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
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.
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
- Remind College Council of the work that has been
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Could the campus support SurveyMonkey for campus
- 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
- 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