University of Washington Bothell
Technology Advisory Committee
May 22, 2012
Attending: Andreas Brockhaus, Ron Ellison, Rob Estes, David Goldstein, Ted Hiebert, Laura Mansfield, Molly Ormsby, Tim Rhoades, Joe Shelley, Betsy Tippens, Jane Van Galen
Wrapping up the Year
Betsy Tippens thanked committee members for their participation. This has been a year of evolving priorities. At the beginning of the year, the committee planned to address goals related to quickly growing the campus to 6,000 student FTEs. As the institution’s focus grew away from that quick growth to the more immediate needs related to increasing our physical space, the committee focused more on short term projects and less on growth planning than we had originally intended.
The role of the Technology Advisory Committee continues to evolve as well. Betsy described the work she has been doing with the Instruction and Research Support Committee related to the relationship between IRSC and TAC. The IRSC has become much more active during the past year. Their mission concerns policy related to instruction and research, including how technology supports that work. It is important that we clarify the relationship between these two committees and distinguish between their charges. The relationship needs to be as transparent and collaborative as possible. Moving forward, there will continue to be an IRSC representative on TAC. In addition, Betsy will attend IRSC as a permanently invited guest in order to increase the flow of information between the two groups. As the IRSC continues to clarify the part of their charge related to technology, the charge of TAC will become more focused as well.
David Goldstein further explained that in addition to the role IRSC plays with technology, they also act in an advisory capacity to the Teaching and Learning Center and the Office of Research Support. Carolyn Brennan and David Goldstein are both permanently invited guests as well.
Ted Hiebert asked about students and student services in these conversations about roles and responsibilities. Student groups, e.g., those who are putting together student publications, sometimes find that they fall between areas of support responsibility. They are partially supported in Student Life, in Academic Programs, by academic support services, and so on. But the collaboration among all of those groups isn’t always in place in a way that adequately supports student need. Other examples of the gap/overlap in support include the digital media lab and the administration of course fees. We are developing a list of issues that concern these gaps in cross campus administration and will address them next year.
Horizon Report feedback
The committee continued conversation about the work IT is doing to collect faculty feedback to create a technology roadmap, and Joe thanked the committee for their feedback. Regarding particular technologies described in the horizon report survey, the committee discussed the difficulties encountered when using Google Sites for e-portfolios. It can be hard to organize, and the relationship between the UW Google apps and the “regular” Google apps is difficult and confusing for students to navigate. Google Sites also provides very limited ways for students to present their work. Jane Van Galen described how she is using Wordpress for e-portfolios, and suggested that it could be a good alternative to Google Sites.
The committee suggested that we do an assessment of e-portfolio needs and options. It was noted that an assessment of tools for learning analytics could be connected to that work. UW Bothell is a charter member of AAEEBL (the Association for Authentic, Experiential and Evidence-Based Learning), which will be a good resource for this assessment of portfolio issues.
Next year the committee will help with a process of creating a master technology strategic plan for the university that will address some of these issues.
Recommendations for next year
The committee was asked about committee makeup, and whether membership should be adjusted for next year. The committee agreed that the group could benefit from a larger number of faculty members, but that otherwise the membership is good.
As mentioned above, TAC will devote some of next year to the creation of a strategic plan. Committee members were asked to reflect on the following questions, and to send email to firstname.lastname@example.org with comments and suggestions.
1. Help us describe a successful campus-wide process. Envision going through a great process as a member of TAC next year. What does it feel like? What mode(s) of participation are valuable? What is the time commitment like? Are there any specific features of a great process you have to share?
2. Now, the opposite. What does a poorly constructed process look like and feel like? Please feel free to draw on the same prompts as above if you like.
3. Help us determine principles to guide our process. By principles, we are trying to get at those constraints, or criteria that put the process in context. For example, one principle we hold dear is that our process must be as collaborative as possible. Are there others?