Instructional Technology Committee Meeting Minutes
January 7, 2011
Attending: Shane Tilton, Kellie Demmler, Da Zhang, Alan Middleton, Christine Wolfe and Deb Smith
11:00 am. Br 302
Deb Smith called the meeting to order
The group discussed the results of a meeting with Deb Smith, Dr. Paul Abraham and Paul Allen that took place late December, 2010. The meeting was requested by Deb after the last committee meeting when several points of information were identified of interest to the committee. Please see the attached report of that meeting that was sent by email to the committee in late December.
After discussion by the committee, the following was decided by the committee:
1. Deb Smith will write a proposal to administration requesting funds for a student worker to support and maintain a BlackBoard site that will be designed by the committee to achieve the following goals:
a. Contain educational videos regarding technology for use by faculty
b. Serve as a repository for best practices and demonstration projects regarding technology use in the classroom
c. Introduce new technologies and pedagogical rationales for the use of technology in the classroom
d. Serve as a repository for forms, procedural documents, inventories and other assets useful to faculty using technology in the classroom
e. Announce technology changes, additions, new equipment, etc. on campus
f. Serve as a common exchange for information between other regional campuses regarding technology, pedagogy, and procedures that would benefit all regional faculty.
Since the website is in flux, the committee agreed to use BlackBoard as the means of communication at this time. If a webpage becomes available on the www.lancaster.ohiou.edu site, we could use it in addition or instead. Shane Tilton offered a wiki solution that the committee agreed could be embedded on the BlackBoard site to engender creativity in communication and information exchange.
The committee was asked to consider 2 or 3 items that they felt should be priorities for the committee in improving technology integration and usefulness to faculty. The committee will discuss and consider the lists at the next meeting and generate a plan for the remainder of the academic year.
Meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted – Deb Smith
Friday, January 7, 2011
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Minutes from Instructional Technology Meeting
Instructional Technology Committee
Meeting October 27, 2010 3:00 p.m.
Attendees: Giorgi Shonia, Christine Wolfe, Kellie Demmler, Da Zhang, Deb Smith
Unable to Attend: Alan Middleton
The meeting was called to order by Deb Smith as Chair of 2009-2010 academic year.
Christine Wolfe nominated Deb Smith as Chair for the 2010-11. Seconded by Giorgi Shonia. Vote was unanimous in favor.
A discussion ensued among the members regarding major goals for this upcoming year.
The following were listed:
1. Need for information from IT
a. What is the refresh cycle?
b. What is the standard image for faculty and classroom technology?
c. Update of information on the P drive needed
d. Mac users can’t access the common drives
e. Need of a knowledge base of common solutions for problems with hardware and software
f. Policies of classroom technology – refresh, image, etc.
g. Software and hardware inventory on this campus
i. Smartboards, slates, Maple licenses, clickers and licenses, etc.
h. Check out procedure for technology
i. Clickers, smartboards, smartboard tablets, microphones, web cams, etc.
i. The committee discussed the need for a webpage with the possibility of online checkout of items as a way to increase use of software and hardware.
2. Training
a. Faculty training – Bb, clickers, SmartBoard, pedagogy
i. Methods, timing, sustainability
b. Student training
i. Methods, timing, sustainability
c. Best practices of use of classroom technology
i. Faculty recognition
ii. Web page with demonstration projects
3. Printing –
a. Identified as a faculty concern last year
b. How much is free for students?
4. Adjunct faculty
a. IDs don’t work in adjunct faculty rooms
b. Hardware in adjunct faculty rooms boots very slowly
The following information was shared:
1. Bb9.1 is scheduled for release as early as Winter quarter
a. New training may be required
After discussion, it was decided that the committee would review the list above and prioritize the problems for future discussion and to address with administration.
The committee stated that a report at every faculty meeting would be helpful in raising awareness and getting input from faculty.
The committee briefly discussed performing another survey of faculty.
Meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted
Deb Smith
Meeting October 27, 2010 3:00 p.m.
Attendees: Giorgi Shonia, Christine Wolfe, Kellie Demmler, Da Zhang, Deb Smith
Unable to Attend: Alan Middleton
The meeting was called to order by Deb Smith as Chair of 2009-2010 academic year.
Christine Wolfe nominated Deb Smith as Chair for the 2010-11. Seconded by Giorgi Shonia. Vote was unanimous in favor.
A discussion ensued among the members regarding major goals for this upcoming year.
