Meeting Minutes

 

Gavilan College

Classroom and Lab Minimum Standards for Technology

General Workshop April 28 & 29, 2005

Lab Workshop April 4, 2005

Workshop Review May 6, 2005

 

 

Note: Meeting discussion topics are included with the applicable agenda item – the actual discussion may not have occurred during that agenda item discussion. The minutes have been broken in 3 categories; Issues, Observations / Notes, and Desires.  The Issues section contains concerns that were brought up by the group during discussions. The Observations / Notes section contains discussions and observations by the group. It may also contain examples of how other institutions are addressing this topic. The Desires section contains a listing of what the attendees would like. It doesn’t necessarily contain requirements. There may be opposing views in the sections. In follow on discussions, we will attempt to close the gap on the opposing views.

 

 

Workshop Attendees: Joseph Keeler, Sherrean Carr, Fran Lozano, Robert Beede, Nancy Bailey, JoAnne Howell, Jane Maringer-Cantu, Edward Loeser, Larry Moeller,

Vic Robinson, Saul Salinas, Mimi Arvizu

 

Lab Workshop Attendees: Jan Stewart Amstutz, Fabio Gonzales, Anne Ratto, Marlene Dwyer, Fran Lozano, Debbie Roderick, Mimi Arvizu, Saul Salinas, Ed Green Shuk Auyeung, Luella Jennings, Bob Peacock, Ellen Venable, Vic Robinson, K. Bedell, Robert Beede, Jane Maringer-Cantu

 

Workshop Review Attendees: Jane Maringer-Cantu, Mimi Arvizu, Joe Keeler, Fran Lopez, Ed Loeser, Larry Moeller, Vic Robinson, Sherrean Carr, Jane Edberg, Robert Beede, Fran Lozano

 

 

Contents

Opening. 2

Smart Classrooms. 2

Classroom & Lab Standards. 3

Distance Education Functional Requirements. 4

Computer Lab Consolidation. 4

ERP Update. 6

Web Services. 6

Student Laptops / PDA Use on Campus. 7

Wireless. 7

Computer Workstation / Laptop Standards. 8

Faculty and Staff Development Center – Training Needs. 9

IT Support Services and Capabilities. 9

Other Discussion Items. 10

Safety Issues. 10

Theft 10

Security. 10

Departmental Equipment 10

Printing. 11


 

 

 

Opening

 

Joe kicked off the session by reviewing key dates in the project plan that he distributed. He encouraged the taskforce to invite others to participate in upcoming meetings. He wanted to provide for “many bites of the apple” to give the faculty opportunities to comment.  Staff Development Day would provide a good review of what had been accomplished throughout the summer.

 

$2M of the bond funds have been set aside for infrastructure as it applies to the classroom.  There were discussions as to whether upgrading the faculty’s systems is a part of those funds. The current plans are to shift the hardware that is refreshed in the student labs to the faculty. There were questions as to whether that hardware would be adequate.  It was agreed that faculty and adjunct systems would be reviewed as part of the strategy.

 

 

Smart Classrooms

 

Issues

  1. Ease of use, too complex, no standards room to room. Instructors are reassigned classrooms each semester
  2. Problems with data projectors, computers, VCRs, audio due to the different set ups in each room and equipment maintenance.
  3. Adjunct staff cannot use their personal laptops due to security and virus reasons
  4. No centralized access for content makes it hard to bring content into the classroom.
  5. Keys to cabinets are not available for the adjunct staff, thus they cannot access the technology in the classrooms. Much of the reason that they bring their own equipment.
  6. Need more disk space on the server to support centralized content storage.
  7. Frustration with trying to use DVDs with computers.  Bulbs in data projectors are expensive. Not recommended to use data projectors to show videos.
  8. Theft has been an issue even though equipment is tethered and locked.

 

Observations / Notes

  1. Should we get away from the VCR and move toward DVD only? Today there is a lot of content that is only available for the VCR, so it needs to be part of the solution for the foreseeable future.
  2. Classrooms are set up today with only the student network to prevent students from accessing the faculty network when faculty is not present.
  3. There is a mix of technology acumen among the faculty and training would need to be part of the change.
  4. TVs in the classrooms were recently replaced and now include captioning. Also replacing/adding DVD/VCRs.
  5. Replacement bulbs in the data projectors are expensive and TVs are sometimes preferred due to the costs.

