Minutes of the March 16, 2011 ACPAC meeting

Academic Computing Policy Advisory Committee

Minutes of March 16, 2011

  • In Attendance: Blood, Branthoover, Brzycki, Cunningham, Dadson, Fortushniak, Giever, P. McDevitt, T. McDevitt, McElroy, Mensch, Mocek, O'Neil, Onyett, Pagnucci, Pankaj, D. Smith, VanWieren, Yuhas.
  • Excused: Balint, Kornfeld, Lenze, McGowan, Powers, Scandrett, J.B. Smith, Yost.
  • Absent: Asamoah, Gruber, Janosko, Kemp, Nelson, Papakie, Sherwood.
  • Guests: Defelice.

Proceedings of the Meeting

  • Approval of Minutes
    • February 16, 2011 Meeting - The February 16, 2011 minutes were approved unanimously (M/S Giever/Branthoover) Brzycki abstained.
  • Financial Report
    • The ACPAC balance is currently 12,804.92
  • Announcements
    • Election of the Faculty Co-Chair - To be held at the April 20, 2011 meeting.
    • Research Appreciation Week Poster Session - April 4 at the Crimson Event Center. The poster session will showcase the 2010 ACPAC Innovation Funds recipients.
    • ACPAC Innovation Funds proposals - Deadline is March 31 for proposals to be submitted by the colleges to Lloyd Onyett.
  • Standing Reports:
    • CIO Office (Cunningham)
      • Student Pictures on Class Rosters - final testing is underway. It will be an URSA application where faculty pick course and section and the system will bundle pictures on web server. Faculty can then access the photos on the web server. We will report testing results at the next ACPAC meeting. The system will be available for the summer 2011 sessions. The student photos will only be available to the instructor of record for courses, not to TA's.
      • Public Lab Software - TOT is reviewing the list of public lab software and update the list based on feedback from faculty and current versions available. The list was updated at a recent TOT meeting. We need feedback for specific software. Office2010 and Windows7 are to be installed by fall 2011. Internet Explorer and FireFox should be installed on all lab computers. There was a discussion of whether we should go to Adobe CS 5. A motion was made and passed unanimously to upgrade to CS 5 for fall 2011 (M/S Giever, T. McDevitt). The multimedia classroom systems will use a standard image that has the same software as the public labs. The CTM's can also add any additional software that is needed for the classroom systems. There was discussion about Oracle, Sysstat and other specialized software. TOT will again review the list and update it. Also there was a discussion about the software at the branch sites, and it was pointed out that those are handled separately. An email will be sent out to all faculty asking if there is additional software that needs to be installed in the public labs.
      • Degreeworks - The system will be installed during the week of May 16th. The Registrar's Office is the functional lead for this program.
      • D2L Training - The vendor provided training for D2L in February. IT Services started training sessions about D2L on March 15. There were 15 attendees at the first session, and about 10 at the second session. Faculty can register on the IT website. IT Services has started developing more advanced workshops (quizzes and assignments will most likely be next). It is hoped that those will start for summer, but aimed primarily to start in the fall.
      • Moodle to D2L Migration Utility - D2L still has not made a commitment yet about when they will have a migration utility ready, nor have they given us any timeline. We continue to have support for Moodle from IT Services.
      • Faculty PC Replacement Schedule - Brzycki asked for a formal response regarding the faculty replacement cycle. Cunningham said we are still on a 3 year replacement cycle, and plan to continue that cycle. Two years ago, AOG discussed this issue. The key issue is what happens to the computers that are 3 years old. We are able to utilize those computers for additional years by placing them in special labs, GA and TA desks, and other uses. The Council of Deans decided at that time to keep the 3 year rotation, but it could get revisited again due to the looming budget crisis.
      • Web-Based Signup for Advising Appointments - IT Services was unsure if the idea is that it would be based on Degreeworks or use of LMS. Brzycki said it should be used within the LMS. Instructors should be able to request non-instruction moodle course (eventually in D2L) to allow for this service. As pointed out however, the calendar in Moodle is all or nothing, so you can give students access to the calendar, but then they can add, delete and change calendar entries. Therefore, the default is that only instructors can update calendar. If an instructor wants, IT Support can change the settings for a particular course in Moodle to allow students to update the calendar. D2L should have more granularity (Yuhas will investigate and report back regarding D2L). Giever discussed some of the features that would be useful in an advising system. IT Services is unsure what the Degreeworks advising tool will provide when added on to Banner. Cunningham said that IT Services will look into what Degreeworks can do that might assist with the advising process, and will get back to ACPAC.
      • Replacement of Webcal - Cunningham discussed how the email team looked at various options regarding calendaring, and recommended we use the built-in Imail calendar called Communigate-Pro. The administration offices are the major users of Webcal (uses Oracle), so we need to make sure that we meet their needs, but we also need to get faculty who use Webcal to review the Imail calendar to see if it meets their needs as well. Theresa McDivett, Dennis Geiver and Robin Defelice volunteered to assist. There are concerns about syncing with smartphones with the Imail calendar, but once we convert to a new system, then the smartphones should be able to sync with the Imail calendar.
