IMAC « Technology Advisory Group

TAG Meeting 9/12/12

12 09 2012

TAG held its first Fall 2012 meeting today.

1. Membership

We welcomed three new faculty members to TAG!

Tara Fay , Biology (CAS)
Kim Daniloski, Management/Marketing (KSOM)
Katie Iacocca, Operations and Information Management (KSOM)

We did a quick review of what related committees and projects TAG members are serving on this year:

Kristen: Mobile Apps, Luminis
Jeremy: lecture capture, pedagogy group
Dave: Code of Responsible Computing committee
Jim: Code of Responsible Computing committee, IRAC, among many other IR teams and projects
Eugeniu: IRAC, IMAC, among many other CTLE teams and projects
Teresa: LMS Work Group
Tara: LMS Work Group, pedagogy group (and testing clickers)
Paul (in absentia): IRAC

2. A few miscellaneous announcements

Katie mentioned that Brennan Hall is working well this year. Thanks so much to all of the IT Services staff who worked on Brennan’s classrooms this summer!
Kristen is working on moving the TAG website to the University’s local WordPress instance. That will make it easier for TAG members to log in and add information.
TAG meetings are in a 50 minute time slot this semester, so we’ll try to keep meetings snappy and do more of our announcements and information sharing via email.

3. Information Resources Advisory Council (IRAC) representative

Last year, Dave and Paul served on IRAC as faculty/TAG representatives. This year, Dave has agreed to co-chair (with Jim) a committee tasked with reviewing and updating the Code of Responsible Computing. Since that will be a significant project, Dave is stepping down from IRAC. Kevin volunteered to join Paul as a second faculty representative.

IRAC’s agenda this year will include the service catalog – a list of what services IR provides, where/how those services can be provided, what the expected turnaround time is, what IR’s responsibility is for each service, etc.

4. Departmental websites and the CMS

At the end of last year, we started discussing the issue of departmental websites. [See the follow-up post for more details on this discussion.]

The big question: Who has responsibility for creating and updating content on academic department websites? After a discussion of faculty concerns, we came to a consensus that the faculty would likely be willing to contribute content, but the CMS interface wasn’t user-friendly enough for faculty to be able to use it easily, especially if they weren’t using it on a consistent and regular basis. Katie suggested a model from Rutgers – faculty were responsible for updating content, but they did not have to post directly to the CMS. At regular intervals, a window would open for faculty to submit changes to certain types of information – e.g., each July, departments could add new faculty info and images. Each September/January, course information was updated. The centralized system seemed more efficient and got rid of inconsistencies.

Next steps: Our PR representative (Lori) was unable to make it to today’s meeting, so Kristen will get in touch with her to see if that kind of system might be possible for PR. Jeremy will get in touch with Anne Marie in Academic Affairs to find out if there’s a possibility for staff support with the CMS and to get an update on the status of the web profile project from last year. Katie will look for some of her records from Rutgers that might help us. The rest of the faculty were asked to compile a list of what kinds of departmental information are needed and how often each type would need to be updated. We can share this information via TAG-Discussion or TAG-Members. Kristen will post a compiled list to the TAG website.

5. FERPA considerations for cloud computing

We didn’t get to fully discuss this, but Kristen asked that everyone take a look at the FERPA post and think about how to share/clarify this information for faculty.

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: department websites, IMAC, IRAC, service catalog, TAG liaisons
Categories : Announcements, CMS and University Website, TAG Administrative

Privacy and Confidentiality Policy – Draft Review

19 04 2012

The Information Management Advisory Committee (IMAC) has invited faculty review on a draft of a Privacy and Confidentiality policy being proposed by the Division of Planning and Information Resources (PIR).

This policy, like the Incidental Use Policy, is part of an ongoing effort to update and revise the Code of Responsible Computing. Other policy updates will be forthcoming.

IMAC has asked TAG to circulate this document among faculty members for early input. Please read through the draft, and if you have comments or concerns, send your feedback to TAG (tag-discussion@royallists.scranton.edu) by May 8 so that we can share it at the next IMAC meeting on May 15.

Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: Acceptable Use Policy, Code of Responsible Computing, IMAC, Incidental Use Policy, Privacy and Confidentiality policy
Categories : Announcements

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.

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: Academic Technology Plan, angel, Banner, Blackboard, classroom mediation, cms, department websites, Directory, Faculty Profiles, footprints, IMAC, Incidental Use Policy, IRAC, Leahy Hall, lecture capture, lms, LMS Work Group, MoodleRooms, Privacy and Confidentiality policy, Technology Support Center, thin clients
Categories : Announcements, Minutes

Event Management System

22 03 2012

At today’s IT Forum, Andrea Mulrine from Development showed a demonstration of event management system RegOnline. RegOnline is a web-based service that provides online registration and attendee tracking and reporting as well as tools like customizable event websites, customizable registration fields and questions (e.g., t-shirt size, dietary preferences), invitation and automatic reminder emails, automatic name badge creation, credit card and payment processing, etc. Judging from the demo, I was impressed – it looked like a pretty sharp but user-friendly tool.

Andrea is the chair of the Event Management Committee, a subcommittee of IMAC (Information Management Advisory Committee). The Event Management Committee, which included representatives from IR, Development, Alumni, the Library, CTLE, and Finance, reviewed seven event management products and recommended RegOnline as the product that would best serve the needs of the University. Today’s demonstration offered a chance for the broader University community to provide feedback on the product.

