Agenda:

1. Announcements [5 minutes]

• LIS and the CTLR are looking for examples of  innovative uses of technology to feature on the new Teaching with Technology Blog and in next year’s Pedagogy and Technology Fair.
• Other announcements?

2. Effects of budget cuts on LIS services and resources (Carol Peddie) [20 minutes]

3. Updates and followup from previous meetings: [15 minutes]

• Is DFS/middfiles faster than Tigercat?
• Calendar for software updates:  coming.
• Network registration issues for fixed-location computers: contact Howie.
• Web Makeover:
  • Still haven’t determined date when old system will be unavailable.
  • Intellectual property:  The copyright guidelines in the college handbook are there to assist people to make this determination.  The handbook also has guidelines on sharing student records.  It is not our policy to review posted material unless we are notified that there is a problem.

• Segue blog for updates.  And, Alex Chapin is interested in coming to a future meeting.

4. Next steps for our May discussion on research and tech instruction [10 minutes]

5. Feedback, please:  Are these meetings useful?  How could they be better? [5 minutes]

6. Next meeting:  March? [5 minutes]

Attending: Carrie Macfarlane, Matt Landis, Jason Mittell, Steve Sontum, Bill Hegman, Pete Ryan, Matt Dickerson, Shel Sax, Stephen Ratcliffe, Bill Peterson, Roger Sandwick, Jason Mittell

The topics of this meeting were:

• Web Makeover
• Segue
• Research and technology instruction for students

Web Makeover: Jason Mittell shared information relevant to faculty.

Conversion:

1. each department will need to identify a ‘lead’ for each unit, department or office to spearhead the effort of converting content to the new site.
2. there will be no direct transfer of old pages – someone will have to go through the existing content and identify what is important that needs to be transferred and what doesn’t.
3. the inventory of existing content needs to take place over the summer (this is an issue and coordinators need to be informed now about this timetable and whether this can be undertaken in early June or late August
4. an inventory of pages will be generated by LIS in each department and this will include faculty pages (may also be pages to middunix pages) if it is not hosted by your departmental url, it will not be listed.
5. Carrie needs to find out when LIS will provide this inventory of pages  (Check Sciences Items for updates)
6. question raised as to whether we can get data on utilization of pages as a guide to utilization. Jason said that it is possible might not be useful given how pages are accessed (Check Sciences Items for updates)
7. question about who the point person should be – it should not be the departmental coordinator but rather someone who has a better sense of the discipline-specific content and/or a ‘vision’ for the new website
8. new faculty profile pages will be dynamic so that things that are tagged to an individual faculty member will show up on the faculty member’s page – the idea is to enter data once and then have it migrate to the appropriate locations on the new web site – so, for example, publication information and course information will show up in multiple locations
9. important to have a faculty member involved in the process who is sufficiently familiar with content to make decisions – some discussion as to whether the departmental coordinator can be the point person
10. question about whether faculty would be willing to take this on.  Consider that academic coordinators are cut down to 10/12ths time. The idea of revisioning a departmental web site did not fill the group with enthusiasm.
11. The new system is called Drupal
12. will take energy and effort to meet the timeline requirements
13. Jason noted that one can start with a very lean web site that has minimal content and add to it.  As people realize how easy it will be to develop and add content, and increased use of images, multimedia, etc. they may become excited by the possibilities
14. Question as to whether the archived old system’s data will be available so that at a subsequent time it will be accessible in order to transfer content from old site (Check Sciences Items for updates)
15. There will be a variety of design templates to choose from but the basic relevant categories will be there so that one will know if missing something
16. Question about intellectual property:  Will someone be checking content to be sure it can be shared? For example, PDFs of articles, names of students.  LIS should provide specific information about these issues in the workbook to be distributed to faculty and academic offices.  (Check Sciences Items for updates)
17. Idea of being able to share events brought up the question of someone tagging inaccurately in order to more broadly publicize an event – this will be checked but it is not in place yet and since the work flow process is as of now not yet sufficiently clear, we can’t answer now how this will play out.

Stories:

1. Jason went on to the 2nd point which is that we do not have  easily portable content and there is no opportunity in our existing web sites to highlight the interesting things that are students are doing
2. So the ‘story’ form is a web-based form that enables anyone to fill out a story to identify an interesting thing that people might want to know about (either internally or externally) and we will be building up collection of such stories
3. This is a way to make one’s program known – we want more students to know, for example, to know what is going on in Bi Hall in the sciences and want to publicize the work of our students and their levels of activity in the real world
4. the web will enable us to generate a collection
5. How to submit stories?  For now, go to http://go.middlebury.edu/webstories.