      • Digital Repository -Currently the IUP Library is using DSpace (the version is very ancient, but yet it is being used for production work). IT Services is planning to move to the Enterprise Class DSpace and move all of the current data from the old version of DSpace to the new. Then IT Services wants to take the recommendation from the Digital Repository Committee of ACPAC that suggested Fedora Commons, and find out where Duraspace (owners of Dspace and Fedora Commons) is heading. After moving to the enterprise version of DSpace, IT Support will then report back to the ACPAC Digital Repository team, and then move forward from that point to create our institutional repository. Equella is PASSHE's vendor for digital repositories, and we are unsure how that will impact our digital repository plans.
      • Guest Wireless - The AT&T contract has still not been resolved. Once the contract is completed, then we will be able to layer the guest wireless onto our current wireless system. There is a legal issue regarding the master agreement with ATT as our long distance vendor and so they are trying to modify the contract to include the wireless.
    • Student Computing Subcommittee (P. McDevitt)
      • A survey was sent via email to approximately 4000 students, and we received about 300 responses (a handout was distributed showing the results). Overall most of the responses were more satisfied than dissatisfied. Responses were a bit more negative about the wired network, but the survey was sent out just after the bandwidth upgrade, so students may have been thinking about the previous semester when the network was slower. The survey also shows that we need to education students where labs are, including hours of availability number of machines, types of software. There were two open questions, one of them was about wireless access, and most responders indicated that it was working fine. Concerns were raised about the level of wireless in the traditional resident halls, and also in the bedrooms of the suites, so Housing is looking at both areas to see what they can do to improve the wireless services. The other open ended question was about concerns regarding - IT support, network, and lab issues. The network issues primarily related to wireless problems on individual machines and driver problems causing wireless issues. The lab issues that were raised have been taken to TOT, and were primarily about hours of availability, software availability, speed issues and number of computers available in the labs. Regarding IT support, most were primarily positive, and the specific issues have been referred to IT Support.
    • Emerging Technologies Subcommittee (D. Smith)
      • Before spring break D. Smith attended a conference where interactive boards such as Smartboards were discussed in depth. He then met with Ben Dadson, Gerald Walsh, and three faculty members to discuss interactive boards. The discussion led to some recommendations. They felt that the Smartboards probably should be our standard since it has about 60% of the market. Promethian has about 15% market penetration. Smith feels that all new buildings and updates of classrooms should include Smartboards. Students are used to interactive boards because they are often found in K-12 schools. Giever discussed how he would use it in his classes. There was a discussion regarding specific issues including screen size, cost, possible need for 2 projectors (one to project to an interactive board and the other to project to a full-sized screen), or the need for a special projector that has a large zoom range to zoom to full screen size and down to interactive board size. There may be different solutions based on the size of classrooms. Another possible solution is a Sympodium type of device that might be most useful in large classrooms and auditoriums. Onyett mentioned other systems that allow for interactive board capability, but the interactivity is in the projector, rather than in a touch sensitive board. ACPAC should look at and make recommendations regarding interactive boards for new construction classrooms. IT Services get involved initially with new buildings and then CTMs get involved in planning. For existing multimedia classrooms, it would be nice to have whatever is chosen as our standard then be used in those classrooms when they are upgraded. This would be a good use of Tech Fee initiatives. It was recommended that faculty from both NSM and COE who use interactive boards work with Emerging Technologies and IT Services and TOT.
    • Student Operations Group (Pankaj)
      • The winter enrollment data, along with attrition rates is being reviewed, and the Student Operations Group is waiting for the report. The wait list project was piloted last fall, and, according to Bob Simon, the pilot ran into some issues with the Banner system. Sungard indicates that to fix the problems we need to upgrade to the next Banner version, and then the pilot can be run again.
  • Reports from the Action Teams:
    • Optical Test Scoring (McElroy)
      • The pilot group is continuing their testing. Two scanners were purchased from Scantron, and the new software is running on those scanners.
  • New Business:
    • Proposed Amendment to ACPAC Bylaws regarding Co-Chair term (McElroy) - Currently the term for the faculty co-chair is one year, renewable for an additional year. A proposed amendment to the ACPAC Bylaws was distributed that would change the one year term to a two year term. The rationale is that it would then provide a staggered set of terms for the administrative co-chair and the faculty co-chair so that we would not have both finishing their terms at the same time, and thus create a break in leadership. A motion was made (Brzycki/Pagnucci) and passed unanimously that the amendment be placed on the agenda for the April 20 ACPAC meeting for a vote. We will have the vote before having the faculty co-chair election, so that if the amendment passes, then the newly elected faculty co-chair can be elected to a two year term. The exact wording of the proposed amendment is on the next page of these minutes. Note that changes are in bold and text to be eliminated shows with strikeout. Only the sections with changes are shown below.
    • PathLab (Defelice) - The Path Lab is now celebrating their one year anniversary. Two of the student employees are leaving, so she is looking for recommendations for new student employees. She needs students who can work for more than one year. The student workers do not need Federal Work Study.
  • Old Business:
    • None.
  • Other Business:
    • None.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:47 PM.

