Instructional Support Committee

Minutes of November 21, 2007
Noon
Faculty House

Attending: Cecilia Knight, Erin Hurley, Laura Lienemann (SGA), Ian Athanasakis (STAC), Jon Chenette, Richard Fyffe, Roger Vetter, Bill Francis, John Kalkbrenner, Shuchi Kapila, David Romano, Monty Roper, Terri Phipps

Attending: Richard Fyffe, Roger Vetter, David Romano, Erin Hurley, Cecilia Knight, Jon Chenette, John Kalkbrenner, Shuchi Kapila, Monty Roper, Ian Athanasakis (STAC), Bill Francis, Terri Phipps

Minutes of 7 November approved.

Fast Track Approval: Teaching Writing at Grinnell, $500. These lunch meetings have been very well attended.

AV Upgrades:

  • List of planned upgrades has not yet been prioritized. Bill would like feedback from faculty in order to assess greatest needs.
  • Plans to upgrade rooms in use during the academic year need to take into account which ones can be completed overnight in order to minimize disruption of classes.
  • One difficult decision in the rooms is placement of screens as faculty use screens and whiteboards in different ways. Screen placement is a separate issue from installing and upgrading controls, so will not impact the upgrade schedule.
      • The screens in Carnegie 313-314 may be moved.
      • Classrooms don’t always accommodate class size, particularly when using technology. Students often must sit on the floor or stand against the walls in order to see screens. This is also problematic when trying to hear audio because of speaker placement..
  • There is no sense of urgency to prioritize the upgrade schedule. Faculty are making do with the current set-up this semester. If ISC members learn of an urgent need, they will contact Bill.
  • Goodnow 105 is not on the list. Bill will check into it.

Curricular Development proposal

SPN: ISC will request more information from faculty member as well as input from the Office of Interdisciplinary Studies.

  • Has the course proposal been approved by the Division?
  • In what ways will the course be interdisciplinary? The course plan is vague.
  • What is the advantage of attending the exhibit during the requested time frame? Will this time allow the faculty member to interact with someone in particular?
  • Is it necessary to visit the exhibit or could materials be viewed online?

Library/ITS vision statement has been updated to help clarify text, in particular the definition of inquiry-based learning.

Library/ITS Budget

ITS has requested increased funding

  • to upgrade AV interfaces in classrooms;
  • to increase the rate of bandwidth expansion. Current bandwidth is at 35% growth each year. ITS has requested 70%.

The Library has requested

  • increased funding for journal and database subscriptions
  • additional support person to coordinate services across campus (AV, Science, Burling, etc)
  • software for ILL to provide better service
  • upgrades to the Listening Room. The current setup is outdated; for instance, users must request assistance from staff each time they wish to repeat listening to a track.

Google Apps

Ian presented information on Google Apps for Education, free Web-based applications that some students are currently using that allow greater ease of collaboration, including remote viewing of presentations. Applications include email (“gmail”), word processing, spreadsheet, presentation (similar to PowerPoint), calendar, chat, and web development and maintenance tools. Support is available 24/7. More than 67% of students voted to approve the Google Apps initiative.

Gmail: Emails are threaded, making it easier to track conversations. It also has an efficient spam filter based on Machine Learning, as well as Auto Save and “starring” (similar to “flagging” in Outlook) features. Gmail works from any access point, including PDAs, BlackBerries, etc. Users can keep their current @grinnell.edu address. Users receive 2048 mb of email quota.

Zimbra Suite is another option that approximately 200 educational institutions are currently using.

aculty are encouraged to explore Google Apps. [http://www.google.com/a/edu] Even though access to collaborative tools has increased, faculty may not use them, some because they don’t see the relevance, they don’t have time or want to take time to learn new software, or they just don’t know they are available.

Respectfully submitted,
Terri Phipps