r2013-2014 college technology committee minutes · 2013-2014 college technology committee minutes....

snaidu

Typewritten Text

September 18, 2013 October 2, 2013 November 6, 2013 November 19, 2013 February 19, 2014 March 19, 2014

snaidu

Typewritten Text

2013-2014 College Technology Committee Minutes

of 4 Minutes prepared by David Eisenberg

Evergreen Valley College Campus Technology Committee

Draft Meeting Minutes

Wednesday, , 2013

Present: David Eisenberg (Recorder), Uyen Mai, Steven Mentor, David Micetich, Shashi Naidu, Nasreen Rahim, Kara Potter, William Silver, John Thompson, Martin Tran, Leslie Williams, Teck Ky

Absent: Eugenio Canoy, Henry Gee, Rozanne Lopez, Mike Russell Guest: Steve Blades I. Preliminary Items

A. Call to Order Meeting was called to order at 3:35 p.m.

B. Adoption of Agenda a. Additions/Deletions/Corrections Deleted “Remote Learner” (as David Lo is not available); delete part of item C

b. Items to be deferred

After approval of agenda, Martin Tran, an ASG member, introduced himself.

C. Approval of Minutes Tabled until next meeting.

D. Public Comment N/A

II. Information/Discussion Items

A. Campus Works report: Russell Most of Russell's information is contained in item B.

B. Report from ISSG: Mentor, Russell Steven Mentor reported that the library refresh is almost ready to go. There is still some fine tuning, but once released, it will be very good. Email/Office365: The chancellor's team is testing it out, and will go to wider distribution later. There are 4000 student email users given to us with Office 365. There are some students on board with it; anecdotally, some students didn't get the information.

The short version of the Gilbane network update is that fiber cable is being worked on; they'll put fiber between DO, Evergreen, and SJCC so that we don't need separate servers.

EVC is up to speed with Curricunet, not so much so at SJCC. We will send a team to help train them. Curricunet should change how we do SLOs, linking them to databases at other schools. The catalog and scheduling of rooms are modules in Curricunet.

Remote Learner is hosting some Moodle classes. People using the Remote Learner have faster upload. Remote Learner is using version 2.4; our hosting is using 2.2. The plan is to move everyone to remote learner by next semester. People will have to export their courses and check


that they are functional. Remote Learner has personnel to help us with the migration, but it has to be done in advance.

Eisenberg suggested that everyone use LAE grader; it makes your life easier.

There will be a meeting about SharePoint and website design on Friday from 8:30-11:30 a.m.

Ellucian ERP conversion project will be a topic at the Oct. 8 board meeting. Ellucian is a new name for Datatel.

Classroom technology standards: the south campus has a number of room designs. Nasreen had pointed out that some rooms are overdesigned and non-sustainable in LE, so we don't want that. The three designs are $15K, $35K and $50K dollars. CTC wanted some faculty input. That was pushed out to the fall, but on the other hand, we weren't even aware of the subcontractor designing the rooms. Henry Gee said that Automotive and another group will be in that building, and the idea is that there's a user group that understands the needs. The deadline on signing off for the design is within the next two months. CTC needs to make sure that people get a look at the room, as it may become a design standard for other rooms.

Uyen Mai commented that the new rooms at West Valley are very high tech. It's all key access; most computers are iMac. The rooms sparkle.

Leslie Wililams asked if there were a time that we could look at it during our meeting time.

C. Details on Moodle v2.4 piloting with Remote Learner - Rahim There are 15 faculty who piloted during summer. Fixes are done quickly.The general experience is positive. Initially passwords were being cleared every couple of days, but RemoteLearner fixed it. The look and feel is different, but better. Drag and Drop upload has been implemented. Enrollment and course input speed is 20 times faster. The activiites and resources are all in one menu; when you click an item it gives you a long explanation. The default password is “changeme” now. LAE grader is an improvement. Nasreen is trying to train everyone on 2.4. Please spread the word to your departments that training is going on.

The moving of topics is easier; group assignment was difficult, but it is now much easier and more interactive.

The new version has class attendance built in to it. Uyen asked if it's possible to grade for attendance. Nasreen noted that you can have attendance without points, or you can add categories such as participation.

Nasreen anticipates the mobile app for Moodle to be available within the next month.

D. Remote Learner: David Lo Tabled; David Lo is not on campus.

E. Wifi connectivity problems and update – Silver Martin Tran asked if it was possible to fix wi-fi in the library. Sometimes there is connection, and sometimes there isn't. This is near the tutoring center. Kara Potter said there are problems with Mac devices in Sequoia.

Steven Blades said that students in AB103 complaining about the wi-fi. They had to move to AB101. William noted that most classrooms have problems. We should make a commitment to make wi-fi more effective, as students are using it.

Teck Ky said that the wi-fi units need to be upgraded to send a more powerful signal. John Thompson said this was not the case; we have no service contract for the access points. Only the district office has access. John Thompson said that he believes Mike Russell has the authority to


help with this. William said it sounds as if a financial commitment to upgrading hardware is required. David Micetich asked if Steven Mentor could bring it up to ISSG. Steven would like to raise the issue at College Council.

William asked if SJCC has a similar problem; if so, it could be a district issue. He thinks it is a deeper issue than signal strength, since there have been rooms with good signal strength but a connection is still not available. David Micetich suggested a survey of faculty.

Action: The CTC chair will write to ISSG about the issues. CTC will put out a survey to faculty and staff about wireless connectivity in buildings.

Slightly off topic: Nasreen mentioned Office 365 training; Steven asked when it will be released to all campus; if not for a year, training now might not be the best time. William said that Office 365 opens the door for a higher degree of mobility, document management, and document sharing/collaboration. For example, we should be using a collaborative document system for SLOs on PDD. Office 365 is great for faculty, staff, and administrators. Nasreen would like the green light to go for training. Perhaps it should begin with staff? William suggested “voluntary early adopters” as the target audience. David Micetich asked if they were really ready, or is this just a checkbox for the accreditation report? William said that may be true, but if people do get involved, it becomes a much more exciting opportunity. Resulting action: setting up an Office 365 training.

