Note Takers caveat:
What follows here is a fairly terse gloss on the group discussions -
I've tried to convey the sense of individual remarks but this is NOT a verbatim report.
Individuals will be referred to by e-mail username for the note takers convenience.
If you want to correct or add to my "translation" please send me e-mail:
llynch@darkwing
Open Discussion on what it takes to enable more faculty:
- Support Issues
- Desktop Resource Issues
- Credit for promotion and tenure
- Faculty Incentive Program
Discussion:
-
-
- geraldt@oregon
- Reporting on faculty computer use in the classroom survey conducted last spring:
50% report no use at all, 20% are frequent users, 80% need support.
- nuts@moo
- States that this is a critical year for the UO is we want to establish leadership in
educational use of technology.
- udovic@oregon
- Reports the the Faculty Rewards Committee report to the provost recommends that early career tenure decisions need to be heavily weighted in favor of research, but that later career advancement should consider use of technology, particularly courseware development.
- nuts@moo
- Argues that WWW allows the integration of on-going research into the curriculum.
- dsmith@oregon
- Asserts that improvements in classroom teaching should be a high priority.
- udovic@oregon
- States a need to re-define scholarship to include "fuzzy" areas where research, teaching,
and courseware development overlap.
- dsmith@oregon
- Asks what was the result of the committees work.
- udovic@oregon
- States that a report was made to the Provost's office, which made some modifications and forwarded the work on to the Faculty Senate.
- provost@oregon
- Reports that although this was not an action item for a Senate vote that Faculty rewards are high on the agenda and notes these two areas as particularly important:
- Development of New Faculty (teaching as well as research)
- Rewards for all Faculty - integrating new areas into current evaluation structures.
- chrisl@aaa
- Asks if the Dean's have been polled
- provost@oregon
- States that the Dean's have broken up into four sub-committee's and that Faculty incentives is an agenda item for one of these committees.
- nuts@moo
- Asserts that there is currently no statement about how use of new technologies will effect
evaluations and states that a positive statement should be made.
- provost@oregon
- States that any evaluation needs to distinguish between teaching aids and innovation or courseware development.
- dsmith@oregon
- Asks what this committee can do.
- provost@oregon
- States that it is not the role of this committee to get involved in promotion and tenure issues, recommends that the committee express their concerns in writing to the Deans and request a progress report on the issues. This committee should focus on implementation of educational technologies.
- dsmith@oregon
- Suggests that this item be tabled, & that a memo be written to the Deans.
- udovic@oregon
- Asserts that the more voices that are heard, the better but reminds the committee that
decisions are made at the department level. Proponents of EdTech must advocate with-in individual departments.
- jqj@darkwing
- States that Deans and Departments may hold differing views (cites UK study) and that Faculty
may need to be educated about the benefits of EdTech.
- kevan@oregon
- States that teaching is not as important as research in most evaluations.
- nuts@moo
- Asserts that in fact, EdTech is a way to get crummy student evaluations from at least
a small percentage of students.
- kevan@oregon
- Raises the issue of the amount of time required to integrate EdTech into one's teaching.
Asks is it a productive use of time?
- provost@oregon
- States that he needs to leave the meeting, but re-iterates that the committee should send a Memo to the Deans.
- dsmith@oregon
- Resurfaces the issues of support and desktop resources. Advocates for the Student Apprenticeship program as one way of providing support (including WWW development).
- udovic@oregon
- Hazards that he may disagree with nuts@moo about the role of the Deans and EdTech
budgets. Asserts that individual departments need to deal with specialized needs and the
allocation to Deans was intended to allow for this.
- mikeh@aaa
- Presents himself as Director of the New Media Center and offers the Center as a resource in developing courseware materials. Hopes to be in service within the month.
- dsmith@oregon
- Asks what kind of services?
- mikeh@aaa
- Mentions WWW support, content development, animations, etc.
- dsmith@oregon
- Asks how New Media Center can deal with department specific content.
- mikeh@aaa
- Asserts that the Faculty member will be the content expert, New media will provide
presentation expertise.
- nuts@moo
- Raises the issue of release time for Faculty to support development efforts.
- nmelone@oregon
- Raises issues of copyright and ownership, expresses the desire to have New media develop clear guidelines.
- mikeh@aaa
- Recognizes the issue, states a desire to conduct workshops for faculty.
- nmelone@oregon
- Outlines areas of concern regarding ownership - faculty member, UO, New media Center, outside partners ???
- mikeh@aaa
- States that this is not an immediate problem, but must be resolved before any product can be delivered.
- nmelone@oregon
- States that the issue may be a barrier to some faculty using NMC.
- dcarver@oregon
- Asks if the committee has a list of current support resources.
- nuts@moo
- States that he does, will provide it later. Transitions discussion to Student Issues.
Open Discussion on Perceived Student Priorities and
What this Committee can do to help
- ON Campus Access Issues
- OFF Campus Access Issues and Modem Policy
- Centralized vs De-centralized Resources
- Student Computing Policy Committee ?
Discussion:
- nuts@moo
- States a need for uniform application access for all on-campus machines
- jqj@darkwing
- Asks why there is a need for uniformity.
- nuts@moo
- Replies that uniformity will provide students with the option to use the full potential of their UNIX accounts.
- udovic@oregon
- Asks how far such uniformity would need to be carried
- nuts@moo
- States that he's not addressing the issue of centralized vs decentralized service, but rather "generic" services.
- cmmari@gladstone
- Asks what generic services are we talking about
- nuts@moo
- X-terminal like access from any machine
- dsmith
- Asks does Bothun have an index of functionality desired?
- nuts@moo
- Yes
- heerema@oregon
- States that spring term survey's indicate that students are happy with on campus access
- geraldt@oregon
- Reminds the group that many students now own computers and many live in the dorms.
