Teaching, Learning and Technology Roundtable AY’2011

Steering Committee Meeting

Mary BalkunStephen Landry

September 30, 2010

Agenda

• Overview of the TLT Roundtable (Balkun/Landry)

• TLTR Accomplishments from AY’2009-10 (Balkun)

• Update on the “State of IT at SHU” (Landry)

• Possible Action Items for Consideration for AY’2010-11 (Fisher)

• Open Discussion (All)

• Determination of Next Steps (All)

Teaching, Learning and Technology Roundtable AY’2011

Overview of the TLTR at SHU

Mary BalkunStephen Landry

September 30, 2010

Overview of the TLT Roundtable

• SHU Strategic Plan of 1997 proposed a “cross functional” advisory committee to replace the IT strategic planning subcommittee that worked 1995-96

• In 1997 AAHE launched it’s Teaching, Learning, and Technology Roundtable program, helping campuses foster cross functional dialog on issues regarding instructional technology, to include faculty, administrators, librarians and technologists

• Provost Scholz formally convened first SHU TLTR in 1997

Overview of the TLT Roundtable (cont.)

• During first few years the TLTR’s action teams were focused on guiding implementation of the 1997 strategic plan– Recommended providing a network port in every faculty

office and providing every faculty member with a network and email account

– Recommended providing a Web page for every faculty– Recommended adoption of MS Word– Recommended categorization of “Mobile” and

“Technology Intensive” course sections– Served as review committee for first CDI proposals

Overview of the TLT Roundtable (cont.)

• Other significant accomplishments over the years include– Sponsored many showcases and symposia– After piloting several systems, recommended Blackboard

as replacement for Lotus LearningSpace– Tablet PC program for science and math programs– Cell phone pilot projects– Oversaw several faculty development initiatives, including

Faculty Innovation Grants (FIG), Research Computing, Student Undergraduate Research Fund (SURF)

– Made recommendations for IT budget cuts

Overview of the TLT Roundtable (cont.)

• TLT Roundtable Purpose:– To achieve the best in teaching and learning through more effective use of information technology while

controlling costs, a college or university needs continuing communication, cooperation, and collaboration among representatives of a wide range of faculty and academic support services to facilitate better planning, decision making, and support for faculty and students. • TLT Group Web Page: http://www.tltgroup.org/TLTR/guidelines.htm

• Provosts Charge (highlights):– On behalf of the University, and in the interests of enlightened use of technology for teaching and learning,

we place before the Seton Hall University Teaching, Learning and Technology Roundtable the following charge:• Serve as a forum and meeting place for discussion of institutional issues related to teaching, learning,

and technology• Create action teams to achieve essential short term goals deemed necessary by the membership of the

TLTR, and by their constituencies, advancing to the cabinet recommendations as they emerge from these teams

• Provide a forum for discussion and recommendations to enhance technology through representative participation by various stake holders such as the Faculty Senate, Academic Affairs, Student Affairs, Department of Information Technology, and other key organizations or groups as needed

• Stay informed of national trends in technology integration in higher education and communicate these trends to the University community– SHU TLTR Web Page:

http://www.shu.edu/offices/projects-initiatives/tltc-teaching-learning-technology-roundtable.cfm

Teaching, Learning and Technology Roundtable AY’2011

TLTR Report for AY’2009-10

Mary Balkun

September 30, 2010

Best Practices and Events

• Chairs: Kelly Shea & Lysa Martinelli• Objective: Identify and schedule “best practices”

showcases and other events in order to provide opportunities for discussion and demonstration of institutional issues relating to teaching and learning. If possible, highlight issues of environmental sustainability.

• Accomplishments: This committee held six community events to showcase how SHU faculty use technology in the classroom and hosted the annual faculty and student copyright events to keep the University in compliance with the TEACH Act and the DMCA.

Digital Sustainability

• Chairs: Richard Stern & Michael Taylor• Objective: Investigate technology tools, green

initiatives/sustainability and paperless classroom.• Accomplishments: This committee was successful in

working with the SGA to implement, manage and communicate the new printing limits placed on students to address the wasteful use of paper in the University Library and public computer facilities.