Segue: Shel shared updates on Segue.

1. Segue will fade away.  No replacement has been recommended yet, and there is no timeline
2. If you are currently using Segue, continue to use it.
3. If you have not yet used Segue, may wish to learn another system, for example WordPress
4. question as to why we’re making the shift – answer: too expensive to maintain,  new tools have sprung up since Segue first released and we can no longer compete
5. Shel noted that there is no alternative CMS selected, we’re hoping that Drupal will fit the bill, timeline is not yet firm and we are counting on extensive conversations with faculty to develop a timeframe that will accommodate their needs
6. There will be a blog for updates on the Segue transition, the URL will be shared when it’s available.

Student Research and Technology Orientation Discussion

1. Notes for Discussion document was distributed to participants as the basis for discussion
2. Goal of discussion:  Consider requesting that tech and library orientation be mandatory for students.
3. Carrie noted that the current situation is that FYS instructors have the option to have an orientation of either library or tech or both but does not provide universal coverage.
4. Matt circulated this document to his department and 7 faculty responded thinking that this should be mandatory.  Some of the feedback he received is to include a tour of the library, show students how to find print material and to provide a FAQ about the tech stuff on the home page of the website.  Clear sense that this information is not well known by first year students as it should be, hence the need for making it mandatory
5. Steve Ratcliffe had feedback that we already have orientation overload and that orientation should be ‘in context’ that is, should be connected to an actual research assignment – Matt said that if this was a required part of a first year seminar, it would help to customize the orientation to fit the specific research needs of the FYS assignment
6. Carrie said that some skills could be taught in an online handout or tutorial, some could be taught in a core class for a specific discipline instead of a first year seminar.  Might want to discuss how best to teach each skill.
7. Steve R noted that it should be up to the instructor if he/she wants to include this as part of the course
8. Steve S noted that way back when, there was a universal obligatory orientation for each FYS and that worked well
9. Matt Dickerson said that FYS are sufficiently crowded with other responsibilities that it is already difficult to add content
10. General agreement that the basic technological skills are essential but could be part of a general orientation rather than as part of FYS
11. General sense that targeted bibliographic instruction should continue to be part of the FYS and could be useful orientation within the FYS
12. Several said they had found research instruction in their first-year seminars valuable.
13. Several said it was difficult to imagine that a first-year seminar instructor wouldn’t feel it was important to teach students research skills. Perhaps some topics don’t lend themselves to research.
14. Bill Hegman thought that web-based instruction would solve a lot of the tech issues
15. Carrie said that some students won’t learn to use servers, etc., if they’re not exposed to them in the classroom.  Hands-on experience is meaningful to many.
16. Carrie said that most first-year seminars do request a support team, and the support team includes a librarian.
17. Steve R suggested that even if a student learns these skills in the first-year seminar, they might forget them by the time they’re a junior or senior
18. Ultimately doesn’t seem to be a consensus as to whether this should or should not be mandatory but there was consensus that the tech stuff doesn’t have to be part of the actual seminar
19. Depending on what (if anything) the group decides to recommend, we may wish to check with Katy Smith-Abbott to see if it would be possible to get tech stuff incorporated in general orientation
20. Carrie and Matt will meet to discuss next steps, and share recommendations with group.  Next steps might include gathering and sharing impressions with other advisory groups. (Check Sciences Items for updates)

Business:

1. next time to meet: after the 5th week of the semester, perhaps late October
2. Carrie will send url of list with updates on “Items for consideration” (questions and concerns) that were raised in our February meeting).  Progress has been made on all items, and some items even have answers.

A. Attending:

Carrie Macfarlane, Matt Landis, Matt Dickerson, Frank Swenton (for Bill Peterson), Dave West, Bill Hegman, Tom Root, Matt Dickerson, Shel Sax, Bryan Carson, Roger Sandwick

B. Introduction to Sciences Advisory Group:

Five new divisional advisory groups for LIS have been formed. Purpose is to provide advice and feedback to LIS and the existing Faculty LIS Advisory Committee (FLAC). The new groups do not replace existing departmental liaisons. The sciences group: Biology, Chem, Computer Science, Geography, Geology, Math, MBBC, Neuroscience, Physics.

Matt Landis and Carrie = co-conveners. Matt Dickerson = FLAC rep. All faculty members of this group are departmental representatives, should share information with their departments.

We’ll meet 2-3 times per year. If a rep can’t make a meeting then s/he is welcome to send a substitute. We’ll always send out an agenda in advance. Our notes will be posted on the blog. Issues and progress updates will be tracked on blog.

