Tag Archives: notes

ACTT Notes: Canvas Evaluation

ACTT Extended Team Meeting August 29, 2017

Agenda

Instructure, the company that hosts Canvas, will be presenting an Executive Business Review, sharing data pertaining to Middlebury’s use of Canvas in the first year. This presentation will provide us with insights into how Canvas is being used and supported, and lay the groundwork for future evaluations.

 

Notes

Kelly Jerome, our Customer Success Manager from Instructure presented.

  • Stats are per-month, due to rolling on and off of terms, the data isn’t always reflective of a particular term.
  • Can get details on sub-accounts.
  • Includes support details, SLA compliance, support mechanism (phone, chat, email), and user-type.
  • For real-time reporting, the Canvas data-API would need to be used. For much custom reporting this would require our own developer time to leverage. Instructure has several pre-built reports that could be purchased that wouldn’t require local resources.

EBR

A copy of the report can be seen here. Please log in with your Middlebury username and password to view.

Open – Academic Cyberinfrastructure Transformation Team 2017-08-18 15:34:11

The ACTT has been evaluating MIddlebury’s services for video streaming. This summer, Middlebury has adopted Panopto, a service to manage and distribute video in a private space, as part of the solution. Panopto provides Middlebury faculty, students, and staff with a space to upload and sort their media, and share with their colleagues and classes. Panopto not only provides flexibility for who can see a video, it also includes a variety of sharing options. Some of these options include the ability to sync with presentations and other media, and providing a space to discuss video.

[piktochart src="https://magic.piktochart.com/embed/23805573-panopto-migration" width="550" height="1007"]

 

Also a Recording Service

In addition to the media management features, Panopto also provides services for capturing media directly from your computer or mobile device, with a direct upload to your Panopto space. Panopto has features that allow you to record and sync presentations (PowerPoint, KeyNote), screen captures, video and audio. Some possible use cases include: students assigned to record themselves as they practice presentations with slides, then and sharing these recordings to a class-only folder for peer feedback; creating brief instructional or tutorial videos based on tasks using specialized software recorded directly from your screen to be shared with students and colleagues.

We have created a welcome page with links to curated Panopto resources, such as a quick start guide, at http://go.middlebury.edu/panoptohelp. Panopto also provides extensive documentation, with written instructions and video demonstrations.

 

On the Horizon

We have already implemented integrations between Panopto and the Course Hub, Canvas, WordPress and Drupal that allow for the embedding of single videos and playlists. Panopto has recently developed deeper integrations with Canvas that will allow students to submit Panopto media as an Assignment Submission, and allow you to provide feedback to students using the SpeedGrader. Look for announcements in Canvas as these features become available.

 

Long Term

We will be moving away from a number of media hosting solutions, including MiddMedia and Muskrat, over the next few years. We will share more information as planning for the migration projects proceeds.

ACTT Notes: Canvas LTIs

LTI Review

 

Zoom LTI

  • Was convenient with Adobe Connect
  • Is there a cost?
  • Will there be challenges for SSO? Canvas uses CAS, Zoom uses ADFS.
  • Will bring it up with the Web Conferencing Team

 

GoogleApps and O365 Canvas LTI Evaluations

  • Both LTIs offer enhanced functionality and integration in Canvas
    • Slides and spreadsheets can be used in Collaborations, as well as docs.
    • Files from both services can be submitted for assignments, and evaluated using the SpeedGrader.
    • Access to both services is included in the Rich Text editor (similar to Panopto) in the “external tool” menu
  • Adam and Joe attended a brainstorming meeting for the Course Hub and O365
    • Discussing what a course space in O365 looks like
    • Discussing how to manage the course group
  • LTIs need to be added at the account level, cannot be added to a sub-account or course
  • Will test in https://middlebury.test.instructure.com this week
  • Assuming testing goes well we will pilot in the production instance in the fall, then evaluate.

 

Other Topics

  • Instructure will present a review of Middlebury’s use of Canvas in the first year. This will happen at the ACTT meeting on Aug. 22nd.
  • Joe is working on a launch roadmap for Panopto. Dates have been shared, please send feedback.
  • ACTT Core Group notes will be published to the site.

ACTT Notes: One-year Evaluation

Presentation Slides

 

The proposal for the ACTT called for an evaluation at the one-year and two-year marks. The one-year evaluation was designed to assess the Team’s activities so that changes could be made. The evaluation was also designed to have as few survey questions as possible, some of the evaluations questions are designed to be answered with collected data. A brief survey was shared with Core members, Extended Team members, and members of the Project Teams.

