Dec. 12, 2013
- Curricular Technology Use
- Videoconferencing – Upcoming Improvements
- Redesigned Citation Guide for students
- New All-LIS help page
- New Tech Helpdesk Self-Service Ticketing System
1. Curricular Technology (Joe)
2. Videoconferencing (Petar)
1. Discussion of digital humanities and partnerships between CTLR, LIS, and faculty. lead by Joe Antonioli.
Joe and other members of the task-force are gathering information on how can LIS & CTLR can best meet the needs of faculty
What steps can LIS take to improve curricular technology services for faculty?
Joe’s presentation slides illustrate the- most common uses of curricular technology by faculty.
According to the statistics LIS has gathered, the most common use of technology is to store and distribute files
The two uses of curricular technology in the German department are a website associated with the 2nd year textbook which is licensed and can be viewed by students who have purchased the textbook and Markin – a marking software recommended by director of the German Schools Abroad.
The German department views their placement exam as a recruiting tool, and prefer continuation of the paper version.
The LIS curricular technologists are exploring mobile technology for grading
The SansSpace Pilot is running this year – LIS is negotiating with them and has not made a decision on whether or not to continue the service
This past summer there were a number of problems with the German placement exam in Moodle some people we automatically logged out before they completed the exam, in other cases the computer crashed during the exam not allowing the students to complete it. Joe will follow up with the German school director before next summer.
Bettina Matthias mentioned that she has asked her students in the German play this semester to create either a Facebook persona and page for their characters or to use their cellphones to further explore their character.
2. Video conferencing where are we going and what are the needs. (Petar Mitrevski)
Planned as a new service on campus – an existing classroom will be made suitable for video-conferencing. There already are classrooms set up in some of Middlebury’s other locations – just not in Vermont yet.
Video conferencing is in some ways similar to Skype – able to call others and collaborate – but Skype is not stable enough, and it is missing some functionality – not all students in a class can be seen on camera at a time
The ability to have a video conference will be open to anyone, locally here in Vermont and beyond – including Monterey and schools abroad. The platform LIS is considering will be a small piece of software, easy to install on a computer so that it could be sent to someone who might use it to appear as a virtual guest lecturer within a class.
The Department of the History of Art and Architecture HARC will be piloting the software in December to connect to guest lecturers
In the future it could be used in a language class, for instance to connect with native speakers -the Spanish Department used Skype that way in a class.
This past year students abroad studying Portuguese abroad called in and talked about their experiences.
The proposed software will be relatively easy to use in a classroom
Bettina Matthias mentioned that she had the students Skype with her mother last week, the proposed videoconferencing software would have worked even better, as her mother couldn’t see all the students she was talking with
Polycom is the name of the software LIS is considering.
The lecturer, or other guest will be sent a piece of software which can then be opened on a web browser. In order for the whole class to participate, the classroom will need special microphones and cameras.
At this point having an in class video conference would need to be arranged through Media Services. Although in the future (over the next 5 years) the hope is that with a dedicated classroom, video conferencing will become self-service.
2013, November 25
Librarians have put together a new citation guide for students. The guide provides an in-depth overview of why, when, and how to cite, as well as specific advice on how to cite in APA, Chicago, MLA, and other styles. The guide was also designed as a resource for the new first year Academic Honesty Tutorial. Because the guide is new, we are seeking student and faculty feedback on how the guide can be improved. Please send suggestions to Wendy. You can add the link ‘go/citation’ to your course syllabus or website to encourage your students to use it
In attendance: Steve Bertolino, co-convener (LIS), Jason Mittell, co-convener (FMMC), Dana Yeaton (THEA), Mary Ellen Bertolini (WRPR/CTLR), John Bertolini (ENAM), Rebekah Irwin (LIS), Joe Antonioli (LIS), Joy Pile (LIS), Brenda Ellis (LIS)
1. Curricular Technology (Joe)
2. Digital Humanities (Jason & Rebekah)
(3. Videoconferencing (Steve for Petar) – not gotten to)
1. Curricular Technology
Joe shared statistics of faculty use of various Hub and LMS technologies, comparing between Fall 2012 and Fall 2013. Use of most curricular tech has increased, especially in Moodle, though use of Middfiles has decreased. WordPress has remained approximately the same.
Joe brought up how many faculty do post a syllabus to the Hub but a minority still do not, and queried assembled faculty on ideas why. A lengthy discussion followed. Various aspects of the process were brought up:
–Some faculty want or need their syllabi to be dynamic, and they make changes during the semester which the students need to know about. The Hub can help with this, as it alerts students to changes since the last time the student logged into the Hub.
–Some faculty have a static syllabus, which also works with syllabus upload feature (PDF format), or can work in Moodle.
–Some faculty email a syllabus directly to students, which may or may not work as well as the Hub for them.
–Some faculty still give paper copies of syllabi and find students like this.
The discussion then turned to the question of whether encouragement for faculty to post syllabi to the Hub/Moodle is coming from students. Various opinions were given, based on anecdotal experience from both faculty and staff. There was general agreement that often students don’t have a specific preference but want to see consistency from faculty. Further, it was agreed that students want to be given reasons why a faculty member is choosing the option they take, especially when it’s an online option. It was briefly discussed how this student preference extends to online assignments as well.
