Mclare at 15:08, 25 September 2024

2024-09-25T15:08:49Z

Gforsythe at 21:43, 21 November 2007

2007-11-21T21:43:57Z

Gforsythe at 21:40, 21 November 2007

2007-11-21T21:40:26Z

Gforsythe: New page: November 16, Ryerson

2007-11-13T20:00:39Z

New page: November 16, Ryerson

New page

November 16, Ryerson

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:08, 25 September 2024
Line 127:		Line 127:
	- https://www.techqual.org/		- https://www.techqual.org/
	- Linda: How nice it is to see everyone.		- Linda: How nice it is to see everyone.
		+	[[Category:OUCeL]]

@@ Line 96: / Line 96: @@
 -	Have a president call them?
 -	If is their corporate culture: shaming will not work.
--	Guilia: Learning management task force at Brock: had meltdown last week: compiling Sakai right now. Want to know who is going down.
+-	Guilia: Learning management task force at Brock: had meltdown last year: compiling Sakai right now. Want to know who is going down.
 -	Should be a key issue for the group.
 -	WebCT horror stories:

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:40, 21 November 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	November 16, Ryerson	+	Meeting Summary – COU e-Learning Group. 3:00pm
		+	Fri 16 Nov 2007
		+
		+
		+	Group Status
		+	- There seems to a desire on the part of the COU to see the e-Learning folks (us) fit in with a Teaching and Learning affiliate. (Note: that OCAV did invite the Educational Developers Group (who met just before our meeting) to become an OCAV affiliate the day before this meeting – I suspect – and it is only a suspicion on my part – that if the EDC accepts this offer – we will then be asked to partner with them – this is what my tea-leaves tell me anyway). In speaking with Jamie MacKay a day before this meeting – it became clear that he supported our initiative – but also became evident that he was not aware that I (Richard) was approached to help create the e-learning affiliate. He was under the impression that we were making overtures to the COU of our own volition ! He (and who else?) was not aware that the COU (via Jan) had asked us to form an affiliate.
		+	- Notion that we should continue working together over the year, summarize our goals to COU and simply ask that the Summer Institute be supported for 2008 (and on an ongoing basis)…that our main effort at this time should NOT be to simply gain “affiliate” status but to get down to some work.
		+	- ACTION ITEM: Letter to Jamie (Richard and Andrew to start draft)
		+
		+	WebCT/Blackboard Support Issue
		+	- There was a lengthy and productive discussion on the WebCT support issue with some schools experiencing serious and lengthy problems with support. There were recommendations to:
		+	o ACTION ITEM: Compile stories, each with each University compiling one paragraph on the level of service with WebCT. Create and circulate a document, which could then be taken up with WebCT and shared
		+	o Notion of doing a presentation at EDUCAUSE on the support experiences of universities and the soft-costs of supporting LMS.
		+
		+	Evaluation Group
		+	- The group did some very productive work and while they found the Purdue scale very useful they also looked to Techqual https://www.techqual.org/
		+	for some metrics on evaluation.
		+	- Notion that we could join as a consortium for some reduced cost if we all thought it was useful
		+	- Only criticism was that some of the questions were light on pedagogy
		+	Note: If the latter was the only criticism – perhaps we could see if we could suggest a partnership whereby members our group create a pedagogically sound module? / component? Within? Alongside? this resource in lieu of membership fee? Just a though. (rp)
		+
		+
		+	Next Meeting: A next meeting is planned for 2008. Hopefully an f2f, but possibly online if we can find a workable technology.
		+
		+	Is anyone aware of an upcoming event that we might consider dovetailing our next f2f meeting with?
		+
		+	November 16, Ryerson Meeting Notes
		+
		+	attendees present:
		+	Andrew, OCAD
		+	Karen, Trent
		+	Sandy, Laurier
		+	Bettina, Laurentian
		+	Richard, U of O
		+	Tom, RMC
		+	Richard, Guelph
		+	Aldo, Waterloo
		+	Giulia, Brock
		+	Linda, U of T
		+	Cheryl, York
		+	Restiani, Ryerson
		+
		+
		+	voice conferencing: (not working)
		+	Bill, UoIT
		+	Patrick, Carleton
		+
		+	regrets:
		+	Denise, Queens
		+	Jeanne, Windsor
		+	Kim, Western
		+	Jack, Nippissing
		+
		+	¬Meeting Notes – COU e-Learning Group. 3:00pm
		+	Fri 16 Nov 2007
		+
		+	- Richard: recap of the current state. Meeting of Karen with Jamie Mackay regarding OCULL.
		+	- Karen spoke to Jamie Mackay, interested in recognizing the e-Learning group
		+	- Update from COU: Aware that we are trying to get off the group. Surprised that it was not connected to Teaching and Learning. Richard identified that we were under the impression that it was a request from the COU itself: thus, miscommunication from the COU.
		+	- Understanding that T&L is larger than just e-Learning. We are under the same umbrella but we are different entities.
		+	- Understand the need for a relationship: JMcK: keep us apprised on the outcomes of our meeting.
		+	- Document: Peter Wolf (Guelph) – email by Jeanne (sp?) researcher with the COU … Guidelines for Affiliates under OCAV. Did not understand why they received a copy of this invitation.
		+	- Coincidence?: our affiliate status and perhaps a parallel narrative vis a vis setting up an affiliate for other groups as well
		+	- Karen: does not appear to be any new information. Same as the previous review.
		+	- Learning objective initiative: (Sandy) T&L affiliate should be larger than just a learning objective UG degree expectation framework.
