TLC 6.2 March 1, 2013

Transcription

1 hi Meeting 5 Friday, February 1, 2013 Attendance REVISED MINUTES TEACHING AND LEARNING COMMITTEE TLC 6.2 March 1, 2013 TFDL 630A 9:00 a.m.-11:00 a.m. Co-Chairs: A. Jeje, L. Taylor Members: Voting: J. Ayala (alt. for E. Perrault), J. Bailey, S. Barker, D. Brown, C. Cloutier, B. Johnson, E. Kurz, K.-J. Pinto, L. Reid, P. Rosenau, B. Schulz, A. Stalker, J. Windsor Non-Voting: S. Hoenle, C. Magnes, R. Pedersen, V. Ravenscroft Regrets: J. Lock, D. Gadbois, T. Hickerson, D. Sumara, V. Tumasz, L. Young Guests: B. Beatty Secretary: Scribe: S. Belcher A. Wagner Opening Session Lynn Taylor, Vice-Provost (Teaching and Learning) and Co-Chair of the Teaching and Learning Committee (TLC), called the meeting to order at 9:03 a.m. TLC 5.1 Approval of the Agenda MOTION: Schultz/Brown That the Agenda for the February 1, 2013 Teaching and Learning Committee meeting be approved as written. CARRIED TLC 5.2 Approval of the Minutes, TLC Meeting #4, January 18, 2013 Joey Windsor, GSA Vice-President (Academic), requested the following revisions to item 4.8 (Graduate Students Association (GSA) Report) of the minutes:

2 Teaching and Learning Committee Minutes 2 Meeting 5 February 1, 2013 Grant Graduate Assistantships (Non-Teaching) (GA(NT)) contracts are progressing and he has met with several departments to explain the process and resources available MOTION: Schultz/Brown That the members of the Teaching and Learning Committee approve the Minutes of the Teaching and Learning Committee Meeting #4, held on January 18, 2013, as revised. CARRIED TLC 5.3 Remarks of the Co-Chairs Lynn Taylor included the following in her remarks: The proposal for the Institute for Teaching and Learning (ITL) is undergoing revisions. It was reviewed by the Academic Planning and Priorities Committee and the GFC Executive Committee, and returns to TLC today for further discussion. It will be presented to General Faculties Council (GFC) on February 14, The proposal for University-wide Teaching Awards requires further discussion from the TLC before going to GFC on March 14, In future meetings, the TLC will examine how the University collects and uses evidence of teaching effectiveness. The TLC will report on this to the community in May or June. TLC will review its Workplan on an annual basis, beginning with a discussion of the current Workplan at the March 1, 2013 meeting. Ayodeji Jeje, TLC Co-Chair, made no remarks. Items TLC 5.4 University Bookstore Revitalization Brent Beatty, Manager (University Bookstore), was present to speak to this item. Background The University Bookstore is undergoing a revitalization of its operations, physical space, and vision. The revitalization plan is based on information gathered from the industry, as well as market research and presentations by MBA students in the Haskayne School of Business. The plan will address changing trends in learning resources and learning tools. The University Bookstore will not only be revitalized to meet the needs of the University community, but also the citizens of Calgary by hosting events for the greater community.

