Meeting Minutes Spring 2015
Meeting of May 7, 2015
AGENDA
1. Announcements
2. Approval of minutes
3. Faculty training project (Ben Maddox and Brian Schiesser)
4. Case study in project-based collaboration among faculty, students, and staff: NewYorkScapes (Tom Augst)
Read the Minutes for May 7, 2015
Minutes for May 7, 2015
AGENDA
1. Announcements
2. Approval of minutes
3. Faculty training project (Ben Maddox and Brian Schiesser)
4. Case study in project-based collaboration among faculty, students, and staff: NewYorkScapes (Tom Augst)
Present: Mark Alter, Tom Augst, Joshua Blank, Richard Cole, Carol Hutchins, Larry Jackson, Rick Matasar, Barbara Krainovich-Miller, Peggy McCready, Russ Neuman, Ryan Poynter, Matthew Santirocco.
Joined via teleconference: Mitchell Joachim, Joyce O’Connor, Dan O’Sullivan.
Absent: Karen Adolph, Mike Beckerman, Dalton Conley, Aswath Damodaran, Tom Delaney, Gigi Dopico-Black, Ben Maddox, Ted Magder, Patricio Navia, Keith O’Brien, Jan Plass, Peter Schilling, Andy Sinclair, Lisa Springer, Heather Stewart, Marc Triola.
MINUTES
1. Announcements.
Matthew Santirocco opened the meeting with several announcements:
(a) Recommendations for the successor committee. The Provost has accepted the group’s recommendations for its successor committee, including the suggestion that he should appoint additional members to the new committee, to ensure continuity and expertise.
(b) Name of the successor committee. The Provost has asked that the new committee include the word “technology” in its name. The group agreed to think about this and to come up with some ideas. Suggestions included: Technology and Education Committee (TEC), Technology and Pedagogy Committee (TPC), Committee on Innovation in Pedagogy (CIP), and Technology and Learning Committee (TLC!). [Subsequent to the meeting, some emails were exchanged among several committee members urging Matthew to revisit the title with the Provost, especially the reasons the group had for omitting “technology” and going with something like “Committee on Learning Innovation.” He will do so.]
(c) Committee charges on the NYU website. The charge for the Teaching Technology Committee (TTC), which this group reviewed at an earlier meeting, has been posted on that committee’s website. The charge for the FTEE, which the committee also reviewed, will be posted on its successor committee’s website, once it has been created.
(d) Working group on next year’s conference or event. Over the summer a working group will tee up ideas for a conference or other event next year that would highlight exhibits of what’s possible in tech-enhanced teaching and learning.
(e) FAS Committee on Information, Technology, and Library Services Recommendations. This report has been distributed to the committee. Members are asked to share with the group their own schools’ initiatives related to technology.
(f) Committee on the Global Network. The Faculty Committee on NYU’s Global Network (chaired by Una Chaudhuri and Eliot Borenstein) is now permanent and renamed the Global Network Steering Committee. They have requested that a representative from the FTEE’s successor committee join to advise on the use of technology in the GNU.
2. NYU TechSavvy Online Tools Certification Series.
Brian Schiesser (IT Project Manager) and Shalini Shroff (Training Media Specialist) presented on the University’s TechSavvy initiative, a training program for staff and administrators with the goal of encouraging the use of technology for innovative instruction. The project rests on the idea that staff and administrators have the most contact with faculty, and are thus best positioned to assist them with instructional technology on a regular basis. Participants complete up to five 20-minute modules on NYUiLearn, which feature “user cases” on tools such as Google Apps for Education and NYU Classes. After completing all five modules, they receive a certificate. (The slides of Brian and Shalini’s presentation have been posted on Google Drive, and can be accessed here using your NYU login.)
The group praised the initiative, which launched this semester. But they questioned whether it would appeal in its present form to faculty, noting that most faculty do not use NYUiLearn, and that few would find the prospect of a certificate a sufficient incentive for participation. Richard Cole observed that the current length of the modules might also be discouraging for faculty, and recommended shortening them to below 10 minutes.
3. Tech-Enhanced Learning Innovation at NYU.
Tom Augst then shared his presentation on supporting collaboration and experimentation in tech-enhanced education at the Faculty of Arts and Science. The presentation, which focused on several exciting projects in the digital humanities at FAS, offered three goals: engaging students in collaboration using digital scholarship; supporting sustainable, transparent, and scalable models of research-led teaching; and supporting team-based partnerships outside of NYU. (The slides of Tom’s presentation have been posted on Google Drive, and can be accessed here using your NYU login.)
