TAG Departmental Website Proposal at the Faculty Senate

12 04 2013

Today, Jeremy presented the TAG proposal for the upkeep and maintenance of the departmental websites to the faculty senate for feedback. The proposal was briefly overviewed by Jeremy, who then opened the floor for comments and responses from the faculty to such a proposal. A brief summary of the comments follows.

  • Many of the faculty were in support of the proposal, agreeing that the time involved in updating the website is a barrier to frequent updates. Often mentioned was the idea that we faculty are often not experts in the display of such information. Thus, a number of faculty were in support of the document.
  • The provost, Hal Baille, commented that the Committee for University Image and Promotion is aware of this proposal and in support of such a position. He emphasized the fact that, more than a public relations issue, the departmental websites are an admissions issue. Getting quality students, especially in a time when universities are competing for good students, means having a standout webpage. More than half of the incoming students use the university webpage as a very important criterion for determining which university they attend. Thus, it is very valuable, from an admissions perspective, to attract quality students, and the website is an important tool in the process.
  • A comment was made about the University’s web infrastructure, and that spending money on such a position may only be a small bandage on a problematic, and potentially outdated infrastructure. One Senator commented that the webservers run software that is costly run when there are cheaper, more-secure options that may be available, which can allow webpages to run more common web software packages, such as WordPress, PhP, or MySQL.
  • Another Senator questioned the necessity of such a position and the frequency of needed updates. Certain departments and programs, the Senator stated, simply may not have updates that can or should be implemented on a regular basis. If this is a consistent event across many of the departments, forcing updates may not make for a better website. Another Senator disagreed, stating that certain national accrediting bodies require yearly updates of programatic content on websites, so, at a minimum, such updates can an should be made. In addition, it was stated that such updates are not “easy” for faculty and staff to implement.
  • In terms of the staffing of the position, it was suggested to explore the current employees of the university before requesting an external hire. There may be current employees and/or positions with the appropriate skill set that can be re-purposed to fill this role. It is important to mention here, that the website proposal group did not feel that it was within its purview to make financial or administrative recommendations about this position. We simply request that such a position exist, and that it should be within the administrative sections of the University to decide the specifics of such a position. This group does recommend, and will make explicit in future versions of the proposal, that due to the extensive collaboration with faculty that this position should be housed within Academic Affairs.
  • Other faculty expressed concerns that this position could be used as a tool for Public Relations as opposed to a vehicle for expression of the faculty and their departments. It is not the intention of the sub-group that this position interfere in any way with the web-based expression of any faculty member. Our group intends that this position be a tool for faculty to assist them in presenting content in the form desired by the faculty of that department. This position should assist faculty, not remove them from the process. Faculty and departments will not be required to use this position, but this subgroup feels that it should exist as an option for those that do. Furthermore, we feel that there are sufficient departments and faculty that will make use of such a position to make it worthwhile.

TAG is currently working on implementing all the above suggestions into the next version of this proposal and thanks everyone at the Senate meeting for their participation and lively discussion. As always, anyone with comments, questions, or feedback of any kind is encouraged to email us at tag-members@royallists.scranton.edu, or email the chair or the subgroup responsible for the creation of this document at jeremy.sepinsky@scranton.edu.





Lecture Capture workshop

12 04 2013

Announcement from the CTLE about next week’s Faculty to Faculty workshop on lecture capture, featuring outgoing TAG co-chair Jeremy Sepinsky:

Join us for the following Faculty Advancement Series event. Please register (under “Faculty Advancement-Fac & Staf”) if you plan to attend. Lunch will be served.

Recording Your Lectures: Avenues, Applications, and Opportunities
Dr. Jeremy Sepinsky, Physics
Tuesday, April 16, 11:30 am – 1:00 pm in LSC 590

There are a lot of reasons why you might want to record the lectures you give in the classroom, from sick students to sick faculty, from lecture reviews to pre-recorded content. Jeremy will give us a demonstration of the lecture capture facilities available in the Loyola Science Center along with how he has been incorporating them into his class for the past two semesters. Afterwards, we hope for a lively discussion of the many possible uses of this technology as we move forward.