 

Slide 3: Academic Cyberinfrastructure Inventory

We now have a searchable database of the web-based services that support academic work, with infrastructure dependencies. Now that budget decisions are being made, services are moving from pilot to production and enterprise phases, the information in the database needs to be updated.

 

Slide 4: Canvas

When Moodle was launched we saw a decrease in use from Fall to Spring. This year we saw an increase in Canvas use.

 

Slide 5: Canvas

Some faculty used Canvas in the Fall but did not use it in the Spring, and vice versa. Also, faculty did not use Canvas for all of their courses. This may mean that faculty are thinking critically about whether Canvas supports their teaching on a course by course basis. The CTLR-sponsored a number of Canvas-based workshops.

 

Slide 6: Panopto

Panopto is not just a streaming media service, it also offers expanded functionality for screen capturing, broadcasting, and media discussion. A CTLR-sponsored workshop used Panopto for flipping the classroom activities.

 

Slide 7: Zoom

The videoconferencing evaluation used an interesting method. 4 services were used in one hour in a round-robin style. The Team was able to quickly determine the top choices. The pilot of Zoom was so successful, and the platform so popular, that we needed to expand to a campus-wide license before the end.

 

Slide 8: RStudio

A handful of classes used RStudio Server this year. DLA-sponsored workshops on DATA were delivered, and a Data Study group was created.

The company has let us know that they will be launching a cloud-based version of RSTudio Server.

 

Slide 9: Who Took the Survey

We had a 75% return rate for the survey. All of the Core Team and most of the Extended Team took the survey. Some may have mis-identified themselves.

 

Slide 10: Other Roles

Many members of the ACTT serve on multiple teams. There are four members that serve on the Core, Extended, and Project Teams.

 

Slide 11: Usefulness of Information

Most members find the published information useful for their jobs.

 

Slide 12: Usefulness of Meetings

The majority of members in all roles believe that the information shared at meetings is useful for their jobs. 25% are Not Sure, which seems high. Some more investigation is needed.

Note from Discussion: Some may be feeling unsure about the usefulness because of their own participation in some of the discussions. We should look for ways to craft the discussions so that everyone feels they are able to participate.

Some feel that the multiple points of view are very valuable, otherwise they would be receiving one point of view, or a filtered point of view, from individuals. The Team has done well at being inclusive in its information gathering and sharing.

 

Slide 13: Meetings

This question is flawed, since members were not asked if they had a role on the CTT. It is expected that Core members that served on the CTT would see no change, new Core members would see an increase. Extended Team members that served on the CTT would see a decrease, new members would see an increase. Some follow up questions will need to be asked.

The projected number of Extended Team meetings was one per month. The average is very close, however it is noted that most of these meetings occurred in the fall as recommendations were crafted for budget proposals.

Note from Discussion: Some noted that the weekly meeting creates efficiencies, they are meeting collectively with people that they would meet with individually anyways.

 

Slides 14-17: Additional Notes

Some comments were broken up, with an attempt to group ideas based on content.

Notes from Discussion: There are outstanding questions about the relationship of the ACTT and ITS Governance/Priority Setting. We also identified future projects: WordPress sites and MiddCreate; Moodle Archiving; Panopto Rollout; Canvas LTIs.

 

Slide 18: Next Steps?

  • Joe will post the notes from this meeting.
  • The ACTT Core will discuss.
  • We will have follow-up conversations with members and others.

ACTT Notes: April 4, 2017

Language School Orientations

It is that time of year again! In this meeting we will be going over the orientation sessions for Language Schools and Bread Loaf.

Language pledge.

  • Each school interprets the pledge slightly differently. Hospital, Helpdesk, and Reference Desk usually “English Safe Zones”. (Chinese School more strict)

Campus changes over. Some undergrad dorms become administrative & faculty offices. People who miss arrival center on Friday are often challenged by not having assistance other than Public Safety over the weekend.

Bilinguals: Traditionally, these support staff have assisted with technology help by translating tech questions to students.

  • Also usually in charge of each school’s web presence during the summer.
  • Also sort of RAs.

Send requests related to the orientation spreadsheet to Joe A.

DMTs: Unclear how much DMT support will be available.

2 separate start dates. “Hard” languages get extra weeks.

 

General Tech Training

Every Curricular Tech & Library training will ideally be preceded by a General Tech Training as it can be hard to focus on other info if you can’t log in.

Often run by Pij & Zach (and their colleagues).