The following were listed:
1. Need for information from IT
a. What is the refresh cycle?
b. What is the standard image for faculty and classroom technology?
c. Update of information on the P drive needed
d. Mac users can’t access the common drives
e. Need of a knowledge base of common solutions for problems with hardware and software
f. Policies of classroom technology – refresh, image, etc.
g. Software and hardware inventory on this campus
i. Smartboards, slates, Maple licenses, clickers and licenses, etc.
h. Check out procedure for technology
i. Clickers, smartboards, smartboard tablets, microphones, web cams, etc.
i. The committee discussed the need for a webpage with the possibility of online checkout of items as a way to increase use of software and hardware.
2. Training
a. Faculty training – Bb, clickers, SmartBoard, pedagogy
i. Methods, timing, sustainability
b. Student training
i. Methods, timing, sustainability
c. Best practices of use of classroom technology
i. Faculty recognition
ii. Web page with demonstration projects
3. Printing –
a. Identified as a faculty concern last year
b. How much is free for students?
4. Adjunct faculty
a. IDs don’t work in adjunct faculty rooms
b. Hardware in adjunct faculty rooms boots very slowly
The following information was shared:
1. Bb9.1 is scheduled for release as early as Winter quarter
a. New training may be required
After discussion, it was decided that the committee would review the list above and prioritize the problems for future discussion and to address with administration.
The committee stated that a report at every faculty meeting would be helpful in raising awareness and getting input from faculty.
The committee briefly discussed performing another survey of faculty.
Meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted
Deb Smith
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Academic Year 10-11 Committee Input Technology and Distance Learning Committee
Hello everyone,
After today's faculty meeting, Alan and I thought it might be helpful for all of you to take a look at the committee charge that was approved last year when the committee was formed.
First, let me say that the official name of the committee last year was Technology and Distance Learning Committee instead of Instructional Technology as is listed on the hand out we received today.
The charge that was adopted last year and approved by the dean was:
The Technology and Distance Learning Committee recognizes the importance of technology in the educational arena and endeavors to consider, evaluate, recommend and promote best practices in instructional technology, classroom technology and other technical assets that serve the mission of the faculty and students at Ohio University Lancaster.
In addition, we created a blog for the committee last year that we used to communicate.
The link to the blog is: http://techanddlcommittee.blogspot.com/
We posted meeting minutes and information on the blog.
If the charge is agreeable to everyone, we still need to decide the following:
1. Chair for this year
2. Rotation of members
I will post this email on the blog. Please comment on your willingness to be chair and your ideas on term limits/rotation of members on the committee.
For now, I will be glad to monitor the blog and report our agreement on the Committee form to Janet before Oct 27.
Thanks
Deb
After today's faculty meeting, Alan and I thought it might be helpful for all of you to take a look at the committee charge that was approved last year when the committee was formed.
First, let me say that the official name of the committee last year was Technology and Distance Learning Committee instead of Instructional Technology as is listed on the hand out we received today.
The charge that was adopted last year and approved by the dean was:
The Technology and Distance Learning Committee recognizes the importance of technology in the educational arena and endeavors to consider, evaluate, recommend and promote best practices in instructional technology, classroom technology and other technical assets that serve the mission of the faculty and students at Ohio University Lancaster.
In addition, we created a blog for the committee last year that we used to communicate.
The link to the blog is: http://techanddlcommittee.blogspot.com/
We posted meeting minutes and information on the blog.
If the charge is agreeable to everyone, we still need to decide the following:
1. Chair for this year
2. Rotation of members
I will post this email on the blog. Please comment on your willingness to be chair and your ideas on term limits/rotation of members on the committee.
For now, I will be glad to monitor the blog and report our agreement on the Committee form to Janet before Oct 27.
Thanks
Deb
Monday, March 29, 2010
MapleTA
Few notes from MapleTA March 25th presentation.
Platform is the most spectacular, way ahead then any other alternative (WebAssign, WileyPlus). In math content creation it is ahead of competitors probably by few degrees.
Platform has all the usual online homework features. Content organization, navigation, reporting is equivalent to other competitors (Blackboard integration available as well). What makes MapleTA to stand out is content creation. Platform allows to create content all the way from click and drag user friendly high level interface down to raw coding and tweaking geeky levels. A very rich usage of variables, images as variables, access to maple engine core (with spectacular 3D graphing, all the calculating power, symbolic math) are all there. Platform can interface with adobe flash, one can create visual problems (way richer then publisher compiled WebAssign can offer). In one word, it is state of art of online math assignments.
