Attending:  Faculty: Holly Allen (AMST, Co-Chair), Claudio Medeiros (THEATRE), Elizabeth Morrison (for Ellie Bagley, RELI), Louisa Burnham (HIST), Mary Ellen Bertolini (Writing Program/CTLR), Jeff Buettner (MUSIC), Eddie Vazquez (HARC), Ian Sutherland (for Marc Witkin, CLASSICS), Brett Millier (ENAM), Stefano Mula (COMPLIT), Jenn Ponder (DANCE), Matty Woodruff (PHIL) ; LIS: Andy Wentink (Co-Chair), Carrie Macfarlane, Steve Bertolino, Jess Isler, Joy Pile; Absent: Louise Stein (FMMC); Representative from Studio Art (to be appointed)

Meeting was called to order at 12:15 by LIS Co-Chair Andy Wentink, who welcomed the group, reviewed meeting protocols, and requested members to introduce themselves. He announced that there was a change in the agenda. Video Recording/Storage Issues would be discussed first, since Claudio Medeiros, who proposed the agenda item, needed to leave early.

Agenda Items:

1. Video Recording/Storage issues
2. Moodle and Course Hub Implementation
3. LIS/Faculty communications
4. Liaison Program
5. Need for more faculty carrels in library

1. Video Recording/Storage issues

Claudio voiced concern about the organization and storage of performed work by Theatre majors, including senior projects, performances, etc.

• To date, most work has been recorded by faculty or students with equipment within the department, resulting in inconsistent, often poor, quality recordings with limited pedagogical value
• Even with equipment borrowed from Media Services recordings made by Theatre students/staff/faculty with limited experience resulted in poor quality
• What he wants from LIS is: the technical equipment and qualified personnel to create high quality recordings of enduring pedagogical value
• The ability to store, catalog. And provide access (including online delivery) to these resources
• An organizational workflow for scheduling tapings and arranging for professional equipment and qualified staff to operate it
• Other faculty at the meeting agreed with the potential pedagogical value of producing recordings of student work across the curriculum

Jenn Ponder: The Dance Program has developed an efficient workflow for recording procedures; they would be happy to discuss with Theatre (interdepartmental communication)

• Dance has made arrangements with Special Collections for depositing those sections of their archives not currently being used in the curriculum, where they will be cataloged and archived; plans for digitizing these recordings

Andy Wentink: Special Collections already archives Theatre, Dance, FMMC ; SC would be pleased to work out an archiving schedule for analog media recordings; digital files currently are not the purview of SC; at present, MiddMedia is most probably the appropriate place for archiving digital recordings;  will have to check with IT

Other questions raised:

• Method of online delivery of media resources – iTunes–type streaming coming, but not yet available
• How to transfer already existing analog recordings to digital
  • student assistants in DANCE and FMMC currently render this service
  • LIS offers training for faculty/staff/students from digital media tutors

Question of intellectual property/copyright was raised

• Discussion of where fair use ends and copyright infringement begins
• Creating archival copies was discussed: copyrighted analog recordings no longer in any other currently supported formats are transferred to DVD
  • These recordings are available for research and teaching with the proviso that the archival DVDs are used only in the Library, although exceptions to the rule might be considered under extraordinary circumstances
  • Carrie Macfarlane said she would look into this practice and report back to the Group
  • The question was raised regarding limited access (e.g., campus only) not only to the above resources but to student-generated works as well

Conclusions: 1) The discussion confirmed the value of enhanced inter-divisional communication in these Group meetings; 2) the role of LIS in resolving these issues will be raised; 3) these detailed minutes will be reported to FLAC and posted to the Blog for other Divisional Groups to review

2. Moodle and Course Hub Implementation

There was consensus that other than for the Faculty Test Group in the Spring, faculty was not happy with the Moodle/Course Hub implementation process; Faculty felt that they were not given the appropriate tools to implement new course sites in time for the Fall 2011 Semester

Librarians in attendance agreed that the training timeline, complicated by schedule conflicts for faculty and LIS staff,  and that addressing the challenge of training for faculty at different levels of preparedness, was problematic. Faculty was reminded that ongoing Moodle training was available in workshops offered by Alex Chapin and Bryan Carson and in tutorials offered by Lynda.com.  Carrie Macfarlane acknowledged the scheduling challenges.

