CCFIT > Calendar & Minutes > 2003-04 Minutes > May 7, 2004 Minutes

1. APPROVAL OF APRIL MINUTES - CHAIR BLEDSOE
2. REVISIT THE PROVOST'S "CHARGE" TO MEMBERS OF AC4/ADC3 - ALL
3. IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES AND DISCUSSION TOPICS FOR 2004-2005 - ALL
4. BRIEF UPDATES FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS - PAT TURNER AND DAVID BUNCH
5. OVERVIEW AND DEMONSTRATION OF ALMAGEST - KIRK ALEXANDER

Attendees: Caroline Bledsoe (Chair), Kirk Alexander, Mike Allred, Gil Apaka, John Bruno, David Bunch, Bella Corbin, Andrew Jones, Rob Kerner, Barry Klein, Bill Lacy, John Meyer, Ann Orel, Dennis Pendleton, Celeste Rose, Brenda Ruth, Daniel Schwartz, Marilyn Sharrow, Dave Shelby, Ellen Sutter, Mani Tripathi, Pat Turner

Excused: James Chalfant, Lynne Chronister, Jack Farrell, Bob Ono, Ning Pan, Steve Roth, Judy Sakaki, and Neal Van Alfen.

Staff: Julie Adcox (for Babette Schmitt).

Chair Bledsoe opened the meeting by calling council members’ attention to their packets, which included four documents: a) Information Technology Planning at UC Davis: Annual Planning Process Overview, b) Homework: The Provost’s “Charge” to Members of the Councils, c) Topics of Discussion for 2004 – 2005, and d) Almagest brochure.

Caroline Bledsoe asked for comments or revisions to the minutes from the April meeting. She stated that Daniel Schwartz, the new ASUCD representative introduced at the April meeting, is an undergraduate student not a graduate student as indicated in the minutes. Council members voted to approve the minutes as submitted.

II. REVISIT THE PROVOST’S “CHARGE” TO MEMBERS OF AC4/ADC3 – ALL

Caroline Bledsoe referred to the Homework: The Provost’s “Charge” to Members of the Councils document and provided a summary of the background section of this document. She called for suggestions for revising the charge, and then invited John Bruno, Vice Provost for Information and Educational Technology (IET), to open the discussion.

John Bruno called council members’ attention to the Annual Planning Process Overview document and provided a summary of the background section of this document. He stated that he will conduct a similar planning process in the coming year, and that it will include broad consultation with vice chancellors, vice provosts, deans as well as the Technology Infrastructure Forum (TIF), TIF sub-committees, the AC4/AdC3, and other groups. One of the goals of broad consultation is to continue to increase awareness about this process, engage critical segments of the campus community, and increase the number and visibility of educational technology proposals.

Caroline Bledsoe asked that the council members review the existing charges, and called attention to the similarities between these two statements. She then referred to a chart on the board which included the various units represented in the council. She suggested that the group consider how all of these groups are linked and how to establish strong bilateral communications between these groups and their Council representatives. Bledsoe pointed out that this relationship is not spelled out in either of the charges. She then opened the discussion to comments.

Highlights from Council discussion:

• Celeste Rose posed the question of whether two committees were needed. Many members concurred that a single committee may be more efficient. Rob Kerner expressed concern that combining the councils may result in missed topics or may limit topics to only those that impact both academic and administrative interests. It was suggested that only a single Council exist, but that sub-committees may be formed to address either projects of interest to a small subset of the Council or specific projects. Bledsoe voiced the consensus of the Council that only one committee is needed, and that sub-committees may be formed to target specific issues.
• Pat Turner asked that Chair Bledsoe comment on the sentiment that some of the consultation and two-way communications between Council and campus groups do not work well. Bledsoe commented that she has reported to the Provost on the Councils’ recommendation re: two major projects – the Faculty Merit & Promotion Project and the Electronic Research Administration Project. Bledsoe also reported on these two projects to the Academic Senate Executive Committee, who asked to be consulted sooner on such projects and to have more input. They noted that the Committee on Academic Personnel (CAP) should also be involved, particularly on the FMP project which would impact CAP’s activities significantly. Some information has not reached most of the faculty. Voices of Academic Federation, Academic Senate and other groups need to be heard.
• Caroline Bledsoe asked about other aspects of the charge. Major points of discussion follow:
  • John Bruno pointed out that, by virtue of its broad representation, this group is able to make contact with otherwise difficult-to-contact groups.
  • Andrew Jones referred to the reference in the charge to public service and the apparent absence of such thus far. He suggested that tactics of the public service approach can be leveraged to communicate with the desired audiences.
  • Ellen Sutter suggested further exploring the communication between Council members and their non-member constituents for the purpose of hearing the opinion of key faculty.
  • Mani Tripathi commented on the Committee on Research (COR) submission of proposals this year. He proposed joint meetings with CAP citing that, in addition to communication challenges, there is resistance to changes with regard to information technology.
  • Andrew Jones stated that to facilitate communication with his Academic Federation colleagues, he meets periodically with the Chair of the Academic Committee, utilizes his Computer Aided Instruction (CAI) resources informally, and sends out a “Top 10 Issues” list.
  • Bill Lacy asked if there was a formal link between the Council and Academic Senate, and pointed out the need to involve them in certain planning activities.
  • David Bunch asked about the process for Council membership, stated that he was selected to serve on the AC4 and began attending meetings before his membership was confirmed. He said that he is not clear about what he is supposed to do on the Council, but he’s learning!
  • Mani Tripathi asked who the official Academic Senate representative is, and if that person was aware that he/she is the representative. He suggested that the representative changed periodically, and that perhaps he was it this year.
  • Caroline Bledsoe suggested that the charge should designate roles, and asked for volunteers to help rewrite it. Meyer, Klein, and Lacy volunteered.
  • Pat Turner suggested that, in light of some members not being sure of how they got on the committee, the group periodically review membership to check for adequate representation, and that the review be done early in the year.
  • John Bruno stated that it’s not clear to whom the administrative details fall, though the Chancellor and Provost previously handled membership letters, etc.