 

Desires

  1. A minimum set of standards across all classrooms.
  2. Ability to use content (video and other) from a central point.
  3. Security and access controls to the faculty network.
  4. Technology on demand. Not technology forced.
  5. Ability to blend high tech and high touch.
  6. Access to the Web.
  7. Must include provisions for students with disabilities.
    1. Text and closed-caption capabilities. Decoders required between computer and display.
  8. The capability for media from one class to be shown in another room on campus and in other campus locations.
  9. In the future, need Internet interactivity. No real demand for it today. On-line classes are driving broadcast classes.
  10. Keep it simple and affordable.
  11. Develop standards based on the size of the classroom.
  12. Ability to project whatever you are doing to project it.
  13. Integrated audio system so that the instructor could be heard. (Echo effect is a problem for acoustics) Larger rooms may need audio enhancements.
  14. 90% of the requirement is for stereo sound. Minimum or special cases for surround sound.
  15. Design the classroom so that there’s a centralized connection point.
  16. Wireless ability to control media from any point in the room.
  17. Ability to teach from any point in the room.

 

 

Classroom & Lab Standards

 

Issues

  1. There are no telephones in the classrooms that pose a potential safety issue.
  2. Size and shape of the classrooms affects viewing. i.e. screens blocking the fire exit.

 

Observations / Notes

  1. A separate session will be set up to discuss labs.
  2. Some instructors still use transparencies because that’s what they are comfortable with. Should this “technology” continue to be supported?
  3. Digital media lab is a classroom and a lab. Includes Ethernet, its own server, video stored locally. Students can’t switch from station to station because their work is on that systems hard drive.
  4. opencourseware.edu used by other colleges
  5. Three types of labs: Open Labs, Instructional Labs, Distance Ed Labs

 

Desires

  1. Biology labs need a camera overhead so that students can observe what the instructor is doing.
  2. Instructors want the ability to project an image and write over it or by it.
  3. Need white boards for non-computer interactive access.
  4. Internet access in the classroom.
  5. Document camera.
  6. Centralized timekeeping for student’s lab time. Currently using the same application, but each department has customized. Desire to consistently collect this information.
  7. Live TV available in each classroom.
  8. Must include minimum classroom standards.
  9. Instructional labs may have additional requirements, i.e., Biology lab needs an overhead camera. 
  10. Must include assistive technologies capabilities for students with disabilities. Minimum 10%
  11. Some way of communicating from classrooms and labs with security.

 

 

Distance Education Functional Requirements

 

Issues

  1. Streaming video is problematic. Limited by servers and personnel to support it. On the Gilroy campus it works fine, but remotely has not been able to work. Used Darwin open source streaming server. There has been a workflow problem in getting the video on to the server. Capture, edit, compress, and then send to Saul.
  2. Video conferencing is limited to 1 location on site.
  3. On Internet courses, instructor cannot have students click on a link to see a video.

 

 

Observations / Notes

  1. Distance Ed is comprised of 3 types of environments:
    1. Live through video/broadcase/ web access
    2. Pre-recorded class via web/tape/DVD
    3. Web content-based courseware
  2. Telecourses are delivered via videotape.
  3. Internet courses available and allow students to read lectures, complete assignments and post, participate in on-line discussions, and take tests. Internet courses are typically taken from the student’s home. They may have limited bandwidth due to dial up connections.
  4. Currently receiving San Jose State courses with live video/voice.
  5. Specialty function that’s not out of the classroom today. It is web-based and would like to add video streaming.
  6. Teleclasses through the TV station to reach students over cable.
  7. If 51% of the attendance is delivered through technology where the student is not located with the instructor.


Desires

  1. The ability to have camera in the classroom so that an instructor can be seen and heard in more than one location. (Broadcast classroom)
  2. Live participation in a live class
  3. Ability to attend a recorded class
  4. Ability to go through the course material on line.
  5. Minimum cabling to be able to conduct distance ed classes potentially in any class.
  6. Video for web-based courses

 

 

Computer Lab Consolidation

 

Issues

  1. Some areas are not air-conditioned.
  2. Equipment is old and is not on a refresh cycle.
  3. Breakage is occurring on some of the equipment that was purchased with categorical funding and there is no way to replace it so the number of available computers to loan students is diminishing.
  4. There is to process for re-imaging or cleaning up loaned system when they are returned.
  5. Furniture in the labs is old and falling apart.
  6. Theft has been a problem even though there are locks on a majority if not all of the equipment. Doors to labs can be locked and there is an alarm system in some of the physical spaces.
  7. Network has not been fast enough to capture 5 video sessions at a time. This is required for the multi-media classes.
  8. Labs do not have adequate power. In many cases power strips are taped on the floor or walls.
  9. Special needs for some of the labs include:
    1. Headphones
    2. Privacy screens
    3. Specialized hardware such as manikins in the Health Dept lab and routers and switches in the Network lab
    4. Plotter printers
    5. Pen Mouse