C. Meeting topic: Update on Academic Technology Assessments

What are “academic technology assessments”? Begun last year and included surveys and meetings with departments and programs. Some departments sent representatives, others met with LIS as a group. 20 completed, 14 not (yet?). All of the sciences are completed.

Common issues from tech assessments:

1) Classrooms and computer labs

Issues identified in tech assessments:

Need more smart classrooms. Need more writing spaces: projection screens cover many of the writing spaces. Labs often have machines down, leaving full classes without a computer.

Updates and suggestions for faculty:

Classrooms committee was formed and then suspended. New rooms are set up as ‘smart’, but there probably won’t be any new rooms this year. LIS is working with Sched Office to alert us to maxed-out computer classrooms so that LIS will know to place a higher priority on reports of malfunctioning computers in those rooms. Computers change, sometimes overnight, so there’s a limit to what LIS can do. For now: be specific when stating teaching/presentation needs in scheduling request; consult go/scheduling (links to master location schedule AND facilities guide) and go/software (shows the software in each lab); invite students to bring laptops; report problems to helpdesk immediately.

Discussion:

a) Another issue is the uniformity of classrooms.  If you know how to use one classroom should be able to figure out how to use the others (Future discussion topic)
b) Dave West commended the redo of classrooms on the 4th floor of BiHall (403 and 417): Geology is pleased with the setup, which includes side projection. (Carrie shared this comment with Adam Dobucki.)
c) Matt Landis wants to know if there are portable solutions, eg, a portable smartboard which provides projection & writing surface (Item for consideration:  Are there such things?  If so, how much do they cost?  If feasible, then this will be a Future discussion topic)  — See Sciences Items for Consideration for progress.
d) Matt Dickerson recommended a Wacom tablet. (Item for consideration: investigate Wacom tablets rather than tablet pc’s.) — See Sciences Items for Consideration for progress.
e) Warner 202, or 203, Frank said that in 3 of 4 classrooms in Warner, switching to a non-computer source produces a black(blank) screen so that you can then raise the screen and write on the board.  In the other room (202 or 203), you get a bright blue screen. (Item for consideration.) — See Sciences Items for Consideration for progress.
f) Nwftp looks like an advertisement for netware and one of the links gets you to netstorage (Item for consideration)  — See Sciences Items for Consideration for progress.
g) Fix certificate issue (Item for consideration)
h) Faculty report that often, most of the people in a room cannot get into midd_secure with their laptops and end up on midd_unplugged. (Item for consideration) — See Sciences Items for Consideration for progress.
i) In response to questions about midd_secure, Helpdesk should problem-solve in addition to asking if midd_unplugged will suffice.  (Item for consideration) — See Sciences Items for Consideration for progress.
j) BiHall 220, 216 are the biggest and best classrooms in the building. These rooms should allow side projection of PowerPoint (Future discussion topic)
k) BiHall 438 is side projected but 538 projected front and center as is 104 and 219 and all but one of the Warner classrooms (Future discussion topic)
l) Consider surveying all faculty to find out which classroom configurations are most preferred.  Could list 4-5 configurations and ask faculty to rank their preferences (Future discussion topic)
m) Idea of a button on the touchpad that raises screen, kills video source and turns on the chalkboard lights would be most welcome (Future discussion topic.)
m)  After the meeting, Matt Landis asked:  We (biology) had a request for a few classrooms on the 4th floor of BiHall to be converted to smart rooms.  Might these rooms be converted next year? Or are they out of the queue for good? (Item for consideration) — See Sciences Items for Consideration for progress.

2) Data storage

Issues identified in tech assessments:

Quotas on Tigercat: some faculty have stopped using Tigercat because of this quota. File deletion on Muskrat: must files be deleted at the end of every semester?

Updates and suggestions for faculty:

You may increase your Tigercat quota; call the HelpDesk. Muskrat is “scratch space”. Now we have middmedia for more permanent storage. Important to back up files. Recovery, when it can be done, is expensive.

Discussion:

a) Frank Swenton and others: Do not get rid of the Classes server and course folders — Carrie forwarded this feedback to Jeff Rehbach, Mike Roy and Tom Cutter.
-it is the only place that is suitable for storing a bunch of different types of objects, including raw HTML files
-Matt Landis uses the share folder a lot within the course folders even though everything else is on Segue. Tom Root and Dave West find the course folders useful too.
b) Please retain simple, non-Segue solutions  — Carrie forwarded this feedback to Jeff Rehbach.
c) Shel talked about the distinction between Muskrat and MiddMedia and how MiddMedia will be the storage place for MiddTube
d) Frank mentioned that the speed of Tigercat is an issue as did Bill Hegman.  Students storing large data files to use with GIS programs cannot get the speed for read/writes that they need
e) After the meeting, Matt Landis wondered if it would be possible for LIS to provide automatic file backups, similar to what the backup server in BiHall does. For example, Matt would like to be able to bring a file down to his laptop, modify the file offline, and then, when he reconnects to the backup server, have the server detect the changes and upload the modified files. (Item for consideration.)– See Sciences Items for Consideration for progress.

