TAG Meeting Notes 2014-05-07

7 05 2014

TAG Meeting May 7, 2014 12:00pm-1:00pm

Jeremy Brees, Tim Cannon, Teresa Conte, Kim Daniloski, Dave Dzurec, Tara Fay, Jim Franceschelli, Eugeniu Grigorescu, Calvin Krzywiec (guest), Andrew LaZella, Kristen Yarmey

TAG thanks Library Dean Charles Kratz for sponsoring lunch for our meeting today.

1. BYOD Strategy Draft

Calvin Krzywiec joined us as a guest to present and discuss a draft version of IR’s strategy for accommodating the BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) trend. Cal is Assistant Director of Network Security & Engineering and served as chair for the IR Strategy Group tasked with studying BYOD. The group is currently seeking feedback from campus stakeholders to incorporate into a final strategy.

Cal explained that the group’s objectives were driven by increasing demand among students and faculty for access to institutional services from personal mobile devices. The group’s top priority is supporting BYOD for teaching and learning, while a secondary priority is protecting the security of institutional data.

For teaching and learning (see p. 2-4 in the draft), IR’s BYOD objectives include:

  • Investigate and implement untethered teaching/learning solutions
  • Focus classroom upgrades on providing collaborative, flexible workspaces
  • Leverage virtual desktop/application technologies and client devices to reduce reliance on physical lab infrastructure
  • Leverage virtual desktop/application technologies to provide ubiquitous access to lab software resources
  • Investigate and implement secure electronic assessment solutions
  • Expand lecture capture to additional locations

The draft identifies several barriers to BYOD implementation that were also raised by faculty members in TAG’s informal survey on specialized software and computer labs.  These include:

  • Expensive licensing fees for specialized software
  • Potential disparities in student computer ownership
  • Inaccessible and/or limited power sources
  • Security for electronic assessment/computerized testing
  • High demand on wireless network

The draft strategy recommends partnership with CTLE to support faculty needs as well as engagement with faculty during the implementation of BYOD-related strategies. Jim said that IR will work with TAG to recruit faculty volunteers to test out tools and services. While the precise timeline for rolling out these changes isn’t yet determined, there are some pilot projects already in motion. Faculty members in KSOM are piloting software for securing a browser (for computerized testing) using lab computers running thin clients. Teresa noted that the Nursing department would be very interested in piloting computerized testing tools in McGurrin. IR also plans to pilot test untethered teaching/learning options in the fall – TAG will get more information on this in the summer. Tim volunteered to participate in this pilot. IR has already been piloting Panopto lecture capture and will be looking to add this capability to additional classrooms for Fall 2014. Mobile printing is also in process.

Regarding network and authentication issues: Cal said that IR will be replacing the Cisco NAC client with encrypted SSID authentication, so that users will be able to log in to the University network from their device without downloading and installing CNAC. Once a device has been logged in,  it will stay logged in – users won’t have to reauthenticate multiple times during the day to stay on the network.

The second half of the draft (p. 4-9) addresses faculty and staff devices. One issue addressed is primary computing devices (for most faculty, our desktop computer). While currently primary devices are purchased and provided by the University, alternative models such as reimbursement or stipends for equipment and software purchases could be discussed.

Secondly, in order to protect institutional data, the draft proposes a three-tiered mobile device management (MDM) system:

  • Mandatory: This tier applies to all University issued devices and requires an enrollment in a MDM system that enforces the implementation of technical controls on the device, such as lock code, lock when idle, remote wipe capabilities, device encryption, and potentially even location tracking for locating a lost device.
  • Optional: This tier applies to all non-­‐corporate owned staff, faculty, and affiliate devices connecting to University systems, including email. Enrollment in the MDM solution is optional but the expectations of minimal technical controls and the requirement to notify PIR of a lost/stolen device are defined in institutional policy. Employees must agree to allow the University to wipe the device when it is lost/stolen or the employee separates from the institution.
  • Exempt: This tier applies to student devices. This tier has no requirements but offers guidance to students on how to secure their devices.

The draft proposes that a remote wipe could be partial rather than complete, “removing only corporate data.”

