Meeting Notes

Charlie Green
Tracy Heeman
Bob Henshaw
Vicki Kolowitz
Wallace McClendon
Tim McMillan
Steve Melamut

Call to Order
Welcome and Introductions

Chair's Update

Item 1: Presentation. Charles Green, Ph.D. A discussion of new learning technologies that Charles' group, OASIS Academic Technologies, is exploring: SoftwareSecure Exam, e-Instruction, VitalBook.

Part of OASIS group mission to take advantage of CCI infrastructure in instructional and research.

E-instruction

• Audience response system is helping promote active learning within the classroom, improve attendance and engagement.
• Technology has improved, radio frequency solutions now available. Passing costs of recievers to students.

Vital Source Vital Book

• E-book software allows student annotations, highlighting, full-text searching, etc.
• Public domain content is already included in new CCI software load.
• Vital Source website at http://www.vitalbook.com/.

Discussion:

• Student response to e-books varies.
• Publishers are looking for alternative models, since a lot of resale revenue is being diverted by self-service options like Ebay.
• More faculty need to be aware of these tools.
• Departmental costs vary with scope and content.
• Does this represent too much information for some students and instructors?

Software Secure Exam

• Locks down laptop desktops during in-class exams. Helps address a disconnect between the way students learn to write and the way they are tested (e.g., bluebooks).
• Looking for central support for license.
• More information on website at: http://www.softwaresecure.com/

Are we taking advantage of potential synergies among academic units on campus? May need to take information sessions to schools and departments. CIT is hosting an interdisciplinary group looking at instructional applications and common needs across units.

Item 2: Update. Kathy Thomas (CIT). The UNC System Teaching and Learning with Technology Collaborative was contacted by SAS to ask our help in organizing faculty roundtables. The TLTC thinks this is a good opportunity for us to learn more about how our faculty are teaching with technology as well as help SAS understand how they can better serve UNC campuses. The TLTC is asking for help in identifying faculty in business, sciences, educational administration, public policy, and engineering who would be interested in attending a roundtable. More information below. Please contact Kathy Thomas (kathy_thomas@unc.edu) if you are interested.

**************
Location: SAS Campus - Executive Briefing Center, Building S
Number of Attendees: 10-15 max per roundtable
Time: 10 am - 3 pm
Dates: Tentative week of February 14 and February 21/alternate week of February 28 (please recommend best day)
Target Audience: Two Roundtables (1) business school programs
(2) science, educational administration, public policy, engineering

Purpose of Event: The goal of the SAS Faculty Roundtable is to provide an opportunity for faculty within the UNC System to participate in open dialog related to teaching and research using technology. SAS' purpose for hosting this event is to learn how we can better serve those campuses in our state by providing software that best suits the needs of faculty and students. By offering a platform for open and frank discussion we hope to learn more about how universities in our home state are constructing their courses; whether it be lecturers, case studies and/or real world applications. We welcome the opportunity to learn first hand what are some of the successes and challenges you face teaching in the 21st century. Please note: You do not have to be a SAS user to participate in these discussions. We welcome all faculty, SAS users and non-SAS uses alike. We also welcome those faculty who aren't currently teaching with some form of technology but would like to learn more about opportunities to do so.

Tentative Schedule
10:00 - Welcome and Introductions
12:00 - Lunch/Campus Tour
1:15 - Application Showcase
2:30 - Recap of Day/Next Steps
3:00 - Depart from SAS

Item 3: Presentation: Bob Henshaw (CIT). What other Universities are doing with small grant IT programs?

Most peer institutions are sponsoring some type of competitive instructional improvement grants program. Some are making major investments in instructional innovation. At institutions where support is strongest, the Chief Academic Officer is usually championing the cause. Some have specific technology components, others do not. Competitive grants programs are useful for teasing out innovative ideas across disciplines, especially at a decentralized institution like UNC-Chapel Hill. Competitive funding for instructional improvement at UNC is currently limited to the First Year Seminar and Honor's Programs.

What are the pros/cons of open competitive grants programs vs. earmarked funding?

Is the focus on technology a distraction from the underlying goal to improve learning?

What does the University's focus on small class size mean for larger classes and instructional technology use? Small class size alone doesn't say much about how the courses are actually being taught.

Item 4: (Continuing Item) Possible Projects

Faculty outreach efforts:
· Survey of faculty to determine the level of IT use currently
· Increase faculty knowledge of IT through programs to introduce faculty to new technologies
Identify technological and pedagogical trends
· Work with TAP on instruction technology trends
· Assess what we know now on how people learn
· Forecast the pedagogy and IT infrastructure needs for the next 20 years
Review Continuity of Operations Plans
· Work with IDT and ATN to make sure that the University has adequate resources to continue educational and research operations in the face of disasters or major events
IT Budget Support
· Propose a Competitive Grant process to disseminate new technology.
· Advocate for a faculty input into determining IT resource needs.
Other

Item 5: Announcements.

Summary of the convocation on scholarly publishing in a digital world will be on next meeting's agenda. Convocation white papers available at http://www.unc.edu/scholcomdig/.

Item 6:Project Status Updates

· Role of FITAC in TAP mission
· How to engage more faculty and how to judge faculty sentiment on IT issues.

• Can we create FITAC Subcommittees for each school?
• Some schools may already have existing groups we can tie into.
• Should we be doing more to address research issues?
• Should we consider doing a convocation each year on different topics (e.g., something on how students learn)?
  
  

Item 7: Future Agenda Items.

Agenda: TBA