Academic Technology Committee
U
MINUTES OF MEETING: 10/01/10
Submitted Exec. Committee:
Submitted Academic Senate:
U
APPROVED BY COMMITTEE: 12/03/10
Approved by Exec. Committee: __________
Approved by Academic Senate: __________
U
Members Present: Shan Barkataki, Helen Heinrich, Sydni Powell, Ron Saito, Mary Schaffer,
Ashley Skylar (chair), Wayne Smith, Michael Sullivan, Holli Tonyan, Jeff Wiegley
Excused: Conor Lansdale
Absent: Jussi Eloranta, Abel Franco
Guests: David Levin, Chris Olsen, Ben Quillian, Paul Schantz, Mayra Solano, Diane Stephens,
Chris Xanthos
Executive Secretary: Hilary Baker
Recording Secretary: Jennifer De Iuliis (not present)
Meeting began late (2:10pm) due to lack of a quorum.
1) Announcements
a. Baker shared that De Iuliis was not present and she would be taking the minutes for
the meeting. Wiegley noted that the minutes do not require the level of detail that is
usually provided. Other members stated that they like the details that are being
included.
b. Skylar noted that the joint ATC/ERC meeting will be held in Sierra Hall.
c. Skylar identified February as a joint meeting with ACAT. (SQ250 is reserved).
d. Skylar asked members whether they were interested in another joint ATC/ERC
meeting in the spring semester. Members were interested in this and Skylar will
check with the ERC chair to determine whether the March or April meeting time will
work best.
e. Baker introduced Mayra Solano who will take notes during the IT Vision@2015
discussion as input to the technology planning process. Members agreed that the IT
Vision@2015 section of the agenda would not be included in the ATC meeting
minutes.
2) Approval of Minutes
Approved with one change to page three.
1
3) Previous Meeting Action Item Review
a. Baker shared updates to the items that were discussed at the previous meeting.
Classrooms - Quillian forwarded classroom questions regarding reported broken
audio jacks, inconvenient placement of phones in the classrooms, and black box key
distribution to Diane Stephens for review and discussion in the Classroom
Technology Committee.
Peermark upgrade - Levin confirmed Peermark was upgraded with TurnItIn’s new
version release.
Student population accessing wireless – per Olsen 60% of the current enrolled student
population has used wireless this fall.
Slowness with portal (esp. w/ permission #s) first few weeks of class - Chris Ice
contacted Tonyan who reported that she isn’t accessing the portal as much and had
not noticed a recurrence of the problem. She will notify IT if she experiences future
issues.
Unable to see submissions in TurnItIn when accessing directly- TurnItIn assignments
created through Moodle are tied to the particular Moodle course and need to be
accessed through Moodle. They cannot be viewed by visiting the TurnItIn website
directly. Faculty Technology Center staff contacted Barkataki to inform him.
Access to view emails - Olsen shared that requests to access faculty email are
coordinated through Faculty Affairs.
Video On Demand – Confirmed that no changes had been made to the servers. IT
Help Center staff contacted Saito who acknowledged that his issue had resolved
itself.
Larger file size in Moodle (500MB is current max) - Faculty Technology Center staff
contacted Skylar to provide the option of using the V drive; Skylar to explore options.
Poor wireless coverage in parts of student housing - IT networking staff contacted
Powell to follow up on specific locations and also contacted Student Housing
technical staff to inform them about Powell’s reports.
Automatically loading class schedules into student’s Gmail calendars - A calendar
download link to a pagelet in the portal is planned for early 2011.
b. Schaffer asked about the status of the online definitions policy recommendation.
Skylar responded that the policy recommendation was submitted to the Faculty
Senate office and that she will be presenting the policy recommendation to Senate
Executive Committee on October 7th. She noted that minor changes do not need to
come back to ATC. She also noted that the earliest timing for implementation would
be fall 2011.
2
4) Chair’s Report
a. ACAT
Both topics under item 7 below were shared at ACAT. Sue Cullen announced the
upcoming Universal Design in Action workshop; Skylar distributed a handout about
the workshop. Skylar also noted the upcoming online EDUCAUSE sessions hosted
in Oviatt 18 from October 13-15 and mentioned that President Koester will be the
keynote speaker on Friday morning.