F. Smart classroom update Not only the new building will have smart rooms; we need to know if standards will be set for future rooms of this kind. Many people want a consistent standard across campuses. At what point do the room designs under consideration become standards? William said that technology changes so often that a standard would become obsolete. We should go for a standard process rather than a standard product. Uyen Mai agreed.

Steven said that Henry Gee reported that the room would be set up in S150. Steven's sense is that CTC should be able to look at this room. We should follow up with ISSG and Henry Gee in particular. Eugenio Canoy also has much of the detail. William noted that we've talked about standards many times, but it has not been terribly productive. We want to reinforce the part of the process that gives users an advance chance to say yes or no to a design. These advance users should include technicians who will have to fix the equipment. Steven said we might not be able to effect changes to things we don't like.

G. EVC website update Shashi reported that there is a meeting on Friday with the vendor. William said he did not understand how Sharepoint interacts with a public web site. He understands how it works with an intranet. Shashi thought many colleges are using Sharepoint as a public-facing part of their site. David Micetich said it's not for visitors, it's for students.

H. Midterm Accreditation Report We need a clear path for technology requests and assess technology to see if it is used effectively and find out what is needed to change. We need to do this regularly to collect data. None of the planning items in 3C1 have been addressed. At the next meeting we should read this and have comments.

I. Goals for CTC for 2013/2014 academic year: all Martin Tran: new computers in student service center; the ones there are from 2003.

Nasreen: Technology Resource Center computers need to be updated.


Uyen: The graphic design department got all new iMacs in 2012. How can they get them versus the rest of the campus?

Leslie: Let campus know about the replacement cycle.

Steven: Discuss whether the replacement plan is working for us, and if not, put resources where they need to be. Perhaps we should revise our technology plan, and this will help us.

Eisenberg: Institute pushing new software to computers to keep them up to date.

David Micetich: SJCC is working to go paperless for all forms. Do we need to change or update? Students are told not to use paper forms at SJCC, but here they can use paper. He has also not seen the push for Office 365 when students register.

Leslie Wiliams: The district appears to be the bottleneck of power and purse strings; how can we be more effective in getting them to listen. Steven: The goal is to address the deadlock that happens when issues get to the district.

Steven: People are living in a fairytale that technology will solve education's problems; I'd like an informed discussion about distance education. Given our actual experience of those technologies, could we have a real conversation where teachers and staff address the realities of the situation. Ultimately there aren't many other places on campus where that discussion is likely to happen. We could create a forum for teachers who teach online to have a conversation as part of our committee. This will be a reality check on the fantasy.

Teck Ky would like student input on this also; in his department students will pass an online course and then have trouble in a non-online course. Nasreen said that peer evaluation of online courses has never occurred, as it has to be negotiated, and SJCC has been the bottleneck.

Nasreen noted that we have to look at distance education effectiveness, and she alone cannot guarantee quality control.

III. Action Items

IV. Other




Wednesday, October 2, 2013

Present: Eugenio Canoy, David Eisenberg (Recorder), Uyen Mai, Steven Mentor, David Micetich, Nasreen Rahim, William Silver, John Thompson, Martin Tran

Absent: May Chen, Henry Gee, Rozanne Lopez, Shashi Naidu, Kara Potter, Mike Russell, Leslie Williams

Guest: David Lo, Irene Gutierrez I. Preliminary Items


B. Adoption of Agenda a. Additions/Deletions/Corrections Moved Remote Learner to first position. Took off action items. Added Proctoring center.


C. Approval of Minutes Micetich: Change Mike Russell in A since he wasn't here. (Note that it was Mentor instead).

D. Public Comment Guillermo Castillo from the Math/Science division commented about the technology update and plan. We have to be careful how we do it, because of accreditation standard IIIC. The planning has to be integrated with the entire college. What could happen in 3.5 years is that if we don't do it the right way, we'll get another recommendation about the technology plan; two recommendations in a row is an automatic “show cause.” By “really careful” he means we have to follow the guidelines of the accreditation commissions when doing the technology plan. We have to have a thoughtful, deliberate, detailed process to do the updating of the plan; otherwise we'll be in a lot of trouble in two years, and that's not a long time in the scale of accreditation.

Also, the smart room discussion: there's an accreditation standard that says when you're going to do that kind of design, you have to assess the needs of the college (students, faculty, anyone using the technology). If you don't have a rigorous design and discussion, you're violating a standard. We have to follow the standards very closely.

Accreditation requires filing a substantial change report; we are not there yet, but it would be a good idea to start looking at how many DE courses we have, in case we go over the limit. If we go over the limit and don't tell them, we can get a sanction from the commission.

The plan has to be aligned with the master plan, strategic plan, and all the program reviews.


A. Remote Learner / Moodle v2.4 Piloting David Lo and Irene Gutierrez were open for questions. Nasreen said she had given an overview of how it's working, but she wanted ITSS's experience.

David Lo is setting up Moodle configuration and evaluating issues. Remote Learner's tech support is very good and knowledgeable. We have about 17 faculty from EVC and 5 from SJCC. Two


bugs that came up in the first week that had to do with inputting a large amount of student enrollment information. There were 1700 sections to import. One bug was that it timed out and restart. The other bug was the large number of users; it had a problem as well. It took about two weeks working with them, but now everything is going quite well.

Irene said that initially she was testing the different features for old vs. new Moodle. Nanogon was not working for ESL assignments; a plugin problem, but it was resolved.

Eugenio Canoy asked how many instructors were using the new Moodle. David Lo said 22 or 23 that are actually using it this semester. William Silver noted that there are some students who have to use both systems.

Nasreen asked if next semester we won't have similar problems with all faculty. How automated will it be? David Lo said it would be automated; updated three times a day until last day to drop.

Canoy asked for the timeline for full migration? Rahim said it was Spring 2014. This has been broadcast to all faculty. Instructors who've been using Moodle for a long time will get used to it quickly. They'll experience more positive things (faster, drag and drop, new features).

