TechQual Survey – Assessment of Technology Services

21 07 2014

Just a reminder to all faculty members: Please take some time to fill out the TechQual survey!

Associate VP for Information Technology Robyn Dickinson sent emails out to all faculty last week with survey information (including a link and an individual ID#). The survey asks about minimum, desired, and perceived levels of service on technology and information services, and it’s important that faculty voices be heard on these issues.

This is the third time TechQual has been has been administered on campus – previous surveys were in 2008 and 2011. After the 2011 survey, Information Resources discussed the results for faculty members with TAG as part of their planning process.

The survey will be open until August 15. If you did not receive a survey email from Robyn, contact Jordan Knicely ( in Institutional Research.

TAG Meeting Notes 2014-03-12

12 03 2014

TAG Meeting March 12, 2014 12:00pm-1:00pm

Tim Cannon, Paul Cutrufello, Kim Daniloski, Dave Dzurec, Tara Fay, Jim Franceschelli, Eugeniu Grigorescu, Katie Iacocca, Charles Kratz (guest), Sandy Pesavento, Kristen Yarmey

1. Lunch

TAG members thanked CAS Dean Brian Conniff for sponsoring lunch for our meeting. Dave thanked Mary Ann Maslar in the CAS Dean’s office for making the arrangements. Charles noted that he is willing to sponsor lunch at one of TAG’s remaining Spring 2014 meetings.

2. Items for Discussion


Dean of the Library and Information Fluency Charles Kratz asked to come to a TAG meeting to speak about the campus WordPress network (, which has been a topic of TAG discussion since 2011. (In preparation for today’s meeting, Kristen emailed TAG members notes summarizing the history of the campus WordPress network as well as a justification for the academic use of WordPress that former TAG co-chair Jeremy Sepinsky had composed for IR in Spring 2013.)

At our last meeting in February 2014, we received word from Jim that IR would not be expanding support for sites on the campus WordPress network until at least 2015. Subsequently, at the February 14 Faculty Senate meeting, Senator Terry Sweeney expressed concerns about access to the campus WordPress network. There was seemingly some confusion at the Senate meeting about CTLE’s role in the WordPress network and a misunderstanding that CTLE staff were responsible for determining which requests for WordPress sites would be approved, when this decision actually rests with IR staff.

Charles (who oversees both the Library and CTLE) has since met with IR and CTLE staff in order to seek clarification on the criteria and process for WordPress site requests, as well as to ascertain whether there might be a middle ground for supporting faculty use of the campus WordPress network. Charles noted that the CTLE, while currently very busy with the Desire2Learn transition, is interested in supporting faculty use of WordPress and would be willing to support a few pilot sites in fall 2014. He suggested that TAG might identify faculty who would be interested in a WordPress pilot in the near future, and advocated for transparency for faculty regarding the criteria and process for site requests.

Prior to today’s meeting, Kristen had asked Jim for IR’s criteria for reviewing requests for WordPress sites, which she then emailed to TAG members. These are as follows:

Blogs are available to the University community to provide an area for discussion and collaboration. The following criteria will be applied to these requests:

  • Blogs can augment University web sites on which are built in the Web Content Management System (CMS). They cannot be used as a replacement for a department or organization’s site.
  • Blogs are only for University-related purposes, not personal interests.
  • Only faculty & staff members of the University community can be given access to post to the blog site.
  • All blogs will be accessible for public view access.
  • The URL for the blogs will be in the form of
  • No redirects of the form will be set up for blogs so they are not confused with University web site(s).

Related information:

  • Desire 2 Learn (D2L), the University’s Learning Management System, has blogging functionality that can be used as part of a course offering.
  • Faculty & staff desiring to use for other blogging services should refer to our policy website ( for the Guidelines for the Use of Cloud Computing Services.

Jim noted that IR has limited resources and has to weigh what services they can support. He also explained that since this is a new service, it has taken some time to develop the criteria for what requests could or could not be accommodated. For example, individual student blogs (as one faculty member requested) could not be accommodated due to the difficulty of maintaining an accurate user list for that class within WordPress – while the campus network is integrated with Active Directory authentication, it is not integrated with Angel or Desire2Learn, so class lists must be manually added and maintained for WordPress sites. (As a side note, Charles mentioned that CTLE is working with a few faculty members to test Desire2Learn’s blogging function for student blogs. Results have not been encouraging so far, but testing continues.)

