For the 2010/2011 academic year, the ATSC has been given the following four charges from Provost Netzhammer.
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 “...is 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: http://keeneweb.org/celt/files/2008/12/keenestatecollege_academic_affairs_technology_plan_111808.pdf
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:
vision for future academic technology initiatives
current (and past) campus initiatives that use the nine principles of
effective learning environments.
ATCLG (academic technology core leadership group) will update the list of
ATCLG will update the list of new priorities in consultation with ATSC.
ATSC will review initiatives to find linkages with nine principles of effective
work will be shared between the two groups (ATSC and ATCLG) and with
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.
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).
conscious of respecting faculty academic freedom and privacy, suggest
additional ways core information could be collected.
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?
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.
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:
o How are the labs being used and
o When are the labs being used?
o Is there support in place when
the labs are open (faculty, students.)?
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?
recommendations for next steps for the 2011-2012 academic year.
Charge #4: ATSC Showcase
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.
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
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.
regularize, develop and support a once-a-year “showcase” that highlights
faculty use of low-cost, low-barrier and/or Web 2.0 technologies used to
facilitate student centered instruction.
faculty use of MEC and classroom space to enable student centered
dates, including those that link into the LRTP-Rich Media presentation to
the BOT in January.
the Inventory created by the other sub-committee's charge (Technology
Trends), track faculty who are doing this
with CELT to develop schedule and programming
this event with other KSC and USNH programming