Please post the text under the Job Family
item on the agenda for the ETT.
From: Lynn Shepherd [mailto:lynn.shepherd@uas.alaska.edu]
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006
3:11 PM
To: James A. Yauney
Cc: karen.perdue@alaska.edu;
curt.madison@uaf.edu; Abel Bult-Ito; Ted Kassier
Subject: Re: Job Family
I've attached the second draft of the ID job family
with phrases in a green font that are particularly troublesome to
Control over curriculum - content and policies - is traditionally a faculty
responsibility, with faculty being supervised by Deans and a Chief Academic
Officer. The ID Job Classification appears to not only give
Instructional Designers some faculty roles but also leaves open the possibility
that IDs report to an administrator, rather than a Dean or CAO. In fact,
that's the way some campuses operate at the present time. By creating job
descriptions that give Level 3 and 4 positions "wide latitude in decision
making" and having IDs report to administrators, control over the
curriculum is effectively being taken away from faculty and given to
administrators, who may or may not have teaching experience, familiarity with
subject matter, etc. This opens the possibility that administrators (e.g.
campus directors, CDE administrators) will be asking IDs to "create
reusable learning objects...and course materials that meet a broad range of
instructional needs" or "build, design, review, and update
educational websites."
It's in the best interests of the university to have faculty retain control
over curriculum, particularly course content and its currency. Faculty
have rights and responsibilities (e.g. academic freedom) with regard to
curriculum that may not be given to IDs who are appointed as staff members and
who report to administrators. As the classifications are written, an
administrator could direct an ID to revise an existing course or
include/exclude specific content in a course. This would effectively
undermine academic freedom, the curricular review process, and coherence of
academic programs. It effectively takes away faculty control over the
curriculum and would not be in the best interests of the institution in the
long run.
Of course, embedded within the job classifications are issues of rights with
respect to intellectual property, which haven't been addressed. Staff
members typically don't have the same rights to IP that faculty do; their IP
tends to be considered 'work-for-hire' under copyright law, which means that
copyright in their works often belongs to the institution. I predict that
IDs would be difficult to recruit at levels 3 and 4 without assurances
regarding some ownership rights in IP (e.g. control over revisions,
distribution, display) and the portability of it, should an ID choose to move
on to another institution.
Obviously, many of these objections would go away if IDs were considered
faculty members rather than staff. However, by writing a Job Family
Concept and descriptions, I have to assume that these positions are considered
staff.
Lynn Shepherd
Chair, Faculty
James A. Yauney wrote:
Karen has notified me that you would be willing to share your expertise with
our Instructional Design job family group. If you have time please review
our draft specifications and highlight any changes/additions/revisions would like
to see.
I would also encourage you to send this out to our workgroup (see e-mail
addresses listed below) for discussion.
We will be meeting sometime early in the Spring Semester and I will be sure to
include you on all future communications.
James Yauney
(907) 786-4683
--- the forwarded message follows ---
|
Subject: 2nd Draft |
|
From: "James A. Yauney" <snjay@email.alaska.edu> |
|
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 16:20:39 -0900 |
|
To: "Curt Madison" <curt.madison@uaf.edu>,"'Carol
Gering'" <carol.gering@uaf.edu>,
"'Michael Scott'" <fnmcs@uaf.edu>,
"'Torie Foote'" <fnvmf@uaf.edu>,
"'Donna Schaad'" <donna.schaad@uaa.alaska.edu>,
"'Sally Mead'" <sally.mead@uaa.alaska.edu>,
"'Michael Ciri'" <michael.ciri@uas.alaska.edu> |
Hello All:
Attached is the second draft of the Instructional Designer Job family.
We would appreciate some further discussion via e-mail on the following topics,
before we meet again to discuss:
1) Are there 4 levels in this job family? If so who would fall into the level 1
category and what language can we add to the level to better describe the work?
2) Whether or not the education or experience required for each level is
appropriate? Are we willing to exclude potential employees for given positions
if they do not have the specific degree requirement as written?
3) In level 4 how would the following two statements be defined: Decision
making having a large impact? Supervising a small unit?
James Yauney
(907) 786-4683
-- B. Lynn ShepherdAssistant DirectorEgan Library