Charles and Kristen asked for clarification on the site request and decision-making process. Jim said that WordPress site requests could be submitted via Footprints ( and promised to add a request to the service menu within Footprints. He said that Connie Wisdo, director of IT Development & Applications (ITDA), will review the requests and make a decision based on the above criteria. If the decision is clear-cut, the response will be immediate, but if a request falls along the edge of the criteria, there might be some delay to allow IT staff members to discuss it first. Charles asked if there would be an appeal process for a faculty member whose request was denied. Jim answered that appeals could be directed to him.

Sandy asked if faculty could use third-party (external) blogging or web development sites (e.g., Blogger or Jim said that faculty were free to use whatever tools they liked, on the condition that they review IR’s Guidelines for the Use of Cloud Computing Services and consider potential threats to privacy or security of students or other participants. Kristen said that as a librarian she had significant concerns about the privacy implications of requiring students to use third-party cloud services for class projects. An advantage to the on-campus WordPress network is that site data remains on campus and under University administration rather than entering the commercial data tracking and aggregation marketplace.

Tangentially, IR now offers server space to faculty and academic departments, with roles and support responsibilities enumerated in a service-level agreement. IR provides the server environment, while the faculty member/department is responsible for installing/maintaining the applications they wish to use on the server. There is a one-time licensing fee charge for this service. Kristen asked Jim for more information about this service, as TAG had been previously unaware of it.

Discussions about WordPress and related service offerings will continue. Kristen and Dave will meet with Jim and Robyn Dickinson (Interim VP for Planning and Information Resources) on Monday, March 17, and separately will meet with Interim Provost Pat Harrington and the academic Deans (date TBD). Charles suggested that, in addition to working with Jim and IR directly and reporting to the Faculty Senate,  TAG should also communicate with the Deans and Provost to keep them informed of technology needs on campus.

To further facilitate communication among all stakeholders, Katie suggested that TAG remind the Faculty Senate and the rest of the faculty to share their concerns about academic technology with TAG, such that TAG members can continue to work constructively with IR staff. Dave will include this reminder (as well as an update and clarification on WordPress) in his report to the Faculty Senate this week.

Faculty Specialized Software/Computer Lab Questionnaire

Back in November, TAG sent out a questionnaire to all faculty to ask for input on their use of specialized software, computer labs, lecture capture, and learning management systems (Angel/Desire2Learn).

Kristen apologized for the delay in sharing results, but has finally finished a qualitative summary of faculty responses, shared here for preliminary review by TAG members. Only 52 responses were received, and respondents tended to be faculty interested in software/lab issues, so the sample did not seem representative. The summary is almost entirely qualitative, so anyone interested in performing a quantitative analysis should contact Kristen for access to the full data set.

Kristen asked that TAG members review the results and identify any action steps or areas for further research. 

3. Brief Updates

Identity Finder Automated Scans

Back in April 2013, Information Security Officer Adam Edwards brought a proposal for automated Identity Finder scans to TAG for consideration. At our February meeting, Adam Edwards and Scott Finlon from Information Security came to the second half of the TAG meeting to demonstrate the administrative side of Identity Finder automated scans, which non-Mac-using TAG members have been piloting since September. They also demonstrated TrueCrypt as their recommended tool for encrypting sensitive data (including confidential human subject research data, as Adam has discussed with the IRB).  Scott has since shared step-by-step instructions for TrueCrypt, which Kristen posted to the TAG site. Update 2014-07-02: Support for TrueCrypt has been discontinued, so Information Security now recommends using 7Zip for encrypting sensitive or confidential data.

Adam and Scott would like to begin the roll-out of automated Identity Finder scans for faculty desktops, starting with departments that would be unlikely to have confidential subject data stored on their computers. Scott sent Kristen a list of departments as they appear in Identity Finder (based on Active Directory groups) as a starting point. Kristen asked at today’s meeting for TAG member volunteers who were willing to confirm their department’s readiness to begin automated scans. Dave has already spoken to the History Department, and Kristen will speak with Library faculty at their next department meeting. Kim and Paul were willing to speak with their departments (Management/Marketing and Exercise Science) but asked for some additional information that they could refer colleagues to. Kristen will write up a summary/FAQ on Identity Finder for faculty and post to the TAG site for reference.

Kristen suggested that faculty members run their own Identity Finder scans  to understand the software and results (the software is already on all faculty PCs, via KBOX). Any sensitive data can and should be encrypted with TrueCrypt. Jim reminded the group that Identity Finder also helps IT Services deal with faculty computers that have been infected by malware — a recent scan confirming the absence of confidential data makes it much easier and faster for them to clean and return the machine.

