Classroom Mediation Update

1 12 2010

Jeremy and I sat in on a meeting with IR and representatives from the administration yesterday to discuss classroom mediation.

The main outcome of the meeting was that IR needs specific feedback from faculty about what technologies they use in what classrooms (so that we’re not wasting money on equipment that’s not being used).  We volunteered TAG to help IR put together a survey for faculty members (probably on paper, to be distributed by department chairs) that will gather this kind of information.  Jeremy and I are drafting up one idea for the survey, but we’ll be gathering with OIT, CTLE, and IR staff on Thursday, December 16th at 2pm to finalize what it will look like and how it will be distributed.

If anyone’s interested in participating, please let us know – we could use the help!  See our post on the Faculty Forum on Classroom Mediation to get caught up on the latest.





Response to Survey Comments: Top Faculty Concerns

17 11 2010

At the start of the Fall 2010 semester, the Technology Advisory Group (TAG) sent out a survey to the faculty to elicit feedback about technology on campus.

While it focused on how faculty prefer to communicate about technology, the survey concluded with two open ended questions: “What are the improvements you’d most like to see regarding the implementation of technology on campus?” and “Is there anything else TAG should know about your technology needs?” In response to these two questions, faculty members submitted a combined total of 92 comments, many of which revealed deeper technology and communication issues than the rest of the survey indicated.

TAG would like to address as of these issues as possible.  With help from Jim Franceschelli of IT Services, we identified and responded to the most common and/or important concerns that were raised in the survey comments:

  1. Communication Problems
  2. Outages and Notifications
  3. Customer Service
  4. Classroom Mediation
  5. Classroom and Computer Lab Maintenance
  6. Faculty Computers
  7. Mac Support
  8. Data Storage and Backup
  9. Email Capacity

These responses are meant to help faculty feel informed about how technology decisions are made on campus, but also to continue the conversation about faculty technology needs.  If you have any reactions or feedback about these issues you’d like to share, please either comment directly on the TAG site, email us at TAG-members@royallists.scranton.edu, or talk with a TAG member from your college.

The full text of the faculty survey comments have been posted to the TAG website in PDF format.





Meeting Notes 11/11/2010

11 11 2010

Another month, another TAG meeting.  We had a packed agenda today and did our best to at least touch on each issue.

New member:

  • Anne Marie Stamford, Assistant Provost for Operations, has joined the committee as a representative for the academic administration.  Anne Marie was invited to join after we realized she was dealing with some of the same questions as TAG (e.g., how to get feedback from faculty on technology issues). Welcome, Anne Marie!

Follow-up on survey results:

  • The results from our 2010 survey on faculty communication have been posted to the TAG site, both summarized and in full.
  • Jim, Jeremy, and Kristen drafted up responses to the “Top 9” major concerns from the survey comments.  TAG members have until Monday to make any edits/suggestions.
  • What’s the best way to distribute these “Top 9” responses to faculty?  On one hand, we want to get the information out quickly rather than holding it back – and some of the issues (i.e., requesting new computers) are time sensitive. On the other hand, we do want people to actually consider and respond to the “Top 9,” not just ignore them as tl;dr.  Our current plan is to post them (individually) to the TAG site, and then send out an all-faculty email with the first response on communication, and links to the next 8 responses.  If we don’t get a lot of feedback on the other 8 responses, we can also send out updates on the next 8 posts at regularly spaced intervals (e.g., 2x/week).  Jeremy and Kristen will coordinate this with Anne Marie.
  • Sending email to all faculty that includes non-scranton.edu links is somewhat of an issue. IR wants to make sure that people are very cautious about what links they click on, in light of the many recent phishing attacks.
  • Anne Marie suggested that some of the “Top 9” responses would be of interest to staff.  She will share them with the Data Technologies group.
  • More detailed statistical analysis of the survey results is on the way.

Catalog

  • There are several reasons why faculty feel strongly about having paper copies of the catalog (e.g., ease of advising, being able to bookmark/make notes, concerns about monitor sharing…).  This seems to be a major issue mostly in CAS, where most faculty are advisors (unlike in PCPS and KSOM, which have professional advisors).
  • We posted a PDF of the catalog to the TAG site.  Anne Marie has 10 printed copies of the catalog in the Provost’s Office if anyone wants one, and she will look into printing enough copies of the catalog for all advisors next year.

