On Wednesday, February 18, TLTR held a "technology retreat" to discuss the Technology Strategic Plan 2002-2005. Although the plan is not an operational plan that includes areas of responsibility, a timetable for implementation, etc., all of the eight goals and most of the sub-goals are currently being addressed at MCC. In the TLTR meeting held on January 27, the decision was made not to look at the plan as a whole but instead to examine closely a part of the plan (specifically goals five and six) and to assess how well those goals are being accomplished.

The retreat on Feburary 18 was well attended by at least twenty-five participants, and Naomi Story graciously agreed to serve as facilitator. A ground rule was adopted that no names would be used throughout the discussions. After lunch and after all the participants identified themselves, the larger group divided into four smaller groups to discuss goal five. Then, the group as a whole met and spokespersons for each group summarized the discussion. The same procedure was followed for the discussion of goal six.

GOAL 5: Use technology to facilitate open, timely, accurate, and relevant communication, both internally and externally.

GOAL 6 : Develop and maintain an infrastructure (human and physical resources) that supports the effective use of technology.

Tammi Saffold graciously agreed to take notes on the discussions, and those notes follow this summary. The notes are organized around each sub-goal and they follow the highlights below.

Discussion Highlights (prepared by Richard Felnagle):

Looking at the first sub-goal, the group seemed to be in general agreement that the goal of "effective and efficient web sites" had been met. Participants praised the changes in recent years, in particular the implementation of the portal and the way server downtimes are now being publicized in advance by email. However, the group expressed some concern about the lack of "ownership" for the web as a whole. The problem seems to be lack of clear areas of responsibility for web design and content.

In the area of fostering "an environment that is receptive to new communication systems and open to new ideas from all employee groups," the group seemed to feel that MCC has many avenues for communication, but many are used passively (as opposed to the TLTR retreat itself, which was viewed as an example of active communication). The group noted that many faculty are still reluctant to participate in innovative projects involving technology; one participant noted the difference between an environment conducive to innovation and one that actively fosters innovation.

Addressing the goal of fostering "collaboration among all departments on the campus," the group seemed to feel this area was being neglected, but there was praise for the "Tech Connect" bulletins and the President's weekly email updates.

Regarding the last two sub-goals, which deal with fostering communication among faculty and students, one participant noted that our systems permit lots of "communication outside of the classroom that is not recorded on a discussion board."

Turning toward the sixth goal (developing an effective infrastructure), the retreat participants were concerned that we need to do more to "develop, document, and disseminate technology standards, processes, protocols, and specifications." Concern was also raised about how standards are set and how effectively they are implement.

Discussion of the other sub-goals tended to overlap. The group expressed concern about the "convoluted" structure of IT and the lack of a central administrator. There was also considerable frustration expressed about the way in which we tend to discuss the same issues over and over again without seeing significant problems being resolved.

Discussion Notes (Prepared by Tammi Saffold):

GOAL 5: Use technology to facilitate open, timely, accurate, and relevant communication, both internally and externally.

What is working well?

5.1. Develop effective and efficient web sites that relay important information to the internal and external community.

- easy access to username and password creation
- navigation improved
- automated homepage utility and classes available for each instructor
- internal vs. external audiences don't have the same ease with navigation
- IT very forthcoming about server downtimes, upgrades, etc. Ease of contacting IT
- Adjunct faculty need to have a feature to see if classes will make or not
- Faculty could use a feature that allows them to put customized notes in schedule (i.e. an Internet-based classes has some required in-person sessions)
- The website has a lot of variability - this may be seen as positive or negative
- Lack of ownership for the structure of the website - need to assign people to sub-structures
- Great changes over the last several years
- Portal has made a significant positive impact to the homepage
- Much better job of communicating to internal community in the recent years
- Need to improve communication to external community, like transfer universities

5.2 Foster an environment that is receptive to new communication systems and open to new ideas from all employee groups.

- Types of communication
o phones, online boards for instruction, etc
o Add live online classes with webcams
- Misrepresentation of how groups are perceived or think they are perceived
- Passive rather than active fostering of communication - Today is an example of active fostering of communication
- Consensus that environment of new ideas is there, whether we actually use it or not is a different story
- Communication used to a fault at some times
- Need to introduce more immersive communication - online chat, etc.
- Some need to develop a positive receptiveness to innovation - always have people that are "gung ho" and others that are not. Must support both groups.
- Meetings like today are good, but they "preach to the choir"
- Are we creating an environment that is receptive to new ideas? Or are there people being threatened by these ideas? Are some over-whelmed?
- Difference between environments conducive to innovation and those fostering innovation
- Many people aren't intimidated but don't care to know or use technology.
- Should we be requiring people to use technology?
- Maybe faculty should get more involved because the students will be demanding it
- Students know what to expect about a class, they will drive which classes make - tech savvy teachers will have more student interest
- How is the environment here conducive to using technology? When we want to use the technology is it available? Do we have support?
- (see above) Exact reasons why some faculty do not use technology - lack of access, availability, and/or support
- Must be receptive to innovation and to those not wanting to use it. Cannot force people to teach in environments that are not interested in.
- Some people have never and will never move their stance on technology. We don't appear to hire for technology skills. Therefore, we're not fostering the right environment.
- Students drive what instructors do and instructors drive what the publishers will do. Some departments do not push for those textbooks that incorporate technology.
- Not just instructional technology - ex: email, forms online, There are lots of things that don't say you HAVE to use them but if you don't you'll be left behind. Some make the choice to not be connected.
- Need to communicate better with publishers
- Textbook publishers put meters on everything. They are behind the times.
- Do faculty bear responsibility for their frustration because they've gotten ahead of themselves and haven't researched whether we're ready to do this? i.e. the cowboy method.