ERC – Powell asked about the focus of the ERC. Smith read from the Faculty Senate ERC
webpage noting that the ERC is budget related, not necessarily technology.
Small Capital improvements – Schaffer asked for clarity around the definition of small
capital projects and the process to request and get approval for such improvements. Skylar
and others agreed that this topic would be good for discussion at the joint ERC/ATC meeting.
ERC/ATC joint meeting agenda items – In addition to clarification of the Small Capital
improvement requests, possible agenda items suggested included an update on thin
client/cloud projects and spending more time in discussion around the IT Vision@2015.
Skylar noted that the Provost was available to attend ERC/ATC from 2:30-3:00.
5) VP/CIO’s Report – IT Survey
Handout titled – Information Technology 2010 Survey Analysis-DRAFT, June 2010
Baker explained this was the third consecutive year that the IT survey was conducted.
Separate surveys went to faculty, staff and students in February/March 2010. The response
rates in 2010 were comparable to 2009 for faculty (16%) and staff (33%). A total of 335
faculty members responded. Most college response rates were between 10-17%.
Baker shared that the areas of focus for the survey were: use and support of multimedia in
teaching and learning; wired and wireless networking support; email; and select staff
technologies. She added that additional questions regarding students’ ownership of
computing devices and use of campus computer labs were provided to Academic Resources
for analysis. The information regarding online courses was provided to Hillary Hertzog and
Ashley Skylar for analysis.
Based on the survey results, Baker noted some of the areas that were identified for follow-up,
additional outreach to students to make them aware of the services of the Help Center and
additional outreach to faculty to create greater awareness of the Faculty Technology Center.
Tonyan stated that she looked more at the AT and IT websites since she became a member of
this committee. She added that the search function on the CSUN main page is not very
useful; the search usually results in a PDF document.
A suggestion was made to separate the response items for questions regarding where people
seek technology assistance, separating friends and colleagues from self help.
3
Tonyan asked if students could be invited to participate in the survey via the portal because
the invitation was sent to students via email and it was noted that sometimes they do not read
their messages.
6) Department/College Issues
Smith – wants to share more about IT Vision@2015 with his college faculty. Baker will
share the one page document and encouraged ATC members to share with their colleagues.
(This document is available at http://www.csun.edu/it/vision@2015/).
Smith – Univ100 for Freshman is holding an event in the Grand Salon at the end of
September and he had been asked whether the wireless signal strength is strong enough.
Olsen to check. Since this is not a state-owned space, if additional wireless is needed, IT will
need to work with the USU technical contact, Alex Gonzalez.
Tonyan – some faculty in her college shared that there are not enough power outlets for
laptops. She also inquired about getting updates on grades, since the notification on the
portal is only for final grades.
Saito – asked if Art department could be included in the VCL pilot. Olsen to speak with
Saito.
Heinrich – Library is changing 3 labs to require University authentication for use. The only
open workstations will be in the open Library areas.
7) Discussion Topics
a. IT Vision@2015 (Baker)
ATC agreed to have the notes recorded separately for this discussion topic.
b. Classroom Technology Survey (Stephens/Wiegley)
Handout titled – Classroom Technology Committee: Report of Annual IT Student
Survey) Conducted February 2010- DRAFT
Stephens and Wiegley reviewed handout describing the results of the Classroom
Technology section of the IT Student survey. Stephens noted that the survey
analysis provided a sense of usage, provided a baseline for student technology
behavior, and allowed the Classroom Technology committee to draw some
conclusions. She noted there were no huge surprises with the results with the
exception of laptop ownership where it showed that the majority of CSUN students
own a laptop, desktop or both; this information will inform our thinking on computer
labs. Wiegley thanked the students for their high response rate that allows the data to
be considered reliable. He focused on several of the questions, noting the data
breakdown by college.
There was a question about whether VPN was necessary to effectively use some
Library databases, especially when drilling down into some of the databases.
Heinrich and Tonyan agreed to follow up. There was discussion about whether the
random sample size of 10,000 students was large enough and since the students were
4
contacted to participate in the survey via email, this would limit the survey responses
to only those who use a computer and use email. Smith asked for numbers about
FTES and for access to the raw data. Schaffer thanked the people who had prepared
the survey analysis.
8) Policy – none
9) New Business – none
Meeting adjourned at 3:04 PM.
5