A
Academic Technology Committee & Educational Resources Committee
MINUTES OF MEETING: 10/05/12
APPROVED BY COMMITTEE: ATC 11/02/12 & ERC 11/13/12
Submitted Exec. Committee:
Approved by Exec. Committee: __________
Submitted Academic Senate:
Approved by Academic Senate: __________
ATC Members Present: Soheil Boroushaki, Jussi Eloranta, Helen Heinrich (chair), Sharlene
Katz, Gina Masequesmay, David Miller, Sydni Powell, Ron Saito, Chris Sales, Mary Schaffer,
Sally Spencer, Michael Sullivan; Excused: n/a; Absent: Isaiah Liu;
Executive Secretary: Hilary Baker, Recording Secretary: Jennifer De Iuliis
ERC Members Present: Debi Prasad Choudhary, Nazaret Dermendijian, Owen Doonan, Doris
Helfer, Yanbo Jin, Jerry Schutte (chair), Ward Thomas, Veda Ward; Excused: n/a; Absent:
Michael Barrett, Robert Kladifko
Executive Secretary: Diane Stephens
Guests: Dean Arnold, Ben Quillian, Paul Schantz, Mary Woodley
1) Welcome and Announcements (Helen Heinrich, Jerry Schutte)
Welcome – Introductions were provided by members and guests present.
Announcements –
Schutte:
• Schutte noted that everyone should have received the email that went out yesterday
announcing the newly appointed chancellor, Timothy P. White, chancellor of the
University of California, Riverside, as the next chancellor to lead the CSU system.
•
Schutte has been invited to be a moderator on October 12th regarding the Future
Funding of the CSU, which is a follow-up meeting that the Board of Trustees has
requested, however no faculty members are invited to attend this follow-up session.
He mentioned he has not been provided with any content yet and is asking ATC and
ERC members to provide input to him via email to share during the meeting.
•
Provost’s professional development session was held last Friday and the guest
speaker discussed the issue of online education. Schutte noted that it was of interest
to him that preceding the guest speaker, President Harrison shared that while she was
at Florida State, she was an early adopter of online education. He felt it seems that
from this discussion we will be moving towards more online education and a newly
formed committee has been created to review MOOCs, large-scale online courses.
Schutte noted that he sent an email to the guest speaker on a few inquires in follow-up
to the session; however, he had not received a response yet.
•
Schutte asked members to note the by-law roles of the two committees, which are
listed on the meeting agenda. He stated the importance of members to understand
their individual responsibilities and the committee’s responsibilities. He stated the
1
committees are able to have a positive, proactive stance and affect policy. Heinrich
added that ATC and ERC do have a lot of overlap, with one main exception being
that ERC reviews budgetary items.
Heinrich:
• The next joint meeting in the spring semester will be during ERC’s regular meeting
time on Tuesday, April 16, 2013 from 2-4 p.m.
Ward:
• Ward noted that she received an email today regarding an upcoming external IT
webinar that she thought might be of interest to committee members (she passed
around a copy of the message).
2) Information Technology Survey 2012 (Jerry Schutte)
Baker noted that IT conducts an annual survey of students, faculty and staff each spring. The
annual survey is compiled with input from several areas, including ATC, Classroom
Technology Committee, and others. She asked Schutte to perform the data analysis this
spring. Baker thanked Schutte for his analysis and for agreeing to assist with preparing the
survey and conducting analysis for the next year. The full survey report prepared by Schutte
is available online at http://www.csun.edu/it/about/pdfs/techsurvey12.pdf.
Schutte shared a PowerPoint presentation highlighting the survey results. He noted that the
annual survey for faculty, students, and staff is conducted to poll their IT wants, needs, and
perceptions and to assist in setting priorities for allocation of educational resources. The
sample size is good and there is a low margin of error in each of the surveys.
Masequesmay asked if the survey is made available to students in paper format or online
only; she expressed concern that many students do not have easy access to computers. Baker
stated the survey is sent by email notification with a link to the survey. She noted that email
is the official form of communication for the campus and students would be able to access
the link from any computer on campus or elsewhere. Schutte noted the faculty senate voting
went to an online format for the first time and while paper ballots are available from the
Faculty Senate office, no one has requested it.
Powell asked about the purpose of forced-choice questions, for example choosing the
importance between “having more wireless access vs. quiet places to study” or “more power
outlets vs. computer labs.” Schutte explained that the set of options helps to set the priorities
based on the requested needs, although in this grouping it does not ask all versions of the
combination of options, so it might not derive the best data outcomes.
Powell mentioned that in future surveys the social media questions could be a two-part
question to determine more specific interest or disinterest. Schaefer added that AMC has a
Facebook page and students noted they did not find it beneficial and felt the people running
the page may not know how to utilize the page well. Schutte added that social media
deserves a lot more attention because there are various types and choices of how to utilize
social media to interact or to simply provide or receive information, and sometimes people
are unaware of the distinctions.
2
Masequesmay felt the data results provided had a lot of good information; however, many
students that do not have easy access to computers utilize campus resources to complete
assignments and taking time for a survey does not fit in budgeting their time. Baker stated
that for the future, a note could be added on the email announcement of the survey stating
that a paper format is available in IT for those that would be interested in completing a paper
copy.
