Teaching, Learning, and Technology Roundtable (TLTR)
Approved Minutes of meeting: March 3, 2003

Downtown Center, 2nd floor videoconference, room 220
Rosenberg 505 (Ocean Campus videoconference room)
Submitted by Christine Arata and Janet Willett
22 Participants:
Downtown Campus: Chair: Janet Willett. Morris Bibliowicz, Terrence Corbie, Patricia Delich, Nellie Lee, Louise Louie, Linda Malila, Francine Podenski, Denise Quinn, Patricia Seid, Raymond Smith, Barbara Stewart
Ocean Campus: Chair: Brian Ellison. Patty Chong-Delon, Bob Gabriner, Tom Hetherington, Mamie How, Yevgeniya Malamud, Nadine Rosenthal, Bruce Smith, Ed Stering, Liz Stewart

The meeting was brought to order at 2:05pm.

TLTR approved minutes of February 3, 2003

Cost (effectiveness) of Distance Learning
Janet Willett supplied CCSF Online Course Costs (based on 2002-2003 estimates).
Phase One – Development of eight courses per semester - $71,682 ($8,960 per course).
Phase Two – Course Delivery during 4-semester pilot phase = $1,807 per semester

Costs to develop and deliver for the first four semesters
amortized development costs from Phase One = $2,240/semester
delivery cost/ semester = $1,807
Total per semester cost, first four semesters of delivery = $4,047

Thereafter, cost per semester is estimated at $1,807.

The Online Courses Revenue History Chart showed an average of 29 students per class with an average revenue of $9,229.87. Question raised on the comparison to a lecture course – considering electricity, use of facilities, custodial staff, duplicating costs, etc. Brian Ellison will talk to Terry Hall to see if he already has an average of costs and report back next month.

Ed Stering asked whether this model could be tweaked to consider courses with class sizes smaller than 20 students in figuring how long the course will pay for itself, considering that other schools have smaller caps. Janet Willett stated that lecture and online courses have equal enrollment caps, although attrition occurs at an average 30% rate with online courses. Mamie How added that placing a smaller cap on distance learning courses could become a Union issue and noted that revenue is not relevant to what the students pay, but rather what the State gives. If fees go up, the State gives less.

Discussion around statement that most online/telecourses are offered on the Ocean Campus and therefore no labs are available for students at other campuses: There are online faculty from Downtown and from John Adams campuses, in addition to Ocean. Online courses are all credit courses and are tied to departments, not campuses. The teachers can teach from home, and, in addition to their home computers, students may use any campus open lab, including the Learning Assistance Center lab in Rosenberg. They need their student ID cards. Registration sends an ID to students when they register for a course. The online website needs to publicize lab hours and locations for these students. [Follow the Open Lab link from http://www.ccsf.edu/Services/ICL1/index.htm]

Overhead Projector Resolution: discussion

We reviewed the overhead projector resolution discussed at previous meetings. A ballpark cost estimate of $350/projector (without carts) for 350 rooms totals $122,500. Any further estimates should include the cost of carts and locks. Phil Paulsen is willing to be responsible for maintenance of the equipment in the rooms. Mamie How reported that bond money could not be used toward projectors as those funds were for equipment to complete the network. Projectors are not network-related. Next year or in 2005, instructional money should be available, and planning should continue in anticipation of that time. Francine Podenski recommended that Phil Paulsen do an assessment of need and she will follow up with Phil to attend the next meeting with figures, and ask him to have A/V provide support to all campuses. It was decided that carts are a good security device and therefore much needed, and for the same reason portable projectors should be rejected. Downtown instructors said that all ESL classes there already have overhead projectors. Ed Stering requested document cameras (Elmos), because they are more versatile than overheads as they can handle various types and sizes of documents.

ITV Field Trip Update

Brian Ellison will make arrangements with Consumnes River College for a field trip for those interested in this means of delivery, especially faculty.

Various ideas followed for introducing ITV to faculty: brainstorming on potential candidates to teach an interactive course, having anyone go on the field trip if even to debunk the medium, the need for department chairs to attend the field trip as they are the ones with voting approval. Mamie How added that Sacramento instructors were trained to use the phone bridge and to be in front of the camera. Francine Podenski reported that academic senate members are interested in joining the tour and are awaiting an announcement of field trip date/time. A suggestion was made to advertise in City Currents to those instructors interested in teaching an ITV course.

What is ITV?

ITV allows students to be in a classroom with a real instructor while students can watch from their cable televisions and call into the course on any phone via a manned phone bridge. Only enrolled students with proper ID can call in.

ITV can be mundane or exciting depending on the instructor as in any other course. In his experience with Merced College, Brian Ellison said we should take into account unintended consequences that may result from ITV technology. For example, during a Merced College homework hotline program targeted to K-12 students, college students and community members called into the program for help with math problems. This expanded the participating audience considerably.

Questions were raised on the advantages of these courses and reasons to do them. ITV serves distantly located students, solves parking issues, and provides access to instruction for disabled students and single parents home caring for children.

The TLTR agreed to research and explore ITV and make recommendations regarding implementation of ITV at CCSF.

Title 3 update
Postponed until April meeting.

The Rollout: Downtown Center effects
There were good reports from Downtown participants on having computers in the prep rooms by increasing instructors’ use of email, word processing, and for researching. There was competition for the computers and usage would increase more if faculty had them on their desks. A request for Windows XP to be available on all Downtown campus lab computers was addressed by Mamie How stating that bond money is not sufficient to upgrade labs, but funds could come from somewhere else. Recommendations were having shared computers available to certain groups of people, having Flex discussions about computer use and advantages/disadvantages at different sites, surveying how staff are using Groupwise, and the reaction to the new monitors. Barbara Stewart is creating web templates for the TLC training and would like feedback via email. Terrence Corbie reported that he has a web template for the Business Department and will share that with Barbara. We need more sharing of how people use technology in the classroom, during flex or departmental meetings or other venues.

New Accreditation Standards
Bob Gabriner and Bruce Smith presented a PowerPoint presentation on the new accreditation standards. (LINK TO PRESENTATION coming soon) There was a shift from 10 standards to four: Institutional Effectiveness and Mission, Student Learning Programs & Services, Resources, and Leadership and Governance. Considerations are evidence of achievement and student competency in General Education and Vocational/Occupational. There are several next steps for City College to undertake regarding accreditation. Discussion: Accreditation standards focus on creating a dialogue that crosses boundaries. TLTR could be an arena for communication between a variety of different courses, for the accreditation student learning outcome standards, tech-support thereof, and assessments, possibly through a TLTR working group. Bob Gabriner added the ESL Department is not an isolated faculty but rather a collective and that there are a lot of examples about that we could address.

Meeting ends at 4:00pm when downlink with Downtown Campus ends. Discussion continued at both campuses.

Tom Hetherington suggested a discussion about this videoconferencing meeting should be put on next month’s agenda.

Next meeting:
Monday April 7: 2-4pm location room 202, John Adams Campus, 1860 Hayes Street
Anyone who wants to carpool, please post to list.

Monday May 12: last meeting of semester. Location TBA

Minutes can be found at http://www.ccsf.edu/tltr