• CIS Home
• Help
• Email
• Computer Security
• Facilities & Services
• Policies
• About CIS

Computing & Information Services

Committee members in attendance:
Marty Ringle, Christine Morita-McVey, Victoria Hanawalt, Gary Norbraten, Alex Botero-Lowery, Noah Pepper, Sonia Sabnis, Paul Hovda, Leslie Limper, Aki Miyoshi, Stephen Wissow, Peter Steinberger

Welcome and introductions

Jim Fix was unable to attend. Marty Ringle convened the meeting at 3:10 pm.

Continued discussion of Email as means for official communication

In Jim Fix's absence, Paul Hovda began this discussion by referring the committee to the proposed changes to the user agreement. The section currently titled: Access to Electronically Stored Materials would be re-titled Storage and Transmission of Electronic Materials. A sentence would be inserted (show in italics) between the first and second paragraphs of that section and a phrase would be inserted in the third paragraph, as illustrated below.

Gary Norbraten questioned if the location in the user agreement for this wording change was the best, noting that this text highlights an expectation while the surrounding text describes usage prohibitions.  Gary also noted that this placement is not the most visible. Paul responded to Gary's second point by suggesting that similar language be added to other documents that students are more likely to read thoroughly, such as the Technology Survival Guide. Leslie Limper suggested placing this text at the beginning of the User Agreement, under Acceptable Uses. Alex Botero-Lowry replied that it does not need to be so prominent. Paul responded that the proposed placement is appropriate as it is included with other security issues.   Victoria Hanawalt concurred.  There were no further comments. Aki Miyoshi moved that the User Agreement be updated with the proposed changes in the original placement. Paul seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Instructional technologist recruitment

Marty discussed the increasing demand of faculty in all five curricular divisions for more instructional technology support.  Fifty-eight faculty members have established Moodle accounts since the system was introduced in fall 2006 and the need for staff assistance has grown rapidly.

Marty described the difficulty in finding a candidate with: (a) a broad understanding of liberal arts college pedagogy; (b) solid technology skills; and (c) a salary requirement that fits within the range offered.   Marty noted that the search is complicated by the fact that virtually all of Reed’s peer institutions are also recruiting candidates for similar positions and offering much higher salaries than Reed. 
 
Aki asked why an instructional technologist would need to have an understanding of pedagogy at Reed.  Wouldn't technical skills be more important?  Marty responded that the instructional technologist serves as a liaison between faculty and 'behind the scenes' technical staff.  An instructional technologist needs to understand a faculty member's teaching goals (and style) in order to identify potentially useful pieces of software and to translate faculty needs into technical specifications that can be used by programmers.

Noah Pepper suggested having a faculty member in each department facilitate discussions between faculty and programmers. Marty responded that this process would be difficult to coordinate given the breadth of skills needed. Noah responded that perhaps professors should expect to learn some of these skills on their own and that this would enhance their courses. Alex expressed surprise that a programmer would not be able to communicate directly with faculty.  Gary responded that understanding faculty needs is different from understanding the programming required. Noah suggested that students could translate faculty needs to programmers.  Marty noted that this might work in some cases –– citing some work that Noah himself did with a faculty member last summer –– and would be exploited to the degree possible.  But a full-time instructional technologist is needed to address the volume and diversity of faculty requests as well as to hire, train, and supervise student assistants. Aki agreed that a staff liaison between faculty members and programmers is a good option.

Reed's participation in the NITLE consortium

Marty described the NITLE consortium, originally launched by the Mellon Foundation.  Reed joined NITLE with a dozen other west coast liberal arts colleges and has been finding the membership worthwhile.  Marty noted that Moodle collaboration has been extremely valuable and has saved the college quite a bit of money during the past year.

Sonia Sabnis described her experience collaborating with classics faculty from other NITLE schools.  She reported that team teaching takes pressure off faculty but can result in uneven lectures.  She noted that the teaching levels elsewhere tend to be lower than Reed expectations, so we would not use inter-institution team teaching in place of advanced language courses.  She did, however, find value in the NITLE collaboration and mentioned that she, Nigel, and others would be involved in hosting a NITLE classics workshop in June 2008.

Marty mentioned Hyong Rhew’s recent positive report on a NITLE seminar he attended in Texas, noting that faculty view NITLE as having a good potential for learning about and sharing technology.   Marty also mentioned that February 1st is the deadline for the last round of NITLE instructional innovation fund grant applications.

Marty adjourned the meeting at 4:00 pm.

The remaining agenda item was deferred, pending the hiring of an instructional technologist:

Summary of faculty use of technology and its support