Emerging Technologies

• Chairs: Sharon Favaro, Bert Wachsmuth, & Abe Zakhem

• Objective: Identify new and emerging technologies and investigate their usefulness in teaching and research.

• Accomplishments: This committee was successful in working with IT and the Honors Program to pilot tablet computers for all Honors students, enabling them to utilize these form factor computers in the classroom.

User Support Committee

• Chairs: Anne Pummfrey & Paul Fisher• Objective: Investigate user problems and concerns

with user service and support.• Accomplishments: This committee was successful in

working with faculty to determine common problems with the new email system and work with IT to resolve issues as worked with IT to identify patterns of problems that were going “under-reported”.

Teaching, Learning and Technology Roundtable AY’2011

IT Update to the TLTR“State of IT at SHU”

Stephen G. Landry, CIO

September 30, 2010

Overview of IT at Seton Hall University

• Fully virtualized data center– Easier to manage; saves power and cooling; provides

failover and business continuity options– Most key services (Web site, PirateNet, Email, Blackboard

LS, Banner, AD, SAN) are redundant with failover– Secondary data center in McNulty Hall nearing completion

• Redundant 100mbs Internet connections– Two independent paths to data center

Overview of IT at Seton Hall University (cont.)

• Full wireless coverage from public areas, academic spaces, and residence halls– Upgrade to 802.11n in progress– Consolidating wired ports to reduce maintenance costs– 802.1x authentication scheduled for summer 2011

• Microsoft Active Directory (AD)– Most campus IT services authenticate through MS AD– Accounts are provisioned from the Banner administrative

system using Oracle Identity Management (OIM)– OIM enables users to reset their own passwords

Overview of IT at Seton Hall University (cont.)

• Microsoft Email– Faculty, staff, and administrators use SHU hosted MS

Exchange email servers• Access through MS Outlook or Outlook Web Access (OWA, a.k.a.,

Webmail• ArchiveOne server-based archiving available for MS Exchange

users

– Students use MS hosted email (MSLive@EDU)– All users can access MS hosted file sharing /collaboration

tools (MSLive Workspace. MSLive Skydrive, etc.)– MS SharePoint services will be added in AY’2011

Overview of IT at Seton Hall University (cont.)

• Administrative Systems– Sungard’s Banner administrative system for student

records, financial aid, HR/Payroll, and financial records– Upgrade to Banner 8 scheduled for fall break– System includes many “add-on’s” that enhance base

functionality of Banner system• E.g., Oracle Reports and Banner ODS for reporting; Banner Xtender

for document scanning / doc mgmt; Banner Workflow; others• Not all features of Banner suite are turned on for all areas,

functional managers control implementation of most Banner features; IT maintains over 200 Banner modifications; many are the interfaces between administrative systems, some add needed functionality to Banner system

Overview of IT at Seton Hall University (cont.)

• PirateNet Campus Portal– Provides single sign-on to many IT services, including

student email and MS Live services

• Learning Suite– Blackboard Learning Suite: Blackboard Learning System,

Content Systems, Assessment System, etc.– NEW: Starfish Retention System– Also available for pilot projects: Sakai open source

learning system

Overview of IT at Seton Hall University (cont.)

• Windows 7– Offers improved stability and manageability– Deployed for all new faculty and student laptops for

Mobile Computing 2010– To reduce support costs, IT is standardizing most users

onto Windows 7 over AY’2010-11– Administrative users with desktops that will not

satisfactorily run Windows 7 will be issued a used laptop from the Mobile Computing Program (after taking an online orientation to Windows 7)

– Faculty and students with Windows Vista can schedule an upgrade or wait until their next scheduled refresh

Overview of IT at Seton Hall University (cont.)