3) Video Streaming Services (Helen Heinrich, Mary Woodley, Dean Arnold)
Handout titled – Streaming Video at the Oviatt Library, October 2012 (Power Point slides)
Handouts titled – Oviatt Library: Video Furnace, Faculty Guide; Video Streaming
Databases; University Video Network (Web page printouts)
Woodley provided a presentation showing the video services that are available from the
Oviatt Library. One of the newer options is from a service called SWANK, which has
commercial feature films. These titles can be viewed outside of the classroom and made
available to the campus as a whole. The pricing structure is based on a license fee instead of
per viewing and the timeframes to purchase can be for a month, semester or a year. Woodley
asked anyone interested in using SWANK to contact her. She would like to hear suggestions
for titles that departments are using on a regular basis so she can inquire about getting those
titles. Schutte asked who is funding these purchases and Woodley stated at this time
purchases are made with Library book funds. The long term plan has not been determined but
might include partnerships with colleges and transfers of funds. Heinrich added that
partnering with the colleges is currently being done with databases and the information is
made available via the Library catalog.
Heinrich stated that they are asking faculty members to inform the Library about what titles
are of interest in order to provide the best access and services available through the various
video streaming options. Woodley explained that there is currently no industry standard for
pricing models and the pricing options and timeframes are all over the place, therefore it has
been difficult to predict long-term expenditures and properly plan.
Arnold provided examples of searching for videos on the Library’s website. He noted that
there is a pilot project with the Video Furnace service for students to access hosting on
Moodle. The Video Furnace titles are only viewable in the classroom; once you search in the
catalog it will note this information. The other services will provide a link which can be
added onto a document, shared via email or other means with the students. Arnold explained
that closed captioning is available on most films and segments of the films are available to
select and share with students. Schutte asked if the films are flash-based HTML. Arnold
stated that the services all provide web-based films, however with the Video Furnace service
they have seen that Java needs to be up-to-date; they are working on some tips to add to the
web pages. Woodley added that at one point some services were not compatible with Apple
products, however now they are compatible. Arnold noted that the classrooms are uniformly
being updated therefore they are seeing fewer performance issues occurring. Baker
suggested that if there is a minimum requirement the Classroom Technology Committee
chaired by Stephens can review and plan to implement in the classrooms.
Woodley shared that the Library currently has over 10,000 steaming videos available. Arnold
stated that the best way to find what titles are available is to search the library catalog by
subject. Woodley stated this is the only service that is not yet in the catalog until the titles are
3
acquired; requests should be submitted to “music and media” listed on the website and they
will get to her attention to process.
Schutte asked if there are CSU system-wide negotiations being considered to fund these
video streaming services. Woodley stated that they are establishing selected agreements
across the CSU’s. Heinrich added that Provost Hellenbrand is part of the CSU, Libraries of
the Future Committee and that cooperative collection is one of several current topics. She
asked members to contact Woodley directly with any questions or inquires into these
services. Heinrich will send out Woodley’s presentation to the committees via email.
4) Printing Services (Jerry Schutte)
Schutte explained that there is an overwhelming demand for printing services on campus;
however, no one wants to incur the expense of printing, as noted in the IT survey data. The
campus has different printing services available in all areas, which is confusing to students.
For example, the USU provides a card that cannot be used in any other campus locations and
some labs do not offer paper. Schutte asks if ATC and ERC members believe this is a topic
that deserves a written policy to be considered. Powell noted that the USU is run as a
business and perhaps a “best practices” document would be a better option to consider.
Schutte suggested perhaps both documents would be of interest, a policy for administration
and best practices for students.
Miller stated that departments should not be responsible for printing services, and he
recommends that we install printing kiosks (laser/good quality printers) and re-design the
way printing is being offered overall. Helfer explained it is important to keep in mind while
reviewing options that there are many items to consider if the model will be changed; for
example the Library has a contract with an outside vendor for their printing services. Helfer
stated the Library previously offered free printing services, but it was abused and the expense
was too high. She also noted that UCLA Associated Students runs the printing services for
the entire campus.
Dermendijian shared that his departmental lab was also abused and various attempts to
control the abuse have been explored, he has even discussed the topic with students directly.
The feedback received from students was that they felt they were entitled to printing services
considering this was a resource that is included through their tuition and fees expense. He
suggested having a fee included to cover printing services and tie this into their student ID
number. As an example, the fee provides “x” amount of printing per semester and once this
quota is reached the, student could choose to purchase more. He also agreed with Miller, that
departments should not be dealing with printing issues.
Jin stated that students want a one-card option to be used all over campus for services.
Powell explained that she is part of the Student Fee Advisory Committee and this option was
reviewed a year ago by the Associated Students and because things are run so differently on
campus implementing a one-card would be challenging.
Sales agreed with Miller’s position and suggested a Quick Copy-type location(s) should be
considered with printing tied to each person who could go to the location to pick up their
printouts, linked to attributes on their individual account. He noted that it would be
challenging to break down the variety of current services offered and get them to come
together, but feels the move to a central model is important to meet the needs of the campus.
4
Schutte asked the committees what they would like to see going forward. Powell stated
having USU representative involved would be important. Helfer added that there are a lot of
options and the future should be considered while making recommendations. For example
she receives a lot of request for scanning services. Heinrich suggested that this topic could
be added to the next joint meeting in spring and the groups should consider who else should
be invited to join the meeting to discuss further. Schutte agreed this would be a good next
step and stated that ERC could pull some data to share at the April meeting.
Meeting adjourned at 3:05 PM.
5