3 Teaching and Learning Committee Minutes 3 Meeting 5 February 1, 2013 A member noted that the University Library has a commitment to carry one copy of a textbook if the retail cost is over $100, and suggested that a partnership be explored between the University Bookstore and the University Library regarding textbooks in the library collections. The committee discussed issues regarding the cost of textbooks to students, and instances when a required textbook is under-utilized in a course. Brent Beatty advised that he is willing to assist instructors in deciding whether a textbook for a class should be listed as optional, recommended or required. The University Bookstore has a rate my book application where students can rate the quality of the textbook and the extent to which it was used in class. This application is currently little-used by students, resulting in minimal feedback reaching the instructors. Brent Beatty emphasized that he is available to meet with Faculties to assist in textbook selection, and provide data on textbook cost and history of sales. In response to a question, Brent Beatty advised that textbook publishers have not been responsive to University suggestions to change pricing models for electronic textbooks. He clarified that publishers have two pricing models for electronic textbooks: purchasing an electronic textbook at full price, or renting a textbook at 40-60% of the full price. He referenced an article, The Object Formerly Known as the Textbook in The Chronicle of Higher Education which offers a perspective on the publishing industry s view on electronic textbooks. The committee discussed the pricing of electronic textbooks compared to the relative cost of creating and delivering electronic material, as well as the importance of examining open models of course materials. The committee discussed how offering more digital courses will affect the University Bookstore, and the cultural shift toward electronic textbooks. Members reviewed the OverDrive model which allows for multiple licenses for course packages. In response to a question, Brent Beatty confirmed that the University Bookstore will receive cosmetic renovations in its current space before moving to the new location as part of the MacEwan Student Centre renovations. He also confirmed that the University Bookstore s satellite locations will receive renovations. Action The committee requested that, in advance of the next cycle of textbook orders, a crossfunctional group send a memo to Faculties that indicates the options for textbook access, alternative course material, and information about the costs of textbooks to students per year. The committee requested that Brent Beatty provide regular educational meetings to Faculties in order to review options for textbooks and alternative course material.

4 Teaching and Learning Committee Minutes 4 Meeting 5 February 1, 2013 The committee will discuss a University strategy for textbooks and course materials, as well as a curriculum development checklist at the next TLC meeting on March 1, TLC 5.5 Institute for Teaching and Learning (ITL) Background Lynn Taylor gave a presentation on the Institute for Teaching and Learning (ITL) to the TLC on January 18, 2013, and to the GFC Executive Committee on January 29, She requested that the TLC review the draft proposal and provide feedback prior to its being reviewed by GFC on February 14, In response to a question, Lynn Taylor remarked that the purpose of the ITL is to facilitate knowledge flow, and therefore she is willing to share her knowledge of the ITL space design with the Haskayne School of Business which is exploring innovative space planning for teaching and learning. Another member indicated that the Taylor Family Digital Library staff is also a valuable resource in planning innovative teaching and learning spaces, particularly in regard to the use of technology. The committee discussed the difference between the mandate of the ITL and the mandate of the current Teaching and Learning Centre. Lynn Taylor clarified that the ITL will serve as an incubator of ideas and will not have a direct role in governance. The ITL will provide expert consultation on governance issues. Members expressed concern at the lack of opportunity to consult with their Faculties and provide feedback on the proposal for the ITL. Lynn Taylor indicated that although the timeline for consultation is compressed, the groundwork for the ITL was created in the Integrated Teaching and Learning Framework, which had wide consultation. Susan Belcher, the University Secretary, remarked that the proposal before the TLC is the concept and general plan, and that GFC approval will begin the ITL launch process and will not end the creative process of developing the ITL. She advised that as a public document, members may distribute and discuss the draft ITL proposal with their Faculties. TLC 5.6 University-wide Teaching Awards Proposal Presentation Lynn Taylor remarked that she has consulted with the Provost on this proposal and received positive feedback. This proposal is meant to be situated as part of a University-level system of awards approved by GFC. She requested that the TLC provide feedback on the names of the awards and the timeline for when the awards would be presented.

