Dissertation Proposal Work
Chapter 2
CHAPTER
II
Review
of Literature
The
use of the Internet by colleges to provide information to students continues to
rise in the United States. Our
society has only begun to see the effects of technology on learning and teaching
(Barone, German, Katz, Long, & Walsh).
Several possible reasons for this trend include availability of
information, convenience to the student, and the amount of resources offered via
the Internet. Information that is
put online is available to the student anytime of the day or night.
Furthermore, that information is available from anywhere in the world
where Internet access exists. Convenience
speaks to another facet which has led to an increase in the use of the Internet
in higher education. The ability to
offer convenience coupled with quality instruction is a significant asset for
institutions of higher education. The
institution is able to offer courses and programs to students who may be
unwilling or unable to travel to be on a physical campus.
The virtually unlimited amount of resources on the Internet today is
another selling point for educational institutions and those advocating the use
of the Internet for educational instruction.
The amount of information available to students in the form of
researchable instructional material is literally staggering.
***************************1
Distance
education is not new to American educational institutions.
For decades institutions of higher learning in America have used forms of
distance education to extend their campuses beyond their physical location.
According to Cyrs (1999), distance education programs using methods such
as telephone and audioconferencing have been around since the 1930s. While these specific methods for delivering instruction are
not new to educational institutions, there are now methods used to transmit
educational materials that are very new to education and our society in general.
One such system is the Internet and its delivery system which can be used
to facilitate instruction through the use of educational materials and tools.
***************************2
Many
educational tools have been created by faculty members for use by their students
via the Internet. The Internet is a
delivery system that allows one to make information available immediately to an
almost unlimited number of individuals residing virtually anywhere.
Brown (2000) supports this with his claim that technology is a means by
which learning can take place anywhere. This
system also provides a means for inexpensively making information permanently
available because its availability is independent of the need to have personnel
to supply that information. Once
information is uploaded, it remains in that form and available for students to
access without assistance from institutional employees.
***************************3
The
use of the Internet to offer information has facilitated instruction in several
ways. Bruwelheid (1999) likens the
web to a smorgasbord of materials speaking of the varied formats made possible
by the Internet. First, formal
courses have been offered over the Internet.
Students are able to log onto the Internet and complete requirements to
earn credit online without having to attend a physical classroom.
Second, supplementation denotes information that is posted to the
Internet, which students are able to use in conjunction with material obtained
from the physical classroom. Third, information management implies that information is
uploaded to the Internet and can be used by the institution and its personnel. Additionally,
this information is portable in the sense that it can be downloaded from any
computer with Internet access. Fourth,
student services have been offered to a significant degree over the Internet.
Student services that may be offered over the Internet include
information for prospective students, orientation, admission, registration,
academic advisement, technical support, library services, career services,
services for students with disabilities, instructional support and tutoring,
bookstore services, services to promote a sense of community, and services
affecting financial aid and personal counseling (Carbajal & Krauth, 2000).
***************************4
With
the move toward higher education courses offered over the Internet, there are
several new issues and concerns that institutions of higher education will have
to address. One such issue is that
of ownership of online materials. Who
owns material that is created by the instructor and posted to the Internet for
use by students of the institution? With
the increase in the number of instructors putting information online, there is
an increase in the stake the institution holds in the ownership of that
information. Will institutions be
able to continue to use instructor-created online information to draw students
when that instructor no longer teaches that class?
Without standard policies and procedures for handling these concerns,
institutional administrators at specific institutions may currently be
addressing them as cases arise with no knowledge of how they are handled
elsewhere.
***************************5
The
increased use of distance education and the utilization of technology-mediated
educational materials has given rise to increased interest by faculty and
administration about copyright issues (Salomon, 1999).
Many institutions have begun to attempt to determine the specific
circumstances by which information has been created and posted to the Internet.
In these cases, it is maintained by the institution that if the
instructor uses substantial institutional resources such as a computer, server,
or software to create the online material, such material will belong to the
institution. In this case, the
administration considers the work to be one made for hire and therefore owned by
the institution employing the author of the material
(Salomon, 1999). Furthermore,
some institutions have taken the view that if information has been uploaded to
and hosted on a server that is owned by the institution, that information now
belongs to the institution owning the server on which the information resides.
The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (2000) eludes to this in a report
indicating that when the institution provides specialized services for the
facilitation of material in a distance learning environment an ownership claim
could be made by both the faculty member and the institution.
***************************6
Traditionally,
instructors have created information for use in their classes that was not
subjected to scrutiny of the circumstances by which that material was created.
These materials may have included any information that was created by the
instructor to be delivered to the student as a form of instruction or supplement
to existing instruction occurring in the classroom.
Some examples of these educational materials are notes, quizzes,
assignments and textbooks that are created by faculty.