• See IT Annual Report and IT Portfolio of Projects online for more information

http://www.shu.edu/offices/technology/about-doit.cfm

IT Budget

• Like all areas of the University, the IT operating and personnel budgets were cut substantially in each of FY’2008, FY’2009, and FY’2010

• Proposed cuts were circulated widely; feedback on proposed budget cuts for this year was provided by TLTR and Faculty Senate IT committees

• FY’2011 budget summary part if IT annual report posted on IT Web site

• Huron Consulting Group made further recommendations for future IT budget cuts

Huron Consulting Group – Findings

• Overall central IT costs were about median for peer group and slightly lower than doctoral average– Central IT costs for faculty and user support slightly higher

than peers– Central IT costs for administrative system support slightly

lower than peers

• Mobile Computing Program is a revenue generator for the University, and other funding sources for core IT services would need to be found if the University elected to eliminate the program

Huron Consulting Group – Findings (cont.)

• SHU does not require technology training for employees; student technology training required in Freshmen Studies, but not ongoing

• SHU has a high number of Banner modifications relative to the size of the institution and support staff

• SHU has several standing IT advisory committees (e.g., TLTR, Faculty Senate IT Committee, Banner Steering Committee, etc.), but does not have an executive steering committee

Huron Consulting Group – Recommendations

• Implement mandatory technology training for students and employees as a way to reduce central IT support costs

• Reduce the number of Banner modifications as a way to reduce central IT support costs

• Engage executive steering committee as a means to ensure prioritization of IT services and projects in line with IT’s smaller staff and budget

IT Challenges for AY’2011

• Supporting the new generation of highly mobile devices (always on / always connected)

• Increasing bandwidth consumption• Rising costs of IT security and compliance• University budget situation (e.g., filling vacant

positions)• Supporting new generation of software (Open

Source, SaaS, SOA, etc.) – new options, new costs, new skills required

IT Challenges for AY’2011 (cont.)

• Supporting faculty research computing needs (e.g., Internet2 was discontinued in FY’2009)

• Enabling administrative areas to improve their effectiveness and efficiency while reducing administrative computing costs (e.g., reducing Banner modifications as Huron’s recommendation)

• Continue to leverage high levels of faculty interest and use of IT to support the University’s instruction and assessment initiatives

IT Challenges for AY’2011 (cont.)

• Implementing Huron recommendations:– Leveraging technology standardization and increasing user

proficiency to reduce IT support costs– Seek to reduce modifications and consolidate

administrative system in future upgrades to Banner suite– Engaging executive team in prioritization of services and

projects to align with IT budget reductions

Teaching, Learning and Technology Roundtable AY’2011

Possible Action Teams for AY’2011

Paul Fisher

September 30, 2010

The TLTR Process

• Break into Action Teams• Charged by the Steering Committee…that’s YOU!!!• Meet monthly & report back• Provide recommendations on next steps to the

Steering Committee…that’s YOU!!!• Determination of action by IT and Campus

Leadership

Action Team 1

• Faculty Best Practices & Events– Charge: Identify new and innovative practices in

infusing technology in teaching and learning. Organize events to demonstrate and showcase those innovations to the University Community.

– Focus on tools/services we already have being used in new and innovative ways by both faculty and students

Action Team 2

• Emerging Technologies– Charge: Identify new and innovative technologies

where the use of technology can positively impact the teaching and learning experience. Identify early trends in the use of technology in higher education; organize and assess pilot programs.

– Focus on the evolution of the University’s Mobile Computing Program.

Action Team 3

• Digital Sustainability– Charge: Identify ways that technology can help to

meet the University's sustainability goals; educate the University Community on techniques to utilize digital technologies in the classroom.

– Focus on utilizing current technologies to reduce paper consumption; explore the use eBooks & eBook readers to reduce paper consumption.

Action Team 4

• Next Steps for SHU’s Learning System– Charge: Research the feasibility of the University to

utilize an open-source alternative learning system (e.g. Sakai) in place of the current Blackboard Learning Management System as a way of reducing cost and/or increasing flexibility of the University’s learning system

– Focus: Assess the uses of the current Blackboard Learning System and identify the “must have” features and functions; compare results with open source alternatives; recommend and organize a pilot project.

Action Team 5

• User Services & Support – Charge: Identify high priority and/or “under

reported” IT problems at the University and work with University IT Services for resolution.

Are there other potential action teams we should consider?

Are there issues of concern to the steering committee that action teams might take up in AY’2011?

OPEN DISCUSSION

WRAP UP AND

NEXT STEPS