5 Teaching and Learning Committee Minutes 5 Meeting 5 February 1, 2013 The committee discussed using past award winners as inspiration for the naming of these new awards. Members expressed concern that the history of teaching awards be preserved and be integrated within the ITL. Members discussed the possibility of including information about the University-wide Teaching Awards ceremony, to be held in September 2013 and in March thereafter, during the launch of the ITL in March, since one of the functions of the ITL is to raise awareness of teaching excellence. The committee discussed collaborating with the Students Union (SU) to look at the possibility of having the SU teaching awards ceremony fall within the same week as the University-wide Teaching Awards ceremony, in order to cross-promote the ceremonies and broaden focus on the celebration of teaching. In response to a question, Lynn Taylor confirmed that only awards with successful nominations will be awarded, therefore not all awards may be awarded each year. Increased awareness of teaching awards is required in order to encourage nominations. She confirmed that each award will have a maximum of one recipient per award in the category per year and that a person cannot receive an award twice. The committee discussed the value of the awards, particularly whether award recipients would prefer money set aside specifically to attend a conference, conduct research, or create a new course. Lynn Taylor advised that discussions with the Provost revealed that no new funds would be attached to these awards, but that their naming will be a fund development opportunity. Members discussed whether the awards criteria will be based on teaching excellence over one year or a larger period of time. Lynn Taylor clarified that the proposal will not address these details when approved by GFC, in order to allow for flexibility. TLC 5.7 Report on the LMS Decision Process Vaughn Ravenscroft, Chief Information Officer, gave an update on the Learning Management System (LMS) decision process. Presentation Vaughn Ravenscroft reviewed the total cost per annum to use Blackboard as the University s LMS, which, in 2011, for the academic year, was $256,000. He surveyed the University community for feedback, and invited LMS vendors (Blackboard, Canvas, Desire2Learn, Moodle) to provide demonstrations of their products on campus. Other forms of community engagement included town halls, hands-on workshops, focus groups, interviews, and consultations.

6 Teaching and Learning Committee Minutes 6 Meeting 5 February 1, 2013 In 2012, the LMS Priorities Survey used the community feedback to create criteria in the Request for Proposal (RFP) and RFP evaluation. Vendors provided online demonstrations that were available for viewing in a sandbox environment. Eighty sandbox accounts were created, with 112 survey responses received. The data collected from the survey came from eleven Faculties, undergraduate and graduate students, and support units such as the Teaching and Learning Centre, Information Technologies, and the Libraries. Larger Faculties preferred Canvas and Desire2Learn. The Graduate Students Association (GSA) preferred Blackboard. The RFP aggregate scores indicated that there were few differences between the vendors in terms of features and functionality. On campus hosting vs. off campus hosting, vs. cloud hosting was explored, revealing advantages and disadvantages for each option in addition to cost implications. The choice in LMS leads to cost considerations for related e-learning tools. For example, Elluminate costs $50,000 per year, but feedback on its usage and usability has been mixed. More feedback is required before a decision will be made to switch to a lower-cost alternative such as Adobe Connect at $25,000 per year. The choice in LMS also raises questions regarding how to integrate an LMS platform with collaboration tools, such as Google Campus for and document editing, or integrating Microsoft (MS) Office 365 and MS Lync. Vaughn Ravenscroft emphasized that regardless of the LMS selected, the final choice will not please all stakeholders due to the variety of how LMS platforms are used on campus. A member noted that the SU did not evaluate Blackboard because the response from students strongly indicated that they did not want it to be considered. It was indicated that this was because the new Blackboard platform did not reflect the desired culture of students. Undergraduate students also provided feedback indicating that social media was not a functionality that was important to them in the LMS. Members discussed campus-wide ambivalence in responding to the survey, and the timing of the survey release. Vaughn Ravenscroft reported that there was an added challenge to the data in that a number of Faculties aggregated their responses and sent it as one final response. A member reported that the SU responses made it clear that whichever LMS is selected it should have dedicated support and training for users either through IT or the LMS vendor. Vaughn Ravenscroft advised that he is examining the training and support provided by the vendors.

7 Teaching and Learning Committee Minutes 7 Meeting 5 February 1, 2013 In response to a question, Vaughn Ravenscroft reported that there should be a decision made regarding the LMS within two to three months. If the new LMS is not Blackboard, it may take a year to implement the platform, with the first use beginning in Fall He is exploring automated course migration tools in order to assist instructors in switching their course content to another platform should the need arise. Action Vaughn Ravenscroft s Power Point presentation will be made available on Blackboard so that the TLC members can review it with their Faculties and provide feedback. The TLC will have further discussion on the LMS decision process at future meetings. Information Items TLC 5.8 Students Union (SU) Report Kenya-Jade Pinto, SU Vice-President (Academic), indicated that the meeting s discussion captured the information she had prepared to report. TLC 5.9 Graduate Students Association (GSA) Report Joey Windsor, GSA Vice-President (Academic), made no report due to time constraints. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 11:03 a.m.