 

Observations / Notes

  1. This topic has been discussed before. There was a desire to consolidate labs to better support the physical environment and the students.
  2. An opposing view to consolidation is that the labs are currently located in areas that are convenient for the students in relationship to where their classrooms are located.
  3. Part of the decision criteria should be what is best for the students. Do they need to ask questions of a lab supervisor with specific departmental knowledge that wouldn’t be available in an open lab such as the library?
  4. 2 types of labs. 1) Open labs that are available to all students. 2) Instructional labs that is available only to students who have signed up for a corresponding class. Organized instruction time is scheduled for classes in the Instructional labs.
  5. Security must be considered in the design.
  6. The Cabrillo centralized lab example was discussed. Used as a business and computer lab. Staffed as an open lab with a certified person on site all the time for assistance with the system, not the classroom.  Students have access to instructor at given hours.
  7. Some consolidation makes a lot of sense. It will be the hardest sell to the faculty because they are used to the proximity of the Instructional labs to the classrooms. With the measure E $ to remodel the buildings which would enable the centralization of the labs and MIS. If consolidation is going to happen, this is the time to do it.
  8. Some of the labs are separated because they serve a certain cross-section of the student population and they received either state or federal categorical funding to server just that cross-section. An allowance for how to manage this type of funding has to be considered in the final lab design.
  9. District would like to get the best value out of the bond money.
  10. Possibility is to identify certain sections in a consolidated lab that have specialty capabilities. i.e., computers 1-25 have these applications, computers 26 – 30 have this capability
  11. If there was a move to virtual labs, there must be a way to collect FTES dollars for the student’s time and/or results of the lab.
  12. There is a requirement to report usage from some labs (Library) to national and state reporting.
  13. Support for the labs is mixed; those close to MIS benefit from the proximity and have become use to the immediate attention, other labs are somewhat self-sufficient. No one is complaining about support, they realize the tight resource constraints.
  14. There are no restrictions in use of the Internet and sites that can be visited by students. Computer –use policy is enforced verbally. Students don’t sign or acknowledge the policy and the District has been notified that they should review it.
  15. Students may be in line-of-site in the labs. As a result offices are built with windows adjoining the lab spaces or an instructor/lab assistant must be present. Consider putting cameras in the lab so that less staffing would be required.

 

Desires

  1. The concept of logging in to an “environment” that is configured for a students profile and contains all the necessary access to materials and applications required for their classes.
  2. Ability for students to be able to access “labs” from other physical locations such as their home or another point on campus.
  3. Move toward server based licensing vs. workstation based licenses where appropriate.
  4. Instructional labs should also include the minimum technology standards for classrooms.
  5. Students need access to the Internet for research purposes in the Open labs and possibly in some of the Instructional labs.
  6. Students need a place to save their work. Today they use flash drives, floppy drives, or zip disks
  7. Printing should be available, possibly for a cost, but there should be other ways for students to turn in their work without having to print it.
  8. Instructors need to ability control student systems and perhaps terminate their login session.
  9. The physical space around the student work center should be adequate for them to put their books on the table.
  10. Tutoring should be available on-line to allow students with more flexibility.
  11. The design of the lab should allow for one-on-one and small group tutoring.

 

 

ERP Update

 

Observations / Notes

  1. Process is at voting stage using a package called Decision Director that allows weighing in on 6000 questions with additional space to include comments. This will be used as details for RFP.
  2. Consultant will write up results and present in early May.
  3. RFP out during summer.
  4. Followed by vendor demos.
  5. Decision by the end of calendar 2005.
  6. Classroom management did not appear as part of the questions.

