerging Information Infrastructure, The digital dilemma: intellectual property in the information age, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2000.
Twigg, Carol A. "Who Owns Online Courses and Course Materials? Intellectual Property Policies for a New Learning Environment," The Pew Learning and Technology Program, 2000.
University of California, Office of the President. "University of California Policy on Copyright Ownership," August 19, 1992.
UC Copyright Task Force – assorted documents
University of Texas "Crash course in copyright"
Instructional Technology Committee of the Chancellor's Computing and Communication Policy Board Key policies for review
UC Patent Policy
San Francisco State University Task Force on Distance Education1998 Report
California Assembly Bill AB1773
San Francisco Academic Senate Task Force on Distance Learning
Prepared by:
Judy Dang
Administrative Analyst
Academic Senate Office
