Faculty Technology Advisory Board Meeting Notes
September 18, 2008
In attendance: Lori Temple, Patti Shock, Tom Ipri, Mike Stitt, Jean Whitney, Stephen Lepp, Helga Watkins, Kendall Hartley
1. Anti-plagiarism update
· Wonda Yuhasz, WebCT Coordinator, will be assigned to this project.
2. Personal response systems update
· Last semester we decided not to support a single clicker. The two companies representing our favorite and least favorite systems have merged but still have competing products.
· A team of OIT staff discussed different things we could do on a web site. The plan is to put on the site clickers currently being used on campus, along with contact info/support numbers/tech documentation, benefits of using clickers, pitfalls, possible course redesign, best practices, summary of committee work, other resources to universities doing research on clickers, faculty feedback. Then FTAB will review the site and discuss revisions.
· Another plan is to have a clicker get together to gain feedback about the website with the goal to decide how to enhance the clicker website for Spring 09.
· Suggestions: Textbook companies are good resources about clickers for instructors; do a presentation using clickers at ITCC and have the committee rate the presentation.
Action Item: Lori to find out if clickers and WebCampus can be used collaboratively.
3. WebCampus/future of the course management system
· CMSCC has been having conversations about changes that are coming in our course management system and what that is going to mean three years out. If we stay with WebCT Vista, Blackboard is merging the best of both systems over the next three years. Upgrades via applications packs will be made and along the way; there will be increased functionality. The system will have more drag and drop features and a sleeker look.
· Blackboard is also taking large elements other related activities (ex. assessment) and have modules for which they will charge.
· While faculty have expressed concerns about WebCampus, surveys so far are inconclusive. This is the time to look at our CMS again and decide to either reinvest in the current product and fix what people say is not right about it, or see if there is some other option we could pursue that would be better for us.
· The CMSCC is compiling a list of basic assumptions of what the campus needs in a CMS and has started to talk about criteria to evaluate in comparisons of systems. The next step is to take a proposal to the CCTL and determine how to have a campus conversation about the future of our CMS. Suggestion: Have a conversation on a blog or wiki. FTAB will recommend how best to have the conversation.
· CCTL will give sanction and FTAB will make the final determination how best to proceed with the process of determining the CMS campus discussion since this is not an OIT-driven decision.
Action Item: Think about how FTAB would engage the faculty in a CMS discussion. Think about what questions would we ask faculty to get at what their instructional technology needs are related to their teaching. Jo-Anne to request responses via email.
Brainstorming responses to action item above and other points, re: the future CMS:
· Blog, point-counterpoint, and then a poll. Info needed to blog: Explain CMS future situation scenarios and give choices for future CMSs on campus.
· Other CMS options: Desire2Learn, Angel, Moodle, Blackboard, Sakai, learning management systems are not preferable
· Consideration – other products that zoom by us vs. a behemoth system
· A lot of faculty would like an easy way to publish to the web and engage their students without having to use WebCampus.
· Determine how broad this discussion is: Just pick an option or deal with the philosophy of the campus before we select a product?
· Consider institutional imperatives that impact a CMS
· Consensus is that we need to offer a CMS.
· Perhaps faculty would like another type of system but they are unaware of them.
· From a practical perspective, we are at the point to determine a direction, frame what we are going to talk about.
· Ask faculty what it is they want to be able to do. Determine whether or not their needs are being met now. Gather feedback of what is working and what is not working.
· Utilize Survey Monkey perhaps.
4. Other Initiatives of Possible Interest
· Lori reported on a new Provostial project called Activity Insight from Digital Measure. The software provides a way to collect all the activities in which faculty engage. It can produce reports of productivity in various kinds of forms/formats: some standard reports but can be customized. In response to concerns of collecting data so many different ways on campus, this is the product that meets that need. The Provost has committed resources to this, has been reviewed by deans, and will get started with some pilot departments, possibly five across the institution, to represent a broad range of activities. Kari Coburn has a lot of that data and will meet with Lori to discuss how to get started with the product.
Action Item: Contact Tony Henthorne, Visiting Lecturer/Tourism & Convention Administration, since he is new to UNLV and has used a similar product.
· Entering mid-term grades was simple with the TLC and tutorials. Two reports are generated via COGNOS, one for the department and one for each advising center. One benefit of entering mid-term grades in the CMS is that almost every faculty member will eventually have a WebCampus account – additionally important in the event of a pandemic, other disaster planning.
5. Fall plans
· Patti to demo Second Life.