At this time, there’s no budget set aside for a product or service like this. Pricing is volume-based, so the Event Management Committee’s next step is to gather information about how many departments on campus need something like this and how often they would use it.

I’d like to find out if there is a need for this kind of tool among the faculty, so if you think you, your department, or a committee/group that you serve would be interested in an event management service, please let me know:

What events or type(s) of events** you would use it for
Approximately how many events per year you hold
Approximately how many attendees your events have

I’ll put our feedback together and send it along to Andrea. Thanks, all!

**At this point in the process, the Event Management Committee is thinking big, so send me anything you’re thinking about. Some past or recurring faculty-driven events that occurred to me: Biology Dept Pig Roast, MELUS, disAbility, Ready to Run, Education for Justice trip to the 9/11 memorial, guest speakers…

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: event management, IMAC, IT Forum
Categories : Announcements

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.

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: Academic Technology Plan, angel, classroom mediation, course evaluations, Employee Separation Procedures, IMAC, Incidental Use Policy, IRAC, Leahy Hall, lms, LMS Work Group, Privacy and Confidentiality policy, service catalog
Categories : Angel and Desire2Learn, Announcements, Classroom Mediation, Network and Infrastructure, Online courses, TAG Administrative

Incidental Use Policy — Preliminary Review

8 12 2011

The Information Management Advisory Committee (IMAC) invited TAG (represented by Jeremy Sepinsky) to attend their meeting on November 11, 2011 in order to discuss the preliminary proposal for a new “Incidental Use Policy” proposed by the Division of Planning and Information Resources (PIR). This policy is part of an ongoing effort to update and revise the “Code of Responsible Computing”. Other policy updates will be forthcoming.

The Incidental Use Policy can be found here: Incidental Use Policy.

TAG and IR is currently in the process of circulating this document through the faculty Senate and the union, and we will be reporting our comments on the document from those sources. Concerned individuals are encourage to submit their comments and/or feedback to TAG ( tag-discussion@royallists.scranton.edu) and or Tony Maszeroski in PIR. Comments should be submit by Friday, January 6 so they can be included in next revision.

In what follows, we post the comments and concerns that TAG has already brought up in regards to this policy. Please add your comments, questions, and concerns in the comment section below.

TAG Comments on the Information Use Policy

TAG applauds PIR’s effort and interest in bringing this to the attention of the University Community at this early stage in the process when changes can be made and the policy amended. The intent of the policy is well meaning and has an appropriate function. PIR has done a good job of being fair and even-handed with the policy. However, there are a number of places where the policy as written may impact the faculty in unforeseen ways.
The Incidental Use is not intended to restrict or limit the reasonable use of the University technology infrastructure. Instead, it is meant to provide a context for when and how university services can be accessed for non-university purposes. The primary intent of policy is to state that the non-job-related use of the university’s infrastructure is permissible provided that such use does not interfere with an employee’s job-specific responsibilities and/or compromise university infrastructure.

The policy states that the incidental use of university technology resources should not “Create the appearance of impropriety or unethicality” (Page 1, letter d). These terms are ambiguous and could be used against faculty pursuing outreach or research in certain controversial topics. It is important that a policies such as this, if implemented, cannot be used as an additional “tool” for the administration or other faculty to limit or censure faculty use of technology. Statements such as this have the capability of limiting academic freedom if abused. To this end, the American Association of University Professors has this to say about policies such as this (Academic Freedom and Electronic Communications):

The difficulty with language such as “only official university business,” apart from a distressing lack of precision, is the inherent invitation to selective use of such a standard by an administration anxious to impose substantive constraints on faculty activity. Any restrictions that an institution feels it must impose on “acceptable use” must therefore be clearly and precisely stated, must be content-neutral and narrowly defined, and should address only systemic abuses by users, such as the posting or sending of material that would cause the system to malfunction or would severely inhibit the access of other users.
Similarly, item “e” states that the use not be “of unreasonable time, duration, or frequency”. The definition of “unreasonable” can vary from person to person and department to department. If “unreasonable” is defined as “a time such that it interferes with the employee’s duties”, then it simply falls under item “g” which states that such use cannot interfere with the fulfillment of the employee’s responsibilities.
The definition of “Incidental Personal Use” on page 2 states that it is something that is unrelated to their “University Employment”. Given the vagueness of the job description of faculty, stating whether or not one’s actions are related to “university employment” is difficult. It is unclear as to who would be making such a determination in the context of the faculty.
Page 3, in the statement under “Determination of relation to mission” no mention of the Computer Use Board is made. The Computer Use Board is a body that already exists and is defined in the “Code of Responsible Computing”. This is particularly relevant because it is explicitly stated that there shall be faculty representation on the Computer Use Board. The group proposed here does not specifically state the inclusion of a faculty member in the group who determines whether or not such use in “mission-related”. We feel it is necessary for someone who understands faculty use of technology to be included in the judgement of whether a faculty’s use is to be deemed inappropriate. This is also relevant in the determination of the “sanctions” as listed at the bottom of page 3
On Page 3, under “determination of incidental personal use,” the “senior management of each University department” is the one who determines the nature and extent of acceptable incidental personal use. It is unclear who this body or individual is for the faculty.

Comments : 3 Comments »
Tags: IMAC, Incidental Use Policy
Categories : Announcements, Security

Categories

Email Subscription

Admin