- Assignment: bold indicates a delegated task
- Recommendations: italics
- Sandra Dixon, Lance Grigg, Ken Heidebrecht, Lorraine Beaudin, Scott Powell, Marlo Steed
- Regrets: Craig Loewen, Josh Markle, Jeff Meadows (Teaching Centre)
Technology Support Report (Scott):
- resisting upgrade to latest OS (Big Sur) - issues with disk images
- people can use OS to markup screengrabs - Scott or Kevin will create a tutorial for Faculty
- no new hardware upgrades but a few iMacs were purchased, currently the student cart laptops for Faculty
- no new desktops
- older laptops for loaning from the library - is getting used
- Marlo noted that the hardware evergreening will not last - concerns about what happens when our current inventory of newer equipment expires
- Zoom Webinar - IT provides access now but it is a hassle but at around $1400/year, it seems pricey - current Zoom room limit 300 participants but only had 2 Webinars this last year
Teaching Centre (Jeff):
Instructional Support (Ken):
- January seemed to go well for instructors
- workshops were moderately well attended
- not a lot of issues with instructors
- a few new people need help - having workshops and focusing on those folks
Items for Information
Online Authoring for Asynchronous Instruction
Marlo shared the email conversation between Marlo and David with the committee as a backdrop to this discussion. The fundamental issue is: Can the Faculty afford to purchase a licence for a commercial Authoring system that would make it easier for instructors to create interactive content? This initiative could reduce the number of instructors and at the same time increase enrollment limits - for some courses.
The discussion revolved around the differences between open-source and proprietary software - the pros and cons. Integrate is a commercial proprietary app that is user-friendly and has some unique features compared to open-source apps like Moodle. The educational value of increasing enrollments was discussed. The general consensus of the group looked on increasing enrolments with scepticism and fear of the slippery slope associated with going down that road. For instance, the ongoing training of GAs is brought out as a downside. However, at the same time, it was recognized that there may be courses or components of courses that might benefit from this approach. This issue needs more consideration and discussion at the Faculty level. Perhaps a conversation at a COW.
Items for Action
Response to David Slomp
- Marlo was tasked with emailing David Slomp and explaining that the committee will entertain a proposal for a year to explore the "Integrate" app or a comparable app. However, there is a caveat that there will not be ongoing support from the Educational Technology fund and there will be no guarantee of funding from base-budget monies. Ongoing support might have to come from Professional Supplement monies.
Here is the email that was shared with David:
The Educational Technology discussed your idea of using the Integrate Course Authoring system for course development. The discussion revolved around the differences between open-source and proprietary software - the pros and cons. Integrate is a commercial proprietary app that is user-friendly and has some unique features compared to open-source apps like Moodle. The committee debated the educational value of increasing enrolments. The group's consensus viewed increasing enrolments with skepticism and fear of the slippery slope associated with going down that road. Another concern is the need for ongoing training of GAs as teaching assistants. However, at the same time, it was recognized that there might be courses or components of courses that lend themselves to this approach. This issue needs more consideration and discussion at the Faculty level.
The committee suggested that they are willing to entertain a proposal from you on using “Integrate” or a comparable course authoring system for a year-long pilot. In your proposal, please address how the tool adds features beyond existing tools (e.g. Moodle) and address a plan for financial support beyond the pilot. The committee will adjudicate the proposal, and if there is a positive outcome, support from the fund will only be for one year. After that, you will need base-funding support (by convincing the administration of the idea’s efficacy), or you will need to pay for that from your Professional Supplement Fund or access some other source of funding.