The price for platform is $200 installation + $16 pa per student (hosted by MapleTA). Interestingly this is half price of WebAssign access that we are currently asking students to pay for. Beyond the pilot further discounted pricing schemes are available (especially if hosted by the university). It has many of the same features we are seeking in TutorTracks. The practice problems will be available to OUL students, will be reusable and can be incorporated in the KB database much the same way as other sources could be. It doesn't have to be TutorTracks project, but probably worth mentioning. Athens math department is one possible partner to get engaged in this project.
Platform is the most spectacular, way ahead then any other alternative (WebAssign, WileyPlus). In math content creation it is ahead of competitors probably by few degrees.
Platform has all the usual online homework features. Content organization, navigation, reporting is equivalent to other competitors (Blackboard integration available as well). What makes MapleTA to stand out is content creation. Platform allows to create content all the way from click and drag user friendly high level interface down to raw coding and tweaking geeky levels. A very rich usage of variables, images as variables, access to maple engine core (with spectacular 3D graphing, all the calculating power, symbolic math) are all there. Platform can interface with adobe flash, one can create visual problems (way richer then publisher compiled WebAssign can offer). In one word, it is state of art of online math assignments.
The price for platform is $200 installation + $16 pa per student (hosted by MapleTA). Interestingly this is half price of WebAssign access that we are currently asking students to pay for. Beyond the pilot further discounted pricing schemes are available (especially if hosted by the university). It has many of the same features we are seeking in TutorTracks. The practice problems will be available to OUL students, will be reusable and can be incorporated in the KB database much the same way as other sources could be. It doesn't have to be TutorTracks project, but probably worth mentioning. Athens math department is one possible partner to get engaged in this project.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
OLN update
I thought to post OLN online tutoring options that Karen Boyd explained during today's teleconference.
Ohio State subsidy expires July 2011, it subsidizes price of SmartThinking tutoring from $29 to $21 per hour and there are only ~500 minutes left. There is a good chance those will be gone too in couple of moths. SmartThinking is currently used in Athens, contact person for it is Pam Brown @ OU.
Another option with OLN is their inHouse eTutoring platform, which is relatively new (started this January). Essentially this is a collaborative scheme, where all participants provide 5hours/week tutor time (those could be our on-campus existing student tutors, payed by us) and get 100 sessions/quarter for it (more can be purchased if needed). There is also a fixed annual fee of $2'500. They use AdobeConnect interface and sessions are manually saved (and can be databased and linked) at a hosting providers (Connecticut) servers.
Not all subjects have tutors available at 24/7. We discussed if beyond participating in collaborative we could use their platform to have our existing on-campus tutors operate online channel as well, during daytime (instead of doing that in BlackBoard or elsewhere). Answer at this point is unclear, we'll be following this up with hosting provider's contact.
eTutoring doesn't enforce "one student per one tutor at a time" policy, but they allow group sessions.
OLN is part of OSU, but reports directly to reagents and often act as a state education agency.
Advisory counsil of participating institutions is scheduled to meet May 10, where we will be invited too (even though not participating. ).
eTutoring is undoubtedly cheaper then commercial alternatives (by degree). But this comes at a price of somewhat sparser schedule (not all subjects covered 24/7) and somewhat poorer interface (at least for the moment, when project is just starting). We discussed the pilot nature of our interest and they are encouraging our approach to consider multiple providers while exploring habit formation on OUL campus. Their collaborative scheme has a chance to fit well with what we envisaged as "Basic Tier" of our online tutoring, the one based on inHouse resources.
I will also follow up this report with some institutional specific information over the email.
Ohio State subsidy expires July 2011, it subsidizes price of SmartThinking tutoring from $29 to $21 per hour and there are only ~500 minutes left. There is a good chance those will be gone too in couple of moths. SmartThinking is currently used in Athens, contact person for it is Pam Brown @ OU.
Another option with OLN is their inHouse eTutoring platform, which is relatively new (started this January). Essentially this is a collaborative scheme, where all participants provide 5hours/week tutor time (those could be our on-campus existing student tutors, payed by us) and get 100 sessions/quarter for it (more can be purchased if needed). There is also a fixed annual fee of $2'500. They use AdobeConnect interface and sessions are manually saved (and can be databased and linked) at a hosting providers (Connecticut) servers.
Not all subjects have tutors available at 24/7. We discussed if beyond participating in collaborative we could use their platform to have our existing on-campus tutors operate online channel as well, during daytime (instead of doing that in BlackBoard or elsewhere). Answer at this point is unclear, we'll be following this up with hosting provider's contact.
eTutoring doesn't enforce "one student per one tutor at a time" policy, but they allow group sessions.