Technology and Learning Discussion on MOOCs

11 04 2013

Just a reminder that the Technology and Learning discussion group will reconvene on Monday, April 15, 6:00pm-7:15pm-ish in LSC 238 for our MOOC discussion (the one we had to postpone due to snow). All University community members are welcome, so feel free to spread the word!





Ithaka S+R US Faculty Survey 2012

11 04 2013

The 2012 report from the Ithaka S+R US Faculty Survey, which tracks attitudes and practices of faculty members at American colleges and universities, just came out this week. It’s a little library-centric but touches on many issues related to teaching, research, and scholarly communication. It’s long (70+ pages) but a relatively quick read:

Download Report

If you don’t have time to skim the full report, here are some excerpts that may be of particular interest to TAG:

Teaching

  • Small but non-trivial shares of respondents use technology in their undergraduate teaching. But while most recognize the availability of resources to help them do so, many respondents do not draw upon resources beyond their own ideas or feel strongly motivated to seek out opportunities to use more technology in their teaching.

Conducting Research

  • Collaboration — The prevalence of collaborative research varies significantly by discipline. Virtually all of the scientists reported that they have collaborated with others at some point in their career, while only two-thirds of humanists had done so.
  • Data Preservation and Reuse — About four out of five respondents indicated that they build up some kind of collections of “scientific, qualitative, quantitative, or primary source research data.” But while scholars across disciplines build up collections of relevant research data—of whatever type may by appropriate for their field and research—in the course of their work, few turn to established solutions for preserving these materials aſter a given project ends (see Figure 37). Four out of five respondents strongly agreed that “I preserve these materials myself, using commercially or freely available soſtware or services.”
  • Digital Research — We asked faculty members if they would like to “more deeply” integrate digital research activities and methodologies into their work. About half strongly agreed that they did, while about 20% strongly disagreed. A relatively greater share of humanists (about a third) strongly disagreed with this statement than did scientists and social scientists (about one in ten)… Among those who indicated they were interested in more deeply integrating digital research activities and methodologies, more than three quarters of respondents indicated that each of the [types of support] listed—more time, more conceptual help in understanding how digital research activities and methodologies can be thoughtfully integrated into their research, or technical support for implementing digital research activities and methodologies—would be very important to them.
  • Digital Humanities — A far smaller share of humanists than of social scientists and scientists indicated that any of these digital methods were very important to their research. Even methods that are believed to be specifically applicable in the digital humanities, such as text mining or GIS mapping, are reported to be utilized by only a minority of humanists.

Disseminating Research

  • Publication — Respondents tend to value established scholarly dissemination methods, prioritizing audiences in their sub-discipline and discipline, and those of lay professionals, more so than undergraduates or the general public. Similarly, they continue to select journals in which to publish based on characteristics such as topical coverage, readership, and impact factor. Finally, respondents tend to value existing publisher services, such as peer review, branding, and copy-editing, while expressing less widespread agreement about the value of newer dissemination support services offered by libraries that are intended to maximize access and impact.
  • Journal Selection/Open Access — The fact that the journal “makes its articles freely available on the internet, so there is no cost to purchase and read” remains among the lowest priorities to scholars in selecting a publication venue; only about a third of respondents indicated this was a very important factor.
  • Faculty Web Pages — A third of respondents indicated that they receive support in the form of having a public web presence [“a public webpage that lists links to my recent scholarly outputs, provides information on my areas of research and teaching, and provides contact ifnormation for me”] managed for them.




my.scranton.edu service has returned

8 04 2013

Access appears to be back to normal.





my.scranton.edu and royaldrive.scranton.edu are down

8 04 2013

If you need access to either of these, they are not currently accessible via classroom computers. There is no eta for remediation. Please plan your classes today accordingly!





Academic webserver to be decommissioned

8 04 2013

Robyn Dickinson sent out the note below in regards to the academic webserver on Monday. If you have active webpages or content on the server that you need access to, please remove it and/or contact TAG immediately. We will do our best to help you find a new home for your data. Since the server has been a target for malicious attacks, your data is already at risk! If you do not do anything, you will lose access to anything stored on that server. If you have any questions, please contact your tag representative or email tag-members@royallists.scranton.edu.

Thanks for your prompt attention!

