UVU Academic
Technology Steering Committee
June 15, 2010
Retreat
Meeting Notes
Attendees: Dan Clark, Toni Harris, Shane Rager, Scott Horne, Dave Andrus, Kevin Young, Laura Busby, Vickie
Walker, Keith Mulbery, Bruce Wilson, Mike Taylor, Eugene Seeley, Marc Hugentobler, Bart Jacobs, Ray Walker,
Robert Ward, Abraham Teng, Phil Ayou, Richard Portwood
Guests: Mohammed El-Saidi, Andrea Brown, Jessica Pilling
Welcome and Introductions―Laura welcomed everyone to the retreat and the group introduced
themselves to new members. Laura asked that everyone keep an open mind for the discussions with no
sacred cows, no monologuing, etc. She asked the members to work in four groups and to discuss the
issues and challenges with regard to all Information Technology on campus.
Institutional Research Presentation―A presentation was made by Jessica Pilling, assisted by Andrea
Brown on Institutional Research’s Faculty Omnibus Survey. They gave a handout listing the results of
the survey. Jessica reviewed the survey results. The top topics for faculty development programs
included (1) utilizing Blackboard more effectively, (2) developing engaged teaching, (3) designing active
learning exercises, (4) promoting student self-awareness of their learning, (5) publishing successfully, (6)
teaching with PowerPoint: Best Practices, (7)mentoring students effectively, (8) teaching and learning
with online classes, (9) addressing different learning styles and abilities in the classroom, (10) assessing
students’ learning, (11) teaching students how to learn effectively, (12) using multimedia tools
effectively, (13) promoting students’ academic integrity, (14) understanding how people learn, and (15)
improved course design. Additional topics included such items as preventing and reporting plagiarism,
conducting better research, managing time more effectively as well as how to teach students to do the
same, helping students to be motivated and capable to continue to graduation, promoting civility in
department meetings and dealing effectively with difficult supervisors, how to use technology that is
available as well as popular technology on the web. The survey asked about the best times for training,
current faculty use of technology, what type of technology is used and what would they use if they knew
how. The survey showed that 43.1% of respondents are using other technology like Google Docs, My
Math Lab, Moodle, Micrograde, and Examview. More respondents would use technology such as
Blackboard, presentation software, Wimba, and Turnitin, etc. if they knew how.
The students’ omnibus survey included issues such as Blackboard use, being able to look at current
grades, single online portal, and teachers that know technology better.
The full report can be viewed at http://www.uvu.edu/iri/reports/omnibus.html The total number of
faculty surveyed was 1,754 via email, with a response from 236.
Challenges Discussion―The results of the group discussion for IT challenges are as follows:
Group 1―
*timely software updates
*communication channel
―lost opportunities due to unknown processes/procedures
―updating faculty on new technology
―centralize information for students
*data security
―backing up computers
*aging equipment in classrooms
―barely maintain let alone move to next leve
*Groupwise, remote access not friendly
*slow-downs
―recent tree change
―large script bootups interfering with teachers’ ability to teach
*who’s who in the zoo
―who’s responsible for faculty training, education of students of IT chat
*IT supporting grants
―a disconnect between applicant and IT in technology needs of grants
*issues with Blackboard
―lack of utilization, difficult to access, user unfriendly
Group 2―
*Lab specialization
*Lab funding
*Communication
—Between lines and executive infrastructure
―within IT units (replication of work)
―representation on committees or committees that make decisions that we never hear
what the outcomes are
―governance, not clear what we need approval for
*understanding of lab level needs
*communication between areas
*support for purchases
―consistent/standards
*enterprise initiatives misconstrued
Group 3―
*Windows 7 update issues
*faculty want laptops
*Academic search databases
*$1000 is not enough for a good faculty system (want laptops)
*dissemination of new IT technology and information
*getting people to the training
*replacement schedule for classroom equipment
*lecture/student presentation capture
―studios for faculty to capture their own video in for blended classes
*more time before email is deleted
*UVAnnounce is ineffective, information overload
*informing faculty and staff on where to go for tech help
―need a web device that is super-friendly, that asks questions and branches out
*learning management systems
―major upgrades are such a learning curve
Group 4―
*Communication
*Resources—computer lab availability (sharing labs)
*KMS server for Office 2010
*Identity management
―Banner, UVLink, Moodle, Blackboard, FlexReg
*Payment processing on campus for specific supplies like photos (students)
―(maybe a separate P-counter system? Ray will work on a fix)
*trained web content contributors to help with inconsistencies on the website
*security procedures
―exceptions
(call Ray for video conferencing, Google Talk very easy to use, Wimba will become available on
UVLink next Fall, UVU is required to have a firewall for Skype because it uses peer-to-peer)
Laura has had discussions with Curtis Pendleton on grants and IT expectations. They will continue to
have a dialog on this subject.
Ideal Discussion—Laura asked the committee to ponder what the ideal IT world at UVU would look like.
