TAG Summer Synopsis

29 08 2012

Welcome back, all! In case you didn’t spend your summer break thinking about campus technology, here’s a quick recap of what’s been going on over the past few months and what we’ll be talking about in fall semester.

What Happened:

  • Campus wireless upgrade. We’re seeing huge improvements in connection speed and strength – thank you, Network Infrastructure!
  • Classroom upgrades. Over the summer, IT Services remediated all of Brennan’s teaching spaces. Other classrooms were upgraded as well – including CLP223, 224, 225, JOH 150, 152, MGH 017, 209, 336, 402, and 406.
  • Lecture Capture. Lecture capture capability has been installed in LSC133 and LSC333. TAG members Jeremy Sepinsky and Tara Fay are doing pilot projects this fall to test out the new technology before extending it to other classrooms. Nursing and Counseling departments are next on the list.
  • Mobile access to Angel. We now have a license for Blackboard Mobile Learn for Angel, so you can download the free app for use on your iPhone, iPad, Android, or Blackberry device.
  • R-ID authentication. Instructor stations and computer labs now require your R number as your user name. Your password is the same.
  • Virtual desktops. 203 computers in Brennan and Library computer labs are now thin client machines.  At these terminals, students access virtual desktops and save files to SkyDrive.

What’s Coming:

  • Standard user accounts. As Windows 7 is rolled out for new faculty computers, our roles will change from administrative to standard user accounts. This is a security measure to try to prevent users from downloading and installing malicious software. By default, standard users can’t install or delete applications. This would be a major issue for many faculty members, but IR has been working on a solution for faculty, using Viewfinity privilege management software. The plan so far: when you need to install an application, you’re prompted to enter a brief description/justification, and then your permissions are temporarily elevated so that you can install what you need. Commonly used software is whitelisted to speed things up. I’ve been piloting it this summer from a faculty perspective, with good results. Mac and Linux users will not be affected. More details on this later.
  • Code of Responsible Computing. This policy is up for review. As a representative from TAG and the Faculty Senate, Dave Dzurec has bravely agreed to co-chair the effort. We’ll post updates here.
  • The academic server is scheduled for final retirement this year. Several faculty members still have web content on the server – so CTLE (probably with some help from TAG) will be reaching out to those folks this semester to help them move any content they want to keep.
  • Luminis upgrade. An update to the my.scranton portal is currently scheduled for December 2012. TAG is contributing suggestions for the new faculty tab – let me know if you’re interested in giving ideas or feedback.
  • Software licensing for virtualized environments.  The idea is that faculty, staff, and students could log into their virtual desktop from any computer and access the specialized software they need (SPSS, etc). Unfortunately, this is really expensive. IR is looking into it.
  • Royal Card. The system will get a full upgrade this year. This won’t have much effect on faculty from what we can tell.

What’s Stalled:

  • Academic Technology Plan. Sigh. That said, TAG is still looking for faculty input on future technology needs. What kind of teaching spaces do we want? What technology funding is most important? We’re hoping to get more conversations started on these topics this year.

 

——————
*Thanks to Jim Franceschelli, Lorraine Mancuso, Jerry DeSanto, and Robyn Dickinson for talking us through this year’s road map.

**IR staff, please let me know if I got anything wrong. Thank you!





Fall 2012 – Angel updates and workshops

21 08 2012

In case you missed a few of the Angel announcements this week – here’s the short version.

Training is available:

See CTLE’s Angel Workshop Calendar for scheduled sessions, or contact Brian Snapp or Aileen McHale for one-on-one help.

Students can access Angel courses 3 weeks early:

Students now have access to Angel courses beginning 3 weeks before the start of a semester. If you’re in the middle of developing or updating a course, and you don’t want students to see certain course materials, you can hide them. See the CTLE’s tutorial for details.





LMS Working Group – Final Report

25 05 2012

The final report of the Learning Management System (LMS) Work Group is now available on the University’s web site at www.scranton.edu/lmssearch.

As a reminder, the Group’s recommendation was that the University stay with ANGEL for two more years, but revisit the LMS market in Spring 2013.

The Group also recommended that the University purchase Blackboard Mobile Learn for ANGEL.**

Thanks so much to the Work Group and especially our faculty representatives for their work!