William Silver asked if the college home page would link to new Moodle, and if someone goes to the old Moodle site, will it redirect them? David Lo said that they intend to do a redirect.and web site link.

Steven Mentor asked if there's anything CTC can do to help. David Lo said “get the word out.” SJCC is the black hole; there's no contact person.

Eisenberg asked if the load with many more classes in the Spring would slow things down. David Lo said that Remote Learner should be fast enough to handle the load.

Steven Mentor asked when we'd have access to spring classes. David Lo said it should be during first week of registration for Spring.

Nasreen said she wanted Distance Ed to become a regular committee instead of an ad hoc subcommittee.

William Silver said that grades for fall should be accessible into Spring for the next semester. David Lo said that the old system will be up for one year to look at historical data.

Steven Mentor thanked Lo and Gutierrez for all the work they have done on Moodle. He recommended some way to note the work when the new Moodle succeeds. Nasreen wanted to mention it on the EVC web site.

Eugenio Canoy said we also need to do a survey.

Castillo asked about service agreements. Lo said that if we can't solve it here, then it escalates to him, and then to Remote Learner. Castillo asked about this because accreditation will ask for service level agreements; so we need to keep them in file. This is a Mike Russell issue. Mentor agreed that we need to keep that information.

B. Accreditation Update and Plan

Mentor noted that we need to start working on it. Lisa Kalenda says we need to look at process and pay attention to other stakeholders. The good news is that the current status of the report is good. For our committee, we have to pay attention to technology standards and the technology plan. She also said that the DE standards at federal and state level are very imporant, and as we get more invested in DE, we have to take those changing standards into account.


Castillo said that Skyline and College of San Mateo (CSM) are going through accreditation and we can look at what they did.

Canoy moved that we put our goals in as an action item. Castillo said that CSM does the goals first and then updates the plan.

C. Goals for CTC for 2013/2014 academic year Tran said that students should get new computers for student Service center. We need solutions to improve EVC's image.

Uyen Mai said we have the new printer/copier in the adjunct office, but it is constantly down. The newer computers didn't work with the new primter. Canoy asked what adjuncts do when it isn't working. Mai said that it's reported to the dean's office. The larger goal is to make access to printers available at all times for adjuncts.

Micetich: website development. Shashi is the point person, and there's a committee, but what role does the CTC serve? Goal: integrate ourselves into website development? How will website development committee information get back to us? Goal should be to get periodic reports from the committee so that we can comment on them and raise concerns and issues.

Canoy: we need to develop our process. (Mentor: we're brainstorming.) We need to develop the planning process. Canoy's goal is to use the accreditation process to update the technology plan. We need to align our planning with the district technology plan from CampusWorks that was approved.

Silver: One increasingly important goal is the unreliability of the wireless network in classrooms and offices. People with college-issued tablets, their own devices, ultrabooks, etc. are having problems. We need to evaluate and if necessary improve the accessibility and reliability of wireless networks in classrooms and offices on campus.

Mentor: Our committee be a stronger voice in the general EVC about technology issues; that we establish ourselves as an advocate for technology among students and faculty. The second goal is that our technology requisition process may be in need of clarification and improvement, and be streamlined.

Tran: Campus should ask students what they would like to see in Gullo once it's reconstructed.

Canoy: The process to get technology comes in with ASG. They come up with program reviews, talk to advisor, and then that goes through him. It's ASG's funding, so it's their decision.

Castillo: You (as AS) have your own money, so you can go to admin services and see an accounting. In principle the VP of Admin Services can tell you this.

Thompson: I'd like to get more information to our department. Goal: to be a better clearinghouse and disseminator of information from various stakeholders.

Canoy: That's where we have to work with budget committee, who will come to us to find out what technology they can work with.

Castillo: Research new technologies that have the potential to improve teaching and learning in the classrooms and DE.

D. Wifi Connectivity problems and update – Silver This has been covered in goals. Mentor noted that a lot of information is informally gathered, but that information isn't shared. He would love to have hard information.

E. Smart classrooms, standards, and faculty input


Mentor: Exactly what we're talking about in terms of process and planning Previously, the vendor asked Mike Russell to sign on without any faculty or staff input. We need a process. Mentor is nervous about how many processes that go forward without faculty or staff input. It's very dangerous when talking about standards to lock ourselves in; we want a process, so that when there are design issues there is a way to decide what to do.

Canoy: It's not a standard; they're going to present to the committee, working with a user group (faculty that will be in the building). It's a model, because once it's in, it's outdated. It will be a performance issue. For example, the data projector minimum is 4000 lumen (for now); that could be revisited next year, and it may have to increase. They will have to come to this committee.

Tran: What does a smart classroom consist of? Tablets? Smart phones?

Canoy: We don't know until we specify what a smart classroom is.

Mentor: When I hear that “other people are taking care of it,” I want it to work out, but I don't have unrealistic expectations. I would want the standards to be shared with other disciplines so that they can give input. Maybe CTC could make it a priority that we can get input from faculty that won't be in the initial user group. Assuming this group is working, we will see a proposal/report as a done deal. If we have a longer process, there may be a money issue. Nasreen and Canoy are involved with the process.

Mentor said he'd like to have the preliminary information rather than wait until we are presented with a fait accompli.

F. EVC website update There's a meeting next Wednesday to get input on the web site. Silver has asked for a video tape.

G. Proctoring Center Nasreen talked to the VP of student services. Tests for online courses have to be proctored by a faculty member, not staff. That makes it Academic Affairs. This would work through the assessment center. Foothill College's center is run by staff, without faculty in proctoring. Nasreen has a meeting with Keith Aytch on the 16th, and will assess the information.

Canoy asked how we in CTC are involved. Rahim said that we are doing a specifically online proctoring center; and this is an informational item at the moment.

Silver said that it is connected; all fully online courses need to have a proctored exam, so our students may be getting proctoring elsewhere; students from elsewhere may come here for proctoring.

