KVCC Instructional Technology Committee

ITC Home | ITC Documents | ITC Timeline | Discussion Boards

April 13, 2016 - ITC Meeting Agenda

Present: Steve Duren, Kathy Englehart, Nick Runco, Stephen Larochelle, Toni Fredette (Chair), Marcia Parker, Jim Guillmette, Lisa York-Lemelin, Barbara Larsson, Don Trask, Marge York, Barbara Bartley, Kevin Casey, Mark Kavanaugh

Agenda Item
Approval of Minutes


All is well

Review of Mission and Purpose

Toni asked the commitee to review the Mission and Purpose.

Kathy felt that there was no specific "place" to bring concerns about technology in the classroom.

Kevin asks if these issues are instructional or facilities related.

This committee could have the role of evaluating classroom technology and setting the strategic plan.

Troubleshooting is not "black and white"

Mark - Does this committee have the funciton to evaluate all aspects of classroom technology. Should it have "approval" power on all aspects of change in technology.

Steve - Faculty should be driving the discussion on technology. This committee should report regularly to Faculty Senate.

Steve - feels we have become somewhat "fixated" on technology as necessary for instruction.

Kathy - we need an SOS help desk process for live classes. (Kathy suggests that this gets tabled)

Toni - what is the role of this committee.

Kevin - Chronic vs. specific issues.

Nick - Does the campus know that the ITC exists.

We are OK with the Mission and Purpose of the ITC as it is written.

We will need to communicate to the campus committee related to the role of the ITC in vetting and solving problems related to chronic issues in technology.

Learning Management System

Kevin - the processes of reviewing and selecting LMS is well documented and published across other colleges around the county.

We are sticking with Bb for another fiscal year.

We are behind on the upgrades to Bb. Bb has proposed a 15K upgrade package.

Kathy - should we see if others have expertise to help us upgrade Bb without the high cost of Bb's tech support.

Mark - we may not actually need a lot from our LMS so we may need to go with much cheaper, less bells-and-whistles type of LMS.

Steve - it does not matter what LMS we choose.

Toni - There needs to be a balance between the intensity of technology and the desire to "pull back" and the specific needs of students who express a need for technology to learn. We have to make sure our students are served appropriately.

Kathy - we will see how Departments are using Bb and other technologies. Other issues are also coming up from emails from Faculty who are completing the survey.

We want to look at what other institutions have experienced in tem sof their process of evaluating an LMS.

Toni sent a set of examples of these processes:

Selecting a Learning Management System: Advice from an Academic Perspective

Virginia Tech's Next Generation Learning Management System

FAQ about Evaluating the Learning Management System - St. Edward's University

Penn State LMS Evaluation - Key Requirements

College of the Canyons - Learning Management System Review 2015


Video Conferencing

Kevin - Tanberg systems are in place. We have purchased a Cisco product for HIT

Mark - Asked why are we moving forward with technology decisions without first vetting these decisions thorugh the committee.

Issue is tabled.
Summary Toni - reviewed the progress we have made in this meeting. We will continue these discussions in the future.  
Next Meeting is May 4th