Sunken Garden

Technology Task Force

Meeting Notes - April 21, 2010



1) Approve notes from February 17, 2010

The notes were approved.


2) Faculty Co-chair Request

The group renewed their request for a faculty co-chair


3) DA Technology Plan Review

Jeanpierre, Mitchell and Metcalf are tri-chairs of  Standard III accreditation. Jeanpierre would like technology task force group to review and update the DA Technology Plan. Updates would go through the PBTs and on to College Council for final review and approval.

Technology Task Force is an advisory group to College Council. College Council relies on TTF up to keep them updated on technology issues.

Jeanpierre displayed the Technology Plan 2007-2010 and distributed a handout from Kevin Metcalf named “Review of Accreditation Documents”. She also passed out a copy of the Summary Evaluation Report Overall Recommendations dated Oct 2005.


4) Accreditation

Many schools are on probation at the present time.

Jeanpierre walked the team through the Review of Accreditation Documents in detail.

Notes from section 1)

  • Page 210 – needs more work
  • Page 218, 230, 234 – progress had been made
  • Page 220 – progress had been made. Englen can document a substantial amount of training. All campuswide and division/departmental training should be included.  PSME do a considerable amount of departmental training. Training includes Banner, OmniUpate, Catalyst. etc.
  • Page 222 – progress had been made. Measure C. Some of the first tranche of Measure C money is committed but not spent. When the College goes out for the second tranche the technology requirements should be updated & taken through the governance  groups and Citizens Bond Oversight Committee.
  • Page 233 – progress had been made. Measure C plan, strategic initiative, tech prioritization meetings, program reviews/SLOs. A plan is not a process. What is the plan to allocate future instructional/non-instructional equipment resources?
  • Page 224 – progress had been made.

  Notes from section 7)

  • ECMS: we are making progress
  • Mitchell told the team 1) he had reviewed the documents to see if the college had succeeded in its goals. 2) where the visiting team had made specific recommendations, did we fulfill the requirements? 3) evidence of dialogue about the areas.

During the discussion the following points/comments/questions were made:

  • Remind College Council of the work that has been done.
  • Mowrey brought to the team’s attention that recommendation 4 is crucial. If the college does not fulfill the requirements it will be an automatic negative mark.  Need evidence of a  coordinated plan for training staff.
  • High priority to address the recommendations of the plan and make sure at least a few of the action items are implemented.  Identify the things we’ve done
  • It's challenging asking employees to list technology that they are not familiar with or to plan for the future when much of the upcoming technology is not available/designed yet.
  • History of doing our planning at either an institutional level or on an individual level.
  • Most divisions do not have a division tech plan – it’s done on an ad-hoc basis. Divisions should have a group to look at their divisional level needs.
  • Departments should also plan for their own areas.
  • Coordination between divisions for information sharing would be very useful i.e. banner coding, etc.
  • Pockets of innovation – no vehicle/pathway for planning.
  • Move away from silos of labs/facilities for specific programs and plan for labs/facilities for shared use by many programs.
  • Plenty of innovation across the campus but it is not shared. How could the College institutionalize the sharing of innovation?
  • The portal could be used to share information. Use a “channel” for technology
  • The Library purchased SurveyMonkey to survey students and work on SLOs. $300 for one year. Very powerful tool. Englen and Lee-Wheet have used it extensively.
  • Problem with getting members to participate in TTF. Do a demo of useful tools/innovation during the meeting to attract members.
  • Could the campus support SurveyMonkey for campus wide use?
  • SurveyMonkey will be demoed at the TTF meeting on May 19th. Mowrey, Englen & Wilkins-Greene (Erika Gutierrez) will do the demo and show uses such as student surveys.
  • Much of the work must have been done and have been implemented so we are at the “proficient” stage by the accreditation visit.
  • ETS is currently ‘aging’  all computers (gathering data on the age of computers) on campus as a part of the technology plan.
  • The lecture/capture classroom in Kirsch was expensive. No one is collecting data on this room. Is it really improving student success? Should the room be replicated in future projects if it is not being evaluated?
  • These days technology is needed just to maintain the pace of student learning.
  • Skype was a technological investment, which turned out that the students didn’t really use/want.
  • Compare the Tech Plan with new Ed. Master Plan.
  • EIS system.
  • Technology replacement plan is coordinated by the FF&E coordinator.
  • Plan for replacement equipment etc.


5) Quick Updates

The team agreed that Staff Development should do a technology piece in their upcoming campuswide survey. Representatives from TRG, TTF, Call Center, Faculty rep, blended/hybrid courses should be included.


Present: Ching, Jeanpierre, Kahn, Mitchell, Mowrey, Rosenberg, Wilkins-Greene. Notes: Gibson

Technology Task Force
Building: ADM 153
Contact: Vanessa Smith
Phone: 408.864.8948

Last Updated: 5/17/10