There were a few remaining questions about the automated scan process, which Kristen and Jim will review with Adam:

  • Who exactly is included in a department group? Full time faculty, adjuncts, department staff (e.g., departmental administrative assistants)? Jim believes that the groups include *only* faculty members (including part time/adjuncts), but we will confirm this with Adam.
  • Automated scans are currently scheduled in batch for Fridays at noon. What happens for faculty members who are never/rarely on campus, with their laptop, at that time? (Katie noted that this is common among KSOM faculty.) Could an alternative scan time be scheduled? Or do scans begin the next time you turn on your computer?
  • What happens if you turn off your computer during a scheduled scan? Does it pick up where it left off when you turn your computer back on?

Departments that are ready to begin automated scans should contact Kristen and/or Adam. Adam and Scott are also available to answer questions about Identity Finder, TrueCrypt, or other information security issues.

Lecture Capture – Panopto Pilot

On Wednesday, March 5, Dave and Kristen attended a meeting with Jason Wimmer, Jason Oakey, Jim and Eugeniu for an update on lecture capture and the pilots taking place in PCPS this semester with Panopto. (Full notes from that meeting, summarized here, are on the TAG site.) 

IT Services began piloting lecture capture back in Fall 2012 with two installations of MediaSite (LSC334 and LSC433). TAG members Jeremy Sepinsky and Tara Fay tested out the technology in their classes. While there were some good things about MediaSite, IT Services discovered lots of complications that would make it difficult to scale and expand across campus (see Jason’s article in the Winter 2013-2014 IT Matters for more details).

As of Fall 2013, IT Services has been working with faculty in PCPS (Counseling, Nursing, and Education – including TAG member Sandy Pesavento) to pilot a different lecture capture technology – Panopto.  Panopto is a hosted service, which makes installation faster and easier in comparison to MediaSite. IT Services set up 13 rooms in McGurrin, and already over 790 sessions/interviews/classroom scenarios/nursing simulations have been recorded. Feedback to date from faculty and students has been very positive – even enthusiastic. Sandy has been using Panopto in her education classes to record students teaching sample lessons. She invited interested faculty to visit one of her class if they would like to see it in action. (As a reminder, on last spring’s ECAR survey on undergraduate students and information technology, 63% of our student respondents said they wanted their professors to use lecture capture.)

Our current license for Panopto only covers PCPS (where the pilots were taking place), but IT Services has put in a request to the FMC for a full campus license. IT Services plans to expand access to lecture capture across campus (potentially enabling 5-6 additional classrooms next year) and to integrate Panopto with Desire2Learn. Jason Wimmer will be giving a presentation on Panopto at an IT Forum on March 27 at 11:30am – all faculty and staff are welcome to attend (please register).

PR Department/Program Website Initiative

This project is on the agenda for the next meeting of the Committee on University Image and Promotion (CUIP), scheduled for Monday, March 17 from 2pm-3pm. In addition to regular CUIP faculty representatives Terry Sweeney, Abi Roy, Jack Beidler, and George Gomez, PR has also invited TAG to send representatives — Dave, Teresa, and Sandy will be there (and maybe Kristen).

It is not yet clear which department/program pages will be in the first wave of updates, nor is it clear who will make that decision. Katie noted that from KSOM, OIM department chair Nabil Tamimi was interested in participating in a department website update, particularly since OIM is a growing program and the home of the E-Commerce major.

TAG Leadership for 2014-2015

Kristen will be rotating off as TAG co-chair at the end of Spring 2014. Dave will continue as co-chair for 2014-2015, but will be on a Fulbright sabbatical in Slovakia (congratulations!) in Spring 2015. Andrew LaZella has volunteered to serve in Spring 2015 while Dave is away, but we are still looking for someone to begin a full two-year term as co-chair. Please contact Kristen or Dave if you are interested/willing. Dave noted that, pending the results of the Faculty Senate election, we should make sure that we have a Senate liaison for 2014-2015 as well.


The meeting adjourned at 1:10pm. TAG’s next meeting will be Wednesday, April 9 from 12pm-1pm, location TBA.

2013 Faculty Technology Questionnaire

18 11 2013

This announcement went out as an all-faculty email (thanks to Eugeniu), but in case you missed it, TAG’s running another faculty survey!


Dear Colleagues,

In collaboration with Planning and Information Resources (PIR), the University of Scranton Technology Advisory Group (TAG), a subcommittee of the Faculty Senate Academic Support committee, seeks faculty input on four technology topics:

  1. Specialized software,
  2. Computer labs,
  3. Lecture capture, and
  4. Desire2Learn (our new learning management system).

Please take a few minutes to fill out this informal survey, preferably by Monday, November 25. All questions are optional.

