Meeting Minutes Spring 2016

AGENDA

1. Announcements
2. Subcommittee updates
3. "Reports from the field"—continued
4. Updates on NYU Classes survey

Present: Mark Alter, Andrew Batista, Richard Cole, Tom Delaney, Larry Jackson, Selin Kalaycioglu, Mary Killilea, Ben Maddox, Matt Marsaglia, Erin Mee, Russ Neuman, Dan O’Sullivan, Jan Plass, Ryan Poynter, Matthew Santirocco, Judy Siegel, Kristen Sosulski, Robyn Vaccara.

Participating via teleconference: Vasant Dhar, Mitch Joachim, Andrew Sinclair.

Absent: Mahmoud Abughar, Tom Augst, Josh Blank, John Burt, Deena Engel, Sebastian Heath, Iraj Kalkhoran, Lori Nicholas, Joyce O’Connor, Michael Overton, Clay Shirky, Larry Slater, Thelma Thomas, Marina Thomatos, Marc Triola.

MINUTES

1. Announcements.

(a) Meeting and report: Matthew Santirocco reported that there would be an additional meeting of the committee on Tuesday, May 10, at 2:30 p.m. The goal of this meeting will be to plan the committee’s annual report, which will be based on meeting minutes, on summaries of the various subcommittees’ recommendations (even if some of them are only preliminary), and on “reports from the field.”

(b) Landscape analysis: Matthew reported that several groups on campus, including the Deans and Trustees, have requested a landscape analysis of technology initiatives at other universities. He noted that NYU has a contract with EAB, which conducts these sorts of studies, but that we may also draw on experts at the University. Russ Neuman observed that it will be important to have the input of committee members. To that end, Matthew asked that anyone with an interest in this area, or a specific question to propose, notify him and Jan Plass by email.

(c) Tech expo: Ben Maddox announced that IT is sponsoring an expo on Thursday, May 26, from 12:00 noon to 3:00 p.m., primarily for members of the University community who are already using technology or who have responsibility for instructional technology in their schools or units. He noted that the idea of having annual events like this, with informal field reports and roundtable discussion, came from this group.

(d) Torch Tech: Ben informed the committee of this informal group on campus, comprising 400 IT staff and others who are interested in technology and meet regularly to share best practices and challenges, new models in education, and common interests. Anyone who is interested can get put on the mailing list and attend these meetings. The group is developing a calendar for events to which people can submit ideas.

2. Subcommittee reports.

Several subcommittees reported on their progress this semester. All agreed to have summaries and tentative recommendations in time for the next FTEE meeting on May 10.

3. Reports from the field.

 Erin Mee (CAS, English) reported on the “signature course,” Introduction to Performance Studies, which she teaches in a blended format. A robust conversation followed. Erin noted that students in the course tend to be better prepared as a result of the interactive online components. Ben added that one measure of the success of this new modality is that undergraduates are now taking this course, which had been taught previously to graduate students, and are using many of the same materials.

The discussion focused in part on the additional time that instructors have to spend in developing material for an online (or blended or flipped) course, and whether the committee should recommend in its annual report ways to compensate faculty for this time (e.g., course releases). Matthew noted that the efficiencies that such courses could generate (e.g., freeing up classroom space) would compensate for these additional allocations of resources. Erin observed, however, that once the course modules have been created, less, or different, class preparation is required. Mark Alter pointed out that highly interactive courses result in more dynamic syllabi, with faculty sharing timely articles with students, who then wish to discuss them online. After observing that technology is inspiring conversations about how students learn, Jan suggested putting together for faculty a list of scholarship on teaching and learning, which can help them design highly interactive courses.

Erin noted that she has used modules from this course in other, traditional, courses that she has taught, with great success. Jan observed that NYU Classes is not the best platform for using modules in multiple contexts, and suggested that the committee think about where course content could be stored so that it could be used in a variety of classes.