**I believe there’s a budget request in for this, but I’m not sure if it’s been approved yet.





Angel it is, through 2014

9 05 2012

The Learning Management System (LMS) Work Group made its recommendation this morning – we’ll be sticking with ANGEL through Spring 2014.

A full report is on the way, but in the meantime, here’s the announcement from Work Group leader Connie Wisdo:

Hello all,

The LMS Evaluation Working group had its final two meetings over the last three weeks and concluded its work.  Below is a synopsis of the meeting minutes and the final recommendation made by the group.  (A full report will be compiled and made available in the coming weeks.)

Group members discussed their findings and observations from testing the three LMS products chosen as finalists – Blackboard Learn, Desire2Learn and Moodlerooms.  It was recommended unanimously by group members that Moodlerooms should be dropped from consideration due primarily to its lack of internal email.  We concluded that the messaging features of Moodlerooms did not adequately substitute for an internal email system.  Of the remaining two finalists, Desire2Learn was deemed a slightly better choice for us than Blackboard, overall.  Many factors were taken into consideration in the analysis, but it really came down to (1) course conversion capabilities in Desire2Learn were better than those in Blackboard; and (2) the students who evaluated the products overwhelmingly chose Desire2Learn over Blackboard.  Overall there were many issues with converting courses from ANGEL to each of the LMS products evaluated.

Since we are now not being forced to move away from ANGEL, the group considered the possibility of the University staying with ANGEL, for at least two more years. CTLE and ITDA did some background research for the group, by conducting a conference call with Blackboard reps.  They gave us assurances that ANGEL development will continue, but the majority of Blackboard’s resources will be put towards the Blackboard Learn product. Blackboard said it will be putting more development into ANGEL mobile than ANGEL desktop.  Therefore, the group concluded that any changes to ANGEL desktop will be minor over the next several years.  The group was asked to identify any shortcomings in ANGEL which, if not addressed in the next two years, would significantly hamper our institution’s teaching and learning practices.  None were identified, except for the lack of a good mobile interface.  Otherwise, ANGEL seems to be adequately meeting faculty and students’ needs.

Due primarily to the experiences encountered in the LMS sandboxes with course conversion, and the significant cost, time and energy associated with transitioning to Desire2Learn at this time, the group members unanimously recommended that we stay with ANGEL for two more years (through Spring, 2014), and re-look the LMS market in Spring 2013.  Doing so will allow us (1) to see if LMS products’ course conversion capabilities improve to the point of being acceptable to our faculty; and (2) to determine if any of the newer LMS products (such as Canvas by Instructure) evolve to a point where they could be considered as possible replacements to ANGEL at that time.

The group also unanimously recommended that if we stay with ANGEL we purchase Blackboard Mobile Learn for ANGEL.  Respondents to a recent mobile app survey conducted by Public Relations and ITDA overwhelmingly named mobile access to the LMS as their top priority for mobile functionality on our campus.  We have had the free version of Blackboard Mobile Learn for ANGEL for approximately 18 months, usable only on iOS devices (iPad / IPhone), with connectivity available only via Wi-Fi, or via the Sprint network.  However, the full version of Blackboard Mobile Learn can be used on both iOS and Android devices, and with any cellular network.  A significant portion of our students have Android smartphones and/or tablets, and are therefore incapable of using the free version of Mobile Learn for ANGEL.  I negotiated with Blackboard to get a free trial of the full version of Mobile Learn for ANGEL, from mid-April, through the end of the Spring semester.  The app was demonstrated at the working group’s April meeting and members of the group were encouraged to download the app.  Several CTLE TechCons downloaded and evaluated the app, and concluded it was quite adequate for students’ needs.

As I said earlier, a detailed summary of the group’s overall evaluation process, conclusions and recommendations is forthcoming.  I expect to have it finalized and made available to the campus community by May 18th.  In the meantime, if you have any questions, please feel free to call or email me.

Thank you,

Connie Wisdo
Director, IT Development & Applications
x4123
constance.wisdo@scranton.edu

 

Many thanks from TAG to the faculty representatives who served on the Work Group:  Maureen Carroll (math), TAG member Teresa Conte (nursing), Tara Fay (biology),  Julie Nastasi (OT), Wesley Wang (economics/finance), and Keith Yurgosky (communications, part time).