Feedback from English Department

  • Teresa brought feedback from the English department on three main issues: the need for a print copy of the phone book/directory, recommendations for a WYSIWYG editor for HTML code (for the CMS), and difficulty with TSC customer service.
  • In general, TAG will respond to faculty feedback like this by 1) posting a summary of the question, with a response from TAG, to the TAG site and 2) emailing the faculty member directly with the response.
  • Kristen will coordinate with Teresa to get responses to these concerns posted to the TAG site.

Soliciting faculty feedback

  • There are several issues on which faculty feedback is needed, including the CMS (per Anne Marie), classroom mediation (per Jim), and faculty areas of technology interest/expertise.  What’s the best way for TAG to gather this information? Our communication survey was useful, but didn’t hit all faculty.
  • TAG will work on assigning liaisons from TAG to each department.  Liaisons could visit February department meetings to solicit feedback from entire departments.  They’d also be able to let faculty know that TAG exists and talk about how we can be a resource.
  • To assign TAG members to departments, Cathy will work on dividing PCPS departments between herself and Kevin, and Jeremy and Teresa will work on assigning CAS departments between them, Tim, and Kristen.  Neither SP or Sufian were in attendance, so we will ask them to choose KSOM departments.  Jim and Anne Marie will send Kristen specific questions on which they need faculty feedback.

Email and Calendaring change

  • Campus email will be moving to Microsoft Live@Edu.  To smooth this transition, TAG has offered to help IR communicate with faculty about the transition.
  • Since this is a big issue, we’ll have a meeting sometime after January specifically dedicated to the email issue.  By then, we should have some test accounts so TAG members can identify potential faculty concerns.
  • We discussed describing the change as a benefit rather than an annoyance – while faculty will have to learn a new interface, they’ll get a much larger quota and along with other new features. We also need to communicate to Google fans that, while Gmail was considered, IR did have valid reasons for choosing Microsoft.

TAG Policy

  • A few TAG members drafted a policy for codifying how TAG interacts with IR and facilitates faculty feedback into technology decisions.  We’d like the rest of the TAG members’ feedback on the draft policy, with an eventual goal of passing it up to the Faculty Senate Academic Support committee.   We’ll post the policy on the TAG site next week after all members have gotten to review it.
  • Cathy pointed out that the policy does not address all of TAG’s original goals – so we need to be clear that the document is not a mission statement for TAG but instead a single policy that defines one aspect of TAG’s goals.

Other points of discussion

  • We discussed the idea of visiting Dean’s Conferences in order to spread the word about TAG, but we agreed that checking in with the Faculty Senate would be best before approaching the Deans directly.
  • Cathy and Kristen will meet after Thanksgiving to start working on aggregating classroom technology resources for faculty.




Updates from Faculty Forum on Classroom Mediation

2 11 2010

Today in Brennan, IT Services held a Faculty Forum on Mediated Classroom Technology, featuring a presentation and Q&A session with Office of Instructional Technology staffers Rob Kennedy and Jason Oakey.  There were about 21 faculty members present, representing several departments, including Math, Biology, History, Counseling, Philosophy, Nursing, LA/W/S, Military Science and the Library.    Here’s a PDF of the presentation slides, and if you have time for some leisure reading, here are my notes:

