Academic Technology Committee – Meeting Minutes
Date: 10/25/2013
Time: 2:15 pm
Members present: Dan Grilley, Anne Galbraith, Bob Jecklin, Alex O’Brien, Kuang-Wei Wen, Christa
Kiersch, Dan Modaff, David Riley, Gary Konas
Members absent:
Also present: Mohamed Elhindi (from ITS), Nancy Jones & Ming Cheng on Ad Astra room scheduling
Agenda:
1. Continue discussion about technology & classroom planning, communication with ITS
2. Discuss/finalize SEI plan
I. Continue discussion about technology & classroom planning, communication with ITS
1. Overview of the Ad Astra software (Nancy)
a. Idea: choose the attributes (room features) you want – the software will match you to a
‘good fitting’ room. ADAs use software to choose room type, desk configuration, etc. (81
attributes – from windows, carpeting, podiums, how many screens, computers,
projectors, etc.).
b. However, there will be more demand for certain room features (i.e., dual projectors) than
there are available supply. There is an existing list of priority needs, for example 1)
classes that meet 4x week; 2) disability-oriented needs; 3) room capacity. **When this is
finalized, Nancy will make the priority list available to faculty.
c. Ad Astra can also do day-by-day or occasional classroom reservations (beyond just
‘whole semester’ reservations, could be used for scheduling a computer lab for one or
two course periods, for example).
d. AdAstra ALSO naturally collects data that we can use about room utilization – supports
new building funding, etc.
e. Current status: Every department has always had and will continue to have a block of
rooms to use for their scheduling. Anything leftover (after set deadline) goes into the
open AdAstra scheduling process .Transitioning into AdAstra in the next semester, and
into Fall 2014 scheduling semester.
2. How can we best help design ‘classroom of the future’?
a. Mohamed: We first need to start by agreeing on a ‘base configuration’ (computer,
projector, etc…) – what needs to be ‘part of the base’? Base configuration could then be
modified by discipline, by core group using the room, etc.
b. Alex: Survey design should allow us to determine what the base needs to have.
Collecting data on:
i. What do you currently use?
Minutes prepared by Christa Kiersch.
ii. What attributes do you think are 1) necessary for all your classes (present &
future); 2) not absolutely necessary but nice to have; 3) could be cool – not sure
if I’d use it or not; 4) absolutely not necessary.
iii.  Consider adding questions about ‘student device’ rooms (rooms with outlets
and strong wifi connection).
iv.  Consider adding question about periodic use of computer lab space for 1 or a
handful of class periods throughout the semester.
II. Discuss/finalize SEI plan
1. Average response rate = 55-57% (based on pooled data); section average is 39%. According to
the guidelines, these response rates are below the usable rate.
2. Advantages of online SEI? Cost savings, environmentally friendly…
3. Pilot of online SEI went better – perhaps because students only had to do 1 or 2; however, when
students have many to do response rates go down
4. How to increase response rate?
a. Incentives?
b. Communication?
5. We need to think about what kind of data we’ll want to collect to evaluate the success of the
program.
6. Action plans moving forward:
a. Let’s tap our experts in student behavior – the Psych. department has expertise and good
response rates. What are they doing?
Minutes prepared by Christa Kiersch.