LMAC Minutes
October 20, 2000
B.Barry began the meeting by providing us with an "offical list" of the committee's charges from
the Faculty Senate. There are, broadly speaking, three responsibilities:
1. to serve as an advisory body for both OIS and the Library, on such issues as computer
resources for students and budget allocations for Departments (books, periodicals etc);
2. to develop an effective instrument for assesing uses of technology in the classroom;
3. to continue to define the role and scope of LMAC itself.
M.Reinitz suggested that since the role/tasks of the committee were so loosely defined, this might
actually expand our options, allowing us to tackle what we really think needs our attention.
K.Ward reminded us that there are, in fact, somewhat specific instructions to the committee
contained in the Univesity's By-Laws. (Some day, perhaps, we shall look at those).
Marilyn Mitchell brought to the committee a printout of the Library's book and periodical budget.
She noted that funding has crept up (from 1.007M. in 99-200 to 1.307 in 2000-2001). Mitchell
explained the budget and allocstions to us, noting that the amounts available to each department
have advanced incrementally over the years. Perhaps the most notable feature of the budget is
that periodical expenditures have grown especially rapidly, accounting for a greater and greater
percentage of the funds available over the last several years (in some departments these
expenditures are now 4 or 5 times the book expenses).
Bill Barry provided us with Student Technology Surveys from 1998 and 1999 (these were
administered by OIS, and basically involved selective departmental inquiries--of Foreign
Languages and P and G). These surveys quantified responses by students to technological uses
in the classroom. These "pilot" surveys might provide us some ideas for future surveys, though all
agreed that the actual data on hand was not particularly relevant anymore.
Visitor Dameon Pierce commented on another survey conducted by OIS--a survey to inventory
software and hardware throughout the university, conducted in the summer of 1998.
Discussion then focused on what we might be looking for if we were to authorize new surveys,
and how we might implement such surveys. Here are some ideas (perhaps more appropriately
questions) we came up with:
1. what do faculty currently lack in the way of tech. support?
2. what is working best, in various venues?
3. what data do those folks who actually have budgetary clout (Cooney, Ellis) most need to
have in order to distribute their funds most efficiiently?
4. how can we best disseminate information about those aspects of technology in the
classroom that are proving to be most useful?
5. what kinds of data assessment would be most useful in determining how (and how well)
technology is affecting pedagogy?
Next meeting is slated for 2pm, Monday, November 6.
ciao,
Barry Bauska