Final Draft
Results of the UA Distance Education Labor Management Committee
Submitted to the University of Alaska System and United Academics
Dr. Michael Sfraga, University of Alaska System Office
Professor Katy Spangler, University of Alaska Southeast
The Distance Education LMC was convened at the request of both and representatives of
United Academic management of the University of Alaska. The purpose of the LMC was
to identify issues central to distance education that may be discussed at future contract
negotiations and discussions.
A preliminary meeting was held in the fall of 2000 between LMC co-chairs UAS faculty
member Richard Ackerman (representing labor) and SW Director Mike Sfraga
(representing management). At that meeting a list of issues to be discussed was agreed
upon, and a preliminary meeting schedule adopted. SW Labor Relations Coordinator
John Bhend facilitated this discussion.
The following issues were identified for consideration and/or discussion:
 Faculty Development
 Intellectual Property
 Compensation
 Workload
 Evaluation, Tenure, and Promotion
 Technology
The LMC was composed of the following members:
Labor:
David Ackerman, Chair
UAS
Susan Blalock
UAF
Katy Spangler
UAS
Fred Pearce
UAA
Management:
Mike Sfraga, Chair
Robbie Stell
Richard Whitney
Ralph Gabrielli/Blanche Brunk
SW
UAS
UAA
UAF
Background
The LMC met several times throughout the 2000-2001 academic year. Unfortunately,
almost all of the committee’s notes were lost when Professor Ackerman’s computer
malfunctioned. Moreover, time constraints placed on Professor Ackerman and the faculty
curtailed expanded discussions during the spring of 2001.
In the fall of 2001 Professor Katy Spangler, UAS assumed Professor Ackerman’s
responsibilities. Professor Spangler and Director Sfraga met at a UA Labor Management
sponsored training session in an attempt to complete the LMC’s work from the prior
academic year. It was agreed upon that Professor Spangler (in consultation with United
Academics leadership) would reconstitute the faculty committee, and that the LMC
would convene in September of 2001. The co-chairs agreed upon a meeting schedule and
agenda items (adopting the items agreed upon in the LMC’s first effort). LMC members
approved of both actions. It should be noted that due to the very busy schedules of both
faculty and administration, the majority of regularly scheduled meetings occurred from
7:00 – 9:00 a.m. All LMC members should be commended for their commitment to this
process.
The reconstituted labor committed included:
Katy Spangler
UAS
Daniel Monteith
UAS
Susan Blalock
UAF
Bruno Kappes
UAA
Management:
Mike Sfraga, Chair
Robbie Stell
Richard Whitney
Blanche Brunk
SW
UAS
UAA
UAF
The committee reviewed the work of the previous LMC and agreed to narrow the focus
of subsequent dialog to those issues deemed most pressing by the faculty representation.
Some of these issues were identified and discussed the previous year, but it was agreed
that with a reconstituted LMC, the most effective course of action was to review all
previous discussions and issues.
The LMC agreed that the task was to identify, define, and discuss issues of concern to
UA faculty and administration regarding distance education. There was clear
understanding from both sides that the LMC would not be used to negotiate these issues,
rather, the LMC would simply identify issues and concerns and transmit such information
to both management and labor for future consideration and/or action at the appropriate
time.
A preliminary Final Report was drafted on April 18, 2002 during a face-to-face meeting
at the Anchorage SW Office of Labor Relations. Participants at this meeting included
Katy Spangler, Mike Sfraga, Richard Whitney, Susan Blalock, Robbie Stell (via audio
conference) and Bruno Kappes. This report constitutes the final version of the April draft
and the LMC membership believes that with this report, its work is now complete.
