[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.They have full academic control of theessential to safeguard society and the academy.course and they have access to and support froma team of pedagogical and technical supportAcademic freedom may seem like an issue farstaff.However, he is quite correct in hisremoved from the mundane considerations ofassertion that the organizational model (and theproject management but it is emerging as one ofunderlying organizational culture) isthe key conflict-producing features of thesignificantly different.collegial culture that is threatening the ability ofuniversities to use a project managementThis issue will not be resolved easily, but if it isapproach to e-learning development.Thenot resolved it threatens the ability ofconflict occurs because the e-learning courseuniversities to produce sustainable and cost-development model used by most universitieseffective e-learning.E-learning has high up-frontinvolves faculty members assigning copyright tocosts that are only feasible if they can bee-learning courses to their institutions.Theamortized over several years of offering anspecifics vary from institution to institution.Atonline course without substantial changes.Ifthe University of British Columbia, for example,faculty members retain full ownership over e-copyright has been unbundled or divided intolearning courses and other faculty members are author materials and course materials .not permitted to teach those courses withoutFaculty members retain ownership of anypermission from the faculty member(s) whomaterial they produced on their own before theoriginally developed the course, universities maystart of the e-learning project.The universitynot be able to achieve the cost efficiencies ofclaims ownership of the course as a collectiveamortizing the up front costs over severalwork.Faculty members, faculty unions and theofferings.Canadian Association of University Teachershave equated this as an attack on academicWhat happens, for example, when the facultyfreedom because, unlike face-to-face courses, themember who developed the e-learning courseuniversity will own the e-learning course andgoes on sabbatical or leaves the university?thus potentially be able to influence how andAllowing a faculty member to determine whowhat the faculty member teaches and how thatteaches an e-learning course effectively removesmaterial is used in the future.any managerial authority of the university overteaching assignments.If this notion of copyrightCynics may argue that outraged faculty membersand academic freedom is accepted, the facultyare really more concerned about the loss ofmember/e-learning course creator wouldpotential profits from the sale of e-learningeffectively be able to determine who teaches thatcourses than they are about upholding thecourse unless the university wanted to develop avirtues of academic freedom.Nonetheless thisnew version of the course for each facultyissue has moved to centre stage in many Northmember who was assigned to teach it.American universities.At UBC, the FacultyAssociation recently won an arbitration before173 Organizational Implications as were the arguments for the synergies thatdevelop by concentrating professionals inThe implications for how universities organize to centres of excellence .The stated rationale fordevelop and support e-learning are significant.this restructuring reveals the power of theWhile organizational theorists tend to agree thatcollegial culture and supports the premise thatmultiple organizational cultures can co-exist inwhen this dominant culture comes into conflictuniversities, there is also general agreement thatwith the alien managerial culture, it will reassertthe collegial culture still dominates.Thus weits dominance through restructuring.Thehave a dominant culture that values theAcademic Vice-President at the time stated Inindependence and autonomy of the individualsustaining& e-learning growth& strong facultyfaculty members, who resist the notion ofinvolvement in essential.Over the next monthshierarchy and accountability.In fact theywe will be looking for new organizationalconsider themselves accountable only toalignments that links the strengths of & [thethemselves and to their disciplines.central e-learning department]& with thefaculties (McBride, 2003). However, when faculty members come to workon an e-learning project they are entering aThe implications of this rationale are that thedifferent reality, one that is governed by arestructuring was needed because faculties weremanagerial culture in which work is organizednot involved in the development and delivery ofvery differently, which emphasizese-learning, that they had somehow been cut outaccountability, deadlines, organization andof the process and need to reestablish theircollaboration.One of the major sources ofcontrol over this, primarily, academic activity.Inconflict in organizations occurs when people dofact, faculties controlled the funding andnot share the same values and perceptions ofpriority-setting process through an advisoryreality (Thompson, 1961) I have discussed thecouncil.All faculties had access to earmarked e-implications of this conflict for the projectlearning funds and could determine whichmanagement process.But, it also has an impactprograms they chose to develop.What theyon how universities organize for e-learningdidn t have, however, was direct control over thebecause an organization that has these twomanagement of the development processfundamentally different cultures sets itself up forbecause Distance Education & Technology was aconflict.Eventually, change must occur, as thecentral support unit that was not part of aorganization attempts to eliminate the conflictfaculty.And because Distance Education &and restore balance.In practice, what this oftenTechnology operated according to managerialmeans is that an organizational restructuringprinciples, it tended to provoke the kind ofoccurs to ensure that the dominant culture holdsconflict mentioned earlier when realities are notsway.shared.Thus, the scene was set for arestructuring, particularly as e-learning grew inMore often than not, what this organizationalimportance [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl trzylatki.xlx.pl