4. Update on NYU Classes survey.

 Ben reported on the NYU Classes user survey. He noted that there had been 1,715 responses to date, representing a 60 percent increase over last year. Not only is the number of responses higher, but the feedback has also been more nuanced. Most of the results have been positive, with only 15 percent reporting that they are dissatisfied with the LMS (compared to 22 percent who were dissatisfied in 2014 and a national average of 25-30 percent for other learning management systems). He attributed some of this success to better support for users and the presence of the instructional technologists in the schools. Ben also stressed that IT staff want to understand which schools and disciplines feel that their needs are not being met by the LMS. He also suggested that the committee’s annual report include recommendations for a communication strategy informing members of the community about improvements that have been made to NYU Classes and the features that it now offers. Results of both user surveys (2014 and 2016) will be posted online, with information about the work done on the LMS between those years.

The meeting adjourned at 2:30 pm.

AGENDA

1. Announcements and approval of minutes
2. Subcommittee updates
3. “Reports from the field”—continued
4. Learning Analytics
5. Preparing an Annual Report

Present: Mahmoud Abughar, Tom Augst, Andrew Batista, Josh Blank, Vasant Dhar, Deena Engel, Sebastian Heath, Larry Jackson, Selin Kalaycioglu, Iraj Kalkhoran, Mary Killilea, Ben Maddox, Russ Neuman, Joyce O’Connor, Dan O’Sullivan, Michael Overton, Jan Plass, Ryan Poynter, Matthew Santirocco, Judy Siegel, Kristen Sosulski, Thelma Thomas, Marina Thomatos, Marc Triola, Robyn Vaccara.

Joined via teleconference: Mitch Joachim, Andrew Sinclair.

Absent: Mark Alter, John Burt, Tom Delaney, Lori Nicholas, Clay Shirky, Larry Slater.

MINUTES

1. Reports from the field.

(a) List of University initiatives. Matthew Santirocco shared with the committee a list of technology initiatives from around the University, which included not only courses and degree programs in the schools, but also projects being mounted by other units, such as TeachTalks and TechSavvy, which the office of Instructional Technology is coordinating. Ben Maddox noted that the University has gone from 700 to 900 blended and online courses in the last two years, with approximately 4,000 students taking these classes each semester.

(b) Global Public Health. Instructional Technologist Marina Thomatos presented on the development of online courses at the College of Global Public Health (GPH). These courses, which include interactive online meetings with faculty, as well as videos and readings, were first developed for certificate programs, but will also be used in a fully online Masters in Public Health degree that will be launched in fall 2017. While GPH does not yet have metrics of student satisfaction, Marina noted that one faculty member, who teaches the same course online and in person, has suggested that graduate students with full-time jobs prefer the online version, since it allows greater flexibility. The committee noted that extra money and time (e.g., faculty course releases) are needed in advance to launch initiatives like this, and agreed to include this point as a recommendation in its annual report.

(c) Courant. Selin Kalaycioglu then presented on the flipped Calculus course that is now being offered at Courant to 1,500 students each year. She first discussed the production of the course materials, noting that the pilot for the course took three months to complete, but that by the end of the project, it was possible to produce five videos in just 10 days. Selin then highlighted some of the unique features of the flipped course. Students have the same number of contact hours in this new course, but what they do in the classroom has changed. Each week a new interactive module with an assignment goes online, which students access before coming to class. Before the lecture, the instructors get the results of students’ assignments, so they know exactly what the students did not understand from the lesson. Lectures thus become more focused on problem solving and are customized to address the subjects that students did not understand. In a second in-person lesson later in the week, students are given problems in class, which they solve with the assistance of the instructor and teaching assistants. Selin noted that fewer students drop out of the flipped classes than the in-person versions, and that attendance and participation have held steady. The committee again noted that significant resources are needed in advance to launch initiatives like this, though flipped and online courses can generate efficiencies after this initial investment of time and money. With this in mind, Matthew asked if there had been discussion about moving from a flipped to a blended format, in which the online component is even more interactive and in-person meetings can be reduced to once a week (which would have the benefit of making more efficient use of classroom space and faculty time). Selin said that moving to a blended format would be discussed.

2. Subcommittee reports.

The subcommittees reported on their charges and activities to date. When Matthew asked for volunteers to join a new subcommittee on diversity and ethics, Russ Neuman suggested that Helen Nissenbaum might be asked chair it. Kristen Sosulski, on the other hand, suggested that we didn’t need a separate subcommittee, but that our other subcommittees could address questions of ethics and diversity, as appropriate. The committee endorsed this approach.