  Several members voiced concern about the communication challenges they face when it comes to establishing and/or sustaining open, two-way communication with their constituents with regard to Council related issues and projects. It was the sentiment of several members that these communication challenges led to resistance from constituents. It was suggested that involving the Academic Senate is critical to working through certain planning stages. Faculty nominated by the Academic Senate are represented on the Council, but there was some confusion about how they were selected (by the Provost or by the Academic Senate?). This led to some discussion concerning how Council members were selected and approved for membership and how member roles are identified. Caroline Bledsoe recommended that the revised charge: a) make clear how to get feedback from the Academic Senate regarding representation, b) clarify who is responsible for administrative details (e.g., who writes the membership letters, etc.), and c) clarify the role and responsibilities of the members.

Caroline Bledsoe emphasized the importance of topic selection and offered an introduction to the organization of the topic list. She asked that Council members review the list, indicate their top five priorities from the list, then return their lists to her (members should include their names on the lists they turn in).

Discussion points:

• Following the last Council meeting, Brenda Ruth took the list of IT projects to the AdMan Board for discussion and ranking. The top five items were: 1) electronic research, 2) digital faculty portfolios, 3) effort reporting, 4) Banner enhancements, and 5) staff/faculty photo identification.
• Andy Jones presented results from the Educational Technology Sub-committee. The top three items identified were: 1) survey of faculty needs for instructional technology, 2) “re-imagining” the Educational Technology Support Program, and 3) Almagest.
• Ellen Sutter suggested that Teaching and Learning Tools is in the wrong place on the Topics for Discussion list. She stated that the project was not Already Underway.
• Pat Turner discussed some issues arising from the Davis Honors Challenge, namely the sentiment among students that teaching evaluations are “useless.” She referred to online teaching evaluations used in the College of Engineering as well as ratemyprofessors.com. She stated that no corrective to ratemyprofessors.com exists, that one is needed.
• Caroline Bledsoe suggested that the item be added to the topic list.
• Mani Tripathi suggested that course evaluations might be attached to the course on MyUCDavis.
• Caroline Bledsoe pointed out that Dennis Pendleton was present, representing online delivery of UCD courses.
• Bill Lacy asked where the Educational Technology Subcommittee’s items fit in and suggested that the academic agenda is less clear primarily because it’s easier to fix administrative issues.
• John Bruno encouraged all members to bring issues and questions to the faculty and make it easier to get faculty input to the Council.
• Andy Jones pointed to the importance of having staff support.

Caroline summarized the discussion by stating that the list of topics will be revised and sent to the group. She asked members to review the list with their constituent groups, then identify their top five items and any other projects of interest.

IV. BRIEF UPDATES FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS - PAT TURNER AND DAVID BUNCH

• Caroline announced that a story will appear in a June edition of Dateline about the activities of the Joint Councils, including the need for better two-way communication between Council members and the groups they represent.
• Pat Turner, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies, provided a summary of future plans for the Summer Institute on Technology in Teaching (SITT). This year, there will be no summer institute of the kind that has been offered in the past. Instead, mini versions of SITT will bookend the summer months. Sessions scheduled for this summer will be held on June 28-July 1 and September 13-15. Then, full versions will be held every other summer beginning in summer 2005. Additional information is available on the Teaching Resources Center Web site.
• David Bunch, Graduate School of Management professor and Academic Senate representative, reported that the Committee on Courses has determined that their electronic system needs major improvements. He will work with them to articulate their needs and issues with their Web-based system. Bunch will attend a meeting with the committee members on May 26 and report back to the Council in June.

V. OVERVIEW AND DEMONSTRATION OF ALMAGEST - KIRK ALEXANDER

Kirk Alexander, Manager of Educational Technology in IET’s Mediaworks department, stated that he came to UC Davis by way of Princeton, where the Almagest software was developed over the last 10 years. He described Almagest as “three systems in one:” a) a repository for media, b) a content management system, and c) a presentation tool that replaces PowerPoint. Benefits of Almagest include : [1] ability to show text documents, images, text document and images side by side, enlarged images, online movies (including sound), and Flash animation; [2] ability to provide immediate access to all data in a searchable database, [3] flexibility in organization of data, and [4] glossary. In response to a question about student access to Almagest, which is limited at this time, he demonstrated Almagest’s student study mode. (For more information, see the Almagest brochure at http://mediaworks.ucdavis.edu/almagest or contact Kirk Alexander at kdalex@ucdavis.edu.)