Mobile Apps Group update

24 04 2012

Updated 5/10/12: Minutes from this meeting

——————————————————–

The University-wide Mobile Apps Group met last week for the first time since February 8.  A few updates that are relevant to faculty:

Blackboard Learn Mobile App for ANGEL

  • Since the Learning Management System (LMS) Work Group is now considering staying with Angel as an option, the University is doing a full-blown trial of Blackboard Mobile Learn for Angel to see if it can meet student/faculty mobile needs.
  • The mobile version does not have all of the features that the standard Angel interface does – most notably, the gradebook and assignment dropbox are not fully accessible from the mobile app.
  • Faculty can try it out by downloading the app (the “New” version with the red ribbon on the icon) to their mobile device.

Review of Mobile App Survey Results

  • Lori Nidoh shared results from the Spring 2012 Mobile App and Services Survey that they ran on campus. Lori’s presentation (pptx) is here: 2012 Mobile Survey Findings
  • Most of the survey respondents were current undergraduate students – only about 3% were faculty.
  • Survey respondents were very interested in getting mobile access to Angel. Mobile access to Angel was ranked most highly (average of 3.9 out of 5) of a list of suggested future features, and more than 60% of respondents ranked it as the University resource they’re most interested in accessing from their phone.

Android access to the my.scranton portal





TAG Meeting Notes 4/12/2012

16 04 2012

TAG met on Thursday, April 12 for our final meeting of the 2011-2012 academic year.

Standing Committees:

IRAC

  • IRAC (the Information Resources Advisory Council) will be meeting this week.

Learning Management System (LMS) Work Group

  • Blackboard recently announced that 1) they are purchasing MoodleRooms and 2) they will be extending support for Angel indefinitely.  (See this post for more information)
  • The LMS Work Group will still be reviewing the three original options (Blackboard, Desire 2 Learn, and MoodleRooms), but will now also consider the option of staying with Angel for the future.
  • Mobile support for the LMS is still a primary concern for faculty and students.

Information Management Advisory Committee (IMAC)

  • The Incidental Use policy has been approved by the Cabinet. The final draft of the policy has been posted on the web.
  • There is still some concern among faculty about the governance process the Incidental Use policy went through. Anne Marie noted that there are some issues (e.g., privacy and confidentiality) for which compliance with federal regulations, rather than consensus from faculty and other campus users, must be the goal.
  • TAG was able to provide feedback on the policy language at an early stage, and we hope to continue to work with IR in that capacity on future policies.
  • A privacy and employee confidentiality policy is still in the works.

Previous Action Items

Incidental Use Policy

  • See IMAC discussion above.

Academic Technology Plan

  • The Academic Technology Plan has been backburnered. Anne Marie said that it’s unlikely any progress will be made on the Plan any time soon, since there are too many other things going on on campus that are a higher priority.
  • At some point, the next step will be for Anne Marie to meet with Jeremy and Kristen to identify a path forward.

Faculty Directory

  • HR and the Provost’s Office are continuing to explore options for storing in Banner such faculty-related information as chair or program director status and departmental affiliation.
  • Currently, Banner identifies a faculty member as a Chair, but does not specify of what department or departments.
  • The Provost’s Office has volunteered to maintain this kind of data once a location in Banner is identified. This information changes from term to term, so frequent maintenance is important.
  • The Provost’s Office would like to know what *other* information about faculty status or affiliation should be recorded that isn’t currently documented somewhere.
  • In a related project, Anne Marie and Maria Landis are working to create web profiles for faculty members – similar to those done in the past few years for new faculty, which are highlighted from the Provost’s web site. This set of data will include faculty photos, and will be compiled and maintained manually in flat HTML rather than in a relational database. We discussed that this seems like a very ineffective way to gather, publish, and maintain information about faculty members. However, this was the only solution presented to the Provost’s Office by PR.  Eugeniu suggested that the web pages could be hosted somewhere else so that information could be pulled from Banner.

Networking Computers Follow-up and Resolution

  • A faculty member contacted TAG with a concern about networking computers. The issue is now resolved, but it served to highlight some ways in which communication between faculty and the Technology Support Center and IT Services staff members could be improved.
  • Jeremy met with Jim and Robyn to discuss the faculty member’s request and the TSC’s service response. On the IR side, the communication issues inspired some changes in the Support Center workflow.
  • On the faculty side, TAG will work on encouraging faculty members to 1) report issues to the TSC either via phone (941-HELP), email (techsupport@scranton.edu), or Footprints, 2) if reporting by phone or email, to request a ticket number to be able to follow the TSC’s progress, and 3) provide as much information as possible to the TSC staff member (e.g., classroom number, symptoms, any attempted troubleshooting, etc) to speed service response time.
  • Kristen asked if there could be an “other” category in Footprints for requests that don’t seem to fit under any other category. Anne Marie warned that then every request would be submitted as “other.” Jim recommended that faculty who aren’t sure what Footprints category to use should call or email the TSC, who will route the ticket to the proper category.