OLN is part of OSU, but reports directly to reagents and often act as a state education agency.
Advisory counsil of participating institutions is scheduled to meet May 10, where we will be invited too (even though not participating. ).
eTutoring is undoubtedly cheaper then commercial alternatives (by degree). But this comes at a price of somewhat sparser schedule (not all subjects covered 24/7) and somewhat poorer interface (at least for the moment, when project is just starting). We discussed the pilot nature of our interest and they are encouraging our approach to consider multiple providers while exploring habit formation on OUL campus. Their collaborative scheme has a chance to fit well with what we envisaged as "Basic Tier" of our online tutoring, the one based on inHouse resources.
I will also follow up this report with some institutional specific information over the email.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Comments submitted with the survey
Hello all,
Below please find the comments that were submitted by faculty as a part of the recent survey.
I will be organizing them for the presentation to faculty.
I have used Facebook(FB) in my classes at OU-L. In my case, it did NOT enhance communication within the class but it did substantially increase my workload (i.e. having to constantly check yet another communication medium). In my experience, students exchange contact information in the first few days of class and then connect via their own preferred social network/communication/messaging scheme. In my area of study (Physics), web based tutorials and activities are helpful but the actual instruction of the course is best accomplished within a classroom environment. The classroom itself, however, needs to be transformed. I am currently in the process of moving from an interactive lecture base to an activity based classroom primarily due to what I perceive as a change in the abilities or students to visualize and think abstractly. I intend to pilot this transformation in the Winter and would be happy to share my results with the OU-L community. Sandy Doty
Together with faculty opinion, would be helpful to get a "big picture" of:
-hardware; and
-software
resources available at OU. and
-list on online courses actually available and plans for developing new online courses in future.
Giorgi Shonia
One issue I've had with my online students is that they can't get into computer labs at all times because of classes, closing early, etc. A more open time frame will likely be needed if more classes have more intensive online or technology-based content.
I think the trend is toward offering more courses online. I don't see that as a positive thing as far as learing, but unfortunately it may be necessary to compete with other institutions.
There are only two problems with technology that I'd really like to see addressed on this campus, and they're both relatively minor. First, whenever I use the computer projector--no matter which classroom I've been in--there's always a light that shines directly on the projector screen. Even if I turn off one set of lights, regardless which set of lights it is, there are always at least two lights shining directly on the screen. The only way to really address this is to turn off all the lights in the room, but then my students can't see to take notes. Can't we figure out some way to turn off just the lights that shine on the projector screens in the classroom? It's very frustrating. The other thing is, some of the computers won't play some types of online videos (in some rooms, it's Flash that won't work; in others, it's things on youtube). I don't use these enough that it's a big problem but, sometimes when we're discussing nontextual arguments for our comp classes, there are things on the internet I'd like to show my students but I can't. That's all; other than that, everything's great and you're all doing a wonderful job. I hope that helps. Thanks.
Andy McGreevy---I have taught History 133 and History 246 online since 2000 or so. I have published online through Cornell University. I see online education as still in its early stages and experimental. It certainly works in history--I don't know about all other disciplines. Second Thought = We could use a national and international report on what is happening with online education. We need to know what is going on beyond OUL! We need to know which American institutions of higher education are using online methods. We need to know what Athens is doing....Sincerely, A.M.
I teach at the differenc campuses and use different rooms for classes and it always seems tricky to get used to all the different devices and machines. And if you want to go from powerpoint to draw something on the whiteboard you can't without turning off the powerpoint to raise the screen, etc. And there always seem to be a bright light right above the projector screen and if you turn it off then students can't see but if you turn the light on then the screen is washed out. And if you plug in a USB you almost have to get down on your knees to see where it plugs into the computer. I don't think any of the rooms are easy to use with the technology that is in them. It is very frustrating.
I would like to learn about the pros and cons of on-line tests.
Below please find the comments that were submitted by faculty as a part of the recent survey.
I will be organizing them for the presentation to faculty.
I have used Facebook(FB) in my classes at OU-L. In my case, it did NOT enhance communication within the class but it did substantially increase my workload (i.e. having to constantly check yet another communication medium). In my experience, students exchange contact information in the first few days of class and then connect via their own preferred social network/communication/messaging scheme. In my area of study (Physics), web based tutorials and activities are helpful but the actual instruction of the course is best accomplished within a classroom environment. The classroom itself, however, needs to be transformed. I am currently in the process of moving from an interactive lecture base to an activity based classroom primarily due to what I perceive as a change in the abilities or students to visualize and think abstractly. I intend to pilot this transformation in the Winter and would be happy to share my results with the OU-L community. Sandy Doty
Together with faculty opinion, would be helpful to get a "big picture" of:
-hardware; and
-software
resources available at OU. and
-list on online courses actually available and plans for developing new online courses in future.