III. Action Items Take goals and consider them, and prioritize them for importance to our divisions/areas and for the college.

IV. Other

of 5

Minutes prepared by David Eisenberg

Evergreen Valley College

Campus Technology Committee

Draft

Meeting Minutes

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

Present: Eugenio Canoy, David Eisenberg (Recorder), Henry Gee, Steven Mentor, Nasreen Rahim, William Silver, John Thompson

Absent: May Chen, Rozanne Lopez, Uyen Mai, Shashi Naidu, David Micetich, Kara Potter, Mike Russell, Leslie Williams

Guest:

I. Preliminary Items

A. Call to Order

Meeting was called to order at 3:35 p.m.

B. Adoption of Agenda

a. Additions/Deletions/Corrections

Added item F; agenda adopted.


C. Approval of Minutes

Minutes were read and approved.

D. Public Comment

No public comment


A. Smart classrooms and standards

of 5


Heidi Rank from Gilbane (working on south campus and AV classrooms), Andrea Johnson with KRJ Design Group working on classrooms and instructor technology.

Henry Gee is getting the link for this set of standards for the district; one of the issues is technology. Today we are looking at some of the items in that section of the plan. Yesterday there was a meeting to discuss the standards with the consultants. There are some changes; we are trying to set a standard for classrooms that we can easily recognize. Some standards are size/shape of room; some are technology standards. There are four levels of technology for a room.

For example, level 1 is basic technology; one or two screens, whiteboard space, etc. We looked at this from the viewpoint of a student. Should there be ports? Should there be wireless? Support is another issue; either via faculty that can help in an emergency, or calling in support. The external environment: what does the outside expect? If we have an online environment, what is their expectation? What does an external audience expect from a lecture capture?

South campus will have 14 classrooms, three of them tiered. All labs will be set up with technology. South campus is going through design; construction may start in June with completion by the end of Fall 2015, occupancy in June 2016. Math/Science/Engineering and SSHAPE faculty have been looking at the designs.

Heidi Rank noted that the specification book is exhaustive.Section 8 is the AV and IT information.Some of the equipment will be installed in a conference room at the Gilbane location.

Nasreen asked when ths would be available for instructors. Rank said that an electrician needs to install plugs, and then it will be a week or two after that; probably just after Thanksgiving.The design is going to the state architect at the end of November.

Eisenberg asked if there will be whiteboard space available when screens are down. Gee said this would happen.

Silver noted that under level 1, there are source inputs for the instructor computer. I presume this includes wired internet. Does it include wireless access to the internet? Canoy said that it's addressed, but it's a different specification. Silver said that it's often difficult to find a nearby power outlet. Gee said that we need to be able to support technology and support it easily. We need to make sure that as we go through each level it goes through the same tests.

Gee addressed level 1: a projection system with projection screen, loudspeakers, assistive listening system, AV rack within instructor's station, source inputs (document camera, blu-ray player, HDMI, RGBH/VGA, audio, and laptop connections.

Eisenberg said that, without an annotation system, the projection screen needs to be manual so that he can write on the image projected onto the whiteboard.

Rank said that the intent of technology standards is to mark what is here now, but revisit it later. Mentor said that once it's installed, you can revisit it only for other buildings. Johnson noted that when you add more items to the rack, it begins to get taller than ADA standards. The footprint in the room is the same for fixed consoles. If you want an all-encompassing flexible solution, we move the document camera to an adjustable height with flexible cables.

of 5


Andrea Johnson showed a brochure of a desk with an AV rack; one will be installed in the Gilbane room. It's ADA compliant. Mentor asked where a laptop would go, a short discusson ensued. The rack also has an extension shelf that flips up. Gee said that many people would attach touchscreens and tablets. His vision is that we will get to the point where tablet sellers will have two screens.

Gee said that when the mockup is ready, we should advise people to bring what they use so they can see how it works. Johnson said that when you have these modules, you have to make a decision about the chairs. It can below to accommodate a wheelchair. If a short instructor wants to sit, it's likely that people will be sitting higher.

Mentor asked that if we purchase these to meet the new requirements and make these our standard, what happens if the builder goes out of business? Is there another place to get this technology. Johnson said that the company had been around for a long time. It's a standard third-party rack; this is something you may revisit every couple of years. Guidelines will be written as "must be so high, can do this, that, etc." -- writing a performance spec. Rank said that there is also a section about proprietary standards. For example, you want only one system of locks. As long as it meets the needs, for things like carpet, we don't care if it's gray or blue, or a desk in oak or walnut.

Rank said that Crestron (the control console maker) wanted to contribute equipment for the test.

Gee said that the reason we want to review the standards is that every onece in a while, technology does leapfrog, and you don't want to be behind.

William Silver commented that there are a number of classrooms that have a noisy blower system for heating/cooling. After an hour of struggling to talk and hear, you are tired. This is a room design issue. Rank said that there is an acoustical engineer on board. Canoy also said that there are noise level standards for classrooms.

Gee said that level two has all of level one plus interactive annotation display/monitor, lecture capture, speech reinforcement/capture, desk boundary mic. It is$50K, which is $15K more than the $35K basic system. Level 3 is $15K above that (camera follows the instructor). Level 4 is a distance ed classroom that adds video conferencing.

Rank said that these are all guidelines; if there's a unique situation they can be changed.

Mentor said that on another project, they built out to the 3rd floor and that made it expensive to get to other floors. You can build out to various extents; how much will it cost between level 1 to build it out to be able to get to level 2? Canoy said that the infrastructure is built in for all levels; it's not that much more. Mentor said his concern was how much it would cost to add up to level 2 after a year or two rather than doing it up front. Gee said they agreed to have two or three of 14 classrooms as level 2. Gee said he hoped that the differential to move up-level would be less expensive in the future. We need to do training up front on the technology.

Canoy asked if we were going to upgrade LETC to this new technology. Gee said that retrofitting is when technology hits its end of life. Canoy pointed out the 7-year-old projector which he can't replace by the same model. Gee pointed out that its original $7K can be replaced by a $2K model

of 5


that is better. Canoy said that, to replace the projector, you also have to replace the control module.