The report is divided into two parts. The first part addresses issues of particular concern
to the faculty and they believe that the issues found within this section have direct
implication for future contract negotiations. The second part addresses items of concern
to faculty that they would like to have recorded here – but may not have direct contract
implications. Nevertheless, the LMC membership thought it appropriate to list these
concerns within this report in hopes that they may be given appropriate attention at the
campus, dean, and/or department level. The Distance Education LMC focused its efforts
on the following issues:
 Copyright
 Intellectual Property
 Workload
 Compensation
 Distance Education in Tenure and Promotion Review
 Instructional Assessment
 Faculty Role in Technology Selection and Deployment
Copyright
Faculty Interest: Faculty want to retain appropriate ownership of their materials,
including instructional materials developed for distance education. A review of the
current contract outlines the guidelines for copyright of academic and/or research
materials including instructional materials. The LMC considered the current contract
language and felt that it was appropriate and applicable. However, it was suggested that
faculty should engage in specific dialog with their applicable department head, dean,
and/or provost prior to the development of specific distance education course materials.
The LMC suggested that such dialog include specific agreement on issues related to
copyright. In as much as guidance might be needed on this topic, it was suggested that
UA General Council be sought by either side for guidance and clarification in such
discussions if and when it seems appropriate and applicable. In short, the LMC
considered current contract language appropriate yet advised faculty to seek clarification
(based on current contract language) regarding the development and future disposition of
course-related materials prior to course development or instruction.
Faculty Interest: Faculty members would like "quality control" over distance courses and
related materials. Some materials developed for distance education may have a long
“shelf life,” (CD’s, videotapes, web-based resources) remaining at UA even after a
faculty member has either been reassigned or departed. LMC faculty representatives
noted faculty interest in “granting” the institution permission to use his/her previously
developed materials. Moreover, faculty are concerned that materials developed for UA, to
be incorporated within UA courses, may be disseminated or sold by UA to another
institution for monetary gain. Faculty would like to have the right to approve or
disapprove of having “their” material made available to other entities outside the UA
system.
The LMC reviewed current contract language and believes that such requests noted above
can be addressed within the current contract framework. However, faculty would like to
discuss this item at greater length with the appropriate academic leadership at the campus
level.
Intellectual property
Faculty Interest: Faculty want to retain rights to compensation for their work--including
distance education materials (web-based materials, CD's, videos, etc) that may have the
potential to generate profits if distributed nationally. Faculty representatives noted that
this is a major issue across the system regarding material developed for instruction at a
distance. After a review of the current contract language, all LMC members agreed that
this issue should be considered when faculty are negotiating specific campus-based
workload agreements. The faculty noted that such pre-negotiation is imperative. The
faculty representatives also noted that the faculty as a whole should understand this and
advise faculty to raise this issue during workload agreement discussions. Faculty
representatives direct concerned faculty members to the current AAUP Guidelines.
Workload
Faculty Interest: Faculty believe that there exists inequity in compensation in faculty
salaries between those faculty who teach via distance and faculty who teach in a face-toface environment. Faculty representatives forward this issue for consideration to the
parallel LMC exploring issues related to faculty workload and compensation.
Faculty representatives noted that at a few UA campuses, faculty compensation and
issues related to workload are negotiated above and beyond regular workload agreements.
Thus, the salary scale for overloads is small when compared to faculty who teach
"regular" courses. It should be noted that representatives of UAS underscored the fact
that distance education courses (workload) at that campus are incorporated into standard
workload agreements.
The LMC identified the need for a series of “workshops" focused on educating and
assisting faculty in the development of workload agreements. Subsequent discussion
among LMC members centered on the content of such workshops and the LMC faculty
advised that a wider dialog, facilitated by the leadership of United Academics, would be
the most appropriate way to proceed. Moreover, the faculty held that such workshops
should also be facilitated and coordinated by representatives of United Academics.
Management representatives noted that they would support and assist this system-wide
effort.
Faculty Interest: Web-based instruction has placed additional demands on faculty across
the country that teach in an environment where class size has become an issue. UA
faculty are concerned that such realities may present themselves as UA makes available
more classes available online. The LMC recommends that the parallel committees
investigating issues related to workload/compensation review this issue at greater length.