Kristen raised concerns about the Optional tier, which would apply to many faculty-owned mobile devices. Firstly, the exact definition of “corporate data” may need to be clarified. According to Appendix VIII (“Copyright”) of the Faculty Handbook, in most (but not all) circumstances, faculty retain copyright over works created as part of their normal teaching, research, and service duties – including research data, lecture notes, videos of lectures, syllabi, etc.  Kristen will look into existing University policies and documents to better understand what types of records (email?) would fall under this policy. Kristen also raised concerns about references to wiping data (including email) upon “employee separation,” which for faculty may take different forms (emeritus, phased retirement, terminal sabbatical, etc).

The BYOD Strategy Group will be compiling feedback into the next draft of the report. Kristen will write up summarized feedback from TAG’s discussion as a formal response to the draft document.

2. Brief Updates 

(The BYOD discussion took up most of the meeting, so updates were rushed.)

Identity Finder automated scans (Kristen)

Kristen has been working with Adam Edwards and Scott Finlon in Information Security to answer faculty questions about Identity Finder automated scans. Kristen has updated the Identity Finder FAQ with clarifications from Information Security.  There are still some faculty concerns about the scanning and reporting process (which was approved by the President’s cabinet back in June 2013); however, we have addressed as many as possible.

Information Security would like to begin the automated scans. TAG members present at the meeting felt ready to move forward with scanning faculty machines. Dave will report at this Friday’s Senate meetings that scans will begin. Kristen will work with Adam to coordinate a schedule and an all-faculty email notification.

Test Scanning Services (Jim)

Jim reported that IR will be changing the hours of Test Scanning Services effective Monday, May 12, 2014.  The service will continue to be provided from Alumni Memorial Hall, Room 001. Tests may be dropped off and results picked up Monday through Friday, from 8:30 am to 4:30 pm.  Based upon demand and operational requirements, immediate service while you wait may not be available.  IR will continue to strive to meet the needs of our customers and will provide a 24 hour turnaround of test scanning results.  Jim asked that faculty please plan accordingly as we approach the end of the Spring term.  Jim will contact regular users of the test scanning service with more details.

Desire2Learn (Eugeniu)

Additional Desire2Learn workshops are being planned for the summer – see CTLE’s workshop calendar for the updated schedule. Eugeniu also reminded TAG members that faculty should back up any student data (including grades, discussion forms, and dropbox submissions) in Angel that they wish to keep. Step by step instructions have been emailed out, but CTLE staff will also hold workshops on this during Senior Week for anyone who needs assistance (see ). Student access to Angel will be turned off as of May 30, but faculty will have access until July 31. After that, data stored in Angel will no longer be available.

PR Department/Program Website Initiative (Dave/Teresa)

We ran out of time for in-person updates on this project. Lori had sent Kristen updates via email. Kristen will post these notes to the TAG site in a separate update.

4. Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 1:05pm. TAG will not meet again as a full group until Fall 2014, but projects and communication (via email) will continue during the summer.

[Updated immediately after posting with correction to Cal’s title]

Announcements from the Office of Planning and Information Resources

12 04 2013

Jerry DeSanto, Vice-President for Planning and CIO of The University of Scranton, recently sent an email to the campus community about changes in Planning and Information Resources (PIR). First, IT Services has undergone a restructuring. There is now a new group responsible for “Field Services” which is responsible for hands-on support for any devices across the university, from mobile to classroom technology. The new organizational chart can be found here.

Second, the PIR Tactical plan for the 2013-2016 timeframe is now avaailble here. Information Resources lists as one of its four major goals “Supporting Innovation in Teaching and Learning”. To this end, IR intends to:

  • Extend lecture capture use and capabilities;
  • Explore next generation learning management tools;
  • Consultation and support for the Rehabilitation Center building project;
  • Refine long-term plan for supporting classroom technologies; and
  • Partner with colleges on unique needs and campus standards.

TAG is looking forward to working the PIR in all the these initiatives and invites all faculty to take an active role and voice in the implementation of these technologies supporting our teaching and learning.

Updates from IT Forum and IT Matters

1 03 2013

Just a few updates from recent Planning and Information Resources events and publications – PIR staff, let me know if I missed anything!