 

 

Web Services

 

Issues

  1. No Web Master on staff today, but there is a contractor and an open requisition.
  2. No web-based registration
  3. Not enough space on the servers for instructors

 

Observations / Notes

  1. Currently using
    1. CCC Confer
    2. Q-Mail used for email (IMAP and POP services)
    3. Netscape Sweetspot (calendaring)
    4. NetMeeting
  2. Consider accessibility for students with disabilities
  3. Video conferencing has been available to staff, there wasn’t not a big interest. It has to be perceived as something that will help the individual solve a need.
  4. Security and confidentiality is a big concern (social security numbers are used for identification which may be an identity issue)

 

Desires

  1. Would like to see (*exist today)
    1. Student application  (ERP)
    2. Web registration (ERP)
    3. Rosters for instructors
    4. Grades
    5. Transcript
    6. Payment
    7. Submit forms*, financial aide, expense reports, and course challenge.
    8. Instructors manage their own web sites*, streaming video
    9. On-line activities, on-line class and assessment testing
    10. Counseling services
    11. Distance learning* and counseling video conferencing for remote sites.
    12. Appt calendar access from home
    13. Live chat on-line collaboration, forums for students and teachers
    14. Student alumni email for life

 

 

Student Laptops / PDA Use on Campus

 

Issues

  1. There are 1000 supported nodes today, anything beyond that could not be supported based on the current model.
  2. Printing from personal systems would be an issue. Alternatives were suggested such as thumb drives and access to printing stations that could be chargeable to students. Have students buy a printer card vs. using coin-operated equipment. Coin operated equipment has been problematic at other sites.
  3. Some also stated that they would prefer that assignments were emailed or published.
  4. Students don’t have the money to buy thumb drives.
  5. Students don’t have equipment at home.

 

Observations / Notes

  1. Use of student’s personal systems is currently discouraged on campus today primarily due to network security and support issues.
  2. There was mixed feelings about whether students would be distracted if they were able to use laptops or PDAs in the classroom. Some felt that it was the student’s decision as long as it wasn’t affecting others, but others noted that the students were attending junior college and still needed the discipline.
  3. There are 110 laptops available for students through the TRIO and MESA programs.

 

Desires

  1. Student’s expectations are that they should be able to bring their systems on campus and be able to work in a “Starbucks-like” environment.
  2. Access to an outside Internet connection and Gavilan web services.

 

 

Wireless

 

Issues

1.       Not available today and it should be.

2.       Security and potential access to student records is a main concern.

 

Observations / Notes

  1. Must take MIS support requirements into consideration
  2. Lay the foundation for what do we want and are able to do today, but consider what will be required in the future. Consider emerging technologies.
  3. Develop the cost benefit of wired vs. wireless.
  4. Do not want to provide students with email. Let them use Yahoo!, Hotmail, etc.
  5. Difference of opinion as to whether students need to print in the classroom. Addressed in the notes on student laptops.

 

Desires

1.       Want to encourage students to adopt technology and use laptops, PDAs, etc.

2.       Instructor should have access to the network in the classrooms.

3.       Would like to be able to turn off the student network in the in the classroom. Nice to have vs. a strong desire.

 

 

Computer Workstation / Laptop Standards

 

Issues

1.       There are a growing number of classes that are requiring students to produce videos and this is taking a toll on the digital media lab.

 

Observations / Notes

1.       Passionate discussions of Mac vs. PC.

2.       Discussion on treating Macs like a unique application to be used for specialty work such as graphics.

3.       Do we tool students for their next step in life where a majority of businesses use a PC?

4.       Cost of ownership should be a consideration. What is the cost of supporting a Mac vs. a PC? What is the cost of supporting 2 platforms and allowing choice?

5.       Mixed feelings as to whether it should be a matter of personal choice promoting personal productivity or directed which could limit productivity.

6.       There will be both just because of specialized programs, but there should be a standard platform for general use.

7.       The labs should be treated different depending on their “special program” needs.

8.       Consider Citrix for presentation services.

9.       Possibly need burners in the networking class for bootable disks.

10.   Consider sound and monitor sizes in the standards.

11.   99.9% of the software in the labs will not run on Macs.

12.   Have to consider the unique applications that are needed for programs such as nursing and media.

13.   Also consider what is required on the backend.

14.   Refresh now is planned only with bond money. It is not part of the current or future operational budgets.

15.   Consider the equipment that the feeder schools use.

 

Desires

1.       One image, one hardware configuration for support purposes.

2.       USB capable with front access.

3.       Virtual PC capability. Rather than managing an image, just override a file.

4.       Applications should drive standards.

5.       Standard must support 508 policy and must be capable of assisted technologies capabilities for disabled students.