4. Issue spotting.
The group concluded with a list of issues for its successor committee to consider:
- Tech infrastructure broadly defined (i.e., not only servers and support, but also social, organizational, assessment, and research practices at the University);
- How to support a culture of innovation;
- How to assess tech-enhanced learning;
- Exhibits, or how to get faculty to realize what’s possible;
- Questions of scalability;
- Next year’s conference;
- Sharing information about grants and assessing projects;
- Cannibalizing programs and disappearing revenue, particularly at the Masters level;
- The effectiveness and efficiency of enhancing teaching and learning?;
- [Subsequent to the meeting, Russ suggested: Getting feedback from schools’ outsourcing experiences (e.g., with Hot Chalk or 2U).]
The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
Meeting of April 1, 2015
AGENDA
1. Announcements
2. Approval of minutes
3. Finalization of the follow-up to our Final Report for the Provost
4. Communication strategy
5. Faculty training project (Ben Maddox and Brian Schiesser)
6. Case study in project-based collaboration among faculty, students, and staff: NewYorkScapes (Tom Augst)
7. Future of this committee
Read the Minutes for April 1, 2015
Minutes for April 1, 2015
AGENDA
1. Announcements
2. Approval of minutes
3. Finalization of the follow-up to our Final Report for the Provost
4. Communication strategy
5. Faculty training project (Ben Maddox and Brian Schiesser)
6. Case study in project-based collaboration among faculty, students, and staff: NewYorkScapes (Tom Augst)
7. Future of this committee
Present: Tom Augst, Tom Delaney, Larry Jackson, Ben Maddox, Rick Matasar, Russ Neuman, Joyce O’Connor, Dan O’Sullivan, Jan Plass, Ryan Poynter, Matthew Santirocco.
Joined via teleconference: Joshua Blank, Barbara Krainovich-Miller, Keith O’Brien, Andy Sinclair.
Absent: Karen Adolph, Mark Alter, Mike Beckerman, Richard Cole, Dalton Conley, Aswath Damodaran, Gigi Dopico-Black, Carol Hutchins, Mitchell Joachim, Ted Magder, Peggy McCready, Patricio Navia, Peter Schilling, Lisa Springer, Heather Stewart, Marc Triola.
MINUTES
1. Finalization of the follow-up to our Final Report for the Provost
The committee reviewed the implementation chart which gives the current status of all recommendations that were made in the committee’s Final Report. Matthew Santirocco reported that item 1/2e had been revised slightly, based on feedback he received at the last meeting. Rick Matasar noted that recommendation 1/2d, on establishing a digital research center, might involve a partnership with ITHAKA, the non-profit digital research group. He added that there could be a concrete proposal for the center by the fall.
The group then reviewed the narrative portion of the follow-up to its Final Report. The proposals for the title, charge, and composition of the new standing committee were accepted with only minor revisions.
Finally, the committee discussed the possibility of holding another University-wide conference on technology-enhanced education in spring 2016. Rick suggested that the conference would be an opportunity to showcase the wide-ranging experimentation taking place in schools throughout the University. Joyce O’Connor noted that this would be useful to faculty, adding that the College of Dentistry has had success generating interest in technology-enhanced learning by presenting faculty with a variety of options for their own courses. Russ Neuman added that the conference should also include faculty from the portal campuses and global sites, and that some emphasis should be placed on assessing the outcomes of tech-enhanced learning. The group agreed to form a subcommittee to come up with ideas for the conference, with Joyce, Russ, Josh Blank, and Tom Augst volunteering to serve on it. Ben Maddox will also participate or will ask someone from his office to do so.
2. Faculty training project
Ben announced that IT Project Manager Brian Schiesser would visit the committee’s next meeting to discuss University-wide trainings for faculty and staff that are taking place both online and in-person. Ben noted that there is also some interest in providing certificates for participants. Jan Plass then discussed the possibility of reconfiguring a new graduate course at Steinhardt, which will run next spring, to make it available to faculty who are interested in online learning. Russ also suggested organizing a January “boot camp” for interested faculty. The committee agreed to discuss these ideas at its next meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m.