February 2013 IT Forum: PIR Tactical Plan

At the February 14th IT Forum, CIO Jerry DeSanto and AVP Robyn Dickinson gave a presentation (slides) on “Information Resources in Transition… Adding Value… Making a Difference” in which they discussed PIR’s progress on their 2010-2013 tactical plan and the thinking behind the 2013-2016 tactical plan. Robyn introduced the four parts of PIR’s vision: 1) Professional expertise, 2) Seamless technology environment, 3) Promote sound business practices, and 4) Enhance the learning experience. Points of particular interest for faculty members:

  • PIR will support innovation in teaching & learning by expanding lecture capture use and capabilities, exploring learning management tools, refining long-term plans for classroom technologies, and working with colleges (via deans and TAG) to identify and meet faculty and student needs.
  • PIR will be looking at big data and analytics in higher education – e.g., using analytics to attract students but also to measure learning.
  • IT will be addressing BYOD (bring your own device) trends as students and faculty access University services using a large variety of consumer devices/products.
  • PIR will be working on improving business practices and project management, not only in PIR itself but across the university. On the faculty side, we’ll see more information in the IT Service Catalog about what services are available (and how quickly).

IT Matters: Spring 2013

The Spring 2013 issue of IT Matters is out. Highlights for faculty members:

  • OIT staff completed upgrades to Brennan 228, 312, 314, 500, 502, and 509 over intersession (yay!). St. Thomas 207, 212, and 311 also got upgrades (yay!).
  • Google Chrome will be installed on University computers through KBOX (Tim has been waiting a long time for this!). There will be an IT Forum on Google Chrome on March 14th.
  • Remote Desktop Assistance is now here – using Viewfinity, Technology Support Center staff can share your desktop (with your permission) in order to help you resolve issues over the phone.
  • The Mobile Device Support Center has been updated with more documentation for Windows mobile devices.
  • IT Services and the Library set up some self-serve book scanners so that students can scan pages from articles or books to a USB drive or Google Docs or email.
  • Connie Wisdo has some notes on Footprints that show how you can log your own tickets (p. 1, 12).
  • Phil Erb wrote up an explanation of Active Directory and what it means for users (see p.6).


Brennan Hall Remediation

25 05 2012

This summer, the IT Services Office of Instructional Technology will be improving the mediated classrooms in Brennan Hall.

Having met with KSOM faculty during the spring semester, ITS/OIT have put together a proposal, which in summary includes the following improvements:

  • New Cabling Infrastructure
  • New video Switching
  • New Display Technology (screens and projectors)
  • New user interfaces
  • Added digital abilities
  • New document cameras
  • Integrated lighting controls (upgraded lighting through physical plant)

One change that may affect faculty is that the classrooms will no longer have VCRs, since it’s becoming increasingly difficult to get them. Faculty members can request VCRs from OIT on an as-needed basis, or you can also contact the Library’s Media Resources Center to discuss other options for classroom media.

Phase I (first and second floor teaching spaces, plus BRN428) has been approved and funded and will be completed this summer. Phase II (BRN228, 3rd floor conference rooms, 4th floor meeting spaces) is scheduled for Summer 2013.

For more information and for a copy of the proposal, KSOM faculty can contact their department chairs or their TAG representatives, Wesley Wang and S. P. Chattopadhyay. Questions or concerns about the proposal can be directed to ITS/OIT by contacting either Jim Franceschelli or Jason Wimmer.

TAG Meeting Notes 3/6/12

8 03 2012

TAG held its second Spring 2012 meeting on Tuesday.

Online Course Evaluations:

  • We started the meeting with a discussion about online course evaluations.  Jerry Muir, as a representative from the Course Evaluation Committee, led the discussion.
  • The Course Evaluation Committee is concerned about decreasing response rates for the evaluations. In the last two semesters, the overall response rate was below 60%.
  • Response rates were higher (~80%) when students had to complete evaluations in order to see their final grades. But this policy had some serious problems – e.g., students were sometimes completing the evaluations after taking their final exam, or they would rush through the evaluations just to see their grades.
  • The Course Evaluation Committee is looking for ideas to improve response rates for online evaluations. One idea under discussion is to ask faculty to grant students 15 minutes of class time during the last week of class to complete the online evaluations in class. Students could use mobile devices like laptops, tablets, or smartphones – although smartphones wouldn’t really facilitate comments, which many faculty find to be the most valuable part of the evaluation.
  • S.P. suggested that course evaluations could be tied into the Passport system for KSOM students. Sandy and Teresa agreed that the Passport system under development in PCPS might be useful in the same way.
  • Dave pointed out that the current structure of the online evaluations doesn’t necessarily fit for online courses (e.g., there are questions about “classroom management”).  There should either be separate evaluation forms for online vs. traditional classes, or the questions should be standardized to meet both situations.

