University of Wisconsin–Madison

Meeting Minutes – May 18, 2012

ITC Meeting Minutes

Friday, May 18th 2012

Union South

  1. Call to order and automatic consent business: Approval of April Meeting Minutes
    • April minutes were approved with no corrections

2. Other updates:

  • Ed Van Gemert noted the new electronic library cataolog has been built here and will be rolling out soon.

3. The Role of the UW‐System CIO. (Ed Meachen, UW‐System CIO) For information purposes

    • EM described projects since he began as UWS CIO in 1997. One view of the role is knitting together of campuses around a set of technology infrastructures (e.g. broadband, library systems, SFS, course management system).
    • He has worked with WiscNet to provide UW Fiber and therefore broadband access to over 400 members throughout the state. He is now working with others to ensure UWS continues to have a high quality education and research network.
    • EM talked about a recent effort to secure a Growth Agenda grant to explore Learning Management Systems and Learning Analytics (with UW-Madison, UW-Platteville, UW Colleges). The project will examine student engagement to try and improve retention and graduation rates by 5%.
    • EM described his staff of consultants and other employees, totaling between 30-35 people. Lorie Docken, their current Project Director, will be acting CIO when he retires June 30th.

Ed VG- is there anything ITC could to do emphasize the need of WiscNet to the rest of the community? EM replied that more “leadership from the middle” is required. Most of the upper administration is not paying attention to the broadband network so it is threatened. One model would be to sell our fiber assets to an independent 501C-3 non-profit to run our network for us. Currently the fiber itself we don’t own but lease on a 20 year time frame. Wiscnet owns the equipment. Wiscnet revenue is 50% K-12, 25% UW and 25% technical colleges and state and local government. The telecommunications company battles have been relentless. Three legislations have been enacted to limit our outreach.

4. Course evaluation discussion. (Mike Pitterle, ITC members) [20 mins]

This is an informal initial conversation to get feedback from ITC members about if/how we should be involved in UW System-wide on-line course evaluation design/implementation/policy etc. If there is interest, we will come back to this more fully in September to develop formal recommendations.

    • KTF reminded everyone that the ITC may advise on any technological aspects of this issue, but may not revise or create policy. The last standing “policy” was created in 1997- it contains recommendations but no rules. Mike Pitterle agreed, and said the committee could ask for the ad-hoc committee who drafted the 1997 document to reconvene. He explained the advantages of an online evaluation system- it is more accurate than scantron, saves paper, and allows students more comfortable with typing than writing to give in-depth responses. Data can be arranged and viewed against peers and over years. MP and Rob Kohlhepp said that College of Engineering is using online evaluations as part of an accreditation and curriculum program.
    • Members agreed that the course evaluation process needs to be updated as the response rates of 10-20% are too low. They discussed the online versus paper process, and how technology like smartphones can make the process easier and perhaps create a new sense of ritual. RK said that three aspects of this issue will need to be addressed: response rate, exposure/transparency for students, and the technical aspect/tool.
    • Student evaluations are required in many cases for merit review, faculty assessment (e.g. for tenure packages) and accreditation.
    • There was a discussion about different types of incentives that some faculty use. KTF said after speaking with Aaron Brower on this issue, she believes the School of Education should be involved as experts. Also, it would be useful to be able to measure learning outcomes along with the evaluations to gain some side by side insight and transparency. Paul Oliphant mentioned that perhaps all evaluations shouldn’t be subject to one solution.
    • The question of student access to these evaluations should be considered. The 1997 policy allows departments to provide access to the reviews. ASM should be involved in this discussion.

5. Administrative Excellence: IT Governance/Decision‐making team (Bruno Browning)

The AE team working on the current state of IT decision-making has obvious ties to the ITC mission. The conversation is meant for ITC members to give direct input on current state and also future ideals for IT decision making.

    • BB described the Current State team’s process to gather (mostly financial) data. They have been trying to define terms like administrative, enterprise, and even IT. BB expressed that it is difficult to do so, and so the team is working with all IT data they have been able to glean from financial data. However, the team is aware that these data can often be misleading and under or over-represent IT spending. Bruno noted that the team sees the current account codes as lacking in IT categories. They developed a questionnaire that is being used to interview divisions. They are beginning with 10 smaller divisions to refine the questionnaire and process, and then they will move to the larger ones. The data will be made available. The team wants to keep governance bodies aware of progress.
    • BB said he looks to ITC to help them decide how the team’s findings may impinge on governance’ for example “administrative” by nature has some overlap into the academic mission of the University. KTF expressed that it would be useful if ideas and issues are brought to ITC in their formative states for brainstorming rather than in their final states as reports.
    • Members reported that they would like to see the lifecycle of decision making for one-time as well as routine purchases. It was noted that the financial data do not readily make this process visible. One wondered if the team is examining maintenance costs for systems and if/when they are retired. Reply was yes.