Question was asked: when would be a good time for training? One complicating factor was the late finalization of the contract with Remote-Learner the Moodle vendor.

3.  LIS/Faculty communications

The above segued into a discussion of LIS/Faculty communications

Mary Ellen Bertolini questioned the efficacy of LIS faculty communication with faculty. There was consensus among the faculty that

• the “language” used by LIS in attempting to reach everyone who needs to be reached;
• faculty are not likely to respond to generic subject lines, e.g., “Updates from LIS”
• Louisa Burnham suggested and others concurred that faculty prefer subject lines that directly address important issues, e.g., “Are you reaching all students in Moodle?” or. “New Research Sources Available”

Mary Ellen Bertolini suggested creating a Moodle listserv to improve communication between LIS and Moodle users. There was wide approval of this recommendation among the group.

Nevertheless, most members of the group agreed that old habits/routines/lines of communication are hard to break, and many still bypass new procedures instituted by LIS and go directly to LIS staff they have worked with over years for LIS updates

4. Liaison Program

A discussion of the efficacy of the Liaison program ensued.

Continuing from the above discussion, Holly Allen initiated a discussion in which there was consensus that faculty appreciate and have had rewarding experiences with the Liaison program, especially in regard to the pedagogical value of librarians providing library orientation and research methods classes for FYSE, Jr. & Sr. thesis students, collection development, course page and, in some cases, syllabus creation.

There was agreement, however, that many faculty members have difficulty understanding the value of the “Primary Liaison” model, especially regarding technology issues, which they see as an impediment to direct and immediate access to expert LIS staff who have proved helpful in the past.

Librarians responded that contacting Primary Liaisons is not mandatory.  Faculty should be aware of these contacts especially for circumstances in which they don’t know whom to contact.

There was a recommendation for Librarians/Primary Liaisons to put other members of Liaison teams on departmental Subject Guides. Librarians recommended in turn, that faculty include their liaisons on their departmental pages

5. Need for more faculty carrels in library

Matty Woodruff raised the following issue:

“There is an urgent need for more faculty carrels in the library. Faculty members are always under pressure to ‘publish or perish.’  The expectations for publishing to get tenure have increased here. Hence the need for faculty members to have library carrels has also increased.

In my experience, a library carrel for a Humanities professor can be as important as a lab is for a Science professor: the essential space for research that leads to publishing that is required for tenure and promotion. A library carrel is far less expensive than a full lab. Yet there is a shortage of faculty carrels in the library and a waiting list of professors trying to get one.

By adding a door to a suite of already existing desks on the upper level of Davis Library, one could efficiently and inexpensively add another room of much needed faculty carrels. I’d be glad to show you what I have in mind.”

There was broad support among faculty for this suggestion.

6. Adjournment

Meeting adjourned at 1:25 p.m.

(recorded by Shel Sax ; reviewed by Andy Wentink and Holly Allen)

The Humanities Advisory Group met at 8:30 a.m., on Tuesday, May 19, 2009, in LIB105.

Attending: Holly Allen, Judy Watts, Brett Millier, MaryEllen Bertolini, Randy Ganiban, Heidi Graswick, Brenda Ellis, Dana Barrow, Pieter Broucke, Shel Sax, Andy Wentink, Amy Morsman, Will Nash, and for 10 minutes Joe Antonioli

Agenda

1. Impact of impending web makeover on departments

2. Sunsetting of Segue as a course management system and the process of finding its replacement

3. Discussion of research and technology instructions for students. What topics should be covered during the First Year Seminar orientations that are most relevant to the Humanities division?  What research and technology skills should students possess upon graduation and how can we best provide training, support and development of these skills

4. Open forum for additional discussion topics.

I  Web Makeover:

A fundamental concern is will the old content of departmental webpages be transferred to the new CMS or will the content need to be developed by each department and if the latter, if this is happening during the fall semester, do we expect departments to do this in the middle of the semester?

