Teaching, Learning, Technology Roundtable - St. Cloud State University

Teaching, Learning, Technology Roundtable

TLTR Notes
January 25, 2008
Attendees: Sara Grachek, Kristin Lyman, J.C .Turner, Tom Hergert, Phil Thorson, Casey Wagner, George Fiedler, Daryl Scholz, and Lauren McGee.

The group continued the discussion of the Technology Plan

Network Connectivity:  Mark and others in ITS will work on re-writing the goals to bring them in line with the discussion from last week (broad goals and specific objectives).

Bandwidth:   Kristin asked if we ever decided how we can make the technology terms a little easier for the average user to understand when we write the section on how we achieved the previous goals.    Phil proposes that we try to use minimal technology jargon, but that we will put it in the glossary if we determine that definitions are necessary.  Phil said it would be helpful if Kristin could review some of these sections now and go over them with Kristi, so that the people re-writing the documents know what the expectations are as we begin this process.

Mark re-wrote the goals for the next five years and presented them to the group.  Kristin asked if we wanted to specify how we would communicate or how often.  Phil and others indicated that we could say ‘annually’ or ‘as needed’.  JC asked that we make the Objectives into statements.  Instead of saying ‘by communicating information’, we would say “Communicate information”.   Mark asked about the audience, and if we needed to provide reports to more people.  J.C. stated that TLTR and TPR are key constituents and it makes sense to provide information to them; if others need information, they can still request it.

J.C. asked if we still need a resources heading, or if it just adds wordiness.  Phil thinks that the different sections were originally intended to summarize those different areas, for quick reference throughout the document and that it’s made to outline what resources we have and what resources we anticipate needing in the future.  Mark suggested that earlier discussions indicate that we had wanted to scrap the “Evaluation” heading in the sections because we will be evaluating each of the new “Objectives”.

Timeline:  J.C. stated that we hope to have most of the sections of the report reviewed by the end of the year.    We will need to complete the editing of the plan in the fall and bring it forward for campus review and approval before the end of the 2008 calendar year.  J.C. distributed the Technology Plan Rewrite Schedule and discussed that document, as well as the fact that there is a great deal of content to get through in a limited amount of time.  JC suggested that if people can do as much work in reviewing the documents before the meeting and be ready to discuss the major problems or additions when we are here will help us speed through these sections.   Daryl suggested the TLTR Collaboration site would be helpful to have people add their discussion items to throughout the week.  Casey suggested a few 2-hour meetings to get through the sections.

Phil suggested it will be helpful if Kristi mentions to Academic Affairs that we are doing it, so they can go back to their departments and ask for feedback to help us know what other people want to see in this plan.  In addition, Phil suggested that J.C. emails the TLTR group a few days before the meeting to remind everyone to read their sections.

Communicating about Technology:   Kristin stated that the document appears to reference a committee that does not exist, and the group indicated that appeared true.  Tom suggested that we need a statement in every section that says whose job it is to do that item.  Kristin suggested making some of the communication portions part of the New Staff/Faculty Orientation.   Phil mentioned that the policies need to be communicated, as well as who to contact in regards to those things.  Mark thinks the background could get cut down and edited to reflect what we have done over the past years.  Phil and JC suggested that we put names with objectives so that we know who is doing the action.

Phil asked if there was a need for a committee, like this document talks about.  Kristin likes the idea of getting feedback from others, but J.C. pointed out the issue with getting people to participate in the committees.  Phil suggested putting a question or two in the LibQual or some other survey about communications and how we are doing.  JC suggested asking TPR a few times a year.

Kristin will work on revising this section, with the help of Casey and J.C., and also making sure to include Darrin when talking about communicating policy information.

Tom pointed out that if we want to bring individual sections to TPR for review, they can make suggestions and approve it, and potentially send it through Faculty Senate one section at a time.  This might be easier than sending it through as a whole

Access to Technology Resources:   Kristin pointed out that she doesn’t think it’s clear who people should go to for ergonomic issues or what they should do.   J.C. will ask Fred Hill, Melissa Prescott, Sara Grachek, and Karen Thoms to work on this section.

The next meeting will be February 1, 2008 at 1:00 in MC B18.


Casey Wagner