Faculty representatives recommend expanded dialog on faculty support mechanisms such
as class caps for online courses, workload adjustments, and the availability of TA’s for
online courses.
Faculty Interest: A cadre of faculty teach courses that require some face-to-face contact
with students. Due to the wide distribution of such students around the state, travel is
often required. Such travel place unique demands on faculty time, preparation, and ability
to effectively engage students. The LMC believes that such issues could be worked out at
the departmental level when negotiating/developing faculty workloads. However, the
LMC recommends parallel committees exploring issues related to compensation and
workload incorporate this challenging issue within their deliberations.
Compensation
Faculty Interest: Faculty representatives believe that they are not compensated fairly for
developing and teaching courses via distance delivery. There are disparate means among
the three MAU’s by which distance courses are selected and taught. At UAF, most
distance education courses are facilitated through the Center for Distance Education.
Faculty are secured to teach with overload contracts that are above and beyond those
workload agreements secured at the department level. Faculty are compensated at
different rates (vs. their full time workload/compensation agreements) for such
instruction. Faculty representatives also believe that there is little recognition or financial
compensation for course development.
Faculty believe that release time, negotiated between the department and CDE (in the
case of UAF) would place less burden on a faculty member to both develop and
subsequently teach courses. Faculty representatives recommend that parallel committees
studying compensation and workload further explore this issue. The LMC noted that prenegotiation by faculty with distance education administrators, department heads, and/or
deans might prove fruitful. Additional concerns regarding proper technology and faculty
development where also identified as issues that should be addressed by parallel
committees.
Tenure/promotion
Faculty Interest: Faculty are concerned that there is less value placed on teaching via
distance than there is placed on face-to-face instruction. Subsequently, they believe
distance education is not given equal weight in the tenure and promotion process. Faculty
representatives believe that this opinion is formed because most distance courses are
taught as overloads to their already-set workload. The LMC noted that the UAS
handbook specifically includes development and delivery of distance courses/programs in
the tenure and promotion process. The LMC also noted that the MAU faculty should
drive the tenure and promotion process and changes should be discussed and
implemented at the campus level. The LMC recommends that tenure and promotion
criteria be reviewed at each campus with specific attention to the value placed on
developing and delivering instruction via distance delivery.
Course evaluation tools
Faculty Interest: Faculty do not believe they are evaluated fairly when teaching a course
via distance. Problems with technology (low speed phone lines, system goes down, audio
conference interference, etc.) have affected faculty evaluations. These problems are often
out of a faculty member’s control – yet are included in the teaching evaluation process.
The LMC believes that a review of the current evaluation tool should be undertaken with
special attention given to the idea of separating out the evaluation of instruction and the
effectiveness/reliability of the technology employed. It should be noted that at UAS, a
10-point questionnaire form was developed for evaluating technology separate from
content and instruction. It is given a week prior to faculty evaluations and is available
online.
Faculty representative on the LMC recommend that campus-based reviews be carried out
to consider multiple measures for faculty evaluation: peer reviews and self-evaluations
could supplement the IAS forms. They also note that an online version may be more
effective. The faculty also noted that University of Washington has three separate forms
and suggest that UA faculty leadership work with UW to investigate their separated
course evaluation forms. Faculty representatives agreed that this is not a contract issue.
The faculty representatives recommend that campus-based faculty drive the first step
toward such consideration and discussions should be facilitated by the leadership of
United Academics.
Faculty input on systematic technology decisions
Faculty Interest: Faculty want more input in the decision making process regarding the
selection and deployment of instructional technology. Faculty representatives would like
to know the mechanisms available to faculty at the campus level to inform technology
decisions. The LMC encourages faculty and technology administrators to discuss ways in
which faculty can become a part of the decision making process. Moreover, there are a
number of system-wide groups that can enable faculty to become a part of the process
including SAC, the Information Technology Council (facilitated by Steve Smith), the
Distance Education Council (facilitated by Mike Sfraga), and Curriculum Planning Team
(recently established by SAC and facilitated by Mike Sfraga). Faculty also note that the
Senates at each MAU can and should play a role in this process.