Note: we need to inform faculty of what they’re expected to do and when

Joe Antoinioli joined the meeting to offer the following:

• Mary Backus has been charged with the staging and implementation of the departmental web sites. Need to identify what can be transferred from the old site, what can be added to the new site, when and how. Mary will be looking after the training and support issues.
• Timeframe: Mary’s group will be meeting with her group starting next week. White Whale and Midd will develop a workbook to guide departments and faculty through the process.
• The Training & Conversion group will assign members to work with each department, using the workbook, to help guide the process.

Some issues that arose in discussion: timing ;  support for coordinators and faculty  ;  who’s responsible ;  content issues (support of test, media, etc.) and social networking – the social networking will include tools such as, calendaring

• currently, no automatic way of transferring content, so each department will have to decide what it wants to create, or copy and paste from existing web site
• Holly Allen suggested that we look at other departmental sites at other colleges to see examples of exemplary sites – Joe noted that from the beginning of June, the designs from the Monterrey site will be available
• Joe noted the Middlebury Makeover Blog at : http://sites.middlebury.edu/webredo/
• Timeline for the summer will be made public this week and posted on the blog
• Will faculty be able to work on their new sites from off-campus – YES

ACTION ITEM: find link on web makeover blog that directs to sample

1. White Whale has been charged with a set of templates to offer a limited set of designs and choices from which the Departments will charge.

II  Segue

Shel spoke to the issue of the sunsetting of Segue

1. there were many questions as to why we’re making this change, what the ramifications are
2. Shel emphasized that we need faculty support and input on this process

Some important points:

• Segue will be around at least until summer 2010
• No timetable is currently available for a go live date
• We are evaluating alternatives including using Drupal or Moodle and that we’ll solicit faculty input
• Suggested that WordPress be used as the alternative
• Media Tutors can provide help with Word Press

Some faculty skepticism about whether Word Press is an adequate replacement for Segue

• Shel recommended that people comfortable with Segue continue to use it and not use WordPress as a stepping stone to the new system, whatever it turns out to do.

III First Year Students – Research and Technology Orientation (currently in place within FYSE)

Topics identified by the Sciences Advisory Group Co-Coordinators (see below) were used as discussion points

• Brett Millier thought the research steps a) through f) should be part of the FYS but the tech info should be presented before the semester starts
• Holly Allen wants to see practical assignments that incorporate the research component into a realistic, applicable assignment
• Will Nash echoed Holly’s suggestion about a research assignment that forces students to develop the requisite skills
• Will also thought the tech assignment works out better when done within class

- As social software sites have become increasingly easy to use, student’ tech skills have diminished so that mapping a drive or saving to a server is challenging

• Holly Allen asked about covering laptop etiquette, in particular discussion turned to banning laptops in class because students are not paying attention to what is going on in class

Discussion then covered laptops during screenings, classes, etc.

• Are there ways of reducing abuse or is it reasonable for an instructor to say ‘no laptops in class’
• Amy wants her students using laptops sitting on the perimeter so that they don’t distract the rest of the class
• Judy Watts mentioned that some of the students in a class complain about other students not paying attention with laptops as a big distraction
• Laptops as a pedagogical issue – there needs to be a discussion about the use of laptops – e.g. should they be allowed in discussion sections – Holly wants etiquette that includes no browsing the web during class, no instant messaging, no Facebook – also had student cheat on midterm using technology
• Brenda asked why each instructor doesn’t set the rules for his/her class at the beginning of the semester.

- ACTION IDEA: LIS/CTLR lunch bag noontime discussion on laptop etiquette

Will Nash (as Commons head) thinks it perfectly reasonable to help FYC’s acculturate students to Middlebury but there is a fine line between FYC’s conveying faculty expectations to new students – rather he thinks FYS is the perfect place for this – however, there is way for the Commons to come into this productively but would it’s a delicate balance to strike

IV Final thoughts:

• Holly – word press training
• Judy – forewarning LIS about large research projects, etc.
• Brett – puzzling about why it is so hard to keep a departmental web page up to date and whether the new system will make this easier
• MaryEllen – lauded Brenda for doing such a great job orienting students
• Randy – overwhelmed by what he’s heard and thinks it will be exciting for Classics department to jump into the 21st century
• Amy – doesn’t have a coordinator so good to know that web makeover will take place in fall
• Will – his first meeting and intrigued by way of using the FYS to get at some systemic issues
• Heidi – web makeover exciting but worried about expectations that faculty will keep their pages and information up to date
• Brenda – will be doing Social Sciences group and wants to know if there are any pointers for that meeting – recommendation was to have info on web makeover ready at the outset
• Dana – trying to figure out the Studio Art and HARC departments – it is hard to keep the information and communication lines flowing – information from the administration filters through all faculty lists or student mailings so that everyone is not always in the loop – the biggest challenge will be to keep everybody in the loop
• Pieter – enjoyed the discussion about computers in the classroom and the issues that laptops create and it will affect his syllabi and what he tells his students about laptop etiquette – hopes that the new website will actually be easy to add content to.

Research & Technology Orientation for First-Year Students

What could be covered in research and tech orientation for first-year students?

1. Research

a) How to make use of what the Library offers in all formats—print & e-collections, NExpress, reserves, digital projects, etc.

b) How to read citations and locate material

c) How to recognize scholarly & popular publications, primary & secondary resources

d) How to evaluate information, regardless of source

e) How to cite materials—and reasons for doing so

f) How to use resources legally and ethically—avoiding plagiarism and copyright infringements

2. Tech

a) How to get tech help: HelpDesk

b) How to get to servers and shared files, the importance of backing up files: Middfiles, Classes, course pages

c) What are the wireless options on campus and how to use them: midd_secure vs midd_unplugged

d) How to protect computer from viruses

g) How to access campus network from off-campus

h) Email: College considers Midd email an official method of communication, if you use another email account then you must set up forwarding

i) General awareness:

i. Protect your identity

ii. Protect your image

iii. Protect your savings!  Don’t risk a lawsuit! Don’t share music and videos you haven’t acquired legitimately. In most cases, file-sharing to the internet is a violation of federal law if it involves copyrighted files.

The meeting adjourned at 9:45 a.m., with thanks to faculty and attending LIS liaisons from the co-conveners.

The Humanities Advisory Group met on Tuesday, March 3, 2009.  The agenda included  Introductions, a review of the LIS Advisory Group Mission, an update on Departmental Technology Reviews, a brainstorming session on topics/issues to discuss in this group and prioritize topics for future discussion, and, time allowing, initial discussion of topics.

Attending: Co-conveners Andy Wentink (LIS) and  Holly Allen (American Studies), Megan Battey (History of Art & Architecture), Shel Sax (CTLR/LIS), Cynthia Watters (LIS), Jennifer Ponder (Dance), Stephen Donadio (Literary Studies), Jean Simmons (LIS), Stefano Mula (Literature Program), Randy Ganiban (Classics/Classical Studies), MaryEllen Bertolini (CTLR/Writing Program) , Pieter Broucke (History of Art & Architecture), and Heidi Graswick (Philosophy). Unable to attend were: Brett Millier (English & American Literatures), Robert Schine (Jewish Studies), Jacob Tropp (History), Larry Yarborough (Religion/Middle east Studies), and Amy Morsman (History/FLAC representative).

Introduction

Everyone present, including late arrivals, were asked to introduce themselves.

Andy reviewed the LIS Advisory Group Mission: a means to provide a representative from each department and program in the Humanities Division which a regular opportunity to identify current and merging needs, float new ideas, etc. Andy reiterated what has been emphasized in earlier group meetings, that Advisory Groups are not intended to replace the existing LIS liaison program but rather via peer-to-peer contact among departmental faculty to provide another means of strengthening communication between faculty and LIS that will better serve the Humanities.

Update on Departmental Technology Reviews

With the exception of HARC (History of Art & Architecture), it appears that no other tech assessments have been done for the departments represented by the ‘Humanities.’

