The Division of Information Technology
910.521.6260 | firstname.lastname@example.org
September 29, 2010
Task Force on a Student Computing Requirement at the University of North Carolina Pembroke
Meeting agenda (MS Word)
Members present: Chuck Lillie, Tiphanie Stocks, Stephanie Hunt, Arjay Quizon, Mark Hunt, Keats Ellis, Robert Wolf, Rachel Smith, Larry Arnold, Karen Swiney, and Brian McCormick
Not present: Christopher Ziemnowicz, Cindy Saylor, Cynthia Miecznikowski, Jan Gane, and Leah Fiorentino
- Bob Orr opened the meeting by welcoming everyone.
- Members were introduced.
- Bob recommended that we need to invite a representative from Student Affairs and Disability Support Services
- There were no items to add or take away from the agenda.
Last year at the request of the Faculty Senate during their August retreat, Bob was asked to pull together a group of people and to develop a proposal. Once it was developed, it was presented to the Faculty Senate and passed with an endorsement to move forward. The endorsement was to form another committee to assemble an implementation plan for a student computer requirement to present to UNCP Administration for consideration.
- Every year UNCP participates in the ECAR, Student Computing Survey. ECAR is the research arm of EDUCAUSE. EDUCAUSE is the International information technology organization for higher education. UNCP yearly receives a data set that is particular to UNCP and the overall national data. We have three years of data from our participation.
- Bob asked for volunteers to mine that data from a research perspective. Larry, Chuck, and Rob volunteered.
The following focus group structure, areas of research and membership were agreed upon. Each group will take ownership of organizing.
Group 1 – Funding – Tiphanie Stocks, Keats Ellis, Stephanie Hunt, Karen Swiney,
- Do we build our plan around a student purchase, a fee-based lease/purchase, or an institutional loaner?
- How do we fund?
- How do we monitor compliance, or do we?
Group 2 – Requirement Focus – Chris Ziemnowicz, Mark Hunt, Chuck Lillie, Tony Curtis, John Labadie,
- Should our plan be college specific, school specific, discipline specific, general education specific or remain general in scope?
- Is there a particular focus group of students for our requirement i.e. freshmen/all undergraduate/graduate?
- How do we address the requirement for distance students and part-time students?
Group 3 – Implementation and Policy – Brian McCormick, Arjay Quizon, Rachel Smith, Willis Reddick,
- Do we build our plan for a computer recommendation (must have access), a computer requirement (must have access to your own) or a computer mandate (must have access to your own specific make/model)?
- Should the plan have a 2 year focus, 4 year focus, 6 year focus?
- How do we connect a computer requirement to our institutional themes of Student Success and Institution of Choice?
Group 4 – Institutional Impact – Chuck Lillie, John Labadie, Larry Arnold, Robert Wolf
- Faculty Survey of potential course related use of student technology.
- How will the yearly entry of new student technology impact institutional and discipline specific software and other technologies?
- What would be the hardware/software standards?
- What role will cloud technology services play and how will they impact or be impacted by new student technologies arriving yearly.
Meeting agenda for October 19 meeting (MS Word)
Review of Faculty Survey, dissemination strategies and data analysis
Group Reports from each group by Group Chairs
Discussion of pilot project for fall 2011
Return to DoIT News and Information