Charge 2010-2011

Final ATSC Report 2010-2011

Charge 1: Review of Academic Affairs Technology Plan

Created in 2007 and adopted in 2008, the Academic Affairs Technology Plan provides “an overarching vision and direction for academic technology first within Academic Affairs and then more broadly for the campus”.

As stated in the plan the AATP “ the building block upon which all academic technology issues and initiatives stand. Campus planning proposals, requests to CITC for funding, and curricular development initiatives involving academic technology should specifically reference the Academic Technology Strategic Plan and relate how their initiative supports and/or furthers this vision.”

The entire plan is located here:

The AATP is intended to be a living document that provided the vision for the adoption and use of academic technology. However, the plan needs to be updated so that it can:

1. provide vision for future academic technology initiatives
2. inventory current (and past) campus initiatives that use the nine principles of effective learning environments. 

The Charge:

  • The ATCLG (academic technology core leadership group) will update the list of AY2009-2010 accomplishments
  • The ATCLG will update the list of new priorities in consultation with ATSC.
  • The ATSC will review initiatives to find linkages with nine principles of effective learning environments.
  • All work will be shared between the two groups ATSC and ATCLG) and with campus. 

Charge 2: Technology Trends

Keene State has an institutional commitment to promoting innovative and effective technology use, as outlined in both the Academic Plan and the Academic Affairs Technology Plan, but it is often difficult to tell in what ways we are actually using technology in the classroom. What is the level of adoption of Web 2.0 technology? Do faculty incorporate web video into their courses? Is Blackboard used for interaction with students or as a document storage area?

As this committee discovered in its past session when its charge had a different focus, lack of basic information in such areas makes it difficult to make informed decisions about technology use.

The Charge:

  • Inventory and evaluate the current public information we have access to that can allow us to detect trends in technology use (e.g. NEASC syllabi, number of Blackboard accounts) and its usefulness in helping guide policy. (Note: the committee does not need to compile this information, as they did last session -- merely reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of using that data to make decisions).
  • While conscious of respecting faculty academic freedom and privacy, suggest additional ways core information could be collected.
  • Rethink the “email survey model” of data collection. If use of a survey is deemed desirable -- how do we improve response rates on surveys, and avoid selection bias? How do we make sure the data collected is meaningful? 
  • In addition to or in replacement of a survey, design and implement a qualitative interview-based or focus-group based process that gets to more detail with a selected number professors about what their use of technology looks like. Suggest a schedule for such evaluation and do a pilot or test of such a model. 
A final report should provide both the information collected and the recommendations.

Charge 3 - Specialized/Discipline Lab Review

Keene State has 18 specialized and discipline-specific labs on the campus and there is one proposed for the renovated Adams Tech/Butterfield building. Unfortunately little is known about how the work taking place in these learning spaces is related to learning outcomes within the major and specific courses, if it is.

The Charge:

  • Complete an in-depth analysis of the efficiency and effectiveness of the specialized/discipline labs on campus including both faculty and student perspectives. Consider questions such as:
    • How are the labs being used and by whom? 
    • When are the labs being used?
    • Is there support in place when the labs are open (faculty, students.)?
  • Investigate the impact of imminent campus-wide wireless on the need for such labs by looking into practices adopted by other institutions. The underlying question here, is a lab the only learning space in which current lab-based activities can take place?
    • Develop recommendations for next steps for the 2011-2012 academic year.

Charge 4: Showcase of Faculty Engaged Learning
"The Secret Revolution"faculty technology showcase - Friday, 2/18/11 -

Professional development in instructional technology:

2004 and following in 2005 and 2006, Academic Affairs and the Information Technology Group funded faculty technology grants that resulted in the “Instructional Technology Best Practices” fair where grant recipients presented the results of their project to colleagues. Each event was kicked off by national leaders in the field of technology and educational technology including Jon Udell (social software), Marc Prensky (digital immigrants, digital natives), and Helen Barrett (e-portfolios). By tying grant outcomes to the vision of national leaders, faculty at KSC were able to see the linkage between theory and national trends to the work colleagues were doing. Eleven grants were awarded in three years.
2004, 2005, 2006

Other faculty-focused events include scheduled ‘how-to’ workshops, less formal ‘brown-bag’ demonstrations or discussions, and once-a-year guest speakers such as the December 2008 presentation by Terry Doyle (“Helping Students Learn in a Learner Centered Environment”).

The challenge with previous efforts has been the inability to sustain and regularize professional development that supports both technology adoption and student centered instruction. The results have often been the adoption of technology that supports instructivism with little understanding of how to create opportunities for students to use technology for their own learning.

The Charge:
  • To regularize, develop and support a once-a-year “showcase” that highlights
    • KSC faculty use of low-cost, low-barrier and/or Web 2.0 technologies used to facilitate student centered instruction.
    • KSC faculty use of MEC and classroom space to enable student centered instruction 
  • Explore dates, including those that link into the LRTP-Rich Media presentation to the BOT in January.
  • Using the Inventory created by the other sub-committee's charge (Technology Trends), track faculty who are doing this
  • Collaborate with CELT to develop schedule and programming
    • Link this event with other KSC and USNH programming 
Subpages (1): Charge 2011-2012