Present: Steve Duren, Kathy Englehart, Nick Runco, Toni Fredette (Chair), Marcia Parker, Jim Guillmette, Barbara Bartley, Kevin Casey, Mark Kavanaugh, Heide Wheeler, Steve Duren

Discussion that we will meet on the 3rd Wednesday of every month

Discussion to have Mark K. continue as Recorder.

Time keepers were selected, may rotate from meeting to meeting.

Mark K. as recorder was approved

Toni F. introduced the Instructional Technology Committee purpose document from the policy manual.

Kathy E. expressed concern about #1 purpose as to who "implements."

Erica M. discussed process of communicating to Leadership about suggestions.

Mark K. talked about role to advise (not prescribe or approve) the specific implementation of instructional technology. (Steve D. concurred)

Nick R. do we want to "require" technology ideas to go through the committee.

Kathy E. we didn't want people working in a bubble. Part of our role is spread the word of what is happening on the campus. We should be advising the KVCC community as to what is available.

Kevin C. might submit technology plan for discussion and in response to information that is discussed in the committee.

Point #3 should focus on Instructional/Academic technology.

Erica M. states that the committee could have a role in administering the assessment of a "pilot" Substantive initiatives that come forward can be vetted for "pilot" or "study" status. Committee could usher the initiative through a process of thoughtful implementation, study, and assessment.

Steve D. discussed differences between substantive and non-substantive initiatives.

Erica M. maybe the Chairs can advise on the "substantive nature" of an implementation.

We would need to take into consideration the costs to the college or to students.

Mark K. "substantive" decision by Chairs can include initiatives that are worthy of dissemination and those that need to be worked on by the committee.

Kevin C. distributed spreadsheet with options for LMS.

Recap from Kevin C.

• Come out with calendar of review and implementation.
• Blackboard for the remainder of this fiscal year.
• List of possible LMSs
• Open source is really not an option for us due to staffing.
• K-12 systems we MIGHT look at.
• We need to establish criteria that the LMS must do, can do...then enter into a "kick the tires"
• We are already paying for e-Learning which comes with Jenzabar.
• It looks like the Portal.
• If we significantly reduce the cost of the LMS then those founds could be channeled into a part-time Instructional Designer

Steve D. does the System want everyone to be on the same LMS, no (Erica and Kevin) they only want data, which we can export out of any system.

Jim G. we might consider what transfer institutions are using so we are "preparing" our students for those systems as well.

Kathy E. faculty have already talked about how they use Blackboard.

Mark K. some course materials from publishers are being integrated into Bb. If we are going to move to alternative LMSs we are going to have to have discussions with the folks that use these tools.

Steve D. discussed minimal requirements of the LMS as a starting point.

Some features like the use of test banks and other textbook resources need to be examined.

Erica M. we need to look at costs to students for publisher-generated materials. Kathy E. when we house this stuff outside of Bb there can be issues related to student technical support.

Steve D. need to find a balance.

Toni F. we need a group:

• Make a list of what we need.
• Look at the short list
• Develop a demo process

Erica M. where is the sense of urgency coming from. Initially we started looking at emerging additional costs associated with maintaining Bb.

Barbara B. asks if a Bb upgrade could come along that changes what we have.

Timeline can slip a bit so we can focus on a process that identifies our needs and ensures that the LMS we choose meets our needs.

Subcommittee to review the way we are using LMS.

Toni F. will send out an email to survey the rest of the campus community as to their needs for an LMS. (Library, IT, Financial Aid, etc.)

Toni F. we discussed needs of adjuncts, new technologies, etc.

Mark K. the process of reviewing technology initiatives through the committee can have a training plan component.

Nick R. they assess technology ability in students so they can address them in the FYE class.

Kevin C. establishing minimum requirements for the job.

Kathy E. we need to survey Faculty regarding

Nick R. can provide a report to the committee on what they ask students about in regard to technology needs.

Issues related to programs that we are establishing using audio and video

Mark K. expressed need for better audio and video for our own meetings.

Kathy E. suggests that audio in agriculture bldg classrooms could be better.

Mark K. discussed what was done in Room 229 in Averill.

Discussed needs to assess best practices.

Erica M. discussed SMCC initiative to test A/V set ups in rooms