Leahy Hall and Classroom Technology

  • Teresa C. and Sandy met with Dean Pellegrino to request that a TAG representative be involved in classroom mediation discussions regarding the new PCPS building. Dean Pellegrino agreed with this request.
  • TAG and IT Services will work to keep each other informed on classroom mediation in the new building.

St. Thomas Hall and Classroom Technology

  • The plans for the St. Thomas renovation have changed, so there are no longer plans to remodel classrooms in that part of the building, only faculty offices.

Lecture Capture

  • The lecture capture end point devices are already installed in the Science Center. IT Services is currently working on configuring the back end MediaSite server.
  • Testing will continue through the spring, with a goal of implementation over the summer for use by faculty in Fall 2012.

New Incidents/New Business

Faculty/TSC communication

  • A faculty member contacted TAG about a ticket that she put in to the TSC. The TSC staff member who responded hadn’t read her initial request, so while the issue was eventually resolved, it took a few more emails back and forth than it should have. This seems to have been a one-time mistake on the part of the TSC staff member rather than a systematic error, but it renewed our discussion of how faculty can best communicate with and report problems to the TSC, and how TAG can relay that information out to faculty.
  • We discussed the possibility of tutorials or screenshots on Footprints being made available, though faculty don’t necessarily have time to view tutorials.
  • When Luminis (the my.scranton interface) is upgraded, Kristen will request that the faculty tab have TSC contact information clearly highlighted so that it’s easier to find.
  • Jeremy suggested that TAG work with IR staff to incorporate that information into New Faculty Orientation.
  • Other possibilities included communicating with faculty administrative assistants or emailing faculty at the beginning of the semester to ask if they need help adapting to a new classroom.
  • The best way for the TSC to get information is to have a conversation directly with the faculty member experiencing the problem, whether via phone call to the TSC, email, or Footprints request.

Thin client computing

  • IR is currently experimenting with thin client computers in the Library. The experiment has hit some road blocks, so the original computers were replaced, and the pilot is now continuing.
  • Once the thin client model is proved successful, the next step would be to replace the lab computers in the Library and in Brennan, and then additional computer labs on campus.
  • Faculty and staff computers are farther away on the timeline.
  • One of the major benefits but also difficulties of thin client computing is software licensing – e.g., faculty would be able to log on to a virtualized environment from anywhere and have access to the software they need (SPSS, etc). But this is a very expensive process.

Faculty development specialist in CTLE

  • CTLE is hiring a new staff member to work with faculty on pedagogical techniques. This position is not specifically targeted at teaching with technology, and in the job description, the requirements focus on curriculum development.

TAG Membership for 2012-2013

  • TAG members should let Kristen know if they do not plan to continue serving on TAG in 2012-2013. She will send out an email reminder to all members.
  • We plan to follow the same model of meeting as a group once a month, with different TAG members tasked out to serve as TAG representatives on various related committees or projects.

2011-2012 Recap and 2012-2013 Planning

  • We talked about potential technology-related issues that faculty might face in 2012-2013 that TAG should monitor or be actively involved in.
  • Dave mentioned that there may be some technology issues over the summer as faculty move offices, but to date everything has gone smoothly.
  • One of the major concerns for next year may be the maintenance of departmental web pages in the University’s content management system (CMS). Maria Landis has reached out to each academic department to try to identify a point person for web page development and maintenance. There may be significant faculty concerns about the time commitment involved in departmental pages. Lori said that PR doesn’t feel comfortable creating content for academic pages, but at the same time, the pages need to be up-to-date and complete since they’re such an important factor in recruitment. We ended the meeting without being sure of whether and how TAG should play a role in these discussions, but it will likely be an issue that we will address in 2012-2013.

We adjourned for 2011-2012. TAG’s next full meeting will be scheduled for September 2012.