Future Meeting Dates:

  • April 20, 2011

Suggested Changes to the Constitution and Bylaws of the Academic Computing Policy Advisory Committee of Indiana University of Pennsylvania

III. Officers and Duties

  • The officers of ACPAC shall be the Elected Faculty Co-chair and the Administrative Co-chair. The Elected Co-chair shall be a faculty representative to ACPAC and shall be installed at the end of the final meeting of the academic year and shall serve until the final meeting of the following year. The term of office is one year with re-election possible, but for no more than two consecutive terms. The Faculty Co-chair shall be a faculty representative to ACPAC and shall be installed at the end of the final meeting of the academic year and shall serve for a term of two years. After one term, the Faculty Co-chair may be elected to serve one additional two-year term. A Faculty Co-chair may not serve more than two consecutive terms. The ACPAC Administrative co-chair shall be an Assistant Dean of Technology of a College Technology Manager nominated by the Chief Information Officer and ratified by a majority vote of ACPAC members. The administrative co-chair shall serve for a term of two years, and this term can be repeated if he/she is nominated and ratified as above.
  • Duties of Elected Faculty Co-chair:
    • Set the meeting agenda.
    • Appoint committees and action teams when needed.
    • Appoint ACPAC representatives to other committees.
    • Communicate ACPAC actions to appropriate university constituents.
  • Duties of Administrative Co-chair:
    • Record the minutes of each meeting.
    • Maintain the ACPAC website.
    • Assist in preparing the meeting agenda.
    • Following ACPAC guidelines, manage monetary funds that have been allocated to support academic technology and provide a report at each meeting.

V. Elections

  • A nominating committee shall be formed to produce a slate of candidates from the faculty representatives for the position of the Elected Faculty Co-chair and shall be presented at the last meeting of the year.
  • A paper ballot vote shall be conducted at the last meeting of the year with the winner selected by a majority vote of ACPAC members present.

VI. Amendments and Bylaws

  • Proposed amendments must be distributed at least one month prior to the scheduled vote.
  • Approval requires a two-thirds majority of the membership, which may be accomplished in person at a meeting, electronically, or by paper ballot.