  • OIT is very interested in getting faculty feedback so that they can mediate campus with only the technology faculty members really want and need.  They don’t have a big enough budget to purchase and install technology that won’t be used.  The first question for them is, “What faculty members in what departments need what technology?”
  • The other key issue is balance.  So the second key question is “What’s right for faculty, versus what’s right for students, versus what’s right for the University?” Overhead projectors may be right for some faculty who are used to teaching with transparencies, but they’re not the right technology for the students.
  • All classroom technology needs to be sustainable.  When budgeting for new purchases, OIT has to think about staff time spent supporting the equipment, maintenance costs, and eventually replacement costs.  Rob is shooting for simplicity and trying to focus on modular, standardized equipment that will work for almost everyone rather than accommodating individual preferences.
  • We’re approaching an “Analog Sunset” on December 31, 2013 – after that date, new Blu-ray players will no longer support analog.  As a result, OIT is planning to move classroom mediation to all digital, with a goal of all mediated classrooms being digital by 2016.  Right now, we have five digital classrooms: Hyland 305, Leahy 1011, McGurrin 302, St. Thomas 209, and St. Thomas 563A.   These classrooms are modeling a new media setup.
  • In the digital classrooms, OIT can monitor the use of equipment (i.e., is it on or off, not the content being displayed).  This will help them keep track of things like lamp hours, so that they’ll be able to replace projector bulbs *before* they burn out.
  • The digital classrooms also feature a switcher, which will allow faculty to hook up mobile devices, tablet computers, Macs, etc to the display without having to adjust resolution.  We’ll also be able to blacken (“mute”) the screen, though we won’t be able to flip or rotate the entire image.
  • The digital classrooms also have new document cameras, that have *much* higher resolution and have a much smaller footprint.  The cameras can also be used to record impromptu video if faculty want to make a podcast of their lecture.
  • Podiums in the new classrooms have “cable cubbies” that make a variety of cables available to faculty without a mess of cables on the floor.
  • Speakers in the newly mediated classrooms are in the ceiling for a cleaner-looking installation and better sound quality.
  • OIT is exploring the use of SMART podiums, which are sort of like SMART boards except that the faculty member would write on the podium screen instead of on the board.  Some faculty were not thrilled about this – one reported that she found the SMART podium less responsive to touch than her tablet computer. Another said that a SMART podium would make her feel tied to a podium rather than engaged in the class.
  • OIT has worked with student response systems (clickers) in the past, but it’s not clear how much use they’re getting.  Rob recommended using text messaging with a program like PollEverywhere, which is free for a class of up to 30 students.
  • OIT is also planning to purchase Pinnacle Video Transfer devices, which hook into video cameras and facilitate easy file transfers from the camera to USB thumb drives.

At the end of the presentation, there was a short Open Forum in which several faculty members asked questions:

  • What about VHS players? VHS players will still be available (since many departments have built up collections of useful VHS tapes in the Library) – but OIT is planning to move to an on-demand model.  A professor who wanted to use a VHS player would have to request it.
  • Can I get a remote control on the VHS/DVD cart? Remote controls tend to disappear.  Sometimes OIT pitches them if they think they won’t be needed.  Likewise, it’s hard to put clickers in every classroom, because people tend to walk off with them unintentionally.
  • Can projector screens be moved so that there’s more black/whiteboard space (for multizone teaching)?  Currently, when screens are replaced, they’re put in the same place as the old screen.  Increasing the size of whiteboards (or whiteboard walls) are an option, but this is under the control of Facilities, not OIT.
  • What about classes that need two images projected at once? There will be a few rooms like this in the new Science Center. Let Rob know if this is a necessity for your class, and he will make sure it’s in his budget request.
  • Will any of the new equipment be wireless? Wireless connection to the projector isn’t a good idea – the image gets fuzzy.  Wireless peripherals (like keyboards) are great, but if the battery dies you’re in trouble.
  • What about mobile communication – if a professor is running late, can he/she send a message to that effect that will show up on the projection screen? No, we’re not looking at this.

Last but not least, we briefly discussed how faculty can communicate with OIT about these issues:

  • OIT is aiming for selective placement of technology.  They want faculty feedback so that they’re putting the right tools in the right classrooms.
  • Suggestions were made that OIT run a survey or attend department meetings to solicit feedback.  According to Rob, “You give us a voice at that table and we’ll be there.”




Forum on Mediated Classroom Technology

21 10 2010

Earlier this week, you all should have gotten an invitation to the 2010 Forum on Mediated Classroom Technology from IT Services.  Unfortunately, TAG isn’t involved in this event (nor are the CTLE or the Library), but we’re hoping that a lot of faculty (especially TAG members and TAG-Discussion list participants) will attend and share their feedback.

If you can’t make it to the Forum but have questions for IT Services, post them here or email them to your favorite TAG member and we’ll do our best to get an answer for you.

If you are planning to go, don’t forget to RSVP!  And you might want to take a second to check out Rob Kennedy and Jason Oakey’s slides from one of last year’s IT Forums on “Technology in the Classroom.”

Here’s the invitation:

IT Services would like to invite the University’s faculty to join us in an open discussion on mediated classroom technology.  A few topics we hope to discuss include:

  • Current state of classroom equipment
  • Emerging classroom technologies
  • Coping with legacy equipment
  • Streaming video, video conferencing and lecture capture

Please come and share your ideas and concerns relating to the mediated classroom facilities.  We hope that this forum will help us determine the best course of action in planning our future upgrades. A light lunch will be provided.

The session will be held on November 2, 2010 at 11:30am in Brennan 509.  Please RSVP by October 28th, by emailing  ITServices@scranton.edu.