Meeting Minutes Fall 2015

AGENDA

1. Announcements and approval of minutes

a Open Education subcommittee (Josh Blank)
b. Open Education Resources subcommittee with Library and Bookstore representation (Carol Mandel)
c. Visit by President Andrew Hamilton on 2/10
d. Inventory of school-sponsored events
e. Collecting, reviewing, and responding to requests for new tech products
f. Videoconferencing-enabled rooms—priority reservations and pedagogical support

2. Recommendations from the FTEE Final Report that were remanded to this committee—continued

3. Four big discussion topics:

a. Supporting and enabling local initiatives
b. The future of teaching and learning
c. Assessing TEE experiments
d. The role of TEE in global study

4. Overview of what’s happening in the schools

a. PowerPoint presentation (Matthew Santirocco)
b. Video of CGPH online education programs (Ben Maddox)

5. “Reports from the field”—examples of innovation in each of our schools

a. Craig Kapp (Courant) presents on initiatives in Computer Science
b. Committee members’ responses to “homework” assignment

6. School collaborations with external partners (e.g., MOOC consortia)

Present: Tom Augst, Andrew Batista, Josh Blank, Vasant Dhar, Deena Engel, Sebastian Heath, Larry Jackson, Selin Kalaycioglu, Iraj Kalkhoran, Craig Kapp, Mary Killilea, Ben Maddox, Russ Neuman, Lori Nicholas, Joyce O’Connor, Dan O’Sullivan, Michael Overton, Ryan Poynter, Matthew Santirocco, Judy Siegel, Andrew Sinclair, Thelma Thomas, Robyn Vaccara.

Joined via teleconference: Larry Slater, Marc Triola.

Absent: Mahmoud Abughar, Mark Alter, John Burt, Tom Delaney, Mitch Joachim, Jan Plass, Clay Shirky, Kristen Sosulski.

MINUTES

1. Reports from the field: Introduction to Computer Science flipped class.

Deena Engel and Craig Kapp presented to the group on the flipped Introduction to Computer Science course that is now being taught in Courant. (Slides of the presentation can be found here.)

The group had several questions about the success of the project and the assessment of student learning. Iraj Kalkhoran asked how the performance of students in the flipped classes compared with those in the traditional classes. Craig noted that that all of the sections of the class are now being taught in the flip, but that during the pilot the department did conduct A/B testing, which consisted of looking at the grades that students received in the next course in the Computer Science sequence. While he emphasized that the sample size was small, Craig reported that the final grades of students from the flipped class sections were a half letter grade higher than those in the traditional sections. Larry Slater observed that a flipped class at the College of Nursing also yielded improvements in student performance. Selin Kalaycioglu noted that she will be teaching Calculus in the flip next semester, and plans to compare student performance in that section with students in a traditional section of the course.

Other questions concerned the logistics of mounting the flipped class. When Vasant Dhar asked whether the flipped sections were more expensive than the traditional classes, Michael Overton replied that there were additional costs associated with the extra undergraduate tutors being used for these courses, but that this was not a prohibitive expense. Noting that the online modules being used for the flipped classes can become “stale” over time, Sebastian Heath asked how often content had to be updated. Craig replied that he updated about 15 percent of the content after two years, and that he anticipates having to revise approximately the same amount of material each year. When Josh Blank asked whether the modules could be used outside of NYU, Craig noted that the material is transportable, and could be exported from NYU Classes to a zip, from which it could be uploaded to another LMS. Iraj then asked whether there was a plan to use these materials for a purely online course. Craig noted that the intention was to maximize face-to-face time with students. But Matthew Santirocco observed that online courses can also be highly interactive and could replicate much of what the flipped class aims to achieve. Finally, Andy Sinclair asked how much time has to be invested in creating these materials. Ben Maddox suggested that the timeline varies based on the course and the instructor’s level of experience, but that it can range anywhere from six months to a year. Andy observed that this could be too time-consuming for faculty, especially those who are working to get tenure. But Dan O’Sullivan suggested that developing a course in this area could actually make faculty more eligible for tenure.

Matthew noted that the committee would not only want to capture initiatives such as this one in its annual report, but might also want to weigh in with suggestions on the question of support for developing such courses. The group then agreed not only to inventory projects around the University, but also to study them in some depth, and to schedule extra meetings for this purpose, if necessary.

