Feb. 4, 2008

Siletz Room

Present: Ann Adams, Lori Rowton, Alan Heywood, Dawn McNannay, Susan Clark, Jennifer Beudert, Elizabeth Lundy, Linda Carroll, Marlene Propst, Dan Lara, Phil Krolick and Chareane Wimbley-Gouveia.

Welcome and Introductions (Jennifer Beudert) Jennifer opened the meeting by welcoming members.

Report from “Find Our Mission” Workgroup (Elizabeth Lundy) Elizabeth announced that the ad hoc committee had met, and she distributed a handout of their recommendations for the new mission or purpose of DEIT (Handout available upon request from Lori Rowton). The ad hoc group also proposed that the committee change it’s name to ITEC (Instructional Technology & E-Learning Committee). Committee members reviewed the new mission statement, membership listing, and operating guidelines, and Elizabeth asked if there was any feedback. Marlene suggested that we consider using the council’s charter format for this committee’s format, because of familiarity.

Jennifer noted that there is nothing in the current Operating Guidelines that addresses who is a voting member and who is not, or what the procedure is for making important decisions. How does ITEC get everyone to a meeting to participate in voting? Would proxy votes be acceptable? Linda suggested that an agenda be sent out ahead of time, that described the agenda items requiring a vote, and any committee member who could not attend would then have advance notice to send a representative in his/her place. There was much discussion on how to make meetings more accessible to all, and on deciding on when to meet next to make sure that as many people as possible could attend. The next meeting will be scheduled on a Tuesday (as opposed to Monday afternoons), to help accommodate faculty with different teaching schedules. Jennifer asked Elizabeth to make the recommended changes to the mission statement handout, so that she can send out a revised copy to the DEIT membership for review before the next meeting. This “draft” copy of DEIT’s purpose and operating guidelines will be voted on at the next meeting, as well as, whether or not to adopt the recommended name change (ITEC).

DEIT subcommittee reports:

a. Technology Initiatives (Ann Adams) Ann reported that this committee is working on changes the college needs and would like to see in a new Learning Management System. Susan Clark and Paul Hagood are developing a survey for faculty input on the desired features, tools, and functionality of a future Course Management System. Ann and Alan Heywood will work together to compile a list of what systems are out there that are affordable, and can be supported by current staff based on the faculty survey results. She added that the committee plans to make a recommendation by spring term.

b. DEIT Grants/Training (Susan Clark) Susan noted that this committee has met once this term, and that they continue to work on revising the current DEIT grant application, by determining new guidelines and parameters as to who will be eligible to receive them. She added that the committee plans to process current grant requests under the current operating guidelines, but they would like to apply the new processes and procedures starting fall term, 2008. She distributed a handout of the revised grant application, and noted that the application is for online courses and/or online resources. She asked the committee for feedback on three key questions to help determine the new criteria and procedures for granting applications fall term.

The first question asked was “Does the DEIT grant subcommittee fund faculty learning or doing or both. In other words, should grants be awarded to fund training and an individual’s time in learning to use the instructional technology tools; or should projects be funded when online materials are designed and developed with support from Media Services, etc.; or should grants be awarded for both? If DEIT grants are going to fund a faculty member’s time, then what can that time be spent on? Discussion included the need for some level of commitment from faculty to complete the work approved by the grant, and that it would be okay to pay for training if it were “tied” to the end product.

The second question for consideration was “What are the priorities and how are they to be determined? Ann suggested that the criteria be determined by looking at the set priorities of the E-Learning Plan, division priorities, and what priorities may be tied to the college’s Strategic Plan. Jennifer asked Alan Heywood to bring the relevant action step information from the e-Learning Plan to the next meeting, so that we can have further discussion.

The third question, “Should we require Quality Matters training as a criteria for awarding grants, was tabled for future discussion due to time constraints.

c. Strategic Planning (Alan Heywood) No report was given due to limited time.

NEXT MEETING: March. 4, 2008, 2-3:00pm in the Siletz Room