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

Teaching, Learning, Technology Roundtable

TLTR Notes for 02/13/09
In attendance:  Kristi Tornquist, J.C. Turner, Kristin Lyman,  Mark Kotcho, Daryl Scholz, Wade Nelson, Rich Josephson, Tom Hergert, Debra Japp, Ben Pratt

The following topics were discussed –

Office of the Chancellor IT funding and SCSU Student Technology Fee funding

  • Student Technology Fee Committee is reviewing the list of projects from last year and will use the same list of 87 projects.
  • Kristi will send out an update  to Announce on the OoC IT funding.

Dial-up Services

  • Kristi distributed a graph of Dial-Up Statistics by semester.
  • The number of users has been declining, for fall of 2008 there were 131 faculty/staff and 73 emeriti users.
  • There was discussion on the options concerning Dial-up Services
    • Kristi checked with Eric Kautzman and he was comfortable with stopping this service for our emeriti users
    • Kristi checked with the Deans and they are ok with turning dial-up services off for faculty.
    • Last year the discussion on this was too late to be able to do anything.  If there is no decision until May this year, it will be too late to move users to another source
    • Contract ends on June 30
    • Faculty can use professional development funds for this purpose
    • With the current budget, there may not be funds available for this purpose. Last year when budget cuts were looked at, the decision was made to cut faculty laptop check out and keep dial-up services.
    • The cost of this is about $15,000 per year, this is about $70 per user per month, plus the cost for support (we do our own support)
    • There are low and supplemental users, and most of the usage comes from the surrounding area
    • We are using the same carrier as we previously used (TDS).
    • Other vendors could not match the current pricing.
    • The question was asked, is there are way to have the provider charge by the hit?
  • Once a decision is made, there is a need to decide how to communicate it and what is the best way to proceed.
  • A suggestion was made that for future deployment of new products, it may be a good idea to set a time on how long product will last or a time to reevaluate products

Action Item:
Mark will get pricing from other vendors for local dial-up

Instructional Management Systems: MnSCU’s IMS 2010 plans

  • The IMS2010 working group is in the early stage of planning, gathering information.  Some of the issues being looked at are-
    • What we will do with course management in the future?
    • What is the best model, keep D2L or host our own?
    • What are the strengths of products?
    • There is a desire to look at open- source hosted solutions and at open-source campus hosted solutions.
    • A transaction period will be needed to learn a new product if it is decided to make a change.
    • SCSU can choose our own product, but then SCSU will need to do our own funding.
    • Sakai and Moodle among others are open source products.
    • U of M, Moorhead, and Metro are providing Moodle at some level
    • There is a need to develop criteria for trial, and compare apples to apples.
    • Licensing costs need to be considered.
    • A RFI (Request for Information) target date is Spring 09, but the timeline may be pushed back if it is not ready for Meet and Confer.
  • The following are some reasons this needs to be investigated now-
    • The D2L contract ran out last fall
    • MnSCU signed a contract for 2 more years and there is a possibility of an additional 3 years
    • There is a need to have other options available if a change is needed, including features, and pricing.
    • Legal and contractual issues need to be taken into consideration
  • The study group will make recommendations to the IMS Advising Council and they will review and make their recommendations.
  • Early communication on this issue is very important-
    • There is a need to gather concerns, and there will be opportunities for input.
    • What features are valued by current users and what additional features would users like to have?
  • The  goal is to have  a system-wide survey ready for the state-wide conferences that students are attending
  • Next steps
    •  To work on communication with the committee
    • Talk about if we want to be a campus pilot
  • A survey will be developed for faculty and students; IFO will look at:
    • Who decides what is on the survey?
    • Where does the survey go?

Future topics

  • Virtual Lab overview
  • Technology Vision Statement-next steps
  • Podcasting in classrooms-funding available from Student Technology Fee
  • Google and Microsoft outsourcing
  • Technology update