|
|
Meeting Notes - March 1, 2006Technology Task Force Notes
Wednesday March 1, 2006
KC 112
Time : 3:00 - 4:30
1) Approval of Notes from February 15, 2006 Handout # 1
The notes were approved.
2) Quick Updates
ETAC: W Chenoweth reported that Tom Roza introduced the draft SLA (Service Level Agreement) for Systems & Operations.
Course Management Update: The
various systems are still under review by the team. Although all the
systems stated they were 508 compliant, at first glance it seems that
none of the systems are 508 compliant. There is a need for the academic
coordinator position to be filled promptly to help with the migration
of the project. The committee should have a recommendation by the next
meeting.
There is student orientation for Distance Learning (DL) courses on the
DL web site, but there was a discussion on the need for more
comprehensive support for students.
New Positions: The proposed
academic coordinator position would be funded by growth initiative
dollars since it would help drive enrollment growth. The duties would
include faculty training in mediated learning. Linda Elvin or Christina
Espinosa-Pieb could supply clarification on exact details of the
position.
The proposed instructional design position would reflect a more
disciple specific approach. It has not been decided in which division
the position would reside.
The proposed Technical Resources Group (TRG) position may be put on hold for a time.
3) Tech Task Force Web Site Demo
D. Mitchell demoed this new web site http://group.deanza.edu/techtaskforce. He asked everyone to sign-on to the site.
4) De Anza's Technology Plan - Review Goals and Strategies
This item was deferred due to time constraints.
5) Service Level Agreements
Technical Services: J.
Hawk initiated a discussion by suggesting that the group look at the
item from the campus' perspective and identify what services the
college needs. Once the needs had been identified, a discussion should
be held with ETS on how these services could be supported. In the
ensuing discussion, various viewpoints were shared as well as an
historical recap on the current levels of service in the various
departments across campus:
* How are various labs/areas on campus supported? Historically,
specific SLAs have been used for specific areas on campus. Recommended
to include specific language to include specialized agreements.
* Be more proactive than reactive
* There is a need for more resources so SLAs can offer a higher level of support campus wide.
* Discussion across all divisions on campus to identify common needs
* SLAs are a vehicle for more dialogue
* Individual SLAs are not a good idea
* CAOS have 50 different courses in their labs
* All district standard equipment must be supported
* Measure E has drained ETS resources. Opportunity to readdress if Bond passes
* SLAs are not Board policy.
The task force agreed to set up a sub-group to draft a document that
defines the needs of the campus, specific to the Technical Services
area SLR. Marty Kahn, Cindy Castillo and Randy Bryant volunteered to
set up the sub-group. They would contact the various areas of the
campus i.e. Deans and IAs etc. to participate in the sub-group.
Systems and Operations: The group was asked to review the document and bring back comments to the next meeting.
6) Blade Technology Follow Up
W. Chenoweth summarized the item from the previous meeting. The
recommended that this group have a discussion on whether the college
should consider using this technology in the future. The bond may
assist us with funding if it passes.
Discuss
|
|
|