Aggregated results will be shared with Faculty Senate and Planning and Information Resources and will posted to TAG’s website at Please send any questions or comments to

Many thanks for your time and attention!
Dave Dzurec and Kristen Yarmey, co-chairs
Technology Advisory Group

TAG Meeting Notes 2013-11-06

11 11 2013

TAG Meeting November 6, 2013 2:00pm-2:50pm

Paul Cutrufello, Kim Daniloski, Dave Dzurec, Jim Franceschelli, Eugeniu Grigorescu, Andrew LaZella, Kristen Yarmey

1. Brief Reports

Desire2Learn (Eugeniu)

Eugeniu (CTLE) and Connie Wisdo (ITDA) sent an email to all-faculty detailing the schedule and plan for our LMS conversion from Angel to Desire2Learn.  CIO Jerry DeSanto would be joining Eugeniu and Connie for a presentation to Faculty Senate scheduled for November 8. CTLE will host Desire2Learn showcases for faculty on Monday, November 11 (3:00 – 4:00pm) and November 12 (4:00 – 5:00pm) in Brennan 228.  CTLE has also scheduled several Desire2Learn training workshops for faculty.

Identity Finder (Kristen)

Adam Edwards (Information Security) and Joe Dreisbach went to a recent IRB meeting to discuss options for encrypting research data to better ensure subject confidentiality. Adam proposed two tools (TrueCrypt and Identity Finder’s built-in Audit Vault) as options, though if possible he would like to settle on one as a campus standard. Adam asked Bryan Burnham to try both tools and report back with any issues or concerns. [Update 2014-07-03: Support for TrueCrypt has been discontinued, so Information Security no recommends using 7Zip for encrypting sensitive or confidential data.]

TAG members have been piloting automated Identity Finder scans, which are running each Friday at noon. No TAG members had experienced any performance issues. However, Kristen is concerned that the scans are essentially invisible to the user – that is, there is neither notification prior to the scan beginning nor confirmation with report results at the conclusion of the scan. She would like users to be able to see a log of the scans and results from their computers (even if only on an opt-in basis). Adam is looking into this. Ordinarily, users do not know their scan results – Adam meets one-on-one with users, based on how high the risk is (e.g., large number of hits for PII – personally identifiable information – especially if stored in unsecured folders or applications like Dropbox = higher risk).

Adam has offered to give a demonstration of Identity Finder so that faculty can better understand what Information Security sees in the reports and how they work. TAG members present decided to ask for a small TAG demo first, after which we will determine whether or not a demonstration should be given to the full Faculty Senate. Kristen will contact Adam to schedule a TAG demo in December.

2. Items for Discussion

Budget Priorities – Specialized Software and Labs

At our October meeting, we talked about gathering faculty feedback relating to specialized software an computer labs, to better prepare for future discussions about budgeting priorities. We decided in October to compose a survey for faculty members. We spent much of the November meeting working on a draft of the survey, which will ideally be disseminated to all faculty on or around November 13 (such that results can be shared with Information Resources by early December). Kristen will send the revised survey draft to all TAG members for further comment and review.

Jeremy Brees (in absentia) had suggested that TAG give the academic deans a heads-up about the survey, since it may prompt questions from faculty. Jeremy, Paul, Dave, and Kristen will talk to their respective deans prior to the survey being sent out.


The meeting adjourned at 3:00pm. This was our final scheduled meeting for Fall 2013. Kristen and Dave will coordinate scheduling for Spring 2014 meetings.

ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology

11 11 2013

Last spring, the Office of Institutional Research administered the national  ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology on campus in order to gather information about students’ perceptions and desires relating to technology at the University. Of the 3,889 undergraduate students who received the survey, 619 (15.9%) responded.

This morning, several members of TAG met with administrators from Academic Affairs and Planning and Information Resources (PIR) to discuss the survey results. (See PIR’s website for the summary report as well as presentation slides on key findings. The survey instrument and national results are available from EDUCAUSE.)

A few discussion points of particular relevance for TAG and other faculty:

  • 95% of students reported owning laptops (up from 89% in 2010). 84% of students reported having a smartphone.
  • When asked how many of their instructors effectively use technology, students responded: “All” – 9%, “Most” – 45%, “Some” – 45%, “None” – 1%.
  • 63% of students would like their professors to use more lecture capture.
  • 53% of student respondents would like their professors to use the LMS (learning management system – e.g., Angel or Desire2Learn) more.
  • 61% would prefer courses with some online components.
  • 86% of students felt that they were either banned or discouraged from using smartphones in class.
  • Some students reported that they wanted their instructors to increase the integrated use of laptops (52%), tablets (30%), and smartphones (30%) in the classroom.
  • 11% of students agreed and 2% of students strongly agreed with the statement, “I skip classes when materials from course lectures are available online.”

