Academic Technology Subcommittee

Minutes

December 9, 2016, 11:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. SSB 330C

Attending: Mike Hart, Michael Kolb, Michael Erskine, Nick Pistentis, LatitiaPleis

By Phone: Jeff Loats, Lisa Ortiz, Lindsey Stewart

Absent: Kathy Hejl, Patsy Hernandez, Kevin Taylor, Diane Watkins

Announcements/Updates:

  1. Update on Technology Commons
  2. We have created a centralized hub for technology needs for students and faculty.
  3. Update on Student and Faculty Surveys.
  4. Every semester we send out a survey to all faculty and students regarding services in the ETC. We learned that only 72% of faculty like the template for the learning management system. One recommendation was to eliminate that survey. Let’s move to focus groups and then come back to survey in a couple of years.
  5. Blackboard Analytics Update
  6. This process has been going on for 11 months now. This tool lets us look at everything in the LMS. Over the break, as part of the Blackboard upgrade, faculty will now see a dashboard. Michael to share a screen shot of Blackboard Analytics with this group. You can compare students in the classroom. Faculty can turn on for students.Everyone thinks having the data is good, but they don’t know what to do with it. Maybe we could have training “here’s what you can do now that you have the data”. It would make a good faculty learning community. They could meet every two weeks and it could lead to good conversations.
  7. Assessment and Accreditation RFP
  8. It went out and we got great feedback. 42 people responded to it. Our goal is to get it out either today or Monday morning. This could potentially replace a whole series of systems (i.e. Blackboard Learn, Portfolium). Some initiatives on transcripts could tie into this. Collect artifacts on students. Implement spring semester and pilot test over the summer.
  9. Additional Comments
  10. Yesterday we had a power outage on campus that affected many buildings. We will be taking down West on the 18th and taking down Central on the 28th. It was a good practice for us to learn what issues we have. We were still able to migrate a number of the servers without interruption. It helps us plan for the data center migration, which may go to a co-location facility. The email sent by Dr. Jordan regarding the power outage indicated the learning management systems were down but they were not affected at all by outage yesterday. We don’t know the cause of the outage.
  11. Another project were working on is the VOIP project. The Auraria campus phone system is due for an upgrade, and we are spending less by doing our own phone system. Modern telephony systems allows you to do everything. Most phone numbers will change. More information will be coming out on this. VOIP will include Skype client.
  12. Over the holiday break, we will be working on the power outage and network upgrades that shouldn’t effect anyone.
  13. IT Policies; we are hoping to hear back from legal to see how soon we can implement the new policies. We have the Information & Instructional Policy Subcommittee meeting this afternoon.
  14. Of the Office 365 applications available to you now,SharePoint is a focal point for many departments right now. If you are on a collaboration committee, you can use this tool. Just put in a Helpdesk ticket if you’re interested in it. Nick has also been doing a road show on the benefits and challenges of SharePoint. We want to see people take advantage of this tool. It’s like the Y drive but you have control over it.
  15. Lab and technology lifecycles; we want to make sure the technology out there is modern, particularly for students. For existing labs, we are looking at usage peaks and valleys of demand so we can let you know which labs are most used. If you need printers or multi functioning machines, we can help you set up if you buy through RICOH.
  16. We will have the 24-7 call center available during the break.

Procedural Items:

  1. Approval of prior Meeting Minutes. Jeff Loats moved to approve the minutes, Michael Kolb seconded, and they were unanimously approved.
  2. Capture of email motions, votes and recommendations in formal minutes.

Items for Discussion/Recommendation:

  1. Software Request Process and Software Removal Process:
  1. The prototype request process is the first thing we want to tackle. We are looking at applications where we have duplicates, for example, we have 10 versions of AutoCAD in one classroom. The system is bulky due to duplicates. Michael sent out the two documents above and wants this group to look at them. For the install process, the ticket comes in, with justification as to why they need it, then we need some type of review, either here or by the department chair. This group would look at it if it came out of the general ITS budget. For example, if 10 out of 11 professors are using SAS, and another professor wants something different, we want the chair to be aware, before we buy it. There’s a Business Services licensing component; how to roll out, and we won’t know until we talk to the vendor, then Mike’s group will look at the risk and another IT group would look at if it works. We estimate 4 weeks to make the evaluation before purchase. We will go back to the department chair to make the final decision. If someone comes to us for a software request, we have a timeline: it goes to this group, then the chair, then review, purchase and implement, for a total of 4 months. We know where those checkpoints need to happen. This group,nor ITS staff in general, will not make the decision of yes or no. That decision made by the chair. We will address the removal process at a later date. We have to have an inventory of everything that’s out there. We would develop a communication strategy around this. It’s a big culture change and people may not follow the process. We can explain the process, why it’s there and get the word out over time. The process should be trackable. We could implement a status category for these. Jeff Loats’ motionedthat we start this formal process, that is flexible, and we add a tracking component. Michael Kolb seconded the motion and it was approved by LatitiaPleis, and Lisa Ortiz.
  2. Fair Use and Streaming Media
  3. We are currently using two technologies, Kalturaand Automatic Sync. Both are pretty expense and are based on usage. We have a lot of things on those platforms. One is for streaming media, the other for transcribing media. We spent over $100,000 last year on captioning. We have hundreds of feature films and it costs about $300 per film to caption. We should ask if the film is available through the bookstore. There are some departments where it makes sense for the entire film to be on the system.Do we have a relationship with the library? We should join forces with them. The library has three different systems. If the library doesn’t have the film, could we purchase those? As far as captioning, isn’t that a different issue? We should ask faculty to be a little more selective in what they ask for. How can we communicate that? We are looking for duplicates internally. A ticket is entered when requested. Ask awareness questions; how are you going to use it, are these available elsewhere, how long is it, does it exist in the library for free? We could run a report at the end of each year to see how captioning is being used by each college. We could do a request form through Footprints andknow who the videos belong to. We will share this report with chairs and dean. We can run reports to determine how captioning is being used. Michael has a temp employee to go over what we have and work with the library looking for duplications.
  4. Blackboard Collaborate
  5. This one hasn’t been on Michael’s radar. There has been some discussion regarding the difficulties and challenges of Blackboard Collaborate and other institutions are moving to Zoom. Collaborate is sort of the Skype within Blackboard. Let’s stay with the one that’s integrated. A bit clunky. One feature that ZOOM offers is being able to view by all participants at the same time, which could be compelling. Ninety people are consistently using Collaborate. Should we do a price comparison of the two and maybe do a pilot of it? Should we do an annual renewal? We will check in with the faculty that are using it to see what their opinion is. If overwhelming negative, Michael will share and we can do an email vote.

Potential Items Pending Discussion:

  • Student Printing Hubs. We are going to order new printers and inform students of how much they’re printing by educating them. We are going to do Science and Tivoli and the Writing Center. After that, we will share the feedback. SGA is excited about this.
  • University HLC Accreditation campus visit April 9 – 11, 2017
  • Email captured motion, seconded, discussion as an off-line discussion.