Academic Technology Committee
MEETING MINUTES – 02/13/14
Attending: John Fitzsimmons, Crystal Swank, Brandy Scarnati, Bo Murdock, Tammy Johnson, Thomas Kearns, Fred
Lokken, Cindy Mortensen, Susan Courtney
Not attending: Thomas Dobbert
Agenda
1. Review and acceptance of the meeting notes of the November 2013 meeting
There were no changes
2. Revisions to the FY15 Technology Fee allocations and the role of
the the Academic Technology Committee
The AT and Technology Committees will have a role this year to ensure more participation and the
opportunity to propose new exploration of instructional technologies and support.
What can the Tech Fee be used for? QM? The answer re QM is no – but there are other sources – the
new DE fee and the TAA grant for instance
Perhaps we should create a master list of the licensed and equipment items
What is the process then for how proposals are made and evaluated? Processed through the appropriate
supervisor – then forwarded to IT/Thomas Dobbert – he will enter that into RAP
Need for more information and distribution of that so everyone knows - more communication – example:
the decision to drop lifecycle for administrative computers – who was involved in that decision or the
decision to use Tech Fee to fund non-credit classrooms at Meadowood
3. Electronic delivery of student evaluations - status & timeline to implementation
- how to encourage greater student participation
Brandy provided an update: Evaluation Kit was adopted as the solution – it works well with Canvas – and it
will reside in Canvas. Beta-tested for fall for online classes – had a 32% completion rate. Will do the
same beta-test this spring (plus anyone that wants to) and goes fully online for summer.
There is a need strategies for encouraging a higher % of student participation- emails to students don’t work
(they don’t use their student email account). Suggestions: free classes or free book vouchers. At the
University of Utah, students were required to complete the evaluation before the student could get their final
grade. Susan pointed out the problems of making it mandatory – seen as a consequence instead of an
incentive. There are arguments for making it mandatory as well (student feedback). Fred presented to
student government and the only question was the timing of the evaluation (the last two weeks of the class).
Student government was also asked to think of ways we could create incentives for completion. Ted
indicated there is an effort to add a small survey to PeopleSoft for students withdrawing/dropping
Can do additional survey questions to support assessment, accreditation, etc.
Page 1 of 2; Meeting Minutes
TMCC is an EEO/AA institution. See http://eeo.tmcc.edu for more information.
Created: 6/5/2014; Rev: 6/6/2014
The evaluations will be administered by the Academic Support Center. Distribution of results will be
electronic as well and will be distributed to a wider number (faculty, AAs, chairs, deans, VPAA).
A discussion about textbooks ensued.
4. IT projects
ExpressConnect to access the wireless – having problems with Androids –
Smart Classroom upgrade continues this spring – on the verge of completing
main campus installations
New sound/projection system in the art gallery
5. Other business
-
process for monitoring compliance – and enforcing - the ADA 504 & 508 policy (in place since July 1,
2013) – none is in place – Fred will take this up with DRC and the IT, and the campus ADA committee
OER effort – need faculty support and engagement – will be looking for volunteers this spring
Page 2 of 2; How to View Instructor Comments on Essay Assignments
TMCC is an EEO/AA institution. See http://eeo.tmcc.edu for more information.
Rev.: 6/6/2014