Summary from iLevel Advisory Meeting, July 8, 2003
Members present: Elaine Bell, Tony Drommi, Dina Dubuis, Tom Jeffrey, George Libbey, Chris Odionu, Marcel O’Gorman, Sarah Swart, Emmy Yousey
1) Results of the Tech Survey
Tom Jeffrey presented the data from the tech survey implemented in the spring. He has arranged it in pie charts, which are available from the ilevel web site under the news links. The entire dataset will be distributed to the iLevel Team for review and discussion.
In general, the survey shows a moderate level of satisfaction with IT services and resources at the University.
There was a total of 88 respondents to the survey. There is concern that offering the survey online only can skew the data since only faculty who are comfortable with the web would respond.
Elaine Bell noted that the data will be most useful when compared to the previous and next survey (to be issued during Year 5). She will prepare a comparative chart of both surveys for the next meeting.
Marcel O’Gorman will work with Fr. Stockhausen to prepare a summary report of the survey data.
In the meantime, the Team is urged to peruse the data and comments in order to see how we might respond. It is our hope that this survey will be a useful tool in strategizing about the implementation of IT services and resources at UDM.
2) Report on the Summer Institute instructional/laptop sessions
Sarah Swart presented data gathered from a survey implemented at the end of the Summer Institute week. Respondents, who were all participants in the laptop training, noted that they would have enjoyed having even more time for instruction. The four days of workshops was seemingly not sufficient.
The also noted that Day 1 of the Institute, which involved I.T. kiosks and a guest speaker, seemed unrelated to their training, and that time could have been used for additional workshops. It is evident that the kiosks and speaker day was not timed properly, and could have enjoyed greater attendance. The general consensus is that this day should be seen as a learning experience, and that the concept should not be discarded but “massaged” until it is more effective.
In general, the laptop giveaway and training portion of the Institute was very successful, and received excellent reviews. Elaine Bell noted that it would be good to continue the laptop giveaway each summer, while attempting to find an alternative funding source (Faculty Development, vendor, separate grant, etc.). The Team agreed with this proposal, and will attempt to arrange another Summer Institute during Year 4.
Sarah Swart noted that, after the Institute, attendance/enrollment in IDS summer workshops has increased. There is a question of whether the Summer Institute is partly responsible for this (good advertising and exposure for IDS).
The iLevel Team expressed their gratitude toward Sarah and the instructional technologists of IDS who worked very hard to bring the Summer Institute to fruition.
3) Legitimization of Level I Credential/Basic Skills Exam
Emmy Yousey provided a report on the meeting of the iLevel Credentials ad hoc committee with the Core Maintenance Committee. In general, the Core committee members are positive about the idea of replace CIS 100 with some form of placement exam or self-paced training. There is still some confusion regarding the Credentials, however.
Marcel O’Gorman noted that it is essential to keep the discussion of Level II Credential (a department-specific credential) out of the Core Maintenance discussions. Level I is indeed a Core Curriculum matter, but Level II is not, and may only serve to confuse Core committee members.
Emmy noted that she has been trying to stress the fact that the replacement of CIS 100 is stipulated in the grant, which was written under the approval of University administration and a team of faculty members responsible for curricular revision. In other words, these credentials are not just a fabrication, but are based on a real and legitimate need identified by a legitimate group of personnel. There is also, of course, a matter of being true to the grant itself, for the purpose of fulfilling the promises that the grant has made to the Federal Government.
Elaine Bell noted that since we are dealing a Core Maintenance Committee as opposed to a Core “REVISION” Committee, there may be some difficulty in having any sort of sweeping change implemented. She urged the ad hoc committee to seek the support of Fr. Stockhausen, who may authorize such a sweeping change.
The ad hoc committee will meet with the Core Maintenance Committee once again on July 28.
The iLevel Team expressed thanks to the Credentials ad hoc Committee for their hard work in preparing a clear and well-documented argument to the Core Revision Commmittee.
4) Update on Level II Credential
Marcel O’Gorman introduced the Level II Credential to the Academic Leadership Team at a Jun 19 meeting. There was good support for the Credential, and Deans agreed to encourage department chairs to develop a Level II Credential and implement it reasonably promptly. He noted that many departments already have Level II Credential but have just not named it as such.
Marcel has sent a letter to all program and department chairs, explaining the Level II Credential, and asking them to come up with a department-specific solution by the end of July. He has been engaged in ongoing dialog with department chairs about individual strategies for implementing a Level II Credential. These strategies (ranging from a mandatory course that is already in place, to the creation of a new course or required library research hours) are expected to be only provisional until departments meet once again in the fall term.
By the beginning of Year 4 (Oct.1), iLevel should have a clear picture of which departments will successfully implement a Level II Credential.