Meeting Minutes Fall 2014

New York University

AGENDA

1. Implementation of Final Report recommendations

(a) Successor committee--election process, membership, and function

(b) List of recommendations from the Final Report

Present: Mark Alter, Tom Augst, Mike Beckerman, Richard Cole, Aswath Damodaran, Tom Delaney, Carol Hutchins, Larry Jackson, Ben Maddox, Ted Magder, Rick Matasar, Peggy McCready, Russ Neuman, Joyce O’Connor, Dan O’Sullivan, Jan Plass, Ryan Poynter, Matthew Santirocco, Andy Sinclair, Peter Schilling, Heather Stewart.

Joined via teleconference: Clay Shirky, Marc Triola.

Absent: Karen Adolph, Joshua Blank, Dalton Conley, Gigi Dopico-Black, Mitchell Joachim, Barbara Krainovich-Miller, Patricio Navia, Keith O’Brien, Lisa Springer.

MINUTES

1. Implementation of Final Report recommendations

(a) Successor committee—election process, membership, and function. Rick Matasar reviewed the questionnaire that he distributed to the group to obtain their feedback on the size and composition of the successor committee. A robust discussion followed. Clay Shirky suggested that a system of proxy votes might be used to represent departments widely while also keeping the size of the committee reasonable. Aswath Damodaran observed that the schools already have different governance mechanisms, and that having a small committee work within those existing structures would be preferable to having a larger body at the University level. Matthew Santirocco noted that the committee’s final report emphasized the importance of subsidiarity, but also recognized the need for a University-wide conversation that could not be held exclusively within the schools. Jan Plass suggested that the committee could be a self-selecting group of people with an interest in technology-enhanced education. Tom Augst added that this would be consistent with the grassroots approach that faculty support. Finally, the group considered possible names for its successor committee. Jan suggested that the name should emphasize learning and innovation rather than technology. But Ted Magder noted the importance of including the word technology in the committee’s title, since it will be the primary focus. Matthew’s suggestion, “Innovation, Learning, and Technology,” met with approval.

At the conclusion of this part of the meeting, Rick asked that committee members get back to him and Matthew with responses to each of the items on the questionnaire that had been circulated. He will collate these responses in advance of the committee’s next meeting.

(b) List of recommendations from the Final Report. The group then reviewed and tentatively approved a chart that Matthew presented which listed for each recommendation in the committee’s Final Report a strategy for implementation. It was agreed that the recommendation about proprietary classrooms should be rewritten to state that any renovations to these spaces should bring them up to the University’s standards for classroom technology. Further revisions will be made to the implementation chart, based on the group’s discussions, and a new version will be shared with the group at its next meeting.

The meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m.

 

AGENDA

1. Implementation of Final Report recommendations

(a) Space Management System (SMS)

(b) Successor committee--election, process, membership, and function

(c) Establishing a Digital Education Research Center

Present: Mark Alter, Tom Augst, Meenakshi Baker, Mike Beckerman, Richard Cole, Carol Hutchins, Larry Jackson, Alison Leary, Ben Maddox, Rick Matasar, Peggy McCready, Russ Neuman, Joyce O’Connor, Dan O’Sullivan, Ryan Poynter, Matthew Santirocco, Peter Schilling.

Joined via teleconference: Gigi Dopico-Black, Barbara Krainovich-Miller, Keith O’Brien.

Absent: Karen Adolph, Joshua Blank, Dalton Conley, Aswath Damodaran, Tom Delaney, Mitchell Joachim, Ted Magder, Patricio Navia, Jan Plass, Clay Shirky, Andrew Sinclair, Lisa Springer, Marc Triola.