3) Software

Issues identified in tech assessments:

Some faculty want upgrades during summer. Others want them as soon as they are available. Faculty and LIS have different rhythms so that one’s down time is not necessarily the other’s. Faculty would like to see web list of software available & click for delivery.

Updates and suggestions for faculty:

This is a complicated issue. Different people have different preferences. LIS also has to consider summer programs, licensing restrictions (eg, some licenses allow only one version to be in use at a time). LIS preference is intersessions. HelpDesk sends survey before each semester to anticipate and prioritize needs. LIS is hoping to go to server-based apps (but some apps won’t allow this).

Discussion:

a) Figure out what the latest versions of software that we support and add it to the LIS software page, inform faculty, solicit feed back and refine policy (Item for consideration)
b) Frank reported a case of college buying a new license for Maple which prevented the previous version of Maple from running in the labs, unbeknownst to faculty (Item for consideration: Confirm that steps have been taken to ensure this doesn’t happen again)
c) After the meeting, Steve Sontum asked: Did anyone raise the issue of network computer registration?  (Item for consideration: investigate this issue) — See Sciences Items for Consideration for progress.

4) Bicentennial Hall support

Issues identified in tech assessments:

Faculty wish that media support hadn’t left BiHall. Almost every department in Bicentennial Hall would like LIS tech support in-house. The needs range from high-end research computing, to classroom support, to discipline specific software expertise, to general computing help. Departments that have their own support (Computer Science and Geography) say their model works well

Updates and suggestions for faculty:

More staff is not on the horizon. Instead, HelpDesk is trying to provide increased on-the-spot assistance and followup after a problem is resolved.

Discussion:

a) Not having someone like Stewart in BiHall is a disadvantage, but tech and media support still is good
b) Can call and get assistance on the phone or in person

5) Training workshops

Issues identified in tech assessments:

Hard to attend; scheduled for times when already busy

Updates and suggestions for faculty:

We try to offer workshops throughout the year, at different times of the day. In addition, we can schedule training sessions for classes; contact your liaison to request.

Discussion:

a) Latek intro/support workshop for students would be useful. (maybe Dave Guertin) (Item for consideration.)
b) Faculty at meeting all felt strongly that first year students should have a mandatory tech and library orientation (Future discussion topic: Determine what should be included in first-year tech and library orientation, then request that tech and library orientation be mandatory.)

D. Topics to discuss in future meetings:

The group decided that we should compile a list of topics raised during the initial meeting, plus topics suggested in Mike Roy’s advisory groups proposal. Here’s the list, please rank your preferences for discussion at future meetings:

1. Research and technology instruction for students:

a. Determine what should be included in first-year tech and library orientation, then request that tech and library orientation be mandatory. Communicate with Katy Abbott and CTLR?
b. What research and technology skills should students possess upon graduation?

2. Classrooms:

a. Determine faculty preferences for classroom configurations:  For example, What options do you want on the touchpad?  Where do you want the screen?  Would you use a portable Smartboard?
b. Find low-cost solutions
c. List 4-5 configurations and invite all faculty to rank their preferences.
d. Make changes.

3. Create guidelines for management of student projects

a. Students are doing a lot of senior projects and Bill Hegman is noticing that it is becoming harder to track the projects.
b. Cataloguing, documenting, tagging/metadata, etc.
c. Store (and share?) files in institutional repository?

4. Software:

a. How can faculty experimenting with new software find others on campus who are using the same software? Opportunities to learn from one another should be explored.
b. Software distribution: How can timing and procedures be improved to suit needs of faculty (summer and school-year) and LIS?
c. Emerging computer support needs (cluster computing, imaging, support for media production)
d. Support for discipline-specific applications (eg, Mathematica, SPSS, Final Cut)
e. After the meeting, Shel suggested this topic: What graphing package do the sciences want LIS to support? There are several in use and budget constraints are likely to force us to choose one.

5. Course management systems (eg, Segue)

6. Trends in scholarly communication and institutional repositories

7. Library collections and budgets

E. When should we meet again?

It was decided that we should meet during the week after spring semester final exams. See you then!