Previously, you received a notice from our division that we had planned to decommission the public facing server academic.scranton.edu in the summer of 2012. In the past, this server housed web pages for the University’s academic departments, related organizations, and individual faculty. Academic administration and department pages have now been converted into the University’s web content management system (CMS). What remains are primarily individual faculty web pages and a few other organizations; we have identified each of you as still having active web pages residing on this server.
Recent vulnerability scans of this server have identified multiple weaknesses in the operating system. Due to these vulnerabilities, this server has become the target for attacks from foreign countries seeking to access our enterprise computer systems. I am writing to alert you that we will now be taking steps to remove public facing access to this server as of June 15, 2013. This means that after June 15, you will only be able to access the web pages that remain on this server from within our own network on campus. On August 15, 2013 the server will be retired and you will no longer be able to access any of its content.

Faculty members should watch for additional information about this transition coming from the Faculty Technology Advisory Committee (TAG) and can send questions to TAG-members@scranton.edu If you would like assistance moving your web pages into the University’s web Content Management System (CMS), please contact Aileen McHale from the Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence (CTLE) at aileen.mchale@scranton.edu. Training for staff and faculty on how to use the web CMS is also available through IT Services by contacting Jack Williams, our IT Training Specialist, at jack.williams@scranton.edu to sign up for a class.

I appreciate your attention to this matter,





TAG Meeting 2013-04-03

3 04 2013

TAG met for our third and final Spring 2013 meeting this morning, and it was a meaty one. Here’s what’s going on:

1. TAG Leadership for 2013-2014

Continuing the discussion from our March meeting, we’ve officially agreed to move to a rotating, 2-year-term, 2-co-chair leadership model for 2013-2014. Jeremy and Kristen nominated Dave (currently a Faculty Senator) to take over for Jeremy as co-chair in 2013-2014 and serve as TAG’s liaison to the Faculty Senate. We held a not-quite-strictly-parliamentarian vote among the faculty TAG members present, which passed with no audible or visible dissent, so Dave will start his 2-year term in Fall 2013… or more likely Summer 2013. Kristen will stay on for 2013-2014 and then rotate off, to be replaced by a new co-chair in 2014-2015.

2. Identity Finder Automated Scans

Jim brought Adam Edwards, our new Information Security Officer, with him to the meeting to talk about an Information Security Office/IT Client Services Identity Finder Proposal on Automating Scans. For those just joining us, Identity Finder software scans your computer for sensitive, unsecured Personally Identifiable Information (PII). It’s been installed on faculty computers since 2011 (Windows only – Mac and Linux users can skip this part). To date, the scans have been encouraged but entirely voluntary and entirely user-initiated.

The Information Security Office and IT Client Services are jointly proposing implementation of weekly, automated, required Identity Finder scans (see the proposal for details). Adam explained the rationale — if IR knows where sensitive data is stored on campus, it’s easier to protect that vulnerable data and avoid embarrassing FERPA violations. It’s also easier and faster to fix and return malware-infected machines if IR knows whether or not the machine had any sensitive data on it. Here’s how the proposed scans would work:

  • Every Friday at 12:30pm (or the next time your work machine was turned on), Identity Finder would automatically begin a scan.
  • Scans would be limited to only certain types of sensitive data – e.g., Social Security numbers, drivers’ license numbers, credit card numbers, and birth dates.
  • The Information Security Office would receive reports on the scan results. Adam would see the number of hits, and a masked view of the PII found, but he would NOT be able to see the file or the full PII picked up in the scan.
  • If a computer frequently had many hits identified, Adam would reach out to that user to help them better manage their sensitive data (so that the Information Security Office’s efforts would be focused on the largest sets of the most vulnerable data).

Adam has been testing with a small group. This Friday he’ll be rolling out the automated scans to all PIR staff members for another 2-3 weeks of testing. Adam noted that they are working on finding the most effective and efficient ways to scope the scans to minimize scan time.