6. Overall update on Administrative Excellence Project (Alice Gustafson) [25 mins]

Alice Gustafson (APR, AE) will provide a year-end update on the status of the AE project and seeks feedback from the ITC.

    • AG said that the first seven teams have provided their recommendations, which have been endorsed by the Advisory Committee. They will be communicating with campus beginning late this month into June. Alice noted that recommendations may sound vague because vendor names will be withheld until negotiations can happen.
    • The team is working on understanding Resource Allocation on campus. Emeritus staff helped provide perspective, and they helped draft the team’s guiding principles.
    • AG asked ITC members who were part of AE teams to speak to their experiences. EVG explained the difficulties the Data Center Aggregation team encountered in trying to procure solid data and get a sense of costs.
    • Rhonda spoke to the difficulties that the ECC team encountered in trying to find one solution for all of campus. They used surveys, a network scan, and interviews to find their data. They ended up finding a product that will fulfill all requirements they had found. She said it is critical for executive leadership to support the recommendation, assuming it passes the Steering Committee. It will be a cloud-based service. The timeline says the first users can start in January. They want everyone who will use it to convert by August 2014. The solution is an integrated product combining e-mail and calendaring.

7. Teaching & Learning Technology Update

    • Report is appended to the end of the minutes

8. Liaison Updates

    • CTIG- Brenda Spychalla: Virtualization Presentation Friday @Grainger. Campus users will describe products they use; Chris Hopp will address licensing issues.

Next Meeting:

September 21st, 2012

10:00 – Noon

Location: Union South

 

Meeting Materials

1. April 2012 Draft Meeting Minutes

2. 1997 Report on Course Evaluations

 

Attendees

 

Faculty

Ivy Corfis, Spanish and Portuguese; Arts and Humanities

Greg Downey, Library and Information Studies; Social Science

Katrina Forest (Chair), Bacteriology; Biological Sciences

Mathew Jones, Neuroscience; Biological Sciences

Jeffrey Linderoth, Industrial and Systems Engineering; Physical Sciences

Jon McKenzie, English; Art and Humanities

Academic Staff

Eric Alborn, Business

Paul Oliphant, Wendt Commons

Michael Pflieger, L&S

Non-Voting Members

Ex Officio

Joanne Jones, DoIT Interim Assoc. Dir. for John Krogman/Bruce Maas

Provost Appointments

Clare Huhn, Provost Office (APA)

Don Miner, Business Services, Rep VCA

Ed VanGemert, Libraries

Campus Liaison, Group

Lisa Jansen (LSS), ComETS

Brenda Spychalla (School of Ed), CTIG

Richard Kunert (Biotechnology Center), NAG

Mike Pitterle (Pharmacy), ComETS

Guests

Rhonda Davis, Vet Med

Rick Konopacki, SMPH

Dave Towers, SMPH

Carrie Nelson, Libraries

Rob Kohlhepp, College Engineering

Linda Jorn, DoIT AT

Jane Grinvalsky, Testing & Evaluation

Brian Rust, DoIT

Derek Tessman, Int’l Studies

Phil Barak, CALS

Duncan Carlsmith, Physics

Jeff Bohrer, DoIT AT

Judy Caruso, CIO Office

Alan Silver, Chemistry

Nancy McDermott, SSCC

Andrew Arnold, SSCC

Jeanne Blochwitz, DoIT AT

Alan Ng, Continuing Studies

Carole Turner, DoIT AT

Bruno Browning, L&S

Cheryl Diermyer, DoIT AT, LTDC

Jeanette Phillips, DEM, ISIS Central

Deborah Helamn, Engineering

Alice Gustafson, APR, Admin Excellence

Karen Tusack, L&S LSS

Christine Dubie (notes), DoIT/CIO Office

 

ITC Teaching and Learning with Technology report for May 2012

By ComETS, DoIT AT, Library, Moodle Council, TLT-MAG.

1. Library Update

The third annual digital salon is underway and we’re featuring student new media projects from across campus online, in college library, and in a section of the undergraduate symposium. We’re awarding prizes for the first time, and we’ll have a press release tomorrow. In the coming year, we’re considering a rolling submissions process to accommodate student needs, and also looking at aligning more closely with Digital Studies certificate, which is about to be approved.