Update on Angel and LMS Work Group

2 04 2012

An important update on the Learning Management System search, courtesy of LMS Work Group leader Connie Wisdo:

The LMS Evaluation Working group members have been actively testing Desire2Learn, Moodlerooms and Blackboard Learn over the past few weeks.   On Monday, March 26th, an event significant to our group occurred.  You may have read that Blackboard, Inc. has acquired Moodlerooms, and even more significant, has announced “indefinite” support for the ANGEL LMS.

You may read more at http://www.blackboard.com/About-Bb/News-Center/Press-Releases/Strategy-Update.aspx?cmpid=HB_EOSS_032612

CTLE and ITDA conducted conference calls with the sales reps from both Moodlerooms and Blackboard last week.  During these calls, we were assured first, that Moodlerooms would remain a viable LMS, would operate independently, and would honor any sales quotes that had already been provided to potential customers.  We were also assured that ANGEL would be supported past 2014, and would not remain stagnant during the next few years.

From Blackboard’s “Open Letter to the Education Community” (found at http://www.blackboard.com/About-Bb/News-Center/Press-Releases/Strategy-Update/Open-Letter.aspx) come these quotes:

1.       Blackboard is becoming a multiple learning platform company that supports both commercially developed software as well as open source solutions.”

2.       “… at the behest of ANGEL clients that continue to find this product the best fit for their needs, we will extend our maintenance and support indefinitely. We will evaluate this decision on an ongoing basis and provide sufficient notice of any future change to plans for support. We will also continue to build ANGEL features into future releases of Blackboard Learn 9.1 and into the Moodlerooms joule product. Both represent positive future destinations for ANGEL clients who wish to upgrade to a newer product line.”

Obviously these two moves by Blackboard give our group reason to pause and think.   However, organizations such as Educause suggest that institutions of Higher Education should review their Learning Management Systems once every five years, to be sure the LMS is still adequately matching the needs/context of their teaching and learning efforts.  We have been using ANGEL for approximately 5 years, so our evaluation is still a worthwhile effort.

After considering the above, and consulting with the VP for Planning/CIO, our plan is to carry on with the evaluation of the three finalist products through mid-April.  Our group is scheduled to meet April 19th, and at that time we’ll discuss the findings and observations of our group members regarding these three products.  However, since we are now not being forced to move away from ANGEL, I will ask the group to consider the possibility of the University staying with ANGEL, for at least two more years, to (1) see how the Blackboard strategy pans out, and (2) to see if any of the newer LMS products (such as Canvas by Instructure) evolve to a point where they could be considered as possible replacements at that time .  If we decide to stay with ANGEL for two more years, we can relook at the LMS market next year at this time.  It should be noted that an AJCU LMS working group is starting negotiations with Instructure and other LMS vendors to try to obtain more affordable, consortium pricing.  It will likely take a year to settle these negotiations.

As always, I welcome your input.  If you have any comments or concerns, please let me know.

 





LMS Group Update

12 03 2012

An update on the Learning Management System search, courtesy of LMS Work Group leader Connie Wisdo:

In February, the three chosen LMS vendor finalists presented their products to the University Community.  Roughly 30 people in total attended each vendor’s presentations.  Of the 30, about a dozen faculty members consistently attended all three demonstrations, and engaged in meaningful Q & A with the vendors.  CAS, PCPS, KSOM and WML faculty were represented.  Members/leaders of the Faculty Technology Advisory Group, and 4 of the 6 faculty from the LMS Evaluation Working Group were among them.  A handful of students also made up the audience, mostly CTLE Tech Cons.

The vendors covered the 15 most important features identified by our faculty in the survey conducted last December/January , and attendees completed evaluation sheets which were based on those 15 features.  Preliminary analysis of the evaluations indicated that Blackboard and Desire2Learn had comparable ratings and both were rated higher than Moodlerooms.  On a scale of 1 to 5, Blackboard’s average rating overall was 4.71 and Desire2Learn’s overall average was 4.64.  Moodlerooms’ overall average was 3.71.  (However, it should be noted that technical skill deficiencies of the Moodlerooms presenter hampered the overall demonstration, and her technical support dialed-in to the demo through Webex, rather than being here in person.  We believe this may have had a negative impact on the ratings for Moodlerooms.)

