Teaching, Learning, Technology Roundtable

TLTR Notes for 2/22/10
In attendance:  Mark Baas, Keith Ewing, Sara Grachek, Phil Thorson, Doug Polley, Chuck Czech, Marcelyn Smale

Announcements:

Phil started the discussion with the issues regarding D2L. There have been some issues regarding the access to D2L from off campus with computers using Norton Anti Virus. This software is prohibiting the access by MnSCU sources.

TLTR reviewed the technology planning draft. The next steps are to finalize the vision and to develop the strategic technology objectives/initiatives, implementation details and alignment and interdependencies matrix.  The President has articulated direction about technical complexity.  We should try not to create a one size fits all framework for technology.  Areas on campus that need to invest in technical resources based on strategic planning commitments should be properly supported.  Other areas may not need as many technology resources to support their curriculum.   Many feel we need to recognize the range of technology users and the readiness to experiment with new technologies. While some may resist the start of a new program, having the ability to experiment with the program, or device is better than not having that opportunity at all.

What are the next steps?

  • TLTR and TPR are encouraged to make comments on the current draft
  • The planning group is working on a clear vision, objective, implementation  and alignment with other campus plans

What is the difference between on the old TLTR plan and the new Strategic Action Plan?

  • The new Strategic Action Plan will be a broad plan, and will include an overall of where are we today and where are we going
    • Will include an implementation plan
    • How will this plan work with the budget process?  More information needed.
  • The TLTR plan does not align with the other plans on campus

The time frame is aggressive.  The focus is on keeping the students and student learning at the core of the plan.

There have been some questions regarding the smart board teaching tool. If the faculty are not trained on how to use it then it becomes another whiteboard. This has been an issue discussed in the past, and is referred on page 20 of the Strategic Objective plan.    This will be discussed at TPR.   A point was made, if people don’t know how to use a technology but if they have it to access, they may experiment with it and learn how to use it. Some may have learned about computers in the past just because they had them.

 

Notes by Heather Brock