Mentor noted that there aren't any students here. We talked a lot about the instructor, but we haven't talked about the students. It's tough to do. What does it look in the world of the students?

Rank is doing a study on student services. They went to ASG and got a lot of feedback from them. One group of students said they needed more plugs.

Silver said he knows students are using wireless transmission throughput; will we have the bandwidth to support all the students? (segue to agenda item B)

Gee said that we need to put something up first so that we can look at it. Everyone said they would rather have an executive summary rather than a huge tome of specifications. Gee said that in July we asked to sample lights; they were installed in August and the decision was made in September.

Rank said that the architect doesn't make a decision immediately; there is some time to change specifications during the four months that the room will be available for people to look at.

Mentor said that we need to encourage people to look at the setup and bring their own devices. Canoy said that we want to say that we approve of the standards and specifications.

B. Report on Wireless (Canoy)

There were questions about the system we have on campus. All our buildings except the warehouse have wireless. We have Meru, awarded the bid to install wireless. They tried to install wireless in classrooms where it could serve two classrooms with one access point. This was very limited. It was driven by the bond five years ago. Canoy showed heat maps of the classroom buildings. Canoy is getting an assessment of an update, completey changing from Meru to Aerohive. It doesn't require control units, which, on Meru, require licensing. Canoy has campus-wide heat maps of wireless; you'll have access everywhere, even in the green area.

C. Distance Education update

D. Goals for CTC: timeline and tasks

1. Technology Plan revision

2. Other

E. Moodle Update

F. Admin Rights for Faculty Computers

of 5


III. Action Items

IV. Other

of 5


Evergreen Valley College

Campus Technology Committee

Draft

Meeting Minutes

Wednesday, Nov. 19, 2013

Present: Eugenio Canoy, David Eisenberg (Recorder), Henry Gee, Uyen Mai, Steven Mentor, Nasreen Rahim, Kara Potter, John Thompson, Leslie Williams

Absent: May Chen, Rozanne Lopez, David Micetich, Shashi Naidu, Mike Russell, William Silver

Guest:

I. Preliminary Items

A. Call to Order

Meeting was called to order at 3:35 p.m.

B. Adoption of Agenda

a. Additions/Deletions/Corrections

Add item J (admin rights for faculty)


C. Approval of Minutes

Unanimously approved with addition of Rank & Johnson as guests.

D. Public Comment

none


A. Moodle Rollout Update

of 5


Nasreen asked deans to disseminate information about new version of Moodle. She's sending the Moodle training schedule as well. People are moving their courses to the new environment.

Mentor asked if faculty need to bring anything with them; Nasreen said that was not necessary. Mentor was asked by ISSG to spread the word about the new Moodle.

B. Proctoring Update

Nasreen is waiting for the re-design to go through; until then, it's tabled. Administrators need to work on it first. Mentor noted that a student in Portland needs proctoring, and wanted to know what we're doing currently about students who need proctoring. Nasreen said there are one or two people every semester, and there's a form to fill out.

C. Instructional Technology Standards Update

Canoy said the draft is still in process. The standards will be completed by our next meeting, and he'll submit it as an action item. When he gets the finalized copy he'll bring it to CTC.

Mentor said that we want a minimum standard, but getting a draft that we haven't seen before and acting on it is something we haven't done before. We were trying to get a look at the room that Gilbane was setting up. He asked what the deadline was.

Canoy said that South Campus was going to move ahead without the standards but would try to align themselves with the standards as much as possible.

Mentor also asked about the standard and fixability; is ths equipment that CTSS can fix easily and inexpensively? Canoy said that's why they would put up a mockup. Mentor said we want to make sure (as CTC) that as things move forward that we keep the standard.

Eisenberg asked if there would be any time to give input on the mockup before the builders would start implementing the solution.

Gee said that they're planning the hardware for South Campus already; modifications in the future would be possible.

D. Student Printing

Canoy said that we are using a Ricoh contract in LEC. That contract ends next year at the end of May. At the end of the time, we could purchase the equipment at a nominal cost. The dilemma is that we need to replace the equipment, and the procedure of how students pay for printing. Canoy is talking to a couple of vendors (Ricoh and Konika/Minolta) and will request a bid. He is working with Henry on this. The old system is not operating as it should. We upgraded all the machines (Dells) and software (Windows 7). The new equipment and OS are not compatible with the old printing system. Canoy is asking the deans of other divisions and departments, such as CIT, if they want to be part of this system. Uyen Mai asked how the printing worked in the library; Canoy explained that it was a sort of debit card system.

Mentor said that we could put out the word to professors that the printing system is not reliable in LEC. Canoy said that copying works well. Leslie Williams said that she was fairly confident that

of 5


faculty isn't aware of these problems. Mentor will meet with the dean of Language Arts to discuss printing problems.

E. Turnitin Plagiarism software license renewal

Canoy said that we have a renewal for SJCC and EVC; it's $27,494.00. The cost is split between the campuses. CTC has to ask faculty if they are actually using the software. Nasreen and Kara Potter agreed that it is being used. Almost all the online instructors use it. Mentor does not use it; there are many ways to teach people to do it right and keep them from doing it wrong, without using Turnitin. He suspected that many faculty are using Turnitin without teaching students how to avoid plagiarism. Potter said that it's possible to use Turnitin as a teaching tool. Nasreen uses Turnitin to let people see for themselves what plagiarism is.

Canoy is submitting the cost to us and the budget committee for approval or rejection. Mentor said he wants more data about how many people are using it. Canoy needs to know by the end of the year. Gee asked for a survey to find out how many people are using Turnitin.

Nasreen said that 26 faculty at EVC and 26 at SJCC are using Turnitin via Moodle.

F. College technology request process discussion

Mentor's concern is that the process by which divisions ask for technology is not transparent to the new deans, it may be moribund, and we should move on it. Even if there's no money, we still need to make technology requests so that we have a paper trail of what people need but haven't been able to buy.