Standing Committees:


  • IRAC (the Information Resources Advisory Council) met on February 16 and discussed the idea of a service catalog that would outline what services IR provides and set expectations for both the providers and the recipients of those services.  This is still under development and will be brought back to IRAC in the fall.

Learning Management System (LMS) Work Group

  • The LMS Work Group brought three vendors (Desire2Learn, MoodleRooms, and Blackboard) to campus for demonstrations. The demos were open to the University community.
  • Attendees at the demonstrations were invited to complete evaluation forms. The average evaluation scores for Blackboard and Desire2Learn were relatively close, while MoodleRooms’ score was further behind.
  • The next step is to obtain sandbox versions of each system for demonstration and experimentation.  CTLE has asked some of the faculty participants in the LMS Work Group for sample course content to use for the sandboxes.
  • S.P. mentioned that DelTech, the vendor that hosts the KSOM and PCPS online-only programs, is moving from Angel to Moodle (that is, their own customized version of Moodle, not MoodleRooms). Instructors who teach both online and in-person versions of a course would have to navigate two different LMSes.

Information Management Advisory Committee (IMAC)

  • TAG does not have a sitting representative on IMAC, but Jeremy and Kristen have been invited to recent meetings since there are new policies under development that would affect faculty.
  • At a February 13 meeting, IR introduced two new policies under development: a Privacy & Confidentiality Statement and the Employee Separation Procedures document.
  • The “Privacy & Confidentiality Statement” is still in rough draft form. It is intended to describe how staff members in the Planning & Information Resources division will handle electronic information, in compliance with the Information Classification Policy and other information management standards. IR asked for feedback from IMAC members and will release the next draft of the Statement for wider review.
  • The “Employee Separation Procedures: Information Resources” document outlines the divisional procedures that IR staff will follow when an employee (faculty or staff) member separates from the University.  The procedures address the departing employee’s access to information resources, including hardware, email, Royal Drive data storage, etc.   TAG briefly discussed the idea of having a checklist of technology items (for example, data transfer, email forwarding) that faculty should prepare for or be aware of prior to a separation. Sandy and Kristen will ask Anne Marie if and how a technology checklist could be incorporated into the Academic Affairs separation procedures.

Previous Action Items

Incidental Use Policy

  • Jeremy and Kristen presented a draft of the Incidental Use Policy to Faculty Senate on February 10, with Robyn Dickinson and Tony Maszeroski representing IR.  Robyn and Tony will take the input from the Faculty Senate discussion (mostly clarifications in the policy language) into consideration for the next draft of the policy.

Academic Technology Plan

  • At the February 10 Faculty Senate meeting, Hal reported that the Academic Technology Plan was essentially dead in the water since there is no budget to support it.
  • TAG members agreed that the Plan should drive a technology budget, rather than the reverse. [The same conclusion was agreed upon at the Deans’ Group half-day retreat last spring.] A plan is needed to establish goals and vision, which in turn are needed in order for progress to be assessed.
  • Jeremy and Kristen will work with Anne Marie to figure out next steps for writing and implementing a Plan.

New Business

Leahy Hall and classroom technology

  • Our discussion of the Academic Technology Plan led into a discussion about the new PCPS building to be constructed on the Leahy Hall site.
  • TAG would like there to be a consistent faculty voice on classroom technology issues during new construction or renovation. TAG had some input into classroom mediation decisions in the Loyola Science Center, but not on a consistent, continued basis.
  • Sandy and Teresa will explore this idea with Deb Pellegrino as planning for the new building begins.  Dave has been already providing classroom technology input on the St. Thomas renovations.

Networking computers and desktop sharing

  • TAG received a complaint from a faculty member about the difficulties involved in setting up desktop sharing between a faculty computer (on the faculty virtual network) and lab classroom computers (on the student network).  IR had suggested that RoyalDrive be used instead, but that solution did not meet the faculty member’s needs.  A temporary solution has been worked out by placing the lab computers on the faculty network.  The faculty member initially requested the service in September 2011, and the temporary solution is being put in place this week.
  • We did not arrive at an action step on this complaint during the TAG meeting.

Having run out of time (as usual!), we adjourned. The next TAG meeting is scheduled for Thursday, April 12, from 10:00am-11:15am in WML305.

TechQual Survey Results

8 12 2011

Last month, members of TAG met with representatives from IR’s Office of Planning & Institutional Effectiveness to discuss results from the TechQual survey that faculty were asked to fill out over the summer.