TAG members mentioned a few concerns:

  • Scan length and performance effects — Kristen and Kim had run test scans on their machines that took much longer than expected (Kristen’s was 7 hours and 45 minutes, with a noticeable impact on performance).  Jim said that the subsequent scans are much faster, since you can set Identity Finder to ignore locations with many false positives – his scan takes about 3 hours. With respect to performance, Identity Finder does have a throttling capacity, such that it is not supposed to impact other applications. Adam explained that continued testing with PIR will help him make the scans faster and less noticeable.
  • Scheduling — Kevin and Katie noted that many faculty members (and their computers) are not on campus on Friday afternoons, especially if a scan needed multiple hours. We discussed a few options – for example, scheduling for Tuesday or Thursdays during the 11:30-1pm time slot, having an option to skip a scan if your machine had already been scanned within the past week, being able to pause a scan, doing monthly instead of weekly scans, pinging computers to automatically turn on and scan in the middle of the night, warning everyone to run their first scan overnight, etc.

To help resolve some of these issues and identify other areas of concern for faculty, TAG members volunteered to serve as test subjects for automated scans. Adam said that he’d like to work through the PIR staff first but will then reach out to TAG members for additional testing and scoping.

We invite our fellow faculty to contact us with other concerns or questions.  If you’d like to try Identity Finder, it should already be installed on your (Windows) machine, and you can find a Quick Guide for getting started at http://www.scranton.edu/pir/its/identityFinder.shtml.

3. Academic Server Decommissioning

An official memo from IR will be coming out in the next few days announcing a timeline for the decommissioning of the academic server (academic.scranton.edu), which has been in the works since mid-2011.  The server has been heavily targeted by attacks, so due to security concerns, academic.scranton.edu will no longer be *public-facing* beginning June 15. Internal access (via a campus IP address) will still be available until August 31 in case users need more time to move content. Adam explained that a firm deadline was needed in order to mitigate the major risk of a supposedly retired server still being public-facing.

Adam would like to work with people who still have public content on the server to migrate to either the CMS or another campus server.  (Content was supposed to have been migrated to the Content Management System (CMS), but there is still some active content there that was not migrated for one reason or another – some of it could not be accommodated within the CMS’s available functionality.) He has already met with the CTLE and the Library about moving the development pages for the Academic Integrity Tutorial. TAG will help reach out to faculty members who still have either individual content or organizational content on academic to determine what needs to be migrated where, and what level of support, assistance, or training is required. Adam will send Kristen information about the remaining directories and a list of faculty usernames connected to content on academic. After the official IR memo comes out, TAG will follow up that communication with those faculty members. (Faculty members who had individual pages on academic were contacted back in 2011 about moving their content, so hopefully most of this migration work is already completed.)

This discussion brought up some broader concerns about web development resources on campus. Tim described some of the difficulties he had finding a home for the Sheep Brain Dissection Guide. Eugeniu mentioned that some faculty members who had migrated their content from academic to the CMS reported that the Google ranking of their page had gone down in search results. The local WordPress server (sites.scranton.edu) might be a new option for student and faculty web development, but the extent of this service is still being discussed. We didn’t come up with any answers on this, but as always faculty members may contact TAG with other concerns, questions, or suggestions regarding web development on campus.





Luminis (my.scranton) upgrade moved to summer

27 03 2013

This announcement has been up in the my.scranton portal for a few days, but reposting here since TAG has been talking about the upgrade for a while. The upgrade to Luminis 5, originally scheduled for spring break, has been delayed until Summer 2013:

The my.scranton portal will get a new look this summer.  The Portal Team has been consulting with various faculty, staff and student groups to make many improvements to the portal.  For example, Self Service is moving to the Home tab and the Student tab will allow easy access to grades and registration.

Watch for more information as we get closer to the Go Live date.





my.scranton Downtime – Saturday, 03/23, 7AM – 11AM

21 03 2013

Just a quick note to say that my.scranton (as was as Banner and some other database services) will be unavailable this Saturday morning for software upgrades.  Our thanks to IT for doing this update early on a Saturday morning during Spring Break, and after grades are due.

1)Purpose

Apply Oracle Critical Security Patches to the

Production Database and Application Servers.

2) Systems Affected

The production database, MyScranton, Banner INB, Self-

Service (SSB), WorkFlow, and all other applications that

connect to the production database.

3) Downtime Window

Saturday, March 23, 2013 from 7 AM to 11 AM

4) Point of Contact

John Ochman