General Meeting Information

Date: April 13, 2016
Time: 1:30 p.m.
Location: ADM 109

  • Agenda

    Time Agenda Topic Purpose Discussion Leader
    1:30-1:35 p.m. Approval of March 3 minutes A All
    1:35-1:50 p.m. Re-review Accreditation Standard III.C; request volunteers to respond to line items  D  Spatafore
    1:50-2:15 p.m.

    Present general draft tech plan overview for feedback; senior staff strategic capabilities/goals; strategic capabilities workshop team feedback

    • Pedagogy supported by ubiquitous, agile technology
    • Student engagement
    • Deeper research into student success; subsequent responses
    • Staff development
    • Financial forecasting
    • Facilities management through technology
     D  Spatafore
    2:15-2:40 p.m.

    Review/finalize Draft 2 of technology survey

     D  All
    2:40-2:45 p.m.

    Planning next meeting: Review compiled accreditation responses; request volunteers for Technology Plan section drafts; review draft timeline to include summer work; other?

     D  All
    2:45-3 p.m.

    Standing Information Items:

    • ETS Project Scheduling Subcommittee (formerly Tech Prioritization Committee)
    • Online Education Advisory Group
    • OEI
    • ETS
    • ETAC
    • Banner Student Committee
    • Cheu
    • Ranck
    • Moreau
    • Luciw
    • Peña-Ferrick

    A = Action
    D = Discussion
    I = Information

  • Minutes

    Present: Hui, King, Lakshmanan, Moreau, Owiesny, Pape, Spatafore; Vanessa Smith (notes)

    Approval of March 3 Minutes

    Spatafore asked the group to pay particular attention to the last part of the minutes because the tech plan survey questions are on the current meeting agenda. No changes to minutes were made.


    Sridevi “Shri” Lakshmanan, a new full-time faculty member in DSPS, introduced herself to the group. In the Technology Committee’s established roster of members, she serves in the role of accessibility expert. 

    Tech Planning

    The group looked at Accreditation Standard III.C and discussed how to proceed. Spatafore suggested that members volunteer, and in the absence of those clearly responsible for certain areas, that the committee nominate them to respond to the relevant guiding queries. Moreau explained that for multi-college districts, a functional map is required in the Self Study, delineating the responsibilities of the college and the district, and what responsibilities are shared.

    Moreau said that describing the role of ETAC will be helpful in areas of district and shared responsibilities. Pape reminded the committee to be conscious of including and tracking URLs. Owiesny asked if the web redesign is still on schedule. Spatafore said it’s on track to be completed by next spring, and senior web coordinator Alex Harrell is analyzing and proposing ways to preserve and redirect links for accreditation purposes.

    As for Standard III.C.1 Q6, Spatafore and Moreau suggested Stacey Shears as an expert contact. Lakshmanan will work with Shears to complete the initial queries.  

    Spatafore asked about training specifically at the district level. Moreau said, for example, they do all the training on the phone and email systems. Hui asked if is still available. Moreau said yes. Spatafore said that is something promoted by the Office of Professional Development, adding that it is a great asset for the Communications Office.

    In terms of student feedback, Moreau talked about the e-print it survey done in 2013-14. The district surveyed a random sample of all students who didn't use the service and asked questions about where they do print. In fall 2013, they surveyed every student who registered that quarter about their computing device ownership. Moreau said the district is going to do the survey again in the fall: two questions embedded in the registration system. Spatafore mentioned that the district was conducting a related survey now; Moreau clarified that it is different from the one he was referencing. The current survey assesses the technology experience and expectations of students.

    Speaking further about ETS roles, Moreau talked about how the Child Development Center (CDC) wants to use iPads to document student progress and show it to parents. Moreau said that really requires specification of who can do what and that parental releases are required. There are policies, in addition to board policies, that dictate what we do in a teaching and learning environment.

    Spatafore said there’s always a gray area between tech and communication pieces of photography. Moreau replied that it’s more about where you store it, how you retain it, and what can you use it for. Pape asked if the group can include info about the refresh of computers for faculty and staff. Pape added there is also the CompTechS program where refurbished computers are given to students.

    Spatafore went through each step and outlined its importance. Moreau said all plans inform each other at the college/district level. Moreau will use what each college says to inform his own plans. Pape emphasized that the whole plan supports what we have to say on the accreditation standard.

    Technology Survey

    The group went through the survey questions. Spatafore brought attention to Question 2. Both Pape and Harrell thought those who had been here longer would have different opinions on tech than those who are more recent. Owiesny pointed out a typo in Question 4.  Spatafore suggested removing #3 and tightening up #6. Everyone who takes the survey will get #15-18, but it will branch from the stated faculty role to questions regarding Catalyst.

    Pape said a lot of faculty use publisher sites for course curriculum as opposed to Catalyst. She added that it would be interesting to see who uses what. Spatafore wants to add “capacities” to #14.  Pape asked about resources that are being provided at cost to the students and wants to know how those can be pulled into a current course management system.

    Owiesny asked how printing falls into this. Spatafore asked for clarification about printing for faculty. Owiesny said she doesn't print a lot, but some faculty members do. Spatafore asked if she was talking about materials fees. Owiesny said no, but she is curious how Printing Services is involved in technology.

    Barring last-minute changes, the survey will be sent out as soon as possible.

    Standing Information Items

     Spatafore said Susan sent updates regarding the ETS Project Scheduling Subcommittee, but can bring the group up to speed next time.

    A brief discussion ensued about accessibility, the ratio of accessible to standard computer stations. Hui said the open media lab has 100 computers but only a few accessible ones. Spatafore suggested initial consultation with her dean.

Back to Top