CCFIT > Calendar & Minutes > 2004-05 Minutes > November 08, 2004

Excused: Lynne Chronister and Celeste Rose.

Absent: Rick Catalano, Stan Nosek, and Dennis Pendleton.

Guests: None.

Staff: Ruth Parcell, and Babette Schmitt.

I. Welcome and Introductions - Chair Bledsoe

Chair Bledsoe introduced and welcomed three new members: Adam Barr (ASUCD), Tom Kaiser (Senior Advisors Group), and Fred Wood (Interim Vice Provost, Undergraduate Studies). In addition, three guests were introduced: Dan Simmons (Chair, Academic Senate), Liz Gibson (Director, IETMediaworks), and Tor Cross (Assistant to the Director, Teaching Resources Center).

The minutes from the October meeting were approved as submitted.

Caroline Bledsoe introduced Dan Simmons, new Chair of the Academic Senate. Chair Bledsoe pointed out that strong connections with the Academic Senate are important to the success of CCFIT; they will provide an effective mechanism for ensuring faculty input into major technology-related topics and decisions. Those connections already exist in the form of Academic Senate appointments to CCFIT; however, there was general agreement that those connections could and should be strengthened. Dan Simmons sought feedback from Council members about whether the Academic Senate should constitute its own IT subcommittee or continue to work in a more official way through the faculty subgroup of the CCFIT. Jim Chalfant, Academic Senate Executive Committee member and vice-chair of CCFIT, agreed to collect input from Council members and to submit recommendations to Simmons. Those recommendations will cover topics such as how to strengthen CCFIT-Academic Senate connections as well as how to improve the Academic Senate Web site, assess server needs, and tackle such issues as academic freedom and the availability of research resources to UC Davis faculty.

Other items were identified as potential faculty-related discussion topics for CCFIT members:

• John Bruno, Vice Provost for Information and Educational Technology, pointed out that a number of projects identified by deans and vice chancellors through the campus IT planning effort will have some implications for faculty. He cited the Faculty Merit and Promotion (FMP) Project as well as the Electronic Research Administration (ERA) Project as two examples of projects that will require (and benefit from) faculty input, including during their pilot phase. In addition, Dr. Bruno invited faculty suggestions on how to flesh out the Teaching and Learning Tools Project in the current iteration of the UC Davis List of IT Projects (see http://itstrategicplan.ucdavis.edu).
• Dan Simmons indicated that both the FMP and ERA projects are of particular interest to various Academic Senate standing committees and reiterated the need to settle on a mechanism for seeking Academic Senate input (i.e., by working through these standing committees or through the CCFIT, or a combination of both). Simmons added two other projects to the list of potential discussion topics for CCFIT members: The course approval system already being refined by the Offices of the Provost and Chancellor, and the MySenate portal being developed in collaboration with UC Santa Barbara.
• John Bruno reminded the group that this quarter marks the first term when all instructors will be required to submit their students' final grades electronically. Dr. Bruno expressed concern regarding the extent to which the news was reaching faculty and their support staff. (Note: see http://classes.ucdavis.edu/grading for more information about this requirement.)

Mike Allred, Associate Vice Chancellor for Accounting and Financial Services (A&FS), gave a presentation on the projects to improve campus effort reporting and cost sharing, both of which will help provide a more effective environment in support of research administration (See PowerPoint presentation).

• Effort reporting is defined as "the federally-mandated process for certifying to granting agencies that the effort charged or committed to each [research] award has actually been met." During the presentation, Allred explained the effort reporting requirements UC Davis must meet to reach compliance with federal audits, and he outlined both the limitations of the current effort reporting process and the consequences for non-compliance (e.g., loss of funding, damage to campus reputation, fines and penalties). To remedy this situation here and at other campuses, an initiative involving the Office of the President and five UC campuses (including UC Davis) was launched. Shortly thereafter, $2.1M funding was secured, and requirements were defined. Allred indicated that, if everything goes according to plan, a new effort reporting system should be in place by February 2006.
• Cost sharing is "that portion of a project or program cost that is not reimbursed by the sponsor." According to Allred, it is the main missing link in the campus compliance program. Specifically, 'voluntary' cost sharing (offered to the Principal Investigator when no mandatory cost sharing requirements exist) constitutes the core of the problem to be resolved on our campus. A&FS has developed a Web-based system designed to take advantage of data already in DaFIS and track cost sharing. Allred indicated that the roll-out of this system will begin in December 2004.

Informational sessions have been scheduled with schools and departments to discuss these efforts and provide training in preparation for the implementation of these systems.

A number of course management tools, from quiz and Website builders to grade book, communication and administrative tools, are available from the MyUCDavis portal (http://my.ucdavis.edu). Over the years, those tools have been used by an increasing number of students and faculty, and some steps are being taken to start planning for the next generation of those tools. To introduce those tools to Council members, Chair Bledsoe asked those involved in providing support for them to outline their use and demonstrate some of their functionality. She also expressed interest in forming a working group that would help identify next steps and options for course management, through both open source initiatives (e.g., Sakai) and commercial vendors (e.g., BlackBoard, WebCT). Highlights from presentations and Council discussion follow:

• IET-Mediaworks, under the direction of Liz Gibson, provides support to faculty in the area of educational technology. Responsibility for course management tools was recently transferred from the MyUCDavis portal team and added to Mediaworks' portfolio (i.e., in terms of the design of those tools, as well as their development, maintenance, and support). Gibson explained that a new threetier support model is now in place that involves IT Express Help Desk consultants, Teaching Resources Center support staff, and Mediaworks programmers.
• Training is available, through the Arbor, the Meet the Experts presentation series, and the Teaching Resources Center (TRC), for instructors interested in learning more about course management and other educational technology tools.
• TRC's focus has long been on helping improve the quality of instruction at UC Davis, including through direct interactions with TAs, faculty, staff and students. Ellen Sutter, TRC Director, noted that TRC was the main source of assistance for course management tools until the new support model was implemented. TRC's primary focus has shifted to offering more training and classes related to course management tools, and assisting instructors with the 'mechanics' of the tools (e.g., best way to set up a gradebook to meet the specific needs of the instructor).
• Tor Cross, from the Teaching Resources Center, provided statistics as well as a demo of several course management tools, including Website Builder, GradeBook, and QuizBuilder (see PowerPoint slides).

Some members expressed concern that some tools are not working as effectively as they need to (e.g., problems with the functionality and performance of the Web-based email program). There was some discussion regarding the extent to which the current tools should undergo further development to remedy those problems before a plan is developed for the next generation of course management tools. There was also some discussion of whether class materials should be made more publicly accessible. Ellen Sutter cited copyright concerns, and Tor Cross pointed out the existence of a public list of UC Davis classes (see http://classes.ucdavis.edu). Wes Wallender expressed concern about the workload issues associated with learning and administering these new tools for many faculty.

Caroline Bledsoe thanked members for their contributions to this discussion and asked for help developing the membership and charge for the CCFIT working group on course management. Send suggestions to Caroline Bledsoe at csbledsoe@ucdavis.edu.