General Meeting Information
Date: November 5,
Time: 1:30-3 p.m.
Time Topic Purpose Discussion Leader 1:30-1:35 p.m. Welcome and introductions I/D All 1:35-1:40 p.m. Approval of minutes I/D/A All 1:40-2:20 p.m. Review of draft survey questions I/D All 2:20-2:45 p.m. Standing updates
- Banner Student
- ETS Project Scheduling
- Online Education Advisory Group
A = Action
D = Discussion
I = Information
Anderson, Brennan, Galoyan, Garrido, Harrell, Lakshmanan, Luciw, Moreau, Owiesny, Pape (co-chair), Seale (notes), Spatafore (co-chair), Srinivas
Welcome and introductions
Committee members introduced themselves. Srinivas confirmed he will be the DASB representative for the Tech Committee.
Approval of minutes
Minutes were approved.
Review of survey
Spatafore recapped on status of the tech survey, noting that since March Harrell has reviewed, updated and refined the survey with help from Brandon Bailey. Harrell reviewed the draft survey with committee members. Committee members had the following notes:
- General tech section (questions 1-8): no notes
- Canvas, online learning section (questions 9-15):
- Anderson suggested that for question 13, it might be more helpful to ask what aspects are as effective as classroom instruction. Multiple committee members agreed that it would be helpful to edit the question with Anderson’s suggestion.
- Pape suggested asking a question to students about webcams. Spatafore’s suggested wording was, “Are you generally comfortable being on camera during your classes?”
- Communications, connecting with others section (questions 16-22):
- Srinivas suggested asking how many clubs students are involved in for question 22, instead of asking about club and extracurricular involvement as a yes or no question.
- Open educational resources (questions 23-25):
- Spatafore suggested sharing the questions with Mark Healy.
- Anderson suggested fine tuning question 23 so it’s clear that “materials” doesn’t refer to Canvas but books, worksheets, interactive textbooks, etc.
- Brennan suggested asking a student version of questions 24 and 25. Spatafore suggested asking whether the cost of materials influences how a student picks a course. Kishore proposed asking this question on a scale; for instance, “On a scale of one to five, how much more likely are you to take a course if it uses free or low-cost textbooks?”
- De Anza app (questions 26-29):
- Spatafore and Moreau agreed on removing questions 28 and 29.
- Garrido proposed clarifying that question 26 is referring to the De Anza app, not the Canvas app. Spatafore suggested referring to it as the “De Anza College app” and adding “not the Canvas app” in parentheses.
- Tech training (questions 30-36):
- For question 33, Garrido suggested clarifying the question to reduce the chance of pandemic work circumstances influencing the responses. Spatafore suggested adding the clause, “in a non-pandemic environment,” to the beginning of the question.
- Spatafore proposed changing the word “problem” in question 36 or refining the whole question. Harrell suggested adjusting the question to say, “What did you receive help with?”
- Accessibility (questions 37-40):
- Lakshmanan noted that “accessibility guidelines” should replace the phrase “accessibility requirements” in these sections.
- Lakshmanan agreed with Spatafore that a student accessibility question would be helpful in this section. Spatafore’s suggested question was: “If you need access to alternate media for accessibility purposes, are you able to access these materials?”
- General tech questions (questions 41-44):
- Spatafore noted a copy edit is needed on question 42 (“being discussed or implemented in your department”).
- Spatafore and Moreau agreed a question on technology priorities would be useful — “What do you think a top priority for technology should be?”
In the OER section, committee members discussed information about open educational resources; whether OER influence a student’s decision to take a cost; and how to promote the availability of free and low-cost books more widely to students and encourage their use with faculty.
Moreau asked whether it was okay to share the survey questions with ETAC to review and adapt for their needs. Spatafore and committee members agreed; Spatafore noted that ETAC is welcome to review the survey once Harrell has refined it based on the tech committee’s feedback.
To allow for the committee to review survey results in a timely manner, Spatafore suggested rescheduling the December meeting and reconvening on January 14, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. for a special meeting. All present committee members agreed to this change.
This item was deferred.