COU e-Learning Meeting Notes Tuesday 14 August 2007

From OUCEL Wiki

• Cathy Schryer from Waterloo representing Llwana
• Aldo, Bill: Desire amongst the participants to share about successes, emerging technology, collaborate with one another, most effective teaching and learning strategies, and find cost effective ways of accommodating these strategies
• Sandra Hughes: New government initiative for Southern Ontario distance education group? Waterloo-Kitchener area. Expansion of contact north?
• Gwen: need a voice for upcoming e-Learning technologies, a group that can respond to questions put by the government. Common voice for Presidents and VP’s to emphasize the importance of these technologies in supporting and enhancing teaching and learning.

[edit] MaRS Tour

• Ross Wallace: Director of Corporate Strategy
• Focusing on Canadian innovation: vertical science park and incubator. Research cluster.
• Connect researchers, investors and entrepreneurs. Provincial mandate but internationally connected. Public/private partnership.
• Connection to other academic and research institutions around the Discovery District in Toronto: York, UofT, OCAD, Sick Kids, Toronto General.
• Home to 65 organizations: researchers, venture capitalists, service providers. 3:1 ratio between private to public sector. Life sciences, Healthcare, IT.
• Convergence Innovation: notion of silos between disciplines and departments should break down and learning from one another. In order for commercialization: research, capital and business together.
• MaRS Venture Group: Services: Market Intelligence, Networks and Mentoring Services, and Access to Capital
• MaRS puts on events: Many people are wanting to be entrepreneurs but do not have MBA’s because it takes time away from the lab: so they run classes (modules). “I’m passionate about research, but I don’t understand anything about customer segmentation or IP.”
• “Animate”: engage the people in the space
• Cap-rent: they can offer lab environments with sinks and fume hoods cheaper than elsewhere
• RBC pays a premium to be in this building
• Supported by Feds (one time). Supported by the province.

[edit] Future of the e-Learning Affiliate

• Not been given Affiliate status. Encouraged to continue until the affiliate status has been resolved. They would like the role to report into the larger Teaching and Learning group.
• The Summer Institute will continue, and will continue to be our baby, Jamie Mckay will assign someone to continue this initiative. At this time, Nalda will take over upon John Spink's departure in late August.
• Continued support, but what level of support will we receive?
• Aldo: Is there precedent to be a sub-affiliate? What is the funding available?
• Bill: What is the new affiliate for teaching and learning look like? Who will be members, what will it look like? What will be overlap be? Does it supersede our group, but will be member be 50% shared. On the other hand, if it’s to be different, what will it look like? We should go back to COU to ensure we are lobbying to ensure the right decisions are being made? We should provide a coordinated response? Concerned about the decision being dragged out until November, not September
• Richard: Concerned that the VP’s do not know really what the larger group would be. The reality of our institutions could not provide people that match the roles that necessarily map to STLHE. Should be some clarity around the role of this group.
• Bill: propose what the larger group should look like. Present a group that has a wider mandate. This will not occupy a huge amount of time.
• Denise: Teaching and Learning Centres: some people would be crossing over, and some would not. COU has found an answer with the Directors of the Centres, and feel they can play that role, but there is room for both.
• Gwen: Hoped to have an opportunity to meet the new head of COU in order to gain an understdg of the new steps for COU, how this group could contribute, etc. Perhaps we should wait for the next step but present ourselves as the “solution” providers.
• Richard: Perhaps we should bide our time, define ourselves, and not worry about forcing the issue.
• Linda: Who makes the decisions about the structure of the organization? Is it the VPA’s? The COU?
• Richard: the COU, but the VPA’s approve or disapprove the proposals.
• Gwen: It is timed inconveniently around the leaving of Jan, so we lack an advocate to tell the COU to push for our group.
• Denise: sending a 2 – 3 page report back to my VP, and encourage everyone to do the same. We should discuss what that report could include: here is what we accomplished, here is what our goals are, and here is what is next.
• Cathy: the politics: everyone is concerned about accountability: AVPA’s high level at the university, and the mandate is curriculum reform and issues of accountability. They might be thinking of this person.
• Jack: I think we have to let them know that we are disappointed. We should provide them with an ideal solution, what we really want. I don’t think we should take second best.
• Richard: What is the ideal scenario? Ideal based on which situation… that they have made up their minds, or whether they are still confused between the pedagogy and the infrastructure required and who that falls to.
• Peter: We still haven’t heard from Jan. It would be good to hear from her. Perhaps someone here should act as a spokesperson so that we can react.
• Bill: part of the challenge is for the VPA’s tt understand the question. Is it about centres, teaching? Or Technology infrastructure? Are we following old or new models? Teaching today is not being done without the technology piece: the role for curriculum outcomes… they want to solve the problem of teaching and learning outcomes, in a more simplistic sense… when considering the new affiliate, consider it in terms of what teaching looks like today: technology enhanced teaching and learning environments: that is a contemporary environment.
• Richard: I like Denise’s idea, and Bill’s idea about issuing a formal statement (and you can lead that if you like). First we do it individually, then we act jointly when we are more convincing
• ACTION ITEM: Bill to lead the formal statement
• Linda: Sometimes it’s confusing as to who we should be specifically speaking to at our institutions: VP Provost (?) VS Academics, VS ?
• Gwen: in Linda’s case it’s at a different level…
• Linda: It was the Provost who sent me to this event…
• Bill: Politics of the COU: the top five institutions: Toronto, Waterloo, Queen’s, Western, York are the key decision-makers. We should look at which institutions define the problem.
• Gwen: who are the vocal institutions?
• Karen: in the context of all of this: If we keep doing work that is valuable and demonstrating the value of our work, it will redeem us in the end.
• Richard: We used to have a group that was useful, we should take advantage of the synergy we have and not wait for the COU to bless our organization.
• Denise: the eastern Ontario group was the model for the COU group.
• Richard: at 1:45 tomorrow we should discuss what our strategy is, and where we want to go. Let’s continue the discussion, move on some specific outcomes. Propose that we have a group of regional activities and
• Gwen: we should use the same vocabulary as them to frame our activities
• Jack: Is anyone talking about this?
• Careton: My VP made no mention, but the president that Carelton does not have an e-Learning strategy, and should. And this is exciting and useful for us.
• Richard:
• Linda: We are in transition, and I don’t think this will be on the priority list.
• Richard: I think that the affiliate structure will crop up, and we should have something on the table.
• Denise: Report: thank them, list who was at the table, what the outcomes were
• Cheryl: we should touch on the major messages, share a draft, key themes
• Gwen: Reaching Higher Strategy: reference the language in that agreement
• Action Item: Jack Jones volunteered to be on the committee as well as Gwen
• THE MUIRHEAD COMMISSION