Meeting of March 4, 2015
AGENDA
1. Announcements
2. Approval of minutes
3. Discussion of Kevin Guthrie’s presentation (at our 2/4 meeting) on ITHAKA initiatives in technology-enhanced education
4. Implementation of Final Report recommendations:
a. Final review of revised chart of recommendations and actions (Matthew Santirocco)
b. Review distinct roles of the TTC and the FTEE Committee (Matthew Santirocco)
c. Review proposal for successor committee (Rick Matasar)
d. Faculty training project (Ben Maddox and Brian Schiesser)
5. Communication strategy
6.Case study in project-based collaboration among faculty, students, and staff: NewYorkScapes (Tom Augst)
Read the Minutes for March 4, 2015
Minutes for March 4, 2015
AGENDA
1. Announcements
2. Approval of minutes
3. Discussion of Kevin Guthrie’s presentation (at our 2/4 meeting) on ITHAKA initiatives in technology-enhanced education
4. Implementation of Final Report recommendations:
a. Final review of revised chart of recommendations and actions (Matthew Santirocco)
b. Review distinct roles of the TTC and the FTEE Committee (Matthew Santirocco)
c. Review proposal for successor committee (Rick Matasar)
d. Faculty training project (Ben Maddox and Brian Schiesser)
5. Communication strategy
6.Case study in project-based collaboration among faculty, students, and staff: NewYorkScapes (Tom Augst)
Present: Tom Augst, Richard Cole, Tom Delaney, Carol Hutchins, Larry Jackson, Ben Maddox, Peggy McCready, Russ Neuman, Dan O’Sullivan, Jan Plass, Ryan Poynter, Matthew Santirocco.
Joined via teleconference: Mitchell Joachim, Barbara Krainovich-Miller, Patricio Navia, Joyce O’Connor, Andy Sinclair.
Absent: Karen Adolph, Mark Alter, Mike Beckerman, Joshua Blank, Dalton Conley, Aswath Damodaran, Gigi Dopico-Black, Ted Magder, Rick Matasar, Keith O’Brien, Peter Schilling, Lisa Springer, Heather Stewart, Marc Triola.
MINUTES
1. Announcements and minutes.
(a) Distributing books. Copies of William Bowen’s book Higher Education in the Digital Age were distributed to the committee (those who joined via teleconference or who were unable to attend will receive theirs by campus mail).
(b) Minutes of the last meeting. The minutes of the February 4, 2015 meeting were approved, with one revision from Richard Cole.
(c) Follow-up report to the Provost. Matthew reminded the committee that the Provost was expecting to receive shortly a follow-up to the final report, in which we would give him advice on the membership and charge of the standing committee that would succeed our group, and also advise him on the current status of the other recommendations in our final report, with particular attention to how we think those recommendations which are still outstanding should be implemented.
2. Charges of the FTEE and Teaching Technology committees.
Matthew Santirocco reviewed a chart outlining the charges and tasks of the FTEE and Teaching Technology (TTC) committees, which was developed in response to Tom Augst’s question at an earlier meeting concerning their different roles. Matthew noted that the work of both committees converges in producing recommendations for instructional technology improvements.
A discussion about the charge and the name of the FTEE’s successor committee followed. Tom suggested that using the word “technology” in the committee’s title could be misleading, since it will really focus on innovation and the future of education, and since many faculty are interested in this subject until they hear the word “technology.” Andy Sinclair disagreed, noting that the word is synonymous with innovation, and is often something that excites people. Richard Cole suggested using the phrase “future of learning” in the committee’s title, adding that innovation in education is not based solely on technology.
The group then began to discuss the successor committee’s charge. Jan Plass suggested that coming to agreement about this would help determine what the committee’s name should be. Peggy McCready suggested that part of the committee’s charge should be coordinating research about technology-enhanced education at the University. Matthew noted that the successor committee should have some latitude to craft its own vision statement, but asked Jan to draft a sentence about the committee’s larger vision. Tom was also asked to propose possible names for the successor committee, and Peggy to provide a bullet on research that can be added to its charge.
2. Proposed membership of the successor committee
The committee next reviewed Rick Matasar’s memo on the proposed make-up and selection of the successor committee, which was based on conversations he had with various people in the group. The committee agreed that schools should be free to devise their own election/selection methods, consistent with their policies and practices. When Richard noted that there was no way to require elected committee members to have expertise in academic technology, Jan suggested softening the language, so that it stated only that knowledge of technology was desirable, but not a firm condition of service. A question was raised about the proposed number of committee members (e.g., should FAS have only one, since it is so large?). The group decided to keep this number, since Russ Neuman noted that, in addition to there being one representative from each school, the Provost would be able to appoint other members as he saw fit. With these edits and observations, the committee endorsed the proposal on the make-up of its successor committee.