Brainstorm Session and Indentification of Action Items

If there was one consistent theme voiced in this initial session, it is faculty concern with their teaching environment, the reliability not only of instructional technology, including hardware and software (an LIS responsibility), but the impact of the spaces in which they teach — classroom size, design, and physical layout, etc. (beyond the purview of LIS ) — on their ability to teach effectively. It became clear that the fundamental concern of faculty to be assured, whenever possible, an optimal teaching and learning environment transcends in very signifcant ways even the need for a steady stream of new curricular resources.  A close second in importance is a call for faculty workshops directly related to technological currency and innovation directly related to pedagogy, e.g., how effectively to implement media technology in the classroom.

Perhaps the most exciting outcome of the session was the suggestion that a blog component be added to the Facilities Descriptions page in Course Scheduling. In this blog, faculty would describe their experiences of teaching in particular classrooms and share with their colleagues helpful hints, caveats, and benefits of  surviving an already familiar or unfamiliar teaching space. The desired outcome of this shared knowledge would be to alert not only the LIS Helpdesk, Media Services and Librarians, but the Scheduling Office, departmental chairs and coordinators, etc., to these faculty concerns and propose and implement viable solutions.

Discussion Issues

• Megan Battey brought up issue of projection, laptops, reliability – spends a lot of time fixing projections setups in Johnson
• MaryEllen Bertolini thinks that we should have computers in the classrooms with projection as having faculty bring laptops is not a workable proposition for a variety of reasons
• Randy Ganiban finds that equipment is not working reliably, particularly Twilight 201 – has to go to class early in order to get PowerPoint presentations to work – also has had difficulty with television sets, dvd players, vhs players
• Stephen Donadio asked about the process by which approval is given to recommendations and requests generated from the advisory board meetings
• Andy suggested that the results of the five advisory group meetings would be reviewed, assessed and prioritized, based on consistency of concern and/or urgent needs of particular departments or divisions, provided that resources are available 
• Shel explained the new organization of LIS and how the area directors and the Dean meet weekly to discuss these types of issues
• Jean saw the function of this advisory board as one of sharing of ideas that are being generated within various departments
• MaryEllen (MEB) notes that the unreliability of smart classrooms and labs is an ongoing issue for instructors, so much so that some faculty will not take the risk of using them, particularly if under review, etc.
• MEB would like a better degree of reliability but Pieter Broucke noted that, from his perspective, things have improved dramatically
• There was consensus among faculty who teach in both buildings that Twilight apparently is less reliable than Johnson

LIS action item: discuss with Operations what exactly are the routine for preventive maintenance and make this information publicly available to our user community

• Megan described some classrooms where new computers have required adjusting the video settings and aspect ration to get proper projection
• BiHall (didn’t get the number of the room – 219 or 224?)– trick the touchpad by pushing VHS to get video projection
• Instruction manuals are not consistent in our classrooms and in a number of cases are out of date — how can instruction manuals be kept current?
• Andy mentioned that in Axinn 229, the control panel is around the corner from the screen so that you can’t use the touchpad and see the screen at the same time! 

LIS action item: fix the setup in Axinn 229 so one can see the screen when pushing the control buttons

• some faculty noted the need to prepare and check the classroom beforehand, but often the classroom is in use by the preceding class
• Stefano suggested that we link a blog from the facilities page so that we can have a running conversation about the issues in each particular

LIS acton item: revisit the facilities page, particularly in light of new web makeover and incorporate some interactivity – whether it is a blog, wiki, form, email, etc. is yet to be determined

• Andy asked how many people regularly employ media in their teaching, everyone in the room responded positively so this stuff is vitally important
• Holly noted that LIS workshops don’t fit particularly well, e.g. links between media resources, PowerPoint, video i.e. teaching oriented workshops – she thought that we need some workshops that are not tool-oriented but rather focus on teaching with these tools

LIS action item: investigate the opportunities to offer workshops that are curricularly focused – should we recommend particular brands with a standard feature set, should we buy some and have them available from the Circ Desk?