Giorgi Shonia
One issue I've had with my online students is that they can't get into computer labs at all times because of classes, closing early, etc. A more open time frame will likely be needed if more classes have more intensive online or technology-based content.
I think the trend is toward offering more courses online. I don't see that as a positive thing as far as learing, but unfortunately it may be necessary to compete with other institutions.
There are only two problems with technology that I'd really like to see addressed on this campus, and they're both relatively minor. First, whenever I use the computer projector--no matter which classroom I've been in--there's always a light that shines directly on the projector screen. Even if I turn off one set of lights, regardless which set of lights it is, there are always at least two lights shining directly on the screen. The only way to really address this is to turn off all the lights in the room, but then my students can't see to take notes. Can't we figure out some way to turn off just the lights that shine on the projector screens in the classroom? It's very frustrating. The other thing is, some of the computers won't play some types of online videos (in some rooms, it's Flash that won't work; in others, it's things on youtube). I don't use these enough that it's a big problem but, sometimes when we're discussing nontextual arguments for our comp classes, there are things on the internet I'd like to show my students but I can't. That's all; other than that, everything's great and you're all doing a wonderful job. I hope that helps. Thanks.
Andy McGreevy---I have taught History 133 and History 246 online since 2000 or so. I have published online through Cornell University. I see online education as still in its early stages and experimental. It certainly works in history--I don't know about all other disciplines. Second Thought = We could use a national and international report on what is happening with online education. We need to know what is going on beyond OUL! We need to know which American institutions of higher education are using online methods. We need to know what Athens is doing....Sincerely, A.M.
I teach at the differenc campuses and use different rooms for classes and it always seems tricky to get used to all the different devices and machines. And if you want to go from powerpoint to draw something on the whiteboard you can't without turning off the powerpoint to raise the screen, etc. And there always seem to be a bright light right above the projector screen and if you turn it off then students can't see but if you turn the light on then the screen is washed out. And if you plug in a USB you almost have to get down on your knees to see where it plugs into the computer. I don't think any of the rooms are easy to use with the technology that is in them. It is very frustrating.
I would like to learn about the pros and cons of on-line tests.
Tech and DL meeting 111909
Attendees: Giorgi Shonia, Christine Wolfe, Deb Smith
The committee met in BR 302 to view the results of the survey. Everyone was pleased with the response and discussed the individual questions. It was noted that this survey was an initial fact finding one and that further investigation would be needed in the future.
Dr. Shonia suggested that we gather information from student services/registrar regarding the number of blended and online course that are currently being offered at OUL. The question that asked about online classes in the survey should have included blended as well and that same question did not have a zero value for faculty to choose.
The committee decided to present the findings to faculty at the faculty meeting on Jan 6 or Feb 3. Deb will contact the division coordinators to see which meeting might be best.
The presentation will involve review in the survey results using the Google results page, including information about the current number of blended/online courses offered at OUL, a demonstration of the videos available for faculty and students on the website and a conversation with the faculty about their impressions and suggestions.
Deb is to summarize the open ended statements from the survey while Dr. Shonia gathers stats available.
Deb will communicate to the committee regarding the presentation date.
The group also looked at some data on student use of technology as posted on the ECAR website (Educause).
Respectfully submitted,
Deb Smith
The committee met in BR 302 to view the results of the survey. Everyone was pleased with the response and discussed the individual questions. It was noted that this survey was an initial fact finding one and that further investigation would be needed in the future.
Dr. Shonia suggested that we gather information from student services/registrar regarding the number of blended and online course that are currently being offered at OUL. The question that asked about online classes in the survey should have included blended as well and that same question did not have a zero value for faculty to choose.
The committee decided to present the findings to faculty at the faculty meeting on Jan 6 or Feb 3. Deb will contact the division coordinators to see which meeting might be best.
The presentation will involve review in the survey results using the Google results page, including information about the current number of blended/online courses offered at OUL, a demonstration of the videos available for faculty and students on the website and a conversation with the faculty about their impressions and suggestions.
Deb is to summarize the open ended statements from the survey while Dr. Shonia gathers stats available.
Deb will communicate to the committee regarding the presentation date.
The group also looked at some data on student use of technology as posted on the ECAR website (Educause).
Respectfully submitted,
Deb Smith
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)