2. Tasks from the predecessor committee’s final report.

Matthew reminded the group that the predecessor FTEE committee had remanded a number of tasks to this standing committee, adding that some had been dealt with already, while others should be shifted to other units at the University. It was agreed to discuss this further at the committee’s next meeting.

3. Subgroups.

The committee then reviewed the list of four subgroups that members had signed up for since the last meeting. Matthew noted that two additional committees have been proposed since, one on open-source educational resources, such as free online textbooks, and another on the University’s open education, which Josh proposed after adjuncts at the Law School asked about the possibility of putting their own lectures online. Matthew noted that both topics raise a number of important questions, including FERPA restrictions, copyright, production value, and the NYU brand.

4. Overview of technology-enhanced education projects.

The group then briefly reviewed an inventory of technology-enhanced education projects from around the University, which had been provided by committee members. Marc Triola noted that the technology was rapidly changing health education, and that the Medical School would have more to share with the committee. Joyce O’Connor then asked if information about the various partners in this field (e.g., 2U and edX) could be given to the committee. Ben noted that IT has this information and will share it with the group.

The meeting adjourned at 1:00 p.m.

AGENDA

1. Announcements and approval of minutes

2. FTEE’s online presence

3. Discussion topics and action items for this year

Continuing Issues
a. Recommendations from the FTEE Final Report that were remanded to this committee—continued

Connecting to the NYU Community
b. “Reports from the field”—examples of innovation in each of our schools (suggested by Mike Overton)
c. Creating “video reports” on the work of instructional technologists, both at NYU IT and within schools (suggested by Sebastian Heath)
d. Brown bag talks or other supplementary meetings or events (suggested by Jan Plass)

Thinking about the Future of Technology-Enhanced Education at NYU
e. Envisioning the future of higher education and the role technology will play (suggested by Jan Plass)
f. Proposal for a new “Coding Center” (suggested by Dan O’Sullivan)
g. MOOC (and other) partners

Supporting and Enabling TEE initiatives by Faculty and Schools
h. Training faculty who are interested in using technology to enhance their courses (suggested by Russ Neuman)
i. Supporting faculty and schools in assessing their TEE-related initiatives
(suggested by Deena Engel)
j. Taking stock of TEE-related policies and practices in the schools (suggested by Mark Alter)
k. Teaching with Technology Award (suggested by Karen Krahulik, CAS)

Present: Mark Alter, Andrew Batista, Josh Blank, Tom Delaney, Vasant Dhar,
Sebastian Heath, Larry Jackson, Mary Killilea, Ben Maddox, Russ Neuman, Lori 
Nicholas, Dan O’Sullivan, Michael Overton, Jan Plass, Ryan Poynter, Matthew 
Santirocco, Judy Siegel, Andrew Sinclair, Thelma Thomas, Robyn Vaccara.

Joined via teleconference: John Burt, Mitch Joachim, Iraj Kalkhoran, Larry Slater.

Absent: Mahmoud Abughar, Tom Augst, Deena Engel, Selin Kalaycioglu, Joyce 
O’Connor, Clay Shirky, Kristen Sosulski, Marc Triola.

MINUTES

1. Announcements.

(a) Active teaching and learning workshop and poster session. Ben Maddox reported that this event on October 23 was successful. More than 200 people attended the poster session, where faculty and instructional technologists had one-on-one conversations about technology-related projects at the University. This was followed by two simultaneous workshops, which had 150 and 120 participants respectively. The event was cosponsored by the Center for the Advancement of Teaching and NYU’s office of Instructional Technology.

(b) The committee’s online presence. Matthew Santirocco informed the committee of recent updates to its website. Materials from previous semesters reflecting the work of the predecessor committee (e.g., updated FAQs and meeting minutes) are still available there. But the inventory of technology-enhanced courses at the University has been moved to a new “Online and Technology-Enhanced Education” page on the main NYU website, which also includes a list of online, blended, and low-residency programs across the schools. In addition to this inventory, users can now search for online and blended course offerings in a given semester on Albert, to which a new “instruction mode” menu was added over the summer. Sebastian Heath asked if in-person courses that use only a minimal amount of technology (i.e., for a single module or assignment), and thus do not qualify as blended or online courses, could also be tagged in Albert as a way of attracting students. Matthew noted that the three-part taxonomy for course modalities (in-person, blended, online) is necessarily basic, and that adding further categories of courses could result in confusion. He suggested, however, that there might be other strategies for promoting the use of technology in in-person courses. Dan O’Sullivan suggested implementing solutions that would enable students to come up with their own tags for courses. Matthew proposed adding the role of departments in promoting technology-enhanced courses to the committee’s agenda.

