TLTR Minutes
Sept. 19, 2002
In Attendance
Steven Bell, Emily Corse, Nick Coppola, Celia Frank, Chris Dougherty, Tim McGee; JoAnn
Gonzales-Major, Jordana Shane
New Student Representative
Steven introduced Nicholas Coppola as our new Student Representative to the TLTR. Nick is an
MIS major, and came to us as a transfer student from Temple University.
Vacancies
Steven mentioned that we have some vacancies on the TLTR, with the departure of Marlene
Szymona (SGS) and sabbatical of Lloyd Russow (SBA).
Faculty Technology Survey
The results of the faculty survey were reported at the May faculty meeting. There were some
mechanical issues that may have affected the validity of the web-based Faculty Technology
Survey that was administered last semester. It was suggested that we do another survey in the
Spring (2003). A suggestion was made that the next time a survey is given, that it should be
shorter and more targeted. The suggestion was again raised that multiple, short surveys be
administered.
Tim McGee has some sample questions from similar Faculty Technology Surveys conducted
elsewhere. He offered to try and obtain some of these questions, which are primarily focused at
business school faculty and OIT-type folks. Hopefully, such examples can help the TLTR to
improve the wording and types of questions included in the next Faculty Survey.
Steven is exploring the possibility of using the Survey Suite product to administer the Spring
survey. Survey Suite is a product that has been used successfully at other institutions. It provides
summary statistics, and raw data an be downloaded. The library currently has an account that
costs $49 for one user. Steven can look into getting multiple accounts for a good price (10 users
for $200?) if others want to explore it as a tool for conducting surveys.
Blackboard CourseInfo
Steven would like to try an “End of Semester Blackboard Survey” similar to the one used at
University of Redlands. We would administer such a survey in April, towards the end of the
academic year. Perhaps faculty who use Blackboard can direct their students to take the survey.
Nick Coppola suggests a short survey will work with students. Nick also says that he finds
Blackboard helpful. He says it helps students to be more organized, and that the Discussion
Tools are good.
Nick C. raised the question of faculty development / training for Blackboard. There is, in some
cases, a lack of training so profound that it results in student confusion about the use of the
Blackboard product. This observation opened a discussion of the Blackboard implementation
process, and how the TLTR must now backtrack and fortify faculty training and support for
Blackboard. The “adjunct issue” is present with Blackboard: some use the tool well and
appropriately, while others do not. Training for adjuncts is a challenge that was raised, and will
be a part of discussions of faculty development overall, and in each department as well. It is still
indeterminate as the best method to train adjuncts in the use of Blackboard overall.
On this note, Steven reported that he and Jeff Cepull and OIT are aware that there is a need for
better management of Blackboard, and that they are working on an overall Blackboard
Management Plan. Owing to rapid growth and faculty using Blackboard in ways that were not
initially anticipated, we need to better coordinate such things as global user deletions and
additions. The plan includes ideas for a more coordinated approach to the implementation of
Blackboard, and more attention to providing training for users. The possibility of bringing
representatives from Blackboard to provide training to us was raised.
The Instructional Technology Team could assist on the development of a program or protocol for
the management of Blackboard.
A new version of Blackboard (version 6) is going to implemented in the 2003-2004 year. Jeff
Cepull and Steven are going to try to mount the new version on a development station (server),
so faculty can acclimate themselves to the new version of Blackboard without having to actually
use it “live” right away. Training for Version 6 will necessitate much planning and forethought,
and will need to be a major initiative.
The Instructional Technologist position in the Library has not yet been filled. The individual
granted this position will be in charge of training faculty and administering Blackboard support.
Many unresolved issues in the area of training will likely be alleviated with the hiring of the
Instructional Technologist.
Faculty Development
A large portion of the meeting was devoted to faculty development issues. Steven explained the
intricacies of the various groups that conduct faculty development. The TLTR group will be
responsible for the faculty development that occurs during Winter Break (right after New
Year’s), Spring Break in March, and the week right after graduation in May. . Members on the
TLTR faculty Development Action Team include Tom Schrand, JoAnn Gonzalez-Major, Emily
Corse, Faye Ross, and Jordana. Steven has asked Tom to head this action team, and a meeting of
the team is pending.
Steven will see to the reservation of labs/rooms and the procurement of food for these faculty
development events. Emily will continue to provide descriptions of the scheduled programs on
the OIT website, and have a web based form for fac/staff to reserve their places for the sessions.
The type of programming that would be included in the Winter Break, Spring Break and
beginning of summer (May) would be of the “general interest” type that has been offered in the
past. Devoting the May sessions entirely to Blackboard training is also a possibility.
Academic Affairs has said that there would be funding to bring in outside speakers to conduct
faculty development sessions. This broadens the possibilities, as faculty development interests
and potential programming can now go beyond the expertise held by PhilaU individuals. One
drawback, however, is if, for example, faculty call for training in software that OIT does not
support.
Faculty development programming for adjuncts was also discussed. This is still a problem. It was
suggested that perhaps individual departments might try to schedule more programming for their
faculty and adjuncts. Some departments already do this. This approach has the added benefit of
programming that is more specific and less generic in nature.
Faculty Meetings
TLTR is now a regular item on the Faculty Meeting agenda. If the action teams can achieve
more progress this academic year, hopefully Steven will have many useful items to report..
Strategic Technology Plan
Jeff Cepull is working on an overall plan. He would like us to think about what we would like to
see ourselves doing in 2-3 years, and what technologies we would need to support that. He would
like any ideas: more hands-on labs, more smart classrooms, what kind of Portal for PhilaU etc.
Jeff would like 10 academically-rooted technology goals from the TLTR.
Student Technology Assessment & Training
It was decided that perhaps we will not pursue this topic deeply at the moment. Perhaps it is a
strategic goal.
Items for Next Meeting
Faculty Development, Strategic Plan, Better Bb Training, Better Faculty Technology Survey
Questions.