Banner, wireless, printing, email, authentication

  • Suggestion: Have someone who can reset accounts in room.
  • Alternate suggestion: Get people to set up their accounts before they come to campus.

 

Library Orientation

Challenge running orientation for different student levels (undergrad – masters – doctoral).

Library resources, ILL, purchasing.

 

Curricular Technology Orientation

1st half:

  • Course Hub intro (dashboard, resources, roster)
  • Canvas
  • WordPress
  • **Moodle will NOT be available for ANY language school courses**

2nd half:

Help instructors set up their class resources.

Challenge: different ways each school schedule their classes/sections.

Academic Tech staff available for consultations for those who need more in-depth help.

Notes: March 28th, 2017

Guest: Mike Roy, Dean of Library

Agenda:

  1. Overview of the IT governance process
 (Mike)
  2. The role of the academic portfolio group
 (Mike)
  3. Discussion: Questions we need to answer:
    1. 

what projects would we consider? which are too small? which are too big?
    2. 
how do we ensure that the projects are vetted both in terms of their technical feasibility and their degree of ‘strategicness’?
    3. what should be the relationship between this new group and the ACTT?
    4. what should be the membership of the group to cover the entire institution, and ensure proper vetting (see item b)

1. Overview of the broad governance process

Mike Roy and Jonathan Maddix are overseeing the Academic/Digital Tech & Learning “Portfolio team” which is one of a number of departmental and project groups designed to inform the ITS Advisory and STeering Committee groups within the new governance structure.

External consultant organization, *CIO Sensei helped to prepare new governance framework based on external review process in 2016. Mike referenced a deck of slides outlining the governance structure.

*Some discussion of CIO Sensei findings (not everyone had shared background knowledge)

  • External review of ITS looked into project load, efficiencies, decision-making
  • Create a structure that helps to align stakeholders in needs assessment and infrastructure that can scale across the institution

Proposed ITS Operating Model & Processes are informed by mission aligned strategy:

  • Governance
  • Organization
  • Processes and practices
  • Performance management

…to realize academic mission and create value across the institution

ITS is currently undertaking workforce planning which may influence future staffing and organization.

 

ITS Governance Objectives

  • Customer driven
  • Understand risk
  • Representation across the institution
  • Clarify capacity and resource allocation – “no” as an option
  • Improved communication and transparency
  • Ongoing participatory process
  • Proactive monitoring of demand and challenges
  • Connection between IT and institutional mission and deeper planning process

 

Governance Flow / Levels – bi-directional flow of information and activity

  • ITS Steering Committee
    • High level, priority setting, funding, staffing, risk, evaluation and validation of strategy implementation
  • ITS Advisory Team
    • Cross-institutional, review of portfolio teams, programs, institutional demand, risk balancing
  • Portfolio Teams* Mike and Jon charged with support of one of these teams
    • Determine departmental needs and priorities, anticipate requirements, identify opportunities and risks, approve new projects, review programs, etc…

The role of the academic portfolio group
 vis a vis ACTT

“All Things Digital” Portfolio Team

Questions

a) what projects would we consider? which are too small? which are too big?

  • Example projects discussed as cases for review; e.g. Canvas, Zoom, Panopto, current review of WordPress MU instances (Middlebury, MIIS)

b) how do we ensure that the projects are vetted both in terms of their technical feasibility and their degree of ‘strategicness’?

  • Suggestion that ACTT could serve as the recommender for the portfolio team
  1. c) what should be the relationship between this new group and the ACTT?
  • Is this portfolio team a distinct group or is it a slight expansion of the current ACTT model; need to articulate the key roles of the two groups and determine whether the roles are distinctive or overlap within the new governance structure [unresolved]
  • Strategic goals and cross-institutional planning may help to make the relationships between portfolio team and upper levels of governance [Mike suggested he would bring this back to Advisory Team for clarification]

 

Additional Discussion

Potential scenarios for portfolio and ACTT:

  • Continue as two separate teams (ACTT and a Portfolio team)
  • Integrate of ACTT and portfolio team into dual purpose group
  • Disband ACTT, take best of and bring to portfolio team

ACTT currently serves a particular purpose in reviewing cyberinfrastructure systems and platforms. It seems a Portfolio team would have a more governance focused role; the way it works now, is stakeholders present a need, and ACTT tests it out and helps to draft a recommendation…

Middlebury Space / Facilities Committee might offer a model for Portfolio team – this committee convenes people together at certain times during the academic year to share needs, projects so that there is awareness of what people are looking to accomplish; the committee then initiates process of prioritizing needs to draft recommendations and potential impact on budget