Gee said he would take initial steps by documenting the process we have in place now. We have $750,000 allotted for technology each year. He and Canoy take a look each year and figure out what to purchase (desktops, laptops, wireless hubs, etc.) We are also labeling computers into four classes for the replacement schedule. Classrooms all have a data projector and computer at the least. Not all have upgraded that equipment. Some classrooms don't have document readers. Lecterns are being made available. There are other requests coming in, being handled by the deans, the VPs, and then Gee and Canoy.

Nasreen asked about the faculty resource center, where she trains faculty. She needs faster and better computers, and have more software loaded on them.

Mentor said there are things that don't fit into a process where the dean is thinking about something, such as a classroom. The deans can gather information, but faculty are ofen reluctant to ask for things.

Gee said he would put together the process in writing and get it back to Mentor. He is putting things on the web as much as possible to make things transparent.

Canoy said there are also standards for the computers; they will be replacing the Acma computers. The information about the computers is not in the database at the district.

of 5


Software is a minimum WIndows 7. New computers will have Windows 7 and Office 2010. Canoy doesn't have specialized software; it's the duty of faculty to make the request through the dean.

Gee said that if faculty is teaching in a class that needs specialized software, the request goes through the dean.

G. Revising the Technology Plan(s)

Mentor will bring in the EVC and district plan and go through them at our next meeting. Then he'd like to see people take portions of it. Gee asks that an operations plan be looked at. Mentor said that any documents relevant to revising the plan are welcome.

H. Wireless status and update

Canoy said he submitted his proposal for 100% coverage. If we have an operational plan, that could be tied into it. At that point the bond task group could assign funding to it. Canoy has a plan for the number of access points needed for Acacia, for example.

I. Language Arts request for document cameras in SC

Gee said we're trying to standardize instructor station equipment, and that is one part of it. Mentor said that Language Arts makes extensive use of document cameras. Canoy said the operational plan is to have document cameras in every classroom, with emphasis on SC101-103 first.

J. Admin rights for faculty

Abdie Tabrizie would like faculty to have admin rights; Thompson said that other faculty have screwed up and so the rights were taken away from everyone. Canoy said the policy is at the district level; once you're logged in you don't have administrative powers. If there are enough requests that they'd like to have access to their desktops, then fine, but if you lose your data, it's your problem. John Thompson was dubious. Mentor noted that most people do not want to be power users; only a select group want it and have a compelling reason – they're not getting what they need. Canoy said we can't put up a group policy activating power user for everyone. The question is how someone like Abdie could make a request.

Gee said that the requests should go through the dean. His concern is opening up the district to liability for unlicensed software, software that isn't paid for, or malware that affects other systems. There would need to be something to sign to enforce liability and relieve the district of liability.

John Thompson asked how to police it. Gee said that we can monitor network traffic. Canoy said there's no filter on the admin network.

Mentor said that the problem was to find a way to give faculty the ability to get the software they need without having to give them all administrative powers.

III. Action Items

of 5


IV. Other




Wednesday, February 19, 2014

Present: David Eisenberg (Recorder), Henry Gee, Uyen Mai, Steven Mentor, David Micetich, Kara Potter, Nasreen Rahim, William Silver

Absent: Eugenio Canoy, May Chen, Rozanne Lopez, Shashi Naidu, Mike Russell, John Thompson, Leslie Williams

Guest: I. Preliminary Items


B. Adoption of Agenda a. Additions/Deletions/Corrections No additions

b. Items to be deferred Kara moved that we go through agenda and table items as time demands. Seconded and approved.

C. Approval of Minutes Approved, with the correction of a spelling error.

D. Public Comment Guillermo from maintenance asked if they could get a dispenser for toilet paper, as we are losing eight cases per month. This is more a facilities issue.

Debbie from library said that the libraryhas a need for a book scanning station. Right now they have an old system with parallel cables and an XP-only driver. They would like to replace the scanner with a new flatbed scanner; BookScan Station. David Micetich asked how this works with copyright issues. Debbie said that library posts a copyright issue poster near the machines. The BookScan Station has a warning message that it presents to users. The library wants to know if CTSS will support the product. Eugenio would like to know that CTC approves.

David Micetich asked if students would log in with the student card. Debbie said that it can be tied in to the printer. William Silver noted that the multi-function copiers have some of this ability, but not character recognition. Micetich said we should be able to use the technology to prevent abuse

Steven Mentor suggested making this an agenda item for discussion with Eugenio Canoy. He also suggested that it would not be as “self-service” as one might want.


A. Moodle issues

1. Move to next version?

Nasreen said that the district Moodle committee decided to wait one year to seamlessly move to the next version. In summer we'll do training, in fall some people will pilot, and next spring we all go to 2.5. Eisenberg asked what the difference is between 2.4 and 2.5.


David M. said we need to look at Remote Learner's comments and see if they apply to us, and that we should refer this to ISSG.

Steven said we can ask users before we make a decision about whether to make the move. If we pitch it as “quizzes will be supported better” people may be more willing to make the migration.

Nasreen said there's no point to go to 2.5 when 2.6 exists. David M. said we need to talk to the district about what hardware, etc. is needed to support the move.

2. Training and timeline

B. Proctoring update

1. Proctoring at EVC

Mentor wanted to know if there is any additional information. Nasreen said that it was difficult to do proctoring during intersession. David M. noted that there's an assessment center. If they know people are coming in, they can handle such things as tests and midterms. Mentor said we are planning to be a reciprocal institution. Nasreen has had conversation with Irma Archuleta. Proctoring requires a faculty member, but, as David M. noted, at least we have a place with computers and all the things needed for proctoring.

2. Needs for offsite proctors

C. Instructional Technology Standards update

Heidi Rank from Gilbane gave a presentation on instructional technology standards. Slow progress has been made. Heidi has been working with Eugenio Canoy and George Bouzek. She has set up an A/V mockup at Gilbane's offices. Everything is installed except a document camera. There is a demo on Friday at noon. They are using the South Campus design team for furniture standards. They will also give the demonstration. The installer and supplier will be there. She showed a notebook of the specifications, from generic to very specific. Heidi made four copies of the notebook on flash drives for CTC to look at and comment on.