TAG Meeting 10/3/2012

8 11 2012

On October 3, TAG held its second Fall 2012 meeting.  [Yes, that was more than a month ago — many apologies for taking so long to post the meeting notes!]

1. Departmental Websites and the CMS

We’ve been discussing departmental websites for quite a while.  Lori Nidoh (PR) brought us some analytics from the University website (June 2012 – September 2012, all excluding internal traffic) to give us a better idea of how these pages are being used:

  • The Undergraduate Programs page is the 5th most visited page on the University website – after the home page, HR vacancy list, HR home page, and Admissions home page. (report)
  • From the Admissions home page, the Undergraduate Programs page is #5 on the list of what pages users visit next – indicating that prospective students are indeed looking at departmental web pages. (report)
  • This spreadsheet shows the most heavily visited pages.
  • Lori broke out additional analytics on a few department and program pages to give us a sense of how they are used: Biology, OT, PT, and Pre-Med.

We continued to discuss options for how to keep departmental pages up-to-date. Eugeniu noted that the CTLE TechCons help faculty members with their personal websites, but that access and permissions in the CMS (content management system) are an issue for departmental pages – a department wouldn’t necessarily want to grant publishing rights to a student who is editing their page, but it’s hard to catch quirks and mistakes if you can’t publish and review your recent edits. Lori asked that any observed CMS quirks be reported to PR.

Jeremy will be convening a group of interested faculty to discuss this concern in more detail offline. The group will outline a proposal for how departmental websites could best be maintained,  in collaboration with staff from Public Relations and Academic Affairs. Teresa Conte (Nursing), Katie Iacocca (OIM), Kevin Wilkerson (CHS), and Sandy Pesavento (Education) volunteered to participate, but any interested faculty (especially those with experience using the CMS) can join the discussion.

2. FERPA Considerations for Cloud Computing

Kristen asked for input on what cloud computing tools faculty are currently using and how those tools are being used for instruction. She noted the distinction between “internal cloud” services (e.g., Royal Drive, Angel) versus “external cloud” services (Gmail, Dropbox, etc).

Kristen will meet with IR staff from the Information Security office to nail down specifics on what faculty can and can’t do with these cloud tools in order to comply with FERPA regulations (see previous FERPA post for details).

3. Faculty Input on the IT Tactical Plan

Over the summer, TAG was asked by IR to respond to a number of technology questions posed by Jerry DeSanto, VP/CIO. Planning and Information Resources is in the process of creating their 3-5 year IT Tactical Plan, and the questions were targeted at the expected needs of the faculty in the coming years:

  • How can IT better support faculty research?
  • Given the influx of new, younger faculty what kinds of technology needs/support do you anticipate they are going to need?
  • How do you see the classroom experience changing over the next several years, and how can IT assist in this evolution?
  • What new academic programs do you see developing over the next five years, and how can IT help?
  • With the President’s stated intentions about the University and globalization, how do you see this playing out with web-based education, study abroad, and perhaps the development of satellite campuses in other parts of the globe?

Jerry asked for feedback by November 1 such that faculty input could be incorporated into IR planning. Jeremy asked the group how TAG would like to gather faculty input. We decided on a two-pronged approach – a brief survey sent to all faculty, and a more detailed response from TAG members. [Update – see the results in Jeremy’s 2012-11-05 post, Feedback Regarding the IT Tactical Plan.]

Reminder: Angel-LMS Feedback Needed

4 01 2012

Apologies for all the posting this week, but the Learning Management System (LMS) Work Group asked us to remind faculty to provide feedback on your priorities for the replacement for Angel.

Please take a look at the survey link below and submit your feedback.  The committee needs responses by January 10th at the latest.

Faculty Feedback Needed!

16 12 2011

The Learning Management System (LMS) Work Group, the team that’s reviewing options for replacing Angel,  is looking for feedback from all faculty members.  They’ve put together a list of evaluation criteria and need your input on which they should treat as the highest priorities when reviewing products.

Please take a look at the survey link below and submit your feedback.  The committee needs responses by January 10th at the latest, so we’ll remind you one more time after the holidays.

If you have questions about the LMS search, let us know or talk with one of the faculty representatives serving on the work group: Maureen Carroll (math), Teresa Conte (nursing), Tara Fay (biology),  Julie Nastasi (OT), Wesley Wang (economics/finance), and Keith Yurgosky (communications, part time).

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]

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!