In this model, the separate Portfolio Team would engage programs to understand directions and needs; refer cyberinfrastructure projects to ACTT for research, review, recommend – help upper levels prioritize based on strategy

 

Concerns

Current ACTT Core members are on numerous teams and committees – it would be difficult to be called to participate on an additional committee

  1. d) what should be the membership of the group to cover the entire institution, and ensure proper vetting (see item b) [unresolved]

Additional questions

  • How does portfolio team’s project review work connect with the budget planning process? [unresolved]
  • Frequency of meeting (suggested bi-weekly)? [unresolved]

 

Action Items

 

  • Clarification and decision on unresolved questions, especially whether the discussed Portfolio team is a distinct group or whether there is clear overlap of ACTT and Portfolio group purpose [Mike and Jon – Portfolio Team Conveners]

Notes: March 14, 2017

1. WordPress review

Recap recent history of review prep. MIIS has its own instance of WordPress separate from Midd. College. WordPress has grown quite a bit — 1000s of websites in our instance. WordPress has been difficult to keep up-to-date at times in the past; is WordPress sustainable going forward, or should we be looking at other ways to keep it functional? We’ve had the idea that MiddCreate should be part of the solution. MIIS has not been invited into subsequent meetings, but Bob has seen the charter. One thing they’ll be discussing will be creating one instance including MIIS, will MiddCreate be part of that environment? Last time we were talking about WordPress, a lot of time has been spent on supporting WordPress. Is there a way to re-think WordPress/MiddCreate as a blogging/website creation environment?

Some schools have taken the use of WordPress and separated it by use: individual and academic instances. Some have departmental WordPress sites to support projects, and there are some boutique sites with custom programming/theme. These have separate needs, can we separate them out?

It becomes a different conversation if we’re all going to be brought under the same instance. You could bundle functions/use cases in MiddCreate as well. Communications may want to rein in some of these admin uses.

If we’re paying attention to what other schools are doing, why are we not paying attention to how other schools are using domain of one’s own? Not just for personal use, it’s more nimble than that.

In past conversations, we didn’t have domain of one’s own, so it may become part of the conversation going forward.

ITS has not touched MiddCreate; they helped with authentication, security review and contract negotiations, but they haven’t been involved since then, don’t know how they’re supporting it, if they are at all.

2. Canvas Assessment

This was brought up by FLAC (Faculty Library Advisory Committee), they want to know what’s being done with assessing Canvas, looking at differences with Moodle, etc. Looking at any difference to help desk, tickets to Instructure, etc. Two most common questions have to do with assignments (unpublished); and enrollment, which has more to do with Add/Drop process than with Canvas itself. Other than that, not sure what else to assess Canvas on at this point. For undergrad Canvas is supplemental only, so uses of Canvas are varied; without standards, we don’t have anything to assess Canvas on other than tickets and increase in adoption. Canvas is being adopted at a faster rate than Moodle across Fall and Spring terms. It might also be a little early to ask the question. Feedback has been positive, acknowledging that some adjustments have been necessary. Instructure has also been undergoing some changes as they grow as a company.

3. Hypothes.is

Jeremy is going to be on campus in a couple of weeks for a possible workshop.

4. Future meeting agenda items

Joe will put a call out on Slack for future meeting agenda items.