At this point, IR is working through the results and meeting with focus groups to get a deeper understanding of what the results mean for planning and operations.  IR will not be sharing the full results directly with the University community, but the next IT Matters newsletter will include evaluation and reflection on the survey results as a whole.

During the TAG focus group, we looked specifically at faculty responses to the survey.  Only full-time faculty were included in the survey, and there was a 21% response rate.  This is the second time TechQual has been administered on campus – it was first administered in 2008.  The survey respondents were split differently in 2008 than in 2011, so IR is not able to compare the answers directly, but there is some indication of changes over time.

The TechQual survey looks at three major areas: Connectivity & Access, Technology & Technology Services, and End User Experience. The survey instrument asks respondents to rate each item in three ways: in terms of 1) minimum service level, 2) desired service level, and 3) perceived service level.

Overall, the survey results indicate that for faculty, IR is not meeting mean desired expectations. In some areas, IR is not meeting mean minimum expectations.  Adequacy gaps, or the difference between minimum and perceived performance, were larger for faculty respondents than for staff.  There was evidence that faculty user experiences varied significantly, with some responses being overwhelmingly positive while others were negative.

Although direct comparisons could not be made to the 2008 survey data, there was a trend of rising user expectations for minimum service levels. At the same time, users’ perceived service levels were generally about equal or slightly higher, suggesting that IR is holding steady or improving in some areas.

The good news is that some of the key areas identified for improvement have already been addressed or will soon be addressed. For example, faculty respondents’ perceived level of service for wireless connectivity was below their reported minimum levels of service, but the campus wireless network is scheduled (pending the approval of funding) to undergo additional upgrades that will significantly improve connectivity in academic and administrative buildings.

Classroom technology had the largest adequacy gap for faculty respondents. We spent some time discussing what kind of classroom technology needs faculty experience.  Most campus spaces are designed either for using technology (e.g., all seats face a display screen; projection screen requires dimming lights) or for not using technology (e.g., seminar-style seating). TAG members asked for classroom environments that allowed spontaneity and collaboration.  We also discussed how faculty and IR can best communicate about technology problems in classrooms (e.g., if a broken projector is reported, can the instructors of the next scheduled classes be notified?). Jim is currently working with OIT and the Technology Support Center staff to figure out solutions to these kinds of questions.

On a more TAG-specific note, in the End User Experience portion of the survey, faculty respondents noted that for “Opportunities to Provide Feedback” their perceived service level was approximately equal to their minimum service level. This result suggests that TAG needs to continue to raise our profile as a communication channel between faculty and IR.

We ran out of time to fully discuss all of the faculty results, but other areas identified for improvement included mobile access and the website/my.scranton portal – aspects of which are currently being addressed by IR teams with faculty representation (the Mobile Apps Work Group and the Luminis Work Group).

[My notes on this meeting were a little rough, so if anyone notices errors or omissions, please let me know and I’ll correct it ASAP! – KY]

Student Response Systems

29 11 2011

The CTLE has been exploring student response system software – that is, instructional technology for teaching with real-time classroom feedback/polling (like clickers, but using students’ phones instead of proprietary hardware). They’d like to know if faculty are interested in this, and whether they should set up product demonstrations or a faculty workshop on this topic.

Below is a brief write-up on two popular options for student response, Top Hat Monocle and Poll Everywhere, that CTLE TechCon Justin Kearns wrote after researching several student response products.

If you’re interested in using either Top Hat Monocle, Poll Everywhere, or some other student response system in your classroom, please let us know (or talk to CTLE directly).


Student Response Systems

Student Response System software creates a wireless audience response and voting system that enables educators, trainers and presenters to develop and administer real-time assessments of participants.  These software tools allow instructors to confirm participant understanding, increase participant attentiveness, and gather, rank and report critical information simultaneously in real-time.  Most audience response systems provide reporting functions that will help instructors analyze data after the presentation and have the ability to export into Excel, Word or other common formats for more in-depth analysis.  Other features include student tracking and grading.

The CTLE recently evaluated Student Response System software and found the following two options that appear to be suitable for teaching and learning purposes.

Top Hat Monocle

Top Hat Monocle is a cloud based Student Response System founded in 2009 and based at the University of Waterloo Research and Technology Park in Waterloo, Canada.  The system can be used with cell phones, smartphones, computers, iPods, iPads, etc.

