Team 6

Corey Wallace - Coordinator

Tawn Gillihan - Elaborator

Nuong Nguyen - Recorder

Jeff Kitts - Explorer

Scenario 1 - Contrary Colleagues

As Instructional Designers, we have obligations to the individual, to society, and to our

profession. Our obligations across all three sections of the AECT guidelines and the standards

of the ISPI require us to respect the integrity of others, not contribute to any behavior that is

insensitive or harassing, and engage in just and equitable treatment. We are to confer the

benefit of our attainment by identifying systems, gaps, and paths toward success. We are

obligated to provide guidance, to stay current in our field, be open to other points of view, and

follow proper channels within our organizations when difficulties arise. Overall, we are obligated

to listen, find consensus, and identify solutions that are respectful of the individuals involved and

the design process itself.

The person in the scenario above has a firm commitment to behaviorism, a training

model that is appropriate in some circumstances but is far from current theory or practice in the

field of instructional design. If they are encountering resistance from colleagues, it may be that

the colleagues have a solid reason for rejecting Skinners model of training. The person has

tried discussing it with them candidly and has failed to move them toward his or her point of

view. The next step is not to try to obtain compliance through public humiliation and

passive/aggressive manipulation. That is a failure to meet the obligations and standards we

agreed to follow and is a failure of civility. An Instructional Designer acting in this manner can be

reported to the AECT for improper behavior.

 A better approach is to have another candid discussion with their colleagues about the

disagreement and ask why they have not adopted the Skinner model. The critical step here is to

listen to the answer with an open mind. There may be information that was missing that could

change minds, or some compromise can be reached. If, after that discussion, there is still a

disagreement, request a meeting with the person in charge of the program where both points of

view can be presented. The project manager can determine the solution they prefer. Regardless

of that outcome, our subject has an obligation to work in partnership with his or her colleagues

according to the ethical standards of the profession.

Scenario 3 - Struggling School and Software Piracy

Legally, the school principal and teachers committed Infringement of Copyright. The

district may be held responsible for civil remedies for infringement, including damages for the

value of the software licenses. If the value or the software license is greater than $1,000, and if

the applications were distributed electronically as opposed to using media within six months, the

principal and teachers might have violated the No Electronic Theft (NET) Act of 1997. The NET

Act makes copyright infringement a federal crime with a fine, federal imprisonment, or both.

The principal and teachers also violated school district board policies. Virtually all school

districts explicitly prohibit copyright infringement. Violating board policy is also contrary to the

code of ethics for certificated teacher associations, as in Principle II, Article 4 of the Association

of American Educators Code of Ethics.

As an IT professional, being made aware of the copyright infringement and continuing to

allow usage of the software applications makes one complicit in the copyright infringement. The

Association for Education Communications & Technology (AECT) Code of Professional Ethics

in Section 3, Article 8 also explicitly states, Shall inform users of the stipulations and

interpretations of the copyright law and other laws affecting the profession and encourage

compliance.

The Possible Options:

 1. Do nothing, say nothing, and go along with the copyright infringement. Potentially lose

your job, expose yourself and the district to legal action and public ridicule, and lose your

AECT membership.

2. Immediately quit the job and go to work elsewhere and pretend like it never happened.

3. Educate and inform the principal and teachers about the legal and ethical considerations

of copyright infringement and affect immediate changes.

Option 3, educate, inform and affect immediate changes is the only legal and ethical

responsible course of action. Members of our team have experienced this issue first hand and

even parents were involved in outfitting the school with pirated software as well as the teachers

and administrators. As the Technology person, legal and ethical responsibility for the copyright

infringement becomes owned by you. You own it, you will be the one taken away in handcuffs

by the federal marshal. This is not a fuzzy legal and ethical situation. In the experience of our

team, educating and informing parents, teachers, and administrators about the reality of the

potential effects of the illegal and unethical behavior makes the corrective course of action

obvious. High profile news accounts of similar situations can be used to illustrate the point

about how being unable to afford software applications doesnt make stealing acceptable.

References

American Association of Educators. (2016). Code of ethics. Retrieved November 10, 2016 from

https://www.aaeteachers.org/index.php/about-us/aae-code-of-ethics

Association for Educational and Communications Technology (n.d.). Code of professional

ethics. Retrieved November 11, 2016 http://aect.site-

ym.com/members/group_content_view.asp?group=91131&id=309963

International Society for Performance Improvement (n.d). Certified performance technologist

standards. Retrieved November 11, 2016

http://www.ispi.org/ISPI/Credentials/CRT_Cert/CPT_Standards.aspx
Mendels, P. (1998) Los Angeles school district accused of software piracy. (n.d.). Retrieved

November 12, 2016, from

https://partners.nytimes.com/library/tech/98/08/cyber/education/12education.html

San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District. (2004). Copyright infringement and remedies.

Remedies for infringement: damages and profits. Retrieved November 10, 2016 from

http://www.gamutonline.net/district/sanlorenzovalley/displayPolicy/437731/

United States Copyright Office. (n.d.). Copyright law of the United States of America and

related laws contained in title 17 of the United States code. Retrieved November 11,

2016, from http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html

United States of Publishing Office. (1997). No electronic theft act of 1997. Retrieved November

11, 2016, from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-105publ147/html/PLAW-

105publ147.htm