Notes: Moodle Archving

Guest – Billy Sneed

  • We’re transitioning away from Moodle, but we’re still somewhat reliant on it, even though we’ve migrated to Canvas.
    • We can’t totally turn Moodle off. Need to think thoughtfully about what we still need access to in Moodle and for how long?
    • How do we keep from disrupting policy and practices?
  • Project request was submitted (Billy S. here to speak more to that)
  • What do we still rely on Moodle for?
    • Faculty need to offer course content evidence up to 7 years back, specifically class activity online. They are being evaluated on how they interact with students online and what students get out of the course.
    • No one in the public needs to see any Moodle content, students shouldn’t need access either.
    • Content backups (MIIS). Not student data, just faculty content.
    • We’re still in transition, migration of course sites is not complete. Faculty need to have access to all their Moodle content so they can migrate it over in the future if they need it
    • Tenure review process
    • User access management: tenure review committee and faculty would need access
    • MIIS doesn’t have tenure review, we have contract review.
    • Relatively small group of faculty get reviewed for tenure at Midd.
    • Could we use some sort of non-public archival tool?
  • There are challenges in moving content from Moodle to Canvas.
    • Process strips out user data.
    • We may not be able to do this with future versions of Moodle, either. So even if we maintain a Moodle instance, that may not solve the problem.
  • Why did we decide to have Moodle be a hosted service?
    • We have the resources for this, $ or otherwise
    • What’s the cost benefit analysis of a hosted instance or an internally maintained instance?
    • It was a political decision – maintaining an instance of Moodle for archival purposes would also be a political decision
  • We can’t just export it and keep the data because we need to be able to see how the interaction with students played out
  • Another solution: desktop virtualization system
    • Adjust authentication settings
    • One administrator account
    • If anyone needs to review anything, they can pull up the Moodle instance ONLY via that local computer
    • If there is only one machine and it’s physically located on the College campus, this wouldn’t serve Monterey
  • We need to comply with the policy and keep Moodle pages with student data available for 2 years, the need changes for years 3-7
    • December 2018 is when we’ve told the community Moodle archives will no longer be accessible
    • Beyond that point, Moodle instance does not need to be accessible to more than 2 or 3 people (Joe, Bob, Amy S). Then we can just add people when they need access for review process.
  • We like the idea of a phased approach. One plan for years 1-2 and then emergency/auxiliary access beyond that
    • Not sure, but it will be difficult at best to maintain a piece of software like this on a virtual machine for this extended amount of time
    • Could AWS host this and handle the patches? Is there a way to fire things up in a hosted environment as needed?
  • Moodle is a PHP application
    • That’s a lot of data…
    • This is why promoting services like Panopto/Google Apps is going to be super important going forward
    • Not an obvious win, but could be doable
    • Reticent to commit to 7 years, chances are it’s going to break. The more time, the greater the fragility
    • Can it be kept up to date for 2 years? 7 years? It’s going to break, then what happens?
    • From the web applications side of things, it would be yet another application to maintain, but after initial setup, it won’t need much network. While it’s live, we’ll need to monitor for Moodle security issues that come up and apply patches in a timely manner. Not hard, more of the same, low usage. Probably easier to maintain than most of our other services. Would be a couple days work to get a new VM set up. Then monitoring the mailing list and setting up security patches.
    • How much data are we talking about, storage wise? 590GB
    • Annual maintenance as of 2015 for 1 TB was $1800 – just for storage (licensing, support, maintenance) doesn’t include staff time or other support pieces
  • Immediate needs…
    • We need to make sure we are covered for when the “no” gets vetoed.
    • How can we treat this as an education opportunity? Can we direct faculty make screencaptures of their courses? No administrator actually wants to go digging around in a Moodle page
    • Anyone can install their own Moodle instance on Middcreate
    • Faculty need to be more accountable for their data, but they have an expectation that everything will be available.
    • There needs to be some shift of ownership to faculty who will need this information, but it’s going to be a slow shift. Policy says the data will be accessible for two years, not beyond that.
  • Technology changes – we have no guarantee of what’s going to happen/Canvas’ longevity
  • How do we change the culture? Use these two years (until Dec 2018) to work with faculty to move their Moodle data where they need it to go
    • About 35-50 faculty at Midd
    • To change the culture, we have to constantly keep to policy
    • Ties into the growing need for education around how people interact with and take ownership of their data (digital literacies)
    • A lot of the time, we don’t take threats seriously until we have to
    • Set clear expectations and timeline
    • Communicate with list of relevant faculty
    • We would need to look at faculty over the past 5 years who are going through the tenure process
  • Would still advocate for paying remote learner to host the service through Dec 2018
  • Service availability is what makes things complicated – just downloading and storing static data would not be a problem.
    • Maybe that’s what we do after 2 years? We’ll export and keep the data, but faculty won’t be able to interact with it via a live service
    • In those 2 years, there needs to be good and repetitive communication with faculty about what they might to do to maintain access to the course interaction beyond those 2 years (Moodle hosted on Middcreate, screencapture of course pages, etc)
  • Time frame for moving content out of remote learner to wherever it will go?
    • Our RL contract is up in August – we’d need to have the new location up and ready to go in August – that’s our deadline
    • How long does web team need to make this happen?
      • Theoretically, it would take 1 person 1 week to get things up and running. But, web team is going to be short-staffed and has a substantive project pipeline. Other projects and staffing could make things take much longer.
    • Push for us to reach a decision by April 1 – this is not a joke (Joe)
    • Joe commits to getting the numbers to the group by the end of this week or next week. Joe will work with Billy on the numbers.