The following items were not identified as issues necessarily related to contract
negotiations or impacted by the current union contract. However, the faculty felt very
strongly that such issues should be addressed, however briefly, within the LMC.
Financial administration of inter-MAU projects.
Faculty Interest: Faculty and administration need simple ways to share information and
resources related to inter-MAU grants and projects. A perception existed that an efficient
method of administering finances for inter-MAU projects did not exit. UA distance
education faculty were concerned about moving money between MAU’s to support
travel, instruction, and related meetings. Administration representatives described the
current capacity of the Banner system and the processes already in place to address the
needs identified by LMC faculty representatives. It was agreed that the current capacity
within Banner is sufficient to handle the identified needs. However, faculty will need to
work closer with academic department staff to understand the current processes and
procedures so that faculty are not burdened with the responsibility to create additional
administrative processes.
Best practices regarding information technology (faculty development)
Faculty Interest: All members of the LMC desire quality development opportunities for
faculty who are creating and delivering distance courses. The LMC recommends that
existing faculty development programs and efforts currently in place at each MAU be
coordinated so that UA faculty have the benefit of system-wide expertise. Moreover,
faculty should consider the creation of specific programs targeted toward distance
education. LMC representatives suggest SAC consider such an effort and look to the
leadership of the existing CPT to help define focus, content, and faculty who posses the
skills necessary to carry out such an effort.
.
Faculty Interest: Faculty representative noted that faculty do not want to be forced to
consult with MAU IT staff for assistance in course development and delivery. They
much prefer to work with other faculty. No recommendations were made on this item and
it was suggested that LMC faculty representatives raise this issue at their home MAU
with the appropriate academic leadership.
Role of curriculum review in terms of distance education
Faculty Interest: Faculty and administration want to assure that distance courses have the
same integrity and status as those taught in a traditional mode of delivery. Faculty noted
that mechanisms for curriculum review are already in place at each campus. There exist
disparate processes throughout the UA system for the review of distance education
courses. LMC faculty noted that when distance courses are reviewed along with "regular"
classes, the value of distance education is highlighted. It was brought to the attention of
the LMC that at UAA an existing course that is proposed to be taught via distance is
review a second time by the CAS. UAA faculty feel that such “over review” detracts
from the value and perception of distance education. In contrast, it was noted that at UAS
a distance course with the same name/number as a campus-based course is viewed as the
same course – with no additional review necessary.
Scheduling of distance education courses.
Faculty Interest: Faculty expressed concern that instructional technology departments
(UAA Academic Technology Services, UAF Center for Distance Education) schedule
courses as opposed to academic departments. However, it was also noted that many
departments do in fact schedule courses and this process/decision is a campus-based
preference.
Portals to Internet sites
Faculty Interest: Faculty and administrators felt very strongly that students need a clear
and seamless "portal" to information related to UA-wide distance education course
offerings. Administration representatives described the recently released (2001) UA
Distance Education Gateway that unifies all UA distance education courses within one
online database (Distance.Alaska.edu or at Online.Alaska.edu). The administration also
noted that the website allows students to select a campus preference, a program
preference, a delivery preference, etc. LMC members expressed an interest in an overall
UA portal that allows for the free access to all UA information while maintaining links to
the separate campuses.
Summary
With the submission of this report to both labor and management, LMC members
consider this final document to mark the last action of the committee. All would like to
underscore the collegial atmosphere and, albeit spirited at times, open exchange of
philosophies, positions, and opinions. Members of the LMC trust that by addressing
issues related to distance education within this framework, both parties will have
additional and helpful information available to them for future discussions.