MINUTES

1. Implementation of Final Report recommendations

(a) Space Management System (SMS). Alison Leary (Executive Vice President for Operations) opened the discussion about the Space Management System by describing the purposes for which it is being developed. She also noted that it is a powerful tool that can be leveraged for other needs, though any proposed enhancement that our committee might suggest will have to be balanced against other needs and prioritized. Meenakshi Baker (Assistant Vice President for Operations Technology and Support Services), who led the team that developed the SMS, then gave a presentation about it to the group (a summary of which is attached). The group agreed to rewrite the recommendation that it made in its final report about the SMS, to reflect more accurately the status and goals of this project. The new recommendation will be to explore ways of ensuring that the SMS either contains or is linked with an existing database of technology in the GPCs; that an inventory of the technology in proprietary classrooms also be developed, which should also be included in or linked with the SMS; and that all these data about rooms and the technology in them also be linked with the University’s room scheduling tool, R25.

(b) Successor committee—election process, membership, and function. Matthew Santirocco reminded the group that one of its charges is to advise the Provost on a standing successor committee. As an all-University committee, half of the membership must be elected, according to new University guidelines. The challenge is how to ensure that the committee also has members with the requisite level of expertise. In response to Carol Hutchins’ question about how elections would be conducted, it was noted that there is no University-wide mechanism for voting, and that all faculty representatives would have to be elected through their schools. Richard Cole observed that it might be helpful for candidates for the committee’s elected positions to prepare a brief statement, since this would enable their peers to make more informed decisions.

A second, related consideration is whether the committee should include faculty from every school. Mike Beckerman suggested that a smaller committee might be more efficient. Richard suggested that a larger, more representative committee, though less efficient, would be preferable, since it will be addressing a number of controversial topics. Rick Matasar suggested that any decision about the size and composition of the committee should be based on its mission, which is to ensure broad-based input on policies around academic technology at the University.

Finally, Tom Augst suggested that it be clarified how this standing committee is distinct in purpose from the Teaching Technology Committee, another standing committee at the University, which includes not only faculty but also staff from IT. Matthew explained the different purviews of the two groups, but agreed that further clarification was in order. Rick offered to prepare in advance of the next meeting a set of questions to help guide the group’s thinking on the mission, size, and composition of the new standing committee.

(c) Establishing a Digital Education Research Center. Rick reported that, in response to one of the recommendations made in the committee’s final report, the Provost has asked Dom Brewer (Steinhardt Dean) to explore the resources for research on digital education that are currently available in his school and throughout the University. The group agreed to hold off on forming its own subcommittee to explore the creation of a digital education research center until Dean Brewer reports back to the Provost.

The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.

 

Agenda

1. Provost's charge

2. Activities and consultations to follow up on the Final Report and 9/12 conference

3. Communication strategy

4. Implementation of Final Report recommendations

Present: Mark Alter, Richard Cole, Tom Delaney, Carol Hutchins, Ben Maddox, Ted Magder, Rick Matasar, Russ Neuman, Joyce O’Connor, Jan Plass, Ryan Poynter, Matthew Santirocco.

Joined via teleconference: Karen Adolph, Gigi Dopico-Black, Mitchell Joachim, Barbara Krainovich-Miller, Peter Schilling, Andrew Sinclair.

Absent: Tom Augst, Joshua Blank, Dalton Conley, Aswath Damodaran, Larry Jackson, Peggy McCready, Patricio Navia, Keith O’Brien, Dan O’Sullivan, Clay Shirky, Lisa Springer, Marc Triola.

MINUTES

1. Provost’s charge

Matthew Santirocco welcomed the members of the ad hoc committee and thanked them for agreeing to continue serving in this capacity until a standing committee can be established. He reminded the group of its charge, viz., to advise the President and Provost on the makeup and role of the new standing committee and to provide guidance on the staging and implementation of the recommendations of its Final Report, which was submitted in July 2014. While the committee’s advice is needed for the majority of these recommendations, a few are already being implemented. The recruitment of school-based instructional technologists (recommendation #7), for example, is already well underway. Once a critical mass of instructional technologists has been hired (per the committee’s recommendation), Ben Maddox will begin convening regular meetings of a “roundtable” of school-based and University-level colleagues. Among their first tasks will be to revise the current taxonomy of instructional modalities in SIS (e.g., hybrid, fully online) and to use the new categories to create a dashboard that can replace the inventory of tech-enhanced courses on the committee’s website. [Subsequent to this meeting, the instructional technologist “roundtable” met for the first time on 11/17.]