- nuts@moo
- States that need for high speed graphical access will increase this year and we need to "ramp up". Departments may need their own labs to provide enough on campus seats.
Transitions to off campus issues.
- dsmith@oregon
- Outlines the history of off campus/modem access. There were no time restrictions on dial-ins to the modem pool (160 modems) last year, by the middle of spring term there were numerous complaints about
constant busy signals, a plan to add more modems (60) and limit connections to two hours per dial-in
was formulated. The two hour time limit was not initiated until the start of summer term. Additional
modems are being added and the pool should include 32- -330 modems.
- nuts@moo
- Notes that there is no general agreement among Computing Center staff about modem policy
- chrisl@aaa
- States that he uses a modem from home and the 2 hour limit has worked for him
- nuts@moo
- Replies that there is a portion of the community that need more time and sites possible
solutions:
- Separate pools for Faculty and Students
PRO: allows load balancing for academic need
CON: Student EdTech monies paid for the bulk of the modems - faculty pool would be of limited size.
- Departmental modem pools:
PRO: Allows Departments to provide access for students with course related needs
CON: Requires support of the hardware by the Departments.
- Split existing modem pool into two groups: Express (short time 15-30 mins) and
long (6 hours +)
PRO: Attempt at load balancing by need
CON: Some users will "camp" on the long term modems, effectively reducing the pool.
- chrisl@aaa
- Asks for examples of legitimate need for long connections.
- nuts@moo
- Offers the example of one of his spring term students attempting a solar model as part of an assignment which took 6 hours to complete
- jqj@darkwing
- Describes a faculty member with no network connection in her office
- hugi@oregon
- States that the faculty member in question has been provided with on campus networking
- cmmari@gladstone
- Describes his situation as a CIS student attempting to compile C code
- joe@oregon
- Outlines the history of the two hour time limit, states that examination of modem logs
shows that 95% of users are well served by the 2 hour limit. Offers that the Computing Center is aware that there are users with a real need for more time and sites alter-abled students requiring reader assistance as another legitimate example.
- chrisl@aaa
- Thanks the group for their examples and asks if it is possible to assign connection time based on user class.
- dsmith@oregon
- States that there is not a mechanism in the current authorization system to allow special classes of users - would take a major programming and bookkeeping effort. He points out that he also don't have the ability to write services for the terminal servers.
- chrisl@aaa
- Asks if it is possible to limit connections during peak use periods, and not at other times.
- dsmith@oregon
- Replies that it is possible to do this manually, but there is not a secure way to automate the process. This would be labor intensive.
- joe@oregon
- States that there are currently two effective queues for modem use
- dsmith@oregon
- States that there are actually more then that because of phone numbers.
- joe@oregon
- Asserts that there should be one dial-in number
- dsmith@oregon
- Replies that any split of the modem pool should follow current phone numbers (technical
problems related to "rolling over" modem use).
- hugi@oregon
- States that she needs to leave for another meeting, asks the group to forward her a recommendation.
- nuts@moo
- States that since third party access vendors are increasing, the UO should not invest heavily in more modems.
- chrisl@aaa
- Suggests that student access needs will grow as the use of the WWW grows - takes longer to download etc.
- joe@oregon
- Suggests that the two hour limit has not been tested (since summer term demand is low) and that
the limit should stand for fall term.
- dsmith@oregon
- Sites a study done at UNC which shows 90% of their students capable of dialing in this year - suggests that UO may face similar problems
- jqj@darkwing
- asks about the size of modem pools at comparable institutions.
- joe@oregon
- Offers several examples of large institutions with modem pools in the range of 100 - 1500 modems.
- dsmith@oregon
- Suggests that we try a split pool with a 30-60 minute limit for "express" connections.
- nuts@moo
- Supports the idea of two-tiered pool.
- jqj@darkwing
- Would prefer a uniform pool, but since we already have access limits he doesn't feel
that re-organizing those limits makes much difference.
- cmmari@gladstone
- Wants an open standard during late hours - asks if it is possible.
- dsmith@oregon
- States that network services will take direction from the committee and that if
the committee recommends staggered access times then a solution will be found.
- nuts@moo
- Wants to re-iterate several points before the meeting ends: student $ paid for modems - if faculty want improved off campus access they should invest in access technologies. Suggests Frame Relay and ISDN
as possibilities.
- dsmith@oregon
- Gives a short description of Frame Relay & ISDN - says a connection might cost upwards of $80. a month and would require a substantial investment in hardware.
- nuts@moo
- States that the UO should invest in the hardware.
- geraldt@oregon
- Asks if some departments might not have the resources and support to field a modem pool.
- dsmith@oregon
- States the modems are very difficult to support, and that each department would need to build capacity for peak loads, which is not a cost-effective use of resources. Notes that a few departments have small modem pools (2-4) and that this may be a solution for individual high demand users.
- joe@oregon
- Urges the group to find a way to deal with problem users - either establish a clear cut off point or policies to deal with Muds/Moos/IRC and dial back servers (linux, ftp, etc.) run over the modem pool.
- nuts@moo
- States that he wants to create a student committee to deal with these issues. Suggests that EdTech give a modem policy recommendation to Joanne Hugi and, if agreed, then the details to be worked out by network services.
-
Future Meeting Schedule
nuts@moo suggested a regular meeting time of the 1st Tuesday of each month at 10:00 AM, there was
not general agreement on this time, so nuts@moo will circulate a survey form and then try to find a time that will fit for everyone's schedule.
JQ Johnson asked that members be reminded that they can subscribe to the EdTech mailing list by sending e-mail to:
majordomo@ns.uoregon.edu
with no subject line - include the following in the body of your message:
subscribe edtech