Henry Gee asked if we could have regular hours for people to see the mockup. David M. asked Henry if there was an agenda item for the board. Henry said the design standards are for the district and campus to work with. The board will vote only on brand name items. The board has to agree there's no other product equal to the one being purchased. Heidi said that some manufacturers need to be standard, such as for keys and fire alarms. Heidi asked for comments by our next meeting. Henry said the design standards are a living document. About 75% of the material doesn't pertain to us; some of it is standards for plugs and wiring. We're trying to be as flexible as possible to change with updates in technology.

Kara asked what section was most important for feedback. Steven said we want to avoid a living document that puts LE209 in a new building, as it's not easy to fix. He said that reading it might not be as useful as actually seeing the equipment. He also gets to hear complaints about the process of fixing the equipment. The people who repair equipment should also have input.


Henry said that when he asked about standards, he looked it from two points. First, there are three standards for classrooms. Level A is the basic classroom. Level B is a room with video capture of the instructor. The third type is the level we'd need for online education. Now that we have these standards, how does it affect various populations: faculty, students, and support. For the fourth level, we need to know expectations of online students.

William Silver presumed that the standards don't have to address wi-fi, that this is separate. This can be an issue of the classroom level. At level B, you might expect a student to be able to view a lecture online simultaneously with the live lecture. William asked if that is in the technical specs. Henry is asking that wifi is in all buildings and across campus. Williamwould add “robust” to wi-fi. He also hopes the electrical plug access problem has been addressed. William said that access to electric charging for many students must be available at all three levels of classroom, and robust wi-fi for all configurations must be in the spec if they aren't already in it.

David M. moved that we hold our next CTC meeting at Gilbane conference room A; seconded and approved. The point of the meeting would be to go through the most important part of the specification for faculty.

D. Student Printing update

Henry Gee gave a quick summary; Ricoh is not providing updates in a timely manner. Minolta copiers are being tested. We need to make sure that cards are properly being debited. At the end of the fiscal year, we will go to Minolta to set up student printing. Ricoh is working in some parts; the large color copier won't go on the updated software. For color, payment has to be made to Frances Lau or Di Liu. Nasreen said that Frances and Di have found problems with printing from Moodle. Gee noted that the current Ricoh doesn't do PostScript on the updated software.

E. Turnitin training

Steven Mentor noted that we should use Turnitin with Moodle to teach people not to plagiarize. Henry Gee asked if Nasreen Rahim and Elaine Ortiz-Kristich could do Turnitin training on a Friday. Nasreen noted that faculty have asked how to use Turnitin outside of Moodle.

F. College technology request process update

Tabled

G. Revising the Technology Plan/s

Tabled

H. Wireless Status Update

Tabled

I. Language Arts Requests

1. Document cameras in SC / Roble Building computing needs

1) In SC101-103, it would be great to have document cameras.


2) Steven Mentor has heard all sorts of things from faculty along the lines of "We don't have computing that works / Roble is going to be torn down any minute now / etc." Language Arts faculty says that Roble needs to get its computing up to the standard of Cedro.

Henry Gee said that we are looking at all rooms on campus to have a certain standard: instructor station has a computer, document reader, and projector. Henry needs a list of what needs to be improved.

Nasreen hears from faculty that the computers are very slow; Henry noted that this might be simply the connection being slow. Nasreen also said that browser version and Flash are not up to date on many computers

J. Attendance and reporting needs from members

1. Campus Works

Tabled

2. VPs

Keith Aytch got email from Mentor about email blasts for low-enrolled sections. In terms of technology, Aytch told the deans that we can't send an email blast for all low-enrolled sections. When people create flyers, we attach a list of low-enrolled sections. Administration would like all sections to go. Keith instructed the deans to make a deadline. David Micetich commented that Student Success similarly sent out an email to all students.

The guidelines are for faculty to create content, submit to the dean, who will send it to Keith Aytch. Steven Mentor suggested that templates be created.

Henry Gee said that the web revamp will allow us to highlight each course.

K. College Council and Academic Senate reports

Tabled

III. Action Items

IV. Other



Wednesday, March 19, 2014

Present: Eugenio Canoy, David Eisenberg (Recorder), Henry Gee, Steven Mentor, Nasreen Rahim, Kara Potter, John Thompson,

Absent: May Chen, Rozanne Lopez, Uyen Mai, David Micetich, Shashi Naidu, Mike Russell, William Silver, Leslie Williams, Keith Aytch

Guest: David Lo; Irene Guiterrez; Lorena Mata I. Preliminary Items A. Call to Order B. Meeting was called to order at 3:33 p.m.

A. Adoption of Agenda a. Additions/Deletions/Corrections

a. Items to be deferred

A. Approval of Minutes B. Approved with addition from Mentor.

C. Public Comment

I. II. Information/Discussion Items A. Library scanner presentation

Lorena Mata gave the details of the capabilities of the scanning system. She told us about the library staff visit to MLK Library; they said it works well. The scans save on paper compared to photocopying, and that is an option we would like to provide to faculty and students. The current scanner is difficult to use; scanning to a PDF is quite time-consuming.

She believes that the best course of action is a 30-day free trial. The price of the scanner is about $7400 for one. If you allow email, that's $1000 above the base price of $5495. The question is also the number of years of maintenance to buy. The 30-day trial would be in the fall, and staff would compare the results of the scanner to those of the photocopier.

Eugenio Canoy said that the contract with Ricoh ends in June, so the new copiers/printers will come in before then.

Kara Potter asked about copyright laws; Lorena said that the library isn't policing copying. Nasreen Rahim asked what the MLK experience was. Lorena said that the students will check out the book and go somewhere if they intend to copy a

whole book. Students and staff are satisfied with the scanner system.