.They have full academic control of theessential to safeguard society and the academy.course and they have access to and support froma team of pedagogical and technical supportAcademic freedom may seem like an issue farstaff.However, he is quite correct in hisremoved from the mundane considerations ofassertion that the organizational model (and theproject management but it is emerging as one ofunderlying organizational culture) isthe key conflict-producing features of thesignificantly different.collegial culture that is threatening the ability ofuniversities to use a project managementThis issue will not be resolved easily, but if it isapproach to e-learning development.Thenot resolved it threatens the ability ofconflict occurs because the e-learning courseuniversities to produce sustainable and cost-development model used by most universitieseffective e-learning.E-learning has high up-frontinvolves faculty members assigning copyright tocosts that are only feasible if they can bee-learning courses to their institutions.Theamortized over several years of offering anspecifics vary from institution to institution.Atonline course without substantial changes.Ifthe University of British Columbia, for example,faculty members retain full ownership over e-copyright has been unbundled or divided intolearning courses and other faculty members are author materials and course materials .not permitted to teach those courses withoutFaculty members retain ownership of anypermission from the faculty member(s) whomaterial they produced on their own before theoriginally developed the course, universities maystart of the e-learning project.The universitynot be able to achieve the cost efficiencies ofclaims ownership of the course as a collectiveamortizing the up front costs over severalwork.Faculty members, faculty unions and theofferings.Canadian Association of University Teachershave equated this as an attack on academicWhat happens, for example, when the facultyfreedom because, unlike face-to-face courses, themember who developed the e-learning courseuniversity will own the e-learning course andgoes on sabbatical or leaves the university?thus potentially be able to influence how andAllowing a faculty member to determine whowhat the faculty member teaches and how thatteaches an e-learning course effectively removesmaterial is used in the future.any managerial authority of the university overteaching assignments.If this notion of copyrightCynics may argue that outraged faculty membersand academic freedom is accepted, the facultyare really more concerned about the loss ofmember/e-learning course creator wouldpotential profits from the sale of e-learningeffectively be able to determine who teaches thatcourses than they are about upholding thecourse unless the university wanted to develop avirtues of academic freedom.Nonetheless thisnew version of the course for each facultyissue has moved to centre stage in many Northmember who was assigned to teach it.American universities.At UBC, the FacultyAssociation recently won an arbitration before173 Organizational Implications as were the arguments for the synergies thatdevelop by concentrating professionals inThe implications for how universities organize to centres of excellence .The stated rationale fordevelop and support e-learning are significant.this restructuring reveals the power of theWhile organizational theorists tend to agree thatcollegial culture and supports the premise thatmultiple organizational cultures can co-exist inwhen this dominant culture comes into conflictuniversities, there is also general agreement thatwith the alien managerial culture, it will reassertthe collegial culture still dominates.Thus weits dominance through restructuring.Thehave a dominant culture that values theAcademic Vice-President at the time stated Inindependence and autonomy of the individualsustaining& e-learning growth& strong facultyfaculty members, who resist the notion ofinvolvement in essential.Over the next monthshierarchy and accountability.In fact theywe will be looking for new organizationalconsider themselves accountable only toalignments that links the strengths of & [thethemselves and to their disciplines.central e-learning department]& with thefaculties (McBride, 2003). However, when faculty members come to workon an e-learning project they are entering aThe implications of this rationale are that thedifferent reality, one that is governed by arestructuring was needed because faculties weremanagerial culture in which work is organizednot involved in the development and delivery ofvery differently, which emphasizese-learning, that they had somehow been cut outaccountability, deadlines, organization andof the process and need to reestablish theircollaboration.One of the major sources ofcontrol over this, primarily, academic activity.Inconflict in organizations occurs when people dofact, faculties controlled the funding andnot share the same values and perceptions ofpriority-setting process through an advisoryreality (Thompson, 1961) I have discussed thecouncil.All faculties had access to earmarked e-implications of this conflict for the projectlearning funds and could determine whichmanagement process.But, it also has an impactprograms they chose to develop.What theyon how universities organize for e-learningdidn t have, however, was direct control over thebecause an organization that has these twomanagement of the development processfundamentally different cultures sets itself up forbecause Distance Education & Technology was aconflict.Eventually, change must occur, as thecentral support unit that was not part of aorganization attempts to eliminate the conflictfaculty.And because Distance Education &and restore balance.In practice, what this oftenTechnology operated according to managerialmeans is that an organizational restructuringprinciples, it tended to provoke the kind ofoccurs to ensure that the dominant culture holdsconflict mentioned earlier when realities are notsway.shared.Thus, the scene was set for arestructuring, particularly as e-learning grew inMore often than not, what this organizationalimportance [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]