6.       Blue Tooth and Firewire

 

 

Faculty and Staff Development Center – Training Needs

 

Issues

1.       Not as utilized as it could be. Perhaps there needs to be some incentives to draw the faculty in. Would it help to actually advertise that they actually do the work for them?

2.       Location is out of the way today.

3.       Sometimes rather than educating the faculty member, the Development Center puts together the material for the faculty member.

4.       Staff development is optional and only 2 hours are allocated per semester. This is changing based on the 16-week semester, which allows 2 weeks a semester for additional training.

5.       Adjunct faculty is not well supported and has limited access to technology. No access to PCs, mail, self-help support, etc. after hours. The Computer Place is not open at night.

6.       Adequate room size (no roof, not sound proof)

 

Observations / Notes

1.       The charter today is to support the needs of the faculty based on what they ask for. How to use HTML, how to ftp, how to develop ppt, etc.  Faculty can ask for just about help on anything. In the future the charter would be to support the faculty on the standards and to provide training/certification on elements of the standards.

2.       There was discussion on whether the future charter should include actually helping faculty produce the content with the assistance of technology.

3.       Train the trainer concept and technology mentors. (Pay stipends to those who help other people.)

 

Desires

1.       Training for the faculty during staff development meetings.

2.       Certification for instructors on Smart Classrooms.

3.       A more accessible location so that it would be more convenient for faculty to utilize the services.

4.       Keep the technology current in the Staff Development Center. (Peripherals, software versions, etc.)

 

 

IT Support Services and Capabilities

 

Issues

  1. The director and assistant director don’t have the time to manage because they have to actually do a lot of the hands on work.
  2. There is no helpdesk and the IT staff addresses questions/problems as they arise and are very interrupt driven.
  3. There is no reporting system to capture the questions, but it was felt that many of the questions and problems that get reported to the staff are simple and repeat problems.
  4. Budgeting held in each department. Departments are not planning for system refresh cycles and repairs.  There isn’t a departmental allocation for computer equipment maintenance or refresh. There is little budget and the budget that they do have is allocated elsewhere because of priorities. When breakage occurs, Administration has to step in and take money away from other programs.
  5. Physical space in the data center is cramped and not cooled properly which is problematic for the staff working on the systems in the data center and for the life and reliability of the systems.
  6. The IDF closets are not physically secure and are at risk for accidental or intentional tampering.
  7. Transcripts are physical copies and need to be scanned and archived with student records.

 

Observations / Notes

1.       The IT staff has done extraordinarily well given the resources they have.

2.       Labs are maintained by IT with the exception of the Network and Hardware labs. In the Assisted lab, departmental personnel are also involved in the support of the lab.

3.       MIS approves every HW and SW purchase.

 

Desires

1.       Would like to adequate staff to support the campuses.

2.       Standards would improve supportability of the systems and also reduce the time spent supporting different problems.

3.       Centralize as much as possible to improve supportability.

4.       Institute a refresh program to keep up with current technologies.

.

 

Other Discussion Items

 

Safety Issues

1.       There are no panic buttons or phones around campus or in classrooms and counselors.

2.       Security phones do not have TTY in the security office. Adding TTY phones to the admissions area. Ideally add this capability to the pay phones in the student areas.

3.       The only surveillance equipment it located in the child center and in the Health Occupation labs. There was a concern previously about privacy if surveillance was more prevalent around campus.

4.       Look into surveillance and see if it can be part of the infrastructure costs.

 

Theft

1.       There hasn’t been a big theft problem, but it was noted that other institutions use chips on equipment for theft purposes. There have been a few incidents where people have just walked out with equipment like they owned the place. The only way this is caught is if someone sees it and questions it.

 

Security

1.       As the network becomes a key enabler and the heartbeat of the college, the physical security around the network need to be addressed for reliability purposes. Access to the closets, cooling, and access to the wires and power should be considered part of the plan. It has been more problematic in the audio area.

2.       Card readers are part of the minimum standards for the facility plan. MIS will maintain the systems in the backend.

 

Departmental Equipment

1.       Departmental equipment is checked out to students and tracked by individual faculty members. There is no centralized tracking of what the students have and there has been minimal loss to date.  (Does the information need to be centrally tracked? Is there a desire to centralized the equipment and treat is like a library function?)

2.       Locked box for equipment that the adjunct staff can access and/or centralized check out of equipment.

3.       Work environment and equipment for adjunct staff to use in off-hours.

 

Printing

1.       Pay for printing through swipe cards. Possible to give them a 5 page free limit.