Felxible delivery of Commerce papers

We had some concerns about the proposed flexible delivery of Commerce papers, and wrote to our VC about these in December - we are still to hear back from him.

Dear Roger


The Association of University Staff (AUS) wishes to bring to your attention concerns expressed to us regarding the proposed flexible delivery of Commerce undergraduate courses.

Although the AUS has not been consulted on this issue, we understand that the University intends to pursue the implementation of flexible delivery of Commerce Division undergraduate courses.

This raises obvious concerns, including:
a) Mixed information being given to Commerce staff regarding whether they will be forced to alter courses so that Commerce undergraduate students do not have to come onto campus. Requiring staff to deliver their courses in a flexible format involves a significant change to conditions of employment which requires both consultation, negotiation and, presumably, agreement.

b) A lack of evidence that flexibility of delivery of subjects will result in increased student numbers. Care needs to be taken to ensure a positive financial impact of flexible delivery if the proposal involves significant start-up costs, especially if this means that money is diverted from other initiatives more likely to result in financial gains to the University.

c) We understand that new staff with expertise in instructional design and graphical design may be hired under this initiative, and that these people will be based in the Commerce Division. The AUS is opposed to encouraging any silo mentality between staff and divisions, and believe that resources should be available to all staff who need, want, or desire such services, and that the best way to achieve this is to base any staff employed in these capacities within a central resource (e.g., Teaching and Learning Services and or ITS). The University has previously shown a desire for a central support model with, for example, all pure IT support now within ITS and not within Commerce or ESDD as was previously the case.

d) Most importantly, there is the issue of ownership of intellectual property. There has been no agreement to cede ownership of the copyright of course materials to the creators of such course material. The established international academic practice is that course material remains the intellectual property of the staff who create it, and any contrary assertion of ownership by the University is rejected[1]. We believe that the resolution of the issue of copyright of course material is important and its resolution will be an incentive to encourage staff to pursue and produce quality teaching material for flexible learning options.

On a practical level, you will appreciate that developing flexible delivered courses is time consuming. It is now the second week in December. It is therefore too late to develop new good quality flexible courses for the beginning of semester one next year. Consequently, this gives us time for full and frank discussions between staff and management before Lincoln has to commit to any significant financial outlay regarding the development and promotion of flexible learning as a distinctive feature of Lincoln University.

Accordingly, the AUS requests that the University enters proper consultation on this issue and a wide range of participants are involved in subsequent discussions and not just those perceived as having a favourable view of flexible delivery.



Regards




Scott Walters and Lyn Boddington (AUS Co-Presidents)



[1] The AUS would be very happy to supply any information we have, or have written, on the IP of course material.