5.3 Use technology to foster collaboration among all departments on the campus.

Needs some work in this area

- Collaboration among departments not as good as it could be
- Communication is very specific to department. Inter-departmental communication needs to improve
- Some of classroom money spent on projection units encourages more passive communication rather than active collaboration.
- Using blogs as student communication techniques - faculty or students may not know how to use it
- Motivating people to use technology should be a goal
- Technology literacy requirement suggestion
- Some people don't see this sub-goal in action at all while others had many examples of successful activities
- TechConnect and President's emails let us know what's going on.
- Tools are there, but creating the motivation to use them is not. Important that faculty keep up to date with technology just as they do with their subject matter. What is the incentive?
- There are basic fundamental tech things that faculty can't do regardless of IT support because of limitations of current technology.
- There are 1000s of tech tools and it's not possible to deal with all of them in one dept. They must pick and choose what they can and do support.
- Individual leadership vs. team leadership spreads the resources into many directions
- Universal requirements should not exist because these will differ depending on what faculty teach and who they are
- Cowboy efforts are needed to move you to a new "edge." We are difficult to deal with because we are large. We must foster the "jumping" or we lose the "edge."
- We stay current in our disciplines, but… How many of us devote time and energy to stay current in pedagogy? Many faculty don't participate in convenient on-campus learning opportunities. Many faculty are more interested in what they teach rather than how they teach.

5.4 Use technology to enhance communication and collaboration among instructors and students.

- Great changes over the last several years
- Need some work
- This sub-goal needs to distinguish between course communication and outside of course communication.

5.5 Use technology to enable collaboration among students.

- Back communication (communication outside of the classroom that is not recorded on a discussion board) occurs between students that we are not aware of
- (Many additional overlapping comments from sub-goals 5.3 and 5.4)

GOAL 6 : Develop and maintain an infrastructure (human and physical resources) that supports the effective use of technology.

What is working well?

6.1. Develop, document, and disseminate technology standards, processes, protocols, and specifications.

- I would never implement tech standards because I can't live within a box
- Best to abide by some standards because there are standards provided (desktop images, etc)
- Many students need a basic standard to follow so they don't get overwhelmed
- We need some standards but the process of choices made as to what is standard. Who makes the choices and how?
- There has to be some administrative "teeth" in the decision of tech standards. How does someone get something standard?
- Instructionally, we tend to build decentralized lab structures where there is no inter-disciplinary sharing
- Suggest a standard to use internal technology consultants (either IT or CTL, as example)
- Only standard important to students is how they get to the course, usability important
- Faculty needs help with interpretation, some mentoring, explanation, support.

6.2. Identify the current and future technology infrastructure needs of the college in order to ensure reliability.
6.3. Enhance and maintain infrastructure that supports the rapidly changing technology needs of the institution.
6.4. Establish clearly defined lines of communication within the organization as they relate to technology.
6.5. Use technology to improve college operations and procedures.

- Informal lines of communication established
- We've made a start to use technology to use resources more efficiently. We're on the cusp of this.
- Remarkable job given convoluted structure with IT lacking CEO
- Given budget constraints, things are progressing slowly, but are decisions made based on reaction or planned process?
- Tech consultants: process of clearinghouse for tech needs. Rather than using cowboy mentality, take ideas to clearinghouse that can state whether the idea can be supported as is or if there are things needed for support.

General Comments:

- Same faces at these types of meetings - the talk is the same and some progress has been made, but blame on the admin side with the lack of decision-making.
- We do talk about the same issues over and over
- From admin point of view, they are looking for faculty to make a decision that they can support. (EX: Admin wanting chairs/faculty to decide what the standard course load for distance teaching should be, but there was never a decision made. Admin won't make the decisions.)
- These are not decision making committees - only advise and consent
- Frustration must be overcome - it causes us to stop talking and then nothing gets done. We need to be given or develop a structure for communication/decision-making. Things have improved.
- These meetings should be used to increase communication amongst ourselves.
- Backbone and infrastructure are much better than years ago. Discussions are meaningful and there are discussions/battles that have been won.
- Unprecedented freedom to do what we'd like in the classrooms at MCC and we're grateful from that.
- The things we complain about are what others may only dream about.
- Without any history of being a faculty member, the academic systems seem to be managed well. There is a lot of discussion of technology and innovation, but these are not managed.
- (see above) This is the history of MCC.
- Asking for management structure for technology, although some say things are better now without a Dean of Technology.
- Why don't we go back to dept and share the dialogs? Do we as a dept want to make suggestions to admin?
- Anarchic structure can only work if the lines of communication stay open
- How do you encourage people who choose to no longer participate in the conversations to come back to the dialogs? Set realistic expectations, explain the structure.
- Permissive environment on campus - no consequences for actions (ex: 15 hours a week on campus, not showing up for classes, no repercussions.)

In closing…

Class demo next Wed at 3pm Distance Learning Committee meeting with Richard Felnagle's Humanities courses using streaming video integration.

Next meeting: Tues Feb 24, TLTR Event, Rick Effland is leading a demo of blogging in AS196.