2. Activities and consultations to follow up on the Final Report and 9/12 conference

Rick Matasar reported that, in response to the committee’s Final Report, the University Leadership Team had a discussion about technology-enhanced education during Common Days in August. President Sexton and Provost McLaughlin asked the Deans to submit a report by the end of September about their schools’ plans for TEE-related initiatives. Having reviewed these reports, Rick noted that there was quite a wide range of experimentation under consideration within the schools. In addition to this discussion at Common Days, Matthew and Rick gave a presentation on TEE at the meeting of the Faculty Advisory Committee on Academic Priorities on 10/14, at which strong interest was expressed in robust assessment of the impact of TEE on student learning. Rick also noted that conversations had begun among Provost McLaughlin, Dominic Brewer (the new Dean of Steinhardt), and other members of the University leadership about how to spearhead research in this area at NYU (recommendation #2 in the Final Report).

Rick reminded the group that the 9/12 conference had been framed as the “beginning” of a conversation about TEE at NYU. He stressed the need for the committee to honor this commitment by continuing to engage the university community in thinking creatively about technology and education. To that end, Rick’s team is editing the recording of the conference panels into short videos that can be used in further consultations with faculty in the schools. Beyond engaging colleagues in discussions about the conference presentations, one goal of these consultations could be to familiarize them with current literature on TEE.

Given the multiple conversations that are happening across the University about TEE initiatives, Jan Plass observed that the role of the committee seemed less clear than before. Rick responded that the committee is a position to publicize different activities, to provide an evaluative overview of these activities, and to stimulate conversation within each of the schools about experimentation that is taking place elsewhere at NYU.

Jan proposed that one goal for the committee this year might be to develop a few high-level research questions that could be taken up by various units across the University. A lively conversation ensued, during which committee members suggested a number of possible research topics, such as the potential for online courses to enable more low-income students to complete degree programs in a timely fashion and the relative effectiveness of technology-enhanced courses in the context of professional schools. Rick proposed that a subcommittee be created to explore possible research topics, and, perhaps more importantly, to develop a framework for generating such questions. He suggested that this subcommittee might include Russ Neuman, Mark Alter, Jan Plass, Ted Magder, Joyce O’Connor, and Ben Maddox, in addition to any other committee members who are interested.

Gigi Dopico-Black suggested two additional topics that could be explored this year, viz., the use of technology in language teaching and the potential for “linked” courses to use NYU’s global network to improve student learning outcomes.

3. Communication strategy

There was a discussion about the potential role of the committee in promoting TEE-related activities to faculty across the University. With this in mind, Mark Alter suggested that the committee could become a “dissemination network.” This would involve establishing criteria for use in determining what kinds of activities the committee would endorse and publicize. Rick suggested that the list of conference attendees could be used as a recipient list for such communications; in addition, committee members could be responsible for disseminating the information within their schools.

4. Implementation of Final Report recommendations

Finally, there was a brief discussion about the Space Management System (SMS), which is under development by the Office of Facilities and Construction Management. The committee’s final report noted that the SMS could “serve as
 the basis for an enterprise scheduling system, enabling NYU faculty across the global network to locate, reserve, and configure classrooms and learning spaces with the specific technological enhancements that they need.” (p. 26) With this in mind, the report recommended that the Teaching Technology Committee “monitor progress toward completing the system in a timely fashion.” It was recently revealed, however, that while the inventory is complete for general purpose classrooms on the Square, it covers only room location, size, and footprint. At present, the information contained within the SMS about proprietary spaces is incomplete; moreover, no information about tech equipment in classrooms is included.

Matthew announced that at the next meeting on 12/2, Alison Leary (Executive Vice President for Operations) and Meenakshi Baker (Senior Director, Operations Technology and Support Services) would visit the committee to present on the SMS and to discuss what it would take to incorporate information about classroom tech equipment. In response to questions from a few committee members about whether further discussion of this topic was necessary, Matthew stressed the importance of including faculty in discussions about classrooms and learning spaces, particularly where budget decisions are involved.

The meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m.