Materials created by a specific instructor have, until recent times, been
considered to be the intellectual property of the author of that material. Salomon (1999) explains that it has been a common practice
for higher education institutions to voluntarily confer ownership of authored
material to the faculty member creating such material.
However, with the rise in the information that is offered via the
Internet, and the rise in the value of information which is coupled with a
delivery system as proficient as the Internet, institutions have begun to
reexamine policies and procedures that release that information to the author
for ownership. According to Gorman
(1998), within the academic community the debate as to who owns intellectual
material has been heightened by both new technology and budgetary challenges
faced by university administrators.
***************************7
Facing
these challenges, many institutions are rethinking traditional practices in
favor of incorporating more control over materials created by faculty members.
One defense by institutions for attempting to take ownership of
electronic materials is that the creator relies on the institution to provide
resources that make the creation possible.
When significant institutional resources are used in the creation of
online material, there may be a legitimate claim to ownership by both the
faculty and the institution regarding information produced for instruction. For example, Gorman (1998) suggests that when the university
instigates the activities resulting in the creation of online material and when
exceptional university resources are used to develop them, the university
legitimately has rights to the educational product. Therefore, the traditional view in higher education that
information created by a faculty member for students in a course is owned by the
author of such material is no longer categorically accepted as proper procedure.
This view, however, remains a significant part of the educational
philosophy of many leaders in education. The
attempts by institutions to take ownership of information created by its faculty
members have caused some turmoil within the faculty and its professional
organizations. For example, the
American Association of University Professors adopted a policy statement in
1999, which includes the premise that a faculty member who creates intellectual
property should own that property. There
will likely be many investigations into the best way to protect the rights and
interests of both the institution and the faculty member creating educational
materials. Institutions as well as
instructors will have to come to some agreement as to how this issue will be
resolved in order to maintain a working relationship that must exist if these
parties are to provide quality experiences for their students.
***************************8
Institutions that have clearly defined policies regarding ownership of
materials created by faculty members may experience fewer problems than those
institutions that do not. McLendon
and Cronk (1999) pose that the greatest challenge to the future of successful
distance education delivery may be the development of policies and practices
which keep pace with the developments in technology.
Furthermore, policies that are in effect and adequately publicized to the
faculty prior to the creation of material by the faculty members may provide for
fewer misunderstandings between the institution and its faculty.
Additionally, when policies clearly define what circumstances provide for
a shift in ownership from the faculty member to the institution, all parties may
experience fewer conflicts. Any
transfer should comply with applicable copyright laws and should be represented
in a signed agreement including both parties (Council for Higher Education
Accreditation, 2000).
***************************9
However,
the idea of using the World Wide Web to post materials to the Internet to
provide for more effective teaching of courses and to facilitate classroom
instruction is significantly new to our society. McLendon and Cronk (1999)
suggest that surprisingly little has been written about the academic management
and administration of internet-related distance education.
Furthermore, according to Danley and Fetzner (1997), it has only been in
the past few years that the vast array of new distance learning programs has
been introduced. Therefore, it may be that at a particular institution there are
no policies or procedures to provide insight into how to properly handle
situations where the rights and welfare of the institution must be weighed
against the intellectual property rights of faculty members.
***************************10
It
may be that school policies exist with regard to online educational materials at
various places around the country. These
policies may already be effectively considering the issues as they relate to
both the institution and its faculty members.
These policies may also be addressing the legal ramifications of
copyright law as it applies to intellectual property.
In searching for adequate guidelines for institutions to utilize in
developing ownership policies, this study is divided into three phases.
***************************11
Phase
one will analyze exiting law as well as the presidence set by past cases and
common law. This will result in a
rule of law that can be applied to the ownership of electronic materials. This phase will end with the development of a framework to be
used for analysis of policies secured in phase two.
***************************12
Phase
two will consist of acquiring current policies from around the nation and
analyzing them based upon the framework which originated in phase one.
Policies will be categorized into three areas differentiated by the
degree to which they are, or are not, supported by the rule of law as it now
applies. The first category will
include policies that cannot be supported.
The second category will include polices that may be supported.
The third category will include policies that are supported.
***************************13
Phase
three will result in the creation of a model policy based on the framework
created in phase one and the resluts from the analysis of policies completed in
phase two. This phase will
culminate in the creation of a model policy which is supported by the law and is
sensitive to both the institution and faculty members.
Institutions may then use this model policy to create and implement a
policy which is acceptable to everyone.
The existence of a fair policy will ultimately
benefit both the institution and the faculty.
It is suggested by King, Nugent, Russell, Eich, and Lacy (2000) that
developing policies is the surest way to help assure distance education
programas that provide certification, licensure, and degrees.
The emergence of a fair policy that would treat institutions as well as
faculty with appropriate fairness quite likely would be embraced by both the
institutions and faculty members facing the possibility of dealing with this
situation.
***************************14