Present: Beede, Chargin, DiDenti,
Howell, Loeser, Lozano, Moeller, Parker,
Phillips
Minutes from September 23, 2003 were approved with no changes. (Parker; Phillips)
UPDATES
Technology Committee-New Direction: The committee discussed a list of starting points for defining the purpose of the Technology Committee which includes:
1. Monitoring progress and updating the Technology Plan;
2. Serving as advocates for academic technology;
3. Prioritizing technology needs;
4. Prioritizing technology training needs;
5. Researching and discussing new technologies;
6. Disseminating ideas;
7. Influencing resource allocation.
Technology Committee Chair: Larry Moeller was nominated as the new technology chair. Ed said that new technology should include much more than webpage design--such as video.
Grants don’t include set-up costs for labs. Larry suggested that we need a mission statement, to create by-laws, and to get designated as a standing committee by the Board. Alternatives would be reformation as a sub-committee of MIS, or a sub-committee of the Academic Senate. Larry reported that Marty suggested that we need to be a working committee that monitors and revises the tech plan, and influences staff development. It was reported that Marty has always wanted us to be a standing committee. A By-Laws committee will be formed.
Fran provided a Statement of Institutional Purpose (November 2000): “To facilitate communication and provide direction for institutional technology for college functions in instruction, student services, administrative services, and related support and make recommendations to address the technological needs of the campus as identified in the Strategic Plan.”
A statement from Fran and Larry was developed combining the six starting points listed above to include:
“The technology committee would serve as an organization to lead the direction of technology, to analyze equipment and training needs, to provide a forum for the discussion of new technological developments, and to disseminate ideas to the rest of the staff. Staff members would bring needs and requests to the Technology Committee for prioritization, which the Technology Committee would do on a regularly scheduled basis. The Technology Committee would also set a yearly time to review the Technology Plan. The applicability of new technologies to the college environment would be an ongoing discussion.”
Web Page Standards: Jan Chargin provided computer usage guidelines approved by the Board of Trustees in December, 2001. She began the discussion on what should be allowed on a Gavilan sponsored website. How personal should these pages be? Should we have a consistent format? Can we give people the most freedom of speech without corrupting the image of the college? Can we have enough consistency to establish a college identity, but without stifling creativity?
The discussion segued in to faculty websites. It was suggested that a "template" solution
be provided to alleviate the need for all faculty to learn HTML, DreamWeaver,
FrontPage or the ilk. Jan revealed that she has a template that she can type
press releases into, and then click on Submit, and it is automatically sent
to the server. Dave suggested this template could be modified for faculty.
Once
the template is in place, it no longer has to be maintained by MIS. It is database-driven.
The group agreed that this should be a high priority, and Dave said that it
would be easy to change the task list of the webmaster to accomplish this.
Jan wants to set up a plan with steps to accomplish this format. Dave said
that using a template solution would be less of a load on MIS than if each
instructor designed their own. He also stated that requiring each instructor
to have a web page would increase the load on MIS.
Larry says that both Title V grants have technology training for faculty included,
and maybe they can hire another part-time person. Larry talks about tipping
point, after 30% of faculty gets a page, students will start asking for the
rest, plus more information about the class.
ASB is sponsoring a website called http://www.gavstudent.net. It is not on our server, so they can say whatever they want. The law states that anything we link to, we can technically be sued over. Disclaimers are no guarantee that we won’t get sued. They show a good faith effort, but that is all (from D Phillips).
This web standard discussion will be continued at the next meeting.
HP 3000 Upgrade: Joy Parker reported that with the current server, we cannot do web registration, cannot provide faculty with online access to their rosters, and cannot provide students with grades or financial aid statements. Discussion revealed that many students are grumbling about the registration problems and lack of online alternatives, including an ability to access grades and transcripts online. It was reported that students have been heard saying that if they can’t register for classes without coming to Gavilan and standing in line for 2 hours, they’ll register elsewhere instead.
Dave stated that Gavilan's software has been tested on Santa Rosa's more powerful HP3000 and that it ran well without the slowdowns. He suggested that we may be able to get a suitable used HP 3000 for $25,000 – $30,000 plus the cost of software. The HP3000 has been discontinued by HP, and will quit servicing them in 2012. This may be a short-term solution, but it will keep us competitive for the next few years. The Title V grants will be looked at for money to accomplish this interim upgrade.
Disruptive Behavior in Online Classes: Jo Anne shared the document revised by John Baker entitled “What is Online Disruptive Behavior?” The only change made is that the paragraph starting “An online instructor may block access to the class for 78 hours by reporting the student’s name and login id to the Distance Education Coordinator.”
Snack & Meeting Schedule:
October 28th -Kaye and Joy
November 11th -Fran and Jo Anne
November 25th -Bob and Jane M.
December 9th ?
Adjournment--Next Meeting: October 28, 2003, 2-3:00pm in SS 205