3. Implementation of recommendations from the committee’s Final Report
Matthew reviewed the implementation chart for recommendations from the committee’s Final Report. The group approved new text to be added to the action column for the following recommendations: 1/2a, 1/2e, 1/2f, 6, 7b, and 8c. Richard also suggested changing the text in the action column for recommendation 1/2d (“Establish a Digital Education Research Center”) from “done” to “ongoing.” Carol suggested posting a version of this chart on the committee’s website. With these edits and observations, the committee approved the chart.
Meeting of February 4, 2015
AGENDA
1. Announcements
2. Approval of minutes
3. Presentation on ITHAKA initiatives in technology-enhanced education by Kevin Guthrie (President, ITHAKA)
4. Implementation of Final Report recommendations:
a. Final review of revised chart of recommendations and actions (Matthew Santirocco)
b. Review distinct roles of the TTC and the FTEE Committee (Matthew Santirocco)
c. Review proposal for successor committee (Rick Matasar)
5. Communication strategy (to follow up on the final report and 9/12 conference)
Read the Minutes for February 4, 2015
Minutes for February 4, 2015
AGENDA
1. Announcements
2. Approval of minutes
3. Presentation on ITHAKA initiatives in technology-enhanced education by Kevin Guthrie (President, ITHAKA)
4. Implementation of Final Report recommendations:
a. Final review of revised chart of recommendations and actions (Matthew Santirocco)
b. Review distinct roles of the TTC and the FTEE Committee (Matthew Santirocco)
c. Review proposal for successor committee (Rick Matasar)
5. Communication strategy (to follow up on the final report and 9/12 conference)
Present: Mark Alter, Tom Augst, Joshua Blank, Richard Cole, Carol Hutchins, Ben Maddox, Rick Matasar, Peggy McCready, Patricio Navia, Russ Neuman, Dan O’Sullivan, Jan Plass, Ryan Poynter, Matthew Santirocco, Andy Sinclair, Lisa Springer, Marc Triola,
Joined via teleconference: Barbara Krainovich-Miller, Keith O’Brien.
Absent: Karen Adolph, Mike Beckerman, Dalton Conley, Aswath Damodaran, Tom Delaney, Gigi Dopico-Black, Mitchell Joachim, Ted Magder, Joyce O’Connor, Peter Schilling, Heather Stewart.
MINUTES
1. Announcements
(a) Recommendations. Matthew Santirocco reported that the implementation plan for the recommendations made in the committee’s final report now includes everyone’s feedback, and will be finalized at the next meeting.
(b) FTEE and TTC charges. Matthew noted that, in response to Tom Augst’s question at an earlier meeting, he has prepared a document outlining how this committee’s charge differs from that of the Teaching Technology Committee (TTC), and that this too will be discussed at the next meeting.
(c) Successor committee charge and composition. Having heard from several members of the committee, Rick Matasar prepared a proposal on the successor committee’s charge and composition, which will also be circulated and discussed at the next meeting.
(d) Inventory of technology-enhanced courses. Matthew noted that the committee’s inventory of technology-enhanced courses is growing, and suggested that it be listed in a more prominent place on the University’s website (it is currently housed on the committee’s website). Ben Maddox added that students who are interested in low-residency options would benefit from this. He will look into this and report back at the next meeting.
(e) Book for the committee to review. While introducing the committee’s guest speaker, Kevin Guthrie (see item two below), Russ Neuman noted that Kavin had worked with William Bowen at the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, and had written the preface to one of Bowen’s books, Higher Education in the Digital Age. Matthew announced that copies of these books would be distributed to the committee at its next meeting.
2. Guest presentation by Kevin Guthrie
Kevin Guthrie, President of the ITHAKA Group, presented on his organization’s work. ITHAKA is a not-for-profit that helps academic institutions use digital technologies to preserve scholarship and advance research and teaching. Among the initiatives that ITHAKA oversees are the research platform JSTOR, Portico, which preserves digital content for scholarship, and ITHAKA S&R, a research and consulting service.
Kevin discussed some of ITHAKA’s research about online education. One study, which used randomized trials, found that students at certain public universities learned as much in online courses as their counterparts did in in-person classes. In another, qualitative study researchers interviewed 250 deans and faculty members at “big ten” schools about their views of online learning. The researchers found widespread concerns that cost-savings from online courses would lead to reductions in the size of the faculty. There was also a widely held belief that face-to-face instruction is always better than online instruction. Kevin noted that, while it is true that students tend to learn more in smaller environments, online courses are better when instructors can utilize large amounts of data. Finally, the study showed that many understood shared governance to mean that each constituency has exclusive responsibility for its own set of problems, so that faculty are not familiar with the financial aspects of higher education, and do not consider the cost of education. Kevin’s presentation was followed by a brief discussion.
The meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m.