(c) NYU IT. Tom Delaney reported to the group on the integration of the NYU offices of Information Technology Services and Global Technology Services, each of which had its own charge and staff. Over the course of three years, Human Resources has managed the integration of the staffs of both offices, and they now comprise a single entity: NYU Information Technology. The office’s website is nyu.edu/it.

(d) National Education Week. Jan Plass announced that Steinhardt is coordinating National Education Week at NYU form December 15 to 17. Anyone who is interested in participating should contact him. [Subsequent to this meeting, an announcement for this event was sent to the committee, as well as to other interested parties.]

2. Discussion topics and action items for the year.

Jan distributed a list of possible topics for the group to discuss this year. He noted that the committee has three basic responsibilities: outreach on campus, support for faculty who are using technology in their courses, and conceptualizing the role of technology in the future of higher education. Jan then proposed a number of ways in which the committee could proceed so that it would be able to accomplish all three goals. These included sharing written reports, having video reports from faculty at the University who are using technology, and/or hosting brownbag presentations on various topics.

A robust discussion followed, in which the group reviewed a number of possible ways to learn about new technology-enhanced projects and initiatives at the University. Michael Overton suggested inviting people from the schools to present briefly (e.g., for 10 minutes) at the committee’s meetings. Mark Alter proposed having committee members attend presentations in schools and departments. Pointing out that the committee has only a handful of meetings and limited time, Matthew suggested collecting information from this group and elsewhere on interesting projects in the schools, and then issuing a report with an appendix on these as examples of best practices. Andy Sinclair noted that a written report would be the most helpful for Wagner, since that school is still exploring options. Whatever strategy the committee decides on, Larry Slater observed that it was just as important to include not only what has worked for faculty, but also what has not been successful.

Given the time constraints of the committee, Matthew suggested that the group begin by compiling an inventory. To that end, he asked the group to send to him and Jan any projects or new initiatives that they would like to include in it. Ben also agreed to share the poster titles and names of participants from the active teaching and learning event on October 23.

Moving to the larger topic of the future of education, the group then considered a number of ways to structure its conversation. Russ Neuman suggested having individual committee members take particular topics and lead discussions in those areas. Mary Killilea proposed instead to have subcommittees that explore different topics. Matthew then asked the committee members to identify which topics each of them want to discuss from the list that Jan had previously distributed, and also to propose concrete outcomes related to each. The goal would be to create several informal subgroups to tee up conversations in each of those areas.

The meeting adjourned at 10:30 a.m.

AGENDA

1. Welcome and announcements

2. Membership and title

3. Charge

4. Scheduling next year's meetings

5. Selecting our representative to the Faculty Committee on NYU's Global Network

6. FTEE's online presence

7. Discussion topics and action items for this year

a. Recommendations from the FTEE Final Report that were remanded to this committee
b. "Reports from the field"--examples of innovation in each of our schools (suggested by committee member Professor Mike Overton)
c. Teaching with Technology Award (suggested by Associate Dean Karen Krahulik, CAS)
d. MOOC partners

Present: Mahmoud Abugharbieh, Mark Alter, Andrew Battista, Vasant Dhar, Deena Engel (for Michael Overton), Sebastian Heath, Larry Jackson, Mitch Joachim, Selin Kalaycioglu, Mary Killilea, Ben Maddox, Russ Neuman, Lori Nicholas, Joyce O’Connor, Dan O’Sullivan, Jan Plass, Ryan Poynter, Matthew Santirocco, Larry Slater, Robyn Vaccara.

Joined via teleconference: John Burt, Iraj Kalkhoran, Judy Siegel, Andrew Sinclair.

Absent: Tom Augst, Josh Blank, Tom Delaney, Clay Shirky, Kristen Sosulski, Thelma Thomas, Marc Triola.

