Acceptable Use Policy – Early Draft for Review

11 02 2013

At our (very brief) TAG meeting last week, Dave Dzurec shared a draft of the Acceptable Use Policy and asked for early feedback. Dave and Jim Franceschelli are chairing a committee charged with updating the old Code of Responsible Computing.  The committee includes representatives from the Faculty Senate (Dave, Wesley Wang, and Bob Spinelli) and from the Staff and Student Senates.

Dave would like your feedback on what they’ve come up with so far, so please take a look at let him know what you think!

University of Scranton Acceptable Use Policy DRAFT 01-15-2013 (.docx)

 





TAG Meeting 2012-11-07

8 11 2012

On November 7, TAG held its third and final Fall 2012 meeting.

1. Code of Responsible Computing Committee update

Dave Dzurec (History) and Jim Franceschelli (IT Services) are co-chairing a committee charged with drafting an update to the Code of Responsible Computing. The goal of the committee is to create a single policy for faculty, staff, and students that will define responsible use of information technology at the University.

Dave and Jim have been reviewing acceptable use policies from other universities  and have almost finished a draft for the rest of the committee to review.  After review by the committee, the policy will go to VP/CIO Jerry DeSanto, and then it will enter the University governance system for full approval (probably in 2013-2014).

Faculty representatives on the committee (as appointed by the Faculty Senate) are Dave, Wesley Wang (Economics/Finance), and Bob Spinelli (Health Administration and Human Resources). The Staff and Student Senates also have two representatives each.

We discussed briefly how the new policy should be disseminated and shared with students and faculty after it is approved. Sandy asked whether new students/faculty/staff will need to sign off on the policy when they begin using University services to make sure they are aware of it. Kristen suggested incorporating a mention of the policy into the New Faculty Orientation. She will also suggest to the Associate Dean of the Library, Bonnie Strohl, that public patrons using Library computers would be informed of the policy in some way.

2. CTLE Technology Liaison

The Center for Teaching and Learning has two faculty liaisons (currently Anthony Ferzola and Marian Farrell) who provide an interface between faculty teaching and the CTLE’s resources. Faculty can reach out to the liaisons for support (e.g., teaching observations), and the CTLE can reach out to the liaisons for input on needed resources. The liaisons also run the faculty mentor/mentee program.

The CTLE wants to establish a similar faculty liaison who would specifically address academic technology questions and needs. They did a pilot project last year, with Sandy Pesavento (Education) serving as the faculty technology liaison, to see what role(s) a liaison should fill. Eugeniu asked TAG (including Sandy) for feedback on what a technology liaison’s “job description” should look like.

During the pilot year, Sandy did some technology trainings (higher order thinking, student response systems, smartboards, etc) and teaching observations (e.g., coming to a class to suggest technology tools that might be helpful to the instructor). One of the difficulties during the pilot year was that few faculty members outside of PCPS were aware that Sandy was available for consultation on technology issues, though, so a challenge for the future will be finding ways to promote the services the liaison provides.

We discussed other needs that a liaison could address. Several TAG members suggested a repository or database of some kind that would identify 1) educationally relevant technologies and 2) if/how faculty at Scranton and other universities have implemented them.  Katie noted that sometimes faculty don’t necessarily know what tools are available to them. Jeremy and Dave expressed interest in hearing from faculty members who have been doing pedagogical research with technology in the classroom – e.g., via Friday presentations like the Office of Research Services seminar series.

We also discussed the difficulty of knowing who to call for help – that is, CTLE supports faculty use of technology for pedagogy, but IT Services supports the actual hardware and software that faculty use in the classroom. Teresa suggested a flow chart to indicate who to call and when.

3. Windows 7 and Viewfinity

As Windows 7 is rolled out with new University computers, your account on your desktop/laptop will change from being an administrator account to a standard user account. 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, as administrators can.

We were concerned about this limitation when TAG first learned about it, but IT Services has put in a lot of work to figure out a good solution for faculty members so that this change doesn’t affect our work. Using Viewfinity privilege management software, faculty users can be automatically and temporarily elevated to administrators so we can install whatever software we need when we need it.

Kristen has been piloting Viewfinity as a faculty user since the middle of the summer, with excellent results.  There’s a small popup window that comes up each time you begin to install a program that asks for a “business justification,” but you can simply say you are using the program for teaching, research, etc – no lengthy explanation required. When you click OK, you are automatically bumped up to administrator while the program installs, and you are automatically bumped back down to standard user once the installation is complete. Commonly used software (Skype, iTunes, etc) is whitelisted to speed things up. Overall, the process is smooth and seamless — many thanks to Jim and the IT Services staff for finding a way to accommodate faculty needs.

Viewfinity has another big feature – Remote Desktop assistance! When you call the Technology Support Center, you’ll be able to share your desktop with the support staff so that they can help you easily from a distance. This service is in development and will be available soon. It will always have a prompt – your desktop won’t be shared without your approval.