The following is a summary of the ideas presented:
*one log in
*24 hr hardware solutions on hardware having IT issues
*multi-point contact for faculty/staff, such as the ability to IM
*user-friendly, intuitive UVLink (right now you have to know vocabulary)
*have UVU be a model of engaged-learning in the IT world
―more blended and tech-based classes
*workstation will boot up in under two minutes for all faculty and staff
*IT responsive to needs
—one call does it all
―Google one search model with multiple medium solutions for support issues
―better support from Media Services
―upgrade available software within 30 days (not including OS)
*dedicated line of funding for replacement of bulbs, etc.
*funding for replacement hardware (labs and staff as well)
*end-user’s drive IT decisions
*training of the organization
―online training
―making training more available
*remote guest lectures
*lecture capture, discussion group capture, classroom activity capture
*more usability on all IT systems
*one on one tech help who would proactively call to ask if they can help
*tech advisor that is plugged in to all the training and technology and bring it back to faculty
*support for the area tech support/additional help and resources
*ability to get technical training and certifications that would be paid for by the college
*IT would be seen as requiring from faculty and students only those things that help students learn
—Everything we require, we should be able to explain how it helps students learn or don’t do it.
*Communication and understanding how decisions are made and why is pretty critical. ATSC has a
responsibility to communicate back to areas. We will be looking at the gaps and how to get to the ideal.
*Replacement
*LMS
*Resources in staff in technology area
Laura introduced Moh. He has set aside $200,000 in addition to the $500,000 for classroom upgrades.
The Academic office really cares about Academic IT and making progress.
End-users are driving the IT agenda. However, people need to be proactive in making suggestions up
front, instead of disagreeing after the fact. We have a responsibility to be thinking about what we need
to move forward. Part of the problem is communications. IT hasn’t made any PBA requests, other than
maintenance of systems, that haven’t come as a result of an end-user request. IT shouldn’t be making
any decisions other than how to use the staff and resources it has to accomplish the decisions that
others make. Most of the systems that have dead-ended have come from someone on campus for
whom it has been the most important issue, for example fsaAtlas, which didn’t have the real cost
$20,000 to begin with. The maintenance, cost of the server, etc. were not considered. When the true
cost is found out, projects stall. We have a duty to inform end-users, to help them make good decisions
about solutions. This is the committee that is the most important as far as IT goes.
“How are we going to get there?”Discussion—
*Software Access
—What software are we talking about
—What is realistic as far as operating systems
—Licenses
—Hardware requirements
—Campus software load
—Cost study (virtual or laptop)
—Different for faculty vs students
—does it meet the user’s needs if it is operating perfectly; know that it is secure and can access
when they want; criteria for exceptions, how do we address that, how do they become timely,
communication and the purchasing process is a big deal
*Communication
—change approach, marketing component
―value, how much investment, who can help me
*Training
—what should be included initially and what do we need in a year
—what’s important as far as technology goes for faculty, staff, students
—approach, what methodologies are we going to use, what is the cost
*Hardware
—support and maintenance plan for technology in the classrooms
―need a parallel effort for machines for faculty and staff (let Ray know of problems with mediaenhanced classrooms, not labs)(can get bulbs from media)
*Email
—campus initiative, Laura and Ray will take to communication committee
―supposed to migrate by next Summer
*Unique area IT needs
—funding, infrastructure, like to have IT Services provide
―specialized technology needs/how do we handle specialized needs and have central IT
respond in a timely, cost effective manner
*Organization
—Faculty senate representation on committee
—look at and make sure we have the right people on the committee
―what are our responsibilities to the stakeholders
―need to focus on purpose, communicate purpose, educate stakeholders
Assignments—Subcommittees will meet to discuss and make recommendations and proposals for the
next meeting. The names in bold are the sub-committee leaders.
 Area IT Needs—Scott Horne, Robert Ward, Dave Andrus, Kevin Young
 Organization—Laura Busby, Abraham Teng, Eugene Seeley
 Software access, purchasing—Ray Walker will take this discussion to the Software Committee
and report back
 Hardware model—Dave Andrus, Scott Horne, Mike Taylor
 Media-enhanced classroom—Keith Mulbery, Mike Taylor, Laura Busby, Dan Clark
 Communication—Laura Busby, Bruce Wilson, Ray Walker, Richard Portwood, Bart Jacobs
 Training—Toni Harris, Phil Ayhou, Shane Rager, Marc Hugentobler, Dan Clark, (also include
Ursula Sorensen and HR)
 LMS, Media, Capture—Marc Hugentobler, Dan Clark, Mike Taylor
 Web content—Laura Busby will take to Communication Committee and report back
 Grants—Laura Busby will take to Moh and Kathie Debenham and report back
When we meet in August, we want a proposal with alternatives. Come with a core list of the things we
need to do to get to the ideal. Get estimates for resources, how many people it will impact, etc.
NEXT MEETING
Friday, August 6, 2010
10 a.m. to Noon
LI323g