CHSS Computer Committee – April 12, 2001

Attendees: Jean Alvares, Joe Attanasio, Jennifer Bragger, David del Principe, Grover Furr, Chris Herrera, Susan Hussein, Regina Judge, AJ Kelton, Elisabeth Mayfield, Daniel Mengara, Leslie Wilson.

Conversation before the meeting touched on areas in Dickson Hall that are now wireless, and Kelton announced that new laptop purchases include a wireless card. Alvares asked about adding wireless cards to MTSs.

Old Business:

• Kelton began by addressing the copy rooms, and noted that use of the rooms is interchangeable, but asked that faculty “tend” to the third floor and staff “tend” to the first floor for convenience. He continued that Dickson will be getting a new Xerox machine on the third floor similar to the Xerox machine in 131. One of the Xerox machines currently in 336 will move down to the first floor, so there will be two machine on each floor. This should be happening, if not before the end of the semester, then just after.

• Kelton reminded representatives that the next meeting is the last of this academic year. Department chairs were asked to hold elections in the departments for committee representatives, and so far most of the faces are familiar: Dick Franke for Anthropology; Joe Attanasio (with Mary Boyle as proxy) for CS&D; Grover Furr for English; Daniel Mengara for French, German, and Russian; Susana Sotillo (with Steve Seegmiller as proxy) for Linguistics; and Chris Herrera for Philosophy and Religion. Kelton asked Herrera to check with David Benfield regarding his proxy status since Benfield will be Chair of department next semester. Kelton asked that if there has been no discussion in the other departments yet, could members please initiate the discussion. The new committee will start choosing a date/time for meeting next year now.

New Business:

• Kelton next addressed the Technology Strategic Plan attachment that was sent to the list. He did not discuss the document during the meeting since it is a long document, but asked members to please read it over and consider it. Comments, changes, and revisions should be forwarded very soon so the document can be submitted to Dean Gigliotti and Alice Freed. He thanked the faculty and staff who helped to draw up the document, and noted that the document is intentionally a broad stroke since we do not know exactly what technology will be available seven years from now. He asked for suggestions to tighten up the language, and responses can be submitted either to the list or to Kelton directly.
  
  Alvares noted that, in the committee he is on for the new building, after the committee created a “wish list” for the new building they were asked to create a budget and it proved very enlightening. He noted that it helped in considering, not only cost, but also what else will be needed in hiring faculty and staff. Kelton suggested looking over the strategic plan, but this may not fit into the overall view. However, the more dimensions that can be brought to the plan the better. Kelton noted that it will probably have to be looked over at least once a year anyway.

• There have been some complaints that the computers in the labs are not locked down, but others argue that the computers should remain unlocked. Kelton would like the committee to make a proposal to IT about whether the labs should be left open or locked down. Wilson suggested to only have the professor’s station unlocked for demonstrations.

  Bragger added that if computers are unlocked then students would put “interesting” things on them, and Kelton noted that students already do since the labs are not currently locked down. Kelton would like to get a sense from the committee and from the key departments who use the teaching labs the most (Linguistics, Legal Studies, Psychology, and Sociology) about what should be done. Alvares suggested that we could distribute passwords so only a limited number of people can make additions/changes to the computers. Kelton explained that we can’t do this in the environment we have right now.

  Kelton continued that we could try a Citrix environment, or set up a program to install a new image every morning. He noted that the CHSS Techs will be testing a product called ZenWorks soon. Any solution may be about a year off, but it needs to be talked about now. Bragger asked if there is any connection between the teaching station and the student stations, and Kelton replied that there is nothing like that set up right now in the teaching labs. Wilson, asked about Classnet, and Kelton replied that it is installed in DI-182, but it is cost-prohibitive to install in a full classroom at this time.

• Kelton next addressed the lab guidelines document that was sent to the list. A similar document was distributed to faculty using the labs last academic year. This year some of the wording was found objectionable, was well as the fact that it needed to be signed, and the computer committee had not seen it. The wording has been revised and the signature requirement was removed. Kelton asked the committee to look it over and supply and feedback on the document. The guidelines are broken down into instructor responsibilities and daily use responsibilities.

  Kelton noted that there was another ruined keyboard in 280, making six so far this year. Attanasio suggested that this is lack of control on the part of the student, and Kelton explained this appears to be deliberate, since the spills are only in the keyboard. Attanasio then qualified his previous statement and suggested that this is the result of the criminal mind of the student. Bragger suggested that it could be laziness- that the student cleaned the spill off the desk but not the keyboard itself.

  Furr noted that there is a range of responses that the committee can have: one is what the committee has already done in alerting the faculty, posting signs in the labs, and notifying the lab monitors. Kelton explained that this is occurring in the teaching labs where there is no lab monitor. Bragger noted that this could be happening while the professor is focusing on another student. Furr asked if we can require that faculty announce at the beginning of the class to remove food and drink from the lab, and stated the belief that if this is done then most students would do so. Kelton replied that there is no way to enforce this. Mengara added that students might just hide the food. Furr explained that it is not a 100% solution, just what could be done. Bragger asked if it would help to send an email to the department, or several emails, and Kelton replied that email messages have been sent.

  Wilson suggested that there is an eating culture on campus that may have to be changed. He explained that he teaches in the room next to 280 and often sees student eating in the hallway while they’re waiting for class, and that they just bring the food into class with them. He continued that trash cans in the labs are often full of food containers. The environment is that everyone is on the run and you have to grab food when you can get it. If a faculty member comments on a student eating in the classroom, the student usually just keeps on eating. We either have to change the culture or deal with the culture.