The LMS Evaluation Working Group met this past week to review the evaluation results and the comments provided by attendees.  Members were in general agreement with the overall evaluation ratings, but obviously want to reserve final judgment until we’ve had the opportunity to work in the test sandboxes being provided by each vendor.  Two of the three sandboxes (D2L and Moodlerooms) have already been set up, and we expect Blackboard will have its sandbox available for our group next week.

The group members will conduct their testing  over the next 6 weeks, using rubrics based upon the group’s original list of required LMS features, and will meet in mid-April to compare results.    If you should have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me.

As a reminder, there are six faculty representatives on the LMS Work Group – Maureen Carroll (math), TAG member Teresa Conte (nursing), Tara Fay (biology),  Julie Nastasi (OT), Wesley Wang (economics/finance), and Keith Yurgosky (communications, part time).

Many thanks to Connie and the rest of the Work Group for arranging the demonstrations and giving us the opportunity to see the products!





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

  • 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.





Choose the New Angel: Vendor Demos

2 02 2012

This month, three Learning Management System (LMS) vendors will be coming to campus to demo their products: Desire2Learn, MoodleRooms, and Blackboard.  Thanks to the LMS Work Group, we’re all invited to sit in on the demos.

If you use Angel, please make time to scope out these new options.  While TAG has representatives on the LMS Group, these demos are the main opportunity for the faculty at large to weigh in on what system the University switches to when our Angel contract expires (2013).

Here’s the invitation from Connie Wisdo, who’s heading the LMS Work Group:

In January, the LMS Evaluation Working Group reviewed 8 vendor responses received in response to the Request for Information document sent out in December. We used the review to narrow our search down to 3 vendor finalists.  They are all scheduled to present their products to the University Community this month.

Desire2Learn will be here February 14th and 15th:

February 14 – 2 demos: 11:30 a.m. -1:00 p.m. and 1:30 – 3:00 p.m. — Location:  Brennan Hall Auditorium (228)

February 15 – 1 demo: 9 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. — Location:  Brennan Hall Auditorium (228)

MoodleRooms will be here February 23rd and 24th:

February 23 – 2 demos: 11:30 a.m. -1:00 p.m. and 1:30 – 3:00 p.m. — Location:  Brennan Hall Auditorium (228)

February 24 – 1 demo: 9 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. — Location:  Brennan Hall Auditorium (228)

Blackboard will be here February 28th and 29th:

February 28 – 2 demos: 11:30 a.m. -1:00 p.m. and 1:30 – 3:00 p.m. — Location:  Brennan Hall Board Room (500)

February 29 – 1 demo: 9 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. — Location:  Brennan Hall Board Room (500)

Taking into consideration the results of our recent faculty LMS survey, we’ve identified the top desired features as:

1.  Mobile connectivity / application / use

2.  eMail or messaging (with some type of RSS or “push” technology)

3. Assessments

-Creation (ability to incorporate different question types)

-Import of questions, question banks or assessments from other courses (ability to upload questions from Word )

– Grading options (Easiness of grading)

4.  Dropbox (include creation and grading)

5. Discussion forums

-Viewing options (flexibility)

-Grading options

6.  Rubrics (include creation)

-Flexibility (ability to incorporate different question types)

7. Gradebook

-Intuitiveness

-Student view (publishing grades for Student View)

-Flexibility of grading scales

-Export to Banner

8. Start of Semester Procedures (SOSP)

-Rolling over courses/content

-Announcement and notifications

9. Student tracking/reporting tools

10. Gradebook – Easy interaction with Excel for import/export

11. Course Content items – Folders, pages, links, conventional files, audio/video files

12. Assessments – Assessment security

13. Browser compatibility – IE, FF

14.  Course content migration from ANGEL to new LMS

15. Orientation/Online help for faculty and students

16. Course export capability

The vendors will be directed to cover all 16 of the above, as a minimum, in their demos.  Any additional features can be demonstrated by the vendors, as time allows and/or based on audience questions.

If there are students in the audience, the vendors will be asked to begin the demo with a 15-minute overview of the “student view”.

Rating sheets will be provided to all who attend the demos, so that we can obtain feedback from both faculty and students.

Separate meetings between the vendors and our technical staff will also be conducted while the vendors are on site so that we may ask them questions and/or see demonstrations regarding integration of their software with key enterprise applications, such as Banner and Live@edu.

You are cordially invited to attend these demonstrations.  Notice of the demos will also be posted on my.scranton in the near future.