main   |    charter   |   members    |    meetings    |    software requests   |     APP&R

Instructional Computing Technology Committee
Meeting Minutes
April 12, 2005

Present: B. Brown, T. Davis, D. DeVoss, P. Freddolino, D. Gift, R. Junus, H. Keefe, G. Kortemeyer, K. Lovell, R. Moore, J. Predko, K. Schuette, J. Smith, F. Tate, R. Tibbals


Meeting called to order at 3:35.

1. discussed and approved April 5 meeting minutes

2. DeVoss reported on spring CCSAC meeting
   1. all the CCSAC committees and LCT units reported; most of the reports are posted on the CCSAC web site: http://www.msu.edu/~ccsac

   2. Dave Gift spoke at CCSAC meeting, covered eight items:
      1. rethinking charges and configuration of CCSAC committees is good; better representation and communication is crucial

      2. the committees’ APP&R docs are being used for this year’s strategic vision report

      3. TLE draft allocations will be out by April 19

      4. NCC policies

      5. research storage (e.g., online/digital portfolios) is on the radar

      6. 24/7 computing help/support through library will begin this summer

      7. working on help desk coordination—among computing, help, and others; with registrar’s office and campus operator

      8. working on developing an operational and events calendar with RSS feeds and subcalendars; will be tested with activities offices, like Wharton

3. Gift addressed committee; focused on ICTC APP&R document
   1. Gift noted status of the strategic vision doc: being revised based on CCSAC and LCT APP&R docs; revision will be distributed in May

   2. Gift reviewed ICTC APP&R recommendations
      1. noted that TLE funds look good; $25 million in requests for the $10 million available

      2. addressed faculty training and support: continued concern about what methods (central and local) work best

         noted that departmental and college cultures must shift (to encourage more sharing of materials, especially in regard to hybrid courses); intellectual property issues must be addressed

      3. noted eagerness to review ICTC survey data, unpacked by college; encouraged ICTC to consider shorter surveys, with rotating samples

      4. addressed Section 508: noted that any online services and spaces for “day-to-day” use (e.g., reg.msu.edu) must be accessible and Section 508 compliant

      5. noted concern over use and scheduling of non-centrally scheduled technology spaces on campus; noted that the design and nature of tech spaces are changing a lot (e.g., redesign of Erickson 133)

      6. addressed wireless @ MSU: encouraged checking the status at http://wireless.msu.edu; noted that heuristics for prioritizing wireless are:
         1. what areas would be highly used for wireless?

         2. what needs for wireless have faculty articulated? (technology follows pedagogy)

      7. discussed collaborative student work spaces: noted Lyman Briggs expansion as an opportunity to create new work spaces, noted possible new college as an opportunity

      8. addressed faculty training: mentioned the Brown Bags and Lilly Seminars; noted the University of Iowa “Desire to Learn” just-in-time help program with student trainers/developers

         encouraged ICTC to think about models for faculty support (e.g., teaching and training)

      9. discussed best practices information: called attention to the VUDAT Teach Online site (http://teachvu.vu.msu.edu/public/)

         encouraged ICTC to think about and share ideas and information on best hybrid faculty support models; noted that faculty work best frm models and templates

         discussed the Ameritech Speaker Series funds—encouraged ICTC to suggest speakers for AY 05-06

      10. noted continued support for ANGEL and Lon-Capa; noted new system (Quali project for financial services at MSU)

      11. encouraged ICTC to continue meeting with small groups of students for discussions of specific instructional technology concerns, issues, etc.

      12. addressed technology scenarios—noted that a 5-year scenario is possible, but 10-year is near impossible; encouraged scenarios or approaches that help equip us to think about what directions we should/can take in the face of rapidly evolving information/instruction technologies

   3. Gift encouraged ICTC to think about how we can best rely upon him/use him as a resource; noted willingness to meet with ICTC whenever we think appropriate; encouraged us to consider “optimal interaction”

4. last meeting of spring semester April 26 at 3:30pm in 215 Computer Center

   goals: review committee charge; review committee membership; elect AY 05-06 vice chair and chair; determine goals for summer work; determine initial goals for Fall 05


Meeting adjourned at 5:08pm.

Submitted,
Danielle Nicole DeVoss