  Kelton replied that a faculty member said they eat and drink at their computer at home, but that is the owner’s computer and the owner would be responsible for any repair or replacement, while here someone else is responsible for replacing damaged hardware. Judge suggested purchasing the plastic covers for keyboards, and Kelton thought that it could encourage students to eat and drink by the computers, but agreed that he is already looking into this.

  Wilson noted that the soda and vending machines are right outside the labs, and Furr suggested moving the machines to the first floor where the other machines are. Kelton explained that the machines cannot be moved across from the other ones by the back door because of a vent there, and suggested placing them at the bottom of the stairwells. Hussein asked if the machines could be placed outside the front of the building? Kelton redirected discussion by saying that discussion like this is why the guidelines needed to be brought to the committee. He continued reading through the guidelines, noting that there has also been difficulty with labs not secured when classes leave.

  Kelton asked the opinion of the committee regarding charging faculty members a refundable deposit for lab keys. In the past keys cost $3 and the faculty member was supposed to get the money back when the key was returned. Kelton wanted to know, since new locks will be installed soon, whether charging a $5 deposit for keys and fully refunding the money when the key is returned is reasonable for faculty. Bragger stated that this is a good idea and that it will work. There was general consensus from the rest of the committee.

  Mengara returned to the issue of damage to the teaching labs and asked if there is any way we can threaten the students that they will have to replace damaged machinery? Kelton replied that it is a suggestion but the phrasing would have to be worded carefully. Attanasio recommended having faculty clear the room and run a sweep after each class to narrow down which students cause damage. Bragger suggested that even the threat of doing a daily sweep could help. Wilson suggested phrasing along the lines of “no eating or drinking in the labs: violators may lose lab privileges” and Kelton replied that lab access cannot be denied.

  The suggestion was made that students could be required to enter their name and password when signing on to a machine for accountability purposes. Kelton replied that signing in would assign some responsibility to the student, even if it is not actually enforced. Furr reiterated that faculty still need to make a statement in the classroom, stating that he did not want to “make an end-run around the faculty”. Bragger suggested that faculty could even put lab rules in their syllabi.

  Attanasio asked if the issue is that we don’t know who causes the damage. He argued that even if he made an announcement to his class, a student that intentionally vandalizes will not be effected by threats. Mengara noted there are accidents and then there is criminal behavior and we want to minimize both. He asked if there is a tech person who can be called during evening call hours if damage is noted. Kelton replied yes, if there is someone on staff in the evenings. He continued that the CHSS Techs are currently monitoring calls to adjust hours if the demand seems to be there.

  Hussein asked about signing the agreement before faculty are allowed to use a lab, and Kelton explained that the union objected to it because of the language. Hussein noted that we rely on faculty to report on lab use or else how would we know. Mengara asked if the guidelines could be copied and distributed to students at the beginning of each semester. Kelton suggested that the committee could create a generic handout and distribute it to the faculty, and then they could copy it as needed.

• Kelton announced that in CSAM they have a users group (SMUG) that offers 3-4 training workshops a semester, and that the faculty leading the class is compensated. Kelton explained that workshops have been tried in CHSS in the past with little success, but in the future there may some money for faculty who would like to lead a workshop and supplies. Kelton also noted the availability of technology mini grants, and added that Furr was the only member who agreed to sit on the subcommittee to review applications for these grants and provide feedback to the Dean.

  Kelton would like to begin workshops here with a limited budget. He asked if anyone can think of a good workshop to offer, or knows someone who would be interested in facilitating a session, to send ideas on to him. Attendees would have to sign up ahead of time.

  Hussein suggested holding a session in the evening as many adjuncts might be interested in attending, but she wasn’t sure how to spread the word or get feedback from adjuncts since many do not have email addresses. Kelton replied that this is an excellent idea, and noted that the CHSS does try to keep adjuncts “in the loop”. Hussein noted that adjuncts might like to learn how to use a Mobile Teaching Station, for example. Mengara noted that just having real computers in all the adjunct offices are a big improvement in keeping adjuncts connected.

  Kelton continued that he would like to offer a workshop like this in the fall, and if it is offered in the fall there could be compensation. Furr asked what workshops are offered in CSAM, and Kelton replied that CSAM has different divisions like we do and the groups use different software packages. Kelton continued that we exchange meeting notes with them, and he will check last month’s notes and forward them to Furr. Kelton stated that they have offered FrontPage workshops in the past.

Good of the order:

• Furr asked Kelton if he could occasionally update the committee on some of the things going on in IT, such as how is the wireless progression going, or what’s going on with the labs. Kelton replied that he meets with IT once a week on Fridays, and if anyone on the committee has any specific questions to feel free to pass them along. He continued that once a month this meeting includes Roy Roper and Ed Chapel to discuss larger issues.

• Bragger asked if she could show the technology strategic plan to another committee she is a part of, and Kelton replied that he would have to check with the Dean first - he thinks the dean would like to be able to integrate some more input before the document is shown to other people. Bragger noted that there are many administrative issues coming up in her other committee, and they may need to meet with the ACC because there is so much crossover. Kelton mentioned that the ACC has discussed how they so often end up discussing administrative issues, and Bragger replied that her committee often is the opposite.

 Meeting was adjourned.

BACK