Joe floated an idea about having academic roundtables (perhaps in the spring, or another time) centered around faculty practice instead of LIS/CTLR programs. For example, instead of having a roundtable discussing “curricular tech” or “the liaison program,” having a roundtable whose topic was “digital identity” and have various faculty showcase projects they’ve used in the classroom about that topic, addressing whatever parts of LIS/CTLR they have utilized. Discussion followed, mostly of faculty riffing on the basic idea and considering adaptations to current structures, including ideas like a tech fair focused on how to use various software, a story archive for faculty to share/read about other faculty’s attempts in the classroom, and split presentations by LIS/CTLR staff which include a section on ideology & pedagogy followed by a section demo-ing the tech involved with faculty choosing to come to one or both sections. It was emphasized by both Joe and Jason that no one should be mandating that faculty need to use technology in the classroom or to regulate “how much” they can use, but that whatever is done by LIS/CTLR has to appeal to the broad range of faculty attitudes towards technology, from early adopters to casual experimenters to those interested but unsure how to explore to those who would prefer not to explore. Mary Ellen noted that technology discussions also have to have a component of being aware that many tenure-track faculty are justly worried that a failed curricular tech experiement or two will result in lower student feedback and affect tenure review.
At the end of the discussion, a question about hearing that LIS was exploring streaming video for curricular use came up, and LIS staff on the Curricular Technology Team present gave a brief confirmation and noted the potential uses of streaming video in the classroom, while emphasizing that LIS is barely at the beginning stage of exploring this.
2. Digital Humanities
Jason and Rebekah spoke about Digital Scholarship/Digital Humanities, which is slowly becoming branded at Middlebury as “digital liberal arts.” They are applying for a Mellon grant to make, somewhere in Davis Family Library, a digital liberal arts “lab” which would operate in support of faculty who wanted to pursue digital liberal arts scholarship. Where this would be located physically in DFL is an open question, as are any staffing questions. Another idea may be to explore “remote hubs” of smaller lab spaces across campus, perhaps in Axinn or Armstrong Library.
A clearer definition of digital liberal arts scholarship was asked for in practical terms.
–Digital liberal arts scholarship uses digital tools to investigate and circulate humanistic scholarship.
–GIS for historical analysis
–data mining on literary texts
–video and audio for scholarly dissemination/presentation of research
–open access publishing of research
–digital methods of analyzing existing scholarship
Jason noted that a benefit of digital liberal arts would be in helping faculty in the humanities and arts find ways to collaborate with students. Such collaborations already exist in social science and hard sciences departments. Another goal is to be able to offer scholars outside of Middlebury with sabbatical year fellowships to the digital liberal arts lab which would include funds for collaborating with students and for staffing support.
Rebekah spoke about ideas for Special Collections to become more of a workable space for both digitization efforts (perhaps as another “remote hub”) and as a regular classroom space for classes designed to work with Special Collections materials.
As by this point we were about 10 minutes over time for the meeting, further discussion was tabled.
Faculty choose which topics will be discussed at their meetings. A list of potential topics for this fall’s meetings is below. We invite faculty to request topics not on the list too. We hope that most if not all of the groups will meet before the end of November.
All groups will discuss:
All groups may choose additional agenda items from this list (or offer other suggestions):
In attendance: Steve Bertolino, co-convener (LIS), Louisa Stein, co-convener (FMMC), Jeff Buettner (MUSC), Rebekah Irwin (LIS), Terry Simpkins (LIS), Carrie Macfarlane (LIS)
1. MISO survey results (Carrie)
2. Ebooks strategies (Rebekah)
Because the meeting was sparsely attended, the notes reflect only the takeaway points from our general discussions, rather than a blow-by-blow account.
1. MISO results
A. We should plan a “Moodle pedagogy” session for faculty to come together and share how they’re using Moodle, with that “show & tell” being the primary purpose for meeting (ie. have faculty, not LIS folks, presenting)
B. Jeff and Louisa both noted that they use their liaisons for their own research needs as well as direct students to them, though they do think faculty can direct students more often to liaisons, and liaisons can do more to remind/encourage faculty about this.
C. Louisa mentioned it may be helpful to have liaisons send emails to faculty if/when there is a good time during the semester for book/serial ordering.
A. Jeff was part of the e-textbook pilot, and said it saved students money, but he didn’t have a great experience with it and wouldn’t do it again. He said some students he talked to didn’t like using the e-textbook either, even with the savings.
B. A side question came up of the possibility of storing media and streaming media via institutional support.
C. Louisa was interested if faculty can see the publishers included in LIS’s approval list for both print and ebook automatic purchases. Faculty are indeed welcome to these if they want; Steve and Rebekah will follow up with anyone who asks.
The Sciences Advisory Group met on May 15, 2013.
Attending: Carrie Macfarlane, Wendy Shook, Petar Mitrevski, Terry Simpkins (notes), Bryan Carson, Bob Cluss, Rick Bunt, Vickie Backus, Susan Watson, Catherine Combelles, Daniel Scharstein, Hans Raum, Joe Antonioli, Bill Hegman
The topics of this meeting were:
The Sciences Advisory Group met on December 13, 2012.
Attending: Carrie Macfarlane (notes) and Daniel Scharstein, co-conveners; Alison Darrow, Bill Hegman, Jeff Munroe, Bob Cluss, Terry Simpkins, Joe Antonioli, Rebekah Irwin, Hans Raum, Rebekah Irwin, Wendy Shook.
The topics of this meeting were: