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

Teaching, Learning, Technology Roundtable

TLTR Notes for 03/13/09
In attendance:  Kristi Tornquist, J.C. Turner, Kristin Lyman, Mark Kotcho, Daryl Scholz, Sara Grachek, Chris Stanley, Darrin Printy, Ilya Yakovlev, Dan Wildeson, Phil Thorson, Casey Wagner, Bob Lessinger, Mark Monn, Marcelyn Smail, Doug Polley, Mario Felix

The following topics were discussed –


  • A handout was distributed listing the current locations equipped with the ability to capture audio recordings for rebroadcasted for student use.    
  • This proposal came from a survey that the students are given each spring. The funds came from Student Technology Fees.
  • Eight faculty are currently using the podcasting equipped spaces.
  • These rooms were targeted to reach large audiences of 75 seats or more. Not all of these are classrooms; AMC ballroom and AMC Little Theater have also been equipped with this technology.
  • It has not been as costly as 1st thought this would be, partly because these locations already had equipment that could be leveraged, including wireless microphones and clickers.
    • If this technology is added to other rooms without the equipment that can be leveraged, it will be more costly to install.
    • Support for this technology is needed.
    • 9 proposed rooms remain on the list
  • Apple sends out a monthly report on usage and this includes:
    • Which files are being downloaded
    • In Stewart Hall about 25% of the students are using the rebroadcast regularly
  • Some questions -
    • Are there other rooms that this equipment should be put into?
    • Will this technology be used if added to more locations?
    • Is this technology a benefit for student learning?
    • How do we help faculty become comfortable with this technology and to be aware of the locations that it is available?
    • Should the money that is left, about $20,000, be turned back to the Tech Fee Committee or should we go forward with this?
    • What do students want and are they learning from this?
    • Should TPR work with the students on this issue?
    • Is this technology being downloaded instead of attending class?
  • Stanford, MIT and Duke universities are using this technology. We patterned our system after Purdue. Purdue had since moved on to an enterprise system.
  • Cell phones are good receivers of this program
  • Convenience is an important question to address
  • Chuck Dzuban has been studying this technology
    • It would be good to have a team of people to meet with him
    • Dan W. asked for volunteers to be part of this team.
    • The tech group volunteered to be part of this team.

Action Item:
-Mark K and Dan W. will meet to go over the questions that are being worked on for the Tech Fee Survey
-Dan W is asking for volunteers to be part of the team that will meet with Chuck Dzuban.
-TPR will discuss if the faculty would like to look at podcasting, and do some research on this issue.

Technology Vision Statement

  • A copy of the statement was available
    • The notations (LR/VS) indicate feedback from the leadership group and the visioning sessions
    • A rough draft of the implementation plan was included
  • Kristi asked for feedback at this meeting and/or in follow up emails
  • Feedback is being solicited on a ways to provide a larger umbrella vision
  • There was a list of 40 target groups distributed  to consult with
    • When reaching out to these groups, it was suggested not to include the implementation plan, but to focus on where we are today and a future vision
  • It is important to be clear as to what we are talking about in technology
  • There is a need for faculty to go forward on learning new technology.
  • The vision should not be limited by current technology and funding.
  • The timeline to write this will be this summer.
  • What are the changing roles of professors in technology?
  • Will this allow for all levels of users?
  • Is there time and space for faculty to learn new technology?
  • There are 164 electronic classrooms currently
    • But, many classrooms do not have access to technology.
    • The Deans make the decisions on which rooms are electronically fitted.
  • Which new technologies should faculty spend time learning?
  •  Some technologies have proven track records for good learning.
  • Acknowledge implementation issues-
    • Early adoption
    • Ways to pass on information
    • Easy to use for the majority
    • Provide the time to learn new technology

Future agenda topics

  • Re-visit  Tech Vision Statement discussion
  • Virtual Lab overview
  • Google and Microsoft outsourcing
  • Technology update
  • Technology Day
  • Vista
  • Ideas for cuts or savings in the budget

Set dates for future meetings

  • Doug, Kristi, and Marcelyn will get together to set up dates
  • The next meeting will be March27, 2009

Meeting notes – Sheila Landucci