• Randy Ganiban noted that fixed podia are not conducive to creating connections between the students and the instructo
• Stefano mentioned that his department purchased his remote control via departmental funds

LIS action item: investigate supplying remotes to faculty – this could make use of smart classrooms more popular

• Andy asked the issue of lack of writing surfaces in smart classroom because the screen is superimposed in front of the writing boards — a concern frequently expressed by faculty in earlier advisory group meetings
• Everyone agreed that this was an issue – LaForce classroom was cited as an example that had a writing surface across the room from the projection screen
• Stephen Donadio noted the ease with which one could write on the screen with a black marker
• MaryEllen criticized the screen placement in Axinn 105 and the number of obstructed views
• Jen Ponder from Dance noted the difficulty in scheduling a video editing lab with 18 seats and the same video editing software (Final Cut Pro was the application in question)
• Andy asked if anyone knew whether, when scheduling classes, the Scheduling Office  is aware of the different capabilities of our smart classrooms and depending on what activity the instructor wants to undertake, the needs for rooms may be quite different
• Megan suggested involving the faculty in the design of classroom renovations to optimize configurations and make good decisions

LIS acton item: identify classroom renovations and faculty who most frequently teach in them, then confer during the planning and implementation process of renovation

As a meeting wrap-up, Andy asked faculty participants for a final statement of issues/concerns or other comments that would help formulate the agenda for the next meeting.

• Holly Allen – appreciates the work that the Help Desk does, notes problems with Axinn and that faculty were involved in decisions and that LIS response has been good BUT classrooms are idiosyncratic and the opportunity to discuss solutions to problems with other faculty using the facility would be good. Also, more workshops on teaching with media

LIS acton item: investigate possibility of a ‘classroom blog’ to accomplish what Holly suggested – it’s unlikely that if we had a meeting to discuss a classroom that many faculty would show up, although it might be worth a try (Shel’s 2 cents)

• Megan Battey: high regard for Media Services folks have been very responsive and get there fast!
• MaryEllen: good response to crises but wants to have a model that is more proactive and avoids problems that could be anticipated – would like more simplified setup – pet peeve: computer in Library 140 set to go to sleep after 5 minutes and this disrupts the class

LIS acton item: fix Library 140

• Heidi Graswick has been very satisfied with the Help Desk but also agreed with Holly about the need for workshops on teaching with media
• Stefano – would like interaction with faculty who have used a classroom in the recent past to learn from experience – faculty should be more proactive and have a place to discuss and identify the concerns of faculty teaching with technology
• Randy Ganiban – happy with Help Desk and wonders if people from the Help Desk could familiarize themselves with the classrooms – they should try themselves to hook up a laptop

LIS action item: implement Randy’s suggestion

• Randy also likes the idea of a classroom blog and would find it useful when scheduled in another classroom with which he’s not familiar
• Suggestion to enable faculty to rate classrooms online – this would be very useful when selecting a space and also help LIS identify unpopular spaces for further investigation and possible improvement

• Stephen Donadio: raises the issue that a faculty member has to ‘study’ the classroom and prepare to use the room – he wonders about the fundamental difficulty of the assumption that anyone can use any classroom (which was true when one only need desks, chairs, blackboard and chalk) – notes that Art History faculty can easily identify their needs, learn the setup in Johnson and know how to proceed – but not true for other faculty and wonders if it is possible to identity classroom for certain types of uses so that people with different needs do not end up in rooms that are unsatisfactory to their needs – could lessen this phenomenon if faculty were more familiar with the classrooms they typically use

• Jen: more real time digital media in performances, senior work, classrooms, so students need to know how to shoot, edit and compress, etc. – the Dance department wants to use Final Cut Pro and there are different versions on campus which create compatibility issues – storage space is another issue for video – use a lot of Macs and video cable dongles are problematic
• Issues with files saved in Office2007 format are not backward compatible
• Peter Broucke: – has run into Word documents that he can’t open because of the aforementioned incompatibility issues.
• Pieter noted that most faculty in HAARC, have now converted to digital formats – have good procedures for dealing with problems (call Meagan) – wants to have architectural expression associated with department or program but that this is fading
• PB: identity of programs and/or departments are diluted by lack of appropriate meeting spaces – architecture is a term that is increasingly applied to virtual spaces than physical spaces – currently students don’t really connect programmatic themes with physical spaces – would like to reverse this process to gain solutions to problems that we’ve discussed today

The meeting adjourned at 5:35 p.m., with thanks to faculty and attending LIS liaisons from the co-conveners.