3. Landscape analysis.

Jan Plass proposed having the committee discuss at its next meeting a landscape analysis of technology initiatives in higher education and their implications for teaching and learning. The group agreed to add this to the agenda.

The meeting adjourned at 10:30 a.m.

AGENDA

1. Conversation with President Andrew Hamilton (11:00-11:30 a.m.)
2. Announcements and approval of minutes
3. Recommendations from the FTEE Final Report that were remanded to this committee—continued
4. Subcommittee updates
5. “Reports from the field”—continued
6. Learning analytics
7. Preparing an Annual Report

Present: Mark Alter, Tom Augst, Andrew Batista, Josh Blank, Tom Delaney, Vasant Dhar, Andrew Hamilton, Sebastian Heath, Larry Jackson, Mitch Joachim, Selin Kalaycioglu, Ben Maddox, Russ Neuman, Lori Nicholas, Joyce O’Connor, Dan O’Sullivan, Jan Plass, Ryan Poynter, Matthew Santirocco, Judy Siegel, Larry Slater, Kristen Sosulski, Marc Triola, Robyn Vaccara.

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

Absent: Mahmoud Abughar, Deena Engel, Mary Killilea, Michael Overton, Clay Shirky, Thelma Thomas.

MINUTES

1. Conversation with President Andrew Hamilton.

President Hamilton joined the committee for the first 45 minutes. After introducing himself and reviewing his experience with technology-enhanced education at Yale and Oxford, he discussed some of the specific issues raised in the Final Report of the predecessor committee. In particular, he endorsed the committee’s commitment to subsidiarity and to respecting existing governance structures at the University, and added that school and University decisions in this domain must be driven by academic considerations.

A robust discussion followed, with many committee members asking President Hamilton for his views on a range of issues. Some of the questions touched on the use of technology in the classroom. Russ Neuman noted that inviting faculty to use technology in their courses also provided occasions for clarifying learning outcomes and pedagogical strategies. Jan Plass suggested that NYU can become a leader in conducting research into the pedagogical benefits of technology-enhanced education, an idea with which President Hamilton agreed. Tom Delaney added that NYU’s global presence gave it access to a large domain of data for such research.

Several questions dealt with the use of technology to support faculty research. When Sebastian Heath asked about the place of the digital humanities at NYU, President Hamilton stressed the importance of this emerging field and his commitment to supporting it at the University. Larry Slater asked about the role of the University in the development and marketing of new products. President Hamilton replied that the extent of university involvement in the development of products for sale on the open market is a question that needs to be thought through carefully, for reasons ranging from ethical to reputational concerns.

Finally, Matthew Santirocco asked President Hamilton if he had any particular areas that he would like the committee to explore. He said that he would get back to the group with ideas.

2. Additional meeting.

Matthew reminded the group that an additional committee meeting had been scheduled for Tuesday, May 10. This meeting will allow the group to hear presentations about school-based projects, and will also enable the group to plan its annual report.

3. Recommendations from the Final Report of the FTEE.

Ryan Poynter reviewed an updated list of recommendations from the Final Report of the predecessor committee, which have been remanded to this group. The committee then discussed several changes that were made to the document since its last meeting.

4. Subcommittees.

Jan led a discussion about the subcommittees that the group agreed to establish last semester. It was agreed that the full FTEE would prepare a report at the end of the academic year, which would include two or three paragraphs from each of these subcommittees, presenting considerations and recommendations from the subcommittees that the larger group endorsed in plenary session. Each of the subcommittees then reviewed their charges, which were augmented in some cases by the full FTEE, and reported on the progress that they have made so far. Kristen Sosulki observed that it is important for all of the subcommittees to consider how the roles of professor and student are evolving because of technology, and how to engage students who may be familiar with technology but do not necessarily have experience with it as a tool for learning. Finally, the committee agreed to create another subcommittee on ethics and diversity. [Matthew then asked for volunteers for this subcommittee to email him.]

The meeting adjourned at 12:30 p.m.