Faculty members with XP machines will get Viewfinity via KBOX, so you’ll have Remote Desktop capability, but you will still maintain an administrator account (and XP) until you get a new computer.  Faculty members receiving new machines will have Windows 7 and a standard user account, with Viewfinity.

Viewfinity is not supported on Mac or Linux, so faculty using Mac or Linux machines are not affected by any of these changes.

Classroom and lab computers are all Windows 7 now, but they do *not* run Viewfinity — they have Deep Freeze instead. So you can install programs on classroom and lab computers, but those installations will disappear each time the machine shuts down. If you need to install software in a classroom or lab that you need to use frequently, submit a request to the TSC via Footprints.

4. Infrastructure for Computerized Testing

We were running out of time, so we didn’t get to discuss this agenda item. Jim suggested that a work group form to work on some possible solutions, since we haven’t made much progress on this issue. Jim, Teresa, Sandy, and Eugeniu will start to work on this.

5. & 6. WordPress Site Organization & Luminis Tab

No time for these agenda items either – Kristen will be in touch with TAG members via email.

TAG will not be meeting in December, so our next formal meeting will be in Spring 2013. TAG members will still be communicating and working throughout December and January, though, so as always please feel free to contact us with questions, concerns, or suggestions.





IT Governance and Policies

12 10 2011

IT redesigned its webpage displaying the governance, policies, and guidelines for campus technology uses.

Of particular interest may be the IT Governance Model. This is a good cheat sheet for where and how certain decisions get made within IT. Of particular note is the appearance of this Faculty Senate Subcommittee (TAG) in the list. We’ve had a great working relationship with IT so far, and look forward to it continuing.





Code of Responsible Computing

6 09 2011

Jerry DeSanto recently sent an e-mail to the University community defining the responsible uses of the computing resources on campus. I’d like to call your attention particularly to the “Code of Responsible Computing for Faculty & Staff”. This is a document which I would suggest all members of the Faculty and Staff read through, simply to be aware of what is and is not “acceptable” under the university policy.

Other information can be found here.





Guidelines for Faculty Input on Technology Decisions

9 12 2010

Once upon a time, there was a policy that became a Memorandum of Understanding that then became a set of guidelines.  Hopefully, the name of this document won’t change any more, since we think it’s finally done.  Well, for now.

After everyone we talked to universally agreed that an informal approach would be best, we decided to rename TAG’s first drafted policy as the “Guidelines for Faculty Input on Technology Decisions.” They’re posted here on the TAG website, and their purpose is to codify the shared expectations between the faculty and any administrative bodies that are responsible for technology resources on campus.  They’ve been reviewed by representatives from the Faculty Senate, Information Resources, Academic Affairs, and the Faculty Affairs Council.

Since the Guidelines aren’t an official policy, they can’t exactly be enforced – but we hope that they will serve as a useful model both for faculty members interested in providing feedback on technology decisions as well as administrative bodies interested in getting faculty feedback.

Here’s hoping that this language will help improve communication about technology decisions across campus.  Thanks to everyone who gave us feedback, and as usual, let us know if you have any questions.





Faculty Communication with IR: Putting it Down on Paper

29 11 2010

The biggest action item TAG has been working on so far this semester is improving communication between faculty members and IR.  Over the past few weeks, a few TAG members got together and took a stab at codifying how TAG can facilitate faculty feedback into technology decisions.  This isn’t a TAG mission statement, since it’s only one of our group’s original goals, but it’s a way to formalize one aspect of our work.

On the advice of IR, we’re thinking of calling this document a “Memorandum of Understanding” rather than an official policy, because we’re not sure that it’s appropriate to send through the whole University Governance structure.  However, we’re still thinking of sending it to the Faculty Senate Academic Support committee for review and discussion (Jeremy and Kristen will be meeting with Jack Beidler to get his thoughts on this move).

We’d like to hear feedback on this draft of the document.  Please let us know what you think about the text as well as if/how you’d like to see it implemented on campus.  Thanks!





Meeting Notes 11/11/2010

11 11 2010

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

New member:

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

Follow-up on survey results:

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

Catalog

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

Feedback from English Department

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

Soliciting faculty feedback

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

Email and Calendaring change

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

TAG Policy

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

Other points of discussion

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




TAG Meeting set for 11/11/2010

5 11 2010

TAG has a scheduled meeting coming up next Thursday, November 11, at 9am.  Here’s what’s on our agenda:

1) Update on action items from our last meeting

2) Discussion of feedback from the English department (regarding the phone directory, the CMS, and TSC customer service)

3) Email and calendaring transition – how do we spread the word to faculty?

4) New proposed policy for TAG

5) Classroom mediation – how do we get more feedback from faculty on what technology they need/want in their classrooms, before Thanksgiving?

As usual, we’ll be posting notes after the meeting. Looking forward to seeing everyone!