Top Hat Monocle has an extensive database of interactive questions and problems that can be used by an instructor on a range of topics.

Pricing – Instructors can use this tool for free, while students have to purchase a license costing $20 a semester or $38 for 5 years.  For more information on pricing for Top Hat Monocle, click the link below:


For a video demo of Top Hat Monocle click the link below: http://www.tophatmonocle.com/tour/features


Poll Everywhere

Poll Everywhere is a quick and easy way to create stylish real-time experiences for events using the cloud.  Similar to Top Hat Monocle this system can be used with cell phones, smartphones, computers, iPods, iPads, etc.

Poll Everywhere is free for up to 30 responders but subscriptions for larger groups and extended features can be purchased.  In the Poll Everywhere free version question types are limited to Multiple Choice, Open Ended, and Goal Poll.

Pricing – There are two pricing structures available; one in which students pay $14 a year and another where instructors pay $399 per semester.   For more pricing information on Poll Everywhere click the link below: http://www.polleverywhere.com/plans/classroom_response_system_higher_ed

For more information on Poll Everywhere click the link below:


TAG Meeting Notes 3/3

4 03 2011

Just a few quick updates from yesterday’s TAG meeting:

  • We have three new members! Welcome to Dave Dzurec (History), Wesley Wang (Economics/Finance), and Sandy Pesavento (Education).
  • The Classroom Mediation survey has been distributed and is due today (Friday).  There was some confusion reported between the Classroom Mediation survey (which focused on equipment and was distributed by department chairs) and the Knowledge Base survey (which focused on software and was handed out in department meetings visited by TAG members).  Unfortunately, our timing didn’t work out as well as planned.
  • The Identity and Access Management system upgrade is still in progress. User IDs will likely be R numbers, but current email addresses will be carried forward.  You’ll likely be able to log into the my.scranton portal using your email address rather than your R number.
  • We discussed the plan for the email transition and debated how to get the word out about this plan to faculty members.  We recently sent out an email to all full-time faculty via FAC, and Jeremy, Kristen, and Jim will present to the Faculty Senate next Friday (March 11) about the transition plan.  We’re not sure how to reach part-time faculty.
  • TAG members have been visiting academic department meetings, to varying degrees of success.  We’ve gathered a lot of feedback from faculty about their technology needs.  The more specific feedback (e.g., projectors in a certain room not working) can be addressed by IR.  But TAG needs to address some of the larger issues (e.g., how do we get faculty to report problem computers/equipment to Tech Support so that they can be fixed?).
  • Faculty are still concerned about the lack of Mac support on campus, especially for things like antivirus software and uploading files to ANGEL from Safari (though that’s an issue with ANGEL rather than with our IR division).
  • There seems to be a need for discussions with faculty about academic & pedagogical uses of social media tools.  TAG will be looking into this more in the future.
  • There is a reported perception that TAG serves as a mouthpiece for the administration rather than as an independent body – but we’d like to beg to differ.  TAG has been asked by Academic Affairs and Information Resources to provide feedback on technology issues, not to repeat a previously determined message.  And communication between TAG and both Academic Affairs and Information Resources has been two-way rather than one-way.

Thanks to everyone who attended – and as usual, please feel free to address any of these points in the comments!

Classroom Mediation Surveys due Friday!

28 02 2011

Just a reminder to all teaching faculty that your Classroom Mediation Surveys (the one you got on paper from your department chair) are due to your departmental administrative assistant by Friday, March 4.

This survey was a joint effort between Information Resources, Academic Affairs, the CTLE, and TAG, and the results will be used to inform decisions about how equipment will be allocated in the future – so please take a few minutes to fill it out, your responses are important!

As usual, feel free to let us know if you have any questions about the survey. Thanks, all!

Computerized Testing and Computer Labs

24 02 2011

TAG has recently received concerns about the computers in the Hyland 102 computer lab not working properly when they’re needed for computerized testing.

Upon hearing the concerns, IR’s response was that none of the problems had been reported to the Technology Support Center – and they can’t fix computers if they don’t know they’re not working.  IR recommended that faculty be sure to report malfunctioning computers to the TSC, so that the right people can take care of them – and said that classroom and lab resources get the highest priority.

Does anyone have any comments on this? Have you had similar experiences? Do you report problem computers to the TSC when you come across them?