		+	- Guilia: As Denise said this summer, they were working with OCAV on the guidelines and it was a positive experience for OCAV. It put T&L on the radar for "important issues". The EDO are rightfully hesitant to become an affiliate and do not necessarily want the contraints that may come from being overseen by OCAV.
		+	- Karen: Peter’s name has been cropping up, and it’s likely coincidental.
		+	- OCULL does not receive support so that is why they do not appear on the draft org chart
		+	- Jamie Mackay: will get back to us. Did think there is a role for us to play. T&L Affiliate is underway, and the e-Learning folks would be included.
		+	- Cheryl: spoke to VPA.
		+	- Aldo: sent report to VPA: had no knowledge of it.
		+	- What is the message we are hoping to move forward to VPA’s?
		+	- What formal or informal recognition do we need in order to accomplish our goals?
		+	- Aldo: we should continue to do the same as we have been
		+	- Linda: if we were to send out a letter to all of them stating the desires based on the terms of reference, and show the level of concern, then it might carry more weight
		+	- Cheryl: not sure how the group can benefit York?
		+	- The WebCT dialog was extremely useful: some of the schools have been struggling with support from their product, and there needs to be profile / solidarity and so on.
		+	- There is worthwhile discussion as a grassroots effort, and do not want to waste time beating the same drum
		+	- Richard: just continue the summer institute to be funded by the COU
		+	- Andrew: It’s hard to argue with results and would be productive to argue the affiliate based on the output of the group
		+	- Cheryl: Do not want to beat our heads against wall…
		+	- Tom: chicken and egg: coordinated buying? Sharing degrees? It’s the tie in to OCAV that would be useful: we need to demonstrate our purpose and worth
		+	- Karen: the goals for OCULL and the accomplishments were very clear and the goals were easily articulated.
		+	- Richard + Cheryl + Aldo: continue with work over the year.
		+	- Aldo: agree with circulate letter. We’re here for summer institute and will follow up with a set of objectives
		+	- ACTION ITEM: Richard and Andrew to start working on the letter
		+
		+	- WebCT/Vista Problem: problems with support: Campus Edition 4. Promise of excellent support and service at WebCT.
		+	- Blackboard: during a meltdown, they had someone onsite for 8 days… had a month-long meltdown of Blackboard.
		+	o Issues with open tickets that do not get resolved
		+	o Certain features are not getting fixed
		+	- Tom (RMC): upgrade or switch to D2L.
		+	- Richard: very bad service. What can we do? Can we mobilize this issue? Can this be a joint effort?
		+	- Bettina: have different people send stories from different institutions: and share information with one another
		+	- Publicly shame them?
		+	- Have a president call them?
		+	- If is their corporate culture: shaming will not work.
		+	- Guilia: Learning management task force at Brock: had meltdown last week: compiling Sakai right now. Want to know who is going down.
		+	- Should be a key issue for the group.
		+	- WebCT horror stories:
		+	- Denise: (via Karen). They wanted to switch to D2L.
		+	- Karen: boil down to a one paragraph to the folks: we could add to the information we already had. “This is Ottawa’s position on their system.”
		+	- Richard: compile as one document, reflects across Ontario, then what do we do?
		+	- Who does it go to? OCAV, CIO’s, Blackboard
		+	- Concerned about telling a negative story.
		+	- Achieve some results from the stories first.
		+	- Invite WebCT/BB to our meeting to be held to account over the level of service with their product
		+	- Sandy: will do a full review. Losing confidence in them
		+	- Restiani: BB were already like this some years ago, so may not change
		+	- Wendy @ Ryerson: call is out for proposals at EDUCAUSE. Set of case studies and stories, would have a very good audience BOF’s or presentation to EDUCAUSE about the level of satisfaction or perception of value of a particular system. “Do you stay or go?”
		+	- Linda: Webct/BB: creating middleware so the underlying system is more complex, but will have a different interface?
		+	- ACTION ITEM: Compile stories, each Uni compile one paragraph on the level of service with WebCT, have document, make available approval, we provide that information internally
		+	- Bettina: possibly take a broader view?
		+	- Tom: Interested in that idea.
		+	- Linda: show the experience to them with the same information across LMS
		+
		+
		+	- Update: Looked through many scales from EDUCAUSE, scale from Purdue, really like the Purdue scale
		+	- Techqual: survey that based on Libqual: reliability… Eval the library system.
		+	- Starting with 36 questions: went to various universities, and from focus groups, developed the questionnaire
		+	- Good website: partnership is $1000. Very good. Send out the survey, feed emails into the system, sends the survey out, and brings back data. Shows you the zones of tolerance for the faculty.
		+	- Cutting down to 18 questions: minimum of service expected from faculty users versus ideal (?)
		+	- 6 question areas: “I want service from 9 to 5”, desired level is 24 hours.
		+	- Can select by College, age, faculty.
		+	- For $1000, get all the bandwidth, users, hosting.
		+	- What are the areas: 6 areas that questions focus on
		+	- https://www.techqual.org/
		+	- Linda: How nice it is to see everyone.

Fall Meeting - Revision history

Mclare at 15:08, 25 September 2024

Gforsythe at 21:43, 21 November 2007

Gforsythe at 21:40, 21 November 2007

Gforsythe: New page: November 16, Ryerson