MINUTES

1. Membership and title

This was the inaugural meeting of this new standing committee. After the members introduced themselves, co-chair Matthew Santirocco explained the group’s origin, noting that it is the successor to the ad hoc Faculty Committee on the Future of Technology-Enhanced Education (FTEE), which met from spring 2013 through spring 2015. In keeping with the recommendation made by the ad hoc FTEE, this new group is composed of representatives from every NYU school (one per school), in addition to three provostial appointees and one representative each from the Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty Senators Council (T-FSC), the Full-Time Non-Tenure Track/Contract Faculty Senators Council (C-FSC) [Subsequently renamed the Full-Time Continuing Contract Faculty Senators Council], and the Student Senators Council (SSC). The term of service is three years, but Matthew suggested that this inaugural group develop a plan to stagger their terms and ensure continuity as new members join. To that end, he asked for people to let him and co-chair Jan Plass know if they would like (or need, because of a sabbatical) to step down from the committee after one or two years.

There was also a brief conversation about the title of the new committee. Jan suggested keeping the title of the ad hoc group, since that name is already well known to faculty. The group agreed to this suggestion.

2. Charge

Matthew next reviewed the committee’s charge by comparing it with that of the Teaching Technology Committee (TTC), which is part of the IT governance structure and makes recommendations for investment in the University’s tech infrastructure. The FTEE successor committee, on the other hand, is advisory to the President and Provost and is charged with promoting innovation in teaching and learning, especially through technology. While distinct from the TTC in terms of its charge, the FTEE can convey to that committee any recommendations for instructional technology improvements that it may have.

3. Selecting our representative to the Faculty Committee on NYU’s Global Network

Matthew reported that the Faculty Committee on NYU’s Global Network would like to have a representative from this committee, since the global network and technology-enhanced education are interrelated. Since no one volunteered, Jan offered to serve as the committee’s representative, and the group agreed. The committee will consider if someone else should assume this role after one year.

4. FTEE’s online presence

There was a brief discussion about the committee’s online presence. Matthew suggested that the website created for ad hoc group could simply be updated. While the bibliography of TEE-related articles has been maintained by NYU IT, it was agreed that the committee would review other sections of the website, such as the FAQs, on a regular basis and update them as needed.

5. Discussion topics and action items for this year

The committee members reviewed the recommendations that the ad hoc group had made in its Final Report of June 2014. Many of these have either been implemented already or were remanded to other University committees or offices. With regard to the recommendations that were remanded to this new standing committee, Matthew noted that the group should feel free to revise or reject any of them.

Jan then led the committee in a discussion of possible topics that it could explore this year. He noted that the ad hoc committee had focused on necessary administrative matters, such as taking an inventory of tech-enhanced course at the University. He suggested that the standing committee, on the other hand, might shift to discussing and facilitating innovation in education using technology. One possible project for the group could be to draft a report envisioning what the future of higher education might look like and making concrete recommendations for successful models and approaches.

To that end, Russ Neuman suggested that the committee could support efforts to train faculty who are interested in using technology to enhance their courses. Two examples of such efforts in Steinhardt are a TEE “boot camp” that Steinhardt organized for faculty last summer, and a new graduate course (taught by Russ) on “Designing Online Learning in Higher Education.” Sebastian Heath proposed that a few of the schools’ newly hired instructional technologists be invited to visit the committee to report on their work. Jan responded that, rather than taking up time at a meeting, a series of short videos could be developed or workshops scheduled to showcase collaborations between faculty and instructional technologists.

Deena Engel noted that faculty often have ideas for how to use technology, but are often at a loss as to how to assess these initiatives once they have been implemented. Mark Alter suggested taking stock of various TEE-related policies and practices currently in place at the University. Other committee members pointed to the obstacles preventing faculty from using technology in their courses. Joyce O’Connor raised the issue of accreditation standards for some of the schools at the University. Mary Killilea added that rules for technology-enhanced courses differ by global site. Robyn Vaccara added that international students in the United States face visa restrictions.

Given the variety of interests and topics raised in the discussion, Jan proposed having brown bag talks or other supplements to the committee’s regular meetings. Matthew also suggested exploring some of these topics (e.g., accreditation and global impediments) in subcommittees.

The meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m.