This semester, the library is also working with the communication A course directors to make improvements to information literacy learning outcomes in those courses (which enroll about 6,000 students). We are modernizing the learning outcomes, which were written when personal computers and the world wide web were still on the horizon, to focus more on enduring skills and abilities and less on mechanics. We’re also conducting focus groups to inform improvements to the CLUE tutorial that students are required to complete. Information literacy, which intersects with our collective interest in technology, media, and other 21st century literacies, is written into the general education requirements, so is a site for discussion/collaboration/engagement about preparing students for 21st century “google world.”

The new library catalog rolls out Monday 5/21/12, taking its new spot front-and-center on the library home page. Check out the more user-centered, locally-developed interface at http://search.library.wisc.edu The old catalog will continue to exist as additional functionality is developed in Forward.

2. Learn@UW Update

Learn@UW Version Upgrade:

Desire2Learn (Learn@UW) will be upgraded to version 10 of the D2L Learning Environment. This significant upgrade is scheduled to occur from June 28th at 10 p.m. until June 29th at 10 a.m.

To help keep you informed about the upgrade, check the website:

http://upgrade.learnuw.wisc.edu

This new version will introduce a more modern, streamlined display with simpler navigation – cleaner overall design- and a better display of course activity and social interactions. New functionality includes better notifications to students and discussion board enhancements. This version of D2L is also a requirement for the UW System learning analytics pilot with D2L.

The timing of the upgrade means that some active courses will be impacted. Scheduling decisions for this upgrade were made in conjunction with other UW System campuses, Learn@UW technologists, and D2L staff. The Learn@UW team is contacting IT support staff and summer instructors via email so all can plan accordingly for summer.

Final Grading – At the end of each semester, final grades can be sent directly from the gradebook in Desire2Learn to the Faculty Center in ISIS for approval and submission. This is a helpful feature for large courses. This semester, the Learn@UW team has improved the online instructions and tutorials for this complicated process. The Learn@UW team has also been in close partnership with staff from the Registrar’s Office to ensure a smooth process for instructors at the end of the semester.

ePortfolio Showcase – UW System is hosting in Madison a daylong event on Friday June 22 spotlighting the use of electronic portfolios. Faculty and staff from across UW System will demonstrate how ePortfolios have been used within courses, for programs, and for faculty development. Limited seating (free) is still available for Madison faculty and staff. Contact Jeff Bohrer or Linda Jorn if interested in attending.

3. Moodle Council

The 4th annual Teaching with Moodle event on April 18, 2012 was recorded and is now available on the Moodle.wisc.edu site. (http://moodle.wisc.edu/teaching-with-moodle) Jeff Russell, Dean of Continuing Studies, shared some brief remarks about on how Moodle is contributing to Educational Innovation on campus. Tackako Nakakubo, East Asian Languages, showed how her intermediate Japanese students record assignments and interact when most online content and assignments are in Japanese. Casey Gallimore, School of Pharmacy, demonstrated how Moodle pre-lab and post-lab assignments and contract grading enhance this skills based practicum lab course. Beth Martin, School of Pharmacy, explained how course group work using wiki tools builds an “e-Partner Portfolio”. Greg Moses, College of Engineering, (presented by Paul Oliphant) explained the use of conditional sequencing of activities with Low Stakes Quizzes enables a rich blended learning environment.

Enhanced “New Course Creator” Wizard for fall semester was demonstrated,. The improved Moodle feature will be available for the Fall semester. It will significantly reduce the administrative overhead and provide additional flexibility with how Moodle integrates with campus roster data.

Working toward moving credit courses to a common code base with the latest version of Moodle. This also includes standardizing roles and providing a common campus theme for each group running Moodle. And working closely with campus and Moodle community developers to ensure the additional modules, which permit academic innovation, are functional with the newest version of Moodle. Working with Sonic Foundry and Blackboard to ensure their connectors to MediaSite and Bb Collaborate are functioning properly.

Engineering is working closely with Moodle Council to ensure the new campus Moodle service will meet the innovative instructional needs of campus. The council is investigating a change in their charter to be an advisor group to a new campus Moodle service.

4. UW System Students & LMS Survey – In April, the UW System Exploratory Learning Management System (LMS) Task Force conducted a survey of students across UW System regarding their experiences and satisfaction with LMS technologies (Desire2Learn, Moodle, etc.). Over 6000 responses were received. This was the first survey of its kind delivered to students across UWS. Results are still being analyzed and will be shared with our campus in the future by UW-Madison members of the task force (Jeff Bohrer, Peter Mann, Andy Speth, Dan Voeks).