CCFIT > Calendar & Minutes > February 17, 2006 Minutes

Present: Tor Cross, Andy Jones, Lori Lubin, Caroline Bledsoe

Caroline thanked us for all our work on the summarizing the faculty needs assessment survey. She has asked us to now attempt to fill in some details of possible scenarios for meeting these recommendations. We should also prioritize our recommendations / scenarios.

1. Explore decentralizing faculty support.

• a. Strong sentiment that this does not imply giving money to departments. The overwhelming needs of hardware/networking would likely take precedence than use toward ed tech. The campus has no experts on Instructional Design, having even one on campus would be a major step forward – let alone having department-specific experts.



• b. Go to faculty meetings with examples of effective pedagogy. Who would staff/house/feed and water a program like this?



• c. Build a database of the Faculty Mentoring Faculty Program participants



• d. Encourage departments to create “Instruction” or “Instructional Technology” faculty committees. Not necessarily focused on technology. Faculty would earn department committee service. The chairs of these committees could meet with Andy (central faculty support) to discuss common issues. Andy (or other central faculty support) could attend meetings with examples or to address specific issues. The members of these committees could become the ‘local experts’ who are aware of the central resources.

2. Recognizing instruction and instructional innovation (technology or not) more prominently in Merit, Tenure and Promotion. Ann Orel is willing to take this finding to the relevant committee in the Academic Senate. Andy Jones will explore taking this finding to the Academic Federation.

3. Communication. This sub-committee could play a role by identifying areas that are under-communicated or mis-understood and advise the relevant units regarding improving communication. Caroline would also like these action reported back to CC-FIT.

4. Hardware and software access. We didn’t have time to discuss or start brainstorming on this recommendation.

Audience Response Website
We briefly reviewed the new ARS website. We are so impressed that it was put together so quickly. We will give feedback to Jan Dickens. We were hoping that it would include more details about the current installations on campus (listing the rooms, number of seats, other equipments – e.g., second projectors, and the brand of clicker installed); would have a ‘how to adopt’ section; and would contain contact information for more info. There are also some issues around finding it in the campus search.