Mentor noted that people who are printing and scanning simultaneously are a bottleneck; sometimes you want the functions decoupled. He could see a mixed use conflict (copying and scanning).

Lorena said that San Jose Public Library is happy with their machine, which is not the scannx (the one we are looking at). She can check with her colleagues at SJSU about usage statistics.

A. Moodle Issues a. Move to next version? b. Mentor asked David Lo what his opinion was about going to version

2.6. The timeline, according to David Lo, is either summer or next January, which gives time to shake out any issues. We are lucky to have a partner with a company that does only Moodle. They have a good knowledge base; they say 2.6.1 is the best version. We don't have a pilot phase; we have only one production box and a “sandbox.”

c. Irene Gutierrez said that summer is preferable, especially in terms of migration. David Lo said there are some enhancements and bug fixes that faculty needs to be trained on. Eugenio Canoy asked if the version makes a big difference from the user's point of view. Nasreen Rahim said that there isn't a lot of change from the current version to 2.6.

d. David Lo said that CTC makes the recommendation, and ITSS works with Remote Learner, which should be a short process, as Remote Learner does this with a lot of clients.

e. Steven Mentor commented that we have to synchronize our timing with the timing of Moodle releases. Though changes are incremental, we still have to take care of people who come in new and haven't used Moodle before. He suggested that every spring we prepare to update to the latest stable version. Nasreen Rahim said that summer seems the best, but we have to upgrade because faculty become impatient when bugs aren't fixed; they lose faith in Moodle.

f. Irene Gutierrez said that Remote Learner has improved performance and fied some bugs with quizzes. Steven Mentor said that his sense of the group is that every spring we talk; every summer we upgrade unless there is a reason not to upgrade or there is an upgrade that is absolutely essential.

g. David Lo recommends doing the upgrade after grades for Spring are finished. Steven Mentor noted that doing the final grading can be as much as a week after the end of the semester.

h. Henry Gee said that the safest time is in August, when Summer is over. David Lo said the upgrade is an overnight job, probably a

maximum of 24 hours. The upgrade itself is quick; importing the new shell could happen before or after the upgrade, according to David Lo.

i. Kara Potter's only concern is that the summer is very short, so if Moodle goes down for a day, it might be a bigger impact during the summer. Nasreen Rahim said we have 33 distance education courses this summer., Nasreen will provide two dates, June 2nd and Aug 4th. David will approach SJCC with these two dates and see what will come out. At SJCC, it is Scott.

j. Training and timeline k.

B. Proctoring update a. Proctoring at EVC b. Steve mentioned that they had talked about this several times. Nasreen

is saying that it is slow-paced. First week in April for meeting with Keith Aytch. Question is who is to proctor – faculty or classified. then to cap the number of students in the class for proctor, since the problem is how to do oversight of these number of students when to divide the students into different rooms.

1. solutions:

1. give online-orientations

2. limit the number of students to class room

a. Needs for offsite proctors b. Nasreen will have conversation with Keith

A. Gilbane follow up Steven Mentor sent our comments and questions to Heidi from Gilbane. He also noted that there were three things everyone wanted. One was having enough places for people to plug in their devices.

Henry Gee said that in the tier classrooms there could be plugs for all locations; for labs where you have set tables, there's power there for those systems. The one place that we have a quandary about is the open classrooms where you have 50 seats. If you put the plugs in the floor, there's the expense of wiring and keeping it clean and maintaining it. Drop-down wiring is not aesthetically pleasing; Gilbane suggested wall sockets can be placed at nine different locations and at the back. As technology comes in, the increased battery life will lessen the need for plugs. You can also carry auxiliary battery power.

Eugenio said the next step would be to have USB along with the outlet.

Henry Gee said that there is “sticky space”; for example a hallway with seating space with plugs.

A. Turnitin training B.

C. ISSG report D. Steven Mentor needs information from the college before he can meet; they

will meet in about a month. They'll talk about Moodle, ERP, and network. The web launch is a district issue. Office 365 has client side issues. AD and ADFS are on the agenda, as are operational planning efforts and the move to 40 S. Market. Steven Mentor would like to know if there are any college issues to advocate for. There's a woman named Sahir Saher Awan at SJCC who has made very clear presentations about their status. Steven Mentor would like to work with her, as she is representing SJCC.

E. Henry Gee recommends that the meeting day be changed so that it does not conflict with Facilities and CTC meetings.

F. Revising the Technology Plan/s G.

H. Wireless status and update Eugenio states that they evaluates 3 companies – HP, Cisco, (Meraki), and ArrowHive. This isn't somethign that will get fixed this summer; it's a big project – campus-wide. We're trying to get the old wireless system running and maintain level of access for that system. Next week, IT will evaluate all the vendors and bring the proposals back to CTC at our next meeting.

Steven Mentor asked that we not repeat the same mistakes of last time, mostly that the controllers were non-standard. Eugenio Canoy said that the technology was controller-based at the time it was installed. Now everything is cloud based; the access points can monitor one another and the network can configure itself accordingly

Nasreen Rahim said that due to a weak wireless connection, a presenter in C-202 was not able to do a presentation at PDD. The wireless in C-102 is not working either. Eugenio Canoy said that the problem was that the number of access points that the controller can handle was at its maximum already. John Thompson noted that it was working well the day before PDD.

Steven Mentor asked what the outside date might be. Eugenio Canoy said that if everything went according to plan, we should be able to start something by this summer. IT is also evaluating network hardware, such as Cisco switches and routers; this makes the project really big. The estimated cost for infrastructure of switches is $1M. Henry Gee said that we will be trying to pay for this as we are cycling through desktops and servers.

A. College Council and Academic Senate reports Steven Mentor will go to those two bodies and report what has been happening at CTC. If any CTC members have direction on what to report or ask for, please give them at the next meeting.

Nasreen Rahim said that Moodle is the primary issue they need to know about.

A. II. Action Items III. IV. Other

r2013-2014 college technology committee minutes · 2013-2014 college technology committee minutes....

Documents